Although US pulled out from the Paris agreement nothing can stop the innovation for green technology,hope china and India took the lead despite being poor/developing countries
Hrangkekuala 83 No, because investing in solar and wind energy makes energy in general more expensive. You need oil and coal energy to make them in the first place, so it's not like you are completely getting rid of that, and solar and wind energy is completely unreliable. It isn't a constant flow of energy, you would need VERY expensive yet not very efficient batteries which are also make from oil and coal energy. And the most important thing is that world energy cost goes up, and third world countries have an even harder time of buying any type of energy. Families that at this moment can barely buy enough energy to heat a can of beans once a week will no longer have ANY means of buying energy. China and certain other countries need to become greener so that it isn't killing it's citizens, but it would be bad if America and other influential countries made solar and wind power more important than coal and oil. I do think we should increase clean energy use in certain areas but it SHOULD NOT dominate the energy economy.
Lilly Azura you are right but shall we used up all the non-renewable resource right now or start to harness the potent of renewable?? Right now wind and solar are not reliable does that mean we should not invest in these future energy?? Investing now will enhance the development of these firm;once a reliable technology is developed the price will come down as well as liabilities
The world is with you China. We know you're second on the list of almost everything: economy, military, science etc. This is the golden opportunity for you to become no:1. Don't let it go.....
Nikola Tesla economy, they build ghost cities so their GDP can rise. Military, they have a looooooong way to go before they can catch up to the United States. Science: they have stolen, reversed engineered most things from other countries. Plus they harvest organs from Falun Gong practitioners & prisoners of conscious. You really don't want China to lead anything with their ways of ruling. There's no free speech there. Try protesting the Tianamen massacre that happened in June 4th, 1989 & you'll get arrested, tortures & "educated"
it will be a good experiment on whether air actually has the ability to renew itself, the air there has killed over a million people, and made more sick.
Luis Estrada Lol. Wow, what a some typical western propagandas you listed here. There were/are many peoples killed under US leadership, why you've never mentioned that? Totally one side argument doesn't mean anything.
Did you know Paper, Gunpowder, Compass and Printing are all invented in China Because China also have original ideas but they're very old and taken for granted.
Beau Ioannides in my eyes I don't see him as a president I just see him as a brain dead psycho same goes with Hillary. Anyways so a large quantity of people voted for him nor am I involved in his movement . So what? I'm not in that large quantity of people and also I'm too young to vote for anyone that I think would really fit in to the word "President"
I still dont understand why trump back out of paris climate deal. I mean, if there were ANY benefits then i would be like ok that's understandable he is sacrificing this for those benefits. But, there seems to be NO benefit of backing out of paris deal. Its not even good for his presidency and his country. i mean, whats the motive here :/
Tell Me This saves roughly 400,000 jobs of people with likely no education to be able to find new ones cause a lot are coal miners, paper, and things running contrary to green tech. Unfortunately those jobs are just not really worth saving anymore but a lot of people will suffer. Trump made a campaign promise to keep those people employed and they voted for em, so now hes doing what he said. This move is good for the USA but not for the world as a whole. The Paris Climate Accord was set up slightly unfairly, giving china and other places alot of leeway switching over but not so much the USA.
Tell Me This I don't agree with backing out but in the Paris agreement, America would have to subsidize 3rd world countries to help them meet their needs. Trump wasn't okay with thag. he got out and was willing to negotiate a new deal that is better for America. I personally want the next generation and the several after that to be able to go outside and breath clean air and not suffer from choices we made that could have been prevented.
He did this for all of u US citizens, because he wants you all to work in coal mines, earn like nothing and die early from the dust. That would make him happy.
I'm European, and we care about the environment. The US made a huge mistake by backing out of the Paris Agreement. Hopefully Americans will elect a normal president next so the damage might not be as bad.
I'm guessing its mostly emotion driven, this statement alone from the first few seconds in pretty much tells their story: "The US is backing out, which will be catastrophic for the world because of the sea level rise, droughts and hurricanes thing." Give me a break.
highlander723 You should keep an open mind and finish a video before you comment. In the end bits of the video he argues that even if you don't believe in climate change. You should at least follow what the world wants and produce those green goods. It's a win win for everyone! You may not believe in it but that doesn't mean there's no profit in producing green goods.
The most interesting fact about sea level rise is that the biggest causal factor is not the melting ice caps, its the thermal expansion caused by the water getting warmer.
If you want clean energy, promote nuclear. Solar power and wind turbines are not economical whatsoever, and won't be for an indeterminate amount of time. Nuclear is clean and efficient, especially if you dispose of the waste products properly. Only thing holding us back, is government regulation based on the public's false perception of nuclear power based on movies.
Thomas Caulfield nuclear is good if people know how to handle it but so far i see equal amount of benefits and harm because as much as it helps, it also did damage too
+Looney Tunes how many deaths has the mining of coal and the burning of it caused? Now what about Uranium or nuclear in general? Nuclear is orders of magnitude safer than fossil fuels.
The sad thing is, U.S could spend just a tenth of what they spend on defence, focus it on clean energy research and technolgy and lead the world in just a few years, and we will all benefit from it. I don't understand why the need to spend so much on the military.
Lineage2MediaCom Your Nation been the largest pollutor in human history. CO2 has a life time of 150-170 years. So what you have emitted in history is still in the atmosphere causing rise in temperature. plus no one is asking charity from you. India and China are seeking investments in their Energy sector. And if you something about economics then you would know that you get returns on your investments.
YesterPlays your an idiot China and India and the second and third largest economys in the world. Not to mention population in the billions and even if we went back to the stone age those countries are still destroying our earth.
Green Technology is simply cheaper if nothing else. I switched all of my light bulbs to LED bulbs which are now not much more expensive than incandescent bulbs for the same brightness and my electricity bill dropped by $50 per month. Now you can buy a Tesla for about the price of a regular car, or if you're not into fully electric, current generation hybrids are much more affordable and a lot more sporty and powerful than first generation Priuses. Going green is simply more economical on the personal level. Even conservatives I know who staunchly believe that climate change is a hoax are still "going green" only because it's saving them money.
My father thinks trump did the right thing politically for his country, I disagree because I think that he doesn't care too much about the distant future and climate change but more about short term economy and self-popularity
Ladislas Walewski hey bud sorry to say but the US would lose trillions of dollars ANNUALLY (yearly) and hundreds of thousands of jobs plus countless more down the road. The best part is IF the US did join and ALL nations held their part of the deal and NOTHING wrong happens to the plan then by 2100 yes that is right 2100 then we will have reduced the total temperature of earth by the third of a degree while also losing hundreds of trillions from the years of economic suicide and will have delayed any major climate disaster by around a FEW MONTHS. If your not surprised by how ineffective that deal would be then I have nothing to say to you besides your the reason american exceptionalism is now where it should
Xenon Zenith I agree but I still think it's so stupid prioritising your own country's political and economical interests over the future of our planet (I'm simplifying here, really we would just be killing many species including many of our own but life will always persist with time). It's sad that we are constricted by our society and self interest. Also I mainly try to be optimistic about climate change as it encourages everyone to do their part and in order to reduce the effects we're having on the environment.
The fact that it is partisan disgusts me. the fact that some would rather strengthen the economy than fix the problems that could kill billions disgusts me. The entirety of this disgusts me.
Its way more complicated than how this video makes it seem. Backing out saves roughly 400,000 jobs of people with likely no education to be able to find new ones cause a lot are coal miners, paper, and things running contrary to green tech. Unfortunately those jobs are just not really worth saving anymore but a lot of people will suffer. Trump made a campaign promise to keep those people employed and they voted for em, so now hes doing what he said. This move is good for the USA but not for the world as a whole. The Paris Climate Accord was set up slightly unfairly, giving china and other places alot of leeway switching over but not so much the USA. This puts a big burden on workers. There is a valid reason for backing out, wether or not you agree. Personally I think green is better but its not without it consequences.
Let me just note the only reason I'm replying to you is that you are actually being pretty reasonable and making some good points. So.. Thank you for not being a raging dickwod like so many other comments these days lol. I'ma have to question your logic there. The majority of job losses these days are a result of the advancement of technology. Factory jobs are pretty much gone at this point because machines do most of the work. There is only about 77k coal miners left in the US and that's been declining since before this agreement even existed. Globalization also played a major part in that, if you can do it cheaper, you do it cheaper. That is Capitalism. We can't simply stop advancing, that goes against every natural instinct for humans. If the US were to ever slow down or stop, it would fall behind faster than ever before in history. If it falls behind. Countries like China take over and while I agree the US isn't perfect, Id rather deal with their somewhat reasonable democracy than a Iron Curtain from China. I don't know if Solar and Wind is really the answer tbh, though it has been improving rapidly. I think Nuclear might need to be brought back, some of the new reactor ideas are pretty amazing so maybe the US should focus on that. Job wise though, its unavoidable that they'll be lost. Machines are replacing more and more people each day. Its just the way of things. Question is, at what point do we finally admit there wont be a job for everyone? Then what?
I dont see why people are so focused on solar and wind tbh. Why not tidal. people have used rivers to power stuff before so why arent they using ocean currents to power it now? Tidal energy provides way more power than either of those and is a constant source of power because as we know the ocean currents are always going. I dont think the Paris accord would actually do too much since there was no real punishment for countries who didnt meet the mark and the US was footing a fairly large portion of the bill. Plus its not like the US wont go to green energy without the Paris Accord. A ton of states are already working on switching to renewable sources of energy and have doubled up on that commitment after the announcement. States are taking action and isnt that typically the best thing instead of a federal mandate?
El Psy Yea I try my best haha. I am aware of the inevitable loss of factory jobs as machines will be advancing at an ever increasing rate. The whole world economy is going to be radically different in 30 years. I just think we should go somewhere down the middle and ease into it more but Idk if thats possible. I dont subscribe to any political party which is difficult because it often easier to just pick something and stick with it but I refuse to be put in a box. I pain myself to research both sides even if there's one side yelling loudly. I'm 18 and havent been allowed to vote yet but I certainly think people should refrain from party and bias and focus on policy and put the effort in to see the other side and climb into there head. Thanks for the civil exchange.
Satyartha idk about that. China is the biggest polluter in general. The US may be higher per capita but thats because the US has a much smaller population than China. By your logic China should be paying a ton more than the US since they are polluting twice as much as the US. Like to put it into proportion China is about 30% of the pollution on the planet and the US is about 15% not to mention the EU isnt that far behind in pollution from the US at about 10%. They want the US to foot the bill because we foot the bill for a lot of other stuff too.
In the video it literally says they are investing around a trillion towards green power alone. Never mind other investments that help in other ways (transit, etc).
Lineage2MediaCom just dont write foolishly like a brainwashed person get knowledge idiot trump will say anything to make him right always . Hello u have to pay for the damage u have done to this world
There's no reason for the US to back out of the Paris deal. There are no mandatory goals, only recommended goals. The US could sit back and do nothing and it wouldn't be breaking any deals.
The fact that the US pulled out of the Paris agreement make hardly any difference. If the US stuck to its original goal and kept it until the year 2100 then it would only reduce global temperature from rising by 0.2 degrees Celsius which would be undone entirely by the emission produce by china. Just because it is a more developed country doesn't mean it should be treated differently compared to developing countries like china and India.
US is the biggest polluter and has been for decades. Why should India and China pay for your ignorance. you create the problem, why should we solve it?
Just because the US decided to come out of the Paris agreement doesn't mean it wont reduce emissions. In the last year emissions has dropped by 3% and that is without the Paris agreement!
I live in Asian and see some pretty damming economic facts. The US is using 9% of its economic resources (12% if you include follow on industries )on energy whereas China is currently using 7% (there is no do stream here as the government owns all of it) but in future with renewable and nuclear/fusion it will be dropping dramatically over the next 20 years. This means China is more competitive and will increase this competitive advantage into future, but with none of polluting outcomes that our children will need to fix in the future...if they can. The issue here is the political system not the people (who tend to be pretty much the same). America, get rid of lobbyist they are just an open form of corporate corruption that makes the average person have a worse life.
I don't think that you have to be a "climate skeptic" to be against the Paris accord. It seems like it was written to unjustly punish the United States while giving significant leeway to other major polluters such as China. Also the accord had nothing to bind its participants into following through, I imagine the situation would have played out as the United States meeting our deadlines and paying the amounts designated while other countries simply forgot about there end of the bargain. I think it comes down to the fact that we cant be footing the bill for the entire world anymore. We all want more green energy and specifically I think we should invest in more nuclear power which many people get freaked out by simply because our 1950's reactors are simply outdated. Also, because coal is so abundant what would be wrong with investing more in our technologies into capturing carbon emissions from coal plants and refine and widely distribute this technology so it is environmentally and financially viable. Whatever we do it has to make since financially for producers and consumers or no one will give a crap.
WeTheTech who was I pointing fingers at? RUclips commenters always quick to just call names instead of having adult conversations. That is why we pulled out of this nonsensical agreement , were not putting up with your bullshit any longer.
Dude the guidelines to this voluntary agreement were to be set by the country itself. The only real mark against the Paris agreement was that it was nonbinding. No one was picking on the U.S.
29% of the C02 released was done by one country the United States. The Paris accords was unfair but not to the United States, it was unfair to everyone else. The US is by far the biggest cause of global warming and the Paris accord did not ask nearly enough of them.
the Paris accord isn't a law, its just agreement to acknowledge the effect of climate change. Even if a country doesn't met the the wanted levels reduction by each date the accord met there's isn't any consequences. So the idea that the accord was in placed to "punish" the U.S. is nonsense.
I'm a skeptic in the sense that I am skeptical, but not in the sense that I deny facts to push an emotional agenda. Climate change is the second greatest economic threat to humanity after nuclear war. There is no reason for anyone without a major stake in a fossil fuel company to be against preparing for and attempting to mitigate it.
I acknowledge climate change, but I also acknowledge that the government isn't gonna stop it with their red tape. The Paris deal was a bad deal and America will improve on green energies with out it. Private sector innovation and people doing their part will have a bigger impact then government red tape.
States taking the initiative is 100% better than a federal mandate imo. If people want renewable energy the free market will move that way dont need the government stepping in. Personally I think they shouldnt limit themselves to solar and wind. They should REALLY look into tidal energy. The ocean would produce SO MUCH energy for us by itself just gotta do it in a way that wont interfere with ocean life!
James Speier that is still government... city and state government is stepping up since America's leading gov official refuses to. so as long as the states do it you are fine with it?
It's going to be hard for green energies in the private sector to "innovate" when their competition (coal and gas industries) gets tax breaks and government subsidies aka Corporatism or socialism for big business
this is predicated on the notion that government will be the one to solve the problems of solar and wind. the private industry has always been on the leading front of technological innovation, almost never the government.
Investing in Solar and Wind may yield some benefits, but we should stop the massive government subsidies. If Solar and Wind really do work economically, they don't need subsides. Nuclear does work, but people fear it.
The point of the Paris Accord was that all member countries agree to work together to keep our planet from getting any worse. There are no penalties for not achieving them, but the whole point is that these countries can all band together for a common goal. You can't set the same goal for every country, because every country is in a different stage of developing. You can't tell poor, developing countries to stop using fossil fuels when developed countries grew their economy with those same fossil fuels. You can't expect developing countries to buy solar panels from developed countries with the money they don't have. That's why the U.S. has been "forced to foot the bill" for all the countries that actually can't afford to go renewable. Each country has to work toward their own goals, and if they aren't able to keep up simply because of their smaller economy, the big guys who aren't as affected should try to cut them some slack, until they are able to pick it back up. Because this planet belongs to all of us, and we need to help each other out if we want to protect it. Backing out of the agreement is bad for everyone.
The u.s. can follow a green energy policy without signing the Paris agreement. Staying out of the agreement only prevent us from have to give away billions to developing countries. The tenants of the agree are not good business for the u.s.
Regardless of how this will affect business or the climate, this decision is going to absolutley wreck America's relationships with other countries. I don't think that was a great move.
I love the Paris Agreement. Backing out is stupid for both business and politics. Coal jobs are declining mainly because demand is falling. No country is exempt from the deal. Nicaragua did not sign the agreement because they felt it was not enough.
Leaving the Paris agreement doesn't necessarily translates into bad energy policy per se. Take as example France in the '70s: after oil prices spiked due to the Yom Kippur war(1973) they relied on nuclear. In the end France became one of the EU nations with the least amount of pollution without thinking about climate. Granted current day nuclear(Light Water Reactors, LWRs in short) has problems but there are reactor designs which rectify said problems. An example is a modernized version of an experimental reactor which ran in the '60s for years(Molten Salt Reactor Experiment, MSRE in short): no risk of melt down(the core is molten), no risk of explosions(since it has salt instead of water as coolant), more efficient(can run at a higher temperature and that makes it thermodynamically more efficient) and produces useful heat for various other applications(desalinization of water as example). The problem is that, from what I know at least, doesn't seem to be that much loved compared to wind and solar
I stayed in South Korea for 2 weeks last month. I was not able to go out without a mask 4 days out of the 14 days that I stayed there because of the fine dust particles that were flown over from China. So imagine. If they're affecting their neighbor this badly, just how bad is the situation in China? China and Green should only be spoken together when you're talking about their polluted rivers.
Some of us accept that the earth is warming, but are adamantly opposed to government regulation, so in our minds pulling out of the Paris agreement is a good thing. In the long term regulation hurts, not helps, because of its costs and unintended consequences.
If there's choice between coal and solar, and consumers choose solar, wouldn't that create a demand and drive the economy? Right now there isn't even a choice in some areas because it's outlawed..
89% of China's energy consumption is fossil fuel with coal being 66%. Energy consumption in the US is 81% fossil fuel with coal being about 30% and dropping every year and natural gas expanding. Our carbon emissions are dropping every year and that rate will increase once we shift to electric cars powered by solar.
I really like how you put that. I think if you do not support climate change that you should still believe in green energy. That's how I started. Being a Republican and still supporting improving the climate.
Dude, is nobody going to talk about the fact that Trump released a statement that he wants to get back into the Paris Deal, but on terms that benefit America more than the previous terms? It explains pretty much everything.
haven't you heard? their pollution levels are going down, although the keep raising the stakes of what is "polluted" because all of their old charts didn't go high enough.
just because the U.S pulled out that doesn't mean that companies and people here will stop looking into and implementing green and renewable energy. This is all seriously being blown out of proportion. Making mountains out of mole hills.
The white elephant in the room is, no one is willing to talk about the real reason for climate change. Population growth world wide over the last 200 years due to technolgy and advances in modern medicine. Seriously, population growth is the key, not reducing emissions or some Paris accord win/lose deal.
The benefits the PA gave to the world and the US were far outstripped by the detriments. Not only would tax rates have to increase drastically (on everyone, not just the rich like everyone always says) in order to even dream of funding it, the fact that it is a non-binding resolution means no consequences for a country that doesn't follow it. However, for the U.S. it ends up costing billions, and assuming the other 146 countries did their part in reduction it's only a minor reduction of less than a degree Celsius. I'm no fossil fuel advocate, I live near the second largest wind farm in the world and support it whole hearted, but I also won't ignore facts on results and costs to the people and the economy.
When the US makes the switch to using primarily renewable energy, it needs to be done via a mode that 1) Produces a constant flow of energy (something that wind and solar doesn't and can't do) and 2) Creates more jobs and revenue than it destroys.(or at least break even). I would suggest biofuel such as ethanol produced from a non-food plant resource
This is what happened to England and Denmark when it came to wind power. England said it was a pipe dream while Denmark said "where on to something" and subsidized the industry. Then Denmark became a world leader in wind turbine production, adding billions to the economy and employing thousands of people. England got a few factories where most were closed later on, and are now buying Danish wind turbines. The US is doing the same mistake now, because Trump cares "tremendously" for American coal miners.
Its a tragic irony that Houston, Texas, the oil capital of the world, got drowned with 49 to 50 inches of rain because Hurricane Harvey got energized by greenhouse gas emission atmospheric, and ocean global warming.
You're trading off 1 non renewable resource (Oil, coal and N.Gas) For another non renewable resource (Metals) Solar panels and wind turbines generate little energy, and require several hectares of land to be any worth so going left or right still poses a big problem, until we harvest minerals from other planets or asteroids it's still not possible to use solar energy efficiently.
I think rather than wasting our energies on finding out who was and who will lead the green energy plans, all the countries first must focus on plans to save the earth which is of more importance now
We backed out of the deal because we would tie ourselves to another agreement where nothing can be enforced. No participating country can be punished or held liable for failing to meet the agreed goals. Sound familiar?
As of May 12th the US has put forth $1 Billion while Russia and China have put for $0 Until the terms are better for the US we should stay out of this deal.
Trump pulled us out of the climate deal because the deal said that europe and asia could build more coal power plants but the USA had to cut back and close them (ours if you live in usa). Trump didnt say that we were gonna cut back on renewable and safe energy though. He also specifically said that we were going to make FAIR trade and climate deals.
Yesterday I watched video on paris accord 2015. One American dude replied to my comment that " There's no such thing called global warming. It a myth. Its a scam. " 😂😂😂😂 no offense to other Americans but this is too funny.
People are out of their minds. Paris was an agreement that no countries have to even stick to. Its really quite pointless and a failure. Do some research and look into it.
when they can build a home use power plant that can produce 63 kWt a day for less than 5k and can last for over 20 years then I'll buy it. Until then I'll stay connected to the grid....
Yo guys, would you believe that even north korea is part of the Paris agreement? Its kind of messed up that the most isolated and in-humanitarian country in the world cares more about the climate than the US
You glossed over China's massive plans for building coal fired power plants. The Montreal Protocols worked because they applied equally to everyone, as opposed to Kyoto and Paris. Those seem to be more about massive wealth transfers than actually dealing with the problem.
But is it such a terribly bad thing? At 15%of the Earth's air pollution the US doesn't have a backwards stance on it arguably we are far ahead of the rest of the planet and should be.
In my country, Armenia, a 2+1 family , for instance, in a 70sq.m apartment pays ~400$ bill for electricity a year. switching to solar will cost you 800-1500$ I guess paying a bill for 2-3.5 years at once but having years and years of free power is a good investment. Correct anyone my calculations if they are wrong.
Just pointing out that "saving the planet means changing how we produce and use energy" isn't necessarily correct. Even if renewable energy was implemented worldwide, there are still other sources of greenhouse gas emissions, thus climate change would still happen.
The agreement has nothing to do with the United States' ability to lead the world in renewable energy. Wouldn't you hope the free market would be able to drive the best advancements in all forms of energy capture and delivery?
Paris accord is non-binding. America was in a position to lead but instead ceded to China. The truth cause of global warming may not be settled but human activities are known to contribute a lot. When your house is on fire this is not the time to argue who is doing less to put it out.
Facts: China is the biggest polluter right now. But it’s accumulative pollution is no where near the west. And it’s per capita pollution is also lower than US, Australia etc. China is also the biggest producer in wind energy, solar energy, water energy, tide energy, you name it.
I've never understood how in your country science and politics have become one and the same, here In México our government is screwed yet still every single politician agrees that climate change is real and even one of our most corrupt political parties is still called the green ecological party of Mexico. That's how mainstream climate change is in the rest of the world
Yea I also couldn't believe it when I flew over china, I've never seen so many windmills in one place all my life, they were everywhere, and once you get to the bigger cities all you see is smog...
If you think the economy is more important than the environment, try counting your money while holding your breath.
well, how hard can it be, I can count all my $13.5 in 20 seconds, and they are in coins.
Julien Paris jokes on you, i can buy oxygen.
A conservation based economy will save this planet, instead of wishing for that next big donation to your favorite environmental NGO
Julian *"Even if u don't believe in climate change;investing in renewable energy is the smart thing to do'*
That's the point
And that's going to continue regardless of the Paris Agreement
Although US pulled out from the Paris agreement nothing can stop the innovation for green technology,hope china and India took the lead despite being poor/developing countries
Yep, if its *free then take advantage of it. Heck, we're gonna need those tech to survive living Mars.
Hrangkekuala 83
No, because investing in solar and wind energy makes energy in general more expensive. You need oil and coal energy to make them in the first place, so it's not like you are completely getting rid of that, and solar and wind energy is completely unreliable. It isn't a constant flow of energy, you would need VERY expensive yet not very efficient batteries which are also make from oil and coal energy. And the most important thing is that world energy cost goes up, and third world countries have an even harder time of buying any type of energy. Families that at this moment can barely buy enough energy to heat a can of beans once a week will no longer have ANY means of buying energy.
China and certain other countries need to become greener so that it isn't killing it's citizens, but it would be bad if America and other influential countries made solar and wind power more important than coal and oil. I do think we should increase clean energy use in certain areas but it SHOULD NOT dominate the energy economy.
Lilly Azura
you are right but shall we used up all the non-renewable resource right now or start to harness the potent of renewable??
Right now wind and solar are not reliable does that mean we should not invest in these future energy??
Investing now will enhance the development of these firm;once a reliable technology is developed the price will come down as well as liabilities
The world is with you China. We know you're second on the list of almost everything: economy, military, science etc. This is the golden opportunity for you to become no:1. Don't let it go.....
Nikola Tesla economy, they build ghost cities so their GDP can rise.
Military, they have a looooooong way to go before they can catch up to the United States.
Science: they have stolen, reversed engineered most things from other countries.
Plus they harvest organs from Falun Gong practitioners & prisoners of conscious.
You really don't want China to lead anything with their ways of ruling. There's no free speech there. Try protesting the Tianamen massacre that happened in June 4th, 1989 & you'll get arrested, tortures & "educated"
This no1 isn`t even fair. China is just number one because the previous was ignorant and said no to its citizens.
it will be a good experiment on whether air actually has the ability to renew itself, the air there has killed over a million people, and made more sick.
they will be n1 and nobody will be able to stop it, so encouraging them to use green energy/ be a model for the rest of the world is the way to go ;)
Luis Estrada Lol. Wow, what a some typical western propagandas you listed here. There were/are many peoples killed under US leadership, why you've never mentioned that?
Totally one side argument doesn't mean anything.
As an American I can say I truly don't feel sorry for us. We're becoming the most regressive country on planet 🌎 and it's sad.
w/ people like you
Russia, NK, and most Muslim majority countries like SA and Iran would like a word with you. If you don’t like it here then move and stop complaining.
Roses are red,
Violets are blue,
There's always an Asian better than you
yep there is there is but wait what about the Asians what do they say
Roses are red
Violets are violet
I'm good at everything?
Supernova X Yawn just like we stole the printing press and paper am I right m8
They're good at copying, but that isn't to say that is only what they are good at.
i can smell the smells of loser ~~~
Did you know
Paper, Gunpowder, Compass and Printing are all invented in China
Because China also have original ideas but they're very old and taken for granted.
China is working hard to become a developed country while the U.S. is working hard backward to a developing country lol
We Trumped up
Tyler Harris he*
Gud Humor
oh no.. if you are AMERICAN!!! FROM THE U-S-OF-A
it is a YOU.
enough of you fuckers voted him in making him YOUR president!
YOU Trumped up.
Beau Ioannides in my eyes I don't see him as a president I just see him as a brain dead psycho same goes with Hillary. Anyways so a large quantity of people voted for him nor am I involved in his movement . So what? I'm not in that large quantity of people and also I'm too young to vote for anyone that I think would really fit in to the word "President"
no prob, trump up.
There are no other option; not even from that country, Still trump up
Beau Ioannides he didn't win the popular vote... Don't blame people like me who campaigned are asses off for both Hillary and Bernie...
I still dont understand why trump back out of paris climate deal. I mean, if there were ANY benefits then i would be like ok that's understandable he is sacrificing this for those benefits. But, there seems to be NO benefit of backing out of paris deal. Its not even good for his presidency and his country.
i mean, whats the motive here :/
his stupidity is his motive
His politician promices are his motive here
Tell Me This saves roughly 400,000 jobs of people with likely no education to be able to find new ones cause a lot are coal miners, paper, and things running contrary to green tech. Unfortunately those jobs are just not really worth saving anymore but a lot of people will suffer. Trump made a campaign promise to keep those people employed and they voted for em, so now hes doing what he said. This move is good for the USA but not for the world as a whole. The Paris Climate Accord was set up slightly unfairly, giving china and other places alot of leeway switching over but not so much the USA.
Tell Me This I don't agree with backing out but in the Paris agreement, America would have to subsidize 3rd world countries to help them meet their needs. Trump wasn't okay with thag. he got out and was willing to negotiate a new deal that is better for America. I personally want the next generation and the several after that to be able to go outside and breath clean air and not suffer from choices we made that could have been prevented.
He did this for all of u US citizens, because he wants you all to work in coal mines, earn like nothing and die early from the dust.
That would make him happy.
America first, earth second!
"If you think the economy is more important than the environment, try holding your breath while counting your money."
I think we should stop the seas from rising by
BUILDIN THAT WALL
Random 😂
you need some kaiju to motivate people to wall all the coast up
Eyre Death Borne and putting it in where?
you guys are doing it wrong what we need is to place mount Everest into the ocean boom problem solved
That sounds like throwing more ice into a already full cup of water, or does wiping humanity out is the solution?
I'm European, and we care about the environment. The US made a huge mistake by backing out of the Paris Agreement. Hopefully Americans will elect a normal president next so the damage might not be as bad.
the 727 dislikes are from trump , he just made 727 accounts but gave up since he needed to respond to his twitter haters
Dear rest of the world,
I am sorry for our stupidity. If I can change this I would
Yours truly,
An actual smart american
@Seeker I notice you make a lot of statements can you please publish your sources.
They cant help themselves, they're usually pretty good, but this video is so biased it hurts my head.
you can search on google or google scholar too ^^
MorpheusVector No. I want to know what sources they used.
I'm guessing its mostly emotion driven, this statement alone from the first few seconds in pretty much tells their story: "The US is backing out, which will be catastrophic for the world because of the sea level rise, droughts and hurricanes thing."
Give me a break.
highlander723 You should keep an open mind and finish a video before you comment. In the end bits of the video he argues that even if you don't believe in climate change. You should at least follow what the world wants and produce those green goods. It's a win win for everyone! You may not believe in it but that doesn't mean there's no profit in producing green goods.
The most interesting fact about sea level rise is that the biggest causal factor is not the melting ice caps, its the thermal expansion caused by the water getting warmer.
#DumpTrump
Sweet Poatoes You can't stump the Trump.
Trump already stumped himself
Chance Oden pretty sure Hillary stumped herself with her crimes
Can Dump the Chump.
Sweet Poatoe Dump yourself... In the view of the Commander in Chief, a thriving economy is more important than pollution.
The thumbnail looked like some game graphics at low settings until I realised it was three chimneys! 😅😆
If you want clean energy, promote nuclear. Solar power and wind turbines are not economical whatsoever, and won't be for an indeterminate amount of time. Nuclear is clean and efficient, especially if you dispose of the waste products properly. Only thing holding us back, is government regulation based on the public's false perception of nuclear power based on movies.
Thomas Caulfield nuclear is good if people know how to handle it but so far i see equal amount of benefits and harm because as much as it helps, it also did damage too
if they treat it right is okay but if they don't we suffer
+Looney Tunes how many deaths has the mining of coal and the burning of it caused? Now what about Uranium or nuclear in general? Nuclear is orders of magnitude safer than fossil fuels.
+James J how you linked Solar and Wind energy with fossil fuel is beyond me...
Solar power is cheaper than oil now, so no, it is economical
The sad thing is, U.S could spend just a tenth of what they spend on defence, focus it on clean energy research and technolgy and lead the world in just a few years, and we will all benefit from it. I don't understand why the need to spend so much on the military.
how is giving billions of dollars to china and india make global warming stop?
YesterPlays OH GIVE ME A BREAK!
Lineage2MediaCom
Your Nation been the largest pollutor in human history. CO2 has a life time of 150-170 years. So what you have emitted in history is still in the atmosphere causing rise in temperature.
plus no one is asking charity from you. India and China are seeking investments in their Energy sector. And if you something about economics then you would know that you get returns on your investments.
because McDonald's happy meal toys.
Lineage2MediaCom u know what india producing lesser co2 than America and china
YesterPlays your an idiot China and India and the second and third largest economys in the world. Not to mention population in the billions and even if we went back to the stone age those countries are still destroying our earth.
Green Technology is simply cheaper if nothing else. I switched all of my light bulbs to LED bulbs which are now not much more expensive than incandescent bulbs for the same brightness and my electricity bill dropped by $50 per month. Now you can buy a Tesla for about the price of a regular car, or if you're not into fully electric, current generation hybrids are much more affordable and a lot more sporty and powerful than first generation Priuses. Going green is simply more economical on the personal level. Even conservatives I know who staunchly believe that climate change is a hoax are still "going green" only because it's saving them money.
My father thinks trump did the right thing politically for his country, I disagree because I think that he doesn't care too much about the distant future and climate change but more about short term economy and self-popularity
Ladislas Walewski hey bud sorry to say but the US would lose trillions of dollars ANNUALLY (yearly) and hundreds of thousands of jobs plus countless more down the road. The best part is IF the US did join and ALL nations held their part of the deal and NOTHING wrong happens to the plan then by 2100 yes that is right 2100 then we will have reduced the total temperature of earth by the third of a degree while also losing hundreds of trillions from the years of economic suicide and will have delayed any major climate disaster by around a FEW MONTHS.
If your not surprised by how ineffective that deal would be then I have nothing to say to you besides your the reason american exceptionalism is now where it should
Xenon Zenith I agree but I still think it's so stupid prioritising your own country's political and economical interests over the future of our planet (I'm simplifying here, really we would just be killing many species including many of our own but life will always persist with time). It's sad that we are constricted by our society and self interest. Also I mainly try to be optimistic about climate change as it encourages everyone to do their part and in order to reduce the effects we're having on the environment.
The fact that it is partisan disgusts me. the fact that some would rather strengthen the economy than fix the problems that could kill billions disgusts me. The entirety of this disgusts me.
Its way more complicated than how this video makes it seem. Backing out saves roughly 400,000 jobs of people with likely no education to be able to find new ones cause a lot are coal miners, paper, and things running contrary to green tech. Unfortunately those jobs are just not really worth saving anymore but a lot of people will suffer. Trump made a campaign promise to keep those people employed and they voted for em, so now hes doing what he said. This move is good for the USA but not for the world as a whole. The Paris Climate Accord was set up slightly unfairly, giving china and other places alot of leeway switching over but not so much the USA. This puts a big burden on workers. There is a valid reason for backing out, wether or not you agree. Personally I think green is better but its not without it consequences.
Let me just note the only reason I'm replying to you is that you are actually being pretty reasonable and making some good points. So.. Thank you for not being a raging dickwod like so many other comments these days lol.
I'ma have to question your logic there. The majority of job losses these days are a result of the advancement of technology. Factory jobs are pretty much gone at this point because machines do most of the work. There is only about 77k coal miners left in the US and that's been declining since before this agreement even existed. Globalization also played a major part in that, if you can do it cheaper, you do it cheaper. That is Capitalism.
We can't simply stop advancing, that goes against every natural instinct for humans. If the US were to ever slow down or stop, it would fall behind faster than ever before in history. If it falls behind. Countries like China take over and while I agree the US isn't perfect, Id rather deal with their somewhat reasonable democracy than a Iron Curtain from China.
I don't know if Solar and Wind is really the answer tbh, though it has been improving rapidly. I think Nuclear might need to be brought back, some of the new reactor ideas are pretty amazing so maybe the US should focus on that.
Job wise though, its unavoidable that they'll be lost. Machines are replacing more and more people each day. Its just the way of things. Question is, at what point do we finally admit there wont be a job for everyone? Then what?
I dont see why people are so focused on solar and wind tbh. Why not tidal. people have used rivers to power stuff before so why arent they using ocean currents to power it now? Tidal energy provides way more power than either of those and is a constant source of power because as we know the ocean currents are always going. I dont think the Paris accord would actually do too much since there was no real punishment for countries who didnt meet the mark and the US was footing a fairly large portion of the bill. Plus its not like the US wont go to green energy without the Paris Accord. A ton of states are already working on switching to renewable sources of energy and have doubled up on that commitment after the announcement. States are taking action and isnt that typically the best thing instead of a federal mandate?
El Psy Yea I try my best haha. I am aware of the inevitable loss of factory jobs as machines will be advancing at an ever increasing rate. The whole world economy is going to be radically different in 30 years. I just think we should go somewhere down the middle and ease into it more but Idk if thats possible. I dont subscribe to any political party which is difficult because it often easier to just pick something and stick with it but I refuse to be put in a box. I pain myself to research both sides even if there's one side yelling loudly. I'm 18 and havent been allowed to vote yet but I certainly think people should refrain from party and bias and focus on policy and put the effort in to see the other side and climb into there head. Thanks for the civil exchange.
Ben Schofield US pays bcz it is the biggest polluter
Satyartha idk about that. China is the biggest polluter in general. The US may be higher per capita but thats because the US has a much smaller population than China. By your logic China should be paying a ton more than the US since they are polluting twice as much as the US. Like to put it into proportion China is about 30% of the pollution on the planet and the US is about 15% not to mention the EU isnt that far behind in pollution from the US at about 10%. They want the US to foot the bill because we foot the bill for a lot of other stuff too.
Ironically, CO2 levels in the U.S. are dropping, while in Europe, they are increasing.
the paris agreement had the target of 1/80000 celsius reduction by 2100 . china and india do not pay anuthing while the us gives billions to all.
Can you provide a link to your source of this information?
nope, 7/10 of a celsius. And on global scale, it's a lot.
Edit: 9/10 of a celsius
learn what the paris agreement is,
In the video it literally says they are investing around a trillion towards green power alone. Never mind other investments that help in other ways (transit, etc).
Lineage2MediaCom just dont write foolishly like a brainwashed person get knowledge idiot trump will say anything to make him right always . Hello u have to pay for the damage u have done to this world
There's no reason for the US to back out of the Paris deal. There are no mandatory goals, only recommended goals. The US could sit back and do nothing and it wouldn't be breaking any deals.
The fact that the US pulled out of the Paris agreement make hardly any difference. If the US stuck to its original goal and kept it until the year 2100 then it would only reduce global temperature from rising by 0.2 degrees Celsius which would be undone entirely by the emission produce by china. Just because it is a more developed country doesn't mean it should be treated differently compared to developing countries like china and India.
Alex Azzopardi somehow US is also the biggest polluter.
Alex Azzopardi the point of the Paris Agreement isn't to lower temperatures, the point is to keep temperatures from rising any further.
US is the biggest polluter and has been for decades. Why should India and China pay for your ignorance. you create the problem, why should we solve it?
no 0.2 degrees Celsius was concluded from multiply scientific studies
Just because the US decided to come out of the Paris agreement doesn't mean it wont reduce emissions. In the last year emissions has dropped by 3% and that is without the Paris agreement!
I live in Asian and see some pretty damming economic facts. The US is using 9% of its economic resources (12% if you include follow on industries )on energy whereas China is currently using 7% (there is no do stream here as the government owns all of it) but in future with renewable and nuclear/fusion it will be dropping dramatically over the next 20 years. This means China is more competitive and will increase this competitive advantage into future, but with none of polluting outcomes that our children will need to fix in the future...if they can. The issue here is the political system not the people (who tend to be pretty much the same). America, get rid of lobbyist they are just an open form of corporate corruption that makes the average person have a worse life.
I don't think that you have to be a "climate skeptic" to be against the Paris accord. It seems like it was written to unjustly punish the United States while giving significant leeway to other major polluters such as China. Also the accord had nothing to bind its participants into following through, I imagine the situation would have played out as the United States meeting our deadlines and paying the amounts designated while other countries simply forgot about there end of the bargain. I think it comes down to the fact that we cant be footing the bill for the entire world anymore. We all want more green energy and specifically I think we should invest in more nuclear power which many people get freaked out by simply because our 1950's reactors are simply outdated. Also, because coal is so abundant what would be wrong with investing more in our technologies into capturing carbon emissions from coal plants and refine and widely distribute this technology so it is environmentally and financially viable. Whatever we do it has to make since financially for producers and consumers or no one will give a crap.
Thats because per capita the US is a bigger polluter than China or India
WeTheTech who was I pointing fingers at? RUclips commenters always quick to just call names instead of having adult conversations. That is why we pulled out of this nonsensical agreement , were not putting up with your bullshit any longer.
Dude the guidelines to this voluntary agreement were to be set by the country itself. The only real mark against the Paris agreement was that it was nonbinding. No one was picking on the U.S.
29% of the C02 released was done by one country the United States. The Paris accords was unfair but not to the United States, it was unfair to everyone else. The US is by far the biggest cause of global warming and the Paris accord did not ask nearly enough of them.
the Paris accord isn't a law, its just agreement to acknowledge the effect of climate change. Even if a country doesn't met the the wanted levels reduction by each date the accord met there's isn't any consequences. So the idea that the accord was in placed to "punish" the U.S. is nonsense.
I'm a skeptic in the sense that I am skeptical, but not in the sense that I deny facts to push an emotional agenda. Climate change is the second greatest economic threat to humanity after nuclear war. There is no reason for anyone without a major stake in a fossil fuel company to be against preparing for and attempting to mitigate it.
I acknowledge climate change, but I also acknowledge that the government isn't gonna stop it with their red tape. The Paris deal was a bad deal and America will improve on green energies with out it. Private sector innovation and people doing their part will have a bigger impact then government red tape.
States taking the initiative is 100% better than a federal mandate imo. If people want renewable energy the free market will move that way dont need the government stepping in. Personally I think they shouldnt limit themselves to solar and wind. They should REALLY look into tidal energy. The ocean would produce SO MUCH energy for us by itself just gotta do it in a way that wont interfere with ocean life!
James Speier that is still government... city and state government is stepping up since America's leading gov official refuses to. so as long as the states do it you are fine with it?
+valban Yeah 'states rights' is something the political right in America likes to preach. Of course seemingly unaware of the blatant contradiction.
It's going to be hard for green energies in the private sector to "innovate" when their competition (coal and gas industries) gets tax breaks and government subsidies aka Corporatism or socialism for big business
this is predicated on the notion that government will be the one to solve the problems of solar and wind. the private industry has always been on the leading front of technological innovation, almost never the government.
Investing in Solar and Wind may yield some benefits, but we should stop the massive government subsidies. If Solar and Wind really do work economically, they don't need subsides. Nuclear does work, but people fear it.
The point of the Paris Accord was that all member countries agree to work together to keep our planet from getting any worse. There are no penalties for not achieving them, but the whole point is that these countries can all band together for a common goal. You can't set the same goal for every country, because every country is in a different stage of developing. You can't tell poor, developing countries to stop using fossil fuels when developed countries grew their economy with those same fossil fuels. You can't expect developing countries to buy solar panels from developed countries with the money they don't have. That's why the U.S. has been "forced to foot the bill" for all the countries that actually can't afford to go renewable. Each country has to work toward their own goals, and if they aren't able to keep up simply because of their smaller economy, the big guys who aren't as affected should try to cut them some slack, until they are able to pick it back up. Because this planet belongs to all of us, and we need to help each other out if we want to protect it. Backing out of the agreement is bad for everyone.
The problem is that pretty much all the companies that the government has openly supported to combat climate change have gone bankrupt.
Now, I'm seriously considering learning Chinese. XD
I like how 1/3 of the video is devoted to CONVINCING people that using renewable and sustainable energy and resources is the right thing to do.
The u.s. can follow a green energy policy without signing the Paris agreement. Staying out of the agreement only prevent us from have to give away billions to developing countries. The tenants of the agree are not good business for the u.s.
Regardless of how this will affect business or the climate, this decision is going to absolutley wreck America's relationships with other countries. I don't think that was a great move.
Good for China, I'm happy for them. My own country on the other hand is screwed.
Ban on solar energy? and ban on electric cars??
hahahahhaha, you would love the shit that only Americans could come up.
Just in case nobody's said it yet, will SOMEBODY in the White House PLEASE have the president watch this? That is all, thank you for your time.
I love the Paris Agreement. Backing out is stupid for both business and politics. Coal jobs are declining mainly because demand is falling. No country is exempt from the deal. Nicaragua did not sign the agreement because they felt it was not enough.
Leaving the Paris agreement doesn't necessarily translates into bad energy policy per se. Take as example France in the '70s: after oil prices spiked due to the Yom Kippur war(1973) they relied on nuclear. In the end France became one of the EU nations with the least amount of pollution without thinking about climate.
Granted current day nuclear(Light Water Reactors, LWRs in short) has problems but there are reactor designs which rectify said problems. An example is a modernized version of an experimental reactor which ran in the '60s for years(Molten Salt Reactor Experiment, MSRE in short): no risk of melt down(the core is molten), no risk of explosions(since it has salt instead of water as coolant), more efficient(can run at a higher temperature and that makes it thermodynamically more efficient) and produces useful heat for various other applications(desalinization of water as example). The problem is that, from what I know at least, doesn't seem to be that much loved compared to wind and solar
I stayed in South Korea for 2 weeks last month. I was not able to go out without a mask 4 days out of the 14 days that I stayed there because of the fine dust particles that were flown over from China. So imagine. If they're affecting their neighbor this badly, just how bad is the situation in China? China and Green should only be spoken together when you're talking about their polluted rivers.
Some of us accept that the earth is warming, but are adamantly opposed to government regulation, so in our minds pulling out of the Paris agreement is a good thing. In the long term regulation hurts, not helps, because of its costs and unintended consequences.
If there's choice between coal and solar, and consumers choose solar, wouldn't that create a demand and drive the economy? Right now there isn't even a choice in some areas because it's outlawed..
89% of China's energy consumption is fossil fuel with coal being 66%. Energy consumption in the US is 81% fossil fuel with coal being about 30% and dropping every year and natural gas expanding. Our carbon emissions are dropping every year and that rate will increase once we shift to electric cars powered by solar.
Got any sources for that mate?
I really like how you put that. I think if you do not support climate change that you should still believe in green energy. That's how I started. Being a Republican and still supporting improving the climate.
It's a Six Trillion dollar industry. We're idiots to ignore that kind of money.
If you think that the economy is more important than the environment, try holding your breath and counting your money.
Dude, is nobody going to talk about the fact that Trump released a statement that he wants to get back into the Paris Deal, but on terms that benefit America more than the previous terms? It explains pretty much everything.
Bravo for taking on this topic (and thus this administration) head on.
haven't you heard? their pollution levels are going down, although the keep raising the stakes of what is "polluted" because all of their old charts didn't go high enough.
06 years later... Green New Deal: energy cost, interest rate, cost of living, house price and oil price all are going up. Where are these green guys ?
just because the U.S pulled out that doesn't mean that companies and people here will stop looking into and implementing green and renewable energy. This is all seriously being blown out of proportion. Making mountains out of mole hills.
The white elephant in the room is, no one is willing to talk about the real reason for climate change. Population growth world wide over the last 200 years due to technolgy and advances in modern medicine. Seriously, population growth is the key, not reducing emissions or some Paris accord win/lose deal.
it's so god damn embarrassing to be a US citizen anymore...
The benefits the PA gave to the world and the US were far outstripped by the detriments. Not only would tax rates have to increase drastically (on everyone, not just the rich like everyone always says) in order to even dream of funding it, the fact that it is a non-binding resolution means no consequences for a country that doesn't follow it. However, for the U.S. it ends up costing billions, and assuming the other 146 countries did their part in reduction it's only a minor reduction of less than a degree Celsius. I'm no fossil fuel advocate, I live near the second largest wind farm in the world and support it whole hearted, but I also won't ignore facts on results and costs to the people and the economy.
When the US makes the switch to using primarily renewable energy, it needs to be done via a mode that 1) Produces a constant flow of energy (something that wind and solar doesn't and can't do) and 2) Creates more jobs and revenue than it destroys.(or at least break even). I would suggest biofuel such as ethanol produced from a non-food plant resource
This is what happened to England and Denmark when it came to wind power. England said it was a pipe dream while Denmark said "where on to something" and subsidized the industry. Then Denmark became a world leader in wind turbine production, adding billions to the economy and employing thousands of people. England got a few factories where most were closed later on, and are now buying Danish wind turbines.
The US is doing the same mistake now, because Trump cares "tremendously" for American coal miners.
Its a tragic irony that Houston, Texas, the oil capital of the world, got drowned with 49 to 50 inches of rain because Hurricane Harvey got energized by greenhouse gas emission atmospheric, and ocean global warming.
1:03
"An American invented the solar cell in 1941"
I'm sorry? In Europe they already had one in the 1800ths...
You're trading off 1 non renewable resource (Oil, coal and N.Gas) For another non renewable resource (Metals) Solar panels and wind turbines generate little energy, and require several hectares of land to be any worth so going left or right still poses a big problem, until we harvest minerals from other planets or asteroids it's still not possible to use solar energy efficiently.
I think rather than wasting our energies on finding out who was and who will lead the green energy plans,
all the countries first must focus on plans to save the earth which is of more importance now
this is serious issue but the puns in this video got me like 😂
Why do people always forget hydroelectric sources when it comes to renewable energy ? It is the most used way of producing green energy though
We backed out of the deal because we would tie ourselves to another agreement where nothing can be enforced. No participating country can be punished or held liable for failing to meet the agreed goals. Sound familiar?
As of May 12th the US has put forth $1 Billion while Russia and China have put for $0 Until the terms are better for the US we should stay out of this deal.
Trump pulled us out of the climate deal because the deal said that europe and asia could build more coal power plants but the USA had to cut back and close them (ours if you live in usa). Trump didnt say that we were gonna cut back on renewable and safe energy though. He also specifically said that we were going to make FAIR trade and climate deals.
Yesterday I watched video on paris accord 2015. One American dude replied to my comment that " There's no such thing called global warming. It a myth. Its a scam. " 😂😂😂😂 no offense to other Americans but this is too funny.
it is strange that only politicians and the media talk about global warming, but this is a scientific issue. Why we don´t ask scientists?
I'm just an old dude but. The Chinese have been fusing green gases to cook with for decades.
The Paris Accords aren't even legally binding! You could just say you'll do it and then not do it!
People are out of their minds. Paris was an agreement that no countries have to even stick to. Its really quite pointless and a failure. Do some research and look into it.
Honestly why would a civilised western country let one person hold so much power
when they can build a home use power plant that can produce 63 kWt a day for less than 5k and can last for over 20 years then I'll buy it. Until then I'll stay connected to the grid....
They make a good green tea too.
Yo guys, would you believe that even north korea is part of the Paris agreement? Its kind of messed up that the most isolated and in-humanitarian country in the world cares more about the climate than the US
weird man: can you guess who it is?
me:China
weird man: us
me: ho it's us yea
weird man: or the u.s
me: well shit
We should increase our coal energy to give green companies the power to invent more efficient solar panels.
If it is really such a great idea to invest in green energy then we can just let private companies do it.
The Paris Agreement was never ratified by the U.S. Congress, which means that Trump rejecting the deal has no impact on reducing greenhouse gasses.
You glossed over China's massive plans for building coal fired power plants. The Montreal Protocols worked because they applied equally to everyone, as opposed to Kyoto and Paris. Those seem to be more about massive wealth transfers than actually dealing with the problem.
The greenest technology hasn't been thought of yet. In order to reach it, we must prioritize basic green energies first.
But is it such a terribly bad thing? At 15%of the Earth's air pollution the US doesn't have a backwards stance on it arguably we are far ahead of the rest of the planet and should be.
James Hansen calls the Paris Accord a “fraud”.
.
In my country, Armenia, a 2+1 family , for instance, in a 70sq.m apartment pays ~400$ bill for electricity a year. switching to solar will cost you 800-1500$ I guess paying a bill for 2-3.5 years at once but having years and years of free power is a good investment. Correct anyone my calculations if they are wrong.
yeah, it seems that being rich can save you from chain volcano eruptions, polluted air and so on...gret job politicians
Just pointing out that "saving the planet means changing how we produce and use energy" isn't necessarily correct. Even if renewable energy was implemented worldwide, there are still other sources of greenhouse gas emissions, thus climate change would still happen.
The agreement has nothing to do with the United States' ability to lead the world in renewable energy. Wouldn't you hope the free market would be able to drive the best advancements in all forms of energy capture and delivery?
Paris accord is non-binding. America was in a position to lead but instead ceded to China. The truth cause of global warming may not be settled but human activities are known to contribute a lot. When your house is on fire this is not the time to argue who is doing less to put it out.
Being American IS NOT ABOUT MAKING A BUCK! Sick Capitalists
Facts: China is the biggest polluter right now. But it’s accumulative pollution is no where near the west. And it’s per capita pollution is also lower than US, Australia etc. China is also the biggest producer in wind energy, solar energy, water energy, tide energy, you name it.
Just me that loves watching smart people talking about Trump?
I've never understood how in your country science and politics have become one and the same, here In México our government is screwed yet still every single politician agrees that climate change is real and even one of our most corrupt political parties is still called the green ecological party of Mexico. That's how mainstream climate change is in the rest of the world
Yea I also couldn't believe it when I flew over china, I've never seen so many windmills in one place all my life, they were everywhere, and once you get to the bigger cities all you see is smog...
the long going climate NONSENSE is just so frustrating.