The Argument for Prosecution

[homersapien 11,361]

On 2/11/2021 at 12:19 PM, I_M4_AU said:

Biden gets us back in the Paris Accord only to fine France is not meeting its goals according to the agreement.

In its ruling, the administrative court recognized ecological “deficiencies” linked to climate change and held the French state responsible for failing to fully meet its goals in reducing greenhouse gases.

https://apnews.com/article/europe-climate-climate-change-paris-france-108722d3e8bc587d9300ec189b99a07d

So Biden, who has never had an original thought, is following an accord that the original country is not doing its part.  This is why a lot of Americans just can’t get behind this pie in the sky accord.  Without being a part of the accord the US lead the world in reducing carbon emissions.  You would think France would double their efforts to get ahead of America to show the world they were serious about Climate Change. 

Now that we have a Climate Czar, that flies around in a private jet, we find that he is a typical elitist that has no clue of what working Americans are going through.  Do as I say, not as I do.  A lot of Dem Governors are that way too.  Can somebody lead?

My kids are already proud of their old man, thanks for asking.  Too bad you didn’t have kids, I’m sure the climate crisis would be over by now it you did.

Well your kids are apparently as scientifically clueless as you are.  Figures.

And the Paris Climate Accords did not involve binding "agreements" by the representatives.  The purpose of the Paris accords was to provide a locus of planning and coordination since it is a global problem. Each country pledged a goal, which may or may not have been met.  That doesn't mean the effort has been a failure (yet).

As the article you cited states: France was cited for falling short of it's stated goal (a goal which would not have been stated - or challenged -had it not been for the Paris Accords in the first place. 

In response,

....Government spokesman Gabriel Attal went further, acknowledging at a regular briefing that the country has fallen behind on its goals.

“It’s perfectly fair to say that our country has been lagging behind these past years in the fight against climate change,” he responded to a question. But he added that “we are tackling these issues.” Among other things, he cited 30 billion euros earmarked for greener energy policies....

So your article simply illustrates exactly how the Paris Climate Accord is supposed to work and that it is, in fact, working.

So thanks for that.

[homersapien 11,361]

On 2/9/2021 at 6:02 PM, I_M4_AU said:

The problem is Biden thrust this issue into the limelight with his EO for whatever reason.

Here's a wild idea.  If you don't understand it, perhaps you should actually read it.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/01/20/executive-order-preventing-and-combating-discrimination-on-basis-of-gender-identity-or-sexual-orientation/

 

 

 

[homersapien 11,361]

On 2/11/2021 at 12:32 PM, SaltyTiger said:

A short few weeks ago you were saying the US is no longer a world leader...

Our capacity as a world leader regarding respect and moral leadership has become greatly diminished thanks to the last 4 years and particularly since 1/6.

But respect and moral leadership aside, we still have the world's largest economy.

[I_M4_AU 7,789]

12 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Here's a wild idea.  If you don't understand it, perhaps you should actually read it.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/01/20/executive-order-preventing-and-combating-discrimination-on-basis-of-gender-identity-or-sexual-orientation/

 

 

 

From the briefing:   Under Bostock‘s reasoning, laws that prohibit sex discrimination — including Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, as amended (20 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.), the Fair Housing Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 3601 et seq.), and section 412 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended (8 U.S.C. 1522), along with their respective implementing regulations — prohibit discrimination on the basis of gender identity or sexual orientation, so long as the laws do not contain sufficient indications to the contrary.

If you are unfamiliar with Title IX:

Title IX

The U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) enforces, among other statutes, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. Title IX protects people from discrimination based on sex in education programs or activities that receive Federal financial assistance. Title IX states that:

No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.

https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/tix_dis.html

So, in 1972 there were only 2 sexes, male and female.  Now, some people assume a male can be a female and a female can be a male.  This is a science fiction fact.  The statement as receiving Federal financial assistance is key.  But, if you don’t want to see it, so be it. 

 

[I_M4_AU 7,789]

41 minutes ago, homersapien said:

And the Paris Climate Accords did not involve binding "agreements" by the representatives.

This has been the argument for getting out of the accord and you use it as the reason it is working?  If there is not hard guidelines, how do you measure yourself and if there is no penalty for missing those guidelines what good is the agreement?  It is worthless.

Biden doing the same thing with his 100 day edicts; 1 Million shots a day for the firsts 100 days, well we were at that level when he took office.  50% of the schools open at leas 1 day a week at the end of the 100 days.  We are already at that level.  Biden is worthless.

[homersapien 11,361]

26 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

This has been the argument for getting out of the accord and you use it as the reason it is working?  If there is not hard guidelines, how do you measure yourself and if there is no penalty for missing those guidelines what good is the agreement?  It is worthless.

Biden doing the same thing with his 100 day edicts; 1 Million shots a day for the firsts 100 days, well we were at that level when he took office.  50% of the schools open at leas 1 day a week at the end of the 100 days.  We are already at that level.  Biden is worthless.

Yeah, we're dealing with a global problem so any international forum that convenes all of the countries in the world to address that problem is worthless.  You betcha'.

You measure "those plans" the same way you have always measured them - by evaluating the data.

Am I to really suppose to believe that the real problem you have with the the Paris Accords is they have no teeth regarding actual enforcement of pledges or goals by the member nations? 

Am I to believe that you really DO want some sort of world governing organization that exerts sovereign power over individual nations?   How likely is that?

You are obviously confused regarding your strategic thinking on this.  You are talking in circles without regard for political reality. 

Regarding the random paragraph on Biden's "worthlessness", Biden inherited an absolute cluster-**** of a mess regarding a national vaccination plan (which didn't exit). 

And - if you bothered to look - you would see he's made a lot of progress getting it on track:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/02/02/fact-sheet-president-biden-announces-increased-vaccine-supply-initial-launch-of-the-federal-retail-pharmacy-program-and-expansion-of-fema-reimbursement-to-states/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2021/02/11/vaccine-supply-biden/

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/biden-administration-boosting-vaccine-supply-states-community-health-centers-n1257154

 

 

 

 

 

[I_M4_AU 7,789]

@homersapienthe Paris Accord is a toothless agreement.  The nations that take is seriously will, the others won’t.  If rejoining the Paris Accord costs the US in jobs and economic growth, is it worth it or is that agreement before its time.  There are people that do not believe climate change is an existential threat that needs to be addressed in such a way as the Biden administration is doing.

[wdefromtx 3,159]

2 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

@homersapienthe Paris Accord is a toothless agreement.  The nations that take is seriously will, the others won’t.  If rejoining the Paris Accord costs the US in jobs and economic growth, is it worth it or is that agreement before its time.  There are people that do not believe climate change is an existential threat that needs to be addressed in such a way as the Biden administration is doing.

The Paris agreement is nothing but another shiny trophy the left likes to show off that in reality means nothing. But it makes their cult feel good about themselves and they like to pat themselves on their backs while killing American jobs. Hell, the UN says the US is cutting so much carbon and such we are already ahead of the agreement anyways. 
 

 

[wdefromtx 3,159]

I agree @icanthearyou , we don’t need to be in the Paris Accord to achieve our goals. 

[SaltyTiger 7,782]

6 hours ago, homersapien said:

Biden inherited an absolute cluster-**** of a mess regarding a national vaccination plan (which didn't exit). 

Yes it did exist. Not denying that getting into arms has been a work in progress

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/jan/27/ron-klain/trump-vaccine-plan-left-logistics-states-it-did-ex/

In September, the Trump administration announced a general strategy to distribute the vaccine which included deliveries to states and, later, pharmacy chains. A partnership with CVS and Walgreens administered vaccines in some long-term care facilities. 

The closest thing to a federal plan was the playbook the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention gave states to help them create their own distribution plans.

States wrote broad plans and submitted them in October. They lacked important details , such as how many doses they would get and when. (At the time, no vaccines were approved.)

Without dollars to make them happen, state plans were essentially wish lists, Claire Hannan, executive director of the Association of Immunization Managers, said on a podcast. It wasn’t until December that Congress approved a COVID-19 package with $8 billion for vaccine distribution. 

Saying there a plan "does not really exist" is beyond saying a plan is lacking. We rate Klain’s claim Mostly False.

[SaltyTiger 7,782]

22 hours ago, homersapien said:

Each country pledged a goal, which may or may not have been met.  That doesn't mean the effort has been a failure (yet).

Understand what you are saying. Results seem pretty dismal.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/12/paris-climate-pact-5-years-old-it-working#:~:text=The European Union%2C Canada%2C South,a centerpiece of his presidency.

If a grade is awarded to the Paris pact “based on whether we have any prospect of meeting a 2°C target, from that point of view, it’s probably a D or an F,” says Michael Oppenheimer, a climate scientist and policy expert at Princeton University. But at the same time, he says, the pact has made a “real difference” by helping make climate change “a top concern of all countries.”

[I_M4_AU 7,789]

2 hours ago, SaltyTiger said:

But at the same time, he says, the pact has made a “real difference” by helping make climate change “a top concern of all countries.”

So, you’re saying the pact is a failure, but at least they’re getting buy in.  Shouldn’t the results happen before the buy in?  It’s a crazy world.

[Leftfield 2,593]

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

Shouldn’t the results happen before the buy in?

So, a football team has to win before they buy in to a new coach's philosophy? Sure, that's how it works.

[I_M4_AU 7,789]

35 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

So, a football team has to win before they buy in to a new coach's philosophy? Sure, that's how it works.

If the philosophy is as radical as the *green new deal* that is capable of ruining a countries economy, I would hope there would be some thought behind it before the buy in.  After all, Auburn bought into Gus in 2017 only to lose 21 million on a failed football philosophy and held onto him for way too long.  Good analogy.

[Leftfield 2,593]

13 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

If the philosophy is as radical as the *green new deal* that is capable of ruining a countries economy, I would hope there would be some thought behind it before the buy in.  After all, Auburn bought into Gus in 2017 only to lose 21 million on a failed football philosophy and held onto him for way too long.  Good analogy.

I love the way you twist your own argument to try to be right. You said nothing about the Green New Deal in your original post, nor did I. You only mentioned the Pact.

And just because Leath bought into Gus back in 2017 doesn't mean the players did. 

I'd say good try, but it really wasn't.

[I_M4_AU 7,789]

54 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

I love the way you twist your own argument to try to be right. You said nothing about the Green New Deal in your original post, nor did I. You only mentioned the Pact.

And just because Leath bought into Gus back in 2017 doesn't mean the players did. 

I'd say good try, but it really wasn't.

Getting back in the Paris pact is Biden telling us he supports the GND and, in his administration, the way to meet the guidelines is to implement this radical position.  It’s JMO, but what other reason would Biden get back into the pact?  And to show his buy in to the world he will implement what he can of the GND.  There is a lot Biden doesn’t say, but people know it’s coming.

Just because Biden has bought into the climate crisis being an existential threat, doesn’t mean all of America has.  At least not enough to end air travel, build new buildings and give government that much power over the people’s lives.  There are ways to mitigate emissions without destroying a whole industry and the industries that rely on fossil fuels.

No thinking outside the box for Biden.

 

 

[AU9377 4,924]

21 hours ago, wdefromtx said:

I agree @icanthearyou , we don’t need to be in the Paris Accord to achieve our goals. 

While that is true, without working with everyone, making real progress will be nearly impossible.

[AU9377 4,924]

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

Getting back in the Paris pact is Biden telling us he supports the GND and, in his administration, the way to meet the guidelines is to implement this radical position.  It’s JMO, but what other reason would Biden get back into the pact?  And to show his buy in to the world he will implement what he can of the GND.  There is a lot Biden doesn’t say, but people know it’s coming.

Just because Biden has bought into the climate crisis being an existential threat, doesn’t mean all of America has.  At least not enough to end air travel, build new buildings and give government that much power over the people’s lives.  There are ways to mitigate emissions without destroying a whole industry and the industries that rely on fossil fuels.

No thinking outside the box for Biden.

 

 

Nobody is suggesting that we end all air travel. Claiming that, even though he doesn't say it....Biden wants to do all those things, is like claiming Trump wants to re segregate America, even though he doesn't say it.

This is what I don't get with people on the far right.  Why the need to fear fantasy scenarios?  We control what the government can and cannot dictate.  We actually do have open and fair elections, run by your neighbors, that give us the power to change how we are governed.  We have rules that govern who can vote and also ensure that those votes are documented and counted correctly.  The vast majority of people in this country agree on the majority of issues that impact our lives.  Unfortunately, in order to gain political advantage, some on both sides of the spectrum have decided that they have more to gain by polarization and tribal warfare than they do by consent and compromise.  That is the height of party over country.

[Leftfield 2,593]

54 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Getting back in the Paris pact is Biden telling us he supports the GND and, in his administration, the way to meet the guidelines is to implement this radical position.  It’s JMO, but what other reason would Biden get back into the pact?  And to show his buy in to the world he will implement what he can of the GND.  There is a lot Biden doesn’t say, but people know it’s coming.

I understand that no matter how many times Biden says he doesn't support the Green New Deal, you don't believe him. Fine. You could certainly be right. If he ends up implementing it, I'll admit I was wrong. I trust you'll do the same if he doesn't.

 

55 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Just because Biden has bought into the climate crisis being an existential threat, doesn’t mean all of America has. 

Did anyone say otherwise? As the saying goes, elections have consequences. Just because Trump was President, was that supposed to have meant all the people that voted against him were supposed to support his policies?

 

57 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

 At least not enough to end air travel...

What are you even talking about? Since when did Biden announce an intention to end air travel?

 

59 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

....build new buildings....

Horrible. Building new buildings might put people to work or something!

 

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

...and give government that much power over the people’s lives. 

What power are you referring to? I agree the government should not have a huge amount of control over lives, but you would have to show me specific examples of what he is proposing.

 

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

There are ways to mitigate emissions without destroying a whole industry and the industries that rely on fossil fuels.

Please elaborate. I am interested to hear what you would propose, other than switching to cleaner forms of energy. Certainly improvement in efficiencies and reduction of energy use will help, but those will not be enough. Alternative forms of large-scale energy will have to be developed.

Converting to cleaner energy does mean that eventually fossil fuels will have a much smaller, specialty market and the industry as a whole will be drastically different. The key is to make a transition that has as little negative impact as possible, while still moving toward its goal at a reasonable pace. A difficult balance, to be sure, and one that many on both sides will certainly complain about.

 

 

[I_M4_AU 7,789]

2 hours ago, AU9377 said:

Nobody is suggesting that we end all air travel.

Controversy, however, was stirred by Ocasio-Cortez, who provided more details of her Green Deal vision in an overview of the resolution. There, she called for building out high-speed rail "at a scale where air travel stops becoming necessary.

https://www.travelweekly.com/Travel-News/Government/AOC-on-air-travel

Now she didn’t say end all air travel specifically, but “air travel stops becoming necessary” is really close.

2 hours ago, AU9377 said:

This is what I don't get with people on the far right.  Why the need to fear fantasy scenarios? 

The freshman Rep AOC throws this scenario up and you believe the far fight comes up with it????  She has a reputation of talking out of her a$$ and by now most people ignore her, but she always keeps herself in the limelight.  Ted Cruz tried to murder her on Jan. 6th????

 

2 hours ago, AU9377 said:

the power to change how we are governed.

The Constitution was written to limit the power of the government.  The power elite want you to believe you should be governed.  Why should the government tell us how we should travel or what we should eat?

 

2 hours ago, AU9377 said:

Unfortunately, in order to gain political advantage, some on both sides of the spectrum have decided that they have more to gain by polarization and tribal warfare than they do by consent and compromise.

I have never believed *identity politics* was a good idea.  It is how Biden won the Presidency.

[Leftfield 2,593]

15 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Controversy, however, was stirred by Ocasio-Cortez, who provided more details of her Green Deal vision in an overview of the resolution. There, she called for building out high-speed rail "at a scale where air travel stops becoming necessary.

https://www.travelweekly.com/Travel-News/Government/AOC-on-air-travel

Now she didn’t say end all air travel specifically, but “air travel stops becoming necessary” is really close.

The freshman Rep AOC throws this scenario up and you believe the far fight comes up with it????  She has a reputation of talking out of her a$$ and by now most people ignore her, but she always keeps herself in the limelight.  Ted Cruz tried to murder her on Jan. 6th????

 

You say the bolded part, yet you are clearly not ignoring her. The very reason you keep saying Biden supports the Green New Deal is because of her. You can't have it both ways.

I'm curious as to why you think it would be a bad thing if air travel was not necessary? Certainly I don't want the government spending ridiculous amounts of money on it, and that is the primary argument against, but at its core why would it be a bad thing?

[I_M4_AU 7,789]

2 hours ago, Leftfield said:

you don't believe him. Fine.

He’s not going to end fracking too, except on federal land by an EO he signed his first day.  He is a typical wind shock politician, full of half truths.  He may not implement the entire GND, but parts will be seen in the near future.

 

2 hours ago, Leftfield said:

Did anyone say otherwise?

There are a few on this forum that will call you a climate denier if you are not in lock step with the existential threat theory.  They won’t say is will too late to do anything in 9 years as AOC, but its close.

 

2 hours ago, Leftfield said:

Horrible. Building new buildings might put people to work or something!

Yes, it would put people to work, but replacing an existing building that is perfectly good for one that is made from zero emission sources is fantasy.  Who is paying for that?

2 hours ago, Leftfield said:

specific examples of what he is proposing.

If schools do not consider males that believe they are females in all aspects of school life he will take a look at the financial aid they may get.

2 hours ago, Leftfield said:

Please elaborate.

Extracting CO2 from the air is one of the best ways to reverse climate changewithout resorting to expensive technologies, convoluted tax schemes or preventing billions of people from getting the energy they need to have a good life.  If you could then make gasoline, diesel, or jet fuel from it, then you’d kill two birds with one stone.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2019/10/08/carbon-engineering-taking-co2-right-out-of-the-air-to-make-gasoline/?sh=473d0cc813cc

Have you heard of this technology?  Probably not, all we hear about is solar panels and windmills. Solar panels have a 20 year life and are toxic after that period.  Windmills costs more energy to produce than it will ever produce and is expensive to keep up.  They also use oil as a lubricant that leaks.

[I_M4_AU 7,789]

5 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

You say the bolded part, yet you are clearly not ignoring her. The very reason you keep saying Biden supports the Green New Deal is because of her. You can't have it both ways.

I'm curious as to why you think it would be a bad thing if air travel was not necessary? Certainly I don't want the government spending ridiculous amounts of money on it, and that is the primary argument against, but at its core why would it be a bad thing?

She keeps herself in the news and for that reason I listen to what she says, but ignore her (or better laugh at her logic).  When she was a freshman Rep. I listened as did most until she proved her worth.

Air travel is necessary for transporting people and goods across great distances in a timely manner with efficiency. .  How would we be able traverse oceans as quickly as we do?  Losing air travel would greatly reduce commerce between nations.

[wdefromtx 3,159]

3 hours ago, AU9377 said:

While that is true, without working with everyone, making real progress will be nearly impossible.

You are right, it’s harder to kill American jobs without being in a worthless agreement that doesn’t hold  other countries to the same standards as us. 

[SaltyTiger 7,782]

8 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

So, you’re saying the pact is a failure, but at least they’re getting buy in.  Shouldn’t the results happen before the buy in?  It’s a crazy world.

According to @icanthearyou response to your question I am assuming results do not matter. The gentleman from Princeton grades the pact as failing yet says it is worthwhile. Are you a “denier”?