Quote:
Originally Posted by Lisnaholic
^ This point is something of a red herring isn't it? The real reason that Trump's decision is significant is this: with approx 2% of the world population, the USA generates approx 20%* of the world's carbon emissions. In terms of pollution per capita, America is one of the dirtiest countries on the planet. That's why America's presence at the Paris Agreement table is significant, and that's why people are calling Trump's decision "immoral." He's leaving the planet to pay the ecological bill so that his prefered industries can have an easy ride.
|
Considering what I bolded there, why do you disagree with what I said? The U.S. even during our previous administration wasn't really in a position to be the leader of renewable energy. We aren't as bad as India or some of the other developing countries, but we're still sucking at Big Oil's teat. Other countries are far ahead of us. Also, this incident with the Paris Accord has been blown out of proportion since its likely to be reversed in 2020 (or earlier) before any real implementation of a pull-out is achieved. Trump is making a big show about it, but he won't get his way long-term (as usual). Though if you read that Salon article...now there's a real problem to worry about
: the fact Trump's opposition here in the U.S. is so disorganized and weak that he could stomp all over them again in three years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lisnaholic
^ Thank you for the insight that there are two sides to every story. I don't know why you subjected us to an anonymous rant against a non-existent "Church of Climate Change" in order to make such an elementary point.
|
If you don't see a problem in the Paris Accord where billions upon billions are spent but there's no accountability to where that money actually goes and what it's used for (like lining Elon Musk's pockets), then start with that and work your way through what I've said before. That anon post illustrates a legitimate concern even if the use of phrases "Church of Climate Change" are juvenile.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lisnaholic
^ Much of Tim Berners-Lee's work on the internet was done when he worked at CERN - in fact CERN boasts the world's very first web address. CERN is a project of international cooperation established by the governments of many European countries; it's not a private enterprise. Thus you seem to have undermined the point you were trying to make, unless you are taking the difficult-to-defend position that CERN would ever afterwards be content with "massive magnetic tape mainframes in countless warehouses" if private enterprise had not come to their rescue.
|
That's exactly the position I'm taking because that's reality. CERN was never going to popularize the use of the Internet or develop it into what we have today. That's where the free market came in and companies like PSINet, Compuserve, etc. stepped in to actually turn that technology into something viable for mass consumption. Lee would have never bothered to set up the W3C if that hadn't happened at the start of the '90's.