Red Mosquito

"We dont want other countries to laugh at us anymore..."

Donald, what world are you living in you dumb fuck?

Definitely laughing at you, not us.

tragabigzanda wrote:

McParadigm wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:

Strat wrote:

McParadigm wrote:

"In triggering the official withdrawal process, Trump will spark a lengthy process that won't conclude until November 2020 -- the same month he's up for reelection."

So, basically this might not even matter?

Interesting.

The legal framework takes that long, but policy changes can begin immediately.

On paper, or in practice? What I mean is, if there were a major deal that was designed to operate outside of the parameters of the PCA -- say a huge US investment in the production of widgets destined for German automobiles -- would it mean that the contract could buck the PCA, but production outside of its confines could not commence until 2020? Or could production outside the PCA parameters begin immediately?

The things is that the answer doesn't matter if, and this is the big if, the goal is to reduce carbon emissions to stop breaking the 2C barrier. There are two things that sum it up nicely. One is this graph of emissions:




The other is what China agreed to do by the PCA, which was intent to cap or peak emissions around 2030. Now combine those two things and tell me how this helps.

By another estimation, India's allowed growth under the PCA would completely erase even the most dramatic cuts the US/EU had agreed to (Assuming they could achieve them):



Even that is unlikely since we are running low on some of the rare earth metals used in commercial solar panels, like is so common in India. They also just passed a huge tariff increase on solar power there last week.


This accord was a textbook example of "we need to do something!" in place of "here's what we can realistically do" and it sucks because climate change is real and it needs to be dealt with now. (bring on thorium!)

Bi_3 wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:

McParadigm wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:

Strat wrote:

McParadigm wrote:

"In triggering the official withdrawal process, Trump will spark a lengthy process that won't conclude until November 2020 -- the same month he's up for reelection."

So, basically this might not even matter?

Interesting.

The legal framework takes that long, but policy changes can begin immediately.

On paper, or in practice? What I mean is, if there were a major deal that was designed to operate outside of the parameters of the PCA -- say a huge US investment in the production of widgets destined for German automobiles -- would it mean that the contract could buck the PCA, but production outside of its confines could not commence until 2020? Or could production outside the PCA parameters begin immediately?

The things is that the answer doesn't matter if, and this is the big if, the goal is to reduce carbon emissions to stop breaking the 2C barrier. There are two things that sum it up nicely. One is this graph of emissions:




The other is what China agreed to do by the PCA, which was intent to cap or peak emissions around 2030. Now combine those two things and tell me how this helps.

By another estimation, India's allowed growth under the PCA would completely erase even the most dramatic cuts the US/EU had agreed to (Assuming they could achieve them):



Even that is unlikely since we are running low on some of the rare earth metals used in commercial solar panels, like is so common in India. They also just passed a huge tariff increase on solar power there last week.


This accord was a textbook example of "we need to do something!" in place of "here's what we can realistically do" and it sucks because climate change is real and it needs to be dealt with now. (bring on thorium!)

I thorium

It's okay, guys. Cultural trends and market demands will keep us on the right track when it comes to fighting climate change.

washing machine wrote:It's okay, guys. Cultural trends and market demands will keep us on the right track when it comes to fighting climate change.

I'm sure that's what Ivanka is telling herself.

tragabigzanda wrote:

washing machine wrote:It's okay, guys. Cultural trends and market demands will keep us on the right track when it comes to fighting climate change.

I'm sure that's what Ivanka is telling herself.

From what I understand, she was trying to push him into staying with it.

wease wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:

washing machine wrote:It's okay, guys. Cultural trends and market demands will keep us on the right track when it comes to fighting climate change.

I'm sure that's what Ivanka is telling herself.

From what I understand, she was trying to push him into staying with it.

Yes, but now she has apparently "moved on" (if the headlines are to be believed).

tragabigzanda wrote:

wease wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:

washing machine wrote:It's okay, guys. Cultural trends and market demands will keep us on the right track when it comes to fighting climate change.

I'm sure that's what Ivanka is telling herself.

From what I understand, she was trying to push him into staying with it.

Yes, but now she has apparently "moved on" (if the headlines are to be believed).

It's all good now:

Simple Torture wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:

wease wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:

washing machine wrote:It's okay, guys. Cultural trends and market demands will keep us on the right track when it comes to fighting climate change.

I'm sure that's what Ivanka is telling herself.

From what I understand, she was trying to push him into staying with it.

Yes, but now she has apparently "moved on" (if the headlines are to be believed).

It's all good now:

Oh my god these people need to fuck off

Simple Torture wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:

wease wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:

washing machine wrote:It's okay, guys. Cultural trends and market demands will keep us on the right track when it comes to fighting climate change.

I'm sure that's what Ivanka is telling herself.

From what I understand, she was trying to push him into staying with it.

Yes, but now she has apparently "moved on" (if the headlines are to be believed).

It's all good now:

Daddy will have them outlawed soon enough.

Not actually them, but I laughed.

Trump may bring executive order to stop comey from testifying. Lol. No way Trump doesn't end up in jail or last a year in office. Right?

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/0 ... 1?cmpid=sf

The Republicans, Trump and the movement on the alt-right have too much to lose. Can't see him going down easy.

I love how many serious reporters are asking if he believes in climate change, like they don't know the answer.

It's far more reasonable to wonder if he believes the Chinese have a master plan to go peepee in Coke

Strat wrote:Trump may bring executive order to stop comey from testifying. Lol. No way Trump doesn't end up in jail or last a year in office. Right?

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/0 ... 1?cmpid=sf

Also, isn't this in and of itself obstruction of justice?

Strat wrote:

Strat wrote:Trump may bring executive order to stop comey from testifying. Lol. No way Trump doesn't end up in jail or last a year in office. Right?

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/0 ... 1?cmpid=sf

Also, isn't this in and of itself obstruction of justice?

Trump already admitted to obstruction of justice when he fired him. Too bad the only person capable of charging him is Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III.

Strat wrote:Trump may bring executive order to stop comey from testifying. Lol. No way Trump doesn't end up in jail or last a year in office. Right?

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/0 ... 1?cmpid=sf

An already interesting story would get a lot more interesting for sure.
I wonder if that would do anything to chip into Trump's congressional support? (crickets)

Green Habit wrote:

Strat wrote:

Strat wrote:Trump may bring executive order to stop comey from testifying. Lol. No way Trump doesn't end up in jail or last a year in office. Right?

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/0 ... 1?cmpid=sf

Also, isn't this in and of itself obstruction of justice?

Trump already admitted to obstruction of justice when he fired him. Too bad the only person capable of charging him is Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III.

Can't confess being criminal charges ? Contempt of congresss or something ?