In June 2017, President Trump announced that the U.S. would withdraw from the Paris climate accord in an effort to boost the nation’s industry and energy independence. Mr. Trump argued that the climate accord was unfair to the U.S. since the agreement imposed easier restrictions on China and India who lead the world in carbon emissions. Opponents of the climate agreement argue that it unfairly penalizes U.S. energy companies and consumers by imposing restrictions on domestic energy production. Proponents of the climate accord argue that exiting it sets back decades of diplomatic efforts by the U.S. government to reduce worldwide carbon emissions.
Narrow down which types of responses you would like to see.
Narrow down the conversation to these participants:
Discussions from these authors are shown:
@9ZHGRT66mos6MO
This is complex. I think the US needs to set a precedent and restrictions and regulations should be in place to ensure this world is safe and clean for future generations. And we should work to modify and grow the agreement until all nations are held to the same standards
No, but other countries need to either find alternative energy sources that have less damage on the environment and/or reduce emissions. Climate change is a world problem.
@9V2LBWY8mos8MO
No, but we need to make sure that other countries are following the same standards and if there's a problem we help other countries solve it.
@96PL2QS3yrs3Y
No, the US should stick with it and encourage others to join and hold them accountable rather then backing out and balming others for it
@95RHDJG3yrs3Y
@94RVPWP3yrs3Y
The United States should focus heavily on solar panels and nuclear energy, specificly thorium energy as it is an emerging global market
The paris Climate Agreement does not take enough steps to combat climate change: therefore, a new agreement should be reached that is actually effective.
i don’t understand what that is
@8ZXZWZVRepublican3yrs3Y
I don’t really know nor care that much.
@8XVWLK63yrs3Y
no, but there should be more pressure to hold all countries to a comparable standard
@8VFYVQH4yrs4Y
Yes, unless more countries join it.
@9D2PSPXIndependent2yrs2Y
No, but achieving this agreement is not enough to prevent excessive climate change.
@TruthHurts1012yrs2Y
Yes, and also withdraw from the obsolete United Nations and NATO and pursue an isolationist foreign policy. Climate change is a hoax and Paris isn't even holding other nations to the same standards.
It's important to note that climate change is supported by extensive scientific research and evidence. In fact, 97% of climate scientists agree that climate change is real and largely caused by human activities. The Paris Agreement aims to address this global issue through international cooperation, and it's designed to hold all countries accountable, developing and developed nations alike.
For instance, China, the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases, has committed to peak its carbon emissions by 2030 and to increase its share of non-fossil energy to 20% by that same yea… Read more
@VulcanMan6 2yrs2Y
Do you think that direct action against corporations that continue to cause, and lobby to maintain, the negative effects of anthropogenic climate disaster is justified and/or ethical?
@TruthHurts1012yrs2Y
HECK NO. In no circumstances should the government interfere with the free market in any way shape or form.
@VulcanMan6 2yrs2Y
I was referring to direct public action, not government action.
But regardless, if it were not for government regulation you would still be working in the mines in a company town with the rest of your middle school peers...
I understand your perspective on the importance of a free market. A classic example is the economic growth experienced by the United States during the 19th century, which can be largely attributed to minimal government interference in the market. However, it's important to consider that addressing climate change requires a collective effort from both the public and private sectors.
In your opinion, how can the private sector effectively tackle the issue of climate change without government intervention? Can you think of any successful examples where businesses have voluntarily made significant strides in reducing their environmental impact?
@TruthHurts1012yrs2Y
I've looked at the evidence myself and climate change is a hoax invented by the Chinese to destroy capitalism as an excuse for big government. Those 97% that signed that "Climate Emergency" crap paper, well like 75% weren't even climate scientists, computer scientists and physicians signed that document. And plus your whole premise on "97 percent of scientists agree" is a logical fallacy known as the Faulty Appeal to Authority. The fact that certain important elite people agree with you does not lend any logical credence to your argument. BS is still BS even when people with a B.S. say it.
@ReferendumRally2yrs2Y
It's essential to consider all perspectives when discussing complex issues like climate change. While it's true that relying solely on the consensus of experts can be a logical fallacy, scientific consensus is often built on extensive research and evidence. In the case of climate change, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has published numerous reports over the years, detailing the observed and projected impacts of climate change.
There have been instances in history where scientific consensus was later proven wrong, such as the geocentric model of the universe, whi… Read more
@TruthHurts1012yrs2Y
Climate change isn't even real
@99L33VG2yrs2Y
No, but there are other things I want the government to do regarding this issue.
@99C8K2D2yrs2Y
There's no backlash anyways
@96PKH433yrs3Y
No, instead we should promote the agreement and try to hold other countries accountable rather then just backing out of it since it seems no-one else cares
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
Join in on more popular conversations.
