3 ms·

2. I'm pretty sure not having oceanic level rise, and drowning out the most expensive real state in the world is a benefit to us! The notion that somehow the de

2. I'm pretty sure not having oceanic level rise, and drowning out the most expensive real state in the world is a benefit to us! The notion that somehow the developed world gives $100b (over what time frame? That matters a lot) and gets nothing in return is ridiculous. Manufacturing clean energy stuff is not within grasp of most developing countries. So they have to import tools, expertise and goods... from where? 3. The US gave $31b in foreign aid. Which sounds generous, until you do it per capita. In which case the US slips way off. The closest economic comparison would probably be the EU which gave $87b away. I, like many, consider charitable giving and aid a sign of strength, not a reason to whine about how unfair life is when you're the richest.

dkhenry 9y ago
2. They are not importing tools and expertise, they are have the tools and expertise and they are not only deploying it locally they are exporting it to America. If you want to see some a benefit then write the mandate that American companies must be used to provide the clean energy capabilities to the developing countries. Not only would that be rejected it would be a bad idea for many reasons, but the opposite is deemed to be OK. 3. Even per capita we are 21st in the world, not bad especially when you consider that as that number gets bigger the return you get on it diminishes.
- greglindahl 9y ago
  3. Yeah, why on earth would a super-rich country be expected to be near the top? We agreed to a 0.7% target for aid, and we've been failing to meet it.
- tclancy 9y ago
  >Even per capita we are 21st in the world, not bad But not exceptional. Certainly not worth complaining about either.
- digitalzombie 9y ago
  > they are have the tools and expertise and they are not only deploying it locally they are exporting it to America What countries are you talking about? What mythical poor countries have tools and expertise and what not? And to compete with us against what? We've moved to a global economy and basically doing what wealth of nation stated, we have specialize in things we do best while other countries specialize on their own thing. If Swiss and Japan wants to make awesome watch go for it. If labor is cheaper in China then okay. But they can't and have not taken higher end skill set. You just can't export those. And you just side step the world being screw to concentrate on our country. But at the same time OP addresses that with saving our coastal property. The mega cities that make a boat load of GDP is Los Angeles and NY which will be screwed with the rising sea water. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_by_GDP https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_by_GDP
- cerebellum42 9y ago
  Re. 2: Most of the aid funds are actually transferred in the form of subsidies to deals with companies from the "giving" country. For example, India is massively expanding its solar energy capacities. This is happening partly as a deal with German companies and the German government, which subsidizes the whole trade. That way India gets cheap solar energy infrastructure and Germany supports its solar energy industry. I honestly don't know if this is happening in the same way with American companies, but to be honest, if it's not that would make me want to take a hard look at the reasons for it. Lack of effort from the government to make those deals, or inability to make attractive deals - which would be a rather worrying indicator of the american industry's health. By completely exiting, Trump is effectively leaving the field of renewable energies to other countries. By relying more on burning fossil fuels for energy he can definitely give America a short term boost by preventing energy costs from rising further, but he might also cripple its renewable energy industry - which employs more US citizens than Oil, Coal and Gas combined. Trump wouldn't have had to exit the agreement to do what he wants by the way - the agreement does not have any penalties for not fulfilling it, and it allows every country to adjust its own goals in the agreement, without asking anyone else for permission.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

dkhenry 9y ago

2. They are not importing tools and expertise, they are have the tools and expertise and they are not only deploying it locally they are exporting it to America. If you want to see some a benefit then write the mandate that American companies must be used to provide the clean energy capabilities to the developing countries. Not only would that be rejected it would be a bad idea for many reasons, but the opposite is deemed to be OK. 3. Even per capita we are 21st in the world, not bad especially when you consider that as that number gets bigger the return you get on it diminishes.

greglindahl 9y ago
3. Yeah, why on earth would a super-rich country be expected to be near the top? We agreed to a 0.7% target for aid, and we've been failing to meet it.
tclancy 9y ago
>Even per capita we are 21st in the world, not bad But not exceptional. Certainly not worth complaining about either.
digitalzombie 9y ago
> they are have the tools and expertise and they are not only deploying it locally they are exporting it to America What countries are you talking about? What mythical poor countries have tools and expertise and what not? And to compete with us against what? We've moved to a global economy and basically doing what wealth of nation stated, we have specialize in things we do best while other countries specialize on their own thing. If Swiss and Japan wants to make awesome watch go for it. If labor is cheaper in China then okay. But they can't and have not taken higher end skill set. You just can't export those. And you just side step the world being screw to concentrate on our country. But at the same time OP addresses that with saving our coastal property. The mega cities that make a boat load of GDP is Los Angeles and NY which will be screwed with the rising sea water. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_by_GDP https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_by_GDP
cerebellum42 9y ago
Re. 2: Most of the aid funds are actually transferred in the form of subsidies to deals with companies from the "giving" country. For example, India is massively expanding its solar energy capacities. This is happening partly as a deal with German companies and the German government, which subsidizes the whole trade. That way India gets cheap solar energy infrastructure and Germany supports its solar energy industry. I honestly don't know if this is happening in the same way with American companies, but to be honest, if it's not that would make me want to take a hard look at the reasons for it. Lack of effort from the government to make those deals, or inability to make attractive deals - which would be a rather worrying indicator of the american industry's health. By completely exiting, Trump is effectively leaving the field of renewable energies to other countries. By relying more on burning fossil fuels for energy he can definitely give America a short term boost by preventing energy costs from rising further, but he might also cripple its renewable energy industry - which employs more US citizens than Oil, Coal and Gas combined. Trump wouldn't have had to exit the agreement to do what he wants by the way - the agreement does not have any penalties for not fulfilling it, and it allows every country to adjust its own goals in the agreement, without asking anyone else for permission.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]