Thank you Raspberry_yoghurt. Without you I don't think anyone would understand the first thing about all this. You bring lucidity, clarity and incontrovertability to an otherwise perfectly unintelligible situation. Have you ever considered taking a shot at the presidency?
@Raspberry_yoghurt
Jeez, you got me stiffly stumped there. I'm so sorry for you, that's really sad. It's the greatest job in the world and now you never get to do it. I wish you all the best and much, much fortitude in this horrible period you seem to be going through. Maybe you could try standup comedy or something? Just a thought.
Jeez, you got me stiffly stumped there. I'm so sorry for you, that's really sad. It's the greatest job in the world and now you never get to do it. I wish you all the best and much, much fortitude in this horrible period you seem to be going through. Maybe you could try standup comedy or something? Just a thought.
The US government is divided into three major parts. Executive, the president, legislative, the congress and house, the judiciary, the courts.
Trump has NO major legislative contributions, he may sing a million "executive" orders a minute, they are not law, though they can be obeyed as if they were. The minute that someone challenges the executive order, the judiciary takes over, they rule if it stays or goes. If it goes, it´ s gone, if it stays AND the legislature approves it, then it becomes a law, then it becomes legislation.
The US should pay the most for poisoning the atmosphere because it contributes the most to pollute. Simple. China is not paying its fair share.
Trump has NO major legislative contributions, he may sing a million "executive" orders a minute, they are not law, though they can be obeyed as if they were. The minute that someone challenges the executive order, the judiciary takes over, they rule if it stays or goes. If it goes, it´ s gone, if it stays AND the legislature approves it, then it becomes a law, then it becomes legislation.
The US should pay the most for poisoning the atmosphere because it contributes the most to pollute. Simple. China is not paying its fair share.
China got it now, they are closing coal plants and cancelling planned ones, investing massively in solar power.
Anyway there is no point at all in saying "China doesnt reduce, so we dont either". Too much CO2 = very bad.
It's not like the sky will go like "ooo i wont kill you because if was not your fault, it was the chinese." It doesnt care whose fault anything was.
Even if USA doesnt reduce i'd be all for Europe reducing because it will buy us time. The more we reduce, the longer it takes before everything dies.
If we don't go to zero, most life will die anyway eventually, when the C02 concentration gets high enough. So even if we dont get say Pakistan on board, we're screwed anyway.
Anyway there is no point at all in saying "China doesnt reduce, so we dont either". Too much CO2 = very bad.
It's not like the sky will go like "ooo i wont kill you because if was not your fault, it was the chinese." It doesnt care whose fault anything was.
Even if USA doesnt reduce i'd be all for Europe reducing because it will buy us time. The more we reduce, the longer it takes before everything dies.
If we don't go to zero, most life will die anyway eventually, when the C02 concentration gets high enough. So even if we dont get say Pakistan on board, we're screwed anyway.
Michael Jackson wrote a song called they don't care about us, it says a lot about what they think of us, I'm not refering about an especific country, but all of them, all the politic system. Tupac said a lot of things about it too, unfortunently, both of them are dead, coincidence or not.
@Raspberry_yoghurt
Unless i'm mistaken, nowhere in my arguments did I say that the US should not reduce carbon emissions, I was simply saying that the Paris accord have had no significant impact on US carbon reductions. I was debating about the green climate fund.
As we've already pointed out that the reason the GCF exists is for rich countries to help the poorer ones. therefore GDP(which defines a country's "richness") should relate to how much each country contributes. Comparing amount pledged to population is a statistical bias that the New York Times used to promote leftist agenda.
Anyone with any form of common sense can see GDP should matter more than population. Considering the two countries with the most population are not contributing anything the comparison between population and amount pledged is completely irrelevant.
In fact, India has the second highest population and is actually funded by the green climate fund.
Yes, i was wrong about Germany, they are the third highest pledges (obviously they still only contribute a third of what the US contributes).
The US pays for literally 30% of the GCF, their GDP is nowhere near 30% of the world's, in fact we don't even have 30% of the worlds population.
Unless i'm mistaken, nowhere in my arguments did I say that the US should not reduce carbon emissions, I was simply saying that the Paris accord have had no significant impact on US carbon reductions. I was debating about the green climate fund.
As we've already pointed out that the reason the GCF exists is for rich countries to help the poorer ones. therefore GDP(which defines a country's "richness") should relate to how much each country contributes. Comparing amount pledged to population is a statistical bias that the New York Times used to promote leftist agenda.
Anyone with any form of common sense can see GDP should matter more than population. Considering the two countries with the most population are not contributing anything the comparison between population and amount pledged is completely irrelevant.
In fact, India has the second highest population and is actually funded by the green climate fund.
Yes, i was wrong about Germany, they are the third highest pledges (obviously they still only contribute a third of what the US contributes).
The US pays for literally 30% of the GCF, their GDP is nowhere near 30% of the world's, in fact we don't even have 30% of the worlds population.
Trump is doing as well as can be expected considering that basically everyone in washington is against him.
"We’re talking about the southern border, lots of sun, lots of heat. We’re thinking about building the wall as a solar wall so it creates energy and pays for itself." -Donald Trump.
This statement tells you pretty much everything you need to know about Trump and his supporters.
This statement tells you pretty much everything you need to know about Trump and his supporters.
@adondevamos Republicans control the house and senate, Trump is actually doing very poorly considering the entire government is controlled by his party. This is really the main reason I don't support him.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.