Started By
Message
locked post

Is there a report detailing the $$ that would've changed hands as a result of Paris Deal?

Posted on 6/2/17 at 8:50 am
Posted by STEVED00
Member since May 2007
22377 posts
Posted on 6/2/17 at 8:50 am
What kind of numbers are we talking about over the next say 50 years? I assume some countries will be paying $$ and a lot more will be receiving $$. I'm just curious what would've US' share have been in this deal? France's? GB? Russia? China?

If anyone could share or point me in the right direction that would be appreciated.
This post was edited on 6/2/17 at 8:51 am
Posted by airfernando
Member since Oct 2015
15248 posts
Posted on 6/2/17 at 8:52 am to
Posted by Salmon
On the trails
Member since Feb 2008
83583 posts
Posted on 6/2/17 at 8:52 am to
I would like to see this as well.

I've seen a lot of numbers thrown around, but the Paris deal wasn't binding, so technically, we could have stayed in the Paris Deal and still not have paid anything, correct? Because we could have made our own programs and paid what we wanted, no?

Posted by PrimeTime Money
Houston, Texas, USA
Member since Nov 2012
27305 posts
Posted on 6/2/17 at 8:57 am to
I read the "developed nations" pledged to give at least $100 billion per year to "developing nations". And that's just the starting point... the floor. They want to increase spending every year.

And I don't know what the U.S.'s portion would have been. Probably a lot like with everything else.
Posted by notslim99
City of Bossier City
Member since Feb 2005
4531 posts
Posted on 6/2/17 at 8:57 am to
We're America, the world doesn't want us governing ourselves. They expected us to foot the bill almost entirely.
Posted by ChineseBandit58
Pearland, TX
Member since Aug 2005
42604 posts
Posted on 6/2/17 at 8:58 am to
quote:

he Paris deal wasn't binding, so technically, we could have stayed in the Paris Deal and still not have paid anything, correct?

Then what is the point? Is this whole thing just a kubaya moment for the world to signal some virtue??

BUT - let the USA sign up to a 'non-binding" agreement that has some 'suggestions' that the USA ship $$$$ to somewhere and see how that 'suggestion' is treated by US courts. The 9th circuit would be overwhelmed with lawsuits.

hmmmm - maybe the climate change surge would make the racism lawsuits take the back seat, or at least share some of the emphasis.
Posted by Salmon
On the trails
Member since Feb 2008
83583 posts
Posted on 6/2/17 at 8:59 am to
quote:

They expected us to foot the bill almost entirely.


But we didn't have to

Their was no contractual agreement that we would fund anything, correct?
Posted by ChineseBandit58
Pearland, TX
Member since Aug 2005
42604 posts
Posted on 6/2/17 at 9:01 am to
quote:

We're America, the world doesn't want us governing ourselves. They expected us to foot the bill almost entirely.

Exactly this /\

All these global orgs have one goal = bring the USA down to some average that will require the shipment of $$$$ to every under-performing, backward culture, authoritarian, socialist nation in the world.
Posted by CptBengal
BR Baby
Member since Dec 2007
71661 posts
Posted on 6/2/17 at 9:03 am to
quote:

They expected us to foot the bill almost entirely.


But we didn't have to


Question:

If Obama was still president...or Hillary won, would we have paid?
Posted by ChineseBandit58
Pearland, TX
Member since Aug 2005
42604 posts
Posted on 6/2/17 at 9:06 am to
quote:

But we didn't have to

Their was no contractual agreement that we would fund anything, correct?

Then you would be fighting this battle once a week forever - instead of just booting the whole thing out at once.

Unless there is a binding treaty - requiring the Senate to approve - then we don't need to be associated with it. Just hold a "we want to feed the world" rally and sing some songs and be done with it. That is the only things the SJWs ever actually do.

Nothing prevents the USA from continuing its current direction of reducing CO2 emissions. Nothing prevents private industry from continuing to develop renewal energy ideas. The thing is that every hair-brained scheme will not have a direct tap on the US treasury. Private industry has more of a clear-eyed view of what is reasonable and what is pissing in the wind.
Posted by roadGator
Member since Feb 2009
140482 posts
Posted on 6/2/17 at 9:11 am to
quote:

If Obama was still president...or Hillary won, would we have paid?


IMO, yes. And the left would have cheered these payments even though the money would have been borrowed from China.

Posted by Andychapman13
Member since Jun 2016
2728 posts
Posted on 6/2/17 at 9:21 am to
Still waiting on this report from the libtards, hate to see this thread end without some numbers to make us conservatives look stupid!
Posted by Salmon
On the trails
Member since Feb 2008
83583 posts
Posted on 6/2/17 at 9:22 am to
quote:

If Obama was still president...or Hillary won, would we have paid?


Probably

But they aren't, so not sure how that is relevant
Posted by TigerFanatic99
South Bend, Indiana
Member since Jan 2007
27602 posts
Posted on 6/2/17 at 9:23 am to
I'm still waiting for Seattle or San Francisco to file a lawsuit against Trump asking the courts to file an injunction against pulling out of the accord on the basis that it will irreparably damage the city.

You know for a fact that just like with the travel ban, they can find the right judge and then the 9th circuit will uphold the injunction.
Posted by Salmon
On the trails
Member since Feb 2008
83583 posts
Posted on 6/2/17 at 9:24 am to
quote:

Then you would be fighting this battle once a week forever - instead of just booting the whole thing out at once.


if Trump truly wanted to negotiate a better deal, don't you think it would have been more effective doing it from inside, rather than trying to negotiate another separate deal?

Posted by GeeOH
Louisiana
Member since Dec 2013
13376 posts
Posted on 6/2/17 at 9:25 am to
I heard this morning our total commitment would be over 3 TRILLION dollars!

frick that
Posted by Salmon
On the trails
Member since Feb 2008
83583 posts
Posted on 6/2/17 at 9:26 am to
quote:

I heard this morning our total commitment would be over 3 TRILLION dollars!

frick that


Could Trump not have cut that from within?
Posted by Champagne
Already Conquered USA.
Member since Oct 2007
48359 posts
Posted on 6/2/17 at 9:26 am to
quote:

ou know for a fact that just like with the travel ban, they can find the right judge and then the 9th circuit will uphold the injunction.


Good point.
Posted by Champagne
Already Conquered USA.
Member since Oct 2007
48359 posts
Posted on 6/2/17 at 9:27 am to
quote:

We're America, the world doesn't want us governing ourselves. They expected us to foot the bill almost entirely. Exactly this /\ All these global orgs have one goal = bring the USA down to some average that will require the shipment of $$$$ to every under-performing, backward culture, authoritarian, socialist nation in the world.


The essential objectives of the Globalist Movement are contained in the above quote.
Posted by Andychapman13
Member since Jun 2016
2728 posts
Posted on 6/2/17 at 9:30 am to
It was a bs deal all around and you throw those kind of deals off the table when you walk into the room. The problem is nobody else has the nuts to do that so we've gotten used to the establishment type that say "that wouldn't be prudent, blah, blah, blah...). It'd be like if you got into a relationship with a girl and she started saying this is the way things are gonna be based on how I did it with my ex-boyfriend!
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 2Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram