|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On June 03 2017 03:20 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2017 03:17 NewSunshine wrote:On June 03 2017 03:13 KwarK wrote:On June 02 2017 06:59 xDaunt wrote:
What y'all's position boils down to is that we all must have faith that a .17 degree reduction in warming by 2100 is worth Americans paying thousands of dollars per year extra. There is nothing scientific about that. When you say Americans paying thousands of dollars it's implied that they're each paying thousands of dollars. The only alternative way that could be read would be Americans collectively paying thousands of dollars between them which wouldn't make sense because that'd be $0.00001 each. Fortunately there can actually be no confusion here because that confusion was cleared up when I asked the specific question and he gave me a very clear answer. On June 02 2017 09:22 xDaunt wrote:On June 02 2017 09:04 KwarK wrote:
Thousands of dollars of costs per American per year? Really? Because those are the numbers you've been saying over and over. Yep, that's what the Heritage Foundation computed it at. These measures aren't free. I gave him too much credit then. These alt-righters literally cannot manage the words "I misspoke, my bad". When they're corrected on the facts they just pretend it never happened and when they can't pretend any longer they deny. It's comical.
No, it looks like I just misread your post when responding to it. The only time "per American" got injected into the conversation is when you put it in there. I very clearly have been citing the Heritage Foundation numbers all along. Their numbers are what they are.
|
On June 03 2017 03:23 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2017 03:20 KwarK wrote:On June 03 2017 03:17 NewSunshine wrote:On June 03 2017 03:13 KwarK wrote:On June 02 2017 06:59 xDaunt wrote:
What y'all's position boils down to is that we all must have faith that a .17 degree reduction in warming by 2100 is worth Americans paying thousands of dollars per year extra. There is nothing scientific about that. When you say Americans paying thousands of dollars it's implied that they're each paying thousands of dollars. The only alternative way that could be read would be Americans collectively paying thousands of dollars between them which wouldn't make sense because that'd be $0.00001 each. Fortunately there can actually be no confusion here because that confusion was cleared up when I asked the specific question and he gave me a very clear answer. On June 02 2017 09:22 xDaunt wrote:On June 02 2017 09:04 KwarK wrote:
Thousands of dollars of costs per American per year? Really? Because those are the numbers you've been saying over and over. Yep, that's what the Heritage Foundation computed it at. These measures aren't free. I gave him too much credit then. These alt-righters literally cannot manage the words "I misspoke, my bad". When they're corrected on the facts they just pretend it never happened and when they can't pretend any longer they deny. It's comical. No, it looks like I just misread your post when responding to it. The only time "per American" got injected into the conversation is when you put it in there. I very clearly have been citing the Heritage Foundation numbers all along. Their numbers are what they are.
Second and third stage in the same post.
Kind of meta, I like it.
|
what's with that notion that the Paris deal was garbage because there was no way to enforce it and no punitive action if nations failed to achieve the goals... we all know why it ended up that way and it's not because people were lazy about it. It's because it took everything out of people to get together on just that as a beginning step.
The notion that we should have or could have gotten a deal that actually enforces this across 200 countries is just silly. There's really no other way to call it.
It's a cheap attempt at "if you can't get it done right you shouldn't even try" when I think most people would agree that yes, trying out a light version to see how it goes is a good first step. Especially if there's a party-pooper that needs to be convinced that it won't hurt him.
|
Wow I calculated it for you earlier.
20k/18 per family per year until 2035.
thats $1,111/yr
literally thousands.
|
United States42024 Posts
On June 03 2017 03:23 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2017 03:20 KwarK wrote:On June 03 2017 03:17 NewSunshine wrote:On June 03 2017 03:13 KwarK wrote:On June 02 2017 06:59 xDaunt wrote:
What y'all's position boils down to is that we all must have faith that a .17 degree reduction in warming by 2100 is worth Americans paying thousands of dollars per year extra. There is nothing scientific about that. When you say Americans paying thousands of dollars it's implied that they're each paying thousands of dollars. The only alternative way that could be read would be Americans collectively paying thousands of dollars between them which wouldn't make sense because that'd be $0.00001 each. Fortunately there can actually be no confusion here because that confusion was cleared up when I asked the specific question and he gave me a very clear answer. On June 02 2017 09:22 xDaunt wrote:On June 02 2017 09:04 KwarK wrote:
Thousands of dollars of costs per American per year? Really? Because those are the numbers you've been saying over and over. Yep, that's what the Heritage Foundation computed it at. These measures aren't free. I gave him too much credit then. These alt-righters literally cannot manage the words "I misspoke, my bad". When they're corrected on the facts they just pretend it never happened and when they can't pretend any longer they deny. It's comical. No, it looks like I just misread your post when responding to it. The only time "per American" got injected into the conversation is when you put it in there. I very clearly have been citing the Heritage Foundation numbers all along. Their numbers are what they are.
Gentlemen, I present stage 2, "if I said it then I didn't mean it".
When he said "cost Americans" he clearly meant "cost each American family of 4". And when asked to clarify whether "cost Americans" meant cost each American individually and he confirmed he meant individually because he misread literally the entire question, including all context and the stated purpose of the inquiry.
And notice the way he doesn't address the fact that he also changed the Heritage Foundation number from "across 20 years" to "annually". After all, he was very clearly using their numbers.
|
I am shocked, shocked to find gambling taking place in this fine establishment.
|
On June 03 2017 02:07 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2017 01:56 LegalLord wrote:
The way I see it, the most important link in the Paris Accords and why I put so much stock into it is not as much the US as it is China. Sure, first worlders will get greedy and attempt to skirt the regulations to the extent that it is possible. But China is notorious for dragging their feet something fierce, almost unwilling to even acknowledge that climate change is a problem worth addressing. Yet China finally started to "get it" and have made efforts to (albeit slowly) reduce their carbon footprint.
The US will, as it always has, move slowly. The writing on the wall suggests that it's not economically feasible to skimp on climate forever. It still looks stupid though. Please. The Paris Accords were a boon to China. Built-in comparative advantages and subsidies afforded to the Chinese with no enforcement mechanism to ensure that the Chinese meet their own obligations? Yeah, that's a tough one for the Chinese to accept....
The US's unfair andvantage is that the fuck over the rest of the world but have the military and economic power to not give a fuck.
|
Or $300 per American per year. Quite the difference.
|
Just so that everyone is on the same page, here's what the Heritage Foundation posted in its summary regarding the costs:
Policies adapted from domestic regulations emphasized in the Paris agreement will affect a variety of aspects of the American economy. As a result of the plan, one can expect that by 2035, there will be:
An overall average shortfall of nearly 400,000 jobs;
An average manufacturing shortfall of over 200,000 jobs;
A total income loss of more than $20,000 for a family of four;
An aggregate gross domestic product (GDP) loss of over $2.5 trillion; and
Increases in household electricity expenditures between 13 percent and 20 percent.
If you have some other estimate that you want to point for what the cost of the Paris Accord would have been, go ahead and post it.
|
On June 03 2017 03:27 Artisreal wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2017 02:07 xDaunt wrote:On June 03 2017 01:56 LegalLord wrote:
The way I see it, the most important link in the Paris Accords and why I put so much stock into it is not as much the US as it is China. Sure, first worlders will get greedy and attempt to skirt the regulations to the extent that it is possible. But China is notorious for dragging their feet something fierce, almost unwilling to even acknowledge that climate change is a problem worth addressing. Yet China finally started to "get it" and have made efforts to (albeit slowly) reduce their carbon footprint.
The US will, as it always has, move slowly. The writing on the wall suggests that it's not economically feasible to skimp on climate forever. It still looks stupid though. Please. The Paris Accords were a boon to China. Built-in comparative advantages and subsidies afforded to the Chinese with no enforcement mechanism to ensure that the Chinese meet their own obligations? Yeah, that's a tough one for the Chinese to accept.... The US's unfair andvantage is that the fuck over the rest of the world but have the military and economic power to not give a fuck.
Red, white, and blue baby! Why shouldn't the US unapologetically pursue its national interest? We don't exist to be a charitable organization.
|
On June 03 2017 03:28 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2017 03:27 Artisreal wrote:On June 03 2017 02:07 xDaunt wrote:On June 03 2017 01:56 LegalLord wrote:
The way I see it, the most important link in the Paris Accords and why I put so much stock into it is not as much the US as it is China. Sure, first worlders will get greedy and attempt to skirt the regulations to the extent that it is possible. But China is notorious for dragging their feet something fierce, almost unwilling to even acknowledge that climate change is a problem worth addressing. Yet China finally started to "get it" and have made efforts to (albeit slowly) reduce their carbon footprint.
The US will, as it always has, move slowly. The writing on the wall suggests that it's not economically feasible to skimp on climate forever. It still looks stupid though. Please. The Paris Accords were a boon to China. Built-in comparative advantages and subsidies afforded to the Chinese with no enforcement mechanism to ensure that the Chinese meet their own obligations? Yeah, that's a tough one for the Chinese to accept.... The US's unfair andvantage is that the fuck over the rest of the world but have the military and economic power to not give a fuck. Red, white, and blue baby! Why shouldn't the US unapologetically pursue its national interest? We don't exist to be a charitable organization.
Don't you have some Heritage Foundation numbers on the cost of openly fucking over the rest of the world for a family of four by 2035?
|
On June 03 2017 02:43 jcarlsoniv wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2017 02:30 Danglars wrote:On June 03 2017 02:14 jcarlsoniv wrote:On June 03 2017 02:04 Danglars wrote:On June 03 2017 02:00 jcarlsoniv wrote:On June 03 2017 01:51 Danglars wrote:On June 03 2017 01:45 Godwrath wrote:
Giving credence to an article that attempts to discredit the Paris accord because it's "merely symbolic" just to be able to missdirect the criticism about the self-denial running rampant amongst republican party, that's rich and deep. As if, the republicans actually gave a shit about the issue and left it because "it wasn't good enough".
Of course the Paris accord wasn't good enough. It is a first fucking step. This is part of the reason I linked a fairly reasoned article concluding that it's likely the last step and people that think otherwise are fooling themselves. What's rich and deep is your deflection and misdirection while claiming others do so. I wonder if it will ever sink it that inattention to counterarguments isn't sufficient to restate your primary argument. I conclude x, and any articles that conclude otherwise are obvious misdirection. But I'm not really following the conclusion that he believes it's the last step and not the first. I think that’s the case here. I think Paris was not just the first step, I think it was likely the last step, that those who hoped it would lead to “deepening future commitments” were fooling themselves and others. I think Paris was agreed to only because national leaders realized it was impossible to get a numerically meaningful set of binding national commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by specific large amounts. If I'm trying to address a problem, especially a big problem (and affecting long term positive change for the environment is big), I'd start by defining it. Put some framework around an issue, get consensus, start working towards solutions. I acknowledge that you don't believe the costs of action are being sufficiently considered, and that's an ok argument to have. But the US staking the position of "nah, we're just gonna go home instead" doesn't put us in a better position to solve the problem. Unless I'm missing something, I don't get the assumption that there would be not further steps taken beyond Paris. Getting the globe on the same page is where it starts, but it feels like the US was spacing out while reading, so we've had to flip back to the last chapter before we can move forward again. You quote a paragraph in the middle of the article that follows from the argumentation in the paragraphs preceding. Pay special attention to the political interest and comparison between changing direction in inches when different outcomes are miles apart. I did read it, and I don't necessarily disagree with your point that symbolic gestures are meaningless if there's no plan for follow through. But it seems that he (and you) are starting on the assumption that there will be no follow through, and as a result, this gesture is meaningless. If it were up to many of us, there would but a more expedited and stringent framework for follow through. But when we have to continually argue internally about whether or not we even have to do anything about the problem (or, in some cases, whether the problem even exists), that significantly slows down the capacity for follow through. So, I guess my question to you is - what should be done to make it (any plan, not necessarily Paris) less symbolic and actually effective? I'm kind of at a loss if you only want to draw from what "seems" to be a starting assumption, but not what arguments were ineffective and why, or how they were reliant on those assumptions and collapse without them. I could just as easily respond to "whether or not we even have to do anything about the problem/problem exists" with "whether or not anybody that acknowledges the problem actually wants to pay the associated costs with fixing it in this manner" which also slows follow through. I would raise my hand and say "here is someone who is interested in paying the associated costs with fixing the problem this way". With that said, though, I would agree with y'all that I'd like better understanding of what those costs are and more concrete plans of moving forward. But, again, I would think that gathering the consensus, even if symbolic at the beginning, is the start of formulating the plan forward. Do you agree with xDaunt that it would be better to create more bandaids instead of looking for ways to treat the wound? Is there a good/better way to do both at the same time?
A consensus on signing symbolic agreements is a consensus to talk about how serious we are to continue talking about how big, huge, impactful the problem is. It's not a useful consensus.
Why try to repaint what xDaunt said and ask for my agreement? If this is an important issue, surely you can take the man at his word and not mischaracterize his description.
|
United States42024 Posts
On June 03 2017 03:27 xDaunt wrote:Just so that everyone is on the same page, here's what the Heritage Foundation posted in its summary regarding the costs: Show nested quote +Policies adapted from domestic regulations emphasized in the Paris agreement will affect a variety of aspects of the American economy. As a result of the plan, one can expect that by 2035, there will be:
An overall average shortfall of nearly 400,000 jobs;
An average manufacturing shortfall of over 200,000 jobs;
A total income loss of more than $20,000 for a family of four;
An aggregate gross domestic product (GDP) loss of over $2.5 trillion; and
Increases in household electricity expenditures between 13 percent and 20 percent. If you have some other estimate that you want to point for what the cost of the Paris Accord would have been, go ahead and post it.
That makes this even better. It's not even an expense. It's an income loss of $20,000 per family of four. He's been presenting it this entire time as if the direct costs in higher energy expenses, higher product costs, increased logistical overhead costs on food etc, carbon taxes on produce and so forth sum up to $20,000. Turns out they didn't even say that.
|
But California passed harsh carbon regulations and none of that happened to them. Their manufacturing jobs increased.
And a 20K loss in income is backed up by what? How am I going to lose 10K?
|
On June 03 2017 03:00 Broetchenholer wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2017 02:34 Danglars wrote:On June 03 2017 02:30 Broetchenholer wrote:On June 03 2017 01:47 Danglars wrote:On June 03 2017 01:33 Broetchenholer wrote:
Danglers, this is really not complicated. If Trumpo had said "we believe man made climae change is a threat to society and we will fight it through policy but we disagree on the first step, that is the paris agreement. therefore, we step out", this definition would have applied. But the Republicans and Trump disagree on the problem itself, so them not joining a symbolic treaty actually is a big deal. Read the prior argument. I'll try to restate the idea in the hopes that you realize how simple it is. "We believe man-made climate change is a threat to society. Therefore, we will enter an agreement that doesn't acknowledge the costs of making real changes to fix it. This will highlight our inability to address a real problem head-on, reinforce people who say it's more about international posturing than taking action, and provide a useful definition of the term 'virtue-signalling.' " You're shooting yourself in the foot here. It's about as complicated as spelling my name right lol. I don't give a fuck about spelling your name right. You are trying to defend someone that does not believe in climate change and actively tries to deregulate the industry of his country by saying the treaty was symbolic anyway. Actions do matter, as do words. If it talks like a climate change denier and acts like a climate change denier, it is a climate change denier. If you want to defend his decision, do not try to shift blame to the treaty, just state that climate change is simply not important to you and the POTUS. Haha. You're a real class act. If you want to defend the treaty as more than a pile of shit dressed up in roses, don't try to deflect that Objecting to the Treaty = Climate Change Denial. It's a classic evasion. You write words on paper and bully others that not signing it, irrespective of what it does and what is costs, just reinforces your own stereotype that everybody's a denier. You are trying to give off all the signs that you're unserious and uncritical and flip the script on others that they won't agree to a nice agreement supported by your tactics of the mob. And you are not providing any counterargument. Trump has consistently denied climate change and is actively proposing policies that support the industry to not reduce emissions. He has not voiced an alternative to it or a change in his environmental policy. If you now claim that the treaty is bullshit anyway, you are the one evading. I am trusting politicians that acknowledge the problem and then make a symbolic treaty gainst it more to follow through on it later then the guy that said it's all bullshit anyway, i want to make money without that nasty environmental protection.
You didn't even read the original argument to respond, nor responded substantively to my response, or defended why symbolic is a big deal when it's meaningless. All you've done is get mad and call everyone climate change denialists for objecting to a physical agreement. Your blind trust in politicians aside, and it is a blind trust if objecting to the terms of a treaty is obviously misdirection and blame shifting, you've made zero attempts to show this is not a last step in treating the problem instead of a first step.
|
On June 03 2017 03:28 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2017 03:27 Artisreal wrote:On June 03 2017 02:07 xDaunt wrote:On June 03 2017 01:56 LegalLord wrote:
The way I see it, the most important link in the Paris Accords and why I put so much stock into it is not as much the US as it is China. Sure, first worlders will get greedy and attempt to skirt the regulations to the extent that it is possible. But China is notorious for dragging their feet something fierce, almost unwilling to even acknowledge that climate change is a problem worth addressing. Yet China finally started to "get it" and have made efforts to (albeit slowly) reduce their carbon footprint.
The US will, as it always has, move slowly. The writing on the wall suggests that it's not economically feasible to skimp on climate forever. It still looks stupid though. Please. The Paris Accords were a boon to China. Built-in comparative advantages and subsidies afforded to the Chinese with no enforcement mechanism to ensure that the Chinese meet their own obligations? Yeah, that's a tough one for the Chinese to accept.... The US's unfair andvantage is that the fuck over the rest of the world but have the military and economic power to not give a fuck. Red, white, and blue baby! Why shouldn't the US unapologetically pursue its national interest? We don't exist to be a charitable organization.
Because, as you will find out, what you are currently doing is not "pursuing your national interest". What you are currently doing is "Stroking Trumps Gigantic Ego". That is not the same thing.
I think the main problem that he has with the Paris accords is that they don't have his name on them.
|
On June 03 2017 03:30 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2017 03:27 xDaunt wrote:Just so that everyone is on the same page, here's what the Heritage Foundation posted in its summary regarding the costs: Policies adapted from domestic regulations emphasized in the Paris agreement will affect a variety of aspects of the American economy. As a result of the plan, one can expect that by 2035, there will be:
An overall average shortfall of nearly 400,000 jobs;
An average manufacturing shortfall of over 200,000 jobs;
A total income loss of more than $20,000 for a family of four;
An aggregate gross domestic product (GDP) loss of over $2.5 trillion; and
Increases in household electricity expenditures between 13 percent and 20 percent. If you have some other estimate that you want to point for what the cost of the Paris Accord would have been, go ahead and post it. That makes this even better. It's not even an expense. It's an income loss of $20,000 per family of four. He's been presenting it this entire time as if the direct costs in higher energy expenses, higher product costs, increased logistical overhead costs on food etc, carbon taxes on produce and so forth sum up to $20,000. Turns out they didn't even say that.
There's higher energy costs, too:
![[image loading]](http://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/~/media/infographics/2016/04/bg3080/bg-paris-consequences-charts-4-825.jpg)
Go read the report for yourself. I don't have the time to regurgitate the whole thing for you.
EDIT: And from my perspective, a cost is a cost -- whether you take it as an actual expense or a reduction in income. Both equate to money out of Americans' pockets and are thus real costs of the Paris Accord.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On June 03 2017 03:00 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2017 02:47 LegalLord wrote:On June 03 2017 02:35 Doodsmack wrote:On June 03 2017 02:18 LegalLord wrote:On June 03 2017 02:11 Doodsmack wrote:On June 03 2017 01:58 LegalLord wrote:On June 03 2017 01:51 Doodsmack wrote:On June 03 2017 01:12 Danglars wrote:On June 03 2017 00:57 LegalLord wrote:On June 03 2017 00:38 Artisreal wrote:
[quote]
That comment, albeit not being wrong, is still just a distraction of the government's unwillingness to combat climate change in any form or shape. No matter the cost. Yup. But a momentary "fuck those hypocrites" is permissible as we look for a way to properly address the fact that Trump acted really stupidly here. It's important to acknowledge your bad apples to prove it's about science and results instead of narrative. Inconvenient facts that cause "distraction" isn't much of a step up from alternative facts. Question is, what is Musk's net effect on the environment? His work is obviously a massive net positive. He should not be considered a bad apple and told to fuck off. By moving around the emissions in such a way that the cars his company produces (on the back of billions of dollars subsidies) don't emit while driving? Or his solar company that is a scam? I'm surprised SpaceX isn't trying to peddle being green yet. Yes, electric cars and solar roofs are green. Yes, Musk is making progress that no one else is making. No one else is making an unviable variant of solar panels that goes on the roof? No one else is making electric cars? No one else manages to attract as much unwarranted hype to feed his massive ego? What progress is Musk making that no one else is? Progress in terms of accelerating the adoption and implementation. Testing the concept and the business model. It's not a bad thing. Neither is recycling, btw. These things are a net positive, even if you can nitpick something at the margin. He: 1. Managed to make an expensive luxury car within the tech-fashion culture of California that sells well within that market that looks green if you assume that electricity, batteries, and the like are made out of zero emission unicorns. 2. Rented out solar panels based off false promises of decreased energy costs, failing to deliver and resulting in endless droves of dissatisfied customers. 3. Dreamed up some roof-based solar panels that are technically inadequate but "look badass" and so they capture the imagination of 20-year-olds. 4. Received fantastic government subsidies every step of the way and is still bleeding millions of dollars a year. And that's supposed to be impressive for some reason? I guess he's proven that cult of personality plus government money in hyped industries is a great way to line one's pocket and become a billionaire while producing financially unfeasible results. But I think we already knew that. 1 seems to be an argument that electric cars are a bad idea which I don't think is valid. 2, 3 and 4 are mostly statements that this stuff isn't immediately viable but that's not his intention. And criticizing Musk's personal appeal and ego, you're only criticizing at the margins. I would still say it's a net positive, although I could see the argument that only time will tell. I'm still not sure I can find much to condemn in an already-billionaire doing these experiments.
Electric cars have yet to be proven feasible despite being around for decades. While that may change it is yet to be so and all Musk has shown is that he is capable of selling electric fashion statements for many tens of thousands of dollars. And until electricity is a more environmentally friendly and acceptably feasible tool for fuel, internal combustion engines with adequate emissions controls win on the environmental front easily.
"Not immediately economically feasible" fucking lol. No, those three points prove that he's sucking at the government's teet while knowingly losing money overall yet lining his pockets. Being technically unfeasible is quite a damning criteria of failure for his roof tile idea since you can't change physics because tech fashion demands it. So is scamming people with solar panel rent schemes. But hey, as long as you claim "we just need to hit ECONOMIES OF SCALE" and "AMAZON didn't make money for a long time so we don't have to either" on every single project you ever take on, apparently that makes it all good.
His cult of personality is the core of everything he does and that is highly relevant, rather than criticizing at the margins. Why do people care about his electric cars but not so much those of major car producers (often making a more feasible product)? Because Musk and Tesla are so cool. A rocket that undercuts its competition (and loses money overall) that has a ~90% safety record, providing a moderate cost, moderate reliability service while promising significantly more than it delivers? Because Musk and SpaceX are so cool (for this one, I suppose it's worth noting the caveat that this actually is a pretty useful service at that low-cost launch margin despite being severely overhyped and not economically viable). A company that abuses solar panel subsidies to rent out solar panels and then lie to people about how profitable they can be? Because Musk and SolarCity are so cool. And we could go on about his other stupid ventures (a vacuum chamber that doesn't work and costs a lot of money, digging tunnels for a problem that doesn't really matter) but I think the point has already been made: his cult of personality allows him to line his pockets with government and shareholder money while delivering little of value compared to the amount of money that is being tossed in their direction.
And the legions of fans who make people believe he is the second coming of Jesus through attrition allow him to be well-received despite being a large-scale fraud. Net positive contribution to society my ass.
|
Can we all just take a moment and appreciate what a fucking lier Ryan is? Deregulating banks is the last thing we need.
|
United States42024 Posts
On June 03 2017 03:33 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2017 03:30 KwarK wrote:On June 03 2017 03:27 xDaunt wrote:Just so that everyone is on the same page, here's what the Heritage Foundation posted in its summary regarding the costs: Policies adapted from domestic regulations emphasized in the Paris agreement will affect a variety of aspects of the American economy. As a result of the plan, one can expect that by 2035, there will be:
An overall average shortfall of nearly 400,000 jobs;
An average manufacturing shortfall of over 200,000 jobs;
A total income loss of more than $20,000 for a family of four;
An aggregate gross domestic product (GDP) loss of over $2.5 trillion; and
Increases in household electricity expenditures between 13 percent and 20 percent. If you have some other estimate that you want to point for what the cost of the Paris Accord would have been, go ahead and post it. That makes this even better. It's not even an expense. It's an income loss of $20,000 per family of four. He's been presenting it this entire time as if the direct costs in higher energy expenses, higher product costs, increased logistical overhead costs on food etc, carbon taxes on produce and so forth sum up to $20,000. Turns out they didn't even say that. There's higher energy costs, too: Go read the report for yourself. I don't have the time to regurgitate the whole thing for you. EDIT: And from my perspective, a cost is a cost -- whether you take it as an actual expense or a reduction in income. Both equate to money out of Americans' pockets and are thus real costs of the Paris Accord.
xDaunt, nobody is as stupid as you're pretending to be right now. You are literally making the argument
reduced income = less money in your pocket
increased expenses = less money in your pocket
therefore
reduced income of $20,000 = increased expenses of $20,000
IT DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY!
You can't just say that from your perspective it does. There aren't perspectives on this. If you present $20,000 in reduced income as $20,000 in increased expenses then you are wrong. Just wrong.
There's no way you can't know this. The argument you just made works just as well with "$1 is money, $2 is money, $1=$2". I refuse to allow you to pretend that you really believed that what you said was true when there is no way that anyone could believe it.
Just admit you changed the numbers. We can see the numbers of the Heritage Foundation. We can see the numbers you claimed. We can see they're not the same numbers. Just admit it and we can all go home.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
