Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Environment

Environment Environmental Politics Forum - Environmental issues, global warming, pollution, and proposals


Thanks Tree143Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old June 12th, 2017, 08:26 PM   #221
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: West Virginia
Posts: 331
Quote:
Originally Posted by baloney_detector View Post
Wow, so you concluded all of the above simply from reading my posting which stated,



???



Regarding your odd "logic"-related claim...

It is a rather well-established observation that there are hidden (or external) costs involved with the combustion of fossil fuels that aren't and haven't being entirely paid by the countries which used said fossil fuels.

And, instead, the countries which have used far, far less per capita of said fossil fuels have been, are, and seemingly in the future will be paying a disproportionate amount of those hidden costs.

And, as such, this quite apparent set of observations clearly demonstrates the existence of a form of so-called "wealth redistribution."

So then, what exactly is not "logical" about stating the obvious, particularly within a discussion that appears to contain the claim that so-called "wealth redistribution" is some sort of evil to be avoided?

(Perhaps, to some posters here, it's only an evil when only they have to pick up the tab, so to speak, that results from their actions.)
Rather or not that is true or not is irrelevant to the Paris agreement in as much the agreement its self is the issue. Just dealing in facts.
The agreement was non binding
The agreement asked for the United States to spend billions of dollars to be given to developing nations as seen fit by some UN over site.
There was no strings attached to the money that was to be given out. The recipient nations could do whatever they wanted to with it. Everything else you stated is mostly an opinion.
Thanks from Sabcat
username is offline  
Old June 12th, 2017, 08:30 PM   #222
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: West Virginia
Posts: 331
Quote:
Originally Posted by baloney_detector View Post
Oh my, what a long-winded excuse that, as you say, attempts to justify past, current, and ongoing wealth transfer, that being the un- and under-developed world having to pick up a disproportionate amount of the external cost tab that results from the US's historic and current use of fossil fuels.

You would really need to explain this cost. Because I fail to see this magical cost as being the reason the nations I mentioned are in the condition they are. Every place I have discussed has had the opportunity to embrace the technological advancements of western civilization, or at some point had embraced them. For various reasons, usually involving government corruption they chose to forego or allow it to crumble. This argument that the west raped them of their resources then left them high an dry is very poor, its based on opinion and if I really wanted to spend the time, I could point out several small Island nations that are not shit holes that would decimate your opinion.
username is offline  
Old June 16th, 2017, 11:46 PM   #223
Senior Member
 
baloney_detector's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 4,858
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabcat View Post
Wow, that is some serious mental gymnastics there.


I'm not even sure how you are even getting there.
No, it is not any "mental gymnastics" at all.

Indeed, the Green Climate Fund was essentially setup with an overall goal of financially assisting climate change-related mitigation and adaptation projects for undeveloped/underdeveloped countries.

So, instead of those undeveloped/underdeveloped countries having to pay the entire currently ongoing external costs and future external costs related to the use of fossil fuels by the developed nations, those developed nations would essentially be paying a portion of those inevitable bills, instead, thru that fund.

For example, the project I cited earlier relating to Vietnam essentially helps offset somewhat the costs that Vietnam inevitably has to pay regarding its adaptation and mitigation efforts towards climate change, of which happens to be related to rising sea level. Thus, in short, the use of fossil fuels by developed nations is the primary root cause why sea level is rising along the Vietnamese coast and the developed nation funding of that Green Climate Fund project helps to offset some of the bill that Vietnam inevitably has to pay regarding their adaptation and mitigation efforts related to that rising sea level. And, this scenario isn't much different than if I were to give my neighbor some money to help offset the clean up costs that my neighbor would have to pay if my garbage was to somehow end up in my neighbor's yard as a result of my negligence.

Last edited by baloney_detector; June 17th, 2017 at 12:45 AM.
baloney_detector is offline  
Old June 16th, 2017, 11:54 PM   #224
Senior Member
 
baloney_detector's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 4,858
Quote:
Originally Posted by username View Post
You would really need to explain this cost. Because I fail to see this magical cost as being the reason the nations I mentioned are in the condition they are. Every place I have discussed has had the opportunity to embrace the technological advancements of western civilization, or at some point had embraced them. For various reasons, usually involving government corruption they chose to forego or allow it to crumble. This argument that the west raped them of their resources then left them high an dry is very poor, its based on opinion and if I really wanted to spend the time, I could point out several small Island nations that are not shit holes that would decimate your opinion.
Would you mind responding to what I have actually stated here on this message thread, instead of what you incorrectly believe I stated here on this message thread?

baloney_detector is offline  
Old June 17th, 2017, 12:43 AM   #225
Senior Member
 
baloney_detector's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 4,858
Quote:
Originally Posted by username View Post
Rather or not that is true or not is irrelevant to the Paris agreement in as much the agreement its self is the issue. Just dealing in facts.
The agreement was non binding
The agreement asked for the United States to spend billions of dollars to be given to developing nations as seen fit by some UN over site.
There was no strings attached to the money that was to be given out. The recipient nations could do whatever they wanted to with it. Everything else you stated is mostly an opinion.
1. Yes, the Paris Agreement, as well as the US's Green Climate Fund funding pledge, are non-binding, which is the primary reason why partisan-minded nutjobs in the US should not fear the supposedly both non-binding AND draconian agreement.

(Indeed, the agreement didn't ask the US to provide funding towards the Green Climate Fund. The US, instead, voluntarily offered to provide funding towards the Green Climate Fund.)

2. There are some strings attached regarding how the Green Climate Fund money is spent, with funding being potentially rejected if proposed projects don't meet certain criteria, as explained here.:

http://www.greenclimate.fund/documen...2-025cef3d26d8

3. So then, there exists evidence that there are no external costs regarding the use of fossil fuels? And, there exists evidence that the undeveloped/underdeveloped nations are not paying a disproportionate amount of those costs today, and they will also not be paying a disproportionate amount of those costs in the future?

(Indeed, the research I've reviewed over the years says otherwise.)

baloney_detector is offline  
Old June 17th, 2017, 12:02 PM   #226
Celebrating diversity
 
Sabcat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Earth
Posts: 21,531
Quote:
Originally Posted by baloney_detector View Post
No, it is not any "mental gymnastics" at all.

Indeed, the Green Climate Fund was essentially setup with an overall goal of financially assisting climate change-related mitigation and adaptation projects for undeveloped/underdeveloped countries.

So, instead of those undeveloped/underdeveloped countries having to pay the entire currently ongoing external costs and future external costs related to the use of fossil fuels by the developed nations, those developed nations would essentially be paying a portion of those inevitable bills, instead, thru that fund.

For example, the project I cited earlier relating to Vietnam essentially helps offset somewhat the costs that Vietnam inevitably has to pay regarding its adaptation and mitigation efforts towards climate change, of which happens to be related to rising sea level. Thus, in short, the use of fossil fuels by developed nations is the primary root cause why sea level is rising along the Vietnamese coast and the developed nation funding of that Green Climate Fund project helps to offset some of the bill that Vietnam inevitably has to pay regarding their adaptation and mitigation efforts related to that rising sea level. And, this scenario isn't much different than if I were to give my neighbor some money to help offset the clean up costs that my neighbor would have to pay if my garbage was to somehow end up in my neighbor's yard as a result of my negligence.


You say things like

"Essentially " and
"Isn't much different "

In regards to this
Quote:
Thus, in short, the use of fossil fuels by developed nations is the primary root cause why sea level is rising along the Vietnamese coast and the developed nation funding of that Green Climate Fund project helps to offset some of the bill that Vietnam inevitably has to pay regarding their adaptation and mitigation efforts related to that rising sea level
We do not know that is a fact

You are also implying that it is the responsibility of the American citizens to cover the cost of these projects. That is not even addressing the fact that the stolen moneies will not have a specified use. But my favorite backflip of the routine is when you are trying to justify stealing from one group of people because you claim that the other group was stolen from first.


Shit, why stop there?
Sabcat is online now  
Old July 9th, 2017, 02:01 AM   #227
Senior Member
 
baloney_detector's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 4,858
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabcat View Post
You say things like

"Essentially " and
"Isn't much different "

In regards to this


We do not know that is a fact

You are also implying that it is the responsibility of the American citizens to cover the cost of these projects. That is not even addressing the fact that the stolen moneies will not have a specified use. But my favorite backflip of the routine is when you are trying to justify stealing from one group of people because you claim that the other group was stolen from first.


Shit, why stop there?
Would you mind citing actual research that demonstrates that what I stated was not a fact?

And, how exactly is someone paying taxes, and those monies being used for something they disagree with, a form of theft?
baloney_detector is offline  
Old July 9th, 2017, 05:43 AM   #228
Celebrating diversity
 
Sabcat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Earth
Posts: 21,531
Quote:
Originally Posted by baloney_detector View Post
Would you mind citing actual research that demonstrates that what I stated was not a fact?

And, how exactly is someone paying taxes, and those monies being used for something they disagree with, a form of theft?
You made the audacious claim. It would be on you to provide evidence to support it.

As I have said I am not going to get into a debate in this thread about climate science. It frankly is irrelevant to the subject as the billions of dollars that were to be siphoned off of the American taxpayer are not specifically earmarked for anything.


There is no logical reason why American people should give any monies to any other nation in the name of "climate change" it is foolish.


This is why we have elections. The people that voted for trump wanted nothing to do w/ these shenanigans and it looks like they are getting what they want.
Sabcat is online now  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Environment

Tags
agreement, announces, climate, expects, paris, trump, withdrawal, withdraws



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Trump to scrap Nasa climate research in crackdown on ‘politicized science’ RNG Environment 250 November 28th, 2016 03:59 PM
China warns Trump against abandoning climate change deal excalibur Current Events 247 November 25th, 2016 07:23 AM
What is wrong with this headline? U.S., China ratify Paris climate agreement johnwk Current Events 53 September 5th, 2016 08:03 PM
Harding withdraws from consideration as TSA chief CNN Current Events 1 March 27th, 2010 07:08 AM
Harriet Miers withdraws RidinHighSpeeds Political Talk 17 November 7th, 2005 04:43 AM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.