ronwagn + 6,290 January 22, 2021 https://www.ntd.com/rejoining-paris-climate-deal-will-have-devastating-economic-consequences-experts-say_556723.html This is at the heart of Biden's America Second Policy. We deserve better leadership. RCW Rejoining Paris Climate Deal Will Have Devastating Economic Consequences, Experts Say 3 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dan Warnick + 6,100 January 22, 2021 3 hours ago, ronwagn said: https://www.ntd.com/rejoining-paris-climate-deal-will-have-devastating-economic-consequences-experts-say_556723.html This is at the heart of Biden's America Second Policy. We deserve better leadership. RCW Rejoining Paris Climate Deal Will Have Devastating Economic Consequences, Experts Say 1 1 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NickW + 2,714 NW January 22, 2021 4 hours ago, ronwagn said: https://www.ntd.com/rejoining-paris-climate-deal-will-have-devastating-economic-consequences-experts-say_556723.html This is at the heart of Biden's America Second Policy. We deserve better leadership. RCW Rejoining Paris Climate Deal Will Have Devastating Economic Consequences, Experts Say I recall Rex Tillerson (not exactly Mr Green Deal) was broadly supportive of remaining within the Paris Agreement. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dan Warnick + 6,100 January 22, 2021 (edited) 20 minutes ago, NickW said: I recall Rex Tillerson (not exactly Mr Green Deal) was broadly supportive of remaining within the Paris Agreement. That's interesting. I didn't know, but you're absolutely right. This is a 2017 article in The Hill: Tillerson: 'My view didn’t change' on Paris climate agreement (Full article) Secretary of State Rex Tillerson told senators Tuesday that he still supports the Paris climate change agreement, despite President Trump’s decision to withdraw the United States from it. Tillerson, the former CEO of Exxon Mobil Corp., was the most vocal voice in the Trump administration pushing the president to stay in the pact. He told Sen. Ben Cardin (Md.), top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, that he respects Trump’s decision but disagrees with it. “My view didn’t change,” Tillerson said at a hearing on the State Department’s budget. “My views were heard out. I respect that the president heard my views, but I respect the decision he’s taken.” He said Trump was “quite deliberative” in his consideration of the Paris pact. The president “took some time to come to his decision, particularly waiting until he had heard from European counterparts in the G7 on it,” Tillerson said. The State Department is the chief agency responsible for international agreements and treaties. Under former President Barack Obama, Secretary of State John Kerry was the key point person in developing the Paris pact. But Tillerson didn’t participate in Trump’s public events surrounding his decision earlier this month to pull out of the Paris deal, including a grand White House ceremony to announce the withdrawal. Instead, Environmental Protection Agency chief Scott Pruitt, an outspoken opponent of the Paris agreement, took the lead among administration officials in those events. Edited January 22, 2021 by Dan Warnick your vs you're 3 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rob Plant + 2,756 RP January 22, 2021 Is America now entering into Obama's third term in office? Or is it the Kamala Harris show? 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
El Nikko + 2,145 nb January 22, 2021 1 hour ago, Rob Plant said: Is America now entering into Obama's third term in office? Or is it the Kamala Harris show? Yes 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ronwagn + 6,290 January 22, 2021 5 hours ago, NickW said: I recall Rex Tillerson (not exactly Mr Green Deal) was broadly supportive of remaining within the Paris Agreement. Yes, he was an oligarch and Trump had to fire him. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NickW + 2,714 NW January 22, 2021 7 minutes ago, ronwagn said: Yes, he was an oligarch and Trump had to fire him. Tillerson hit Trump with a dose of reality. Trump not happy. In October 2017, news reports surfaced regarding a deteriorating relationship between Tillerson and Trump. According to reports,[119] in a July 20 meeting, Trump suggested a tenfold increase in the United States nuclear arsenal, which would cost trillions and take centuries,[120] after which individuals familiar with the meeting told journalists that Tillerson either called Trump a "moron"[121] or a "fucking moron".[122] Additionally, there were well-sourced reports of Tillerson offering to resign his office as Secretary of State, only to be discouraged from doing so by Vice President Mike Pence; however, these were officially denied by both Tillerson and the White House.[121][123] Furthermore, on October 1, Trump directly contradicted, via a public tweet, Tillerson's policy of negotiation with North Korea;[124][125] this move was widely panned by experts, who thought that such a public undermining of the chief diplomat of the United States would weaken Tillerson's ability to negotiate with other countries.[126][127] On October 10, after Tillerson's alleged "moron" comment was reported in the media, Trump challenged Tillerson to "IQ tests",[128] and three days later Senator Bob Corker from Tennessee, the Chair of the influential Senate Foreign Relations Committee who had become a vocal Trump critic around that time, remarked that Trump was "publicly castrating" Tillerson.[129] 4 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Boat + 1,324 RG January 22, 2021 (edited) In devastating news to the let’s kill humans by climate change crowd, our favorite tec leader and richest man in the world Elon Musk is offering 100 million for the best idea to capture carbon. Uh oh. That means he’ll probably save the world with clean air as a by product. I wonder if a battery will be involved. In a world going to carbon taxes and credits he’ll build a few hundred thousand machines a gain the world monopoly on carbon credits and become the richest man on the planet. Oh yea, he already is. Ok, he’ll buy Texas, then buy Trump, flip the country to buy his products, then buy the world. Edited January 22, 2021 by Boat 4 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ronwagn + 6,290 January 22, 2021 (edited) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rex_Tillerson Compensation In 2012, Tillerson's compensation package was $40.5 million.[54] It was $28.1 million in 2013, $33.1 million in 2014, and $27.2 million in 2015.[55] In late 2016, Tillerson held $54 million of Exxon stock, and had a right to deferred stock worth approximately $180 million over the next 10 years.[56] Tillerson is estimated to be worth at least $300 million.[17] When he left Exxon, Tillerson was four months away from retirement, at which time he would have been entitled to a $180 million retirement package.[17] He owns two ranches in Texas, where his wife, Renda, raises cutting horses.[17] On January 3, 2017, ExxonMobil announced they had reached an agreement with Tillerson "to sever all ties with the company to comply with conflict-of-interest requirements associated with his nomination as secretary of state."[57] Mike Pompeo has been a far better Secretary of State. Edited January 22, 2021 by ronwagn add 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NickW + 2,714 NW January 22, 2021 And you thought investment in renewables would be costly for the USA At least you get something positive for your money - electricity Trump suggested a tenfold increase in the United States nuclear arsenal, which would cost trillions and take centuries,[120] after which individuals familiar with the meeting told journalists that Tillerson either called Trump a "moron"[121] or a "fucking moron".[ 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ronwagn + 6,290 January 22, 2021 (edited) The reference used has no information about the supposed desire to increase the nuclear warheads! That would be a bad idea but I do not recall any mention of it. The press would have used that against him for the rest of his term. We have far more warheads than we need, as does Russia. Edited January 22, 2021 by ronwagn add 3 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Boat + 1,324 RG January 22, 2021 (edited) I have been fighting the nuke spending for 20 years. Those bombs over Japan were like 13 Kt. You saw the pics, close to bare earth. Today’s nuke can be around 326 kt and a missile can have multiple warheads not that they need then. So a huge city like NY would be poof in a few minutes. It’s hard to find numbers but after a few cities go poof the entire world is in danger of climate freeze from debris in the air blocking the sun. So why have more than a few hundred? We still have over 6 thousand. Let’s say the world is totally dead if 50 huge cities go poof. So we need more than 500? Hell we’re dead 10 x over. It’s just a shame our politicians are so stupid. Both parties. Edited January 22, 2021 by Boat 1 3 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
El Nikko + 2,145 nb January 22, 2021 3 hours ago, NickW said: And you thought investment in renewables would be costly for the USA At least you get something positive for your money - electricity Trump suggested a tenfold increase in the United States nuclear arsenal, which would cost trillions and take centuries,[120] after which individuals familiar with the meeting told journalists that Tillerson either called Trump a "moron"[121] or a "fucking moron".[ CNN article Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
El Nikko + 2,145 nb January 22, 2021 10 hours ago, Dan Warnick said: 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
surrept33 + 609 st January 27, 2021 Maybe we can also rejoin the "other" treaty of paris, the Treaty of the Metre, which we "joined" in 1875: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metrication_in_the_United_States Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169 RJ January 27, 2021 On 1/22/2021 at 5:06 PM, ronwagn said: The reference used has no information about the supposed desire to increase the nuclear warheads! That would be a bad idea but I do not recall any mention of it. The press would have used that against him for the rest of his term. We have far more warheads than we need, as does Russia. hmm... https://www.google.com/search?q=Trump+proposed+increase+in+nuclaer+arsenal&oq=Trump+proposed+increase+in+nuclaer+arsenal&aqs=chrome..69i57.11551j1j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ronwagn + 6,290 January 27, 2021 6 hours ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said: hmm... https://www.google.com/search?q=Trump+proposed+increase+in+nuclaer+arsenal&oq=Trump+proposed+increase+in+nuclaer+arsenal&aqs=chrome..69i57.11551j1j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 Hearsay. No real context and not verifiable. A leak. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ronwagn + 6,290 January 29, 2021 Proof of past Green Failures under the Obama/Biden Administration https://www.johnlocke.org/update/obamas-green-energy-failure-list/ 2 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dan Warnick + 6,100 January 29, 2021 33 minutes ago, ronwagn said: Proof of past Green Failures under the Obama/Biden Administration https://www.johnlocke.org/update/obamas-green-energy-failure-list/ Quite a list. 3 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ronwagn + 6,290 January 29, 2021 On 1/27/2021 at 8:41 AM, Rasmus Jorgensen said: hmm... https://www.google.com/search?q=Trump+proposed+increase+in+nuclaer+arsenal&oq=Trump+proposed+increase+in+nuclaer+arsenal&aqs=chrome..69i57.11551j1j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 Facts https://www.defensenews.com/smr/federal-budget/2020/02/10/trump-budget-requests-46-billion-for-nuclear-weapons-programs/ 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dan Warnick + 6,100 January 30, 2021 7 hours ago, ronwagn said: Facts https://www.defensenews.com/smr/federal-budget/2020/02/10/trump-budget-requests-46-billion-for-nuclear-weapons-programs/ And what an eye opener it is! Wow! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
surrept33 + 609 st January 31, 2021 (edited) On 1/28/2021 at 11:28 PM, Dan Warnick said: Quite a list. Not really. There was a lot of knowledge learned from those companies. Keep in mind one of the flaws of government loans (for the most part) is that they don't keep any equity. What if the government had a share of say, like Tesla? Back then, "green bonds" weren't around. These days, sustainability risk is almost one of the largest credit risks to companies, so they are great way to acquire financing provided you are doing something that qualifies. Keep in mind the whole insurance industry expects much tougher world wide regulation and a shift towards adaptation and resilience in the 2020s. This is no surprise depending on what "information" you've been listening to. I'd stick to what the mainstream insurance companies say, as well as people who do economic stress tests based on a variety of physical and economics models, not fringe media who just want to get advertising money. Keep in mind many countries have passed laws that stipulate stress testing on climate-related risk. A recent one was China. They are mostly related to: https://www.fsb-tcfd.org/publications/ I bet the Federal Reserve will start doing something similar, there has already been rumblings of it. I wish the regulations were were uniform internationally because oherwise it adds red tape (though a lot of other companies are automating smart buissness to buisness data sharing of GHG and water data with strong encryption and multiple third party auditing to establish strong chains of trust). This helps keep everyone honest because otherwise, companies could just switch to countries with poorer "carbon" accounting. Edited January 31, 2021 by surrept33 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Most Active Members
Recently Online
Popular Members