Geoffrey Settle Posted June 2, 2017 Report Share Posted June 2, 2017 (edited) Climate Change denial by Donald Trump - has the USA and the World been Trumped by the President withdrawing from the Paris 2015 agreement ? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-40127326 Edited June 2, 2017 by Geoffrey Settle Clarification - adding 'by the President' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted June 2, 2017 Report Share Posted June 2, 2017 No. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freeborn John Posted June 2, 2017 Report Share Posted June 2, 2017 The climate change industry isn't happy at the prospect of having to take its hands out of Uncle Sams bottomless pockets, what's the point of inventing a lucrative new worldwide religion if there's no lucre... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davy51 Posted June 2, 2017 Report Share Posted June 2, 2017 I think you have to look twice at any venture that suddenly turns into a tax generating opportunity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoffrey Settle Posted June 2, 2017 Author Report Share Posted June 2, 2017 1 hour ago, Davy51 said: I think you have to look twice at any venture that suddenly turns into a tax generating opportunity. Please expand Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted June 2, 2017 Report Share Posted June 2, 2017 The climate change scam is a clever method of taking money from taxpayers in wealthy countries and transferring it to poorer countries. This has also been described as transferring money from poor people in rich countries to rich people in poor countries. It's also a method of ensuring that so called "climate scientists" keep getting "research funds". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted June 2, 2017 Report Share Posted June 2, 2017 The agreement was meaningless in the first place, as it was totally voluntary, with no sanctions on non-compliance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davy51 Posted June 2, 2017 Report Share Posted June 2, 2017 As i recall one of the first outcomes of the revelations of the Al Gore film was that taxing consumers would somehow stop people using the very things that were allegedly causing global warming. Seeing as consumers were not the people causing the problems ,the tax was nothing more than a money making scam for HM Gov. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted June 2, 2017 Report Share Posted June 2, 2017 No... total money making scam as has already been said.... on a par with the UK Health and Safety industry and Electrical PAT testing for businesses Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted June 2, 2017 Report Share Posted June 2, 2017 Perhaps a referendum on the issue, then a change of mind 12 months later ? ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted June 2, 2017 Report Share Posted June 2, 2017 A US viewpoint: https://youtu.be/cVOOMyYde0c Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fugtifino Posted June 3, 2017 Report Share Posted June 3, 2017 16 hours ago, Freeborn John said: The climate change industry isn't happy at the prospect of having to take its hands out of Uncle Sams bottomless pockets, what's the point of inventing a lucrative new worldwide religion if there's no lucre... Who are the "climate change industry"? Names please. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fugtifino Posted June 3, 2017 Report Share Posted June 3, 2017 15 hours ago, Davy51 said: I think you have to look twice at any venture that suddenly turns into a tax generating opportunity. How do taxes generated from green energy compare to those generated from fossil fuels and nuclear energy? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fugtifino Posted June 3, 2017 Report Share Posted June 3, 2017 12 hours ago, observer said: The agreement was meaningless in the first place, as it was totally voluntary, with no sanctions on non-compliance. That's what made it meaningful, nobody had to do it, but most nations believed it would be best to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fugtifino Posted June 3, 2017 Report Share Posted June 3, 2017 Here's Trump's history on climate change: http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/11/trump-climate-timeline I have to question the sanity of anyone who would align themselves with this fraudulent buffoon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoffrey Settle Posted June 3, 2017 Author Report Share Posted June 3, 2017 fugtifino - At least Trump is consistent with his Fake News, unbelievable how people can swallow it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davy51 Posted June 3, 2017 Report Share Posted June 3, 2017 7 hours ago, fugtifino said: How do taxes generated from green energy compare to those generated from fossil fuels and nuclear energy? Sorry,i haven't a clue ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted June 3, 2017 Report Share Posted June 3, 2017 7 hours ago, fugtifino said: How do taxes generated from green energy compare to those generated from fossil fuels and nuclear energy? Badly. Green energy consumes tax in the form of subsidies to make it competitive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoffrey Settle Posted June 3, 2017 Author Report Share Posted June 3, 2017 25 minutes ago, asperity said: Badly. Green energy consumes tax in the form of subsidies to make it competitive. You are not answering the question asked you're not a politician by any chance are you? fugtifino is asking for the amount of income generated by green energy and other fuels in pounds, subsidies were to encourage the new industry to get started. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fugtifino Posted June 3, 2017 Report Share Posted June 3, 2017 48 minutes ago, asperity said: Badly. Green energy consumes tax in the form of subsidies to make it competitive. Does this kind of stuff bother you then? https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/nov/12/uk-breaks-pledge-to-become-only-g7-country-increase-fossil-fuel-subsidies Or this? https://www.theguardian.com/environment/damian-carrington-blog/2015/oct/22/hinkley-point-uk-energy-policy-is-now-hunkering-in-a-nuclear-bunker Geoff - think you may have been on your sabbatical when this discussion took place here, you might find it, er, instructive: https://tinyurl.com/ycvhqb2s Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted June 3, 2017 Report Share Posted June 3, 2017 10 hours ago, fugtifino said: That's what made it meaningful, nobody had to do it, but most nations believed it would be best to. No, nobody "has" to do it, meaning - it can be ignored if it proves economically inconvenient to any individual country, similar to the nuclear non- proliferation Treaty - just words. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoffrey Settle Posted June 3, 2017 Author Report Share Posted June 3, 2017 26 minutes ago, observer said: No, nobody "has" to do it, meaning - it can be ignored if it proves economically inconvenient to any individual country, similar to the nuclear non- proliferation Treaty - just words. Just playing with word hey Obs - you know that's NOT what he meant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted June 3, 2017 Report Share Posted June 3, 2017 14 minutes ago, Geoffrey Settle said: Just playing with word hey Obs - you know that's NOT what he meant. Nope, I don't do semantics - all these "Treaties" require 100% compliance, in order to work (assuming a sound basis in the first place of course); but I'm afraid national self interest rules, even if, like the Yanks, they don't admit it openly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoffrey Settle Posted June 3, 2017 Author Report Share Posted June 3, 2017 2 hours ago, fugtifino said: Does this kind of stuff bother you then? https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/nov/12/uk-breaks-pledge-to-become-only-g7-country-increase-fossil-fuel-subsidies Or this? https://www.theguardian.com/environment/damian-carrington-blog/2015/oct/22/hinkley-point-uk-energy-policy-is-now-hunkering-in-a-nuclear-bunker Geoff - think you may have been on your sabbatical when this discussion took place here, you might find it, er, instructive: https://tinyurl.com/ycvhqb2s Yes I think I was I took a year or so off - One of the photos show Green Dave - can anyone remember him at one of the poles? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted June 3, 2017 Report Share Posted June 3, 2017 What we've seen in the build up to this Climate Agreement, is basically a blackmail scenario from countries like India. If you want us to stop using coal (which is cheaper) then start paying us to subsidise renewables (that's us of course, doing the paying). Not, oh yes we can see your argument, therefore we'll convert to a renewable economy, cos we believe it's in the interest of our own population; even if that means paying for it ourselves. Similarly the Chinese, who were building a coal fired power station every week, are now late converts, due to a spate of choking smogs in Beijing. If countries are really concerned about their own people, they'll take the necessary environmental measures to protect their own, without handouts; and that will apply to more immediate and tangible issues, such as traffic and waste pollution; and of course (the elephant in the room), over-population. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.