The Trump Presidency

I can understand being upset by the "symbolism" of leaving... as in, perhaps the President doesn't care about climate change and isn't committed to solving it.

But that's not what I'm seeing. All I'm seeing is the world is doomed bc America pulled out of this non-binding agreement.

Other countries are mad? No ****, now they won't get those fat checks from America.
 
I can't think of a more virtue signaling cause than the Paris Accord.

I am very much pro-environmentalism. Climate change is real. The global community should be united. Etc. etc.

The problem with the Paris Accord is that every nation made one unrealistic commitment after another they weren't going to meet (with no mechanism to hold them to it) and the US was at the forefront of that (all except China, India, Pakistan, etc. who basically said "yeah, reduce carbon emission. sure, eventually I guess").
 
sturg33 said:
I can understand being upset by the "symbolism" of leaving... as in, perhaps the President doesn't care about climate change and isn't committed to solving it.

But that's not what I'm seeing. All I'm seeing is the world is doomed bc America pulled out of this non-binding agreement.

Other countries are mad? No ****, now they won't get those fat checks from America.
Click to expand...

I would also point out that the business communities are starting to solve these emission problems themselves because, not surprising, consumers kinda like the environment.
 
Why pull out ?

(oh gosh, I did that !!!!)

If it was toothless and meaningless ?

.....................

I for one do not trust the Koch's to solve climate issues
which takes us back to the old HC argument of we are better off letting the business community sort this out
BS

The business community has had since the late 70's to show any sign of innitiative and have bent over backwards to fund denial science and thwart envioronmental progress at every ==== repeat, every turn
 
Why pull out ?

(oh gosh, I did that !!!!)

If it was toothless and meaningless ?
Click to expand...

Because why would you commit to spend $100 billion annualy to help fund the Pirates and Marlins of the globe, when its been proven time and time again that strong economies fuel technological growth which do way more than any other outlay at curbing carbon pollution.

.....................

I for one do not trust the Koch's to solve climate issues
Click to expand...

Fine. Don't buy his products then. Buy Elon Musk's or Bob Iger's who both did their best to grandstand on Twitter yesterday to show how much they care about polar bears.

which takes us back to the old HC argument of we are better off letting the business community sort this out

BS

The business community has had since the late 70's to show any sign of innitiative and have bent over backwards to fund denial science and thwart envioronmental progress at every ==== repeat, every turn
Click to expand...

This isn't the 1800's anymore. Businesses have been developing and utilizing green technologies for decades now with real growth.

As soon as China and India modernize their economies their outlays will go down as well too.
 
chop2chip said:
I would also point out that the business communities are starting to solve these emission problems themselves because, not surprising, consumers kinda like the environment.
Click to expand...

I think your criticism is reasonable, and I'm curious how you account for the fact that the business community (including BP and Exxon) in America was largely against leaving the agreement? I'm just not sure what the upside to leaving is...the reasons Trump gave were typically illusory.
 
chop2chip said:
Because why would you commit to spend $100 billion annualy to help fund the Pirates and Marlins of the globe, when its been proven time and time again that strong economies fuel technological growth which do way more than any other outlay at curbing carbon pollution.

.....................

Fine. Don't buy his products then. Buy Elon Musk's or Bob Iger's who both did their best to grandstand on Twitter yesterday to show how much they care about polar bears.

This isn't the 1800's anymore. Businesses have been developing and utilizing green technologies for decades now with real growth.

As soon as China and India modernize their economies their outlays will go down as well too.
Click to expand...

Right, and this represented a mechanism for encouraging accountability while they do so. What does our pulling out of it say?
 
chop2chip said:
Because why would you commit to spend $100 billion annualy to help fund the Pirates and Marlins of the globe, when its been proven time and time again that strong economies fuel technological growth which do way more than any other outlay at curbing carbon pollution.

Because it is money well spent.

.....................

Fine. Don't buy his products then. Buy Elon Musk's or Bob Iger's who both did their best to grandstand on Twitter yesterday to show how much they care about polar bears.

I have no idea who Iger is and only know of Musk because like you say, he grandstands.
you can go back almost ten years to read my abhorrence / mistrust of all things Koch

This isn't the 1800's anymore. Businesses have been developing and utilizing green technologies for decades now with real growth.
Not sure your point here

As soon as China and India modernize their economies their outlays will go down as well too.
Not sure what going down means (damn, did it again !!! )
Click to expand...

My thinking $100B is spent on something where the entire earth benefits.

The wall is projected to cost half to three quarters that . And what return comes out of that ?
 
It's funny. Climate Change science was universally recognized as viable until Al Gore made a movie.
Where this discussion would not have even happened.

It is also universally understood that Climate Change denial grew out of Gores movie for partisan purposes
You can look it up
 
Julio3000 said:
I think your criticism is reasonable, and I'm curious how you account for the fact that the business community (including BP and Exxon) in America was largely against leaving the agreement? I'm just not sure what the upside to leaving is...the reasons Trump gave were typically illusory.
Click to expand...

As bit of personal background to underline a point I'll make later on.

I've worked the past three years as a consultant for Ernst & Young in Silicon Valley (side note, I wouldn't recommend the consultant lifestyle to anyone as I am gladly going back to grad school in the fall).

Every year we have what's called "EY Connect Day" where everybody takes the day off and pledges a full working day to helping out with a volunteer cause. While I'm sure the volunteer work we do is great and appreciated, I get the sense that the main reason the firm brands a special day is to advertise to other companies in the valley EY's ethos so that they can win more consulting work. Why do these greedy billion dollar companies care about environmental causes? One, they fear consumer backlash (see Uber). Two, the market for high skilled engineering labor is so intense that they'll do anything to appease their young millenial work force. People want to work for companies that they feel are making the world a better place.

So tangent aside, my point is that why would any company want to come out and support the President when (1) his image is toxic and (2) the optics of being against climate change is so poisonous (no pun intended)? Isn't it so much easier for a company to speak out against an unpopular agenda, without any commitment to back it up besides leaving that phony President's business council?

Hence why I say this all virtue signaling.
 
My point is the people (and their followers) that took us out of Paris agreement are willing to spend all but the same amount of money on a 3000 mile cinder block wall
 
57Brave said:
It's funny. Climate Change science was universally recognized as viable until Al Gore made a movie.
Where this discussion would not have even happened.

It is also universally understood that Climate Change denial grew out of Gores movie for partisan purposes
You can look it up
Click to expand...

I agree.

Climate change deniers are weirdos.

I'm just not sure we have found a viable political solution to solve climate change. GOP buries their head in the sand and (D)'s don't want to dabble in pragmatism on the issue.

I'm just glad that the general public (and business community) want reduced carbon emissions.
 
57Brave said:
My point is the people (and their followers) that took us out of Paris agreement are willing to spend all but the same amount of money on a 3000 mile cinder block wall
Click to expand...

I mean its not even close to the same amount of money.

Its a blatantly partisan response which doesn't address the issue at hand and is, frankly, dismissively patronizing. Isn't this the type of partisanry you are constttantly attacking the GOP on?
 
$67B The Hill reported.

I really don't care if it is seen as a partisan response . The politics of the issue--- yes it is relevant to the issue at hand. Board posters and the Trump administration have bemoaned the cost of Paris while stumping for the wall.

So it isn't the money.

...
Being for or against the wall really doesn't matter here.

Not meant as a jab at you.
and hope it wasn't taken that way
 
57Brave said:
$67B The Hill reported.

I really don't care if it is seen as a partisan response . The politics of the issue--- yes it is relevant to the issue at hand. Board posters and the Trump administration have bemoaned the cost of Paris while stumping for the wall.

So it isn't the money.

...
Being for or against the wall really doesn't matter here.

Not meant as a jab at you.
and hope it wasn't taken that way
Click to expand...

Who is for the wall? Most posts I've seen is alternatives to a wall that will not work nor ever will work unless they can drill 40 feet down in the ground and put a fence there. I was hoping that Pres. Agent Orange and his toxic message was just that a message to obtain some votes, not go out and do this stupid sh*t.
 
I'm not for the wall.

I'm not for the Paris treat.

Both for the same reason. It costs a lot of money and doesn't make a material difference.
 
chop2chip said:
As bit of personal background to underline a point I'll make later on.

I've worked the past three years as a consultant for Ernst & Young in Silicon Valley (side note, I wouldn't recommend the consultant lifestyle to anyone as I am gladly going back to grad school in the fall).

Every year we have what's called "EY Connect Day" where everybody takes the day off and pledges a full working day to helping out with a volunteer cause. While I'm sure the volunteer work we do is great and appreciated, I get the sense that the main reason the firm brands a special day is to advertise to other companies in the valley EY's ethos so that they can win more consulting work. Why do these greedy billion dollar companies care about environmental causes? One, they fear consumer backlash (see Uber). Two, the market for high skilled engineering labor is so intense that they'll do anything to appease their young millenial work force. People want to work for companies that they feel are making the world a better place.

So tangent aside, my point is that why would any company want to come out and support the President when (1) his image is toxic and (2) the optics of being against climate change is so poisonous (no pun intended)? Isn't it so much easier for a company to speak out against an unpopular agenda, without any commitment to back it up besides leaving that phony President's business council?

Hence why I say this all virtue signaling.
Click to expand...

Hey, before anything else I'll say that I always enjoy and appreciate your always thoughtful contributions here, and that I respect your opinion. I'm not sure you're far off at all, when it comes to so-called virtue signaling a part of corporate entities that have no dog in the fight. It seems to me, though, that the number of individuals and entities who have spoken out in support of the Paris Accords overwhelm that with sheer numbers. SecState Tillerson? 2012 nominee Mitt Romney? I dunno.

Paris was a first step, a baby step, to getting the world to comprehensively address cc. The US pulling out is significant for that reason alone. While I agree that it is the private sector that is going to ultimately drive the transition to sustainable energy (in the US) I don't share your faith that they're going to universally do so without price signals from government.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top