Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

(02-13-2020, 01:58 PM)Predator Wrote: [ -> ]The US led all countries in the reduction of energy related CO2 emissions inn 2019.

So much for the Paris climate accord.

https://www.firstcoastnews.com/article/n...061961de16

(02-13-2020, 01:58 PM)Predator Wrote: [ -> ]The US led all countries in the reduction of energy related CO2 emissions inn 2019.

So much for the Paris climate accord.

https://www.firstcoastnews.com/article/n...061961de16

This is very good news.  CO2 reducing technologies work! They make economic sense in areas with ample capital.  It wouldn't take much more of a "nudge" til low carbon tech made sense economically all over the world.

Climate is changing. It is due to CO2.  No one knows for sure how bad it will be.  Best case, it will be disruptive.  Worst case, catastrophic. Anything we can practically do to reduce CO2 will tip the scales away from catastrophic would be good.

The Paris Accord didn't mean anything on its own, but it was a starting point that trade penalties could be built off of.

(02-13-2020, 02:45 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-13-2020, 01:58 PM)Predator Wrote: [ -> ]The US led all countries in the reduction of energy related CO2 emissions inn 2019.

So much for the Paris climate accord.

https://www.firstcoastnews.com/article/n...061961de16

This is very good news.  CO2 reducing technologies work! They make economic sense in areas with ample capital.  It wouldn't take much more of a "nudge" til low carbon tech made sense economically all over the world.

Climate is changing. It is due to CO2.  No one knows for sure how bad it will be.  Best case, it will be disruptive.  Worst case, catastrophic. Anything we can practically do to reduce CO2 will tip the scales away from catastrophic would be good.

The Paris Accord didn't mean anything on its own, but it was a starting point that trade penalties could be built off of.

The accord is a non uniform or binding agreement so you can't impose penalties based on a country not meetings it's own personal commitments.

I mean how could you penalise a country for missing a reduction goal when you have countries like China who never even committed to a reduction but just committed to their emissions peaking by 2030?

That was one of the main criticisms of the accord. There was no provision to monitor or enforce the commitments and countries commitments were all over the board.

The Paris Accord, like so many other international agreements, was nothing more that a wealth transfer from America to the rest of the world. Screw that.

(02-13-2020, 01:58 PM)Predator Wrote: [ -> ]The US led all countries in the reduction of energy related CO2 emissions inn 2019.

So much for the Paris climate accord.

https://www.firstcoastnews.com/article/n...061961de16

All accords and treaties like that are for own thing and for one thing only...… To suck off the teat of the American Taxpayer

(02-13-2020, 03:55 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]The Paris Accord, like so many other international agreements, was nothing more that a wealth transfer from America to the rest of the world. Screw that.

It set a framework by which future agreements could assign either tariffs or penalties to our government.

but even if the paris treaty was still in effect, and even if other countries were trying to add to it, we could have always stepped back from the table and paid nothing.

It really was a nothing agreement. 

Obama made too big of a deal out of it, as did his opponents, for opposite reasons.

(02-13-2020, 06:11 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-13-2020, 03:55 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]The Paris Accord, like so many other international agreements, was nothing more that a wealth transfer from America to the rest of the world. Screw that.

It set a framework by which future agreements could assign either tariffs or penalties to our government.

but even if the paris treaty was still in effect, and even if other countries were trying to add to it, we could have always stepped back from the table and paid nothing.

It really was a nothing agreement. 

Obama made too big of a deal out of it, as did his opponents, for opposite reasons.

You really are clueless, aren't you?

(02-13-2020, 06:32 PM)MalabarJag Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-13-2020, 06:11 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]It set a framework by which future agreements could assign either tariffs or penalties to our government.

but even if the paris treaty was still in effect, and even if other countries were trying to add to it, we could have always stepped back from the table and paid nothing.

It really was a nothing agreement. 

Obama made too big of a deal out of it, as did his opponents, for opposite reasons.

You really are clueless, aren't you?

What makes you say that? What did I say that was incorrect?
We could have also assigned tariffs and penalties to their governments.

Damn I wish the Jags record was as good as President Trump’s. Guess I’ll just have to live in a Super Land and not enjoy a Super Bowl.

(02-13-2020, 06:59 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-13-2020, 06:32 PM)MalabarJag Wrote: [ -> ]You really are clueless, aren't you?

What makes you say that? What did I say that was incorrect?
We could have also assigned tariffs and penalties to their governments.

It's a non binding agreement. You can't use it as justification to initiate penalties and tariffs.

I understand you wish it was set up that way but it wasn't.

(02-13-2020, 09:03 PM)Predator Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-13-2020, 06:59 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]What makes you say that? What did I say that was incorrect?
We could have also assigned tariffs and penalties to their governments.

It's a non binding agreement. You can't use it as justification to initiate penalties and tariffs.

I understand you wish it was set up that way but it wasn't.

1) a country can set up a penalty or tariff whenever it feels like. The WTO may turn around and impose a counter penalty or counter tariff, but countries can also decline to participate with the WTO.

2) I agree that the Paris agreement is non-binding, but somebody who wished to impose something later could justify it, saying, "we are doing this because this country will not hold up their part of the Paris agreement." You know the agreement is not binding, I know the agreement is non-binding, but this future politician could still refer to it because the masses are very malleable...

I'm saying a lot less than you think I'm saying on this...

(02-13-2020, 06:59 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-13-2020, 06:32 PM)MalabarJag Wrote: [ -> ]You really are clueless, aren't you?

What makes you say that? What did I say that was incorrect?
We could have also assigned tariffs and penalties to their governments.

Because fsg is right. The main thrust of the Paris treaty agreement was to send US tax dollars to third world dictators as "climate reparations." While it was "non-binding" (done that way so Obama could subvert the will of the American people by claiming it wasn't a treaty) Obama was giving away US tax dollars as part of the deal. I consider pulling out of the Paris treaty agreement Trump's biggest success.

Without China and India cutting CO2 the rest of the cuts are worthless. And anyone serious about cutting CO2 would support nuclear power instead of bird killers and solar panels. That fact that they don't is proof that this is all about wealth redistribution, not climate. No sense trying to bankrupt China with climate protests, they're already Communist.

Furthermore, warmer is better. You don't see many people without an anchor such as a job or family moving to colder states, while lots are moving to warmer states. That warmer is better should be obvious to anyone who's not a brain damaged 16 year old.

(02-13-2020, 10:00 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-13-2020, 09:03 PM)Predator Wrote: [ -> ]It's a non binding agreement. You can't use it as justification to initiate penalties and tariffs.

I understand you wish it was set up that way but it wasn't.

1) a country can set up a penalty or tariff whenever it feels like. The WTO may turn around and impose a counter penalty or counter tariff, but countries can also decline to participate with the WTO.

2) I agree that the Paris agreement is non-binding, but somebody who wished to impose something later could justify it, saying, "we are doing this because this country will not hold up their part of the Paris agreement." You know the agreement is not binding, I know the agreement is non-binding, but this future politician could still refer to it because the masses are very malleable...

I'm saying a lot less than you think I'm saying on this...

You can essentially say we are already doing this to China without the Paris agreement. The tariffs are designed to reduce or take away markets which will force them to reduce their production which in turn reduces their industrial emissions.

Pollution and manufacturing things cheaper than other countries pretty much go hand in hand.

Grand Marshall at the Daytona 500. Seriously, how cool is this man?

Thoughts from the gallery re: Trump commuting Blagojevich's sentence? 

Doesn't exactly scream anti-corruption very loudly.

I believe the kids today call it criminal justice reform.

(02-18-2020, 03:48 PM)Gabe Wrote: [ -> ]Thoughts from the gallery re: Trump commuting Blagojevich's sentence? 

Doesn't exactly scream anti-corruption very loudly.

8 years is a long time when you have violent criminals out in less time.

While not great, you shouldn't pick and choose the crimes you let people out early for. Either do it no matter the race, sex, or economic status or don't do it at all.

(02-18-2020, 03:48 PM)Gabe Wrote: [ -> ]Thoughts from the gallery re: Trump commuting Blagojevich's sentence? 

Doesn't exactly scream anti-corruption very loudly.

Why did he do it? To seem a little bipartisan? Show a little mercy to a Democrat? 
And no, it's not anti-corruption at all.
Pardons are supposed to be rare and unpredictable.  They're supposed to be individual acts of mercy.   So while it's not "anti-corruption," it doesn't have to be pro- or anti- anything.

(02-18-2020, 08:09 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-18-2020, 03:48 PM)Gabe Wrote: [ -> ]Thoughts from the gallery re: Trump commuting Blagojevich's sentence? 

Doesn't exactly scream anti-corruption very loudly.

Why did he do it? To seem a little bipartisan? Show a little mercy to a Democrat? 
And no, it's not anti-corruption at all.
Pardons are supposed to be rare and unpredictable.  They're supposed to be individual acts of mercy.   So while it's not "anti-corruption," it doesn't have to be pro- or anti- anything.

Clearly he feels kinship with Blago's hair.

(02-18-2020, 08:09 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-18-2020, 03:48 PM)Gabe Wrote: [ -> ]Thoughts from the gallery re: Trump commuting Blagojevich's sentence? 

Doesn't exactly scream anti-corruption very loudly.

Why did he do it? To seem a little bipartisan? Show a little mercy to a Democrat? 
And no, it's not anti-corruption at all.
Pardons are supposed to be rare and unpredictable.  They're supposed to be individual acts of mercy.   So while it's not "anti-corruption," it doesn't have to be pro- or anti- anything.

He saw that Blago was railroaded by Comey and McCabe, the same people who manufactured the Russian investigation based on fake evidence. I guess it makes sense that when prosecutors have been shown to be willing to subvert the law and put politics before justice then anyone they previously convicted should go free.

Or maybe he just wanted to rub it in Obama's face.