Why do we need the Paris agreement?

[RumTumTugger]

Although they are now the world's leading polluter, and unlike the U.S. their pollution rate keeps climbing as do their emissions of greenhouse gases, they are exempt from even saying they'll try to reduce it until 2030.

Similarly, India, which is quickly moving into the number two slot, has announced that they are going to double their coal usage over the next decade or so pretty much guaranteeing that their pollution levels and carbon emissions will also continue climbing, all while receiving hundreds of billions of dollars in subsidies (i.e., wealth transference).

And of course since the Paris Accord allows nations to establish their own goals, most Third World countries basically set their goal at doing nothing whatsoever and are merely holding their hands out waiting for the checks.

You mean because of countries like India pollution levels and carbon emissions will be increased despite America lowering theirs? Wasn't the point of the Paris accords to lower not increase them? So can someone tell me why the Paris Accords are so good that America should follow them to the determent of her citizens. I don't think that saving the earth is what the rest of the world is interested in.

[Starlight]

So can someone tell me why the Paris Accords are so good that America should follow them to the determent of her citizens.

What is it with dumb US conservatives and this meme that tackling climate change is "to the detriment" of US citizens? Since when does building solar plants, or planting trees, or building more efficient transport networks hurt US citizens? Florida is one of the most susceptible places in the world to even small sea level rises. Tackling climate change should do a lot to help US citizens.

[RumTumTugger]

What is it with dumb US conservatives and this meme that tackling climate change is "to the detriment" of US citizens? Since when does building solar plants, or planting trees, or building more efficient transport networks hurt US citizens? Florida is one of the most susceptible places in the world to even small sea level rises. Tackling climate change should do a lot to help US citizens.

What is it with you stupid leftists of the world not willing to admit the Paris Accords have done nothing to lower the pollution levels or carbon emissions of the world when they let countries like India Russia, and china increase theirs.

When countries like India, Russia, and China start showing they are serious about lowering their pollution levels and carbon emissions, like America has been doing since the Kyoto Protocols then you can talk about stealing money from countries that do take it seriously.

[stfoskey15]

I don't think the U.S. needs the agreement to reduce carbon emissions, but bad we stayed in it, it would have shown to the world we're serious about the issue.

[Tassman]

You mean because of countries like India pollution levels and carbon emissions will be increased despite America lowering theirs? Wasn't the point of the Paris accords to lower not increase them? So can someone tell me why the Paris Accords are so good that America should follow them to the determent of her citizens. I don't think that saving the earth is what the rest of the world is interested in.

[Roy]

What is it with you stupid leftists of the world not willing to admit the Paris Accords have done nothing to lower the pollution levels or carbon emissions of the world when they let countries like India Russia, and china increase theirs.

When countries like India, Russia, and China start showing they are serious about lowering their pollution levels and carbon emissions, like America has been doing since the Kyoto Protocols then you can talk about stealing money from countries that do take it seriously.

US per capita CO₂ emissions were higher than those of Russia, twice as high as those of China and nearly ten times those of India.

Americans complaining about other countries not lowering their carbon emissions is like Roseanne Barr complaining that Twiggy isn't watching her weight.

[Mountain Man]

Aren't we worried about overall emissions and not this "per capita" nonsense?

[seer]

That is just stupid, we are already capitalizing on green energy, the accord does not hinder nor help that. If we are hindered it would be by countries like China because we can't compete with a country that has about zero manufacturing regulations, no worker rights, and very low pay for workers.

[Charles]

Aren't we worried about overall emissions and not this "per capita" nonsense?

In order to reduce overall emissions one must have a plan to reduce it. In that context it seems quite fair to look at balances and whom has been benefitting the most for the longest time and ask them to take their fair share. Of course it is convenient to turn the blind eye to that part of the story when you are among those who have benefitted. But the fairness of it can surely be questioned.

[seer]

In order to reduce overall emissions one must have a plan to reduce it. In that context it seems quite fair to look at balances and whom has been benefitting the most for the longest time and ask them to take their fair share. Of course it is convenient to turn the blind eye to that part of the story when you are among those who have benefitted. But the fairness of it can surely be questioned.

There you go with the fair share nonsense again. Who decides what is fair Charles? How about the billions we spend to rebuild Europe, the billions we spent to defend western Europe from Communism (NATO was basically just us). Never mind defeating Fascism and Japanese imperialism. And fighting Communism world wide, like we are doing today with radical Islam. And defeating the Soviet Union. In other words, making or keeping a good portion of the world free.

[Charles]

There you go with the fair share nonsense again. Who decides what is fair Charles? How about the billions we spend to rebuild Europe, the billions we spent to defend western Europe from Communism (NATO was basically just us). Never mind defeating Fascism and Japanese imperialism. And fighting Communism world wide, like we are doing today with radical Islam. And defeating the Soviet Union. In other words, making or keeping a good portion of the world free.

[seer]

Charles, I'm a American Citizen, my first concern is America, not that other persons/countries are lesser. Each country should to look to its own needs, we can help here and there but we are in no way obligated. After all presently we give more foreign aid than any other country on earth. And I can not stress this enough - we are 20 trillion dollars in debt with unfunded mandates over the next 20 years, and if we don't get fiscally responsible soon there will not be a prosperous United States to help any one. Never mind the fact that we now are a leader in actual Co2 reduction. And let me repeat, if we help it will be out of the goodness of our hearts, not because of some arbitrary sense of fairness or obligation.

[Roy]

Charles, I'm a American Citizen, my first concern is America, not that other persons/countries are lesser. Each country should to look to its own needs, we can help here and there but we are in no way obligated. After all presently we give more foreign aid than any other country on earth.

In raw numbers, yes - but the US gives considerably less than the EU, and the US is way down the list if the per capita values or percentage of income are considered rather than the overall amount.

[seer]

In raw numbers, yes - but the US gives considerably less than the EU, and the US is way down the list if the per capita values are considered rather than the overall amount.

And what is your point? My point is that we are not obligated to support other countries under some arbitrary definition of fairness.

[Starlight]

My point is that we are not obligated to support other countries under some arbitrary definition of fairness.

I love how you alternative between claiming that the US does sooooo much for the rest of the world, and defending the idea of the US doing way less than its share.

One of the other things to bear in mind when considering 'fairness' on this issue, is that historically the US has been the single biggest contributor to the CO2 that is currently in the atmosphere as a result of humanity. By burning immense amounts of coal, the US was able to increase its standards of living and GDP and become a global superpower. It's reasonable to ask what affect it's fair for that past activity to have on the future - is the US allowed to say "what's done is done, and we got ahead of everyone by burning coal, haha, but now you're not allowed to burn coal like we did to advance and enrich your country, so suck it! As of now, we're ignoring the past and going forward everyone's entitled to the same amount of CO2 emissions!"