(01-22-2021 09:16 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-22-2021 06:36 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-21-2021 11:13 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-21-2021 05:26 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

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

"fatally flawed" -- got it. Hey, just tell the 74 million people that dont agree with that assessment that you got it under control.

I will give you the Hyper Bolly award for that 'characterization' (you know, the thing you keep stating that is a bad thing to do incorrectly).

Just because *you* buy in to the 'good things, rainbow drops, and cotton candy' that comes our of the PA, doesnt mean that they are nor make it indisputable fact. Funny that.

There being some US citizens who oppose the accords doesn’t mean squat in this case -

It is when you cannot bother to look at the broader message in Cruz's remarks. But now you return to the stupid quackery. Have fun.

if there are any US citizens that support the accords, arguing that the support of the accords is only looking out for foreign interests is false because of how absolute that statement is (again, disingenuous).

I guess you dont notice your won 'fatally flawed' in that same context. Amazing. Again, disingenuous, if that is the tack you are taking. Kind of fun to piss and moan about 'absolutes' right after your own of the same. In-fing-credible.

Quote:As an aside, I bet that not all 74 million Trump voters oppose the content of the accords, just like not all Biden voters support the content of the accords. And what about those who didn’t vote?

Well *thats* an amazing fing insight. No wonder you dont like Cruz's comments.

Quote:You seem to continue to miss the boat on this one so you can argue about your interpretation of Cruz’s remarks

yes, its my interpretation. Much like the crap in your first assessment is *your* interpretation. Amazing **** there, aint it.

Quote:And in doing so, you keep defending Cruz for his obvious politicking.

'defending' Cruz? No. Just noting that you cannot (and do not wish to) believe that the idea of Cruz's comments can be denoted as 'what makes the people of London feel good isnt necessarliy the the same thing as being the best thing for the people of anywhere that makes or uses lots of power'. A valid point.

I guess in lad-world dont use Pittsburgh as an example, though. Got it. Point taken. I shall write in my notes of the day 'dont use Pittsburgh in any examples, evah. Satisfied there, lad?
[/quote]

Lad seems to be in the side of literal interpretation. I remember many democratic politicians who said things like "I am more interested in helping Main Street than Wall Street". Maybe Big can find out how many people live on Main Street in the USA and how many live on Wall Street.

Still nobody has come forward to give any details on how this accord/treaty is going to help the USA, and the people who live here, even the ones on Elm Street.

And somebody made a very good point about the hidden problems with various kinds of "renewable' energy. Nobody seems to care about the problems associated with plugging your electric car into an outlet providing electricity generated from natural gas or coal. Or the problems associated with mining rare earths for batteries. Or the problems associated with disposal of those batteries. Or the problems of manufacturing those giant wind vanes. Or the problems with solar panels. There is no free lunch.

So far, I think rejoining this accord is just a cosmetic move, designed to make environmentalists pat themselves on the back. If I am wrong, somebody explain.