Syria becomes final state to enter Paris Agreement

We are seeing numerous cities and even states take it upon their own behalf to meet the requirements of the agreement, regardless of what the official stance of the federal government is. In my humble opinion, I think that is a great thing. The federal government is not involved; federal taxpayer money is not being sent to foreign countries, states and private industry are addressing a problem, choosing their levels of commitment financially and philosophically while being much greater than federal minimum levels. States are acting autonomously to improve within their means above federal minimum standards. Private industries are being instructed by a market that favors green to make investments in green technology and sustainable business. The world is way off track on the goals as is, and there is no measure of accountability for failing to meet the goals - http://www.dw.com/.../climate-change-world-way.../a-41173220 Why do we need corrupt and elitist governments throughout the world to sign a meaningless piece of paper, when the issue can be tremendously improved at local levels?

Park_RangerWe are seeing numerous cities and even states take it upon their own behalf to meet the requirements of the agreement, regardless of what the official stance of the federal government is. In my humble opinion, I think that is a great thing. The federal government is not involved; federal taxpayer money is not being sent to foreign countries, states and private industry are addressing a problem, choosing their levels of commitment financially and philosophically while being much greater than federal minimum levels. States are acting autonomously to improve within their means above federal minimum standards. Private industries are being instructed by a market that favors green to make investments in green technology and sustainable business. The world is way off track on the goals as is, and there is no measure of accountability for failing to meet the goals - http://www.dw.com/.../climate-change-world-way.../a-41173220 Why do we need corrupt and elitist governments throughout the world to sign a meaningless piece of paper, when the issue can be tremendously improved at local levels?

I'm kind of on board with this. I think realizing that the feds aren't doing anything to watch out for our well-being as far as environmental issues are concerned should (fingers crossed) encourage people to get out and vote in local elections and pay close attention to what State and City officials are doing to fix their issues. Local-level solutions can hopefully be a lot more efficient, and target a region's specific needs.

**This post was edited on Nov 7th 2017 at 8:51:32pm

Park_RangerWe are seeing numerous cities and even states take it upon their own behalf to meet the requirements of the agreement, regardless of what the official stance of the federal government is. In my humble opinion, I think that is a great thing. The federal government is not involved; federal taxpayer money is not being sent to foreign countries, states and private industry are addressing a problem, choosing their levels of commitment financially and philosophically while being much greater than federal minimum levels. States are acting autonomously to improve within their means above federal minimum standards. Private industries are being instructed by a market that favors green to make investments in green technology and sustainable business. The world is way off track on the goals as is, and there is no measure of accountability for failing to meet the goals - http://www.dw.com/.../climate-change-world-way.../a-41173220 Why do we need corrupt and elitist governments throughout the world to sign a meaningless piece of paper, when the issue can be tremendously improved at local levels?

I 100% agree. The Federal Government is not the mechanism to positively affect global climate. Nothing we do at that scale is efficient. And Syria signed it? Give me a fucking break. 80% of that country is barren desert and the rest is currently a shit show. Sure, sign up, there's literally nothing anyone can do to hold them accountable for whatever BS measures Assad says he'll take.

Park_RangerWe are seeing numerous cities and even states take it upon their own behalf to meet the requirements of the agreement, regardless of what the official stance of the federal government is. In my humble opinion, I think that is a great thing. The federal government is not involved; federal taxpayer money is not being sent to foreign countries, states and private industry are addressing a problem, choosing their levels of commitment financially and philosophically while being much greater than federal minimum levels. States are acting autonomously to improve within their means above federal minimum standards. Private industries are being instructed by a market that favors green to make investments in green technology and sustainable business. The world is way off track on the goals as is, and there is no measure of accountability for failing to meet the goals - http://www.dw.com/.../climate-change-world-way.../a-41173220 Why do we need corrupt and elitist governments throughout the world to sign a meaningless piece of paper, when the issue can be tremendously improved at local levels?

This is the right response. Too many people don't understand what the Paris Accord is and that it was a heaping pile of shit for the United States. THE UNITED STATES WOULD HAVE TO PAY THE PARIS ACCORD AND THE INSURANCE ON IT. EVERY OTHER NATION ON EARTH WOULD RECEIVE MONEY FOR SIGNING AN NON-ENFORCEABLE PIECE OF PAPER. No fucking shit everyone signed it. We could go even deeper down the rabbit hole if anyone cares to but the bottom line is that despite what Jeremy "My Brothers Put Me In Movies" Jones says, the Paris Accord was dogshit, is dogshit, and will continue to be dogshit that will enact no positive change on the climate. I'm glad that private industry and local government has started to take the helm of environmental stewardship because legitimate collective action is the only way to solve this crisis.

The us government is so backwards it's retarded.

Technically we're still in the deal until like 2019/2020... when trumps 1st term ends.

JnetsTechnically we're still in the deal until like 2019/2020... when trumps 1st term ends.

It ends in 2020 and Trump's 1st term ends in 2021. This document is just one more "global" measure that the US is expected to manage and fund. I think this is one of the few things Trump got right.

Park_RangerWe are seeing numerous cities and even states take it upon their own behalf to meet the requirements of the agreement, regardless of what the official stance of the federal government is. In my humble opinion, I think that is a great thing. The federal government is not involved; federal taxpayer money is not being sent to foreign countries, states and private industry are addressing a problem, choosing their levels of commitment financially and philosophically while being much greater than federal minimum levels. States are acting autonomously to improve within their means above federal minimum standards. Private industries are being instructed by a market that favors green to make investments in green technology and sustainable business. The world is way off track on the goals as is, and there is no measure of accountability for failing to meet the goals - http://www.dw.com/.../climate-change-world-way.../a-41173220 Why do we need corrupt and elitist governments throughout the world to sign a meaningless piece of paper, when the issue can be tremendously improved at local levels?

There are a few things here I would like to address.

First of all, I like the idea of states individually trying to meet climate targets / goals, however that is completely useless when there are numerous states in the South / Appalachia that don't give a fuck about environmental regulations and greenhouse gas emissions. This is worsened by the fact that the Trump administration is openly trying to reduce environmental regulations wherever possible. Never-mind the fact that he wants to "bring back coal" and a climate change denier is head of the EPA.

-Erektion- and Dustin talked about how the Paris Climate Accord costs the U.S. money, and that it is a "bad deal" for the U.S. I am sad to see that people are buying into these talking points. While it is true that the Paris Climate Accord would cost the U.S. several billion dollars, it is important to note that the Paris Accord would account for roughly half of 1% of the annual U.S. budget. This is negligible, considering that Trump and the republicans are currently trying to push through tax cuts for the ultra wealthy that will cost the U.S. significantly more than the Paris Accord ever would have. Furthermore, it is important to consider that other countries that signed on to the Paris Accord are actually paying more per capita than the U.S. When you consider this, the talking points about the accord being a bad deal are laughable.

I would also like to point out that the U.S. is one of the biggest sources of greenhouse gas emissions on earth, and per capita we are also one of the worst offenders. Furthermore, the U.S. is the worst carbon polluter in history. Should we not pay our fair share for this?? Under the Paris Accord both China and India agreed to have more renewable energy than the entire U.S. energy system. This is why the talking points about it being a good thing the U.S. left the accord are laughable and demonstrably false.

Sorry if this sounds preachy. I studied environmental and atmospheric sciences in undergrad and am currently in grad school studying the same things, so these types of posts really hit a nerve with me. I find it sad that the skiing community actually believes some of these anti climate change talking points. The type of defeatist attitude seen among some people in regards to climate change is dangerous.

Also I was on NS before but I cant get back into my old account so this will be my new handle.


-okbye

-eREKTion-This is the right response. Too many people don't understand what the Paris Accord is and that it was a heaping pile of shit for the United States. THE UNITED STATES WOULD HAVE TO PAY THE PARIS ACCORD AND THE INSURANCE ON IT. EVERY OTHER NATION ON EARTH WOULD RECEIVE MONEY FOR SIGNING AN NON-ENFORCEABLE PIECE OF PAPER. No fucking shit everyone signed it. We could go even deeper down the rabbit hole if anyone cares to but the bottom line is that despite what Jeremy "My Brothers Put Me In Movies" Jones says, the Paris Accord was dogshit, is dogshit, and will continue to be dogshit that will enact no positive change on the climate. I'm glad that private industry and local government has started to take the helm of environmental stewardship because legitimate collective action is the only way to solve this crisis.

There are many things in your post that are demonstrably false, however I would like to address your claim that "every other country on earth will receive money"

This is false. Numerous countries have contributed to the Green Climate Fund, which is part of the Paris Accord. In fact, many European / Scandinavian countries are contributing significantly more per capita to the Green Climate Fund than the U.S. is under the accord.

Source: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40138062

Please note that the U.S. would contribute roughly $9 per person under the accord, while Sweden would have contributed $60 per person.

Your post is simply not based in fact.






/

**This post was edited on Nov 11th 2017 at 3:39:38pm

**This post was edited on Nov 11th 2017 at 3:39:55pm

lostoldaccountPlease note that the U.S. would contribute roughly $9 per person under the accord, while Sweden would have contributed $60 per person.








/

**This post was edited on Nov 11th 2017 at 3:39:38pm

**This post was edited on Nov 11th 2017 at 3:39:55pm

Im just going to point out, that the US has 323 million.....Sweden has 9ish. Paying 9 dollars a head in the US comes out to just under 3 billion dollars. Sweden paying 60 dollars a head pays only six hundred million. What that means idk....but the US is paying a hell of a lot more than Sweden, and basing payments off of capitation is kinda silly.

Profahoben_212Im just going to point out, that the US has 323 million.....Sweden has 9ish. Paying 9 dollars a head in the US comes out to just under 3 billion dollars. Sweden paying 60 dollars a head pays only six hundred million. What that means idk....but the US is paying a hell of a lot more than Sweden, and basing payments off of capitation is kinda silly.

Yes, of course. What exactly is your point? Of course Sweden isn’t going to contribute as much monetarily as the U.S. because they are much smaller than the U.S.

Obviously we are a much much larger country than Sweden, but we are also responsible for significantly more greenhouse gas emissions both per capita and in totality.

I was disputing the claim that we are the only country that would pay into the accord, and also pointing out that other countries are contributing significantly more per capita to the Green Climate Fund than we are, despite the fact that their per capita emissions are lower than ours. This is why the claims that the Paris Accord was a “bad deal” are laughable and demonstrably false.

**This post was edited on Nov 12th 2017 at 2:33:26am

**This post was edited on Nov 12th 2017 at 2:34:34am

We can sort our own recycling and drive hybrid cars until the cows come home meanwhile 1.5 billion people apiece in China and India are shitting in their rivers and burning chemical waste as a national past time. In my mind that is why these high level agreements are important. We will ultimately sink or swim by local innovation, but all of our efforts can be undone ten fold by the developing world if they don't have the right incentives.

CaseyWe can sort our own recycling and drive hybrid cars until the cows come home meanwhile 1.5 billion people apiece in China and India are shitting in their rivers and burning chemical waste as a national past time. In my mind that is why these high level agreements are important. We will ultimately sink or swim by local innovation, but all of our efforts can be undone ten fold by the developing world if they don't have the right incentives.

I agree man, however it is important to consider that U.S. per capita emissions are still significantly higher than both China and India, and we are still the second largest CO2 polluter on earth. Under the Paris Accord both China and India agreed to work towards reducing emissions, and both countries would have had more renewables than the entire U.S. energy system. This is why the accord is so important.

Meanwhile, the president of The United States wants to "bring back coal"

lostoldaccountThere are a few things here I would like to address.

First of all, I like the idea of states individually trying to meet climate targets / goals, however that is completely useless when there are numerous states in the South / Appalachia that don't give a fuck about environmental regulations and greenhouse gas emissions. This is worsened by the fact that the Trump administration is openly trying to reduce environmental regulations wherever possible. Never-mind the fact that he wants to "bring back coal" and a climate change denier is head of the EPA.

-Erektion- and Dustin talked about how the Paris Climate Accord costs the U.S. money, and that it is a "bad deal" for the U.S. I am sad to see that people are buying into these talking points. While it is true that the Paris Climate Accord would cost the U.S. several billion dollars, it is important to note that the Paris Accord would account for roughly half of 1% of the annual U.S. budget. This is negligible, considering that Trump and the republicans are currently trying to push through tax cuts for the ultra wealthy that will cost the U.S. significantly more than the Paris Accord ever would have. Furthermore, it is important to consider that other countries that signed on to the Paris Accord are actually paying more per capita than the U.S. When you consider this, the talking points about the accord being a bad deal are laughable.

I would also like to point out that the U.S. is one of the biggest sources of greenhouse gas emissions on earth, and per capita we are also one of the worst offenders. Furthermore, the U.S. is the worst carbon polluter in history. Should we not pay our fair share for this?? Under the Paris Accord both China and India agreed to have more renewable energy than the entire U.S. energy system. This is why the talking points about it being a good thing the U.S. left the accord are laughable and demonstrably false.

Sorry if this sounds preachy. I studied environmental and atmospheric sciences in undergrad and am currently in grad school studying the same things, so these types of posts really hit a nerve with me. I find it sad that the skiing community actually believes some of these anti climate change talking points. The type of defeatist attitude seen among some people in regards to climate change is dangerous.

Also I was on NS before but I cant get back into my old account so this will be my new handle.


-okbye

Your passion for a green and responsible world is blinding the fact that there is zero accountability in the Paris Agreement. We can do all of those things at a lower level without paying other countries with lower greenhouse emissions. As you said, the US is way up there for emissions. So why send the money elsewhere? You demonstrate frustration for Trump's policies, yet argue to put him at the helm of our nations efforts? Eliminating the Paris Agreement from the equation allows states and localities that believe in it to make great strides without federal interaction. I personally think this is the best way to make progress in the long run in the US, because as you pointed out, any federal programs are going to be stomped out or slowed to the point of uselessness by Congress and the President.

lostoldaccountI agree man, however it is important to consider that U.S. per capita emissions are still significantly higher than both China and India, and we are still the second largest CO2 polluter on earth. Under the Paris Accord both China and India agreed to work towards reducing emissions, and both countries would have had more renewables than the entire U.S. energy system. This is why the accord is so important.

Meanwhile, the president of The United States wants to "bring back coal"

I mean yeah.....per capita.....thats because half of China is rural and not feeding into fossil fuels really. They still produce far more than the US. China is unbelievably polluted in the actual cities. If China was as similar (idk what the right word is here) as the US their pollutants would be off the charts.

So what.....china and India agreed to it for the press. Like as if they will make good on that appeal. There is absolutely 0 accountability in the Paris accord they can say whatever the fuck they want. Do you really think india gives a shit?
Personally, I agree with the pullout. If we were to give this money to the states it would be far more effective. Not sure if that's gunna happen though.

Going back to coal isn't good. But for the time, it is good for the economy. If you blame people for making money well you don't know the US all too well. That's all that matters in the US.

-eREKTion-Jeremy "My Brothers Put Me In Movies" Jones

Ehehe I love me some good Jones roasting

Profahoben_212So what.....china and India agreed to it for the press. Like as if they will make good on that appeal. There is absolutely 0 accountability in the Paris accord they can say whatever the fuck they want. Do you really think india gives a shit?
Personally, I agree with the pullout. If we were to give this money to the states it would be far more effective. Not sure if that's gunna happen though.

Going back to coal isn't good. But for the time, it is good for the economy. If you blame people for making money well you don't know the US all too well. That's all that matters in the US.

You are making wild assumptions here that are not based in any facts. Who is to say that China and India won't follow through with the Paris Accord? I mean, at least they didn't pull out, like the United States did, and numerous sources now estimate that China is on track to beat the goals outlined under the Paris Accord.

China is already the world's largest source of renewable energy and Beijing has mandatory plans to double the amount of renewable energy in China within the next 12 years. Just last year China built the equivalent in renewable energy of Germany's total capacity. For more than 3 years China's coal consumption has declined, and they are planning on spending $360 billion dollars on renewables. Source: https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/05/china-renewables-energy-climate-change-pollution-environment/

I'm sorry but your opinion is simply not based on any facts. As stated above, China is already on track to beat the goals outlined in the accord.

Also, the claim that coal is good for the economy is dubious at best. There are roughly 50,000 coal workers in the U.S.. That is less than 1/1000th of the U.S. workforce. There are more people employed by Arby's than by the entire coal industry (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/03/31/8-surprisingly-small-industries-that-employ-more-people-than-coal/?utm_term=.4ec607d0c044) Furthermore, there are tons of studies that indicate that coal actually harms the U.S. economy, because of externalities like health impacts, environmental impacts, etc. Nevermind the fact that more people are employed in solar industries than coal.


You are simply repeating talking points that are demonstrably false. I am sad to see the skiing community knows so little about these issues.




okbye
**This post was edited on Nov 13th 2017 at 2:25:02am

**This post was edited on Nov 13th 2017 at 2:25:21am

Dustin.Your passion for a green and responsible world is blinding the fact that there is zero accountability in the Paris Agreement. We can do all of those things at a lower level without paying other countries with lower greenhouse emissions. As you said, the US is way up there for emissions. So why send the money elsewhere? You demonstrate frustration for Trump's policies, yet argue to put him at the helm of our nations efforts? Eliminating the Paris Agreement from the equation allows states and localities that believe in it to make great strides without federal interaction. I personally think this is the best way to make progress in the long run in the US, because as you pointed out, any federal programs are going to be stomped out or slowed to the point of uselessness by Congress and the President.

I already discussed some of this in the post above this one, but some of your post deserves a response.

First of all, yes the Paris Accord is not enforceable. However, as I touched on in the post above this, many countries like China are actively working towards exceeding the goals outlined in the Paris Accord.

Your statement that the U.S. will pay other countries to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is missing some important details. The U.S. wouldn't be paying other countries, the U.S. would be contributing to the Green Climate Fund. This is an important distinction to make. The goal of the Green Climate Fund is to encourage sustainability in rapidly developing countries, mostly in Africa. The purpose of this is to prevent Africa from becoming the next China (in terms of greenhouse gas emissions) as the continent begins to rapidly develop.

Now, you might argue that we shouldn't have to contribute to reducing emissions in the third world. However, it is important to consider that many African countries can barely afford basic infrastructure like roads and hospitals. How are they supposed to be expected to prevent massive greenhouse gas emissions? Furthermore, I believe that as the largest total carbon polluter in the history of the planet, the U.S. has a moral duty to ensure that third world countries are able to control their greenhouse gas emissions. This is for the good of the planet. This is not about politics, it is about what is doing right for future generations and the planet. The argument that the U.S. shouldn't contribute to help other countries reduce greenhouse gas emissions is laughable when you consider we are the worst total CO2 emitter in the history of the planet. I would argue it is our duty to help other countries reduce their emissions. Other countries are willing to contribute to the Green Climate Fund, and many countries are contributing much more per capita than the U.S.. Why shouldn't the U.S. join the rest of the world in doing what is right?

Your argument that allowing states and localities to make strides towards reducing emissions is fine, but you are completely ignoring the fact that there is a large portion of the country that doesn't give a fuck about global warming and greenhouse gas emissions. It doesn't matter if some states switch entirely to renewables if other states can pollute as much as they please.

lostoldaccountYou are making wild assumptions here that are not based in any facts. Who is to say that China and India won't follow through with the Paris Accord? I mean, at least they didn't pull out, like the United States did, and numerous sources now estimate that China is on track to beat the goals outlined under the Paris Accord.

China is already the world's largest source of renewable energy and Beijing has mandatory plans to double the amount of renewable energy in China within the next 12 years. Just last year China built the equivalent in renewable energy of Germany's total capacity. For more than 3 years China's coal consumption has declined, and they are planning on spending $360 billion dollars on renewables. Source: https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/05/china-renewables-energy-climate-change-pollution-environment/

I'm sorry but your opinion is simply not based on any facts. As stated above, China is already on track to beat the goals outlined in the accord.

Also, the claim that coal is good for the economy is dubious at best. There are roughly 50,000 coal workers in the U.S.. That is less than 1/1000th of the U.S. workforce. There are more people employed by Arby's than by the entire coal industry (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/03/31/8-surprisingly-small-industries-that-employ-more-people-than-coal/?utm_term=.4ec607d0c044) Furthermore, there are tons of studies that indicate that coal actually harms the U.S. economy, because of externalities like health impacts, environmental impacts, etc. Nevermind the fact that more people are employed in solar industries than coal.


You are simply repeating talking points that are demonstrably false. I am sad to see the skiing community knows so little about these issues.




okbye
**This post was edited on Nov 13th 2017 at 2:25:02am

**This post was edited on Nov 13th 2017 at 2:25:21am

Good on China for doing that. But to say that it is the Paris accord that is doing that is also an assumption. China is the largest producer of greenhouse gasses by far.....but it is definitely good to hear of them making the switch. As for india.....they are struggling to feed their people and are struggling to get by. To think that the environment is going to be their priority within the next 10+ years is silly.

I would much rather that 3 billion dollars be put into renewable energy and actually creating a cleaner US.....why is that so irrational?

Also....could you go in deeper on how the health impacts of coal are detrimental to the US economy? I am actually genuinely curious about stuff like that.

Coal has become quite cleaner, although still super bad...it will still have a hold for a while. The fossil fuel industry has controll over the US....untill we take action over that nothing will change.

Don't get me wrong, I am a fairly large environmentalist. I just believe the Paris accord is a bit of a sham. I would rather that 3 billion we are putting in go to creating a cleaner US.....due to the fact that yes....we are the 2nd largest polluter in the world.

Thanks for giving sources. If I find myself bored tomorrow I will go through my databases and look at China and their projected emissions. Curious to see what that holds.

Not sure if anything I said makes sense. But yeah.....for sure dude

Profahoben_212Good on China for doing that. But to say that it is the Paris accord that is doing that is also an assumption. China is the largest producer of greenhouse gasses by far.....but it is definitely good to hear of them making the switch. As for india.....they are struggling to feed their people and are struggling to get by. To think that the environment is going to be their priority within the next 10+ years is silly.

I would much rather that 3 billion dollars be put into renewable energy and actually creating a cleaner US.....why is that so irrational?

Also....could you go in deeper on how the health impacts of coal are detrimental to the US economy? I am actually genuinely curious about stuff like that.

Don't get me wrong, I am a fairly large environmentalist. I just believe the Paris accord is a bit of a sham. I would rather that 3 billion we are putting in go to creating a cleaner US.....due to the fact that yes....we are the 2nd largest polluter in the world.

Dude, now you are pivoting. First you claimed that China and India would never make good on the accord, and when confronted with evidence that China does in fact intend to make good on the accord, you changed your argument to saying that it is not because of the accord. In regards to India, they went on record back in June saying that they still fully intend to honor the Paris Accord. They also exceeded targets for wind energy construction last year. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/as-us-backs-away-from-climate-pledges-india-and-china-step-up/2017/06/01/59ccb494-16e4-4d47-a881-c5bd0922c3db_story.html?utm_term=.019337e61809)

I discussed this in my second post above, but the reason why it is important that the U.S. contribute monetarily to the Green Climate Fund is so that we can prevent the developing world from becoming the next China (in terms of greenhouse gas emissions). Many of these countries can barely afford basic infrastructure, so it is important that we help the developing world control greenhouse gas emissions. As the worst carbon polluter in the history of the planet I would argue it is our duty to help other countries reduce their emissions. Other countries are willing to contribute to the Green Climate Fund, and many countries are contributing much more per capita than the U.S.. Why shouldn't the U.S. join the rest of the world in doing what is right? This shouldn't be about money or politics, it should be about doing what is right for the future of this planet. Nevermind the fact that as I discussed previously, the Paris Accord would cost the U.S. less than half of 1% of the annual federal budget.


In regards to the coal externalities: I wish I could get into this more but I have to get back to work on my thesis. This article provides a nice overview of some of the externalities associated with coal - https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-coal-study/coals-hidden-costs-top-345-billion-in-u-s-study-idUSTRE71F4X820110216

It is important to consider that coal impacts everyone negatively. It is not just about miners who get sick with black lung from mining coal, it is the health impacts of communities that live close to coal power plants and the associated air pollution, the destroyed river ecosystems downstream of coal mines, people who get sick from coal dust because they live close to railroad tracks that transport coal (seriously, cancer rates are noticeably higher among people who live close to railroad tracks that transport coal) etc etc This is all a huge drain on the healthcare system.


I gotta get back to my homework lol

**This post was edited on Nov 13th 2017 at 3:28:31am

lostoldaccountI already discussed some of this in the post above this one, but some of your post deserves a response.

First of all, yes the Paris Accord is not enforceable. However, as I touched on in the post above this, many countries like China are actively working towards exceeding the goals outlined in the Paris Accord.

Your statement that the U.S. will pay other countries to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is missing some important details. The U.S. wouldn't be paying other countries, the U.S. would be contributing to the Green Climate Fund. This is an important distinction to make. The goal of the Green Climate Fund is to encourage sustainability in rapidly developing countries, mostly in Africa. The purpose of this is to prevent Africa from becoming the next China (in terms of greenhouse gas emissions) as the continent begins to rapidly develop.

Now, you might argue that we shouldn't have to contribute to reducing emissions in the third world. However, it is important to consider that many African countries can barely afford basic infrastructure like roads and hospitals. How are they supposed to be expected to prevent massive greenhouse gas emissions? Furthermore, I believe that as the largest total carbon polluter in the history of the planet, the U.S. has a moral duty to ensure that third world countries are able to control their greenhouse gas emissions. This is for the good of the planet. This is not about politics, it is about what is doing right for future generations and the planet. The argument that the U.S. shouldn't contribute to help other countries reduce greenhouse gas emissions is laughable when you consider we are the worst total CO2 emitter in the history of the planet. I would argue it is our duty to help other countries reduce their emissions. Other countries are willing to contribute to the Green Climate Fund, and many countries are contributing much more per capita than the U.S.. Why shouldn't the U.S. join the rest of the world in doing what is right?

Your argument that allowing states and localities to make strides towards reducing emissions is fine, but you are completely ignoring the fact that there is a large portion of the country that doesn't give a fuck about global warming and greenhouse gas emissions. It doesn't matter if some states switch entirely to renewables if other states can pollute as much as they please.

Because the US and China are the two biggest problems, I think the money should stay in those nations. Sending money to Africa from the second biggest problem is stupid. That's like putting a bandaid on a cut toe when you are bleeding out of the femoral artery. Change in the US at the federal level likely won't happen any time soon. Keep the money in our own economy and make green energy more efficient, affordable, and prevalent.

Dustin.Because the US and China are the two biggest problems, I think the money should stay in those nations. Sending money to Africa from the second biggest problem is stupid. That's like putting a bandaid on a cut toe when you are bleeding out of the femoral artery. Change in the US at the federal level likely won't happen any time soon. Keep the money in our own economy and make green energy more efficient, affordable, and prevalent.

Well that's a little bit short sighted. The global expansion of the middle class in the 2nd and 3rd World is like THE biggest driver of energy consumption. I understand what you are saying- why is India lending anyone money when they are a complete shit show themselves, I don't think it's necessarily that simple, or that they are one for one divesting from their own green energy goals to fund projects in Africa.

CaseyWell that's a little bit short sighted. The global expansion of the middle class in the 2nd and 3rd World is like THE biggest driver of energy consumption. I understand what you are saying- why is India lending anyone money when they are a complete shit show themselves, I don't think it's necessarily that simple, or that they are one for one divesting from their own green energy goals to fund projects in Africa.

Yup, you hit the nail on the head.

This is exactly why the Green Climate Fund is so important - to prevent Africa from becoming the next China (emissions wise)