Is he talking about former USSR eastern European states or are we being put at a disadvantage relative to fully industrialized western European states.
I realize this is a general question but its about trump so…
Coal plants are also not forbidden in the USA, what is happening is what even the conservatives at Reason magazine noted, natural gas and other alternative fuels are cheaper or getting cheaper than coal. A lot of the closing of coal plants and mines in the USA took place before any new regulations were in place.
As noted then, any growth that will take place now with coal plants/mines will be thanks to “choosing winners and losers” with a lot of subsidies. An issue that was supposed to be a very evil one to consider among conservatives themselves.
Was just reading this on CNN, and it’s along a similar vein wrt how Trump views things.
This is how Trump actually views things like this. He believes this…stuff. While I think there are grains of truth in some of it, overall I think Trump is a nut. Every day it just seems to get more disturbing. I used to laugh at comparisons between Trump and, say, Mussolini or Franco, but…well, I don’t laugh nearly as hard now, let’s say…
Leaving aside the facts that there are no enforcement or penalties in the Paris agreement that can be used to punish countries that don’t comply (including the US). Leaving aside that the funds to assist third world nations in achieving lower carbon emissions goals are also voluntary. Leaving aside the fact that the incompetent orange buffoon didn’t need to bail on the agreement in order to “re-negotiate a better deal”.
What’s worth reminding the orange buffoon and his slavishly adoring minions is that having the US lead the world by example is good for the US economy because we can develop renewable energy and related technology before the rest of the world can, and then sell that technology to the rest of the world. That’s jobs! That’s economy! That’s the future! That’s putting “America First!” in terms even the orange minion should be able to understand.
I think the meat of the factual claims you are questioning are here:
Enumerating the claims:
[ol]
[li]Compliance with the terms of the Paris Accord could cost America as much as 2.7 million lost jobs by 2025 according to the National Economic Research Associates.[/li][li]compliance with the commitments put into place by the previous administration would cut production for the following sectors: paper down 12 percent; cement down 23 percent; iron and steel down 38 percent; coal … down 86 percent; natural gas down 31 percent. [/li][li]The cost to the economy at this time would be close to $3 trillion in lost GDP and 6.5 million industrial jobs, while households would have $7,000 less income [/li][li]under the agreement, China will be able to increase these emissions by a staggering number of years – 13.[/li][li]India makes its participation contingent on receiving billions and billions and billions of dollars in foreign aid from developed countries.[/li][/ol]
Those seem like factual items that can be either true or false - they appear true to me.
Why do they appear true to you? Because there is evidence that they are true, or because they could potentially be true if we all work hard enough to reach those objectives?
[ol]
[li]The NERA conducted an analysis which is available and while it has detractors and apparent flaws, as a factual matter it says what it says and that was the claim. The claim was not about the quality of the NERA information.[/li][li]This flows from #1.[/li][li]This flows from #1.[/li][li]China’s self imposed commitment has a target of 2030 - that’s 13 years. If there were milestones with gradual targets then this wouldn’t be supportable, but given there are not, this is a truthful statement, though it lacks any nuance.[/li][li]This is a yes or a no, is India making its participation contingent and from my reading the answer is yes.[/li][/ol]
If Trump decided to go along with the agreement and then used the fact that nothing was binding in order to do what he believes is beneficial and “fair” for the the U.S., would’t he still be subject to the same level of vitriol and outrage? I’m just looking at it in terms of pure political strategy; politically it doesn’t seem to be in Trump’s interest to sign the agreement and then not follow through by claiming it is unenforceable. He would lose popularity with his base and would not gain any followers. Bailing on the agreement seems to be the best political strategy for him.
[ol]
[li]The NERA conducted an analysis which is available and while it has detractors and apparent flaws, as a factual matter it says what it says and that was the claim. The claim was not about the quality of the NERA information.[/li][li]This flows from #1.[/li][li]This flows from #1. [/ol][/li][/quote]
Consistency of argument does not improve its underlying (in)credibility.
The agreement is not perfect. Far from it. But withdrawal does nothing to improve it. Staying in and negotiating improved outcome would have been the more prudent approach.
Trump “read off a fanciful list of “consequences” for adhering to the Paris Accords down through the next decades. Afterwards, Ali Velshi, a welcome addition to the MSNBC cast of regulars, pointed out that the president* was reading from a debunked report that presumed in its analysis that the U.S. would fulfill every one of its agreed-upon conditions while no other participating country would fulfill any of theirs. This is not surprising. The president* would have read a commercial for hair-replacement if someone had put it in front of him.”
I think you’ve both asking essentially the same question.
I think Trump was butt-hurt after the cool reception he received at the G7 summit and this is his childish way of giving them the finger.
He has no intentions of negotiating anything anew. My cite is that he’s proven himself over and over to be a pathological liar and intellectually lacking in any capacity other than to act out of any other motivation than animus or self-interest.
[LIST=1]
[li]The NERA conducted an analysis which is available and while it has detractors and apparent flaws, as a factual matter it says what it says and that was the claim. The claim was not about the quality of the NERA information.[/li][/quote]
Maybe not YOUR claim but Trump presents NERA’s conclusions as facts.
My guess is that he wouldn’t be subject to the same vitriol and outrage, because keeping the US in at least sends a signal that the US accepts the science and thinks it’s an important goal to work toward. Instead, he made the US one-of-a-kind, but not in a good way.
