Since /pol/ is just shitpostung and shills I will ask here

>he believes the Paris Climate Accord was about protecting the climate

How far up your ass is Yao Ming's cock?

>Can someone who is for the paris deal tell me why without basically telling me that white european nations have to carry the world on their backs because reasons?

The main argument is that since the Developed World already developed off the back of Fossil Fuels, that its the the Developed Worlds responsibilities to put up first to fix the mess "they started." Thus, they take the steepest economic hits first since their economies can "take it" and then they send money to "developing nations" to speed along the path to becoming first world so they then too can take a hammer to their economy and end their dependence of fossil fuels.

So wading through all the paris deal threads I can safely conclude that Veeky Forums literally has no argument at all why the PCA is beneficial or in any way saving the climate.

Now watch as r/science accuse everyone against the PCA of being climate change deniers while at the same time allowing """developing""" countries like China and India that are also the world's biggest polluters by the way to do jack shit about their environment while siphoning $100b gibsmedat from US

Go back to /pol/ please

>2015
>more ice than ever

You're blinded by your hatred against Al Gore and environmentalist. 3 seconds google search can prove how wrong you are

Onto the paris agreement,

The $100 billion are split from all the OECD countries, not just the US. The US has only pledged to pitiful $3 billion
nytimes.com/2014/11/15/us/politics/obama-climate-change-fund-3-billion-announcement.html

China is not doing jack shit. They have pledged $20 billion into the climate fund voluntarily
obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2015/09/25/us-china-joint-presidential-statement-climate-change
>the United States and China recognize the importance of mobilizing climate finance to support low-carbon, climate-resilient development in developing countries, particularly the least developed countries, small island developing states, and African countries. In this connection, the United States reaffirms its $3 billion pledge to the Green Climate Fund (GCF) and China announces that it will make available ¥20 billion for setting up the China South-South Climate Cooperation Fund to support other developing countries to combat climate change

What you call "white european nations" are the ones to blame for climate change due to the uncontrolled rampant industrialization the last hundred or so years.

The developing world cannot be made to shoulder that burden as at the very least they lack the economical capability to do so. Not to mention the idea is ridiculously unfair if you think about it even a bit.

Since the developing world will eventually catch up, the right thing is to guide and help them do it faster so the harm to the environment is minimized.

here's his speech
nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2007/gore-lecture_en.html

>Last September 21, as the Northern Hemisphere tilted away from the sun, scientists reported with unprecedented distress that the North Polar ice cap is "falling off a cliff." One study estimated that it could be completely gone during summer in less than 22 years. Another new study, to be presented by U.S. Navy researchers later this week, warns it could happen in as little as 7 years.

Stop being an alarmist

>China announces that it will make available ¥20 billion

lolnope

earthjournalism.net/stories/china-would-facilitate-south-south-cooperation-on-climate-change-as-third-party-said-former-minister-xie-zhenhua

>A year has past since the announcement, yet no further details have been disclosed by Chinese government except its consistent promise on scaling up the fund.

If you bothered to read the very link you posted, and the PCA document you will realise that China which is included in the "developing nations" are not obligated at all to commit to the PCA standards until 2030.

here's the pdf read it faggot
unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/cop21/eng/l09r01.pdf

Al Gore is an idiot for calling the Arctic sea ice "North Polar ice cap."

Still your "2015 more ice than ever" is more wrong, and based on nothing compared Al Gore's prediction of "sea ice free as little of 7 years." The Arctic Sea ice extent might still be, and likely to be completely ice free by 2030 , the 22 years estimate which is the main estimate of the prediction. Al Gore is an idiot again for using the 7 years, the edge of the confidence inverval in the study

None of the countries are obliged to commit into anything as Paris is non binding. Not even the 100 billion from developed nations.

However, China has pledged to $20 billion voluntarily just like the developed nations has pledged $100 billion voluntarily.

You fucking read the agreement first double faggot

Exactly, it's non-binding so

1. US can back the fuck away from it any time it wants
2. China can pledge any gorillion dorrars it wants and commit none of it

Admit it, neither you nor anyone else knew wtf PCA was about or what's in it until 2 days ago. You're only mad because DRUMPF did X so X must be bad.

Basically you were paying 100B$ a year for what you could do yourself for way less.
Also it's shit since developing countries are huge hypocrites, they are not sticking to it and other countries don't have proper sanctions. They all rely on peer pressure.

>Admit it, neither you nor anyone else knew wtf PCA was about or what's in it until 2 days ago.
Projecting.

>Also it's shit since developing countries are huge hypocrites, they are not sticking to it and other countries don't have proper sanctions. They all rely on peer pressure.
>Also it's shit since developing countries are huge hypocrites
Now this, this is golden.

FUCK DRUMPF AND FUCK ALL PPL WHO DONT WANNA GIBSMEDAT

I have yet to receive a single argument from fellow fedora tippers why PCA is actually beneficial to America.

Well?

You have to start somewhere. You can't just grab the piano and play Chopin the next day.

The Paris Accord is just a gesture of goodwill, with voluntary agreement as a start before we move on to binding agreement that actually does something.

>Admit it, neither you nor anyone else knew wtf PCA was about or what's in it until 2 days ago. You're only mad because DRUMPF did X so X must be bad.
Not true, I'm a climate Veeky Forumsentist studying ice core in Antarctica and Greenland and I know about the Paris Accord long before as it relates to my field. I think it is not good enough, but a good start regardless.

This is Veeky Forums not /pol/, there are some legitimate scientist around here shitposting about how 0.9999.... = 1 in their spare time when they're bored

It is beneficial to the planet

Last time I checked muh Merica is part of planet Earth

Get BTFO

>it's non binding so it sucks
>Admit it, neither you nor anyone else knew wtf PCA was about or what's in it until 2 days ago

So you agree that it should go further, it should be a binding agreement and it should cut emission more aggressively?

/pol/ go home get off my board

>The Paris Accord is just a gesture of goodwill
Meaning it doesn't matter at all whether country X wants to remain in it or leave it. It's just a gesture of how morally superior I am.

Good thing US is leaving it. There's better use for $100b in our $5 trillion debts than handing it to Sanjit Singh to poo in newly constructed streets.

>It is beneficial to the planet
So the whole planet has to pay into it, not just murica ok?

>an actual climate scientist tells you you are retarded and you insist
just admit you lost 100% on this

not only is trump wrong in doing this, but it will shift the conversation for weeks - that's all people, climatologists, media, politicians will be talking about
you have to defend your shilling for a complete failure of a president on Veeky Forums, because you were stupid enough to believe a tv personality could be president
instead of being able to say "shut up leftists we have the paris agreement, we are doing something about climate change" until the next report of the IPCC 5 years from now comes out you have to deal with completely avoidable political consequences of being retarded

the more you defend this shit the more mired you get in your own ideological bullshit

and the Veeky Forums meme cherry on top - elon musk himself, a guy who tried to protect trump and america from trump himself has left the ship and thinks you are retarded

but please, pretend it's a good thing america's leaving, since the agreement is too weak and you actually care about climate change

>So you agree that it should go further, it should be a binding agreement and it should cut emission more aggressively?

YES YES YES SLAYY. DRUMPF himself said he's open to renegotiation.

go to 6:20
youtube.com/watch?v=G3wE7MO1uSw

>Meaning it doesn't matter at all whether country X wants to remain in it or leave it. It's just a gesture of how morally superior I am.
It is a gesture of goodwill before you start negotiating further. It's like you shake hand before talking about a deal, as gesture of good will and not punch people in the face right away.

>There's better use for $100b in our $5 trillion debts than handing it to Sanjit Singh to poo in newly constructed streets.
You're not understanding the agreement correctly. $100b will be raised from both private and government sector and will be split between the OECD countries, not just the US.

As I said China already said that they're gonna chip into the pot as well, and the EU have said that they're gonna chip in $60b. Again none of this is binding agreement and just sign of goodwill, as said China was all big talk but no action. However you do have to start somewhere, with international agreements gestures and goodwill are everything before you can move onto binding agreement.

Pulling out of the agreement during the goodwill gesture phase just to spite Al Gore and the environmentalist is not beneficial. It's like aborting a baby even before he/she's born, because it kills any future effort in negotiating and improving upon the non binding agreement into the binding agreement.

>So the whole planet has to pay into it, not just murica ok?
Developed countries like US and the EU emitted cumulatively most of the anthropogenic carbon in the last 100 years. We're in the predicament because of industrialization. So it is fair that the developed countries who have reaped the benefit of industrialization to chip in more, but yeah in the end China and India would also need to be part of the binding agreement if we want to have some fighting chance of having an effective international regulation

You better hope he reenters the deal.

>hurrr everyone that disagrees with the unfair PCA are obviously climate change deniers and hate scienctists and hate science and hate the environment and must be a redneck drumpfy supporters!!!!11!

You're doing exactly what said. You have ZERO argument at all why PCA is beneficial. Just admit you have lost 1000% on this mate lmao.

>You have ZERO argument at all why PCA is beneficial.
The scientist ITT said it better

Stop citing yourself to give yourself more (You)'s it is pathetic.

There are many arguments put forward in this thread and you refused to listen, then keep meme'd it up with NO ARGUMENTS LOL gibsmedat

>government scientist
aka gigantic conflict of interest

>muh 1st step
why does the 1st step have to be this?

Your whole argument revolves around "goodwill" which apparently, only select countries are "goodwilling" enough while some (a lot) are not "goodwilling" enough to chip in. It's a dystopian future for planet Earth but only 1/4 of Earth should care for the other 3/4 of Earth that shit out more than the 1/4 while being paid to do so. It's unfair for the 1/4.

I quoted myself to prove myself right. Now go back to r/science and scream YOU FUCKING CLIMATE CHANGE DENIERS all day

>There are many arguments
Where? I've put forth my arguments as to why PCA is unfair and it's not wrong for potus to pull out of it. And so far the only decent argument is that "it's a sign of goodwill" (of which I agree to an extent that I hope it's renegotiated to a better and fairer PCA2.0).

Not mentioned so far is that obongo sent that $3b without the congress consent just like the Iran ransom thingy for $2b. I dont want my tax money being sent as gibsmedat to Ching Chong and Pajeet on the other side of the planet to fuck up the climate which you so love I'm sure.

What do you mean by "fair"?

We're in the predicament purely because of western industrialization, emitting more than 80% of cumulative anthropogenic carbon emission into the atmosphere, and have reaped the benefit of cheap dirty energy with trillions of dollars worth of built infrastructure like roads, power grids, houses, universities, research institutions, etc.

China and India do emit a lot of CO2, but per capita wise these two countries are nothing. The developed world per capita still emit an order of magnitude way more CO2. So far the US has only pledged a pitiful $3b, EU $60b and developing countries in total pledging (including China, India, Russia, Brazil and South America) $60b to climate development fund
oecd.org/env/cc/OECD-CPI-Climate-Finance-Report.pdf

Do you think it's fair for the US and EU who were responsible for 80% of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere, to chip in $100b out of $160b total fund pledged (so let me do the math for you, that's 62%). If you want to count the US pledge alone, $3b out of $160 that's less than 2%, while the US is responsible for at least 40% of the CO2 that's already sitting in the atmosphere now.

On an urelated note, the "Iran ransom thingy for $2b" you mentioned are actually Iranian assets that the US just froze. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_frozen_assets
It is their fucking money and assets that we just say gibsmedat. Of course after the Iran deal you have to give back the asset you froze back to where it belong. The $2b is not from US taxpayers at all, it is their money that we stole, froze and rake interest from.

You being unable to articulate the Iran deal properly, thinking that the US and Obama give Iran $2b just because, plus all the buzzwords you spew shows that you've been drinking way way too much /pol/ koolaid and don't know what you're talking about

>Manmade CO2 emissions are much smaller than natural emissions. Consumption of vegetation by animals & microbes accounts for about 220 gigatonnes of CO2 per year. Respiration by vegetation emits around 220 gigatonnes. The ocean releases about 332 gigatonnes. In contrast, when you combine the effect of fossil fuel burning and changes in land use, human CO2 emissions are only around 29 gigatonnes per year.

also
>CO2 emissions are the only factor in global warming
hell
>CO2 is even in the top 5 factors for global warming

All this misinfo memery where do I began,

>Manmade CO2 emissions are much smaller than natural emissions [...]

That's a copy pasted paragraph from skepticalscience, a pro climate change action website. All you need to do is read further than the paragraph
skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions-intermediate.htm

Manmade CO2 emissions are much smaller than natural emissions. Consumption of vegetation by animals & microbes accounts for about 220 gigatonnes of CO2 per year. Respiration by vegetation emits around 220 gigatonnes. The ocean releases about 332 gigatonnes. In contrast, when you combine the effect of fossil fuel burning and changes in land use, human CO2 emissions are only around 29 gigatonnes per year. However, natural CO2 emissions (from the ocean and vegetation) are balanced by natural absorptions (again by the ocean and vegetation). Land plants absorb about 450 gigatonnes of CO2 per year and the ocean absorbs about 338 gigatonnes. This keeps atmospheric CO2 levels in rough balance. Human CO2 emissions upsets the natural balance.

Let me know which part of the 2nd part of the paragraph that you copy pasted don't you understand and I'll be happy to help your special needs ass

>CO2 emissions are the only factor in global warming
>CO2 is even in the top 5 factors for global warming
CO2 is the 2nd most important GHG after water vapor and yes CO2 is in the top 5. There is nothing we can do to control water vapor, as 71% of the Earth's surface is ocean and you can't put a lid over the whole ocean. Water vapor abudance is strictly a function of temperature, and temperature only following Clausius Clayperon equation en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clausius–Clapeyron_relation

CO2 is subject to aggresive regulation because of its 120 years long atm lifetime, hence long lasting impact. In comparison CH4 (methane) the 3rd most important GHG only stays in the atm for about 10 years

>it wasnt ransom
it was

latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-iran-ransom-20160819-snap-story.html
>nypost.com/2016/09/08/no-we-didnt-owe-iran-that-1-7-billion-ransom-payment/
thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/foreign-policy/291999-iran-takes-obamas-hostage-money-and-takes-more-hostages

Regardless, it's $2b that isn't obongo's to give and this $3b too. Gibs the money through the proper legal channel whether you're blue or red, dont just scream "ITS FOR THE GREATER GOOD BECAUSE CLIMATE CHANGE BECAUSE IRAN ASSET BECAUSE TOMAHAWK BECAUSE MOAB".

>What do you mean by "fair"?
Every nation whether developed or developing or ayylmao, chip in to their own fucking country. There should be no intermediaries that pool the excess/donation funds unless there's accountability. I dont trust GCF enough to handle my gibs for all we know they might be pocketing 90% for themselves, 9% for bullshit "green" or "climate" stuff and only 1% to actual targets. There's currently no accountability at all as to where exactly each cent of the $100b will go to. We just have to trust (((them))) to decide which organisation or company or country that gibs is going.

No fuck off with your muh imperialist bs. Im not paying for what John Smith from 1800s did to pinoys or haitians or any past US colonies just like you and I wont pay a dot for muh slavery reparations to BLM.

You should try to understand the other side of the argument that want less government interference eg. PCA, and more individual contributions.
I've lived a good portion of my life in SE Asia volunteering in wildlife and rainforest reserves and trust me, all these multinational umbrella orgs like GCF and WWF contribute next to nothing and most environmental works are done by and within the local communities themselves.

Because southern nations are already feeling the climate change and will continue to feel it much more intensively as the northern nations.

The modest decrease is only true for the northern hemisphere. If the global climate warms up by an average of 2,5 degrees, its like 4 degrees in the southern hemisphere, and 1 degree in the northern hemisphere. If it only warms by 2 percent, it will be 3 degrees in the southern hemisphere, and 1 in the northern. So for the countries in the southern hemisphere its a big difference.

What republicans dont seem to realise is that the USA is basically giving up its status as the world leader. The Paris agreement will still happen, and instead of being lead by the US it will be lead by China and EU. So America is putting the business interest of some few old industries before its own global power position.

>slavery reparations to BLM

Had to look it up because it's gotta be bullshit. There's just no fucking way nighers are demanding slavery reparations.

>mfw its real

...

>putting the business interest of some few old industries

so the lobbyists-corrupting-politicians wasn't fixed by electing a lobbyist?

>the USA is basically giving up its status as the world leader

Shouldnt everyone be glad then? You keep crying because US is always acting like the world police to btfo terrorists and norks but now cry because US doesnt want to be the world leader any longer.

lol dont kid yourself m8.PCA is gonna fall apart by itself just like TPP. If not there's always some republicans and dems that will send "freedom" your way to maintain the global supremacy.

Who's crying? Liberal media? the politicians of europe and China are certainly not crying.

>Chinese-EU partnership
Now that's a beautiful dystopian sight. They really do fit each other perfectly.

If the PCA was actually about saving the climate and environment shouldn't they be willing to renegotiate now that US (one of the biggest polluters per ) has pulled out?

Well Veeky Forums?

Go and fuck your cousin cleetus.

It is non-binding because two years ago US wouldn't agree to any binding proposals because my freedoms.

> it's a shit deal for us
Why don't you elect a businessman for president?

You are admitting in one sentence that it's at least a step towards saving the world from a catastrophe yet "it's a shit deal for us".
Kubrick could make another "How I Learned to Stop Worrying" about this.

Does anyone know which nations have to give $100 billion a year to poorer countries? Does it include the BRICS nations? Or will they be receiving the funds?

>It is non-binding because two years ago US wouldn't agree to any binding proposals because my freedoms.

Source? You're telling me king nigger refused and forbid other countries from paying into climate, while forcing americans to pay for other countries to pollute the planet?

Developing countries will pool in too.
The HUGE sum of 100 billion distributed among many countries and years can only be reached this way

>Developing countries will pool in too.
in 2030 yes. oops whats that? oh no its the year 2029 and i just left the paris deal thanks for all the gibs yurocucks

Where can I read the deal? google gives too many different documents, I don't know which one is the correct one. I don't usually browse Veeky Forums because I am not smrt.

lol butthurt climate change KEK

Literally nothing wrong with climate change

unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/cop21/eng/l09r01.pdf

you can ctrl+f on this one

climatechangenews.com/2015/12/15/paris-agreement-does-not-need-senate-approval-say-officials/
theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/01/un-climate-talks-deal-us-congress

I think the reasoning was - any obligation to another country means loss of sovereignty.

Fake graph. No labels on the temp axis.

Also, solar radiation does not vary enough to change temps on earth. For example, in the northern winter the earth is closer to the sun.

Volcanic eruptions can only affect temperatures if they are from very large volcanoes that put out tons of ash. Not even the iceland volcano put out enough to do anything.

So the poo, the chinks, the hue, and the Russians don't have to pay a dime until 2030? Trump was right in bailing out.

Since when asian is an insult ?

Not the guy, but about 150 years.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongolian_idiocy

>Hebrew exodus from Egypt as a historical event
Kek

This

>Almost everyone who wants to do something about climate change seems to ignore China and India
>Almost everyone who wants to do something about China and India seems to ignore climate change
[pain]

China doesn't do shit meme needs to stop

China aims to spend at least $360b on clean energy
>nytimes.com/2017/01/05/world/asia/china-renewable-energy-investment.html?utm_source=huffingtonpost.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=pubexchange_article

China pledges $20b, more than six times the amount Obama pledged into the Paris climate fund
>obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2015/09/25/us-china-joint-presidential-statement-climate-change

China pledges to invest $1trillion in sustainable development for other backwater Asian countries
>nytimes.com/2017/05/13/business/china-railway-one-belt-one-road-1-trillion-plan.html

The 2030 estimate is a conservative estimate, with how aggressive China is in pursuing green tech and RnD they might reach their carbon emission peak in 2025 at the latest, 5 years ahead of schedule
>washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/03/07/china-vowed-to-peak-carbon-emissions-by-2030-these-researchers-think-it-could-already-be-there/

Go ahead continue to be a dumb redneck who shovel coal for a living, just like your father and your grandfather and your great grandfather without any improvement in life quality Drumfkin while the world moves on with or without you.

>So the poo, the chinks, the hue, and the Russians don't have to pay a dime until 2030?

Trump misconstrued the underlying tenet of the agreement. China Russia India Brazil and other middle income developing nations pledges to have their peak carbon emission before 2030. This doesn't mean that they can do whatever they want, and poo in the loo and cram building their green energy infrastructure at the last minute. To hit peak carbon emission before 2030, while maintaining sustainable GDP growth these developing countries need to transition right away, phasing out their older coal plants and building more solar/wind farms.

washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/the-energy-202/2017/06/02/the-energy-202-trump-s-paris-speech-needs-a-serious-fact-check/59302a21e9b69b2fb981dc14/
>THE PROBLEM: Not so. Again, the agreement does not bind any nation to any emissions target. What China did choose to do under the agreement is have its carbon emissions "peak" by 2030 before then declining. The world accepted that longer leash for China and other developing nations to let them use fossil-fuel energy to promote greater economic growth. But to meet that goal, China cannot "do whatever they want" until then, as Trump said, at least if China wants to meet that voluntary 2030 target. It needs to begin acting now to control emissions -- and in fact, is signaling to the world it is already doing so by announcing in January the cancellation of plans to build more than 100 coal-fired power plants. The Paris deal "is more fair to the U.S. than previous agreements because it includes all the major economies of the world, not just the rich countries, so both developed countries and developing countries have skin in the game," Jody Freeman, a Harvard Law School professor and director of the school's Environmental Law and Policy Program, said. Trump's "portrayal is at odds with reality," she added.

you don't have to believe everything politicians say

don't their calculate their emissions per capita? you don't have to be an expert on energy to realize that's not how to calculate emissions

Fuck off back to pol where you belong

>China aims
>China pledges
>China pledges
>with how aggressive China is in pursuing green tech and RnD
Jesus Christ, what a laff. Careful not to choke to death on those emissions. I'm sure 'Murikkka is the problem Mr. Technicolor Rivers

>Doesn't put the fucking board tag in between forward-slashes
Holy fuck get off this website normalfag

Brah, the guy's pic clearly shows Antartica. Why are you showing data from the other side of the globe?

Because it's a common misleading trick to say - "Hey more ice on East Antarctica"
Omitting The North Pole and even Greenland

anyways al gore is not a scientist anyway so the original post's premise was already retarded

China and India won't do shit, the only guaranteed effect of this agreement is gimmies for UN bureaucrats

>temperatures slightly rising for a few hundred years
>be shit tier government funded scientist
>pick arbitrary date like the invention of combustion engine
>say look temperatures been rising since the invention of this

One of probably thousands of examples of dishonest data.

So me and my future generations will suffer economically because my dad and his dad wanted a job?

>So me and my future generations will suffer economically

US pulling out of Paris accord will cause future generations to suffer from climate change.

Again, for the mathematically challenged, the $3 billion that Obama pledged is nothing, the federal government alone have $3.5trillion in operating budget from tax revenue.For comparison, the total damage of hurricane sandy alone was $70 billion for the whole US. That's 23 times more than the pitiful $3billion pledged into the climate fund.

Pulling out of Paris Accord unlike what Trump blatantly lied to, will cost the US jobs rather than save jobs.
>c2es.org/international/business-support-paris-agreement
Microsoft, Apple, Adobe, Facebook, Unilever etc all have urged Trump to not pull out of Paris Accord.

>nytimes.com/2017/06/01/us/politics/fact-check-climate-change-trump.html?action=click&contentCollection=Politics&module=RelatedCoverage®ion=Marginalia&pgtype=article
>Economists argue that the projected job losses in the study assume the American economy will not use innovation to adapt to the new regulations. Apple, Mars, and Unilever are among companies that have said complying with the Paris agreement would open markets and generate jobs.

You are absolutely caught in the tribalism of defending /pol/king God Emperor Trump and licking the tears of butthurt liberals that you're blinded by the facts and numbers. Trump pulling out of Paris is massive opportunity lost to US business, according to all top companies including fucking Exxon.

But go ahead, keep bury your head in the sand and support daddy Drumf blindly. Keep believing he'll "renegotiate" the deal, as if other nations would bother to spend resources and time renegotiating a non binding agreement. The goodwill and political capital has already been spent, Trump just wasted all of that to spite environmentalist and do pseudo populist political gesturing.

>I don't understand anything about a subject, but let me tell you why everyone who works in it is a fraud.
Just fuck off already.

not an argument retard

>ulling out of Paris Accord unlike what Trump blatantly lied to, will cost the US jobs rather than save jobs.
>>c2es.org/international/business-support-paris-agreement
>Microsoft, Apple, Adobe, Facebook, Unilever etc all have urged Trump to not pull out of Paris Accord

nice article, I really like where the explain how it will lose us jobs...

oh wait...

>if we dont give billions of dollars away to other countries we will lose jobs!

I know this isn't Veeky Forums but come the fuck on my dude.

tfw work for the ESSC and they are talking about cutting entire programs now instead of getting rid of useless bureaucrats. There are people in my depertment that make walmart greeters look like an amazing investment.

But I feel for a shitty degree meme and here I am stuck forever and basically forced to shill with these people unless I want to work at... walmart.

>depertment

>I know this isn't Veeky Forums but come the fuck on my dude.
Nice strawman buddy. You just purposely meme'd it up and refuse to see the point.

Staying in Paris agreement would drive tech and renewable innovation because the federal government and the state would spend money internally trying to meet the emission target. With the federal government being out, now in the US there will be less amount of spending on renewables and less incentive for the US based tech companies to innovate, hence less high paying jobs

This problem came to a head when in 1894, The Times newspaper predicted... “In 50 years, every street in London will be buried under nine feet of manure.”
This became known as the ‘Great Horse Manure Crisis of 1894’.
The terrible situation was debated in 1898 at the world’s first international urban planning conference in New York, but no solution could be found. It seemed urban civilisation was doomed.

historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofBritain/Great-Horse-Manure-Crisis-of-1894/

Will we look back on this in 100 years and laugh?

You are dodging the question, and assuming that it is up to the government to drive innovation when it has never innovated anything but wasting untold sums of money.

The 3 billion dollars is chump change compared to the federal budget of 3.5 trillion, and only act as goodwill for the non binding agreement.

What gonna spurt jobs is that all the 150 countries in the agreement hiring tech companies and RnD to meet their emission target

What's so hard to understand

R&D won't make up for the estimated 6 million job loss in america to meet standards. And those R&D jobs wont be anywhere near all american.

oy vey the 6 milion, the jobocaust!

>estimated 6 million job loss
Estimated by your ass.

>6 million job loss
Where the fuck do you get this meme?

Even your daddy Trump said it's only 2.7 million job loss, and that number is being questioned. Trump got the number from
nera.com/content/dam/nera/publications/2017/170316-NERA-ACCF-Full-Report.pdf

Trump didn't read the footnotes
>“Does not take into account potential benefits from avoided emissions.
>“The study results are not a benefit-cost analysis of climate change.
>“The long run, year 2040, impacts which are representative of the Obama Administration’s long term emissions goal of an 80 per cent reduction by 2050 are subject to a great deal of uncertainties about the future.
>"The model does not take into consideration yet to be developed technologies that might influence the long term cost.”

Also you had the balls to question climate models in which it is based on first principles physics, while all these economic ((models)) are way way shoddier as they're based in unphysical parameterization and correlations

>the estimated 6 million job loss in america to meet standards.
Did you make that number up yourself, or did you get someone to do it for you?

>And those R&D jobs wont be anywhere near all American.
No shit. Of course if the US government repeatedly makes it clear that's it's very hostile to clean energy and wants to go back to burning coal, then people who are developing renewable will go elsewhere. This is a problem entirely of your own creation.

It's literally not a problem, it won't be warm enough to make a shit for hundreds of years which by then we will look back on this "problem" like we did on the 1894 horse shit crisis.

>your numbers get called out and BTFO by multiple people
>don't even deny that you pulled it out of vacuum of your ignorant ass

I-tt's literally not a problem guys, deflect and change the subject. I

t's embarassing /pol/kin, stop your pollution and get off this board. This is a science board, you need numbers and source to back your argument

not even that guy dipshit

lol /pol/ gets called out and BTFO again

...

>still talking about this trash

No one gives a shit about trump or grant babby scientists.

t. making big bucks at shell as an inorganic chemist