4 ms·

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

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?
- rgbrenner 9y ago
  First, no one contributes significantly to the climate fund (and it probably wont be until theres significant damage from climate change). The goal was $100b.. the US has pledged $3b, and EU countries have pledged $4.7B. 2nd, it is not outside of US political control. Countries do not pay all of their pledges into the fund. They make payments, basically as needed. The projects that are funded are public. If the US does not like the projects, the President can just refuse to contribute anything else to the fund. I imagine, the US could just earmark funds too (what are they going to do? refuse money? doubt it.) If that's not good enough, the US can always just contribute nothing. Paris was signed by so many countries because it is completely symbolic. There's no enforcement of anything, and any pledge or goal is entirely up to the country. Your plan sounds like a good idea.. put an estimate of the amount of carbon that reduces... and you've just created a goal to reduce carbon (just like in Paris!). In Paris, what happens if your idea turns out to be ineffective? Nothing. What happens if you change your mind? Nothing. What happens if you want to do it differently? Nothing. That's literally what a carbon goal in Paris is... a vague non-specific plan with a carbon estimate.. that you can change later. Because Paris forces nothing on to anyone.. the question it really answers is, do politicians/reps of the countries believe in climate change? Trump has said he believes it's a fraud, completely made up. That's why he withdrew. He has fired climate change scientists, and demanded agencies no longer research the climate, and has removed funds from those agencies for climate change. He has left the heads of scientific agencies completely vacant (no nominations). He doesn't have a plan to accomplish it some other way -- he plans to do nothing. If there was a plan, he could just make that our new paris goal.

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?

rgbrenner 9y ago
First, no one contributes significantly to the climate fund (and it probably wont be until theres significant damage from climate change). The goal was $100b.. the US has pledged $3b, and EU countries have pledged $4.7B. 2nd, it is not outside of US political control. Countries do not pay all of their pledges into the fund. They make payments, basically as needed. The projects that are funded are public. If the US does not like the projects, the President can just refuse to contribute anything else to the fund. I imagine, the US could just earmark funds too (what are they going to do? refuse money? doubt it.) If that's not good enough, the US can always just contribute nothing. Paris was signed by so many countries because it is completely symbolic. There's no enforcement of anything, and any pledge or goal is entirely up to the country. Your plan sounds like a good idea.. put an estimate of the amount of carbon that reduces... and you've just created a goal to reduce carbon (just like in Paris!). In Paris, what happens if your idea turns out to be ineffective? Nothing. What happens if you change your mind? Nothing. What happens if you want to do it differently? Nothing. That's literally what a carbon goal in Paris is... a vague non-specific plan with a carbon estimate.. that you can change later. Because Paris forces nothing on to anyone.. the question it really answers is, do politicians/reps of the countries believe in climate change? Trump has said he believes it's a fraud, completely made up. That's why he withdrew. He has fired climate change scientists, and demanded agencies no longer research the climate, and has removed funds from those agencies for climate change. He has left the heads of scientific agencies completely vacant (no nominations). He doesn't have a plan to accomplish it some other way -- he plans to do nothing. If there was a plan, he could just make that our new paris goal.