What's new

US Pulling Out of Paris Climate Accord

Please post a link that shows how a farmer or rancher doesn't receive some incentive.

Please post a link where an energy producer doesn't receive an incentive.

So if I eat food out of my garden, where was the subsidy? If I get it at a farmers market, where's the subsidy? Oh and just for your knowledge, there are plenty of farmers who don't take/receive any subsidy help. You also won't see any rancher getting help when the prices are low. Only time ranchers get subsidies are in the case of natural disaster, and that ain't often. As for links, most states have a list of every farmer who takes government money on there. You'll notice that not all farmers are on there.
 
So if I eat food out of my garden, where was the subsidy? If I get it at a farmers market, where's the subsidy? Oh and just for your knowledge, there are plenty of farmers who don't take/receive any subsidy help. You also won't see any rancher getting help when the prices are low. Only time ranchers get subsidies are in the case of natural disaster, and that ain't often. As for links, most states have a list of every farmer who takes government money on there. You'll notice that not all farmers are on there.

#1. Like I said there are tax incentives for owning a home/land, where that food in your garden came from

#2. There are many incentives out there for small organic farmers...then you buy that food at the farmers market.

#3. Tons of incentives out there for ranchers being able to graze their cattle on public lands.


You will never be able to prove that food, housing and energy is a free market.
 
#1. Like I said there are tax incentives for owning a home/land, where that food in your garden came from

#2. There are many incentives out there for small organic farmers...then you buy that food at the farmers market.

#3. Tons of incentives out there for ranchers being able to graze their cattle on public lands.


You will never be able to prove that food, housing and energy is a free market.

but it should be!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Thank you for admitting that energy is not a free market and you don't know what the **** you're talking about.

Also [MENTION=578]franklin[/MENTION] suck my balls, you lose.

and we agree man!


i think everything should be a free market. from farts to ak47's

from children diapers to sex from whores!



nobody should interfere in consensual trade between 1 or more parties!



i don't want the government to pick winners and losers
 
and we agree man!


i think everything should be a free market. from farts to ak47's

from children diapers to sex from whores!



nobody should interfere in consensual trade between 1 or more parties!



i don't want the government to pick winners and losers


The problem is that you have already said that if climate change was real then the free market would fix it and we don't need the Paris agreement.

You're dumb as ****.
 
The problem is that you have already said that if climate change was real then the free market would fix it and we don't need the Paris agreement.

You're dumb as ****.

yes we need the govenrment to not meddle in the lives of people!


the problem with paris agreement it advances globalism!
 
#1. Like I said there are tax incentives for owning a home/land, where that food in your garden came from

#2. There are many incentives out there for small organic farmers...then you buy that food at the farmers market.

#3. Tons of incentives out there for ranchers being able to graze their cattle on public lands.


You will never be able to prove that food, housing and energy is a free market.

Yes, I am aware the incentives are available. What you don't seem to be understanding is that not everybody takes them.
 
While the rest of the world continues with transitioning into a decarbonized economy, Donald Trump wants to expand the coal industry. Just as his NATO speech displayed a comical(it was that bad)lack of understanding of how NATO even works(he couldn't have brushed up just a bit, maybe read a little?), so his Paris Accord Exit speech was almost incoherent in its ignorance of wherevthe world was going, with us, or without us.

The views of scientists:

Jane Lubchenco, marine ecologist at Oregon State University in Corvallis and former administrator of the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration:
Where to start? President Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Paris Agreement shows a blatant disregard for the wishes of most Americans and business leaders, an irresponsible and callous dismissal of the health, safety and economic well-being of Americans, a moral emptiness in ignoring impacts to the poorest people in the US and around the world, and gross ignorance about overwhelming scientific evidence. Far from “protecting America” as the president stated, withdrawing from Paris will make America more vulnerable and diminish its world leadership. It is terrifying that the individual who should be leading the rest of the world is so arrogant and irresponsible.

Our collective future and that of much of the rest of life on Earth depends in part on confronting climate change and ocean acidification. Doing so requires global collective action. It’s hard to imagine anyone consciously choosing to leave a legacy of impoverishment, economic disruption, increasingly bizarre weather, health impacts ranging from heat strokes to spread of diseases, rising sea levels and flooding — but that is just what the president has done. Moreover, the new path and the president’s proposed budget would forego significant economic opportunities.

Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, climate scientist at the Catholic University of Louvain in Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium, and former vice-chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC):
President Trump's decision to introduce a request to leave the Paris agreement in 2020 is regrettable. It negates both the results of (1) serious scientific analyses (many made by US scientists) about the urgency to address the climate change problem; and (2) the rigorous assessment made by the IPCC about the technical and socio-economic aspects of response options, including their significant co-benefits in other areas like air quality, energy security, health or job creation.

President Trump's speech attempting to justify his decision was an amazing concentrate of some of the worst climate confusers' and fossil lobbyists' arguments.

Thomas Stocker, former co-chair of climate science for the IPCC, and climate and environmental physicist at the University of Bern, Switzerland:
Trump’s decision to ignore scientific facts of climate disruption and the high risks of climate-change impacts is irresponsible not only towards his own people but to all people and life on this planet. The US administration prefers old technology over innovation and transformation. It is rejecting the enormous benefits and returns that leadership in the next industrial revolution — decarbonization — has to offer.

The United States is the second-biggest emitter of carbon dioxide worldwide (and has contributed, with Europe, 52% of the share of cumulative carbon emissions since industrialization). It is withdrawing from its historical responsibility to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions and lead the way forward. Given the continuous commitment of most countries to reduce emissions, and the firm leadership of Europe, China and Russia in shaping the transformation towards a decarbonized economy, the United States runs the risk of being left behind and missing one of the greatest economic opportunities of our time.

Susan Lozier, oceanographer at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina:
Trump’s decision is as short-sighted as it is disheartening. The oceans already hold about 35% of the carbon dioxide that has been released to the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution. Nothing good for the ocean and the life it contains comes from this storage. Whether you simply admire marine life or count on it for your livelihood, this decision shouldn't sit well. An already fragile ocean is further imperiled.

https://www.nature.com/news/how-sci...s-leaving-the-paris-climate-agreement-1.22098
 
More feedback from scientists. We are witnessing one of the most shortsided Presidential actions in the nation's history. Not just for what it says about the President's disregard for the health of future generations of Americans, but for claiming it will make America great again if we go back to the 1950's while the rest of the world develops a green technology and post carbon economy. Hard to comprehend such a level of stupidity.


Joeri Rogelj, energy researcher at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis in Laxenburg, Austria:
The US withdrawing from the Paris agreement is damaging for international collaborative efforts to limit climate change, but will likely be most damaging to the US economy itself. The US has decided to sideline itself, internationally, diplomatically and morally — not to prepare itself for the future, but to gaze into the past for a few more years. Many other major economies, including China and the European Union, have indicated their strong commitment to implementing the climate agreement. This signal will spur innovation and business development in these regions. However, the US government refuses to give US businesses such a clear sense of direction and is disregarding the most robust scientific evidence by doing so. By setting research, innovation and business priorities based on misleading short-term political goals, the US will miss the boat and might become a laggard in the global technology and innovation landscape.

Katharine Hayhoe, director of the Climate Science Center at Texas Tech University in Lubbock:
The biggest loser from the decision could be the United States itself. Why? Because although the Paris agreement is a climate treaty, a triumph for evidence-based decision-making, it’s also much more: a trade agreement, an investment blueprint and a strong incentive for innovation in the energy and the economy of the future.

Earlier this week, India broke its own record for the lowest bids for electricity from solar power. Last month, Ernst & Young listed its most attractive markets for renewables: the United States came third, behind China and India. And earlier this year, China announced a US$360-billion investment in clean energy to create 13 million new jobs. The US announcement shows that it will be doing its best to turn back the clock, while the rest of the world accelerates into the future.

Benjamin Santer, climate scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California:
In Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, Brutus said these famous lines: "There is a tide in the affairs of men. Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune; Omitted, all the voyage of their life is bound in shallows and in miseries."

Today, the United States pulled out of the Paris climate agreement and missed the rising tide. Far from "Making America Great Again", this decision condemns the United States to becoming one of the 'has-beens' of history. We will become increasingly irrelevant to the rest of the world. They are going forward; we are going backward.

Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Potsdam, Germany:
It will not substantially hamper global climate progress if the US really quits the Paris agreement, but it will hurt the American economy and society alike. China and Europe have become world leaders on the path towards green development already and will strengthen their position if the US slips back at the national level. Innovative states such as California, the world's sixth-largest economy, will keep going for climate action, however. The Washington people around Trump hide in the trenches of the past instead of building the future. They fail to recognize that the climate wars are over, while the race for sustainable prosperity is on.

https://www.nature.com/news/how-sci...s-leaving-the-paris-climate-agreement-1.22098

"They fail to recognize that the climate wars are over, while the race for sustainable prosperity is on".

If that doesn't nail it, I don't know what would. As sure as the sun continues to rise in the east, Trump has earned a judgement from History that would crush his fragile ego if he only knew.
 
But Trump is a believer . . .

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.usatoday.com/story/102460834/

"President Trump believes climate change is real and human activity contributes to it, U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley told CBS on Saturday.

Haley's statement follows two days of evading questions by the White House on Trump's beliefs on global warming, which in the past he has referred to as a "hoax."

Haley told CBS' Face The Nation repeatedly in an interview scheduled for broadcast Sunday that Trump acknowledges the climate is changing. On Thursday, he announced that he was withdrawing the United States from the 2015 Paris climate agreement that seeks to limit global warming through cuts in carbon emissions.

"The president believes the climate is changing," Haley said. "And he does know that pollutants are a part of that equation."

Abiding by the U.S. commitment would have damaged the U.S. economy, Trump said Thursday. On Friday, White House officials declined to say if Trump agreed with the scientific consensus that human activity contributes to climate change. White House press secretary Sean Spicer said he hadn't spoken to the president about it.

Trump, Haley said, remains committed to ensuring clean air and water."

-----
So if Trump has changed his mind from the idea that climate change is a hoax, when did it happen? Who convinced him? Or is this another situation where his staff has to cover for him?



Sent from my HTC6535LVW using JazzFanz mobile app
 
Last edited:
A couple pages late but the biggest difference, to me, between a subsidy and a tax break is that while a $100 tax break is $100 less of tax revenue, a $100 subsidy actually costs the taxpayer more than $100.
 
Yes, I am aware the incentives are available. What you don't seem to be understanding is that not everybody takes them.

i don't take subsidies and tax incentives! i knew of a few people who do not!

we consider ourselves libertarians and taking tax money is being complicit in theft and extortion!

ofcourse you dont have full control on taking subsidies and tax breaks! but we try avoid every single subsidies and tax break we can!


edit: we try and take tax breaks as much as we can
but we try and not take tax break on for example road-tax, because we use the road so we have to pay for it
 
But Trump is a believer . . .

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.usatoday.com/story/102460834/

"President Trump believes climate change is real and human activity contributes to it, U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley told CBS on Saturday.

Haley's statement follows two days of evading questions by the White House on Trump's beliefs on global warming, which in the past he has referred to as a "hoax."

Haley told CBS' Face The Nation repeatedly in an interview scheduled for broadcast Sunday that Trump acknowledges the climate is changing. On Thursday, he announced that he was withdrawing the United States from the 2015 Paris climate agreement that seeks to limit global warming through cuts in carbon emissions.

"The president believes the climate is changing," Haley said. "And he does know that pollutants are a part of that equation."

Abiding by the U.S. commitment would have damaged the U.S. economy, Trump said Thursday. On Friday, White House officials declined to say if Trump agreed with the scientific consensus that human activity contributes to climate change. White House press secretary Sean Spicer said he hadn't spoken to the president about it.

Trump, Haley said, remains committed to ensuring clean air and water."

-----
So if Trump has changed his mind from the idea that climate change is a hoax, when did it happen? Who convinced him? Or is this another situation where his staff has to cover for him?



Sent from my HTC6535LVW using JazzFanz mobile app
\
"believing" or not "believing" in climate change has nothing to do with paris accord!

their is no connection

pairs accord is not a solution to the "climate" problem
 
can some of you climate religious nut-bags explain to me why your most prominent leaders pump carbon dioxide in the atmosphere at superhuman levels
leonardo dicapro spends a month on a yacht going from usa to brazil on a superyacht that burns 8000 liters of guzzoline per hour(about 2000 gallons of guzzoline, or diesel)
as he spends worldcup cruising allong the brazilian coastline partying and going from on big event or stadium to another!
i mean it's ok i believe one man gets to do with his money what he likesnothing against that, but dont tell me how much i get to burn if you burn tens of thousands of liter of guzzoline and complain about my motorcycle which i ride a few hours a week that prolly wont ever come close to what you burned on your brazilian world cup vacation. correciton wont ocme close to 1% of what he burned on his vacation.
what he can have his lavish vacation but i cant have 1700cc of pure awesomness between my crutch!!!

bill gates - he owns and uses it quite frequently a bombadier global express bd 700 1a11 a 50 million dollar "designed for military" plane! he could get a more economic fuelrate with other planes.
but no he goes out of his way to live in lavish luxury and get one of the most fuel inefficient planes around in the luxury market! get a gulfstream uses less fuel if you NEED a private plane. but you see these people don't care about their own Carbon emissions they care about the little man's emission. because they believe in 2 classes of citizens! people who are not equal to them! they can do whatever the **** they want because the are royalty. while you get to limit your co2!

al gore- funny thing i sall of his predictions where false! he lives in a house that uses more energy then entire neighbour hoods! and travels around equally fuel inefficient private jets!


the clintons and obama- they had to go to a funeral ones. from the same location! they where gonna go on a private plane. but then they requested 2 private planes as they do not wanna travel together! ooh the horror the earth is supposedly dying, but we cant be inconvenienced by getting cooked up in a plane with each other!

the barrakc obama vacation!- well he spent his time on superyachts private jets and 14 car motorcades! but the world is dying!
dont give me he is the ex preisdent so he needs 14 car motorcades. if i tryuly believed the earth is dying because of the co2. i would happily sacrifice myself so my wife and kids get to live on, meaning the 14 car motorcade is for security but i would risk getting shot at as to not kill motor earth



you see it isn't about saving the earth from co2, it's about POWER~ creating 2 classes of citizens! everything the elite and government does is to get more power and to create a class caste system!



so **** all you climate change ************. i'm gonnna go to my garage now, fire up the bronco and just rev the engine for an hour!
stfu my trees need oxygen, at most i will burn about a gallon in an hour! you can come after me the little man who is feeding his trees c02 about a gallons worht. or turn your attention to your leaders, who burns tens of thousands a day!
chose wisely! PS if somebody comes over to complain about my c02 emission instead of 1 hour i will do it 2 hours! it will be a lovely day!



also cfl bulb may produce less co2 but they are far more dangerous for the enviroment!


THIS man made catastrophic climate change is a hoax perpetrated by the elite, to get stupid peasants on board
 
ps if i advocate for a law, before the law is passed i will live like that!

for example if there was no law against stealing, i would not steal!

how stupid is it to steal while advocating for laws and regulation for stealing!


PRACTICE what you PREACH! for those who think climate hogwash isnt a religion but scientific fact! act like you think every part of co2 is gonna destory humanity and stop using it, only use as little is necessary to barely survive


don't by made in china stuff, because their coal is dirtier then western coal!!!!!!!!!!!!! but your ather have cheap **** from china i bet you!

stop being ****ing hypocrites, stop telling me how to live. start living your live first
 
ps if i advocate for a law, before the law is passed i will live like that!

for example if there was no law against stealing, i would not steal!

how stupid is it to steal while advocating for laws and regulation for stealing!


PRACTICE what you PREACH! for those who think climate hogwash isnt a religion but scientific fact! act like you think every part of co2 is gonna destory humanity and stop using it, only use as little is necessary to barely survive


don't by made in china stuff, because their coal is dirtier then western coal!!!!!!!!!!!!! but your ather have cheap **** from china i bet you!

stop being ****ing hypocrites, stop telling me how to live. start living your live first

You need to use more exclamation marks in your posts. It's hard to know if you're actually an angry man, otherwise.....
 
You need to use more exclamation marks in your posts. It's hard to know if you're actually an angry man, otherwise.....

i'm not angry. i'm just bruning coal at 1 gallon an hour until leonardo and his elitist friend stop yachting at 2000gallons an HOUR!!

there are enough luxury sail yachts!

Seventy-7-id4594-77-1.jpg

uses a few gallons per trip! just with docking and undocking

no need to burn 2000 gallons an hour!

if these celebrity start to practice what they preach i might take this "fauxscience" climate change more serious! and who knows i might start riding a bicycle everywhere!

until then **** the paris accords!

after all trump is just doing what he promised during campaign! that's what politicians should do fulfill their promises!
if you are ashamed of usa not backing the climate accord you can move the **** to north korea they signed it and they are communistic as ****
 
Yes, I am aware the incentives are available. What you don't seem to be understanding is that not everybody takes them.

Ok......but a handful of people not utilizing them does not make a free market.......


Me thinks you're stupid.
 
Top