The Forum > Article Comments > Predictable exits: Trump and the Paris agreement > Comments
Predictable exits: Trump and the Paris agreement : Comments
By Binoy Kampmark, published 5/6/2017French President Emmanuel Macron, who is fast filling a vacuum of anti-Trump desperation, decided to reverse the Trump slogan.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- Page 2
-
- All
Posted by Alan B., Monday, 5 June 2017 12:32:56 PM
| |
Look at the billions of dollars Trump has saved America by pulling
out of this agreement. Well done. America can still concentrate on renewable power in America, but now it doesn't have to pay dubious third world countrys, led by dubious leaders,money that will no doubt be used on token environmental projects, whilst the money disappears elsewhere. Blind Freddy can see that this is just a money grab by these countrys because there are no laws about how the money should be spent. The man makes a lot more sense, than any of those people trying to tear him down,do. Why should America have to pay for the pollution by other countries, especially those with gross over populations. Posted by CHERFUL, Monday, 5 June 2017 11:37:18 PM
| |
Here is a different view of this matter.
http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2017/06/05/washingtons-empire-not-unraveling/ Washington’s Empire Is Not Unraveling. Posted by Referundemdrivensocienty, Wednesday, 7 June 2017 6:47:04 PM
|
America will likely exceed its Paris accord agreement? As will China/India!
Bankers/financiers the world over are moving away from coal, given it's the greatest pollutant.
Mr Holmes A'court, commenting recently on morning ABC radio, said that there was no appetite in the business sector for coal or even clean coal, which to date had proved in the two trials conducted anywhere in the world, spectacularly unsuccessful? With one other still on the drawing board and likely headed in the same direction?
Oil wells produce some Co2, which can be liquefied and returned to a readymade repository, without costing the house and kitchen sink?
Not so coal, which needs to find a suitable repository. And where trialed thus far, according to Mr A'court, only managed to sequester just 6% of emissions and at a cost of around $100.00 a ton?
And we have here in Q, a hostile minority government intent it would seem, on further energy price hikes, that is estimated to cost the average mug a further $350.00 per. And the straw that breaks the camel's back for the estimated 40% unable to respond with an uptake of renewables.
So this is the 40% renewable plan? Force energy consumers to the wall?
Anyone who's run a business, knows that this raised margins model is a recipe for ultimate bankruptcy!
When what is required is lower prices and consequent increased consumption/cash flow!
They've destroyed that as a consequence of reuniting competing energy retailers and half assed barely thought through, political posturing over renewable and arguably unattainable targets.
While trying to make the energy consumer completely responsible for the target. When as the owner operator of the state's energy stocks and resources, it was and remains their job to roll out a viable cheaper base load alternative, that would literally walk out the door!
And that alternative for the numskull run state and increasing irrelevant and powerless President Trump, was and remains, carbon free thorium!
Alan B.