11–20 of 26 posts
So, why not choose the better acronym and use MEGA (Make Earth Great Again?
When Bjørn Lomborg and James Hansen agree that something (the Paris agreement) is a bad idea, I am willing to put aside the various world leader's enthusiasm and apply a bit of skepticism. Is capping the CO2 output of developed nations really the best and fairest approach here? I don't have the answers, but I'm not sure Paris does either.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh, please provide a link to the presidents reasoning.
You see, that's a classic example of that. No matter what information I provide you now - you are already looking at it with negativity and it will be near impossible to change.
Well, same can be said of you: I actually wanted to see reasoning and am willing to change my mind on the subject (well, actually not even change, as i don't have a single fixed stance on it because I know I lack the insight), but you're not providing information, instead responding with more negativity :]
When Bjørn Lomborg and James Hansen agree that something (the Paris agreement) is a bad idea, I am willing to put aside the various world leader's enthusiasm and apply a bit of skepticism. Is capping the CO2 output of developed nations really the best and fairest approach here? I don't have the answers, but I'm not sure Paris does either.
I think the problem in USA right now is that a very vocal part of the country is very much against the president and his every decision will be judged without listening to his reasoning, that's a very bad situation, and I can't imagine how any president can be productive in this environment... Edit: I was not implying that what he did with Paris Agreement is right/wrong, I was just trying to tell that it's hard to wo…
(1) https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/03/us/politics/republican-le...
Jane Meyer (author of Dark Money) also talks about this recently
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/in-the-withdrawal-fr...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh, please provide a link to the presidents reasoning.
You see, that's a classic example of that. No matter what information I provide you now - you are already looking at it with negativity and it will be near impossible to change.
In the meantime, you didn't bother to actually provide anything outlining his reasoning. Which is fine, because having listened to his speech announcing the decision, I can state that virtually none of his stated reasons appear to have any sort of relationship with reality. Which is seemingly par for the course for his administration — is it any wonder people are so skeptical of virtually anything he says?
For starters, he argues that it allows China and India to build coal plants, while allowing the US to build none. Besides the agreement not even having the word coal in it, the entire thing allows countries to come up with their own standards, that they self-enforce. If the US decided our standard was "a coal plant in every home", it wouldn't actually violate any term of the agreement.
When Bjørn Lomborg and James Hansen agree that something (the Paris agreement) is a bad idea, I am willing to put aside the various world leader's enthusiasm and apply a bit of skepticism. Is capping the CO2 output of developed nations really the best and fairest approach here? I don't have the answers, but I'm not sure Paris does either.
e.g. minimum wage to be higher/lower, to have more/less nuclear weapons, higher/lower taxes
edit: I just looked up Lomberg's opinion, and it turns out his response to Paris is almost exactly the opposite of Hansen's. Hansen wants to increase the price of carbon, Lomberg says "Instead of trying to make fossil fuels so expensive that no one wants them – which will never work – we should make green energy so cheap everybody will shift to it."
For a French president to do that is impressive. France used to push real hard to restore their language to pre-eminence against English. Now, that is no longer their top concern.
When Bjørn Lomborg and James Hansen agree that something (the Paris agreement) is a bad idea, I am willing to put aside the various world leader's enthusiasm and apply a bit of skepticism. Is capping the CO2 output of developed nations really the best and fairest approach here? I don't have the answers, but I'm not sure Paris does either.