[Presvias]

The original points weren't on morals. I'm tired of this discussion so I'm not going to bother with morals right now.

100% with you on that one.

He's turned an interesting debate into a ignoranti ranty political point scoring thing, trying to make Strump look good. It's a shame really.

[Pants-of-dog]

Please note that the USA has not ratified or is member to any binding treaties or resolutions for restricting climate change.

There is no federal plan for significant reductions in all or even most emissions.

With the current set of policies in the USA, the US will not even reach its intended targets:
https://zenodo.org/record/1233369#.XYjkn8rF2hA

Assessment of the climate commitments and additional mitigation policies of the United States
Greenblatt, Jeffery B.; Wei, Max

Current intended nationally determined contributions (INDCs) are insufficient1 to meet the Paris Agreement goal of limiting temperature change to between 1.5 and 2.0 °C above pre-industrial levels2, so the effectiveness of existing INDCs will be crucial to further progress. Here we assess the likely range of US greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in 2025 and whether the US's INDC can be met, on the basis of updated historical and projected estimates. We group US INDC policies into three categories reflecting potential future policies, and model 17 policies across these categories. With all modelled policies included, the upper end of the uncertainty range overlaps with the 2025 INDC target, but the required reductions are not achieved using reference values. Even if all modelled policies are implemented, additional GHG reduction is probably required; we discuss several potential policies.

While Clinton and Obama were able to allocate some funding for research (the latter less so due to GOP blocking almost everything), almost everything they were able to do was rolled back by Bush and Trump respectively.

The single greatest cause of a reduction in emissions was when the USA had its financial crisis.

[Rancid]

Please note that the USA has not ratified or is member to any binding treaties or resolutions for restricting climate change.

Question, what nations have agreed to legally binding treaties related to stopping climate change?

[BigSteve]

Please note that the USA has not ratified or is member to any binding treaties or resolutions for restricting climate change.

Who is?

Didn't Canada pull out of the Kytoto Protocol?

Why, yes. Yes, they did.

They're not alone, either, as Russia, Japan and New Zealand aren't taking part, either. In fact, the Kyoto Protocol addresses only about 14% of worldwide emissions but, somehow, you want to blame the United States for everything bad...

[Pants-of-dog]

Question, what nations have agreed to legally binding treaties related to stopping climate change?

Not many, as far as I know.

Who is?

Didn't Canada pull out of the Kytoto Protocol?

Why, yes. Yes, they did.

They're not alone, either, as Russia, Japan and New Zealand aren't taking part, either. In fact, the Kyoto Protocol addresses only about 14% of worldwide emissions but, somehow, you want to blame the United States for everything bad...

Yes, Canada is awful when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions.

That does not change the fact that the USA has not done anything meaningful about climate change.

[BigSteve]

Yes, Canada is awful when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions.

That does not change the fact that the USA has not done anything meaningful about climate change.

Yes, the oil sands are so environmentally friendly.

Until Canadians pull their heads out of their collective ass, their whining about what America does or doesn't do is utterly meaningless. You need to have your own shit in order before you start bitching about us.

That aside, gimme' a fuckin' break. This is not an American problem; not by a long shot:

https://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/nicolas-loris/even-if-us-cut-co2-emissions-100-world-would-only-be-0137-degree-celsius

[Rancid]

Not many, as far as I know.

I wonder what it would take to get different governments to actually commit to stuff like that. It's a tall order for sure.

[Drlee]

I've said similar things about the unrelated Americans with Disabilities Act. While I don't think there is a constitutional obligation to make provisions for the handicapped, I think providing incentives and tax credits to that end is a noble endeavor. Yet, Congress didn't stop there. They treated it as a civil right and created a whole new class of lawsuits for lawyers to make money. Again, it leads to very peculiar situations. For example, in high rise buildings--before you had to badge-in to the elevators--you'd have to have a code to get in to the bathrooms so that the homeless weren't ambling in to high rises to camp out in the boys room. Yet, you could easily defeat such provisions, because the ADA required handicapped access. If you don't know the bathroom code, you can just push the handicapped button and you not only get into the bathroom, the door will open automatically for you.

Correct. Just because there is no constitutional requirement does not mean it is not a good idea. But here is the thing. There is a fine balance (which I believe we have tipped) between federal and states rights. The constitution is clear on this. Anything that is not enumerated in the constitution is reserved to the states and to the people.

I would say that people locally are better informed to make these kinds of decisions. I have seen a parking lot with as many handicapped spaces as other spaces. The feds used highway funds to blackmail the states into raising the drinking age to 21. They use education money to blackmail localities into teaching a particular curriculum. On and on.

There once was a defender of states rights. It was called the republican party. Now that they have abandoned that entirely a very good case could be made for abandoning the notion of states altogether. But republicans rely on states not population for their power. So what we have now is a dysfunctional mess. The last major legislation was Obamacare. Sad.

POD said again: That does not change the fact that the USA has not done anything meaningful about climate change.

How about some evidence to back this idiotic claim up? You just blather along. Big hat no cows.

[Rugoz]

That aside, gimme' a fuckin' break. This is not an American problem; not by a long shot:

https://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/nicolas-loris/even-if-us-cut-co2-emissions-100-world-would-only-be-0137-degree-celsius

It's not a problem of any individual country. But if you want to convince say Indians to cut their emissions, it helps if you don't produce 10x as much CO2 per capita:

[BigSteve]

It's not a problem of any individual country. But if you want to convince say Indians to cut their emissions, it helps if you don't produce 10x as much CO2 per capita:

I'm not trying to convince anyone to do anything.

I'm just pointing out the unbridled stupidity of someone insisting the United States do something about it when that person is sitting in his own cesspool of a country which produces a similar level of greenhouse gases...

[Rancid]

It's not a problem of any individual country. But if you want to convince say Indians to cut their emissions, it helps if you don't produce 10x as much CO2 per capita:

I'm surprised to see Canada so high up there. Is there any data on year to year change?

[BigSteve]

I'm surprised to see Canada so high up there.

And still we have some "enlightened" Canadian bitching about the United States...

[Pants-of-dog]

Yes, the oil sands are so environmentally friendly.

Until Canadians pull their heads out of their collective ass, their whining about what America does or doesn't do is utterly meaningless. You need to have your own shit in order before you start bitching about us.

No.

It is a true fact that the US government has done nothing meaningful about climate change despite popular support for such action, and it is true regardless of what other countries do or do not.

That aside, gimme' a fuckin' break. This is not an American problem; not by a long shot:

https://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/nicolas-loris/even-if-us-cut-co2-emissions-100-world-would-only-be-0137-degree-celsius

Please quote the relevant text.

Also: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/cns-news/

————————

I wonder what it would take to get different governments to actually commit to stuff like that. It's a tall order for sure.

Significant short term negative economic impact, or danger to the people in power. This is why nothing will get done until it is serious/too late.

And Canada is awful when it comes to GHGs. I think it often trades with the USA for first place. @BigSteve will be happy that the Canadian government also ignores the majority of the population when it comes to action on climate change.

—————————-

Dr. Lee,

Please look at the evidence I just cited.

[BigSteve]

It is a true fact that the US government has done nothing meaningful about climate change despite popular support for such action, and it is true regardless of what other countries do or do not.

And I'm saying your comments mean dick when your own country is every bit as bad.

Your criticism of the United States is stupid as long as your own country continues to be a fuck-up...

[Rancid]

Your criticism of the United States is stupid as long as your own country continues to be a fuck-up...

Yes and no. It's a case by case thing for me. In this case, I don't think what someone's own nation does precludes them from criticizing another country. Especially if that person also criticizes their own country on the same points. This is basically what @Pants-of-dog is doing. I don't see what the problem is here. He's actually being pretty consistent at least with that.

However, I'm sure there are other cases where I would agree that someone should STFU and worry about their own country. I don't think this is one of those cases though.

[BigSteve]

Yes and no. It's a case by case thing for me. In this case, I don't think what someone's own nation does precludes them from criticizing another country. Especially if that person also criticizes their own country on the same points. This is basically what @Pants-of-dog is doing. I don't see what the problem is here. He's actually being pretty consistent here.

You think he's being as critical of Canada as he is the United States?

Seriously? If you would be so kind, please point me to the litany of anti-Canada posts he's made...

However, I'm sure there are other cases where I would agree that someone should STFU and worry about their own country. I don't think this is one of those cases though.

This is absolutely one of those times.

Canada has a population of around 37 million people. The United States has a population of about 325 million; roughly nine times as many people.

Yet, according to the chart posted earlier, Canada has CO2 emissions which trail the United States by only .04 metric tons. So, yeah, the criticism of some Canuck sitting in his Mom's basement in Edmonton is pretty fucking meaningless to me when you compare those numbers.

Canada is far worse than the United State when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions...

[Rancid]

You think he's being as critical of Canada as he is the United States?

Seriously? If you would be so kind, please point me to the litany of anti-Canada posts he's made...

The dude is super biased against the US. I agree 100%. However, in this one specific case, he has also criticized Canada for doing a poor job on the environment. I guess I just don't take it as personal as you do.

This is absolutely one of those times.

Canada has a population of around 37 million people. The United States has a population of about 325 million; roughly nine times as many people.

Yet, according to the chart posted earlier, Canada has CO2 emissions which trail the United States by only .04 metric tons. So, yeah, the criticism of some Canuck sitting in his Mom's basement in Edmonton is pretty fucking meaningless to me when you compare those numbers.

Canada is far worse than the United State when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions...

The data is per capita. That is, it also factors in the differences in population size to give an equal measure. Therefore a direct comparison of those numbers is correct, and the conclusion that the average American is responsible for more emissions is correct as well. Americans pollute more according to those numbers. In that sense, you could argue America has the most responsibility in controlling emissions. However, Canada is very close to America so it would weaken that argument.

Ultimately, objectively, both America and Canada are doing a shit job. With America edging out Canada

[Pants-of-dog]

...an irrelevant expression of his anger...

Swearing at people does not magically make facts disappear.

—————————

My point is that capitalist governments will ignore popular opinion whenever it profits them to do so.

[Drlee]

We are heading down a rabbit hole.

The per-capita figures are meaningless. Even in a perfect world they would differ from country to country and from climate to climate. And it is no surprise to anyone that rich people use more energy than poor ones. The problem is with how power is produced not how much is used.

[Pants-of-dog]

And the per capita emissions numbers discuss how energy is produced, as well as how much is used.