blah blah blah, no one cares.
pulling out of the non-binding Paris Agreement can justify their outrage nor can state why doing so would have any effect on emissions.
Sigmund Freud would certainly have something to say regarding your obsessive repetition of this, as well as your choice of words.
pulling out of the non-binding Paris Agreement can justify their outrage nor can state why doing so would have any effect on emissions.
Sigmund Freud would certainly have something to say regarding your obsessive repetition of this, as well as your choice of words.
Is it that you are incapable of or just unwilling to answer the question?
Starve troll, starve.
Setting aside the ringside bluster of pointless arguments over climate change and politics, here is what is happening, right now, and what the USA is forfeiting:
Renewable, sustainable, and clean energy resource development will continue move forward in states that realize that these resources are necessary as well as an incalculably massive economic boom. As with any boom, the people who get there first will benefit the most, and become leaders in the production and export of the tecnology.
The USA, which has always been in the vanguard of technology, has now scrapped its position as a recognized world leader in development and implementation of renewable energy resource tech. Why should any country respect our position now that we stand with Syria in stonewalling the inevitable paradigm shift toward renewable energy? Quibbling over costs of the Paris accord is like dogs fighting under the table for crumbs, missing out on the banquet while the world economy gears up for massive technological development in the renewable energy field.
This is unfortunate for the USA, and particularly for backward states that do not have the foresight to take the initiative in investing in what is sure to become the single most lucrative industry the world has seen since the heyday of oil production.
We have ceded our claim to this new economic territory to China, and any country that wants a piece of the pie.
This is happening regardless of any arguments. Climate change, shlimate change, development of renewable energy is a gold rush, and the USA will not be first to the field. We are fools to relinquish our status as innovators, as we have elected to no longer set the standard for pioneering progress.
Sorry, can't post any links, these are just my own thoughts. Didn't pick this up from the news, just looking at the big picture.
Been away, catching up on some old posts and found this one interesting.
The USA has already lost and it happened a long time ago, before the Paris Agreement and yes even before Donald Trump.
The top 10 solar cell and module manufacturers:
JinkoSolar- China
Trina Solar - China
Canadian Solar - Ontario Canada
JA Solar - China
Hanwha Q-Cells - South Korea / Germany
GCL - China
First Solar - USA
Yingli Green - China
Talesun - China
Risen - China
Motech - Taiwan
Tongwei - China
Shunfeng - Hong Kong
How about wind turbine manufacturers?
Vestas - Danish
GE - USA
Xinjiang Goldwind - China
Gamesa - Spain
Enercon - Germany
Nordex - Germany
Guodian United Power - China
Siemens - Germany
Ming Yang - China
Envision - China
You say we've "ceded claim" and "USA will not be first in the field". That ship sailed a long long time ago. How exactly would the Paris Agreement changed any of the dominant market share foreign companies enjoy over US companies?
Looks like you are correct, I didn't realize that all those other nations dominated the market. A shame, since the solar cell was invented in the USA, and the design which proved efficient enough to be useful was developed by a close relative of mine, who also received the Medal of Technology personally from George Bush, for this and inventing the LED, as well as the gallium-aluminum arsenide alloy that led to the microchip as we know it, and made high speed universal digital communication possible. All this started here. So I am aware of the forces at work.
Got so busy bragging about this guy who invented the future I lost my point. I think that it is important for the USA to remain at the table for these historic changes, for us to stay in the game.
It has to do with credibility. Yes, certainly there are good and bad points to any political negotiations, and yes, the majority of any of it is bullsh!t, but this is how we move forward. Progress isn't perfect, but it is way better than stonewalling ourselves out of future deals by acting like stone-age morons and aligning ourselves with countries like Syria . All the countries you listed are on board with the climate agreement. And most likely none of tbem will abide by it, but this is tbe game, and the USA is foolish to leave the table.
Renewable energy is here to stay and it is going to grow whether or not the US government is behind it or not.
I don't think that the government is so vital to it happening. Companies see opportunity in the field and they will invest accordingly (unfortunately alot of that investment doesn't take place within our border as is the nature of capitalism which knows no border or national allegiance). But that is what is happening and I can't envision anything that is going to change that. Some companies, municipalities and states do and will continue to move in the renewable direction. Many individuals are doing the same and investing in their own renewable and green sources of energy for their homes and transportation.
The only difference is that we are not in a global agreement committed to reducing carbon emissions.
So why is it needed?
What I've been told on here, is that the coal industry's pull back had little to nothing to do with government regulation, but instead it had everything to do with cheaper fuels and technological advances. If that point is correct when applied to coal, why then do some people of the same persuasion feel that now regulation and government's hand is so important to have reduction mandates and green foreign aid assistance?
If you and I were sitting across from each other and we are talking about spending billions upon billions of dollars and the option is to a) give it to foreign countries so they can invest in green energy and build up their own development and employment wihtin the sector - or b) we take that same money and invest it in our own domestic companies in terms of development and production. I suspect we'd both pick 'b'. Now of course the Trump administration is not doing 'a' or 'b'. You have to get the money from somewhere in order for the government to be subsidizing these industries. So then if we are running deficits and borrowing money from foreign countries, what are we doing giving away money we don't have to other countries so they can modernize and in fact boost their own economies at the detriment of our own national balance sheet?
I see the legitimate criticism of Trump's position. I'm closer to his view granted. But if you and I were to meet in the middle, I suppose we would both agree to see investment in the green energy industry in the US. And if the government has to raise the funds to do so then imports of these products must be regulated and taxed to support the domestic green energy industry.
We get all these international organizations and groups and agreements...The UN, NATO, WTO, ITC and are we at the end of the day better off for it? A whole bunch of other countries are better off for it, but is this country? We hand our sovereignty over to these groups that often results in a monetary transfer from US to some other part of the world in some capacity to do something or prevent something all while there is something here we should be funding or preventing.
With or without Paris Agreement I see a United States that is going to continue a shift towards cleaner fuels. With or without government this is going to happen because alot of people want it to happen and frankly they don't need the government to tell them or force them to do it, people are doing it. If you are corporation and for good press and PR you want to launch a green campaign for your own self interests, well that net effect of that is good - Paris or a government doesn't need to make that happen. If you are a local community and you want to invest and install green energy technology on your municipal buildings because of the views reflected in your own communities, that is good, Paris or a government doesn't need to make that happen. If you are home owner and you want to install solar panels on your home so you can rely less on fossil fuel power plants, you don't need Paris or a government to tell you to do that.
What I think we do need, is a nurturing of this renewable and green energy industry here, so the green job capitalization can be realized here and not abroad. And for that we do need government and for that Paris did nothing.
[Edited on 6/14/2017 by nebish]
That was the gist of what I was saying, in the post you quoted, that this is moving forward regardless of the Paris Accord. I see it as important that the USA stay involved with the global interdependence aspect. Rather than see it as shoveling money away, it is how the US can exercise control over trade and negotiation, and enforcement. It's all of a piece, government, business, the whole show - honestly it is just a show, and for the US to take leadership in the Paris Accord would have shown the world our good faith in this undertaking, which is risky for everyone.
This all began here, the entire push toward ecological.awareness, clean energy, sustainable growth, and for the US to turn its back on a new paradigm that grew out of our progressive freedom is simply a bad face to the world. For America to be "great again" means doing what made us great in the eyes of the world, fair play, decency, accountability, even if it means headaches like the UN, NATO, and all the other acronyms.
I did meet you in the middle already - My post was exactly what you went on to state. However, I just don't think isolationism is healthy. Actually it is extremely perilous. Nuf said, I don't have the answers.
Keep your friends close, keep your enemies closer.
Different points of view, or different ways of saying similar things. My point was that we've already ceded and are already not first and foreign countries have already gained the upper hand and that by withdrawing from the Paris Agreement it was not the beginning and staying in the agreement would not solve that.
My bottom line, I want more net jobs and economic growth in this country and I do not want to transfer money out of our treasury to boost the jobs and economic growth of foreign countries. I want to not just engineer the technology, but I want our citizens to be able to find employment opportunities in constructing and building as much of the technology and products as possible. Installation and service is not enough, we need to take a collection of components and build the finished product, that is what adds value and produces higher wages. And we all seem to agree that energy production and consumption will continue to get more efficient and cleaner in the US regardless of the official position of the US government. I don't see as much value in a global agreements as others, but I can see that side of the argument.
I want to not just engineer the technology, but I want our citizens to be able to find employment opportunities in constructing and building as much of the technology and products as possible. Installation and service is not enough, we need to take a collection of components and build the finished product, that is what adds value and produces higher wages. And we all seem to agree that energy production and consumption will continue to get more efficient and cleaner in the US regardless of the official position of the US government.
I live here. I've invented/developed a really cool renewable widget. Manufacture and sales of this widget is a guaranteed home run profit machine. I can make it cheaper and distribute it cheaper in another country. Don't you need the government to stop me?
I understand the nationalist view that you have so eloquently made your case with over the years, but I find it hard to believe that the withdrawal from the Paris Accords was nothing but the end of the latest battle of coal/oil business vs. renewables business. The energy sector is completely monetized, and heck, it's already collapsed once on speculation.
The political noise on this will never change. Ever. What started as liberal tree-hugging bleeding heart hippies got renewed permanently as a stereotype when Al Gore became the political face of climate change. On that alone, there will never be consensus. It could be 120 degrees on top of Mount Everest and that won't change.
If indeed the Earth cools and heats on its own and there's nothing man can or can't do about it, then at least the people who therefore don't care one iota about the condition of the planet as long as they can make money off of it could be totally honest about it.
Innovation might continue development in the private sector way, but no substantial changes will be made without changes in energy policies. You simply cannot factor governments out of it.
And, let's not be totally naive. The last time energy policy was seriously discussed in Washington, Dick Cheney led a private meeting between energy sector executives and government officials, and to this day the minutes of those meetings are exempt from FOIA. Pretending it already isn't all carefully intertwined is just mild partisan denial.
I live here. I've invented/developed a really cool renewable widget. Manufacture and sales of this widget is a guaranteed home run profit machine. I can make it cheaper and distribute it cheaper in another country. Don't you need the government to stop me?
Yes I do need the government and while they may not be able to 'stop' you (I don't want to stop imports) they can make it very unfavorable if you outsource production and import said product into the US. If the desired market is everywhere then you can locate wherever you see fit for the maximum financial gain, you can always locate wherever. But if you intend to achieve successful sales in the US with an imported product be prepared to pay an access fee, a tax, a tariff, whatever you want to call it. US labor has been undercut for too long. Thank you for acknowledging my eloquence 😉 Some days are better than others.
As for the rest of it, I hope everyone understands that I one can agree with a decision to withdraw from an agreement like the Paris Accord, but they may have different reasons than those involved in making the decisions. Right, wrong or otherwise we all can and should have our own personal beliefs that don't have to pass a left-right test...or atleast I hope so. I feel the way I feel regardless of what box it fits into. Just because that opinion may align with the same position as some other partisan righty or lefty means nothing to my actual position or intent on the issue.
As for the 'last' time energy policy was seriously discussed, I remember GW Bush signing an energy bill that came to his desk from a Democratic Congress in 2007.
yup
Hemp are you drinking again?
yup
Right, wrong or otherwise we all can and should have our own personal beliefs that don't have to pass a left-right test...
exactly. you can look at every post I have ever made and not find one word that isn't my own thought process, and stupid or not, every idea is completely independent of leftright propaganda. Which is why I get so pissed off at partyliners of any stripe. might as well buy a parrot. If you aren't a freethinker, you aren't a thinker.
We are heading into some serious changes, hard times and challenges, also a lot of enlightenment and ignorant backlash, now is not the time for division.
[Edited on 6/15/2017 by BrerRabbit]
