|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 79,027
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 79,027 |
I'm not sure of the details in the Paris Accord. And it wasn't so long ago that I would have agreed with you in terms of China. But all of that has changed. China is actually becoming the global leader in alternative energy. They have actually seen the shift that's coming and stepped up investments in alternative fuels it an astronomical pace.
They are the largest producer of solar panels and were the world leaders in terms of investment in green energy in 2017. These times they are a changin'.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Do we continue to hold outselves to unreasonable standards of environmentally friendly restrictions while places like China agree to the same restrictions....don't follow them and nothing is done to penalize them. That is exactly what was happening with the Paris Agreement. We spend more money on producing the same products because we follow the rules when no one else does.
It's a tough call and both sides that are dug in either way are wrong. The Paris Agreement was voluntary... whatever "unreasonable standards" that were place on the US, we put them there.... each country submitted their own goals based on their ability to meet those goals.. there were no goals we were meeting that they weren't meeting.. we had different goals based on where we started.. it allowed less developed nations to make changes at a rate they could live with and more developed nations to make changes at a rate they could live with.. The agreement had a provision that every 5 years the countries would review the goals and adjust them accordingly... there wasn't really any punitive penalty for not meeting your goals other than it would be a black-eye on your country to the rest of the world who was achieving their goals... As for your general premise, yes, we should lead... and we can lead without sacrificing our economy... to NOT lead is sacrificing potential great long term benefits (both environmental and economic) for very short term profit..
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204
~ Legend
|
|
~ Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204 |
Don't forget politically. Excluding ourselves from Paris and TTP have only emboldened China.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 252
2nd String
|
|
2nd String
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 252 |
Don't forget politically. Excluding ourselves from Paris and TTP have only emboldened China. In more ways than you could imagine...
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Leading Climate Scientist at a
House Science Tech Committee
Hearing
