Trump Administration Now Open to Remaining in Paris Climate Accord Under Certain Conditions

September 18, 2017

  • September 18, 2017 at 8:37 am
    Rosenblatt says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 16
    Thumb down 0

    How can you get a better deal than “we get to set our own goals and there are absolutely no penalties if we fail to meet those targets”?

    • September 18, 2017 at 12:04 pm
      Counterpoint says:
      Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 18
      Thumb down 5

      It seems like he is just going to ask for something impossible so he can then say “well, we tried” after he backs out, as originally planned.

      The original negotiations of this took years and going back to it is impractical. We shouldn’t be treated any differently than the other nations that agreed.

      • September 18, 2017 at 1:32 pm
        Jack Kanauph says:
        Hot debate. What do you think?
        Thumb up 9
        Thumb down 14

        We should not be treated any different than the other nations, agreed. But the USA is paying more than an equal share for being part of this.

        • September 18, 2017 at 2:00 pm
          Rosenblatt says:
          Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 13
          Thumb down 2

          Jack – how can you say we’re paying more than other nations? (1) Each nation sets their own goals and, way more importantly, (2) there is no penalty what so ever if any nation fails to meet their goals.

  • September 18, 2017 at 1:15 pm
    Retired UW says:
    Hot debate. What do you think?
    Thumb up 18
    Thumb down 11

    Of course, three people in the White House deny that the US could remain in the ACORD, then another WH official says the opposite. The story changes hourly. This entire administration is unfit to serve its citizens.

    • September 18, 2017 at 2:16 pm
      Agent says:
      Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 8
      Thumb down 18

      Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

      • September 18, 2017 at 2:20 pm
        Rosenblatt says:
        Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 13
        Thumb down 2

        There are literally ZERO penalties for not meeting whatever goals each nation sets for themselves! I don’t understand how you and Jack can keep saying we’re paying more than other nations when nobody actually pays out anything as part of the deal.

        • September 18, 2017 at 3:31 pm
          Agent says:
          Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 5
          Thumb down 15

          Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

          • September 18, 2017 at 3:48 pm
            Rosenblatt says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 10
            Thumb down 1

            I never said that, so I can’t answer your question. Let me rephrase and hopefully my point will be clearer.

            Where in the Paris Accords does it say ANY country is required to pay ANYTHING — either into a fund or to another country — for ANY reason what so ever?

          • September 21, 2017 at 3:11 pm
            PolarBeaRepeal says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 2

            It doesn’t say much of anything, but countries EXPECT the US to be one of the suckers and pay oodles.

            Because a document says nothing doesn’t mean certain behaviors aren’t expected of participants in such a treaty, er, accord.

            BTW: why did Obama establish the relationship with this Global Hoaxing Organization as an ‘accord’ rather than set it out to Congress as a ‘treaty’? Bonus points if you answer that correctly AND then answer this: how much does Obama pay annually in carbon taxes?

      • September 18, 2017 at 9:30 pm
        UW says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 11
        Thumb down 6

        “By the way, has any of the countries that signed the accord came to the US aid after our storms? No, I didn’t think so.”

        4th grade education and knowledge arguing geopolitical events and science. I say arguing because he has never presented a fact, source, or rebuttal much different than “nuh uh, nuh uh.”

        Genius, the EU, Mexico, Canada, and others offered aid. The problem is the US is a pariah now because we have an insane, unhinged, historically unpopular president who has attacked our allies at every possible opportunity, so they don’t want to give aid. Yes, he has done a lot to please the fascists and White supremacists like yourself, but that’s not helping worldwide.

        • September 19, 2017 at 1:28 pm
          Captain Planet says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 7
          Thumb down 4

          Gotta love the “whataboutist” argument always stemming from the right, don’t you UW?

    • September 20, 2017 at 4:47 pm
      bob says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 1
      Thumb down 4

      Nope. The media however tries to spin it that way. I saw the LA Times do this same thing regarding NAFTA. Trump originally said he would withdraw if it had bad affects, or we got a bad deal. He has kept saying that. Then the public kept saying he’s leaving! Now he’s going back on leaving! Even though each time he repeated himself, and they left that out. Each time he was leaning different ways due to an event. So, if it looked like concessions were made, he would say “in light of this maybe I will stay”. When it looked like bad actions were taken he would say “if this keeps up I may have to leave”.

      The Paris Accord has gone the same way. This all depends on what the final deal ends up being that Trump rejects or accepts, but in the mean time, there is no huge change happening every 30 seconds that he comments he may or may not leave depending on what is occurring.

      This is hysteria, and your side needs to knock it off.

  • September 18, 2017 at 5:51 pm
    Agent says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 4
    Thumb down 11

    Let me re-phrase so I can be clearer. How does it benefit this country to take on the burden of the world on Climate Change? You know I am right, so give it up.

    • September 18, 2017 at 9:33 pm
      UW says:
      Hot debate. What do you think?
      Thumb up 13
      Thumb down 8

      Because we are going to have massive, devastating effects due to climate change. And, genius, because if the US shifted to the new green energies faster it would offer a massive competitive advantage in energy, and almost every single other aspect of the economy. That is pretending for the sake of argument the US is taking on the burden of the world on climate change, with or without the randomly capitalized letters, which we are not doing. China has moved towards their goals faster than agreed.

      You are wasting your time pretending this is based on your analysis of the issue. Just be honest and say liberals believe the almost 100% of climate scientists, so you are against the science. Liberals want to protect the economy and people from climate change, and therefore you (as a fake Christian) are against that.

      • September 20, 2017 at 5:51 pm
        bob says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 3
        Thumb down 4

        9 of you liked this? THIS?!?!?!?!

        “You are wasting your time pretending this is based on your analysis of the issue. Just be honest and say liberals believe the almost 100% of climate scientists, so you are against the science. Liberals want to protect the economy and people from climate change, and therefore you (as a fake Christian) are against that.”

        Point one:

        There is no 100% climate change consensus, this is garbage talk.

        Point two:

        He is now bullying him into accepting he is against science.

        Point Three:

        He’s now saying that in light of point two, that he’s against science, he’s against the economy and people.

        This is not ok.

        And Point Four:

        Andrew, get on banning this guy. This is harassment, and he does it to everyone.

        • September 21, 2017 at 12:48 pm
          The Downvoter says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 1
          Thumb down 0

          You calling someone a troll is like Agent calling someone intolerant or bob calling someone long-winded. The irony has not been lost on us.

        • September 21, 2017 at 1:01 pm
          Doug Fisher says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 1
          Thumb down 0

          Yogi, do we need to remind you that you are a guest of these boards? Please leave the moderation to the moderators. If you have a problem with it, please contact them.

          Don’t you remember posting that same nonsense almost word for word half a dozen times last month? The arrogance and hypocrisy would be astounding if it wasn’t coming from you. LOL

          You don’t see me whining about my articulate response to bob’s whining post being deleted, do you?

        • September 22, 2017 at 1:53 pm
          UW says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 2
          Thumb down 1

          There is close to 100% agreement among climate scientists on climate change. A new study came out showing all the papers in the Cook et al study that did not confirm climate change had serious data or mathematical errors and when corrected the data confirmed climate change. This is the study you did not read and then didn’t understand, and then summarized incorrectly to lie about me for months with.

          I’ve asked you a hundred times, leave me alone. Stop commenting on my posts. Go away.

          • September 22, 2017 at 2:12 pm
            Doug Fisher says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 2
            Thumb down 0

            Weirdly enough, your first post and bob’s responding post remain, but all that come after it keep getting deleted, so enjoy this one while it lasts.

    • September 19, 2017 at 9:23 am
      Rosenblatt says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 9
      Thumb down 0

      Agent – as this article is about the PARIS ACCORD, and I’m sure you want to keep this on-topic, I’m going to focus on that in my reply to your question.

      Exactly what burden (financial or otherwise) was our country **REQUIRED** to pay or provide to other countries ***as part of the Paris Accord?***

      Similarly, what penalty would our country have to pay (financial or otherwise) if we didn’t meet whatever goals we set for ourselves as part of the Paris Accord?

      • September 21, 2017 at 3:17 pm
        PolarBeaRepeal says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 0
        Thumb down 1

        The ‘Agreement’ being in a state of flux prevents any meaningful answer to your query.

        • September 21, 2017 at 3:21 pm
          Rosenblatt says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 1
          Thumb down 0

          No – it prevents meaningful conversation about what the agreement MAY BE in the FUTURE. We can still discuss how the agreement is currently drafted and its current implications. Would you like to do that?

          • September 21, 2017 at 4:03 pm
            Doug Fisher says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 0

            Rosenblatt,

            I know your intentions are good and positive, but I am not sure why you waste your time. You already know what the result will be.

          • September 21, 2017 at 4:21 pm
            Rosenblatt says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 0

            Yeah … I hear you … but you never *really* know, ya know? I mean, he actually agreed that the single point I kept bringing up was true, unlike all the others here who have tried to “debate” me about it on this thread.

            SEPTEMBER 21, 2017 AT 3:20 PM
            PolarBeaRepeal says:
            The ‘agreement’ is in flux…. no penalty now in the current [a]greement.
            (emphasis added)

        • September 22, 2017 at 6:09 pm
          Agent says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 0
          Thumb down 0

          Polar, once a Climate Change hoaxer, always one. Word parsing is also a hoax and we see with clear eyes what is going on.

  • September 19, 2017 at 1:43 pm
    Craig Cornell says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 3
    Thumb down 2

    The impact of the Paris Climate Agreement is negligible, according to Climate Scientists. If every country honors the agreement and meets their separate, individual country’s goals, it will reduce carbon production by 10% over what would be produced otherwise over the next 30 years. That’s right. Paris allows that 90% of the CO2 is coming our way no matter what.

    And if the United States leaves the agreement? 8% reduction.

    That’s right, if we stay in the Agreement and every country honors their commitment (good luck with that), the impact of the United States on reducing global CO2 through the Paris Accord is 2%.

    More symbolism than reality (see Keystone Pipeline).

    And yet, every is getting all worked up about whether we stay in or out.
    WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE!

    • September 19, 2017 at 4:32 pm
      Rosenblatt says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 3
      Thumb down 0

      “More symbolism than reality” – 100% agree with you Craig. It won’t cost us $0.01 to comply and won’t cost us $0.01 if we fail to meet our promise either. It’s all lip service. We’re certainly not losing money on the deal and we don’t have to pay out on behalf or towards some other country. What’s the big deal if we made a “gentleman’s bet” as part of this Accord? It’s

      • September 19, 2017 at 5:05 pm
        Agent says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 1
        Thumb down 6

        The Paris accords was one of the worst ever agreed to and our President is wise in making sure we aren’t obligated $.01 to clean up pollution in any other country. The Euro union is also delinquent on their UN dues and NATO dues. Pay up Europe or you won’t get your agreement.

        • September 20, 2017 at 8:19 am
          Ron says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 4
          Thumb down 0

          While I agree with Agent, and our President, that other countries need to start paying their fair share into the UN, it has nothing to do with the Paris Climate Accord.

          • September 21, 2017 at 12:35 pm
            PolarBeaRepeal says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 3

            Nothing? Really? Nothing?!

          • September 21, 2017 at 12:47 pm
            Ron says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 4
            Thumb down 0

            If you disagree, then make your case.

            Or are you just trolling…again.

          • September 21, 2017 at 3:19 pm
            PolarBeaRepeal says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 2

            YOU make YOUR case that there is NOTHING correlated between the two. Ready, steady, …. GO!

          • September 21, 2017 at 4:24 pm
            Ron says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 2
            Thumb down 0

            Asking someone to prove a negative.

            The ultimate troll move.

        • September 20, 2017 at 8:45 am
          Rosenblatt says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 4
          Thumb down 0

          Agent – I already mentioned this numerous times already, but you don’t seem to get it, so maybe if I write in all capital letters it will sink in.

          THERE IS NO FINANCIAL OBLIGATION TIED INTO THE PARIS ACCORDS AT ALL. IF A COUNTRY DOES NOT MEET THEIR GOALS, NO PENALTY IS ASSESSED.

          Please please PLEASE stop trying to say Trump was right to take us out of the Accord *solely* because we’re paying too much or would be obligated to pay anything. You can agree with him taking us out for other reasons, but there was no **financial** reason for us to withdraw.

          • September 20, 2017 at 1:27 pm
            Craig Cornell says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 1

            Please tell us in detail what we agreed to. You make it sound like we agreed to do nothing. If so, what is the point of staying in or out?

          • September 20, 2017 at 2:26 pm
            Rosenblatt says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 3
            Thumb down 1

            We agreed to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by 26% to 28% by 2025. However, I think you’re missing my point.

            I’m saying it doesn’t matter WHAT we agreed to do, there is NO FINANCIAL PENALTY if we ever failed to meet those goals. Additionally, there’s NOTHING in the Accord saying any country has to pay to clean up another country (like Agent posted earlier).

            Therefore, saying the Paris Accord was a bad deal SOLELY from a FINANCIAL standpoint is 100% false.

          • September 21, 2017 at 3:20 pm
            PolarBeaRepeal says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 0

            The ‘agreement’ is in flux…. no penalty now in the current greement.

          • September 21, 2017 at 3:24 pm
            Rosenblatt says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 0

            There is no penalty in the current agreement … that is correct and solely what I’ve been trying to get across. Thank you.

      • September 20, 2017 at 4:08 pm
        bob says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 0
        Thumb down 4

        http://www.heritage.org/environment/report/consequences-paris-protocol-devastating-economic-costs-essentially-zero

        It’s not a gentleman’s accord. Many European nations have drastically higher electricity costs due to what has been implemented there. In order to get the results this calls for we will decimate the cost of living, for something which we may well have very little control over.

        Also, there are definitely agreements toward giving certain sums of money to other countries. The issue here isn’t fines if you fail to do it, it is that we would indeed be picking up the tab for other countries by entering into it, or we would be lying by entering into it if we didn’t give money.

        You are more interested in cliché lines than the damage of bills like this, the damage of the lies by the scientific community, and you have not once considered the damage to our kids. This has become a bullying issue, see UW. He is not abnormal. If you do not accept climate change in College, you are literally harassed and called a flat earther, as well as shunned and looked down on.

        Socially this causes harm.
        Scientifically the left is trying to make consensus and remove debate, also, they are trying to impose legal ramifications, and the Paris Accord would be a large step further to making this worse.
        Cost wise the middle class would be in extreme detriment.

        But we shouldn’t block this bill. Because man, it isn’t that bad, and you want to focus on what some idiotic conservatives are saying instead of the merit or lack thereof on this bill.

        Don’t debate with idiots like Agent. They clearly make you sidestep logic on your decision making process politically, and have you label people on the right far too much who are not in power, are not the norm, and are not even the typical college educated republicans either. The issue is you are seeing what you want to see, and you’re ignoring serious issues in the name of being virtuous. You’re not virtuous. You’re not smarter than Agent. You’re not better than Agent.

        • September 20, 2017 at 4:11 pm
          bob says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 0
          Thumb down 3

          I shouldn’t have worded that like that, and I apologize Agent. I’m talking from his point of view not to debate with people he thinks are idiots like you. He’s clearly losing focus when he does, because he’s labeled you before he even gets far into the debate.

  • September 20, 2017 at 3:09 pm
    PolarBeaRepeal says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 1
    Thumb down 5

    I think TrumPresident is just goofing on Dems / Libs / Libbitterals, i.e. making them think he’s changed his tune. Soon, though, he’ll pull the football away just as Charlie Brown steps up to kick it.

    • September 20, 2017 at 3:26 pm
      Doug Fisher says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 4
      Thumb down 0

      Such great and inspired leadership.

      • September 20, 2017 at 3:59 pm
        bob says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 0
        Thumb down 2

        Point 1:

        Polar is wrong.

        Point 2: You want for this to be true, ergo why you said such great and inspired leadership, because you think morally first, facts second.

        Work on that.

  • September 20, 2017 at 4:03 pm
    Craig Cornell says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 1

    Agent never said there was a “financial penalty”. He said we were expected to help other countries with climate change. And sure enough, our goals are higher than nearly every other country’s goals, meaning we are helping to offset CO2 production to a greater extent than say, China or India, who have to make zero sacrifices until 2030, at the earliest.

    And of course, if the cost of alternative energy sources such as wind and solar must be subsidized in order to meet the goals we are committing to in the Paris Accord, then there is clearly a financial cost to our commitment. Whether in higher energy costs paid for by poor and middle class consumers or higher taxes, there is clearly a cost over cheaper fossil fuels. And if there is no cost difference, no “financial” difference, then who cares at all? Whether we ship money to other countries or pay more for carbon-free energy than they do, what is the difference?

    • September 20, 2017 at 4:10 pm
      bob says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 1
      Thumb down 0

      Thank you. I was about to start on writing this myself.

      A+ Post.

    • September 20, 2017 at 4:48 pm
      Rosenblatt says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 1

      That’s not my point. I am trying to express there is NO a financial PENALTY if we (1) do not meet our goals, (2) if we adjust our goals lower, or (3) even if decide to reduce our pledge to the GCF to $00.00. There’s nothing any country could do to FORCE us to pay out anything to the GCF nor are we hit with fees if we decide we don’t even want to take one step towards meeting our goal.

  • September 20, 2017 at 4:44 pm
    Rosenblatt says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 3
    Thumb down 0

    Bob – I would like to focus on the SINGLE point I have kept trying to make here and will gladly get into the other financial issues (e.g. taxes, subsidies, jobs, etc) with you once we get to the bottom of the ONE thing I keep harping on.

    You wrote “there are definitely agreements toward giving certain sums of money to other countries”

    I have never heard or read that to be true. I reviewed your link, and there’s nothing about that in there.

    What I know to be true are that countries made VOLUNTARY PLEDGES to the Green Climate Fund (not individual countries), but as I stated many times, each country can adjust their goals (including prior pledges to the G.C.F.) at any time without penalty.

    So … where in the Paris Accords does it say that these VOLUNTARY PLEDGES to the GCF are MANDATORY and IRREVOCABLE?

    • September 20, 2017 at 5:22 pm
      bob says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 2

      Before I begin I would like to thank you for your comment. I read this through and I can see you actually respected me in it. Of course you were passionate but I don’t see any elements of that passion as intentionally degrading this time around.

      Let’s move into it:

      “Bob – I would like to focus on the SINGLE point I have kept trying to make here and will gladly get into the other financial issues (e.g. taxes, subsidies, jobs, etc) with you once we get to the bottom of the ONE thing I keep harping on.”

      I am aware, however your “harping” item is distracting from what are actual issues. What this person said above is quite true. When Agent says we would take on a large burden with this for other countries, we would, if we followed an agreement we made with the Paris Accord. In any event, this would cause what I put above, and, part of the accord is in making commitments to third world countries. Yes, we can make those decisions, but then why are we entering into an accord to begin with?

      “You wrote “there are definitely agreements toward giving certain sums of money to other countries”
      I have never heard or read that to be true. I reviewed your link, and there’s nothing about that in there.”

      That’s because I assumed common knowledge would be common. If you’re going to comment on something like this, you need to be better versed. This is why I again and again tell you what your weakness is. You could very easily google this. Why don’t you? Why doesn’t Ron know things (as he admitted when I mentioned the $5,000 debit card to buy your own policy or to find a doctor for your services, and why that would be good, he said he had never heard of it.). Why are you guys so often missing this? It’s not Agent’s fault entirely (though he explains poorly) it is that when you read something you’ve never heard, and Agent points it out, you preemptively think he’s wrong, instead of google the point he made, you find a way to disregard it. Contrary to what I know you believe, I google any point before I say why I think it is false. Key words, why I THINK it is false. Also, here is your link. You missed 100 billion of commitments why? Well, I have literally heard you nearly verbatim say what other news sites about how the Paris Accord doesn’t have fees or fines for failing to meet commitments. Could it be that they are manipulating you because they know your weakness with Agent? You need to be better on your toes about smart people who will try to manipulate you. Watch me while I say they are using this on purpose. Know your enemy.

      http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/06/01/531048986/so-what-exactly-is-in-the-paris-climate-accord

      “What I know to be true are that countries made VOLUNTARY PLEDGES to the Green Climate Fund (not individual countries), but as I stated many times, each country can adjust their goals (including prior pledges to the G.C.F.) at any time without penalty.
      So … where in the Paris Accords does it say that these VOLUNTARY PLEDGES to the GCF are MANDATORY and IRREVOCABLE?”

      If any president, including Trump, dedicated a huge sum to another country and didn’t pay it, you would call that abhorrent and absolutely inexcusable, and here you are, now, because it’s Trump, and no other reason I can find, stating that just because we enter into an agreement doesn’t mean we will actually honor it, when someone says how bad the agreement will be?

      Is this really what I’m reading? Clarify, because if it is, how do you not see this as complete rubbish what you are saying? Combine that you seem to be woefully missing parts of what the accord is meant to do, you need to back off out of this argument. You’re not adding anything to it or helping anyone.

    • September 20, 2017 at 5:32 pm
      bob says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 1

      In other words you have actually argued with me “just because x doesn’t mean y”, you haven’t debated what would be good or bad about such an action due to this argument of “just because bill x is signed doesn’t mean y result will occur”, you’re not exactly sure the affects of bill x, and even if you were, how could you know? Your own logic structure will betray you if you dare to be consistent with it. As in, if you believe just because X action is taken doesn’t mean we will actually have the Y result, it means you can’t be sure of any result, or any action if we sign any bill evidently.

      Why should we have any agreement with another entity regarding our emissions, if that other entity isn’t going to receive an agreement? That’s another big question here. If you’re right, well, this bill shouldn’t even exist and is a joke. Is it a joke? You seem to think Trump is the joke for potentially not wanting to engage in a joke political aspect. Is that consistent logic? Why don’t you explain to me your full views on the bill, whether we should have it or not, what you think the affects will be, and why?

      Let’s go there. Or can you even do it?

      • September 22, 2017 at 6:04 pm
        Agent says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 1
        Thumb down 0

        Bob, the bottom line is that these nations expect the US to carry the burden. If they won’t pay their NATO defense dues or their UN dues, how can we expect them to pay their Paris accord dues? They are cheapskates and will not do it. End of story.

  • September 21, 2017 at 8:19 am
    Rosenblatt says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 1

    Bob – Again, you raise points and discussion topics that I am willing to discuss once we can get to the bottom of my sole talking point.

    The Paris Accords clearly state it “strongly urges developed country Parties…to achieve the goal of jointly providing USD 100 billion annually by 2020”

    “Strongly urges” is a loose term that does NOT mean the same as “requires” or “mandates”. “Strongly urges” clearly implies there is no penalty or any other enforceable action within the Accord should any Party not help to achieve that goal. If that were NOT true, the Paris Accord would have a clause or section indicating what enforceable actions could be taken against countries who do not contribute the money they pledged to pay. There is no such clause or section; hence, the Paris Accord is unambiguous (to me) that these are voluntary contributions and, if we decided to pay $2 instead of $20B, nobody could do anything about it.

    I previously did my research, hence how I knew that this $100B fund is made up of VOLUNTARY PLEDGES and would be paid to the Green Climate Fund.

    So I ask you again … where in the Paris Accords does it say that these VOLUNTARY PLEDGES to the GCF are MANDATORY and IRREVOCABLE? Where does it say that a country will be penalized in any way, shape, or form, should the country not pay what they had previously voluntary pledged?

  • September 21, 2017 at 3:33 pm
    Come on, Man says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 2
    Thumb down 0

    Hmmmm.. What do the United States and Syria have in common?..

    • September 21, 2017 at 4:06 pm
      Doug Fisher says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 2
      Thumb down 0

      LOL.

      You mean besides being run by egomaniacs?

      • September 22, 2017 at 12:11 pm
        Captain Planet says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 2
        Thumb down 0

        Deranged egomaniacs.

    • September 22, 2017 at 3:33 pm
      Rosenblatt says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 1
      Thumb down 0

      I know you’re kidding, but I can’t help be literal right now:

      1) Both have “S”, “I” and an “A” in their names
      2) Both had civil wars
      3) Both have people who want their President’s to step down
      4) ??Both governments are backed by Russia??



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

More News
More News Features