The United States is Alone

[SnowyMacie]

This is a paraphrased Facebook status from a friend about how comparing Trump's recent action to pull out of the Paris Agreement to the fact that Nicaragua and Syria are the only other countries not apart of the agreement...

People have been saying comparing the United States to Nicaragua and Syria in that we are now no longer participating in the Paris agreement. However, I think that is ultimately a poor comparison to make because neither refused to sign for reasons anywhere to close to why the United States backed out of the Paris agreement

Syria has had a long, deadly, civil conflict and has been under harsh sanctions that made it impossible to attend, nor really even in a good position to comment on it at all. It is not that they disagreed with it, but that they could never actually be involved in such a deal in the first place.

Nicaragua did not sign the accords because they felt that they actually did not think the agreement was strict enough. They argued that they didn’t want to be complicit in a voluntary effort that didn’t properly allocate the responsibility to large countries for being the ones who poisoned the environment in the first place, nor impose a punishment on anyone failing to comply with the standards. Nicaragua is one of the countries that’s most affected by climate change but least responsible, and they felt that wasn’t fairly reflected in the accord.

The United States is the only country that has rejected the Paris accord because of the belief that our environment is less important than our profit. Even oppressive regimes and the poorest nations in the world are smarter than that, or at least know when to keep their mouths shut and play along. The USA is not really in the league of Syria or Nicaragua, but alone in the refusal to cooperate out of pure greed.

 

[Gene2memE]

I agree with you, but I'd warn you to don a vest to take care of the flak that's incoming.

The Paris Convention was a good (if not necessarily good enough) second step at a global strategy to reduce mankind's contribution to climate change. When even the airline industry agrees with you about the environment, you know that something needed to be done.

 

[SnowyMacie]

When even the airline industry agrees with you about the environment, you know that something needed to be done.

Even Exxon, Cheveron, Shell, and General Motors reaffirmed their support of the Paris agreement and their own measures to combat Climate Change.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

People have been saying comparing the United States to Nicaragua and Syria in that we are now no longer participating in the Paris agreement. However, I think that is ultimately a poor comparison to make because neither refused to sign for reasons anywhere to close to why the United States backed out of the Paris agreement

I would go further. I will say that because the burdens on the agreement places to the United States are different from that of other countries, to compare the involvement of the United States in the Paris agreement with that of any other country with that of any other country is comparing apples to oranges. Trump apparently weighed the costs against the benefits for the United States and found that the agreement came up wanting.

Even oppressive regimes and the poorest nations in the world are smarter than that, or at least know when to keep their mouths shut and play along.

For most of these countries, even major sources of carbon emissions like China and India, the Paris agreements impose little cost. Those countries adhere to the agreement because for them the agreement is little more than a symbolic gesture.

He did expressly say that he is not opposed to and international climate accord in principle - if the agreement were rewritten in such a manner as not to unduly burden the United States.

In reality, the United States is just as alone in the Paris climate agreement as out.

 

[Saucy]

I also saw a post from a friend on Facebook that sums it up for me:

" .... in regards to the Paris climate agreement, other world leaders are upset because they realize that the people picking up the check just left the restaurant."

Is the Paris Agreement the end-all deal to help climate change? According to the numbers I saw, millions of Americans would lose their job. We would be paying $100 billion PER YEAR and will have little to no impact on climate change. The worst polluters India and China don't have to cut down their pollution for 20 YEARS!

Here's a good video for why I think it's a good idea to focus on economy right now.

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10155602824652454

The idea of climate change is entirely political. The real science hasn't been settled yet. The earth has been MUCH warmer and had MUCH more Co2 than it does right now and life thrived.

 

[morse86]

What a shame. I guess nobody reads their bible/trust the word of God...instead trusting the telievision.

This is what God is going to your mother earth worshiping environment:

Matthew 24:35:
Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

Revelation 8:7:
The first angel sounded, and there followed hail and fire mingled with blood, and they were cast upon the earth: and the third part of trees was burnt up, and all green grass was burnt up.

Revelation 16:4:
And the third angel poured out his vial upon the rivers and fountains of waters; and they became blood.

Revelation 21:1:
And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.


Have you all not read?

Ephesians 6:12:
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.


Some of these are $$$$cientists pushing their agendas on the public.

 

[JGG]

What a shame. I guess nobody reads their bible/trust the word of God...instead trusting the telievision.

This is what God is going to your mother earth worshiping environment:

Matthew 24:35:
Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

Revelation 8:7:
The first angel sounded, and there followed hail and fire mingled with blood, and they were cast upon the earth: and the third part of trees was burnt up, and all green grass was burnt up.

Revelation 16:4:
And the third angel poured out his vial upon the rivers and fountains of waters; and they became blood.

Revelation 21:1:
And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.


Have you all not read?

Ephesians 6:12:
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.


Some of these are $$$$cientists pushing their agendas on the public.

Oh sweet Sandra Bullock, this is awesome.

 

[Armoured]

I would go further. I will say that because the burdens on the agreement places to the United States are different from that of other countries, to compare the involvement of the United States in the Paris agreement with that of any other country with that of any other country is comparing apples to oranges. Trump apparently weighed the costs against the benefits for the United States and found that the agreement came up wanting.



For most of these countries, even major sources of carbon emissions like China and India, the Paris agreements impose little cost. Those countries adhere to the agreement because for them the agreement is little more than a symbolic gesture.

He did expressly say that he is not opposed to and international climate accord in principle - if the agreement were rewritten in such a manner as not to unduly burden the United States.

In reality, the United States is just as alone in the Paris climate agreement as out.

How was the US "unduly burdened" by the Paris Accord?

 

[JGG]

How was the US "unduly burdened" by the Paris Accord?

If anyone was going to be unduly burdened by it, it seems it would be the Middle East. All that money invested in oil undermined by renewable energy and electric cars.

 

[Fantine]

This is what God is going to your mother earth worshiping environment:
.

What you call "worshipping mother earth" is actually the practice of good stewardship.

 

[Armoured]

If anyone was going to be unduly burdened by it, it seems it would be the Middle East. All that money invested in oil undermined by renewable energy and electric cars.

And major coal exporters like Australia. We still support Paris, though.

 

[morse86]

What you call "worshipping mother earth" is actually the practice of good stewardship.

God doesn't care about the earth. He killed more than 2000 swine to save the life of 1 man without giving it a second thought. He cares about the people. That's why he gave his only begotten son for us.

John 3:16:
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

God wants us to spread out and multiply. This means USE THE RESOURCES. There's more than enough (see the research by respected decorated hero Richard Byrd).

Genesis 9:7:
And you, be ye fruitful, and multiply; bring forth abundantly in the earth, and multiply therein.

There is more than enough resources until Jesus returns. According 1 one statistic, the entire earth could fit in the state of Florida. The only global scamming you see is on the telievision.


There is a reason why God keeps the saints around. It's so that they can go soul winning to pull people from the gates of hell (THAT IS the "good stewardship"....not worshipping the earth).

 

[Sketcher]

From what I understand, it's a pretty hollow agreement anyway.

 

[Armoured]

From what I understand, it's a pretty hollow agreement anyway.

Sure. But it's a. Better than nothing, b. Important as a precedent against which future, more effective and meaningful agreements may be measured.

Better to light a candle, and all that.

 

[JGG]

God doesn't care about the earth. He killed more than 2000 swine to save the life of 1 man without giving it a second thought. He cares about the people. That's why he gave his only begotten son for us.

The first part kind of undermines the second part.

There is a reason why God keeps the saints around. It's so that they can go soul winning to pull people from the gates of hell (THAT IS the "good stewardship"....not worshipping the earth).

How do you figure that trying to preserve the Earth is equivalent to worshiping it? Why would we not try to save the Earth?

 

[mark kennedy]

This is a paraphrased Facebook status from a friend about how comparing Trump's recent action to pull out of the Paris Agreement to the fact that Nicaragua and Syria are the only other countries not apart of the agreement...

People have been saying comparing the United States to Nicaragua and Syria in that we are now no longer participating in the Paris agreement. However, I think that is ultimately a poor comparison to make because neither refused to sign for reasons anywhere to close to why the United States backed out of the Paris agreement

Syria has had a long, deadly, civil conflict and has been under harsh sanctions that made it impossible to attend, nor really even in a good position to comment on it at all. It is not that they disagreed with it, but that they could never actually be involved in such a deal in the first place.

Nicaragua did not sign the accords because they felt that they actually did not think the agreement was strict enough. They argued that they didn’t want to be complicit in a voluntary effort that didn’t properly allocate the responsibility to large countries for being the ones who poisoned the environment in the first place, nor impose a punishment on anyone failing to comply with the standards. Nicaragua is one of the countries that’s most affected by climate change but least responsible, and they felt that wasn’t fairly reflected in the accord.

The United States is the only country that has rejected the Paris accord because of the belief that our environment is less important than our profit. Even oppressive regimes and the poorest nations in the world are smarter than that, or at least know when to keep their mouths shut and play along. The USA is not really in the league of Syria or Nicaragua, but alone in the refusal to cooperate out of pure greed.

We elected an....what's a nice word for it...alt right....conservative...Hows that? We are not alone and the NATO allies will get over it when we get rid of this...alt right...conservative...It's as simple as that. It's just a question of whether or not it will take the full four years.

 

[Armoured]

We elected an....what's a nice word for it...alt right....conservative...Hows that? We are not alone and the NATO allies will get over it when we get rid of this...alt right...conservative...It's as simple as that.

Um, NATO isn't really the issue here, and the problem is that there is a ticking clock on climate change. 4 years of inaction is a loooooong time.

 

[mark kennedy]

Um, NATO isn't really the issue here, and the problem is that there is a ticking clock on climate change. 4 years of inaction is a loooooong time.

Well considering cooperate America and the States are moving ahead I think it's a little soon to worry about an apocalypse. Trust me, the States and the People still outrank the Federal government.

 

[Raphael Jauregui]

Almost every climate expert has concluded that climate change is happening and that human pollution is unnaturally accelerating that climate change. I do not know how anyone can deny that pollution is a problem. Clearly, we need to pollute less. We need to be good stewards of the earth. I think it is a shame that the US wants to pull out of its leadership role.

 

[mark kennedy]

Almost every climate expert has concluded that climate change is happening and that human pollution is unnaturally accelerating that climate change. I do not know how anyone can deny that pollution is a problem. Clearly, we need to pollute less. We need to be good stewards of the earth. I think it is a shame that the US wants to pull out of its leadership role.

Look I'm with you but there is an argument against (List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming):

These scientists have said that the observed warming is more likely to be attributable to natural causes than to human activities. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.

• Khabibullo Abdusamatov, astrophysicist at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences[74][75]
• Sallie Baliunas, retired astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[76][77][78]
• Timothy Ball, historical climatologist, and retired professor of geography at the University of Winnipeg[79][80][81]
• Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[82][83]
• Chris de Freitas, associate professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland[84][85]
• David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester[86][87]
• Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University[88][89]
• William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy; emeritus professor, Princeton University[90][91]
• Ole Humlum, professor of geology at the University of Oslo[92][93]
• Wibjörn Karlén, professor emeritus of geography and geology at the University of Stockholm.[94][95]
• William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology[96][97]
• David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware[98][99]
• Anthony Lupo, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Missouri[100][101]
• Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[102][103]
• Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and professor of geology at Carleton University in Canada.[104][105]
• Ian Plimer, professor emeritus of mining geology, the University of Adelaide.[106][107]
• Arthur B. Robinson, American politician, biochemist and former faculty member at the University of California, San Diego[108][109]
• Murry Salby, atmospheric scientist, former professor at Macquarie University and University of Colorado[110][111]
• Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke University[112][113][114]
• Tom Segalstad, geologist; associate professor at University of Oslo[115][116]
• Nir Shaviv, professor of physics focusing on astrophysics and climate science at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem[117][118]
• Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia[119][120][121][122]
• Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[123][124]
• Roy Spencer, meteorologist; principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville[125][126]
• Henrik Svensmark, physicist, Danish National Space Center[127][128]
• George H. Taylor, retired director of the Oregon Climate Service at Oregon State University[129][130]
• Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, professor emeritus from University of Ottawa[131][132]