Trump bailing on the the Paris Agreement would be a middle finger to the future

If Trump pulls out of climate deal, US could join Syria and Nicaragua as nonparticipants

I don't know that I've seen a more effective disinformation campaign than the one built by the right-wing anti-climate change propaganda machine. A target audience willing to believe almost anything surely helped.

Will Trump pull out? What will the effects be?

Look at this Boool****. Another WarmingGater.

wat

I didn't expect the antisemitic conspiracy theories to come so soon. Our democracy is obviously very healthy.

Love Sosa is on a 2 day timeout for that, now deleted, post

Was it another "George Soros pays all the climate scientists to lie while $340B company Exxon Mobil would never engage in such treachery" conspiracy theory? Those are my favorite.

Far more blatantly anti-semetic than that, tbh. This Love Sosa guy, he has some issues with the Jews.

like the Nazis the GOP is now a threat to the world. unfortunatly no other country can stop them in the age of nuclear bombs.

so the US-people must stop the GOP in the democratic process and somehow get rid of this whole party, send the top 10.000 GOP to jail and call it a criminial organisation.

get rid of some lobbys (like the arms lobby) by this opprotunity as well.

Obama's burdensome regulations cost the American economy an extra $600 Billion dollars annually - https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-600...51287?mod=e2fb

Nope, nothing to see here.

The bar is pretty low for Trump to succeed.

A group that denies global warming is against environmental regulation. Truly a shocking development.

note that it's an opinion piece

Which cites relevant statistics.

Feel free to post them here, as I don't fancy spending money to get pro-business propaganda the way you do

I looked at The report (Which says $1.9T, not $600B. I don't understand the title of the WSJ article but I also can't see the whole article...)

There's an obvious problem. The report begins by talking about cost/benefit analyses done by the OMB:

In other words, regulations not only have costs but benefits. And at least in some cases the benefits grossly outweight the costs (by at least 2:1 in the one case cited above).

The report complains that the cost/benefit analyses are not done on a sufficient number of regulations, which is fair enough. But what do they do? They go on to try to develop estimates of the cost without any estimate of the benefit. Which makes it highly misleading to say that regulation costs 600 billion (or 1.9 trillion?) dollars annually. What are the benefits? The conclusion of the report says:

Again, that's fair enough. Cost/benefit analyses are useful, and it could be argued that we should do more of them. What's not reasonable is to pretend like cost estimates that ignore benefit estimates are useful.

It's also not particularly reasonable to think that all benefits will have direct monetary value, or that the lack of direct monetary value means they have no value at all. Man shall not live on profits alone, one might say. How do you quantify the benefits of the Clean Air Act? Perhaps you can estimate the impact to health care costs, but I think anyone who would abandon the EPA if it turned out that it costs money to have clean air is not thinking very clearly.

The $600B is supposedly what Obama added.

The issue with Climate "Science" is the religion it has become, not to mention the solutions in what to do about it.

Let's give a real simple example - the combustion engine has done more to improve human life than to destroy it. Unless you'd rather walk to a hospital.

As you say - costs/benefit analysis is important.

When I see the detractors practicing what they preach, then maybe there's an opportunity for dialog. I won't hold my breath.

I'm not aware of anyone suggesting that the solution to climate change is to ban internal combustion engines, but I agree that it sounds impractical.

Maybe the source of all your confusion in this forum so far is that you have no idea what liberals actually believe. Who did you think was going to disagree with this?

Only bad things happen when you don't pull out.

When the EPA labels CO2 (which you and I both expel) as a pollutant, perhaps you're unaware of what liberals believe.

I hope you pull out every time.

This makes no sense, is the EPA a liberal organization? I thought it was a government agency currently run by conservatives, and they still have carbon dioxide listed as a greenhouse gas on their website, which is odd if this is exclusively a liberal belief. Some might call the idea that CO2 is a greenhouse gas "science" but I know that's a bit much to complicate your mind with right now.

But, you still didn't answer my question. Who here did you think was going to say that the internal combustion engine has been a net negative for the world?

trump just decided to spoil the future of mankind.

being a republican is not an opionion. its a crime.

How about Al Gore -
https://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/e98/e1522.htm

"renewing a call to end all internal combustion engines, including those in cars, because of the pollution they produce."

Joblessness is a lot more destructive to the future of mankind.

Notice he was willing to renegotiate the deal. Want to lay odds the Dems are willing to step up?