Why is Trump looking for the deal to put America first when the deal is about the planet NOT America, therefore, should put the planet first?
31-35, F
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
katielass · F
Well, the deal doesn't put the planet first. But then it;s not really about the planet. Its about redistributing money. People who fall prey to this shit sure must be dumb to believe that taking money fro the US or other first world countries and giving it to third world countries is going to have ANY effect on the climate. that's all this deal is, just a transfer of money. do people who believe this even know how to think?
1-25 of 28
swirlie · 31-35, F
@katielass:
If a Third World country is burning nothing but coal because coal is all it can afford, it would be in a rich country's best interest to give that Third World country money to build an infrastructure that utilizes it's own gas reserves while abandoning their dependency on coal.
This would be especially true since the USA is most definitely down-wind of most Third World, coal burning countries in the Pacific!
It's not those Third World countries that are at particular risk from burning coal; it is actually North American countries like Canada and the USA who receive the 'fall out' from the atmosphere as that suspended coal dust is then carried to earth as 'acid rain' as it stays aloft within the jet stream in our upper atmosphere.
That is why giving money to Third World countries will have a definite impact on reducing carbon emissions. Through our own technology, we help them to correct their antiquated factories. We cannot depend on Third World economies to come up with this technology and money on their own. If they could, then they wouldn't be classified as Third World countries in the first place. They would be classified as 'First World', just like the USA. But there was a time not that many years ago, where the USA was just as much a polluter of the atmosphere as Korea is today. But modern, expensive technology turned America around from what it once was... a heavy polluter of the atmosphere.
But Third World countries have got no money, honey... and coal is cheap and it works! But we have to smell it and we have to grow our crops in contaminated soil in the American mid-west that contains coal fall-out from 6,000 miles away. It's like having a neighbor who has a lovely maple tree to enjoy on his front lawn, but your house is downwind of the leaves that end up in your yard, for YOU to rake, not for your neighbor to take responsibility for!
If a Third World country is burning nothing but coal because coal is all it can afford, it would be in a rich country's best interest to give that Third World country money to build an infrastructure that utilizes it's own gas reserves while abandoning their dependency on coal.
This would be especially true since the USA is most definitely down-wind of most Third World, coal burning countries in the Pacific!
It's not those Third World countries that are at particular risk from burning coal; it is actually North American countries like Canada and the USA who receive the 'fall out' from the atmosphere as that suspended coal dust is then carried to earth as 'acid rain' as it stays aloft within the jet stream in our upper atmosphere.
That is why giving money to Third World countries will have a definite impact on reducing carbon emissions. Through our own technology, we help them to correct their antiquated factories. We cannot depend on Third World economies to come up with this technology and money on their own. If they could, then they wouldn't be classified as Third World countries in the first place. They would be classified as 'First World', just like the USA. But there was a time not that many years ago, where the USA was just as much a polluter of the atmosphere as Korea is today. But modern, expensive technology turned America around from what it once was... a heavy polluter of the atmosphere.
But Third World countries have got no money, honey... and coal is cheap and it works! But we have to smell it and we have to grow our crops in contaminated soil in the American mid-west that contains coal fall-out from 6,000 miles away. It's like having a neighbor who has a lovely maple tree to enjoy on his front lawn, but your house is downwind of the leaves that end up in your yard, for YOU to rake, not for your neighbor to take responsibility for!
katielass · F
@swirlie: You're issing the point. one, the money won't get to the poor country who 's burning coal. It goes into the pockets of the crooks. Even if every country on the planet adhered to this so called agreement it will cost trillions and it will only barely move the stick, not even enough to measure a change, a statistical nothing.
swirlie · 31-35, F
@katielass:
OK, I understand what you are leaning toward here, re: money going to the wrong place, but how do we know for sure that the money is not used for what was intended?
Are you aware of any great debate on this very issue of the money going straight into the pockets of crooks, or is what you are saying more of a broad-based, albeit educated assumption that is being made here?
The reason I ask, is because I don't recall actually hearing about Third World donations being misappropriated, which were intended for Climate Technology purposes, but never actually made it to that country.
Can you fill me in on the details of what you have heard please?
OK, I understand what you are leaning toward here, re: money going to the wrong place, but how do we know for sure that the money is not used for what was intended?
Are you aware of any great debate on this very issue of the money going straight into the pockets of crooks, or is what you are saying more of a broad-based, albeit educated assumption that is being made here?
The reason I ask, is because I don't recall actually hearing about Third World donations being misappropriated, which were intended for Climate Technology purposes, but never actually made it to that country.
Can you fill me in on the details of what you have heard please?
CassandraFemale17 · 26-30, F
@swirlie: this is extremely well said, well put together, and well thought out.
I hope you are posting on more than SW, as only a dozen or two people will read it here.
Keep posting!
I hope you are posting on more than SW, as only a dozen or two people will read it here.
Keep posting!
swirlie · 31-35, F
@CassandraFemale17:
First of all, thank you for your constructive observations, Cassandra!
To answer your question, no, I am not posting anywhere other than SW. I am not aware of the existence of any other similar sites, but I was a significant contributor at Experience Project for several years. When EP subsequently shut down, I was among the first few members to join SW during the debut of it's inception.
If I were to post on "more than SW" as you inquired about, can you offer me a suggestion as to where "more" might be? Thanks!
First of all, thank you for your constructive observations, Cassandra!
To answer your question, no, I am not posting anywhere other than SW. I am not aware of the existence of any other similar sites, but I was a significant contributor at Experience Project for several years. When EP subsequently shut down, I was among the first few members to join SW during the debut of it's inception.
If I were to post on "more than SW" as you inquired about, can you offer me a suggestion as to where "more" might be? Thanks!
katielass · F
@GunSmoke9: The Paris deal does not include any enforcement measures. It's nothing but a global initiative to redistribute money. Something no one would be in favour of if they understood that. Well, the dipsticks might but they would be in favour of their own execution if their political masters told them it was good for the environment.
katielass · F
@GunSmoke9: You got it. You know, I voted for trump to do my part in keeping that lying witch out of the WH but I'm beginning to like him. He's no dummy.
CassandraFemale17 · 26-30, F
@GunSmoke9: you are the one who wanted Ted Cruz.
Yuck
Anyway the slime ball has to have fans someplace
Yuck
Anyway the slime ball has to have fans someplace
swirlie · 31-35, F
@GunSmoke9:
How would I know where the enforcement is if the money ends up in the hands of crooks!? I don't know! It's not my story! It was not my theory that the money goes into someone's pocket and not to the country who needs it most! I have only just learned in the last 24 hours, that the money actually goes into the pockets of crooks and not to the poor countries whom are dependent on coal, yet who's governments do not have the financial wherewithal to invest their way out of that coal-burning mindset either, even if they were handed the money with written instructions. There are some really dumb shits running those Third World Countries these days!
I have never heard a hard piece of evidence of any wholesale theft, or of misappropriated funds actually making it out the door while under the umbrella of this Paris deal before, although I am not suggesting that it cannot happen. I am just saying that I am not informed.
As well, I have never heard Trump specifically point the finger at those who are actually stealing America's contributions. But if blatant theft was rampant or at least statistically evident, I'm sure that Trump would be all over it like a pail of water at a wet T-shirt contest. And I'm also sure he would include me in a mass personal-tweet at midnight just to keep me in the loop. But I am not one who is typically held in high moral order within Trump's inner circle and therefore, I am not privy to such insider-trading ventures of others less scrupulous than myself. I would drive the get-away car because I know my way around Paris stone-sober, but I wouldn't be able to grab the cash from the poker table and run. Just don't have it in me.
But I don't monitor everything Trump says either, yet I've never heard him specifically say who the crook is who's aftershave or French perfume smells like coal cinders, or what specific country is in question of defrauding the cookie jar. Therefore, I think to ask someone more informed than certainly myself about this issue of 'enforcement' for money that never makes it to destination, would provide you with a much more informed answer than I could certainly offer you!
How would I know where the enforcement is if the money ends up in the hands of crooks!? I don't know! It's not my story! It was not my theory that the money goes into someone's pocket and not to the country who needs it most! I have only just learned in the last 24 hours, that the money actually goes into the pockets of crooks and not to the poor countries whom are dependent on coal, yet who's governments do not have the financial wherewithal to invest their way out of that coal-burning mindset either, even if they were handed the money with written instructions. There are some really dumb shits running those Third World Countries these days!
I have never heard a hard piece of evidence of any wholesale theft, or of misappropriated funds actually making it out the door while under the umbrella of this Paris deal before, although I am not suggesting that it cannot happen. I am just saying that I am not informed.
As well, I have never heard Trump specifically point the finger at those who are actually stealing America's contributions. But if blatant theft was rampant or at least statistically evident, I'm sure that Trump would be all over it like a pail of water at a wet T-shirt contest. And I'm also sure he would include me in a mass personal-tweet at midnight just to keep me in the loop. But I am not one who is typically held in high moral order within Trump's inner circle and therefore, I am not privy to such insider-trading ventures of others less scrupulous than myself. I would drive the get-away car because I know my way around Paris stone-sober, but I wouldn't be able to grab the cash from the poker table and run. Just don't have it in me.
But I don't monitor everything Trump says either, yet I've never heard him specifically say who the crook is who's aftershave or French perfume smells like coal cinders, or what specific country is in question of defrauding the cookie jar. Therefore, I think to ask someone more informed than certainly myself about this issue of 'enforcement' for money that never makes it to destination, would provide you with a much more informed answer than I could certainly offer you!
swirlie · 31-35, F
@GunSmoke9:
So, you're ok with the USA pulling out of the Paris Accord until that information is made available?
So, you're ok with the USA pulling out of the Paris Accord until that information is made available?
swirlie · 31-35, F
@GunSmoke9:
Are you OK then, with the USA sitting at the same dinner table with the like-minded Leaders of Syria and Nicaragua?
If you are OK with joining them, are you also OK with the rest of the world's Leaders convening in the other dining room down the hall, as those of like-minds advance the world to where the planet needs to go ..and doing so without the input of those of you feasting in your own private dining room?
Are you OK with this dining arrangement as described?
Are you OK then, with the USA sitting at the same dinner table with the like-minded Leaders of Syria and Nicaragua?
If you are OK with joining them, are you also OK with the rest of the world's Leaders convening in the other dining room down the hall, as those of like-minds advance the world to where the planet needs to go ..and doing so without the input of those of you feasting in your own private dining room?
Are you OK with this dining arrangement as described?
GunSmoke9 · 56-60, M
@swirlie: Like I said I'm ok with American pulling and staying out. As far as those other countries go, I really don't care I this issue.
swirlie · 31-35, F
@GunSmoke9:
You understand of course, that what you're saying is that it's OK for America to be put among the two countries which comprise the lowest common denominator of contempt for planet earth, the USA now forming a nice threesome arrangement for the rest of the entire world to stare at like a freak show at a circus.
Are you sure you're still OK with what you're OK with?
You understand of course, that what you're saying is that it's OK for America to be put among the two countries which comprise the lowest common denominator of contempt for planet earth, the USA now forming a nice threesome arrangement for the rest of the entire world to stare at like a freak show at a circus.
Are you sure you're still OK with what you're OK with?
GunSmoke9 · 56-60, M
@swirlie: The two worst polluters are India and China? I'm on the side of America and the taxpayers.
swirlie · 31-35, F
@GunSmoke9:
Actually, just for the record GunSmoke, America is right up there with India and China in terms of the worlds most contributing polluters, statistically speaking that is! Let's not kid ourselves with the white gloves you're wearing and the little white halo that's hovering over your head right now...!
But you still haven't answered my question. Go back up one post and try it again!
Actually, just for the record GunSmoke, America is right up there with India and China in terms of the worlds most contributing polluters, statistically speaking that is! Let's not kid ourselves with the white gloves you're wearing and the little white halo that's hovering over your head right now...!
But you still haven't answered my question. Go back up one post and try it again!
GunSmoke9 · 56-60, M
@swirlie: I'm ok with my decision. Trump did the right thing. If you are so concerned how much are you going to donate? Or are you all talk?
swirlie · 31-35, F
@GunSmoke9:
You are purposely evading my question to you GunSmoke, by trying to justify your answer with irrelevant thought, such as "If you are so concerned, how much are you going to donate?, or all you all talk?". Your perception of this matter is so far out of context that I honestly think I'm wasting my time discussing this at your current level of comprehension.
Quite frankly, when a person either evades a question or tries to mask their answer with fluff and other such inappropriate response, it is either because they don't understand the question, or they don't want to speak their truth about what's contained within the question. It's one or the other.
To refresh your memory, I have re-produced my repeated question for you to review:
~~~~~~~
"You understand of course, that what you're saying is that it's OK for America to be put among the two countries which comprise the lowest common denominator for contempt of planet earth, the USA now forming a nice threesome arrangement for the rest of the entire world to stare at like a freak show at a circus.
Are you sure you're still OK with what you're OK with?".
~~~~~~~
When you say, "I'm ok with my decision" GunSmoke, are you fully aware that you are clearly implying that you are totally OK with the USA forming a threesome-arrangement in passive partnership with Syria and Damascus?
Are you fully aware that you are also implying with your answer that you are totally ok with those three countries now being globally recognized as a three-country arrangement which represents the epitome of the lowest common denominator of comprehension for contempt toward planet earth and it's populations, both present and future?
Were you thinking perhaps that the citizens of the USA would NOT be breathing their own pollution when their self-generated air and water pollution circles around the globe and re-enters your own country as it crosses the Pacific shoreline, which it does daily?
You are aware that air and water pollution circles the globe continuously from west to east, aren't you?.. and that it doesn't just vanish into outer space as if the solar system was a New York garbage dump, right...?
You already knew about all that technical stuff that dictates one's life expectancy within your country, which oddly enough, is directly proportional to the health hazards that your country self-generates from your Americanized standard of living, right?
Are you sure that you actually understand the logistics of what Trump did when he operated alone and against all rational, professional advise, including the advise of his daughter Ivanka who strongly opposed his actions to withdraw from the Paris Accord? Are you sure you actually get it?
You are purposely evading my question to you GunSmoke, by trying to justify your answer with irrelevant thought, such as "If you are so concerned, how much are you going to donate?, or all you all talk?". Your perception of this matter is so far out of context that I honestly think I'm wasting my time discussing this at your current level of comprehension.
Quite frankly, when a person either evades a question or tries to mask their answer with fluff and other such inappropriate response, it is either because they don't understand the question, or they don't want to speak their truth about what's contained within the question. It's one or the other.
To refresh your memory, I have re-produced my repeated question for you to review:
~~~~~~~
"You understand of course, that what you're saying is that it's OK for America to be put among the two countries which comprise the lowest common denominator for contempt of planet earth, the USA now forming a nice threesome arrangement for the rest of the entire world to stare at like a freak show at a circus.
Are you sure you're still OK with what you're OK with?".
~~~~~~~
When you say, "I'm ok with my decision" GunSmoke, are you fully aware that you are clearly implying that you are totally OK with the USA forming a threesome-arrangement in passive partnership with Syria and Damascus?
Are you fully aware that you are also implying with your answer that you are totally ok with those three countries now being globally recognized as a three-country arrangement which represents the epitome of the lowest common denominator of comprehension for contempt toward planet earth and it's populations, both present and future?
Were you thinking perhaps that the citizens of the USA would NOT be breathing their own pollution when their self-generated air and water pollution circles around the globe and re-enters your own country as it crosses the Pacific shoreline, which it does daily?
You are aware that air and water pollution circles the globe continuously from west to east, aren't you?.. and that it doesn't just vanish into outer space as if the solar system was a New York garbage dump, right...?
You already knew about all that technical stuff that dictates one's life expectancy within your country, which oddly enough, is directly proportional to the health hazards that your country self-generates from your Americanized standard of living, right?
Are you sure that you actually understand the logistics of what Trump did when he operated alone and against all rational, professional advise, including the advise of his daughter Ivanka who strongly opposed his actions to withdraw from the Paris Accord? Are you sure you actually get it?
GunSmoke9 · 56-60, M
Y@swirlie: How dense are you? I gave my answer, twice. I'm glad Trump did what he did? Like I said I don't care about those other countries on this issue. Sounds familiar? This is scam, to redistribute wealth. There is no enforcement, no punishment. China gets a free pass for about 13 years. Just because Trump pulled out doesn't mean we'll stop at cutting pollution. How answer my question, how much are you going to donate?
1-25 of 28