ohhh_yeah 3072 Posted June 1, 2017 Share Posted June 1, 2017 He believes other countries are setting unfair conditions, when he has the power renegotiate the deal internally. Add his bizarre thought pattern that the Chinese invented the concept of global warming to make the U.S. manufacturing non-competitive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 24231 Posted June 1, 2017 Share Posted June 1, 2017 He also said that all the other countries were laughing at the US when they signed the accord, but they won't be laughing now. He's fucking nuts, how the fuck did he end up POTUS? (rhetorical question Rayvin) How many lives has he ruined in such a short time. Also how the fuck can he do this under executive powers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayvin 6214 Posted June 1, 2017 Share Posted June 1, 2017 (edited) Environmental issues were always where he was going to be most dangerous. We have to look to the EU and China now. Edited June 1, 2017 by Rayvin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGingerQuiff 2412 Posted June 1, 2017 Share Posted June 1, 2017 More hand holding Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohhh_yeah 3072 Posted June 1, 2017 Share Posted June 1, 2017 Macron trolled Trump. "Make the planet great again." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 33726 Posted June 2, 2017 Share Posted June 2, 2017 (edited) On 01/06/2017 at 21:28, Renton said: He also said that all the other countries were laughing at the US when they signed the accord, but they won't be laughing now. He's fucking nuts, how the fuck did he end up POTUS? (rhetorical question Rayvin) How many lives has he ruined in such a short time. Also how the fuck can he do this under executive powers? Expand I don't believe that he can do it that easily. If he wishes to withdraw from the Paris accord then the earliest he can do so is 2020. Alternatively he can withdraw from the UNFCCC altogether but that would probably require an act of congress. Saying that, he could just instruct federal agencies to ignore the accord with no potential repercussions. Edited June 2, 2017 by ewerk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted June 2, 2017 Author Share Posted June 2, 2017 Strange that all the environmentalists are now going on like the Paris accord is the agreement that assured the future of the planet and Trump alone is killing the human race. Before trump turned his back on it the agreement was viewed as completely insufficient and didn't commit anyone to what paltry targets were agreed as something nice to aim for in theory. Nice to see all these leaders now committed to saving the planet though, maybe they will extend their commitments into enforceable and more ambitious ones that might actually have made a difference if implemented 20 years ago. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 24231 Posted June 2, 2017 Share Posted June 2, 2017 On 02/06/2017 at 09:48, Happy Face said: Strange that all the environmentalists are now going on like the Paris accord is the agreement that assured the future of the planet and Trump alone is killing they planet. Before trump turned his back on it the agreement was viewed as completely insufficient and didn't commit anyone to what paltry targets were agreed as something nice to aim for in theory. Nice to see all these leaders now committed to saving the planet though, maybe they will extend their commitments into enforceable and more ambitious ones that might actually have made a difference if implemented 20 years ago. Expand Doing something is better than nothing. The agreement, signed by every nation other than Nicaragua and Syria, is pragmatic and aims to mitigate against the worst if the effects. Odd that you choose to criticise the accord rather than the science denier who had stuck his middle finger up at multilateral solutions to global problems. Well, not odd really. HF loves a bit of contrariness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayvin 6214 Posted June 2, 2017 Share Posted June 2, 2017 On 02/06/2017 at 10:05, Renton said: Doing something is better than nothing. The agreement, signed by every nation other than Nicaragua and Syria, is pragmatic and aims to mitigate against the worst if the effects. Odd that you choose to criticise the accord rather than the science denier who had stuck his middle finger up at multilateral solutions to global problems. Well, not odd really. HF loves a bit of contrariness. Expand Nicaragua shouldn't be lumped into that group given they rejected it for not being radical enough, and are working to their own agenda on tackling the issue with commitments far in excess of what Paris would have held them to. They're going to be running on 90% renewables by 2020. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 24231 Posted June 2, 2017 Share Posted June 2, 2017 On 02/06/2017 at 10:08, Rayvin said: Nicaragua shouldn't be lumped into that group given they rejected it for not being radical enough, and are working to their own agenda on tackling the issue with commitments far in excess of what Paris would have held them to. They're going to be running on 90% renewables by 2020. Expand Okay. Take them out then. That leaves the US and Syria as the only non signatories. Perfectly reasonable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayvin 6214 Posted June 2, 2017 Share Posted June 2, 2017 Syria is on its knees as well, it's actually understandable why this isn't a priority for them. Frankly, the US is out on its own in my eyes. Utterly disgraceful action to take. Basically agree with your point though, the Accord was better than nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted June 2, 2017 Author Share Posted June 2, 2017 On 02/06/2017 at 10:05, Renton said: Doing something is better than nothing. The agreement, signed by every nation other than Nicaragua and Syria, is pragmatic and aims to mitigate against the worst if the effects. Odd that you choose to criticise the accord rather than the science denier who had stuck his middle finger up at multilateral solutions to global problems. Well, not odd really. HF loves a bit of contrariness. Expand It's contrary to be consistent in criticising the accord that everyone from UNEP to Greenpeace had issues with? "The deal sets out the objective of limiting temperature rises to 1.5 degrees, but the emissions targets on the table take us closer to 3 degrees. That’s a critical problem." If 99% of criticism is pointing at Trump today, from everyone but lunatics, I don't see any point in adding to that chorus, though I agree with it 100%. I've not seen anyone point to the contradiction of those insisting on the need for effective climate action while not imposing any targets that could be effective at reducing warming one bit. Increasing warming by double the stated objective (if targets were hit) that would minimise catastrophe remains a politically expedient agreed objective, but harmful 'solution'. The latter point does not negate the former but is worth making lest people get the impression that agreements the US walk away from would save the planet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayvin 6214 Posted June 2, 2017 Share Posted June 2, 2017 http://edition.cnn.com/2017/06/02/politics/donald-trump-cold-war/ In the 80s, Trump planned to call Reagan and have himself instated as ambassador to Moscow - at which point, he'd have a one hour meeting with the Russians and would end the cold war Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 24231 Posted June 2, 2017 Share Posted June 2, 2017 On 02/06/2017 at 11:17, Happy Face said: It's contrary to be consistent in criticising the accord that everyone from UNEP to Greenpeace had issues with? "The deal sets out the objective of limiting temperature rises to 1.5 degrees, but the emissions targets on the table take us closer to 3 degrees. That’s a critical problem." If 99% of criticism is pointing at Trump today, from everyone but lunatics, I don't see any point in adding to that chorus, though I agree with it 100%. I've not seen anyone point to the contradiction of those insisting on the need for effective climate action while not imposing any targets that could be effective at reducing warming one bit. Increasing warming by double the stated objective (if targets were hit) that would minimise catastrophe remains a politically expedient agreed objective, but harmful 'solution'. The latter point does not negate the former but is worth making lest people get the impression that agreements the US walk away from would save the planet. Expand Are we agreed that the only solution has to be multilateral and that such multilateral agreement is incredibly hard to implement? The problem with Trump is rejection of the former and the problem with you and Greenpeace is lack of recognition of the latter. A 3C rise will be very bad, but preferable to a 6C one. Maybe it can buy us time while we work on reversing the damage. Your post just smacks of contrariness to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayvin 6214 Posted June 3, 2017 Share Posted June 3, 2017 Wolfy made a new account? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayatollah Hermione 14877 Posted June 3, 2017 Share Posted June 3, 2017 So, what? Water levels are rising for a laugh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adios 717 Posted June 3, 2017 Share Posted June 3, 2017 Please let the agenda be transgender. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gloom 24041 Posted June 3, 2017 Share Posted June 3, 2017 Who the fuck is this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGingerQuiff 2412 Posted June 3, 2017 Share Posted June 3, 2017 Paging me at 5.46 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted June 3, 2017 Author Share Posted June 3, 2017 On 03/06/2017 at 00:37, Rayvin said: Wolfy made a new account? Expand The Russians!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted June 3, 2017 Author Share Posted June 3, 2017 On 02/06/2017 at 11:39, Renton said: Are we agreed that the only solution has to be multilateral and that such multilateral agreement is incredibly hard to implement? The problem with Trump is rejection of the former and the problem with you and Greenpeace is lack of recognition of the latter. A 3C rise will be very bad, but preferable to a 6C one. Maybe it can buy us time while we work on reversing the damage. Your post just smacks of contrariness to me. Expand Totally agree. I don't reject that it's difficult. I'm concerned that politicians are using Trump's idiocy to oversimplify it and boost their own environmental bona fides with the electorate. Theresa May for example, quietly proceeding with multiple fracking sites around the UK while condemning Trump. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayvin 6214 Posted June 3, 2017 Share Posted June 3, 2017 On 03/06/2017 at 07:29, Happy Face said: Totally agree. I don't reject that it's difficult. I'm concerned that politicians are using Trump's idiocy to oversimplify it and boost their own environmental bona fides with the electorate. Theresa May for example, quietly proceeding with multiple fracking sites around the UK while condemning Trump. Expand Fair point. Although May just barely condemned Trump. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 24231 Posted June 3, 2017 Share Posted June 3, 2017 On 03/06/2017 at 07:29, Happy Face said: Totally agree. I don't reject that it's difficult. I'm concerned that politicians are using Trump's idiocy to oversimplify it and boost their own environmental bona fides with the electorate. Theresa May for example, quietly proceeding with multiple fracking sites around the UK while condemning Trump. Expand You're too cynical imo. In this instance, Trump isn't being condemned for being Trump, he's being condemned for pulling out the Accord, it's that simple. The response has been fairly diplomatic compared to his almost literal middle finger up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 33726 Posted June 3, 2017 Share Posted June 3, 2017 How about you head on back to your conspiracy theory forum? And take Wolfy with you. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex 37420 Posted June 3, 2017 Share Posted June 3, 2017 What an interesting and controversial poster. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now