US Pulling Out of Paris Climate Accord

[♪alt13]

How am I liar? You're saying I really don't do those things? It's fairly easy for most people to do those things. Public transportation is probably the toughest. But people could still carpool or buy an electric car.

As for clean energy people can do solar. They even had a community solar project in Utah. Or you can buy wind REC's. This is the best company to do that: https://www.arcadiapower.com/

Such typical mindless idiots that say "but I am just one person, it won't matter....So **** it I am just going to be a douche and not care"

Because you can't multiply your impact by 7 billion and have the environment be OK with that. You are way underestimating your impact if you say that you have barely any impact.

If you were more concerned about global warming and less self serving to your own financial interests (IIRC you're in the solar biz) then you would be calling for massive investments in nuclear.

 

[RandyForRubio]

The food market is subsidized. A couple outliers don't change that.

Lol.

"All the food you eat is subsidized."
"Outliers don't change my statement."

Dumbass.

 

[Beantown]

Lol.

"All the food you eat is subsidized."
"Outliers don't change my statement."

Dumbass.

You're taking my comments out of context. When I said that I was responding to the fact that the food market is subsidized. You can't just pick and choose comments out of context.

I am talking about food not being a free market and that's all I have been commenting on. It was you that was trying to change conversation the subject.

Try to keep up bro.

 

[DutchJazzer]

Not surprising coming from somebody who thinks tax breaks and subsidies are the same thing.

depending on the situation they are the SAME

in Netherlands if you have a low income you pay taxes on your income!.
then get monthly money from the government to pay for your healthcare(then get out and buy a healthcare plan). you agree that is a subside right!

but it doesn't matter if they put it as a tax break or subsidies if you pay monthly 400 euros in tax, and get about 80-90 back. or if you have to pay about 310-320. and get nothing back.
one is a tax break the other is a subsidy! but at the end of the day it is the same


and yes i know their is a difference between the two in certain situation. but in the above it doesn't matter

 

[RandyForRubio]

You're taking my comments out of context. When I said that I was responding to the fact that the food market is subsidized. You can't just pick and choose comments out of context.

I am talking about food not being a free market and that's all I have been commenting on. It was you that was trying to change conversation the subject.

Try to keep up bro.

You said, and I quote, "any time you eat food you are participating in a subsidy."

You also weren't responding to what you said you were. In fact, you responded to a Dutchie post that so eloquently stated "**** subsidies!!! I can get gold that isn't subsidized."

Now that's something you actually agreed with when you said there are outliers. Now if you want to say the vast majority of food you eat is subsidized in some form, you'd be closer to being correct. Saying that all of it is, is false.

So, there's your context for you. You're still wrong.

 

[Red]

Another example of the Trump administration being not just anti-climate change science, but anti-science period. I'd be interested in hearing how the Trump apologists justify things like this. The Obama administration had set a ban in motion. Trump apologists, can you justify this?

https://thinkprogress.org/attorneys-general-environ-groups-epa-chlorpyrifos-5fbc929899db

"“The EPA’s first job is ensuring the health and safety of New Yorkers and all Americans — especially our children. Yet the Trump administration is jeopardizing our children’s health by allowing continued exposure to this toxic pesticide at levels it has not found to be safe,” Schneiderman said in a press release. “If the Trump Administration won’t follow the law — and put our children’s well-being first — we will fight back.”

Under the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996, the EPA is required to protect infants and children from harm by pesticides in food, water, and exposure to indoor pesticides. Chlorpyrifos has been found to be particularly harmful to children and fetuses and has been linked to brain damage.

The filings come on the heels of a decision by EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt not to ban chlorpyrifos, a judgement made against the agency’s own scientific recommendations, which were made during the Obama administration. Under Pruitt, the agency claimed that “the science addressing neurodevelopmental effects remains unresolved.” The EPA also said continued use of the pesticide would provide “regulatory certainty” for thousands of farms reliant on the pesticide for their food crops."

"........During the Obama administration, the U.S. Ninth Circuit of Appeals ordered the EPA to respond to a study done by the agency which found a pattern of adverse neurodevelopmental outcomes in babies and children. In 2015, the EPA proposed a revocation of the pesticide on all food crops. But under Pruitt’s leadership, and at the urging of industry, the EPA instead chose to do further studies on the neuro-developmental impact to children."

".....Dow Agrosciences, a division of Dow Chemical that manufactures chlorpyrifos, has forcefully pushed back against the purported detrimental effects of the pesticide. In March, the company defended Pruitt’s decision to deny the ban, stating, “authorized uses of chlorpyrifos products offer wide margins of protection for human health and safety.” During the Obama administration Dow claimed EPA assessments “lacked scientific rigor.”

Despite the EPA’s claim that it needed more time to do studies, multiple studies have found a strong correlation between the insecticide, which works by attacking the nervous system of bugs, and neurodevelopmental problems among children and health issues among farmworkers. A study by researchers at Columbia University found that exposure was linked to brain function and lower IQ among children and others with still-developing bodies. For years, environmental groups have pressured the EPA to look into the correlation between pesticide usage and problems that could affect workers on an organic and cellular level. When exposed to high dosages of the pesticide, humans can suffer from respiratory paralysis or death.

--------------------
Trump and Pruitt don't give a damn about the health of the American public.

 

[Boris]

Another example of the Trump administration being not just anti-climate change science, but anti-science period. I'd be interested in hearing how the Trump apologists justify things like this. The Obama administration had set a ban in motion. Trump apologists, can you justify this?

https://thinkprogress.org/attorneys-general-environ-groups-epa-chlorpyrifos-5fbc929899db

"“The EPA’s first job is ensuring the health and safety of New Yorkers and all Americans — especially our children. Yet the Trump administration is jeopardizing our children’s health by allowing continued exposure to this toxic pesticide at levels it has not found to be safe,” Schneiderman said in a press release. “If the Trump Administration won’t follow the law — and put our children’s well-being first — we will fight back.”

Under the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996, the EPA is required to protect infants and children from harm by pesticides in food, water, and exposure to indoor pesticides. Chlorpyrifos has been found to be particularly harmful to children and fetuses and has been linked to brain damage.

The filings come on the heels of a decision by EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt not to ban chlorpyrifos, a judgement made against the agency’s own scientific recommendations, which were made during the Obama administration. Under Pruitt, the agency claimed that “the science addressing neurodevelopmental effects remains unresolved.” The EPA also said continued use of the pesticide would provide “regulatory certainty” for thousands of farms reliant on the pesticide for their food crops."

"........During the Obama administration, the U.S. Ninth Circuit of Appeals ordered the EPA to respond to a study done by the agency which found a pattern of adverse neurodevelopmental outcomes in babies and children. In 2015, the EPA proposed a revocation of the pesticide on all food crops. But under Pruitt’s leadership, and at the urging of industry, the EPA instead chose to do further studies on the neuro-developmental impact to children."

".....Dow Agrosciences, a division of Dow Chemical that manufactures chlorpyrifos, has forcefully pushed back against the purported detrimental effects of the pesticide. In March, the company defended Pruitt’s decision to deny the ban, stating, “authorized uses of chlorpyrifos products offer wide margins of protection for human health and safety.” During the Obama administration Dow claimed EPA assessments “lacked scientific rigor.”

Despite the EPA’s claim that it needed more time to do studies, multiple studies have found a strong correlation between the insecticide, which works by attacking the nervous system of bugs, and neurodevelopmental problems among children and health issues among farmworkers. A study by researchers at Columbia University found that exposure was linked to brain function and lower IQ among children and others with still-developing bodies. For years, environmental groups have pressured the EPA to look into the correlation between pesticide usage and problems that could affect workers on an organic and cellular level. When exposed to high dosages of the pesticide, humans can suffer from respiratory paralysis or death.

--------------------
Trump and Pruitt don't give a damn about the health of the American public.

Do these dumb *** liberals need a class in how to wash there apples off in fresh water? Hell what can they actually do for thereselves anymore? Waste on humanity with this kind of crap! There The Capitol in Hinger Games don't do nuthin but feast off the rest of us an cry wolf.

 

[fishonjazz]

Do these dumb *** liberals need a class in how to wash there apples off in fresh water? Hell what can they actually do for thereselves anymore? Waste on humanity with this kind of crap! There The Capitol in Hinger Games don't do nuthin but feast off the rest of us an cry wolf.

Oh you think only "liberals" can be affected by harmful substances.... your stupidity makes more sense now.

 

[DutchJazzer]

Another example of the Trump administration being not just anti-climate change science, but anti-science period. I'd be interested in hearing how the Trump apologists justify things like this. The Obama administration had set a ban in motion. Trump apologists, can you justify this?

https://thinkprogress.org/attorneys-general-environ-groups-epa-chlorpyrifos-5fbc929899db

"“The EPA’s first job is ensuring the health and safety of New Yorkers and all Americans — especially our children. Yet the Trump administration is jeopardizing our children’s health by allowing continued exposure to this toxic pesticide at levels it has not found to be safe,” Schneiderman said in a press release. “If the Trump Administration won’t follow the law — and put our children’s well-being first — we will fight back.”

Under the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996, the EPA is required to protect infants and children from harm by pesticides in food, water, and exposure to indoor pesticides. Chlorpyrifos has been found to be particularly harmful to children and fetuses and has been linked to brain damage.

The filings come on the heels of a decision by EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt not to ban chlorpyrifos, a judgement made against the agency’s own scientific recommendations, which were made during the Obama administration. Under Pruitt, the agency claimed that “the science addressing neurodevelopmental effects remains unresolved.” The EPA also said continued use of the pesticide would provide “regulatory certainty” for thousands of farms reliant on the pesticide for their food crops."

"........During the Obama administration, the U.S. Ninth Circuit of Appeals ordered the EPA to respond to a study done by the agency which found a pattern of adverse neurodevelopmental outcomes in babies and children. In 2015, the EPA proposed a revocation of the pesticide on all food crops. But under Pruitt’s leadership, and at the urging of industry, the EPA instead chose to do further studies on the neuro-developmental impact to children."

".....Dow Agrosciences, a division of Dow Chemical that manufactures chlorpyrifos, has forcefully pushed back against the purported detrimental effects of the pesticide. In March, the company defended Pruitt’s decision to deny the ban, stating, “authorized uses of chlorpyrifos products offer wide margins of protection for human health and safety.” During the Obama administration Dow claimed EPA assessments “lacked scientific rigor.”

Despite the EPA’s claim that it needed more time to do studies, multiple studies have found a strong correlation between the insecticide, which works by attacking the nervous system of bugs, and neurodevelopmental problems among children and health issues among farmworkers. A study by researchers at Columbia University found that exposure was linked to brain function and lower IQ among children and others with still-developing bodies. For years, environmental groups have pressured the EPA to look into the correlation between pesticide usage and problems that could affect workers on an organic and cellular level. When exposed to high dosages of the pesticide, humans can suffer from respiratory paralysis or death.

--------------------
Trump and Pruitt don't give a damn about the health of the American public.

you jsut don't get the opposition to stuff like pea!


we want government out of ****!

for example, the EPA poisoned a river right in Colorado. let's say i as part of a company did the same thing! you live downstream near the river. you sue the **** out of me! and you get moneies!

government investigates epa(themself) and nothing happens! no **** ever happens!


their is a reason suing and getting million for dollars is something inherent to America!
these record setting setlements!

because government should not regulate and make laws! but the insensitive to not **** up is the justice system in where you get to pay million/billions of dollars to the real victims of yuour crime!

in other countries you don't have it.

as a kid i wondered wtf was wrong with America hearing about people getting millions of dollars in lawsuit i thought holy hell, i just go to a McDonald slip, and be rich!

aka this is not about being anti-science this is about being ANTI GOVERNMENT!

 

[Beantown]

You said, and I quote, "any time you eat food you are participating in a subsidy."

You also weren't responding to what you said you were. In fact, you responded to a Dutchie post that so eloquently stated "**** subsidies!!! I can get gold that isn't subsidized."

Now that's something you actually agreed with when you said there are outliers. Now if you want to say the vast majority of food you eat is subsidized in some form, you'd be closer to being correct. Saying that all of it is, is false.

So, there's your context for you. You're still wrong.

So this argument you're trying to have with me is about using the word "all" vs "majority"?!

Thanks for wasting my time.

 

[RandyForRubio]

So this argument you're trying to have with me is about using the word "all" vs "majority"?!

Thanks for wasting my time.

I value accuracy. It appears you do not.

 

[Beantown]

Great news for Nevada! They reversed their crappy decision last year.

After being pressured by utilities and making a colossal mistake last year the State saw the hit to the economy and heard from pissed off customers who wanted more choices!

https://www.reviewjournal.com/news/2017-legislature/sandoval-says-he-will-sign-bill-to-bring-rooftop-solar-back-to-nevada/

 

[DutchJazzer]

why don't the 60 million people who voted voor killaray clinton do a crowdfunding and show them how it''s done i am sure they can come up with the money usa was gonna pay!

 

[♪alt13]

[MENTION=54]Beantown[/MENTION]

We should not spend a dime subsidizing power generation from solar. It's a wasteful investment. The technology is still behind where it need to be and it is likely that it will never be more than a relatively small portion of energy production. R&D yes, subsidies for current tech no. Spend that money on a low carbon backbone technology like nuclear. Today we have the technology to replace the 99%. Why should we focus so much on the 1 %. Especially considering that it will likely never approach producing even half our energy needs?

PS if you are connected to the grid then you get most of your energy from fossil fuels. Fact

 

[Beantown]

[MENTION=54]Beantown[/MENTION]

We should not spend a dime subsidizing power generation from solar. It's a wasteful investment. The technology is still behind where it need to be and it is likely that it will never be more than a relatively small portion of energy production. R&D yes, subsidies for current tech no. Spend that money on a low carbon backbone technology like nuclear. Today we have the technology to replace the 99%. Why should we focus so much on the 1 %. Especially considering that it will likely never approach producing even half our energy needs?

PS if you are connected to the grid then you get most of your energy from fossil fuels. Fact

#1: We should stop subsidizing big oil companies. That should be your first concern.

#2: Solar technology is behind? There's nothing more archiac then digging up oil and burning it to pollute our air and water. Good hell you're an idiot.

#3: Nuclear is not clean. The amount of waste and water it uses is ridiculous. Not to mention the the cancer issues and safety issues. Ever heard of Fukishima?

#4 Here is how much space is needed to power the entire earth with solar.....

 

[The Thriller]

Some great posts from Bean and Red here.

Lets look at a few things:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/lbsbus...be-an-error-of-epic-proportions/#1a5ba1514ffa

Forbes is hardly known as a left-wing anti-business media source. And yet even they say:

President Trump will later today announce his decision to remain or withdraw from the Paris climate accord. If he withdraws, the U.S. joins Syria and Nicaragua as the only other two countries that declined to join the landmark agreement. Withdrawing would be a tragic error of epic proportions and of unprecedented global consequence.

Climate change is real and so are its effects, despite what Trump and his 22 Republican senators might stubbornly, short-sightedly and nonsensically choose to believe. Indeed, that climate change is real and caused by human activity is no longer an issue up for debate. That time has long passed.

History will judge Trump’s administration harshly if he chooses to withdraw. Not only because of the grave implications of failing to tackle climate change on a global scale, but because of the diminished moral leadership America will have demonstrated to the world. Far-reaching adverse implications may appear across a range of foreign policy, national security and economic issues. In effect, the U.S. risks becoming an unreliable country run by an administration that explicitly prioritizes corporate greed, short-termism, isolationism and nepotism over science, reason, growth and global sustainable prosperity.

Furthermore, does anyone wonder how the GOP devolved from acknowledging climate change and working for legislation for alt energy and cap and trade to 2017 where virtually all of its presidential candidates flat out denied climate change? Could you imagine the outrage from the right today if any of the presidential candidates had spoken like McCain did in 2008?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQMxIwpK_es

The NY Times has a fantastic op-ed for you!

You'll want June 6.
https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/tuesday-june-6-2017/id1200361736?i=1000386210100&mt=2
Or you can read it at:

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/06/03/us/politics/republican-leaders-climate-change.html

WASHINGTON — The campaign ad appeared during the presidential contest of 2008. Rapid-fire images of belching smokestacks and melting ice sheets were followed by a soothing narrator who praised a candidate who had stood up to President George W. Bush and “sounded the alarm on global warming.”

It was not made for a Democrat, but for Senator John McCain, who had just secured the Republican nomination.

It is difficult to reconcile the Republican Party of 2008 with the party of 2017, whose leader, President Trump, has called global warming a hoax, reversed environmental policies that Mr. McCain advocated on his run for the White House, and this past week announced that he would take the nation out of the Paris climate accord, which was to bind the globe in an effort to halt the planet’s warming.

For those who want the Reader's Digest:

1. In 2008, both major democrats and republicans agreed on climate change legislation. Newt Gingrich and Nancy Pelosi were giving speeches together. Cap and Trade passed the House... But that was right as the Koch Bros, who have massive holdings in fossil fuels, began to ratchet up their anti-climate change campaign.
2. 2010 Citizens United ruling makes it easier for the Kochs to flood our political system with their tainted money. Republicans who did not deny climate change, were blackmailed by their money. Koch think tanks ramped up their anti-climate change rhetoric. Scientists on their payroll began to publish works with hopes to confuse the debate and render the public cynical towards science.
3. 2008-10, President Obama, already being depicted by Republicans for being a dictator, threatens Repubs that if they don't take the necessary steps to pass cap and trade and deal with climate change now, then he would do it via executive order. This only cemented the right's hatred of Obama and severely politicized climate change to the point that legislation to aid in climate change has died. Cap and trade never passed, it died in the senate.
4. Today, we are seeing the full effect of Koch money. The right largely doesn't consider climate change a problem, the president claimed it was a hoax, and we have now sided with Syria against 180 countries (most of them our allies).

 

[The Thriller]

[MENTION=54]Beantown[/MENTION]

We should not spend a dime subsidizing power generation from solar. It's a wasteful investment. The technology is still behind where it need to be and it is likely that it will never be more than a relatively small portion of energy production. R&D yes, subsidies for current tech no. Spend that money on a low carbon backbone technology like nuclear. Today we have the technology to replace the 99%. Why should we focus so much on the 1 %. Especially considering that it will likely never approach producing even half our energy needs?

PS if you are connected to the grid then you get most of your energy from fossil fuels. Fact

And the AM radio nonsense continues to be posted.

sigh

 

[The Thriller]

Do these dumb *** liberals need a class in how to wash there apples off in fresh water? Hell what can they actually do for thereselves anymore? Waste on humanity with this kind of crap! There The Capitol in Hinger Games don't do nuthin but feast off the rest of us an cry wolf.

The cynicism towards science, knowledge, and anything intellectual continues.

 

[RandyForRubio]

The cynicism towards science, knowledge, and anything intellectual continues.

The irony level here is too damn high.

 

[babe]

The irony level here is too damn high.

I was thinking the same thing.

Well, we have a lot of political people who want to push for change, and the Accord was their program. It didn't really do anything to address climate change, leaving India and China and other nations to burn all they want, while imposing financial burdens on US companies and taxpayers basically for the great cause of redistribution. I can see Wall Street being all for it because of the benefits of having low wages/dirty business located elsewhere, and strong benefits for the cartels/international players.

I've been thinking of a new classification for the folks who study pathological problems humans sometimes exhibit.

I'll call it the Nye Syndrome.

A basic stunted intellect trotted out in front of kiddies to explain the world who morphs into actually becoming self-convinced that "teacher knows it all".