The Debating Society
Hobbies & Interests
A place where ModDB members can debate civilly, and learn from each other's views.
Climate change, industrialization, regulations, negotiation, political gravitas. All these things have something in common. They're factors in the UN's darling child known as The Paris Agreement.
Over 196 countries are in on this deal. The goal is for participating nations to keep warming well below 2 degrees Celsius, and to pursue efforts to limit temperature increases to 1.5 degrees C. These are the political selling points.
Oddly, the United States is abstaining from this deal. But lets put on our thinking caps for a moment. Why would the leading superpower of our time decide to back out of a deal of such "importance" to both the international and scientific community?
This is where critic time comes into play, and I start rocking the boat.
The framework established requires each country to submit a plan to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, called an “Intended Nationally Determined Contribution” (INDC). Each submission is at the discretion of the country; there is no standard that must be met, nor emission reduction achieved. Developing countries actually blocked requirements that the plans use a common format and metrics, so an INDC need not even mention emissions levels.
A country can propose to reduce emissions off a self-defined “business-as-usual” trajectory, essentially deciding how much it wants to emit and then declaring it an “improvement” from the alternative. To prevent such submissions from being challenged, a group of developing countries led by China and India rejected “any obligatory review mechanism for increasing individual efforts of developing countries.”
With that in mind, the final submissions are not enforceable, and carry no consequences beyond “shame” for noncompliance. Meaning? The deal is ineffectual, there is no way to legally enforce it written in the fine print.
The heart of my argument resides in that the deal itself was poorly written and has no enforcement mechanisms. It's essentially idealism and poor negotiating skills combined with political aspirations. Perfect for cameras, heartache for admirers of substance.
"They muddy the water to make it seem deep"
Of course, this isn't the only reason the United States left. It also would've had a negative impact on U.S. job growth and would cost American families more in the long run especially on their power bills. But rabid MSNBC viewers in my nation care little for that.
"WHO CARES ABOUT THE REDNECK HICKS! Earth is more important!" Ive been yelled at by hippies enough on cancerous youtube comments over this. Do that to me now, I'll die inside, then rise from the dead and haunt you with facts from this life to the next. If you're going to make a game changing deal on climate change, at least have the common sense to make it enforceable by the international community along with bare minimum requirements.
Of course, that's counting if you even deem Globalism a effective solution to this problem. Using the international community as a one world government to solve your global warming woes is basically handing a loaded gun to apes in suits. Apes, who can't even save themselves from their own hubris. And you expect them to use this power responsibly?
All you need to do is pick apart their deal to understand...
Cnbc.com
My views have not changed on the matter from since I was much younger. The IPCC has been caught manipulating data and has been repeatedly exposed of fraud and conspiracy. See Climate Gate and Hockey Stick. Not only this, but solutions proposed to fix the "issue" by the IPCC would send us all back to the stone age, à la this:
Moddb.com
The very fact that the dissenters of Obama's 97% consensus are silenced via all manner of nefarious means should ring alarms bells for anyone worth their salt.
Wattsupwiththat.com
Trump's withdrawal is completely logical for any first world nation... unless you're making money and political credit off of it (as is this case with Russia, even though VVP has stated on multiple occasions that he nor Russian climate scientists agree with the UN narrative).
I'll just leave this here: Youtube.com
I don't have time to argue with people that reject reality.
I don't hold anything against moving towards cleaner, more efficient energy. Ive seen what cities like LA look like first hand with their acid rain. And I know of the need for oxygen canisters just to breath in certain polluted cities of China. God Himself mandated we're caretakers of the Earth so I don't like those things anymore than you do.
Of course, the link you provided basically confirmed what I stated. It's a nonbinding, unenforceable agreement. It has no impact on climate change and is merely a show for the cameras. So I disagree with his assessment that it's a admirable first step. It's not, it's a joke and shows the weakness of globalism in practically solving problems.
That said, "wealthier" nations are also expected to enact wealth redistribution and give their money to poorer nations to invest in clean energy as part of the deal. However, whose to say these banana republics won't allocate the funds to their military budget instead? Funding the oppressive practices of military dictatorships isn't my idea of paving the way for the future. And do remember, there is no punishment in the deal if they decide to do that. A real sting in the heart of the emphatic everywhere.
All I'm saying is it's best for individual alliances/nations to lead by example in pursuing change. If the United States really wants to make a impact, it should set its own goals and serve as a beacon for other developed nations to aspire too.
Like Spudd's first link has said tho, most of the methods to reduce emissions would be ineffectual and instead serve to cripple the world economy. So the only applicable solution to fight this "climate change" (or just tidy up the pollution over our cities) is to invest in and pursue cleaner, more efficient energy that makes daily life more convenient and beautiful for people around the great green and blue world.
My appologies I didn't read the entire thing here and was assuming you were denying the existance of climate change.
As for pulling out cause it's not binding and therefore powerless is a ****** reason. It was *something* and that's a step in the right direction even if it's a very very tiny one.
I likewise apologize for being so confrontational.
There are times I just tire of being written off.
Granted, it's "something." But the problem, to me, and even others (not all) but others, is it has very little real effect on this issue it's supposed to address.
The UN wants the world to believe it's a legit solution, I don't believe it is. More needs to be done. Pursuing cleaner more efficient energy is a viable solution. Once a cheaper, more environmental friendly alternative is introduced, countries won't need regulations and the international community stepping in. They'll update themselves to that newest alternative just to keep ahead in the game of civilization.
Doing both the Earth, and human progress a big favor. If more time and money was dedicated to that pursuit perhaps we'd have found that solution by now.
As a sidenote.
If you wish to abandon the discourse and make the bombastic claim all who oppose your position reject reality as fact, that's fine.
It's your loss for being unable to engage in debate with those of a differing viewpoint to your own. It's also part of the reason renaissance mindsets are dying out this day and age since people are unable to educate themselves and adequately uphold their own positions to scrutiny, potentially recruiting others to their cause.
You may deem me a stubborn old dog, but that is no excuse for throwing in the towel and leaving out your argument. If you have any self respect, you'll get in here and make your case for all to see regardless of whether you or I tear each others points to ribbons. Consider this a challenge, make the time and show some passion.