(01-21-2021 04:58 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(01-21-2021 03:28 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  The climate accords don't put the interest of foreign citizens above the jobs of citizens in the US. For starters, there are plenty of US citizens who support the accords, so they are being represented (most notably, those in the example city). Second, there are plenty of states rich in existing jobs in renewable resources that could benefit, and likely more states will benefit as renewable energy industries mature. This isn't a zero-sum game where climate measures only hurt jobs.

But Cruz portrays this as accords that don't have any US citizens' interests in mind and will only negatively affect job numbers. That isn't the case.

That's your opinion and you're entitled to it.... but it serves a very narrow and self-serving description.

First you talk about jobs, then you talk about citizens who support the accords. People also support rising wages until they see the rising prices that almost always accompany them and often outpace them. As I've suggested but no Democrat has... if the government wants people to have a 'liveable wage' then we can do away with almost all forms of government assistance and simply engage in a reverse FICA where instead of having money taken out of your check, the government puts money IN to that check based on their specific circumstances. A single mom with 2 kids gets a total of $15. The kid working part-time while still living at home with middle class or higher parents gets $7.50 or whatever the VALUE of the work is. The cost to the employer of either candidate is $11 (or whatever $7.50 plus employer taxes is).

The advantage of this is that the cost of that extra money does not come from the business, who may be a mom and pop shop barely getting by and trying to keep their doors open... who may actually be on some form of assistance themselves... and unlike Walmart, can't afford 'self-checkout' computers or McDonald's robots... but instead it comes from wealthy taxpayers.

Bottom line (sorry for the rabbit trail)... Just because 'the people' support it doesn't mean that they are correct or know the consequences of their support.

It is absolutely true that a reduction in the use of oil will cost jobs in the oil industry. Same with coal. Although these can be imported, these are commodities and our products are competitive.... especially because of the cost and environmental risks of transportation.

Solar panels and the battery technology necessary to use it properly get dumped on the US from (especially) China all the time.... and they come with their own environmental issues for rare earth metals.

Since we are the worlds largest producer of oil and I believe still the or at least one of the largest consumers of oil, gas and coal.... we absolutely have the most to risk... yet globally we all have the same general exposure to climate change.

That said, I think it rather disingenuous to characterize (as most supporters do) the Paris accords as simply being global common usage and cleanliness standards. I seem to recall that in these areas, we are still meeting (at least as much as if not more than anyone else) those goals... and instead it is the 'other' aspects of the accords. In the simplest example... we are expected to (once again) write by far the biggest checks to other nations, while also engaging in the largest and most expensive reductions.... because it's cheap and easy for a factory in Bangladesh with no current emissions reduction efforts to enact a 50% reduction in their emissions. We did that in the 1970s. It is vastly more difficult and expensive to get a 50% reduction from say, 90% effectiveness and get to 95%.

So yeah, I think a lot of well educated and well informed people would agree with Ted Cruz's characterization.... and it's the same old song and dance for the left to treat those people as if they are not well educated nor informed... but instead to associate us all with the lowest member of 'the right'. Lots of members of the left can't spell their names either and don't have the first idea about what climate change is, what it costs or how to address it.

That last paragraph is your opinion, and you’re entitled to it, but it’s bunk, frankly. Cruz’s characterization has nothing to do with informed/educated or uninformed/uneducated. His characterization is fatally flawed because it makes a bad characterization of the interests of those in the US (it specifically says that the accords aren’t of interest for those in the US, by saying it focused on the interests of those in Paris).

Tanq made far better arguments about the merits of the accords than Cruz did. But heaven forbid someone criticize a conservative politician on this board...