Paris Climate Accord Needs $12 Trillion To Reach Goal

[Anonymous 6]

Presidential Historian: Deep State Operatives Are Attempting Coup d’état of US President (VIDEO)

My my my, would you look at this. The Paris Climate Change deal needs to have at a minimum of $12 Trillion dollars to reach their climate goals. I don’t now about you guys, but I’m glad as certain somebody pulled us out of that deal. I wonder who that guy was……..oh yea, PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP!!!! Just think, that could have been our tax dollars funding that.

[Faust For ScienceParticipant 22521]

This is a large attempted open theft by the globalist against the American people. $12 trillion is around the size of the U.S. annual gross domestic product.

Well, President Trump did his job, he got the U.S. out of that mess, and the globalists are upset they are not going to get a multi-trillion dollar payday at the expense of the American people.

[narwhalParticipant]

The idea of a climate Accord makes little sense to me. First, I’ll go take the leapt that climate change is man made and we could actually make a significant impact on it. So ok, go with that. Why exactly do we have to have an Accord to get that done?

It almost sounds like this Accord is some sort of nuclear disarmament deal. We’ll only stop our coal fired plants if you stop yours…and give us your money. If we are so certain that the climate is going to go to s~~~, then why don’t we just do what needs to be done on our own?

Seriously, we don’t a treaty with another country in order to put carbon production restrictions on our plants. Sure, it’s useless if other countries don’t do the same, but we’re sure the world will end, so why wouldn’t they? We can even tax imports and other economic sanctions on countries in order to push them without this Accord.

People are acting like nothing could be done without this Accord, which just makes no sense to me.

Again, I’m not even saying I think man made climate change is real, I do not to the existent of the scientific predictions. Even within that framework though, signing an agreement where we have to sanction ourselves and give other people money makes no sense to me.

Ok. Then do it.

[Anonymous 6]

And the thing that gets me is, they really think humans can spend money and change the weather. We’re listening to scientists who said in the 70’s, we would be in an ice age in the 2000’s. The weather man can’t even predict the weather for the week. How is a scientist going to know the weather 25 years from now.

It was a waste of money. They have to be pretty dumb to think humans could affect the weather. I believe in climate change tho, it changes four times a year. Fall, winter, spring, summer.

[Can’t Stump TrumpParticipant]

Anonymous wrote:

We’re listening to scientists who said in the 70’s, we would be in an ice age in the 2000’s.

“Global cooling” was all the rage back then. The earth goes through natural cycles of several decades in which it oscillates between hot and cold. It’s always done this and it always will. Climate change is a pure hoax by the elites to extort money.

Can humans have a negative impact on the environment? Sure can. The pollution in China is very real. The funny thing is, walking around here in the U.S., I find that despite all the screaming and moaning, I can breathe the air and I’m not getting cancer from the sun, so sounds like what we’re doing is working.

Women are better at multitasking? Fucking up several things at once is not multitasking.

[FrankOneParticipant 1417]

Human activity does change the weather. For instance, I reside in a large urban area, the asphalt and other man made materials absorb heat, so it is warmer than adjacent rural counties.

Similarly, vast tracts of farmland, impact the humidity.

That said, I do not regard CO2 as a serious issue–certainly not serious enough to spend billions of dollars to reduce concentrations. The uncontrolled particulate, VOC, SOX, and NOX emissions from Chinese power plants, are a much greater REAL and immediately serious issue as it relates to human health, than CO2. Furthermore, the deal placed undue/unfair costs on the US.

Venom: but if we don’t sign the treaty, we will have to keep our own national sovereignty, can’t have that, can we?

It’s called ‘cap and trade for a reason’. Put a cap in the head of the American economy and trade economic growth and freedom away to our competitors.

It’s laughable how mainstream media says we are giving up ‘climate leadership’ to China in bailing. Real environmental leadership came when we eliminated tetra ethyl lead in gasoline, and controlled power plant particulate and acid gas emissions, and developed the catalytic converter. When the skyline of Beijing is as clear as LA, then they will be meeting our emission standards of real pollutants, don’t hold your breath for that one…

[Author]

Posts