>>8949749

So china can just go ahead to double or triple their emissions, while we need to dismantle our industries, increase our taxes, give trillions of our money to third world

ALSO while demographically replacing westerners

And thats the solution to "global warming"?

It's funny how people want to blame third world incompetence on "climate change" now, africans don't know how to farm, but the problem is climate change!

A deal that siphons back the wealth stolen by the colonial empires while also preserving the environment and making the world more equal?
Where do I sign?

>china is minimally responsible for man made climate change
>china is a developing country and needs to make more emissions

You should go back to your board

EU and USA are polluting world since more than 100 years.

Plus, there is no border when it's air pollution.

CO2 is not air pollution
CO2 is air fertilization

This is why the globalists want to attack it

...

China is the world's largest economy.

Wouldn't gun powder generally be more pollutant, what country invented that again....

If scientists would tell you an hurricane is going to hit your house tomorrow, you would evacuate as quickly as possible

But for some reason *cough*moneyinpolitics*cough* the standard is different when it comes to climate change

If a scientist was trying to predict a hurricane 10 years in advance, they would NEVER be right

I'm not against reducing emissions and other power sources.

It is the communist undertones in all the international climate change plans.

Do you fucking mongols read anything about this situation besides this Bloomberg article?

Look at China's progress so far. They've been super aggressive. Just because Trump tells you that they aren't going to do anything by 2030, doesn't mean that that is true.

>gun powder
>guns
America

It actually would be pretty stupid for China not to do anything especially now that US has left Paris stuff.

They're actually going to make an effort to curb climate change, and look better on the world stage for doing it. America's just made itself out to be the retarded enemy of the world because they're too lazy to change.

>China is a developing country
>holds minimal responsibility
Wew lad

Eastern european here.
Legit curious whats up with westerners and romanticizing that dystopian eastern shithole. Noble savage fetishism and self hatred?

We are going to Make America Great Again

>Veeky Forums is infested with /pol/tards and doesn't even try to get rid of them

B-but their news agencies reported!!!!

>Anyone who disagrees with me is /pol/
Hey do you see anyone shitposting /pol/ memes here? Do you anyone posting pictures of Kek or Trump? I don't think so.

Because outside the coastal cities china becomes an absolute shit hole

youtube.com/watch?v=8grHpQAB1jA

Look at this shit

China is cheating emissions the same way the West did 20 years ago. By simply moving the worst polluting industry to cheaper and less regulated countries.

China is opening steel mills, heavy industry, and agriculture to Africa.

Some retards believe we're humongous paradise, but when actually we're depressed shit hole. I can 100% guarantee that if we had the same standards of living we would be like any other western country.

>shows photograhic evidenced of mass pollution in China
>I-it's been fake
Lmao you are just as bad as flatfags

Literally all of Veeky Forums has been infested. Veeky Forums and Veeky Forums are just as bad. This is honestly getting out of hand. I'm getting too old for Veeky Forums anyway, so if things keep going I'll probably just stop browsing.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Agreement#Content

The aim of the convention is described in Article 2, "enhancing the implementation" of the UNFCCC through:[11]

"(a) Holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, recognizing that this would significantly reduce the risks and impacts of climate change;
(b) Increasing the ability to adapt to the adverse impacts of climate change and foster climate resilience and low greenhouse gas emissions development, in a manner that does not threaten food production;
(c) Making finance flows consistent with a pathway towards low greenhouse gas emissions and climate-resilient development."

>vague unrealistic shit is really vague unrealistic shit

It's over

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

*takes deep breath*

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

*takes time to recover*

Wait, let me get this stra-

>burden sharing

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Good on Trump following through on it. That deal was fucking worthless anyways. Was literally just making western europe and the us subsidize the 3rd world while they do nothing.

Veeky Forums doesn't try because there's no point. I used to argue with them a few months back but they never learn, now I just let them shitpost in these containment threads and move past them without a second thought. You have to treat them like a child throwing a tantrum, ignore them and let them think they're right. If you shout at them or punish them, it just makes them more rabid.

These threads don't represent what the average Veeky Forums poster believes, that's my point.

scientificamerican.com/article/ahead-of-trump-decision-china-says-it-will-stick-to-paris-climate-deal

>china says it will stick to deal

So they're sticking to the plan of doing nothing till 2030. How nice of them...

>Look at China's progress so far.
Yeah, nothing as progressive as designing baby clothes with slits so your kid can easily shit in a public trash bin.

in other news, numerous competitors have petitioned Trump for a position on his councils to replace the corporate welfare leech

t. Yao Ming

China is already moving to make deals with Europe on the heels of Trumps disastrous tour

China was about to overtake the USA long before Trump.

The eternal gook must be stopped at all costs.

>be good boy humanitarians that love all things good and rainbow-y
>hate the usa
>love china
This has to be a meme it can't possibly be real.

Nobody loves China. But the fact is that they're staring down the barrel of a potential crisis if the temperature keeps rising. Rice has an optimum temperature at which its yield is highest. Most of China is already beyond that temperature. Every degree the temperature continues to rise, their food production declines. Southern China is eventually going to reach a point where rice simply can't germinate at all. That means food prices in China are going to rise to levels that will lead to a civil war.

Remember, the people of China tolerate the ruling party for two reasons: 1.) They have thus far kept the nation prosperous. 2.) Defiance risks death. If food prices rise enough that large numbers begin to starve, those two reasons no longer apply. The nation is no longer prosperous, and you're already risking death from starvation so there is no reason to continue tolerating the ruling party. That gets you a civil war.

The ruling party in China knows this and it terrifies them. That is why they're willing to entertain the idea of cutting emissions, and why, on this particular issue, Europe sees them as a potential partner. Because, unlike the US, China sees climate change as a real threat.

china is communist
thats a good thing to these people

>China
>communist
Pick one.

No one who knows anything about China thinks that China is communist.

>China and India, the two biggest polluters are exempt from having to do anything, but still get cash payouts from other countries
I have no idea why someone would think this is a scam.

Even better then.

This. Non of you climate niggers ITT have tried to defend this deal.

>b..b.but muh science deniers
>muh drumf

Why should the west cuck it's economy and sigh a BAD deal??

At the end of the day they hate the west, they hate their people, and they largely hate themselves

>The ruling party in China knows this and it terrifies them.
Or perhaps the simpler reason is that even if China ends up starting to cut emissions in 13 years, they can reduce CO2 output dramatically by passing simple Clean Air laws like any other civilized nation, and declare victory.

This whole thing reeks of communism and hatred for the US

youtube.com/watch?v=47bNzLj5E_Q

>trillions of dollars to reduce the global temperature by 0.167 degrees Celsius

Why don't they just spend like 3 trillion dollars building nuclear plants all over the world?

If the Paris agreement actually reduces temperature, that's a spectacular success. Right now, slowing or halting the increase of temperature is the goal. There's very little chance of actually reducing it, only stabilizing at a level where we won't end up with runaway warming.

sorry, I guess I phrased that wrong- it'll reduce the climate models 2100 target, not reduce the temperature. Basically it pushes the model back by a grand total of 8 months.

It's not only about temperature, it's about pollution, biodiversity and human health too !

China and India, the worlds two biggest polluters signed it. They are exempt from paying into the "pool" or from having to actually do anything, hell they can even INCREASE their emissions. All while collecting fat stacks from everyone else who signed up and isn't listed as "developing".

Somehow people don't see this as a shitty deal and demand a better way of doing things.

>stolen

lmao

>China should focus on economic development, building old, inefficient coal plants so that by 2030 they can dismantle all of that and focus on reducing emissions.
Am I reading that correctly? The non-idiotic answer is that China should start building renewable power infrastructure NOW. But the Paris Agreement is a cuck document drafted by cucks, so of course the primary purpose is virtue-signaling, nevermind the totally unrealistic 25% reduction in CO2 by 2030.

What are you on about?

> cuck cuck virtue-signaling cuck

China also has a long, long history of peasant revolts (that actually succeeded) following bad harvests.

If this is true, shouldn't China also agree to some immediate carbon output reductions?

Their ruling party stuck in a bind. If they immediately, drastically reduce GHG output and no one else does, then they are both at an economic disadvantage AND are stuck with the consequences of temperature increases as well. Their government's legitimacy stems from its ability to keep the economy moving. That is why the people of China accept it, for now at least. But if that changes, you get rebellion. So if they act but no one else does, their chances of being overthrown are even higher than if they don't act. The best outcome is if everyone acts together, but the US thinks that climate change is a hoax so that's not in the cards anymore. It's basically the prisoner's dilemma, only now they know that the other party is going to cheat.

>China, renoun for cheating and not giving a shit about the welfare of its people or the environment would have certainly changed their century old ways had the US just played ball and given them free money.
ok

Plenty of smart people from China are leaving over air pollution problem, and the CPC knows that it could face a peasant rebellion if there is a famine or if things get too shitty. This has happened many times in Chinese history, they are not idiots.

The change won't be because they give a damn about their people. It will stem from the fact that the ruling party wants to remain in power, and that power is threatened by increasing temperatures. It's a completely self-serving calculation. The wealthy elite that rule China don't want to be toppled, dragged out into the street, and shot.

>These threads don't represent what the average Veeky Forums poster believes
t. I forgot that Veeky Forums is an anonymous website and that it is impossible to know who you are actually talking to, thus there is no fucking Veeky Forums consensus or culture
How fucking dumb are you? Is there some extension I missed that tells you if a person you are talking to is a /pol/ack bogeyman or what? It is more likely that the autists on this website browse multiple fucking boards, because people have multiple fucking interests.
And don't even start on "containment threads" and how you go to "more intelligent" threads. Yeah, as if 0.999999 = 1 threads are any better than this

>The best outcome is if everyone acts together
I agree, but if an agreement results in one party gaining a net advantage over another, it is predictable that the net loser would not support it. There surely exists a point of compromise which results in the net trade advantage China gains equals the savings from slowing climate change, but I doubt this is with China making zero cuts in carbon output.

No communist country that has ever existed is actually communist

being equal to*

> it is predictable that the net loser would not support it.
In this case, not really, because even a relative loss would leave the US in a better position than doing nothing at all.

Increasing global temperatures will create a massive refugee crisis that will make the current one seem small. Once the tropics are no longer capable of producing their own food, what do you think those people will do? Sit there and starve? No. They'll head north. Not just from the Middle East and North Africa, but India and China as well. You think illegal immigration from Latin America is bad now? Imagine what it will be like when the millions of people still in Latin America begin to move. We're talking hundreds of millions. No wall is going to be able to hold that back.

To avoid all this, collective action is required. Yes, some nations will benefit more than others from averting further temperature increases. But it is better than the alternative for every party involved.

Those regions don't even produce their own food to begin with
and construction of hydroponic greenhouse farms is more than possible, if the natives were smart enough to actually fucking maintain the things

We can also start up space industry like we should have decades ago, and make solar shades to block some of the useless infrared radiation from the sun, cooling the earth based on how much percent we block
Too cool? Solar mirrors to focus more light in to bring the temperature of an area up
this would allow us to not only negate all the effects of climate change, but with some geoengineering on top of it, start massively altering the earth itself

Turn the Sahara desert into a jungle that rivals the amazon, turn the arctic into a warm sunny beach resort, and anything else we desire

we do not at all need to kneecap industry because of africans, when there are significantly better ways of solving the problem, that have huge benefits as a bonus

>leave the US in a better position than doing nothing at all
That would be net gain, user. You may notice that I stipulated that one party would not support a deal if it were a net loser.
I mean to say, if you were to find the real cost savings from slowing climate change and subtract the cost of cutting emissions here and the increase in trade deficit, that woupd be the net cost of slowing climate change by cutting emissions. For such an agreement to work, nations must have a similar net cost, relative to GDP. If China, gor example, were not required to cut emissions, it would: reap the same relative benefit of a reduced rate of climate change, not incurr the same level of cost of cutting emissions, and gain a trade advantage. The United States would reap those relative benefits, but would also face a worsening trade deficit and would face reduced economic output from reducing emissions.

>china is communist
topkek

50 centers going all out. China should be confronted about its emmisions right now, not in 2030 or some future memedate like the libshit's favourite 2050. Runaway temperature rise won't give you any "waiting periods". You can't have Europe and North America get crippled by eco-taxes and regulations while disgusting subhuman chinks commission their 1,000th coal plant for the year, basically annulling all effort. Trump should've confronted the chinks, instead pulling back into retarded diplomatic isolationism with the problems persisting. The planet can't handle 100 years of "developing nations" aka useless fucking low-IQ retards find their way to post-industrial society.
>b-b-but it's not fair for the shitskins we must be tolerant
Global warming doesn't give a shit what's fair, faggot. It's either all-out or nothing. After all, droughts, rising sea levels and increasingly chaotic weather will hit the poorfags of Africa, SEA and South America the most.

what a remarkably irrelevant point. Nice contribution to the conversation, fag.

AIR POLLUTION is not CO2

>megacorporations (like Foxconn) abusing workers are in bed with government
China sure is communist alright!
Definitelly not the opposite of communism, no.

>It's obvious that this deal is much harsher on developed countries, who are the only ones that innovate and come up with alternatives.

Do yourself a favor and go read about the about of subsidies the Chinese government is providing to develop green energy

>let's handicap human progress on the altar of egalitarianism

t. commie fag

>still believes vaccines cause autism

Trump is probably the dumbest president yet.

politico.com/story/2017/02/robert-f-kennedy-jr-trump-vaccine-safety-commission-235058

oh shit, Trump backed out of the Paris Accord? guess everyone can just take off their catalytic converters and start dumping carcinogens into the waterways because he just completely undermined all the standards the US has in terms of environmental standards. oh wait, it doesn't mean that at all...

kys you retarded cucks. leaving the Paris Accord doesn't mean shit in terms of removing current environmental policy. its symbolic gesture and nothing more.

You can sign your death certificate, marxist.

>Backs out of it because it appeared to not benefit the US as much as other developed countries
>Openly said in the speech we was willing to renegotiate for a better compromise
>Articles are leaving it out or breezing over this
>had to explain this to everyone so much today so sick of it

Apparently the money the U.S. would have to put down on the deal was goodwill money which means they could just not give the money. The deal is also non binding. Not taking part in it is just for show/ personal beliefs. The same could be said for taking part in the deal.

It means the US isn't going to do anything about climate change, even small stuff, which means that we're pretty much guaranteed to see runaway warming.

fake news

>It means the US isn't going to do anything about climate change

no, thats not what it means.

the Paris Accord has no bearing on what the US does internally to curb CO2 emissions. CAFE standards for cars aren't going anywhere and neither are the subsidies for renewables.

the primary purpose of the Paris Accord was to give money to developing nations as a reward for not being CO2 spewing fucks.

obsessed.

> CAFE standards for cars aren't going anywhere
Automobile standards have been targeted by Trump for removal.
reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-autos-idUSKBN16M2C5

The US isn't going to be trying to curb GHG emissions anymore. The republicans have made that clear.

>the globalist bankers strike again!