Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

NATO summit

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Citanon, thank you. Things are clearer now. It's getting pretty warm every summer. Had to put up an AC in the hall too. :--)
    Politicians are elected to serve...far too many don't see it that way - Albany Rifles! || Loyalty to country always. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it - Mark Twain! || I am a far left millennial!

    Comment


    • citanon,

      What it means is that we need to have an internal consensus in the US about approaches forward before we sign on to an international pact.
      this is also a meaningless statement seeing as how the Accord has 70% support with US registered voters. of all the things that led to Trump's election, i highly doubt this was even a blip for voters.

      you talk about "bi-partisan way to stimulate investment in parts of the energy infrastructure that could provide a smoother path for growth of renewables in the future, and add R&D investment to lagging areas where solutions could be realistically found. In the long term, I think this would be the fastest way to substantive green house emissions reductions over and above present trajectories, as it preserves and builds political and economic momentum for faster deployment of technologies once they are actually ready."

      so my question would be, where have you seen -Republicans- support any of this, even prior to the Accord? let's not even talk about this current administration, which is heavily coal-focused as they believe (correctly) that flipping the old industrial zones was the linchpin to their political victory.
      Last edited by astralis; 03 Jun 17,, 17:38.
      There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

      Comment


      • Originally posted by astralis View Post
        of all the things that led to Trump's election, i highly doubt this was even a blip for voters.
        Well, there was at least one headline in Germany that read: "Surprise: Trump keeps a campaign promise" with regard to cancelling Paris (referring how most of the rest is contested on various levels).

        Comment


        • Originally posted by citanon View Post

          What the administration could have done was make reasonable pledges in the Paris Accords that took account of present developments in the US and set a range of targets reflecting realistic scenarios for meeting the challenges. Then it could have tried to move or set the stage for a movement in a bi-partisan way to stimulate investment in parts of the energy infrastructure that could provide a smoother path for growth of renewables in the future, and add R&D investment to lagging areas where solutions could be realistically found. In the long term, I think this would be the fastest way to substantive green house emissions reductions over and above present trajectories, as it preserves and builds political and economic momentum for faster deployment of technologies once they are actually ready.

          Instead, to get a deal, they went with an overly ambitious goal, and then went about trying to enforce it in a politically rapacious way via very damaging regulations, many of which were done by Executive Order, hitting a lot of different industries.

          This create political backlash and destroyed any near term prospect of political consensus, and also made people rightly suspicious that future steps could be undertaken in the same undemocratic and haphazard way. Had it been carried out, it would have also created increasingly difficult economic situations that would have seen us lose our industry instead of renewing them with greener technologies. China would have, of course, been the primary beneficiary of our loss, and also, perhaps India.
          I don't believe there would have been any other way to have done the Accords even the way you pointed out. There would always be those right wing conservatives who don't believe in climate change, those who felt we were signing away our sovereignty and those who felt God would take care of it anyway. The Donald, always willing to appease them, would have still pulled us out no matter how innocuous. This group just doesn't seem to like treaties with the rest of the world unless the U.S. comes out clearly on top as #1.

          I am no fan of Donald Trump. I like some of his goals and policies but dislikes his ineptness in translating them into action. And then there are many other areas where I think he is just plain wrong. However, I also think that the trajectory of the approach that Obama had set us on, and the international political environment that the Paris Accords created, was not good for the US.
          Should be interesting if the other signatories just tell the Donald to stuff it when he asks to renegotiate. Also wonder if we are not handing over the 22nd Century to China and India as all sides rush to develop renewable technology that they can patent.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by astralis View Post
            citanon,



            this is also a meaningless statement seeing as how the Accord has 70% support with US registered voters. of all the things that led to Trump's election, i highly doubt this was even a blip for voters.

            you talk about "bi-partisan way to stimulate investment in parts of the energy infrastructure that could provide a smoother path for growth of renewables in the future, and add R&D investment to lagging areas where solutions could be realistically found. In the long term, I think this would be the fastest way to substantive green house emissions reductions over and above present trajectories, as it preserves and builds political and economic momentum for faster deployment of technologies once they are actually ready."

            so my question would be, where have you seen -Republicans- support any of this, even prior to the Accord? let's not even talk about this current administration, which is heavily coal-focused as they believe (correctly) that flipping the old industrial zones was the linchpin to their political victory.
            Many voters support the idea of being in an accord but don't support the implementation cost.

            Republicans like tax cuts, repatriation of foreign corporate cash, and infrastructure spending. There's plenty of room there to get things going once one thinks a little creatively.

            Comment


            • citanon,

              Many voters support the idea of being in an accord but don't support the implementation cost.
              what implementation cost would that be? it's a -non-binding pact-. IE, if an administration believes that current measures designed to voluntarily fulfill the pact are too onerous...they can go ahead and eliminate/redesign them, and -still- stay in the pact.

              moreover, there's no reason why the Administration could not "stimulate investment in parts of the energy infrastructure that could provide a smoother path for growth of renewables in the future, and add R&D investment to lagging areas where solutions could be realistically found", pact or no.

              but i don't think i'll hold my breath for this Administration or for that matter, any Republican in Congress, to propose any of those ideas. let me know when you see this environmentally-friendly Republican of yours, i'll be sure to congratulate all one of them. :-)

              the only reason why the Administration would quit this pact is simply to make some political hay, nothing more, nothing less.
              There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

              Comment


              • Asty,

                Originally posted by astralis View Post
                citanon,

                what implementation cost would that be? it's a -non-binding pact-. IE, if an administration believes that current measures designed to voluntarily fulfill the pact are too onerous...they can go ahead and eliminate/redesign them, and -still- stay in the pact.
                Yet you had the Obama administration rapidly piling on new regulations using the Paris Accord as justification.

                The same people saying "it's just a voluntary pact!" today will be turning right around and saying "OMG we are not meeting climate obligations!!!!!!!" and using that to foist more regulatory folly on our economy. People who don't like these types of regulations are not morons. We have memory spans longer than Dory. Without a domestic political consensus and a binding framework for proceeding forth in a rational and deliberate manner liberal politicians cannot be trusted with this in their hands.


                moreover, there's no reason why the Administration could not "stimulate investment in parts of the energy infrastructure that could provide a smoother path for growth of renewables in the future, and add R&D investment to lagging areas where solutions could be realistically found", pact or no.

                but i don't think i'll hold my breath for this Administration or for that matter, any Republican in Congress, to propose any of those ideas. let me know when you see this environmentally-friendly Republican of yours, i'll be sure to congratulate all one of them. :-)

                the only reason why the Administration would quit this pact is simply to make some political hay, nothing more, nothing less.
                Democrats have an opportunity to show leadership on this later this year on this very issue. When the Republicans start talking corporate tax reform and infrastructure investment, ask for a special lower rate for green investment and a preview period of lower taxes for green manufacturing companies. Give them even more incentive to move their manufacturing into coal states and communities hit hard by job losses. Ask them to incorporate upgrades to the electric grid. Make the upgrades for better cyber security and to make it easier for grids to accept power from home and small renewable installations. Do it as a part of the compromise on tax reform and the infrastructure plan.
                Last edited by citanon; 04 Jun 17,, 02:54.

                Comment


                • this is also a meaningless statement seeing as how the Accord has 70% support with US registered voters. of all the things that led to Trump's election, i highly doubt this was even a blip for voters.
                  Meaningless
                  1. The Senate was not going to ratify this treaty (may not even have gotten all the Dems depending on how it unfolded), even assuming arguendo that's not a fake news "poll" :)
                  2. I'm sure how ever many people sorta support the idea of it would be shocked to find out Obama agreed to a deal which would send American tax money to nations who weren't agreeing to do a damn thing, or would increase higher energy costs and lead to more taxes.

                  The one and only.
                  Ms. Merkel’s Ignorance

                  http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...ical-ignorance
                  Adjust font size AA

                  by Victor Davis Hanson June 2, 2017 11:10 AM
                  @vdhanson

                  For all the talk about Trump’s blunderbuss approach to foreign policy and his lack of cosmopolitan manners, few could rival the political and historical denseness of Angela Merkel’s recent broadside.

                  Consider:

                  1) No German politician with any historical sense should ever give a campaign-style rally speech accentuating German exceptionalism (“we have to fight for our destiny”) from a beer hall in Munich. Period.

                  2) When a country serially runs up a $60 billion plus yearly trade surplus with the U.S., based on an undervalued European-wide currency, which has subsidized its defense for over 70 years, and reluctantly twice in one century has entered European affairs to save its democracies from German aggressions, it may not be wise to allude to such a partner: “The times in which we could completely depend on others are, to a certain extent, over” and “We Europeans truly have to take our fate into our own hands.” I doubt whether either Germany’s generals, such as they are, or its Mercedes, Audi, and BMW executives would agree.

                  3) Ms. Merkel is upset at the Trump administration for not being willing to agree to a sizable percentage reduction in carbon emissions as negotiated on a supposedly voluntary basis. But given that Ms. Merkel’s own government itself has utterly reneged on a firm pledge to NATO to increase its defense expenditures to 2 percent of GDP, why would any American government enter into any deal, when its main promoter in the past could not demonstrate the sort of credible behavior that it now demands of others?

                  4) Merkel almost made the U.S. the moral equivalent of Putin’s Russia, in the sense of two powers that Germany will avoid and navigate in-between — apparently forgetting past German sins such as laundering Putin cabal money and the whole Gazprom consultancy, etc., as well as Putin’s recent digestion of former Soviet controlled lands, all in addition to the simple fact that the U.S. is a democracy and Putin’s Russia is an autocracy that does not abide by the rule of law. If Putin should wish safe spaces in Estonia for Russian-speakers, will Ms. Merkel and her forces rescue “Europe’s fate”?

                  5) Many independent-minded Eastern Europeans on matters of immigration from the Middle East, and bitter Southern Europeans on the matter of debt, will not find solace in Merkel’s use of the first person plural possessive “our,” as in “We Europeans truly have to take our fate into our own hands”. For millions that is a euphemism for German paws and claws — and they still find that sort of 20th century scary.
                  Last edited by troung; 04 Jun 17,, 05:01.
                  To sit down with these men and deal with them as the representatives of an enlightened and civilized people is to deride ones own dignity and to invite the disaster of their treachery - General Matthew Ridgway

                  Comment


                  • citanon,

                    et you had the Obama administration rapidly piling on new regulations using the Paris Accord as justification.

                    The same people saying "it's just a voluntary pact!" today will be turning right around and saying "OMG we are not meeting climate obligations!!!!!!!" and using that to foist more regulatory folly on our economy. People who don't like these types of regulations are not morons. We have memory spans longer than Dory. Without a domestic political consensus and a binding framework for proceeding forth in a rational and deliberate manner liberal politicians cannot be trusted with this in their hands.
                    pretty sure "we're not meeting climate obligations!!!!!!" is not exactly what i would call a huge political winner...that's why it's non-binding in the first place.

                    simply put, if an Administration is interested in controlling emissions, then they don't need an Accord to make it happen. the Obama Administration put plenty of environmental regulations into place well before the Accord was agreed to.

                    like i said, your imaginary moderate Republican interested in environmental protection simply doesn't exist. that's why you're talking about "Democrats have an opportunity to show leadership on this later this year on this very issue", because you -know- Republicans simply don't give a flying fart about it.
                    There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

                    Comment


                    • Solar energy is cheaper than coal.

                      Comment


                      • Asty,

                        Originally posted by astralis View Post
                        citanon,

                        pretty sure "we're not meeting climate obligations!!!!!!" is not exactly what i would call a huge political winner...that's why it's non-binding in the first place.
                        simply put, if an Administration is interested in controlling emissions, then they don't need an Accord to make it happen. the Obama Administration put plenty of environmental regulations into place well before the Accord was agreed to. [/quote]

                        You're right, which is why they will try to install the regulations by executive action, and then try to negotiate that into a binding treaty to make it extra onerous for the next administration to overcome. No thanks.

                        like i said, your imaginary moderate Republican interested in environmental protection simply doesn't exist. that's why you're talking about "Democrats have an opportunity to show leadership on this later this year on this very issue", because you -know- Republicans simply don't give a flying fart about it.
                        So is "Democratic leadership" also an imaginary concept? What about political compromise? Coming together and getting everyone a little of what they want? That's also pretty illusive isn't it?

                        Comment


                        • citanon,

                          You're right, which is why they will try to install the regulations by executive action, and then try to negotiate that into a binding treaty to make it extra onerous for the next administration to overcome. No thanks.
                          so your reason for getting out of a non-binding treaty is because you're afraid that some future Democratic administration will try to make it into a binding treaty, even though a binding treaty would require a two-thirds Senate vote.

                          that's quite the number of hypotheticals you have there. your original argument is that "the treaty is not a good deal for us", but everything you say here makes it pretty clear that -any sort- of international treaty, non-binding or no, would not be a good deal because this hypothetical Democratic administration would somehow make it binding.

                          it's also pretty easy to argue that were Dems in such a position of power, then they wouldn't need an Accord -or- a binding treaty to do all this...they'd just pass laws, lol.

                          So is "Democratic leadership" also an imaginary concept? What about political compromise? Coming together and getting everyone a little of what they want? That's also pretty illusive isn't it?
                          in short, you agree with me that Republicans will not do anything by themselves, either through regulation or through "a different, more flexible and economically organic way." :-)

                          if you're a Republican and believe that climate change is something that needs to be addressed, then you should be trying to persuade fellow Republicans the merits of such a course vice hoping Dems will take care of it for you. that's all the more true considering whom holds the levers of power in Washington right now...and their demonstrated disinterest in any sort of compromise.
                          There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by astralis View Post
                            citanon,

                            so your reason for getting out of a non-binding treaty is because you're afraid that some future Democratic administration will try to make it into a binding treaty, even though a binding treaty would require a two-thirds Senate vote.

                            First, you and I both know that even a non-ratified treaty has political and

                            that's quite the number of hypotheticals you have there. your original argument is that "the treaty is not a good deal for us", but everything you say here makes it pretty clear that -any sort- of international treaty, non-binding or no, would not be a good deal because this hypothetical Democratic administration would somehow make it binding.
                            You make it sound like a hypothetical where as in reality we've now had to withdraw from 2 climate treaties and there are treaties that we have signed, not ratified, and yet still respect (eg the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty). Saying that such prospects are "hypothetical" are like saying ducks will hypothetically swim in water. If you see a duck, and there's water next to it, and it hasn't yet jumped in the pond, chances are it's going to waddle there.

                            it's also pretty easy to argue that were Dems in such a position of power, then they wouldn't need an Accord -or- a binding treaty to do all this...they'd just pass laws, lol.
                            Even when Dems are not in a position to pass laws they still went and did plenty of regulation.

                            in short, you agree with me that Republicans will not do anything by themselves, either through regulation or through "a different, more flexible and economically organic way." :-)

                            if you're a Republican and believe that climate change is something that needs to be addressed, then you should be trying to persuade fellow Republicans the merits of such a course vice hoping Dems will take care of it for you. that's all the more true considering whom holds the levers of power in Washington right now...and their demonstrated disinterest in any sort of compromise.
                            No, I'm merely pointing out an opportunity for your side. I for one, am one Republican who would like that idea. I believe that other Republicans may well like the idea too. It's possible that some Republicans who care about this issue will propose it if Dems can't actually get it together to propose something along those lines first, but it's clear that the idea would have a better shot of becoming reality if at least some Democrat joins in proposing it to Congress.

                            Why allow some lament about lack of compromise become a self-fulfilling prophesy?

                            Comment


                            • http://www.greenclimate.fund/partner...rces-mobilized

                              Three billion dollars a year?
                              To sit down with these men and deal with them as the representatives of an enlightened and civilized people is to deride ones own dignity and to invite the disaster of their treachery - General Matthew Ridgway

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by astralis View Post
                                citanon,



                                what implementation cost would that be? it's a -non-binding pact-. IE, if an administration believes that current measures designed to voluntarily fulfill the pact are too onerous...they can go ahead and eliminate/redesign them, and -still- stay in the pact.

                                moreover, there's no reason why the Administration could not "stimulate investment in parts of the energy infrastructure that could provide a smoother path for growth of renewables in the future, and add R&D investment to lagging areas where solutions could be realistically found", pact or no.

                                but i don't think i'll hold my breath for this Administration or for that matter, any Republican in Congress, to propose any of those ideas. let me know when you see this environmentally-friendly Republican of yours, i'll be sure to congratulate all one of them. :-)

                                the only reason why the Administration would quit this pact is simply to make some political hay, nothing more, nothing less.
                                I don't see the problem with making political hay over this particular shit-field. I would've preferred Trump declare that we will be increasing our emissions and still be meeting our "obligations" under this silly little pact, though.

                                IME, there are plenty of moderate Republicans interested in or amenable to environmental protection, but are utterly turned off by the socialist tree-hugging anti-industrial rhetoric that passes for "environmentalism."
                                "The great questions of the day will not be settled by means of speeches and majority decisions but by iron and blood"-Otto Von Bismarck

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X