5 ms·

While this is a setback I'm curious what real impact this will have? The markets seem to be driving towards clean energy regardless. Coal is not competitive a

While this is a setback I'm curious what real impact this will have? The markets seem to be driving towards clean energy regardless. Coal is not competitive against Natural gas (and I appreciate gas isn't ideal). And, hopefully the US will regain it's senses in 2018 & 2020 elections.

celticninja 9y ago
I would like to see a tariff applied to US goods produced in the US and exported to the rest of the world as means of charging the US for not abiding by the agreement.
- pvnick 9y ago
  This is an emerging talking point, but tariffs are a shoot-yourself-in-the-foot maneuver; restricting free trade increases the barriers to innovation, and innovation is precisely what renewable energy sources need to become cost effective.
  - celticninja 9y ago
    We aren't talking about a tariff on renewable energy production though are we. A Tariff on goods produced by companies/factories that are powered by coal or natural gas due for export to the rest of the world. Prove you use renewable energy and you dont pay the tariff, this would motivate companies who export to adopt greener energy. It would also make trade freer for companies who do this and more difficult for those who do not, therefore there is incentive to innovate to use renewable energy.
    - pvnick 9y ago
      Doesn't matter - tariffs decrease purchasing power (these things have a tendency to affect unrelated markets because of the economy's interconnectedness), and lower purchasing power means slower economic activity, which includes investment in things like research.
      - KSteffensen 9y ago
        Slower economic activity might not be a bad thing. Global CO2 output was definitely positively affected by the financial crisis. This also broke the EUs climate quota system, but that's a separate discussion.
        pvnick 9y ago
        It may be fine for self-absorbed silicon valley types with plenty to eat but that sentiment condemns people on the lower rungs of the economic ladder to financial ruin and death.
        KSteffensen 9y ago
        I know it's unpopular in the US but higher taxes on rich people/companies and higher well fare benefits might also be a way to help people on the lower rungs of the economic ladder.
      - tom_mellior 9y ago
        The idea of such a tariff, imposed by countries other than the US, would not be either preserving US "economic activity", nor to foster "investment in things like research" in the US.
    - dhimes 9y ago
      Simplest answer: a tariff on cars and trucks. Hurt Trump's supporters directly.
      - pvnick 9y ago
        What an unnecessarily cruel thing to desire
- mistermann 9y ago
  I'll support this if the US applies tariffs to European countries who don't honor their NATO spending agreements.
  - k-mcgrady 9y ago
    I don't think the two deserve comparison. One is about protecting the planet for future generations. The other is about going into countries to blow people up, for the most part, unnecessarily.
    - mistermann 9y ago
      So we should disband NATO entirely and Europe can fend for itself? I could get behind that as well, it would save the US a lot of money.
      - mistermann 9y ago
        Downvotes.....shall I interpret this to mean that saving lives is not a byproduct of NATO? If that's the case, what's the point of it?
        celticninja 9y ago
        To be honest the EU as an organisation has probably saved as many (if not more) lives than NATO has if we are saying that preventing wars is saving lives. I have nothing against NATO but it does seem like you don't understand the system and are taking your president at his (notoriously unreliable) word.
        mistermann 9y ago
        The two are not mutually exclusive.
      - celticninja 9y ago
        It would not save the US a lot of money at all. http://money.cnn.com/2017/03/20/news/nato-funding-explained/ http://money.cnn.com/2017/03/20/news/nato-funding-explained/ >The North Atlantic alliance has its own military budget worth €1.29 billion ($1.4 billion), which is used to fund some operations and the NATO strategic command center, as well as training and research. But it is miniscule compared to overall spending on defense by NATO countries, which NATO estimates will total more than $921 billion in 2017. To be clear the vast amount of money spent by the US on defence (or offence) is not directly spent on NATO. There is a NATO operating budget that is approx 0.33% of the US annual spending on military. So if the US withdrew from NATO they would not stop spending all that money on defence, sure they may close some bases in Europe and around the world but all that will do is further weaken their sphere of influence. And if there was a Russian or Chinese invasion of Europe then it would be in the US's interests to assist in any fight because if Russia or China managed to takeover mainland Europe that would be it for the USA in terms of any sort of world leader status/influence which is pretty much accepted because of the support of its NATO allies as it currently stands.

celticninja 9y ago

I would like to see a tariff applied to US goods produced in the US and exported to the rest of the world as means of charging the US for not abiding by the agreement.

pvnick 9y ago
This is an emerging talking point, but tariffs are a shoot-yourself-in-the-foot maneuver; restricting free trade increases the barriers to innovation, and innovation is precisely what renewable energy sources need to become cost effective.
- celticninja 9y ago
  We aren't talking about a tariff on renewable energy production though are we. A Tariff on goods produced by companies/factories that are powered by coal or natural gas due for export to the rest of the world. Prove you use renewable energy and you dont pay the tariff, this would motivate companies who export to adopt greener energy. It would also make trade freer for companies who do this and more difficult for those who do not, therefore there is incentive to innovate to use renewable energy.
  - pvnick 9y ago
    Doesn't matter - tariffs decrease purchasing power (these things have a tendency to affect unrelated markets because of the economy's interconnectedness), and lower purchasing power means slower economic activity, which includes investment in things like research.
    - KSteffensen 9y ago
      Slower economic activity might not be a bad thing. Global CO2 output was definitely positively affected by the financial crisis. This also broke the EUs climate quota system, but that's a separate discussion.
      - pvnick 9y ago
        It may be fine for self-absorbed silicon valley types with plenty to eat but that sentiment condemns people on the lower rungs of the economic ladder to financial ruin and death.
        KSteffensen 9y ago
        I know it's unpopular in the US but higher taxes on rich people/companies and higher well fare benefits might also be a way to help people on the lower rungs of the economic ladder.
    - tom_mellior 9y ago
      The idea of such a tariff, imposed by countries other than the US, would not be either preserving US "economic activity", nor to foster "investment in things like research" in the US.
  - dhimes 9y ago
    Simplest answer: a tariff on cars and trucks. Hurt Trump's supporters directly.
    - pvnick 9y ago
      What an unnecessarily cruel thing to desire
mistermann 9y ago
I'll support this if the US applies tariffs to European countries who don't honor their NATO spending agreements.
- k-mcgrady 9y ago
  I don't think the two deserve comparison. One is about protecting the planet for future generations. The other is about going into countries to blow people up, for the most part, unnecessarily.
  - mistermann 9y ago
    So we should disband NATO entirely and Europe can fend for itself? I could get behind that as well, it would save the US a lot of money.
    - mistermann 9y ago
      Downvotes.....shall I interpret this to mean that saving lives is not a byproduct of NATO? If that's the case, what's the point of it?
      - celticninja 9y ago
        To be honest the EU as an organisation has probably saved as many (if not more) lives than NATO has if we are saying that preventing wars is saving lives. I have nothing against NATO but it does seem like you don't understand the system and are taking your president at his (notoriously unreliable) word.
        mistermann 9y ago
        The two are not mutually exclusive.
    - celticninja 9y ago
      It would not save the US a lot of money at all. http://money.cnn.com/2017/03/20/news/nato-funding-explained/ http://money.cnn.com/2017/03/20/news/nato-funding-explained/ >The North Atlantic alliance has its own military budget worth €1.29 billion ($1.4 billion), which is used to fund some operations and the NATO strategic command center, as well as training and research. But it is miniscule compared to overall spending on defense by NATO countries, which NATO estimates will total more than $921 billion in 2017. To be clear the vast amount of money spent by the US on defence (or offence) is not directly spent on NATO. There is a NATO operating budget that is approx 0.33% of the US annual spending on military. So if the US withdrew from NATO they would not stop spending all that money on defence, sure they may close some bases in Europe and around the world but all that will do is further weaken their sphere of influence. And if there was a Russian or Chinese invasion of Europe then it would be in the US's interests to assist in any fight because if Russia or China managed to takeover mainland Europe that would be it for the USA in terms of any sort of world leader status/influence which is pretty much accepted because of the support of its NATO allies as it currently stands.