Yes, if he loved your grandchildren, he would sign the useless Paris agreement and let them, their children and grandchildren pay the bills (assuming they could get a job).
The greatest threat to our grandchildren getting jobs is not the Paris Treaty; it is automation. Many of the jobs we take for granted will be replaced by machines.
The State of New York will pretty soon collect tolls without toll booths or toll collecters.
It now takes half the manpower to drill an oil well than it took a few years ago:
Some of my in-laws feel that we’re in “end times”, so it doesn’t matter anymore. Others simply do not care what happens after they’re gone … including their own grandchildren.
" A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in. " - Greek proverb
What you call imaginary future problems are today’s real problems. I’ve already posted a link showing how less manpower is needed in the oilfield because of new technology.
Here is a link about the melting of the Antarctic:
Leave aside the global warming part of the argument for a moment then. If we could switch to a cleaner burning energy source that made us less dependent on other countries or unstable parts of the world, why shouldn’t we pursue it?
America has a history of being innovators. So why should we stop innovating? Wouldn’t coming up with practical energy solutions help put us in the forefront of several industries like the automotive and industrial again? Wouldn’t developing such sources help us get back on the path to greatness everyone keeps going on about?
There are plenty of reasons to look towards cleaner energy and conservation. Don’t overlook them because the environment has, to it’s detriment, become a political issue.
Trump could have worked out a better policy and still stay in the Paris Climate Agreement. It is not going to save us money or increase jobs. The agreement isn’t losing jobs in industries where the jobs were going away anyway. If other countries follow suit, this could have a very real economic effect on the entire world.
China and India are participating in the Paris Agreement. China is requiring all new taxis to be electric vehicles in Beijing. China is decreasing the use of coal and increasing the use of renewable energy.
India has a plan in place that all vehicles in sold their 13 years will be electric vehicles. Delhi already boasts of having the world’s largest environmentally friendly mass transit system.
China and India are still an environmental mess right now compared to the US. My question for you is why do you want the US to go backwards when other countries are going forward?
Regarding your first comment: Many liberals have praised Nixon for the work he did not only the environment, but also the fight to defeat cancer.
As for your second comment: I will be more than happy to Niki Haley become president in place of Trump. I propose that Pence resigns, Haley takes his place, Trump resigns.
Climate change is happening right now. There’s lots of evidence. I don’t see how anyone at this point could deny that the climate is changing. And if the climate continues to change at this rate, our grandchildren will indeed live in a much harder world.
JACK, why won’t you listen to respected scientific organizations such as NASA, NOAA, the US Department of Defense, the American Meteorological Society, the American Physical Society, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the Geological Society of America, plus many respected universities and other scientific organizations ? You owe it to yourself to become more scientifically literate so you can judge, independent of unlearned opinions, what is factual and what is not. Please, for the sake of all, time is our enemy on this.
I was watching Rand Paul talk about Trump’s announcement, and it’s hard to believe what a string of idiotic comments came out of his mouth. Here’s one—you hear this from time to time, so I guess it’s part of the climate change denier’s handbook. He said, “They [who is this they?] even changed the the term global warming to climate change because they don’t even know which direction the temperatures are changing, it might be getting cooler.” No, it’s not getting cooler. Here’s the deal: global warming is a more narrow term that just refers to global average temperatures; climate change is more inclusive, and it can refer to all kinds of other changes, such as the change in the chemistry of the oceans. The more we know, the more we can see that warming is only one part of a broader problem. So in general, it’s probably better to use the term “climate change”, unless you specifically mean just “global warming” and no other phenomena. There, Senator Paul, I hope that clears things up for you.
Wow! The stupidity of the comments from the usual deniers is enlightening.
Wow, Lester! The planet has had billions of years of floods. So gosh, we should do nothing at all to prevent them, just because floods have existed longer than humans. Or wild fires…
Jack still has his ignorance proudly displayed and I mean he is so proud that he keeps repeating stuff forever. (Try saying “I’m gonna win the lottery1” as often, see how you do.)
Deniers just don’t get the difference between sea ice (a couple of meters thick) and an ice shelf (hundreds of meters thick and the size of small states). What can you say about such repetitive ignorance? Lazy minds don’t learn, do they?
Global warming is not imaginary. But unlike the mantra of the usual stupid comments, it doesn’t mean that temperatures everywhere are constantly rising. Temperatures fluctuate from time to time and place to place.
The military has not redone some bases because of imaginary problems. The flooding expected at Navy bases in Virginia is not imaginary. The only thing that is imaginary is the belief that the problems that global warming will bring are imaginary.
Congrats not John Locke, for winning stupidist comment.
BE THIS GUY almost 7 years ago
Sometimes the truth is quite obvious. He doesn’t seem to fond of his own grandchildren.
jorgen Premium Member almost 7 years ago
Yes, if he loved your grandchildren, he would sign the useless Paris agreement and let them, their children and grandchildren pay the bills (assuming they could get a job).
BE THIS GUY almost 7 years ago
@JORGEN DYBDAHL
The greatest threat to our grandchildren getting jobs is not the Paris Treaty; it is automation. Many of the jobs we take for granted will be replaced by machines.
The State of New York will pretty soon collect tolls without toll booths or toll collecters.
It now takes half the manpower to drill an oil well than it took a few years ago:
.
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/02/19/business/energy-environment/oil-jobs-technology.html
.
Say What Now‽ Premium Member almost 7 years ago
It’s ALL about the money. If the Rump doesn’t see a profit in it, it is of no use to him.
superposition almost 7 years ago
Some of my in-laws feel that we’re in “end times”, so it doesn’t matter anymore. Others simply do not care what happens after they’re gone … including their own grandchildren.
" A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in. " - Greek proverb
rossevrymn almost 7 years ago
Actually, it’s more like Trumpster Fire is clueless………but we already knew that.
BE THIS GUY almost 7 years ago
@JLOCKE
What you call imaginary future problems are today’s real problems. I’ve already posted a link showing how less manpower is needed in the oilfield because of new technology.
Here is a link about the melting of the Antarctic:
https://www.google.com/amp/relay.nationalgeographic.com/proxy/distribution/public/amp/2016/11/foehn-winds-melt-ice-shelves-antarctic-peninsula-larsen-c
warjoski Premium Member almost 7 years ago
@JLocke
Leave aside the global warming part of the argument for a moment then. If we could switch to a cleaner burning energy source that made us less dependent on other countries or unstable parts of the world, why shouldn’t we pursue it?
America has a history of being innovators. So why should we stop innovating? Wouldn’t coming up with practical energy solutions help put us in the forefront of several industries like the automotive and industrial again? Wouldn’t developing such sources help us get back on the path to greatness everyone keeps going on about?
There are plenty of reasons to look towards cleaner energy and conservation. Don’t overlook them because the environment has, to it’s detriment, become a political issue.
Mr. Blawt almost 7 years ago
Trump could have worked out a better policy and still stay in the Paris Climate Agreement. It is not going to save us money or increase jobs. The agreement isn’t losing jobs in industries where the jobs were going away anyway. If other countries follow suit, this could have a very real economic effect on the entire world.
BE THIS GUY almost 7 years ago
@JACK75287
China and India are participating in the Paris Agreement. China is requiring all new taxis to be electric vehicles in Beijing. China is decreasing the use of coal and increasing the use of renewable energy.
India has a plan in place that all vehicles in sold their 13 years will be electric vehicles. Delhi already boasts of having the world’s largest environmentally friendly mass transit system.
China and India are still an environmental mess right now compared to the US. My question for you is why do you want the US to go backwards when other countries are going forward?
BE THIS GUY almost 7 years ago
@SCRATCHY18
Regarding your first comment: Many liberals have praised Nixon for the work he did not only the environment, but also the fight to defeat cancer.
As for your second comment: I will be more than happy to Niki Haley become president in place of Trump. I propose that Pence resigns, Haley takes his place, Trump resigns.
lonecat almost 7 years ago
Climate change is happening right now. There’s lots of evidence. I don’t see how anyone at this point could deny that the climate is changing. And if the climate continues to change at this rate, our grandchildren will indeed live in a much harder world.
BE THIS GUY almost 7 years ago
I guess this is imaginary:
https://www.google.com/amp/amp.usatoday.com/story/102385980/
.
mr_sherman Premium Member almost 7 years ago
@LoneCat: JLocke and Interventor don’t believe it, so it must be false.
BE THIS GUY almost 7 years ago
@JACK7527
China is already the world’s biggest producer of solar energy. India just built the largest solar farm in the world.
.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/futurism.com/india-just-broke-a-world-record-with-its-new-solar-farm/amp/
.
As for my pointing out that this problem isn’t imaginary, I was replying to JLOCKE.
Addled Brain almost 7 years ago
JACK, why won’t you listen to respected scientific organizations such as NASA, NOAA, the US Department of Defense, the American Meteorological Society, the American Physical Society, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the Geological Society of America, plus many respected universities and other scientific organizations ? You owe it to yourself to become more scientifically literate so you can judge, independent of unlearned opinions, what is factual and what is not. Please, for the sake of all, time is our enemy on this.
lonecat almost 7 years ago
I was watching Rand Paul talk about Trump’s announcement, and it’s hard to believe what a string of idiotic comments came out of his mouth. Here’s one—you hear this from time to time, so I guess it’s part of the climate change denier’s handbook. He said, “They [who is this they?] even changed the the term global warming to climate change because they don’t even know which direction the temperatures are changing, it might be getting cooler.” No, it’s not getting cooler. Here’s the deal: global warming is a more narrow term that just refers to global average temperatures; climate change is more inclusive, and it can refer to all kinds of other changes, such as the change in the chemistry of the oceans. The more we know, the more we can see that warming is only one part of a broader problem. So in general, it’s probably better to use the term “climate change”, unless you specifically mean just “global warming” and no other phenomena. There, Senator Paul, I hope that clears things up for you.
Baslim the Beggar Premium Member almost 7 years ago
Wow! The stupidity of the comments from the usual deniers is enlightening.
Wow, Lester! The planet has had billions of years of floods. So gosh, we should do nothing at all to prevent them, just because floods have existed longer than humans. Or wild fires…
Jack still has his ignorance proudly displayed and I mean he is so proud that he keeps repeating stuff forever. (Try saying “I’m gonna win the lottery1” as often, see how you do.)
Deniers just don’t get the difference between sea ice (a couple of meters thick) and an ice shelf (hundreds of meters thick and the size of small states). What can you say about such repetitive ignorance? Lazy minds don’t learn, do they?
Global warming is not imaginary. But unlike the mantra of the usual stupid comments, it doesn’t mean that temperatures everywhere are constantly rising. Temperatures fluctuate from time to time and place to place.
The military has not redone some bases because of imaginary problems. The flooding expected at Navy bases in Virginia is not imaginary. The only thing that is imaginary is the belief that the problems that global warming will bring are imaginary.
Congrats not John Locke, for winning stupidist comment.