Shell joins Exxon to defend Paris climate accord

>She said Shell was committed to making its business “resilient over time” to the transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy required to meet the Paris targets. Shell is investing heavily in natural gas as a cleaner alternative to coal in power generation and also in offshore wind and other forms of low-carbon power.

>>145409
>tfw the corp that concealed climate change evidence throughout the 80s is doing more to fight it than the the government
Hey, at least we can dump coal waste straight onto our rivers, so that's nice.

In the old days lobbyists had to seek out a corrupt politician to sell favors.

Nowadays politicians just line up at the door of industry. "Everything is for sale! take your pick and name your price!".

Until multinationals come to our politicians to beg them to stop doing them so many favors. I guess this is what the free market regulating itself will look like.

Probably still only for egoistic reasons.

Trump should just say: okay, we're going to put a team of HIGHLY professional scientists on this to see how much of the climate change is actually real :^)

>>145596
this better be satire or are you actually retarded. The Paris Climate Accord is ultimately beneficial for these multinational and kek not because "we all have the same future planet to inhabit" fam

>>145647
As opposed to the countless score of HIGHLY professional climatologists who say that this climate change stuff is really real?

>>145677
>Will the Paris Agreement help?
>At what cost?
>What is in the Agreement, other than emission reductions?

Help me help you by answering these questions.

>>145681
I'm surprised you haven't brought your own deceptive answers.

Answer me this.

Why should the US be exempt from a deal that imposes similar burdens on the rest of the first world nations?

Why should China and India not increase until their CO2 per capita matches the USA?

Why should the countries that Trump has just cheated, not gather the money from sanctions on the US instead?

>>145409
>>145409
Nobody is stoping any of he's states or people or corporations from doing what they want to do. The reason why the Paris Accord is so bad for the us is the carbon taxing.

>>146873
>Why should the countries that Trump has just cheated, not gather the money from sanctions on the US instead?

Any answers?

>>146875
He "cheated" them? Since when do other countries have a claim to my tax dollars, especially when they're the ones making the pollution and deforesting?

>>146894
>Make a group deal.
>Back out.
>Leave the group to pay.
>"Hey don't call me a cheat"

Yanks.

>>146898
>Obama makes deal
>Trump asks for renegotiated deal and is denied
>Pulls out wisely

Shit man they can pay for their own infrastructure improvments. Idk why the world simultaneously expects the US to both stay out of the world's business and also save the world. Most Americans just want to be left alone.

I say the counties making the most Co2 fix their shit

>>146911
but this kind of flip-flopping makes the US appear very unstable as a global power. If we can't even keep the deals we propose how can we expect foreign nations to negotiate with us if we might break the deal in 4 years? Trump also hasn't renegotiated anything he just pulled out because he didn't want a minor economic handicap that all other first world nations agreed to. So we propose a cooperative move for the whole world, then back out after everyone else has agreed to it. That almost sounds like sabotage, but it's not, it's instability

>>146911

The US has emitted more over history than any other country, As the largest economy and 2nd largest polluter and largest economy, is it unreasonable to request the US invest more in renewable energy? If not, and global warming leads to displacement of a hundreds of millions of people in the developing world in the future, the responsible thing to do would have to be to compensate a proportion of those displaced people proportionate to our historic contribution to the problem. Global warming will hurt everyone, but it will disproportionately impact the developing would, even while it hasn't had the chance to contribute as much to emissions.

The largest emitter, China, has less than half the per capita emissions as the US, a fraction of the economic size, and invested 2.5X times as much as the US into installing renewable energy infrastructure in 2016.

I want what's best for the US and let alone global climate change, I think that involves not being a pariah state that endangers the rest of the world by promising to increase the waste it dumps into the atmosphere while the rest of the world is promising reduction. Even if there were no immediate economic benefit to investment into renewable energy, I want my country to be seen as trying to be responsible

Many developing countries be able to afford the initial investment of switching to renewable energy infrastructure without some sort of aid.

>Obama makes deal
Obama was democratically elected twice by the country to represent the country. And most Americans agree we should have kept our promise to do something, if not aid, if not a carbon tax, then something.

The issue here is really us leaving an agreement that we merely accept the fact that the world has a problem, and we have a stake in it and should do something, because we're allowed to decide our own commitment under this agreement.

"Renegotiation" is just being used as a talking point to shift responsibility. What part of the agreement is worth negotiating when we decide our own level of commitment to begin with?

>>146935
Agreement was non binding as congress never ratified it.

>>146935
>US has produced more over history
Prove it? At this point it doesn't matter, were on the decline and we've replanted all of our forests. Soon we'll have electric cars as a standard. Best thing we can do is continue to develop Green tech in the private sector. I'm not going to pay for the so called sins of my fathers.

>Global warming will hurt the developing world
Sure, they should stop deforesting and pullution their oceans, overfishing and burning coal.

>Per capita emissions
Is a bunk statistic when you realize China's and India's population

The US will continue to invest. I don't think throwing money around to unstable third world nations is wise, as history shows.

>>146945
>Is a bunk statistic when you realize China's and India's population

Why is it bunk? It gives us a rough standard to compare ourselves against. Maybe we can look at a 1st world nation that has a lower then average per capita pollution compared to its peers and see what policy or technology they implement to get it that low and how it impacts them and their economy (so we can avoid pitfalls, like this policy caused an economic downturn here).

Raw pollution numbers isn't as useful in policy researching/making.

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC?view=map

>>146935
We don't owe anybody shit for anything. Least of all the fucking PRC.

>>146983
PRC will eventually be leader of the world. so watch out. you will owe them your country.

>>146985
>>PRC will eventually be leader of the world.
No they won't, this is beyond the daydreams of the most delusional of sinophiles.

>>you will owe them your country
Most of our debt is internal, so this is bullshit too.

Go back to jerking your micordick in the corner chiang, nobody gives a fuck about the land of burning rivers, perpetual smog and ricin enriched pet food.

>>146873
>The reason why the Paris Accord is so bad for the us is the carbon taxing.
Paris accord don't impose carbon taxing.

Are you sure your president can read?

>>147008
Not technically but the agreement did call for offsets. Which is a tax.

>>147008
>Are you sure your president can read?
>>147021
>Not technically

kek

>>146869
>a deal that imposes
>countries that Trump has just cheated
you fucking idiot no nation owes anyone anything apart from its citizens, and this deal is only "symbolic", I wish my country had the spine to leave this virtue signalling bullshit accord, no one will follow this in any reasonable manner and the market for renewables will transition naturally anyway as tech becomes more efficient and non-dangerous nuclear energy is worked upon and miniaturised

>>146933
>but this kind of flip-flopping makes the US appear very unstable as a global power.
the US IS AN UNSTABLE POWER, it has been used as a vector to destabilise entire regions of the globe.

>>146869
It's a swindle.

Thank God Trump pulled is out of it. Hope others follow.

>>146945
>Best thing we can do is continue to develop Green tech in the private sector
>Muh Free Market

Jesus Christ is this all you guys knows

>>147073
Because it works .
If something is viable and better people will use it. If not it doesn't deserve to survive. Right now Green tech is a gimmick.

>>147073
It's better than the "well just tax the rich" meme

>>147073
>Solar panels on your home not only reduce power bill, some grids will pay you for excess power
>http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/ugc/articles/2017/02/03/rise-of-personal-solar-power.html (the power grid payback is state to state and county to county)

>States on a fault line have great access for geothermal, an investment that pays back after 2 decades but immediately replaces coal fired plants that output far more harmful GHGs.
>While there are no subsidies, there are tax credits
>Personal use geothermal doesnt require much maitnence, large scale need a certai. Degree of groundwater maitenence
>http://energyinformative.org/geothermal-energy-pros-and-cons/

>Tidal energy is good for coastal areas as long as you are fine with fish getting ground into chum.
>Not enough to replace coal fired plants but definitely supplement the power grid alongside other greener options.
>http://www.oceanenergycouncil.com/ocean-energy/tidal-energy/


The biggest barrier tp all of these is upfront construction cost. Theyre getting cheaper with every advance in their technologies due to free market demand for cheaper and greener sources. The governments hand in this is tax credits for developing and building these sources. Otherwise its people who can see an energy empire that produces electricity at a fraction of the price of coal and gas fired plants. Exxon and Shell see the writing on the wall. The accords are free money to keep developing cheaper alternative s to oil and coal. They know full well that an empire of hydro, geo and solar makes the same profit as an empire of coal once the startup costs are cheaper.

>>147062
That's a lot of talk about spine from some cunt hunched over a computer.

>>146911
>I say the counties making the most Co2 fix their shit
That would be the USA and their Arab friends.

>>147108
China and India

>>147077
Well that's better than the "well just bleed the poor" meme.

Go fuck off to some factory in 1890. See how well you type this nonsense without hands.

>>147108
it's actually china by at least 15%

>>146933
a "minor economic handicap" that achieves literally nothing besides shovelling a bunch of money to "developing countries" most of which are far from friendly.

>>147140
>See Venezuela, China, Soviet Union, Cuba, Vietnam

>See Europe, Canada, USA, Australia, Japan

Idk man looks like capitalism/free market beats your fantasy role play handout theorys

>>147141
>>147119
They also have a far higher population then us. I don't have any love of China and India. They're both pretty crappy places. However, per capita, they're much lower then the US, which emits slightly more then twice the average of other 1st world nations, and three times as much as the global average. In terms of money, this would be like looking at a small town's total expenditures and comparing it to a major city's, and declaring that the city is wasteful irregardless of other factors such as population.

You cut where you can, and cut where it's needed. China and India should curb their CO2 (and unsustainable population growth) while researching and financing post-gasoline based energies, and we should too.

>>147073
They're fine with government levying higher tariffs, regulations, and taxes against industries they disagree with. I remember in Texas where people were cheering on the ban against Tesla cars at one point (http://www.businessinsider.com/texas-says-no-to-tesla-2015-5), or instances where Republicans attempted to restrict cities setting up their own public municipal internet utilities because it was a threat to private ISPs (https://psmag.com/news/the-fight-over-municipal-internet). To be fair on this last point though, it was mostly state Republicans beating on local Republican officials rather then a strictly partisan issue.

US Paid $1B to Green Climate Fund, Top Polluters Paid $0

The United States contributed $1 billion to the global Green Climate Fund, but the world's top polluters contributed nothing, David Asman reported.

Asman said on "Forbes on Fox" that China, Russia and India contributed no money to the Green Climate Fund, yet that international community pressured the U.S. to join the Paris Climate Accord.

Steve Forbes said that the billion-dollar payment is another reason why President Trump was smart to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris agreement.

Fuck these moochers.

>>147204
To be fair, much of China's pollution is generated making American consumer goods.
And I know a billion sounds like a lot, but that's a tax burden of about $12 for the average family of 4.
Considering how much we buy from China instead of polluting the US, it's not that much to pay.

>>147258
Wonder what conservatives nowadays would say about something like the Marshall Plan?

>>147075
>Right now Green tech is a gimmick.
You're a decade late.
It's like you're saying there is no micro-blogging platform on which the president could ridicule himself in 140 character.

>>147204
>A billion is a lot to American economy
Ah ah ah ah ah ah. Welcome to the third world.
>We can't wait until the end of the year for yearly payments, we'll just see who paid first and cry about it.
How does a calendar works?