This will amount to nothing.
“Make Our Planet Great Again”
21–26 of 26 posts
Re: “Make Our Planet Great Again”
#22Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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 :]
I was not talking about this particular climate change action that he did, I was trying to say "in general" it's hard to change person's mind when he is already negatively looking at the subject.
Re: “Make Our Planet Great Again”
#23Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Okay, but that's basic table stakes for any discussion in which you want to change entrenched parties' minds. 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 cour…
[deleted]
Re: “Make Our Planet Great Again”
#24When 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.
Can you name anything that doesn't have two people with opposite opinions on either side of it? 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 expen…
Hansen wants to increase the price of carbon across the board. One of the possible main issues is that a country like China is still not classified as a developed country and isn't bound to Article 9, a significant component of the Paris agreements.
Re: “Make Our Planet Great Again”
#25When 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.
That is not Trump's reason for pulling out. And modifying the agreement can only be done from within.
The EU was firm that there would be no modifications to the agreement whatsoever, "irreversible and non-negotiable"
Re: “Make Our Planet Great Again”
#26When 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.
Then he should have provided that reasoning and implored other nations to add those reforms to the agreement. Just backing out is cowardly and shows he doesn't actually care.
The wording used by the EU was that the Paris agreement on climate change is "irreversible and non-negotiable"