3 ms·

what are you talking about? there's no tax in the paris accord. Do you mean the fund to help countries affected by climate change? that countries can voluntari

what are you talking about? there's no tax in the paris accord. Do you mean the fund to help countries affected by climate change? that countries can voluntarily donate money to. They can put anything they want into it, even $0. Those pledges aren't even enforced. A country can pledge whatever, and change their mind later. You've literally made up several things: a tax; hundreds of billions of dollars; an unaccountable global entity... none of it in the paris accord. I assume that's why you're being accused of being anti-science (if that was really a mystery to you).

JSONwebtoken 9y ago
> They can put anything they want into it, even $0. Those pledges aren't even enforced. A country can pledge whatever, and change their mind later. Sounds like unlimited vacation. If anybody is trying to sell you something that's "free," you're probably getting a bad deal. Especially if the only reason it's free for other participants is because they don't expect it to be free for you. I didn't even say anything about global warming, only the fallibility of such an open-ended agreement structure. I wonder why I'll get down-voted hmm...
- nl 9y ago
  I think you are getting down voted because you seem to have replied to the wrong comment? What you are saying seems irrelevant to the points made.
narrator 9y ago
Here are some sources: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jun/5/paris-climate-agreement-shares-nations-wealth/ http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jun/5/paris-climate... "Some analysts say the final figure for worldwide compliance with the Paris pledges would be in the trillions of dollars. U.N. officials estimated that it would cost at least $100 billion per year, and that figure could rise to more than $400 billion per year by 2020 to ensure compliance" Are we going to sign a treaty and spend $0 to comply with it? Is this all supposed to be symbolic? China and Japan and other major economies had not pledged any money toward the treaty while Obama had committed to 3 billion according to the article. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Climate_Fund https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Climate_Fund This is the supranational entity with a board that gets to disburse the fund. It's like the EU commission all over again.
- kristopolous 9y ago
  The cost of say, moving Miami and New Orleans would more expensive (ok well, impossible), or reversing the global food chain collapse, or de-acidifying the oceans, these are all currently either impossible or we would need to find some inadequate non-solution in the future costing far more. These problems will only get worse. If they were addressed in the 70s when they were first known about, it'd have been much easier. Yes, halting the destruction of the planet's ecosystem will cost some money darlin'. And it will always be more tomorrow.
- rgbrenner 9y ago
  Wait, didnt you write this above: "Let's fund solar power and electric cars and ways to use energy more efficiently, great." What do you think that is? That's a compliance cost. You seem to be saying on one hand, "I object to paris accord, lets spend money on climate change ourselves" and then saying "I object to all spending on climate change" Paris does not force anyone to spend anything or do anything. The goals are all decided by the country itself. The methods used to obtain those goals are also decided by the country itself. And I'll say again, the Green Climate Fund is completely voluntary. If you dont like it, dont donate to it. And if you don't donate to it, then what is the objection? That other countries might donate to it? If you're objecting to all spending on climate change, and to a voluntary fund... why not just be straight and say you don't believe in climate change? That would save everyone a lot of time.
  - narrator 9y ago
    That the U.S is the only one who donates meaningfully to it and it is basically a slush fund for corruption outside of U.S political control. Why can't the U.S just give grants on a case by case basis to other countries? That money is going to just get squandered and feed corruption if it goes to a U.N body and it won't help the environment. We do get to buy indulgences from the U.N for our overconsumption sins so at least we'll feel better while the climate outcome is the same! Ideally I'd like to see some foreign aid given out to fund solar energy and wind projects in developing countries with maybe a joint partnership with a U.S operator getting to run the thing so it contributes to our economic development as well. This would actually be a pretty good plan. We could even do it as a loan paid back over a very long period of time by the electricity fees generated so it would generate a positive trade balance over time. Maybe we could build hyperloops and such in developing countries first where there is a drastically lower cost of construction in a joint venture before trying to build them here?

JSONwebtoken 9y ago

> They can put anything they want into it, even $0. Those pledges aren't even enforced. A country can pledge whatever, and change their mind later. Sounds like unlimited vacation. If anybody is trying to sell you something that's "free," you're probably getting a bad deal. Especially if the only reason it's free for other participants is because they don't expect it to be free for you. I didn't even say anything about global warming, only the fallibility of such an open-ended agreement structure. I wonder why I'll get down-voted hmm...

nl 9y ago
I think you are getting down voted because you seem to have replied to the wrong comment? What you are saying seems irrelevant to the points made.

narrator 9y ago

Here are some sources: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jun/5/paris-climate-agreement-shares-nations-wealth/ http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jun/5/paris-climate... "Some analysts say the final figure for worldwide compliance with the Paris pledges would be in the trillions of dollars. U.N. officials estimated that it would cost at least $100 billion per year, and that figure could rise to more than $400 billion per year by 2020 to ensure compliance" Are we going to sign a treaty and spend $0 to comply with it? Is this all supposed to be symbolic? China and Japan and other major economies had not pledged any money toward the treaty while Obama had committed to 3 billion according to the article. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Climate_Fund https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Climate_Fund This is the supranational entity with a board that gets to disburse the fund. It's like the EU commission all over again.

kristopolous 9y ago
The cost of say, moving Miami and New Orleans would more expensive (ok well, impossible), or reversing the global food chain collapse, or de-acidifying the oceans, these are all currently either impossible or we would need to find some inadequate non-solution in the future costing far more. These problems will only get worse. If they were addressed in the 70s when they were first known about, it'd have been much easier. Yes, halting the destruction of the planet's ecosystem will cost some money darlin'. And it will always be more tomorrow.
rgbrenner 9y ago
Wait, didnt you write this above: "Let's fund solar power and electric cars and ways to use energy more efficiently, great." What do you think that is? That's a compliance cost. You seem to be saying on one hand, "I object to paris accord, lets spend money on climate change ourselves" and then saying "I object to all spending on climate change" Paris does not force anyone to spend anything or do anything. The goals are all decided by the country itself. The methods used to obtain those goals are also decided by the country itself. And I'll say again, the Green Climate Fund is completely voluntary. If you dont like it, dont donate to it. And if you don't donate to it, then what is the objection? That other countries might donate to it? If you're objecting to all spending on climate change, and to a voluntary fund... why not just be straight and say you don't believe in climate change? That would save everyone a lot of time.
- narrator 9y ago
  That the U.S is the only one who donates meaningfully to it and it is basically a slush fund for corruption outside of U.S political control. Why can't the U.S just give grants on a case by case basis to other countries? That money is going to just get squandered and feed corruption if it goes to a U.N body and it won't help the environment. We do get to buy indulgences from the U.N for our overconsumption sins so at least we'll feel better while the climate outcome is the same! Ideally I'd like to see some foreign aid given out to fund solar energy and wind projects in developing countries with maybe a joint partnership with a U.S operator getting to run the thing so it contributes to our economic development as well. This would actually be a pretty good plan. We could even do it as a loan paid back over a very long period of time by the electricity fees generated so it would generate a positive trade balance over time. Maybe we could build hyperloops and such in developing countries first where there is a drastically lower cost of construction in a joint venture before trying to build them here?