Second cup of Coffee Talk

[RobBase]

 

[dash]

Where did you pull that from, Rob?

 

[RobBase]

Where did you pull that from, Rob?

"Has anybody actually read the Paris agreement?...." - This comment was worded so well, I just had to share. (From the Science sub post that made it to ALL yesterday and was deleted) • r/The_Donald

 

[forty_three]

Where did you pull that from, Rob?

Must...


resist....




obvious joke...

 

[Darkstone42]

Each country in the agreement submitted their own standards, based on what they thought they could achieve. They were modified here and there, but the U.S. wasn't forced to choose their standard.

China and India have very old infrastructure, and it will take a long time to replace it. Their investments, therefore, need to stay at home, and they can only reasonably achieve not increasing CO2 production (barring a breakthrough) over that time while meeting increasing power demands. The U.S. has better technology and infrastructure right now, due to regulations which already existed, and the work of some innovators here. Thus, the U.S. is better equipped to cut their own emissions and to help other countries cut theirs. To wit, we're already well on our way to at least meeting, if not exceeding, the standards imposed on us.

That's why the agreement is written as it is. And that's why, written as it is, the agreement isn't actually unfair to the U.S.

The hope is that every country meets these standards, and most far exceed them. There have been pretty substantial leaps in storage technology lately (and I'm aware of some which hasn't gone to industry yet because I know the researchers which could be especially exciting). Actually implementing it will meet the Paris Agreement standards, while stabilizing and strengthening our economy, improving air quality, and, consequently, also improving environmental and public health.

 

[RobBase]

Each country in the agreement submitted their own standards, based on what they thought they could achieve. They were modified here and there, but the U.S. wasn't forced to choose their standard.

China and India have very old infrastructure, and it will take a long time to replace it. Their investments, therefore, need to stay at home, and they can only reasonably achieve not increasing CO2 production (barring a breakthrough) over that time while meeting increasing power demands. The U.S. has better technology and infrastructure right now, due to regulations which already existed, and the work of some innovators here. Thus, the U.S. is better equipped to cut their own emissions and to help other countries cut theirs. To wit, we're already well on our way to at least meeting, if not exceeding, the standards imposed on us.

That's why the agreement is written as it is. And that's why, written as it is, the agreement isn't actually unfair to the U.S.

The hope is that every country meets these standards, and most far exceed them. There have been pretty substantial leaps in storage technology lately (and I'm aware of some which hasn't gone to industry yet because I know the researchers which could be especially exciting). Actually implementing it will meet the Paris Agreement standards, while stabilizing and strengthening our economy, improving air quality, and, consequently, also improving environmental and public health.

The comments to that link are pretty good. If the world is in such imminent disaster, why are they refusing to renegotiate?

Because it isn't, and global warming is not about saving the planet.

 

[forty_three]

Each country in the agreement submitted their own standards, based on what they thought they could achieve. They were modified here and there, but the U.S. wasn't forced to choose their standard.

China and India have very old infrastructure, and it will take a long time to replace it. Their investments, therefore, need to stay at home, and they can only reasonably achieve not increasing CO2 production (barring a breakthrough) over that time while meeting increasing power demands. The U.S. has better technology and infrastructure right now, due to regulations which already existed, and the work of some innovators here. Thus, the U.S. is better equipped to cut their own emissions and to help other countries cut theirs. To wit, we're already well on our way to at least meeting, if not exceeding, the standards imposed on us.

That's why the agreement is written as it is. And that's why, written as it is, the agreement isn't actually unfair to the U.S.

The hope is that every country meets these standards, and most far exceed them. There have been pretty substantial leaps in storage technology lately (and I'm aware of some which hasn't gone to industry yet because I know the researchers which could be especially exciting). Actually implementing it will meet the Paris Agreement standards, while stabilizing and strengthening our economy, improving air quality, and, consequently, also improving environmental and public health.

So, you're saying the agreement was... negotiated?

So, it seems that the Ask Science area of Reddit has decided to make one megathread so all question related to this issue are in one place. Good place to read and learn, if you're into that sort of thing:

Askscience Megathread: Climate Change • r/askscience

 

[Darkstone42]

The comments to that link are pretty good. If the world is in such imminent disaster, why are they refusing to renegotiate?

Because it isn't, and global warming is not about saving the planet.

I read enough blubbering nonsense on this forum. I'm not following that link to read more.

 

[forty_three]

I read enough blubbering nonsense on this forum. I'm not following that link to read more.

HEY! THAT'S A GOOD LINK I POSTE-


Oh, yeah. There's posts I'm not seeing.

 

[Darkstone42]

So, you're saying the agreement was... negotiated?

 

[Comeds]

I read enough blubbering nonsense on this forum. I'm not following that link to read more.

Hey!

 

[dash]

Okay folks, can we all just take a breather, think of your mods well-being if nothing else. I don't mind dissenting/differing opinions as long as they are backed up with substantial information and/or data. As always, name calling and insults are certainly frowned upon. Thanks for your help.

 

[Darkstone42]

Hey!

In fairness, sometimes I do like your blubbering nonsense.

 

[KennyBanyeah]

So move out of the US if you're so frightened. Do you like Chinese food?

Spoiler alert: the universe and all its planets have always and will always experience change. No need to throw our money away over it.

I don't live in the US. But let's say I did. I should move away because I'm frightened? Or because I disagree with you and a senile, ignoramus of a president? That makes so much sense. OK then. Sig Heil!!


Again, where in any of what I wrote is there any indication that I'm frightened. You're useless. I'm gonna have, at long last, find out how to ignore someone on this board. I will no longer have an open boarder.

 

[dash]

I think comeds was right, this never would have happened if I hadn't change the thread title from "Coffee" to "Covfefe"

 

[forty_three]

I think comeds was right, this never would have happened if I hadn't change the thread title from "Coffee" to "Covfefe"

That isn't true and you know it.

 

[jstewismybastardson]

I think comeds was right, this never would have happened if I hadn't change the thread title from "Coffee" to "Covfefe"

if you werent so damn spineless you would have stuck to your guns and kept COFFEE in the thread title!!! GUTTER SHIT BRO!

 

[Comeds]

I don't live in the US.

on ignore!

 

[RobBase]

I don't live in the US. But let's say I did. I should move away because I'm frightened?

Just seems very strange to live terrorized. Most people get away from stuff that scares them.

 

[jstewismybastardson]

Just seems very strange to live terrorized. Most people get away from stuff that scares them.

or they build walls