Paris Climate Agreement

Simply ask specifically how this agreement helps to fight climate change, don't let them divert or dodge the question

Watch them fall apart

>>128347345
Explain this agreement to me like i'm a 5 year old with SIDS

>>128347598
I've been getting a lot of "someone has to step up to the plate and be the adult in the room" when I ask why we have to be the ones making all the changes and providing all the funding. People also keep saying the desired change of -0.5 degrees Celsius is better than the projected +2.0 degrees Celsius change.

>>128347853
plebbit: https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6effa4/eli5what_is_the_paris_climate_agreement_and_why/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgaSL1dVsSU

>>128348246
So their argument is literally The White Mans Burden? That we have to go out and civilize the savages and sub-humans because we're better than them? Sounds like you're arguing with some real racists, there.

>>128348246
The desired outcome is +1.5 celsius. With all measures proposed it will lead to an 3.2 celsius rise. Climate is cyclical, but we are affecting that cycle in unnatural ways and our effects lag 15-80 years behind from when it is put out.
So without a huge breakthrough we will not meet the goals of the Paris agreement.
But don't think for a second climate change isn't real.

>>128347345
http://www.breitbart.com/economics/2017/05/31/every-bad-thing-avoided-rejecting-paris-climate-accords/

http://www.breitbart.com/radio/2017/06/02/wilbur-ross-europeans-angry-losing-free-ride-climate-accord-terrible-deal-america/

>>128347345
Read it yourself http://unfccc.int/files/essential_background/convention/application/pdf/english_paris_agreement.pdf
IMO about 70-80% is very good common sense stuff.

Its shocking vague and short. it calls for a 100 billion a year and it can be subject to increases. Its not very clear who will pay for it. Developing nations will get lots of leeway. Who decides when a nation stops developing and becomes developed? No ways to effectively stop cheating.

Obama was walking around like he cured cancer and all it is, is a 30 page manifesto on what they might do in the future.

>>128350718
bump cause I really want to discuss this

>>128350718
I really like what the guy said in this video: >>128348446

It seems like it's much more beneficial for nations shilling out cash for this to invest the money in their own green industries. A solar panel at home is just as good as a solar panel elsewhere. The UN and bureaucrats are likely not trustworthy with this kind of money, and what money and materials are sent to the developing nations are likely going to be taken by warlords or local government officials.

It's basically wealth distribution and it doesn't do a fucking thing

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1758-5899.12295/full

>>128351916
This. 3 biggest things for a Green economy is:
>Getting cargo sheeps renewable
>Getting larger more efficient batteries
>Finding ways to make green electricity stable.

Problem with wind or solar is its very unpredictable as an energy source. Gas, coal or nuclear is nice and steady and can be accounted for.

Once you get cargo ships or articulated lorries green you can turn a vast portion of the supply chain economy green. I saw some stat where cargo ships (like 30 or 40 of them) make more pollution that the entire airline industry.

File: IMG_0731.jpg (188KB, 1096x520px) Image search: [Google]

188KB, 1096x520px

It's giving money to the worlds biggest polluters so they can pollute more. How do they justify supporting a climate accord that's going to cause more pollution? It incentives pollution and punishes countries that are already doing a good job regulating themselves. Any gains made over the years by developed, regulated countries would be lost in a matter of days. The only countries that need to step up now are China and India and they get until 2030. It's a load of fucking bullshit. Unless China and India step up TODAY the agreement is entirely worthless to begin with and just burns money. We can keep investing in alternative energies without some shitty agreement and subsidizing our biggest competitors economy. A company in the US that is regulated to curb emissions could just move to China where they won't be regulated, ergo causing more pollution that we gave them money to do.

>Causes more pollution
>While subsidizing our biggest competitors
>Burning money
>And they fucking jew'd in some shit about migration in the agreement, of course
>China a developing country that needs our money TOP fucking KEK

File: fourhorsemen.jpg (486KB, 1096x800px) Image search: [Google]

486KB, 1096x800px

>>128347345
Climate (((scientists))) don't know shit. The Earth is FREEZING.

File: globalwarming2.png (51KB, 609x359px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 609x359px

>>128347345

>>128353675
This chart is brilliant and absolutely correct. I always hear about how the U.S. is horrible in terms of emissions per capita.