- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
1
Posted on 6/2/17 at 8:49 am to roadGator
quote:
Nobody is every going to want to make a legitimate deal with the US over climate issues? Ever again? Because of one non binding agreement?
Meh.
The world will deal again.
Did I say "ever"?
They are not going to make another deal about climate change with Trump during his 4 years.
Posted on 6/2/17 at 8:50 am to Douboy
quote:
Nobody denied climate change
This is probably one of the more untrue statements made thus far in the debate.
Posted on 6/2/17 at 8:50 am to Chimlim
quote:
Putting the United States best interest first is really driving them crazy.
Or, just maybe, they have a different idea of what you and Trump consider "putting the United States best interest first" is?
Posted on 6/2/17 at 8:50 am to Salmon
I think that's fine with both parties.
Non-binding agreements shouldn't lead to US funds going to China and India.
Hell, why would be borrow money from China to give to China. That's beyond stupid.
Non-binding agreements shouldn't lead to US funds going to China and India.
Hell, why would be borrow money from China to give to China. That's beyond stupid.
Posted on 6/2/17 at 8:51 am to Douboy
It's about global welfare through transfer payments. Just think of the billions that will be siphoned off to line their pockets.
Posted on 6/2/17 at 8:51 am to Salmon
Why wouldn't they try with Trump? Trump already said in the address he is continuing efforts in green energy and it's already been shown that the US is decreasing emissions.
It's not like there'd be any negotiating in bad faith, right? Or is it just because the man's name is Trump?
If it's the latter, then clearly the issue at hand isn't as dire as some would have us believe.
It's not like there'd be any negotiating in bad faith, right? Or is it just because the man's name is Trump?
If it's the latter, then clearly the issue at hand isn't as dire as some would have us believe.
Posted on 6/2/17 at 8:52 am to Douboy
quote:
President said yesterday in his speech is that he is willing to negotiate a new climate deal that is more advantageous to the United States.
He won't be around to do that. He has one foot out of the door.
Posted on 6/2/17 at 8:53 am to Jobu93
quote:
Why wouldn't they try with Trump? Trump already said in the address he is continuing efforts in green energy and it's already been shown that the US is decreasing emissions.
Probably because they already have a deal that they all negotiated and they all apparently agree with it and like it?
Why should they negotiate another deal to satisfy the US (and Syria)?
This post was edited on 6/2/17 at 8:54 am
Posted on 6/2/17 at 8:54 am to Douboy
Russians hacked the climate
Posted on 6/2/17 at 8:55 am to roadGator
quote:
Non-binding agreements shouldn't lead to US funds going to China and India.
Hell, why would be borrow money from China to give to China. That's beyond stupid.
Could we have not changed this while still being in the Paris Deal?
In the deal, could we not make our own rules?
Posted on 6/2/17 at 8:55 am to Salmon
quote:
Or, just maybe, they have a different idea of what you and Trump consider "putting the United States best interest first" is?
Why the focus on the US? There are rivers in the world that are completely dead.
None of those are in the US.
This was about money. We are already advancing green initiatives and that didn't stop yesterday. Trump didn't have a kill switch on solar, wind, etc.
This is drama queen stuff. That's it.
Posted on 6/2/17 at 8:56 am to roadGator
quote:
This is drama queen stuff. That's it.
I agree. It's a lot of drama from both sides.
Posted on 6/2/17 at 8:57 am to Salmon
I guess since it was non binding. we could have just dumped nuclear waste in our rivers too since it was non binding.
Posted on 6/2/17 at 8:58 am to Douboy
quote:
The Climate Melters Are Not Paying Attention
They are also dishonest or ignorant of the facts. They are all screaming "now some other country is going to take the lead!" like there is something to be gained here. The US is already taking the lead and has been reducing CO2 emissions since 2000 and had a 3% reduction in the last year of reported data. The EU, not so much. Also, only a small handful of EU countries are actually taking any steps towards commitments under the agreement. The only thing the US is walking away from is a transfer of US taxpayer money to other counties. I'm sure the corrupt 3rd world governments around the world would gladly take a personal check from anyone who feels the need to "lead"
Posted on 6/2/17 at 8:59 am to Salmon
quote:
Or, just maybe, they have a different idea of what you and Trump consider "putting the United States best interest first" is?
Tell you what.
When celebrities and politicians start selling their coastal paradise castles in droves because of the impending coastal flooding, then I'll take this shite seriously.
As it stands now, the Maldives are predicted to be underwater in the near future. I'd expect business investment and property values to drop to near nothing.
Posted on 6/2/17 at 8:59 am to Salmon
Well since it was a non binding deal they shouldn't feel too bad that we aren't participating.
OOOOOOOORRRR. They needed our $$$ to get this thing moving.
Yeah, no thanks.
OOOOOOOORRRR. They needed our $$$ to get this thing moving.
Yeah, no thanks.
Posted on 6/2/17 at 8:59 am to roadGator
quote:
I guess since it was non binding. we could have just dumped nuclear waste in our rivers too since it was non binding.
sure, I guess
Posted on 6/2/17 at 9:00 am to Salmon
I guess we agree. 
Posted on 6/2/17 at 9:02 am to Salmon
So, if we hadn't said NO to the deal, and then just not participated whilst trying to renegotiate, that would have been okay?
I personally feel it is more honorable to not be duplicitous and state your intentions plainly.
but I'm no diplomat.
I personally feel it is more honorable to not be duplicitous and state your intentions plainly.
but I'm no diplomat.
Page 2 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News