First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next  Last
Pulling out of the Paris Agreement is more then just politics.
20135 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
37 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 6/1/17 , edited 6/1/17

MysticGon wrote:

I think the market will decide. People love more fuel efficient cars and if solar takes off and makes free energy even more viable, sure gas companies will fight it but fuck them.


'No I love my Hummer.... anyhow I can see after a few more years of study atomic energy becoming a more logic option. Also once true clear optics advance, then solar power might be an ok choice. but for now only place solar is rational would be in space where it is 13 times more proficient.
Banned
416 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 6/1/17 , edited 6/1/17
Trump should burn the accord in a room full of liberals and make them breathe in the smoke.
23260 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
The White House
Offline
Posted 6/1/17 , edited 6/1/17

alchemist27ish wrote:


Rujikin wrote:


alchemist27ish wrote:


Rujikin wrote:


mxdan wrote:


Lemontitties wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVOOMyYde0c&t=308s

Like him, dislike him, this is pretty informal on why Trump is pulling out.


So you trust some random guy's theoretical opinion on what might happen over countless studies that show what will happen if we don't tackle this issue.

Do you guys not think it odd that nearly the entire world agrees on something but the Republican party is caught on subterfuge and theoretical scenarios? Or is this just the 'liberal worlds' bias?


You mean like how by 2012/2015 we were suppose to have major flooding and most of Florida would be wiped off the map? Oh no wait... Our doom has been rescheduled for 20 years past the previous goal marker. In 20 years what they said 15 years will definitely come true, they have never been wrong before.


can i get some sources on those claims?


The source is my textbooks and tests I had to take in school. I wonder if I could dig the claims up somewhere on google... Pretty much we be having an ecological collapse right now and were not. I've talked to people older than I am and they have said they were told the same thing but it was set to happen in early 2000's.

so what you're saying is you have only anecdotal evidence and i'm supposed to take what you say at face value?


You call the education of millions of children anecdotal? Are you saying that the climate change information was indeed anecdotal?
23260 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
The White House
Offline
Posted 6/1/17 , edited 6/1/17

alchemist27ish wrote:


Rujikin wrote:


alchemist27ish wrote:


Rujikin wrote:


alchemist27ish wrote:


Darkphoenix3450 wrote:


Lemontitties wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVOOMyYde0c&t=308s

Like him, dislike him, this is pretty informal on why Trump is pulling out.


100% correct.. like I said It would kill America.


Green energy is a field that's actually generating jobs
http://fortune.com/2017/01/27/solar-wind-renewable-jobs/
http://www.energyfactcheck.org/jobs

Ya know we were never part of that agreement so our current green energy sector has nothing to do with this agreement. Our green energy sector has been booming and will keep booming as new technology comes out.


http://www.businessinsider.com/paris-climate-agreement-trump-decision-2017-5
there's a part in there where it says it could create uncertainty of green energy and slow deployment of said jobs, these are opinions of a man but he's a professor of a school of management and has written a few books on business.


So were going to move from having a booming green energy sector to slow deployment of jobs...? The reason for the green energy sector is massively decreased costs and government incentives.

isn't fostering jobs a good thing?


Why do we need this agreement will do nothing and we would be better off using government incentives.
Posted 6/1/17 , edited 6/1/17
If your looking for sympathy you won't get it from me.. My brother and uncle work for Prudhoe Bay and on the pipelines.
ever heard of supply and demand?

> I do agree driving smarter cars clean emissions great but let's not joke around we still burn oil.
> Also trump supporting these companies keeps my family members working.

qwueri 
24154 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M / TN
Offline
Posted 6/1/17 , edited 6/1/17
The sad part is, all pulling out of the accords does is enhance the image that the US is receding from global influence and leadership. It's not going to magically bring coal jobs back.
4187 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 6/1/17 , edited 6/1/17

Lemontitties wrote:


alchemist27ish wrote:

I hate linking youtube videos cause it feels ech? but the people debunking him usually cite sources and call him out on his bullshit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btyU4A5Wxh4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEylCS6-hBE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VeOZSMrwnYw&t=35s
Crowder is a big dumb idiot who is wrong constantly.
He's also one of those anti feminist islamaphobic types which are a can of worms i don't really want to open but he's still gross and leaves slime everywhere he goes.


First of all, these are VERY biased videos by some pretty extreme liberals.. I'm not going to watch videos that are heavily opinion based against him. Again, provide legitimate sources as to why he's wrong. Not just climate change mind you, but other ones. You did generalize after all. If you can't do that much, then our discussion is over I guess.


Try re-reading your post over and over again until you realize how stupidly hypocritical you are being. So he has to pay heed to your source despite the guy's bias, you claim he needs to source why the guy is biased, while you refuse to watch his sources because they are "biased"? lol... Jesus, some people just do not have it in them to be honest. If you don't want to discuss just say so.


You all should realize that many of the fuels we use today are going to have to phase out anyways and U.S leaving the Paris accords would likely hurt it more than help it.
4187 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 6/1/17 , edited 7/14/17

MysteryMiss wrote:

If your looking for sympathy you won't get it from me.. My brother and uncle work for Prudhoe Bay and on the pipelines.
ever heard of supply and demand?

> I do agree driving smarter cars clean emissions great but let's not joke around we still burn oil.
> Also trump supporting these companies keeps my family members working.



*sigh*..

OIL WILL NEVER GO AWAY REGARDLESS. There is no reason to worry about oil companies; many products besides gas use oil. The point of everything we should be doing is to lower the amount of emissions we give off, transportation and electricity generation is a large percentage of that. If it turns out that the oil industry starts collapsing (which until some biodegradable alternative comes to, it will not collapse) then all I can say is that your family needs to get with the program like many other people and adapt to the changing economy; automation, rural areas dying, etc.

People refuse to adapt to the changing world and it causes a lot of unnecessary strain. Even if we take out the factor of climate change, the benefits towards increased health makes it worth it all by itself.
25798 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / Atlanta, GA, USA
Offline
Posted 6/1/17 , edited 6/1/17
Donations for renewable energy development are increasing, so it's not like it all just stops because this agreement is ditched. When the government stops messing with it, it actually removes a lot of the social loafing among donators/investors.

The fact is, we can run better R&D of stuff like solar power if we have a working economy where energy is produced cheaply, freeing more people up to become scientists who will advance our tech & understanding of climate influences.

Also, just propping up nonprofit renewables with donations is possible without government mandates. People should turn their thoughts to willing charity and away from force of law.
25798 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / Atlanta, GA, USA
Offline
Posted 6/1/17 , edited 6/1/17

TarNaru33 wrote:
all I can say is that your family needs to get with the program like many other people and adapt to the changing economy; automation, rural areas dying, etc.

People refuse to adapt to the changing world and it causes a lot of unnecessary strain. Even if we take out the factor of climate change, the benefits towards increased health makes it worth it all by itself.


Let the economy change, then, don't try to force it before it's appropriate. It takes time for stuff to be widely implemented. Much of the world is still undeveloped and just flooding people into cities creates ghettos.

Fact is, rural areas will need to be developed into cities, so it doesn't harm the world view you've pictured if they're allowed to make money and develop.
31199 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / United States
Offline
Posted 6/1/17 , edited 6/1/17

alchemist27ish wrote:



go to 9 minutes into this video and he explains the situation https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VeOZSMrwnYw&t=35s
also just because he doesn't wanna debate doesn't debunk his claims, even though he has shown willingness to debate.



Yes and no. Potholer54 is aware that Steven doesn't respond to people making videos on him offline. He does it live because that way, it gives both parties a platform to defend themselves in a fair manner. If Potholer54 refuses to have a discussion with him, not only does it show that he's a coward, but it also means his videos are just automatically deemed 100% true to his fans since he never gave Steven a chance to defend himself. I mean, he already made a public response. Why can't he do it live? And I don't care if he used his timezone as an excuse, that's not good enough. Especially when Steven has had many people from Europe on the show. Maybe because there are sources out there that debunk Potholer54's sources and he doesn't want to look like a moron... gasp
31199 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / United States
Offline
Posted 6/1/17 , edited 6/1/17

TarNaru33 wrote:



Try re-reading your post over and over again until you realize how stupidly hypocritical you are being. So he has to pay heed to your source despite the guy's bias, you claim he needs to source why the guy is biased, while you refuse to watch his sources because they are "biased"? lol... Jesus, some people just do not have it in them to be honest. If you don't want to discuss just say so.


You all should realize that many of the fuels we use today are going to have to phase out anyways and U.S leaving the Paris accords would likely hurt it more than help it.



Lemontitties wrote:


alchemist27ish wrote:


also you linked a youtube video as a claim against the climate accords so im not sure what your point is there?


Hey, all I did was provide a video to inform on why our president is doing what he's doing. You're trying to do something that's different which is claiming he's "wrong". Providing videos of people like Potholer54 who's known for refusing to go on Steven's show to have a debate about the whole thing is pretty laughable and fishy in my opinion. Especially when Steven is a pretty lenient guy when he has guests on the show, both conservative and liberal mind you.


I've already explained how the two are different, especially considering this debunker's unwillingness to go on the show to discuss it properly.
5523 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M
Offline
Posted 6/1/17 , edited 6/4/17
I see the anti-lib crowd is pretty active here (even if this is a bipartisan issue). Still can't believe there are climate change deniers. Also can't believe people are against an agreement that simply put hopeful GOALS for CO2 missions. It's not like any country was forced to cut emissions. Countries are all choosing to because they don't want to do irreparable damage to the planet and renewable energy is a profitable and mostly untapped space. The point of the agreement is to get the whole world behind an issue that affects the entire planet.

If you are concerned about the economic costs of switching to renewables....conservative estimates(https://goo.gl/0D4LhV) are that failing to mitigate climate change will cost us 10% of GDP over 50 years. In contrast, carbon taxes may actually boost GDP, if the revenue is used to offset other taxes or even just returned as an equitable dividend(https://goo.gl/iWOBzo). The poor tend to spend money when they've got it, which boosts economic growth.

Are you guys honestly against this agreement or are you simply defending Trump because you voted for him? What was your opinion on this before Trump's run for presidency? I voted for Obama and there were actions he took that I did not agree with... not sure why some people are so adamant about defending every single one of Trump's actions.
576 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
All of time / God
Offline
Posted 6/1/17 , edited 7/14/17
basically trump is an idiot. got it
Posted 6/1/17 , edited 6/1/17
Live statement in about 35 minutes

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=enGiN6AwgoU
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.