Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    23 Nov '16 14:14 / 1 edit
    From Tom Friedman in yesterday's Times

    There are many decisions that President-elect Trump can and will make during the next four years. Many of them could be reversible by his successor. But there is one decision he can make that could have truly irreversible implications, and that is to abandon America’s commitment to phasing out coal, phasing in more clean energy systems and leading the world to curb CO2 emissions before they reach a level that produces a cycle of wildly unpredictable climate disruptions.

    When asked where he stood on that climate change issue — which in the past he dismissed as a hoax — and last December’s U.S.-led Paris emissions-reduction accord, the president-elect did not hesitate for a second: “I’m looking at it very closely. … I have an open mind to it. We’re going to look very carefully. … You can make lots of cases for different views. … I will tell you this: Clean air is vitally important. Clean water, crystal-clean water is vitally important.”

    Do you think climate change is caused by human activity?

    “I think there is some connectivity,” Trump answered. It is not clear “how much,” and what he will do about it “depends on how much it’s going to cost our companies.” Trump said he would study the issue “very hard” and hinted that if, after study, he was to moderate his views, his voice would be influential with climate skeptics.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/22/opinion/at-lunch-donald-trump-gives-critics-hope.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=0

    emphasis mine

    On an "only Nixon could go to China" theory, a politician with street cred in the right wing acknowledging the validity of climate change science could have game changing impacts on how the US deals with climate change. Obama could do only so much with a balky GOP-led Congress. But would the right so vigorously oppose climate change mitigation efforts by a Trump administration?
  2. 23 Nov '16 14:23 / 4 edits
    So far Trump has said:

    1. Hillary is going to jail!
    2. We will build a massive wall!!
    3. Climate change is a hoax!!

    What we are left with:

    1. Hillary has been through enough, no jail time for her. She's not so bad.
    2. We may need to only build a fence, not a wall, or maybe just dig a ditch.
    3. I'm open to the climate change hoax. Tell me more........

    As I've said from day one, Trump is a Dim plant. My only mistake was thinking he was there to throw the election to Hillary, but in reality, he is just there to get the GOP to embrace Hillary's policies.

    It should have been clear to everyone before the election that Trump believes in climate change since he build a flood wall around his golf coarse in Ireland.

    He's just a big liar.
  3. Standard member checkbaiter
    By God's Grace
    23 Nov '16 14:28
    Originally posted by sh76
    From Tom Friedman in yesterday's Times

    [quote]There are many decisions that President-elect Trump can and will make during the next four years. Many of them could be reversible by his successor. But there is one decision he can make that could have truly irreversible implications, and that is to abandon America’s commitment to phasing out coal, phasing in mo ...[text shortened]... ould the right so vigorously oppose climate change mitigation efforts by a Trump administration?
    I hope so. I still think climate change, global warming, etc., is overblown.
    The audacity of people who think they can "fix" or change climate is mind boggling.
    Even if it is partly man made, much of what we measure would not change much.
    Political involvement is to tax, tax, tax and then tax some more.
    This will fix everything
  4. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    23 Nov '16 14:48
    Originally posted by checkbaiter
    I hope so. I still think climate change, global warming, etc., is overblown.
    The audacity of people who think they can "fix" or change climate is mind boggling.
    Even if it is partly man made, much of what we measure would not change much.
    Political involvement is to tax, tax, tax and then tax some more.
    This will fix everything
    === Even if it is partly man made, much of what we measure would not change much. ===

    Because we may not be able to fix the whole problem, your solution is to do nothing?
  5. 23 Nov '16 15:08
    Originally posted by sh76
    From Tom Friedman in yesterday's Times

    [quote]There are many decisions that President-elect Trump can and will make during the next four years. Many of them could be reversible by his successor. But there is one decision he can make that could have truly irreversible implications, and that is to abandon America’s commitment to phasing out coal, phasing in mo ...[text shortened]... ould the right so vigorously oppose climate change mitigation efforts by a Trump administration?
    You have a poor understanding of climate change. Sure climate change is real, we all know about ice ages. Even global warming is real, see the Pliocene Epoch.

    What is the "primary cause" though? Nature or man?
    I started a thread on the science forum you could learn from. Join in if you would like.

    http://www.redhotpawn.com/forum/science/anthropogenic-global-warming-myth.170415
  6. 23 Nov '16 15:13 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by sh76
    From Tom Friedman in yesterday's Times

    [quote]There are many decisions that President-elect Trump can and will make during the next four years. Many of them could be reversible by his successor. But there is one decision he can make that could have truly irreversible implications, and that is to abandon America’s commitment to phasing out coal, phasing in mo ...[text shortened]... ould the right so vigorously oppose climate change mitigation efforts by a Trump administration?
    Of course they would oppose Trump . If you weren't an establishment type who believes in an authoritarian state you wouldn't even ask.
  7. Standard member shavixmir
    Guppy poo
    23 Nov '16 15:36
    Trump is not a liar.
    He's a narcissist. He does and says whatever he wants and all who disagree are a threat.

    You cannot befriend or trust a narcissist.

    It was clear more than a year ago.
  8. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    23 Nov '16 15:41
    Originally posted by sh76
    From Tom Friedman in yesterday's Times

    [quote]There are many decisions that President-elect Trump can and will make during the next four years. Many of them could be reversible by his successor. But there is one decision he can make that could have truly irreversible implications, and that is to abandon America’s commitment to phasing out coal, phasing in mo ...[text shortened]... ould the right so vigorously oppose climate change mitigation efforts by a Trump administration?
    I don't really think Trump has any "street cred" among right wingers; the common theme raised by them was that he wasn't really a conservative. Amusingly we see right wingers here saying the same thing even after they voted for him!
  9. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    23 Nov '16 15:44
    Originally posted by shavixmir
    Trump is not a liar.
    He's a narcissist. He does and says whatever he wants and all who disagree are a threat.

    You cannot befriend or trust a narcissist.

    It was clear more than a year ago.
    I think there's a bit more to it than that. He seems to want to be liked by whoever he is in the room with and is willing to say what he thinks will make them happy. I'm not sure he has any really deep opinions about anything but his own wonderfulness.
  10. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    23 Nov '16 15:59
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    I think there's a bit more to it than that. He seems to want to be liked by whoever he is in the room with and is willing to say what he thinks will make them happy. I'm not sure he has any really deep opinions about anything but his own wonderfulness.
    Sort of like another President we know...

    (minus the narcissism)
  11. Standard member checkbaiter
    By God's Grace
    23 Nov '16 16:17
    Originally posted by sh76
    === Even if it is partly man made, much of what we measure would not change much. ===

    Because we may not be able to fix the whole problem, your solution is to do nothing?
    First , you would have to unite the whole world which has been impossible from the existence of mankind. Then, even then, my op of course would be the change or fix would be (on a scale of 1-10) about a .0001.
  12. 23 Nov '16 16:52
    Originally posted by checkbaiter
    First , you would have to unite the whole world which has been impossible from the existence of mankind. Then, even then, my op of course would be the change or fix would be (on a scale of 1-10) about a .0001.
    Actually, most of the world's major countries/polluters are signatories to the Paris accords.
  13. 23 Nov '16 16:58
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Actually, most of the world's major countries/polluters are signatories to the Paris accords.
    If china and russia sign it, they must follow it. I assume they signed it.

    Only an idealistic person would think that because a country signs something the country will follow it.

    Who is going to force the US, Russia or china to live up to agreements?

    Europe? Lol
  14. 23 Nov '16 17:26 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by shavixmir
    Trump is not a liar.
    He's a narcissist. He does and says whatever he wants and all who disagree are a threat.

    You cannot befriend or trust a narcissist.

    It was clear more than a year ago.
    So we could not call Hillary a liar for lying and we now can't call Trump a liar for lying?

    I give up.
  15. 23 Nov '16 19:40 / 2 edits
    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/



    Even ardent supporters acknowledge that the Paris treaty by itself will do little to rein in global warming. The United Nations estimates that if every country were to make every single promised carbon cut between 2016 and 2030 to the fullest extent and there was no cheating, carbon dioxide emissions would still be cut by only one-hundredth of what is needed to keep temperature rises below 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit. The Paris treaty's 2016-2030 pledges would reduce temperature rises around 0.09 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century. If maintained throughout the rest of the century, temperature rises would be cut by 0.31 degrees Fahrenheit.

    At the same time, these promises will be costly. Trying to cut carbon dioxide, even with an efficient tax, makes cheap energy more expensive — and this slows economic growth.

    My calculations using the best peer-reviewed economic models show the cost of the Paris promises — through slower gross domestic product growth from higher energy costs — would reach $1 trillion to $2 trillion every year from 2030. U.S. vows alone — to cut greenhouse-gas emissions 26 percent to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025 — would reduce GDP by more than $150 billion annually.

    So Trump's promise to dump Paris will matter very little to temperature rises, and it will stop the pursuit of an expensive dead end.


    Paris was a well-meaning — if flawed — attempt to address a genuine global issue. With no international climate policies at all, it is probable that we would see a temperature rise of perhaps 7 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century. The United States needs to find a smarter solution. Climate economists have found that green energy R&D investment would be a much more efficient approach.

    This is very much in line with Trump's campaign promise of “investment in research and development across the broad landscape of academia” and with its suggestion that we could develop “energy sources and power production that alleviates the need for dependence on fossil fuels.”

    This investment in U.S. ingenuity could help innovate the price of green energy down below fossil fuels. Only then will we truly be able to stop climate change.

    Statements by Trump's campaign also indicate that the next administration will create a global development and aid policy that recognizes that climate is one problem among many.


    Asked about global warming, the campaign responded, “Perhaps the best use of our limited financial resources should be in dealing with making sure that every person in the world has clean water. Perhaps we should focus on eliminating lingering diseases around the world like malaria. Perhaps we should focus on efforts to increase food production to keep pace with an ever-growing world population.”

    This would be a big change. The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development analyzed almost all aid from the United States and other rich nations and found that about one-third is climate-related aid.

    This is immoral when 2 billion people suffer from malnutrition, around 700 million live in extreme poverty and 2.4 billion are without clean drinking water and sanitation. These problems can be tackled effectively today, helping many more people more dramatically than “climate aid” could.

    Despite its length, and for all of its heat and bluster, the election campaign left many unanswered questions and understandable concerns about the president-elect's positions on climate change, aid and development.

    But, surprisingly, there is now an opportunity. To seize it, the Trump administration needs to go beyond just dumping the ineffective Paris agreement, to an innovation-based green energy approach that will harness U.S. ingenuity. Such a policy could mean a real solution to climate change and help the world's worst-off more effectively.
    .