Just to keep it interesting, lets agree that all commenters read the Paris Agreement (see links below) and cite specifically what parts they find objectionable.
A rather deceptive diversion you’ve introduced here.
It’s the accord itself and its overall favorable slant towards such nations as China and India (among some others) that allows them major growth in emissions of CO2 and it’s serious restrictions on Western nations, the US in particular, requiring large reductions of the same thing.
It produces an global development playing field that is heavily slanted against the US.
As for the specific part I disagree with most? Obama’s signature putting America into it on April 22, 2016.
There are so many things I would Red Line in that agreement it would look like someone bled all over it. I don’t have the time to list everything so I’ll just point to one.
“This Agreement will be implemented to reflect equity and the principle of
common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, in the light
of different national circumstances.”
That right there is essentially the heart of the Communist doctrine; agreeing to that is to allow the “Foot in the door” for a one world communist government. Tax the rich countries and transfer the wealth to poor countries. It’s clearly a wealth transfer mechanism cloaked in “Global Worming Control”. FUCK THAT!!
It’s a communist conspiracy, lol. Oh and it’s abolition of private property that is “essentially the heart of the Communist doctrine”. It much easier to criticize a document or philosophy if you actually read it. That’s my only point here.
james the deplorable wanderer
June 8, 2017 1:26 pm
Given their current governments, peoples and attitudes, what are the chances that France, Germany, India, China and South Africa would agree on a treaty that was in the best interests of the U.S. ?
What are the chances they would agree on a treaty that harms the US, even if only indirectly?
Trump actually was looking out for us. If Obama was unwilling to even submit it to the Senate for ratification, it was ideological and indefensible to begin with.
Just to keep it interesting, lets agree that all commenters read the Paris Agreement (see links below) and cite specifically what parts they find objectionable.
http://unfccc.int/files/essential_background/convention/application/pdf/english_paris_agreement.pdf
http://unfccc.int/paris_agreement/items/9485.php
A rather deceptive diversion you’ve introduced here.
It’s the accord itself and its overall favorable slant towards such nations as China and India (among some others) that allows them major growth in emissions of CO2 and it’s serious restrictions on Western nations, the US in particular, requiring large reductions of the same thing.
It produces an global development playing field that is heavily slanted against the US.
As for the specific part I disagree with most? Obama’s signature putting America into it on April 22, 2016.
I’m quite happy Trump withdrew it.
Ok I read it – Thank God Trump didn’t sign it.
There are so many things I would Red Line in that agreement it would look like someone bled all over it. I don’t have the time to list everything so I’ll just point to one.
“This Agreement will be implemented to reflect equity and the principle of
common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, in the light
of different national circumstances.”
That right there is essentially the heart of the Communist doctrine; agreeing to that is to allow the “Foot in the door” for a one world communist government. Tax the rich countries and transfer the wealth to poor countries. It’s clearly a wealth transfer mechanism cloaked in “Global Worming Control”. FUCK THAT!!
So actually reading the document is a “deceptive diversion”? Wow, just wow.
It’s a communist conspiracy, lol. Oh and it’s abolition of private property that is “essentially the heart of the Communist doctrine”. It much easier to criticize a document or philosophy if you actually read it. That’s my only point here.
Given their current governments, peoples and attitudes, what are the chances that France, Germany, India, China and South Africa would agree on a treaty that was in the best interests of the U.S. ?
What are the chances they would agree on a treaty that harms the US, even if only indirectly?
Trump actually was looking out for us. If Obama was unwilling to even submit it to the Senate for ratification, it was ideological and indefensible to begin with.