America first

[usernamedox11]

Danger, it's an investment. It will more than pay off when all those countries are buying their technology form China. The same way the Marshall Plan paid for itself tons of times over. The Paris agreement was a step in the right direction. It was never meant as the final piece.

 

[usernamedox11]

1. So they are not donating, they are selling? The article says donating, you say selling, the accord says sharing (donating).
2. Again, since you avoided it, if we are at the tipping point now, how can we afford to let 2/3rds of the world population pollute so heavily?

Danger, I don't know why I have to explain this. I know you understand. That "donation" is actually an investment. You think China is doing out of the goodness of their hearts? I never said anything about tipping point. If I did, please quote me. But you won't because I never brought it up. You kept bringing up the tipping point. All I ever said was that is is clear human caused CO2 emissions are contributing to global warming and that something should be done and the paris agreement was a step in the right direction.

I don't think you are actually interested in having a conversation about the facts. The facts don't support the zerohedge/infowars/breitbart worldview on this topic, which is one you are heavily invested in. I've laid out the facts, which completely tear destroy their interpretation of what's actually going on. It's more emotional than anything for you.

 

[usernamedox11]

1. The liberal statements are constantly around how we are at the tipping point. But ok, so we agree that we are not there, fantastic.
2. I am only asking questions and challenging the hateful narrative regarding Trump and climate.
3. So if we are NOT at the tipping point, and we are already at the forefront in green technology, whu do we need to sign an agreement to donate massive amounts of money to third world countries amd share our technology with them? Can't we just continue to invest in it and sell them the products?

Danger, I don't see the world in terms of liberal or conservative. I am not either. I am more of the kind of person that tries to find objective truths. I don't care about ideology. I didn't say anything about tipping point. I was trying to present things in a way that pointed to the economic benefits of the US taking the lead on green energy on the international stage, and I've also explained how the money was nothing in the grand scheme of things. I've tried to explain this a few times, but I don't think you accept my point. I have my view on it, and you have yours.

 

[usernamedox11]

I am not arguing with you here, I am asking a question to understand how your position accounts for it. I am not stating a point, merely asking a question.


If we are already at the forefront in green technology, why do we need to sign an agreement to give money and technology to other nations when we can sell it to them?

I already explained this a few times in the thread. I don't understand why you are still asking me that, to be honest.

 

[usernamedox11]

See right here, we can already sell our technology as you state China would be.

So why do we need to give money to other countries or give them our technology?

All we need to do is stay green and sell those technologies to other countries. And we don't need to sign some global agreement to do it.

That's not true. These developing nations and other nations across the globe do not operate on a purely free market basis. Because China is pumping money into their infrastructure, these countries will want to use Chinese technology. China already has a huge population and is expected to surpass the US economy within the next two decades. The Chinese companies already have a huge base to sell to in their homeland. This combined with all the technology they will sell abroad if they take the lead on the international stage will make it difficult for US companies to compete. The Chinese companies will simply be making a lot more money and because of that will have more resources to create better and cheaper technology than American companies.

 

[usernamedox11]

What countries are you talking about?

And you are saying that the numbers show this is an investment with a greater return than cost. So what numbers and assumptions are you using to validate this theory?

To get an idea of what counties China is investing in, check this: http://www.nbcnews.com/news/china/belt-road-initiative-china-plans-1-trillion-new-silk-road-n757756

My question to you is this: is there any changing your mind on this or is your mind made up, no matter what I say? It sounds like it already is. You will just continue to ask question after question.

To get a scale of numbers of the economics of green energy, you can read this report if you are interested: http://www.irena.org/DocumentDownloads/Publications/IRENA_Measuring-the-Economics_2016.pdf

Draw whatever conclusions you want. If you want to follow the misguided views of some of the alt-right publications, feel free to do so.

 

[usernamedox11]

Danger, this will be my last post here as it is a fruitless endeavor. You have your ideology. Stick to it. I think in the back of your mind you know you might have been mistaken, but I don't take you for the type to concede anything.

Danger, yes, they are investing heavily into trade, part of that trade is the green technology of the future. Here is another article, even though the other article explained it: http://www.wri.org/blog/2017/01/china-leaving-us-behind-clean-energy-investment

The report I linked shows the size of current energy markets and the size of projected green energy markets into the future. It is a market worth in the trillions per year, that if current trends follow, Chinese companies will get most the benefit of it. I've explained in post after post how China is strategically trying to take the lead on this. It's a very simple concept to grasp.

You know how Facebook is investing into providing free internet to Africa? Why? It's because they hope for Africans to then join facebook, which would increase their ad revenue. They have to make the initial investment into the African infrastructure for this first.

It's such a simple concept to grasp.

The US was the reason for the Paris Accord. We actually led the way on this because the Obama administration saw it as a strategic goal, both for economic, national security and social reasons. Check out what Trump's defense chief thinks about global warming: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/201...es-climate-change-national-security-challenge

With the US withdrawing from the Paris Accord (for which there was no good reason to leave), they are for the 30th time, leaving the door open for China to take the lead and write the rules of the future.

There is a reason all the top CEOs in the country are mad about us leaving the Paris Accord, including Exxon: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...-paris-climate-deal-as-trump-weighs-pact-exit

Why do they want to stay in the accord? They don't want to be cut out of future green energy markets by Chinese companies. The private sector, regardless of your belief in global warming, have concluded green energy is the future.

You can keep trying to ask mickey mouse questions, reframed in every post. It doesn't change the reality of anything.

This discussion is over. Ask more mickey mouse questions. You already know what is up.

 

[usernamedox11]

You are basically demanding we give away technologies and massive funding

That's simply not true, Danger. The money is not massive. I've explained this. I've answered your same questions. Too many times.

Numbers have been posted. You see the massive future size of the green energy market. When I explain why we need to be at the forefront to capture the majority of its market share across the globe instead of China, you don't seem to care. So that's it. That's the end of it.

If trends don't change, you will see the ramifications into the future.

 

[usernamedox11]

But you have not linked these together, despite your claims you have.

Why does not signing the agreement mean we will not have green technology?

Danger, come on...seriously

 

[usernamedox11]

Danger, in your previous post, you said this:

Why does not signing the agreement mean we will not have green technology?

I never said this. If that is your take away from everything I wrote, wow.

You are positing that the free market would not meet demand, that is absolutely untrue. The best way to meet demand is by letting the free market do it.

No didn't say that. Your interpretation of what I wrote is incorrect.

There is plenty of risk with no guarantee.

There is little to no risk. There is way more risk by not taking the lead on this, from every angle: social, national security, and economic.

 

[Papa_smu]

Actually, they've already begun and are ahead of schedule.

If you go through my post history, I posted a link in another thread about all the investment China is doing abroad in green technology. Don't feel like finding it.

Question is, did you even look in at the links I posted? Because if you didn't, I'm not taking you seriously.

 

[usernamedox11]

The free market will take the lead, we don't need to give away money and technology to do that.

You are basically saying if the government does not give away the money and technology, we will not have the lead. That is saying that the free market would not take the lead on it's own.

Risk by not taking the lead how? What do you mean by "lead"? Lead in what?

When I say lead I am speaking in terms of innovation. The highest level of technology.

Danger, I already explained all this. Read my posts again. If you don't understand or don't agree, I don't care to repeat myself again.

 

[usernamedox11]

Question is, did you even look in at the links I posted? Because if you didn't, I'm not taking you seriously.

Yes, I looked at the PDF you linked. Did you click the links I posted?

 

[Papa_smu]

Yes, I looked at the PDF you linked. Did you click the links I posted?

No, because you didn't even bother to pull the facts from those sources and compare them with your rebuttal. If you really wanted to support your case and actually be taken seriously, you would have taken the time to counter argue my points from the sources.

But you know what? I'll let you be the smartest guy in the room. I'll take my chances.

 

[usernamedox11]

No, because you didn't even bother to pull the facts from those sources and compare them with your rebuttal. If you really wanted to support your case and actually be taken seriously, you would have taken the time to counter argue my points from the sources.

But you know what? I'll let you be the smartest guy in the room. I'll take my chances.

I looked at your link. You asked for a source. So I linked you a source. You did not check it out. I didn't know you were looking for a debate. Didn't seem like it. You just asked me for a source, which you did not check out.

 

[usernamedox11]

I have read your posts. You are all over the place and not putting together your statements to make a case.

You are saying that we should donate massive amounts of money and technology in order to take "the lead", whatever that means.

We can take the lead by not giving away everything. We let the free market take the lead like it always does.

You have not supported your argument on how giving away all of this gives us "the lead" and gives an ROI.

Moreover, we do not need to sign an agreement in order to do any of these things.

Danger, again, you are misinterpreting and misrepresenting what I posted and you simply don't understand what I have posted.

Maybe you will understand better by reading something else: https://www.vox.com/world/2017/6/3/15729424/trump-paris-climate-china

 

[usernamedox11]

We can lead by using the free market to solve the problems, not by giving away everything.

Danger, again, you just don't get it.

 

[taiyuu_otoko]

 

[usernamedox11]

Perhaps if you tied together your statements into a clear argument which showed how we gain more by giving away money and technology than by letting the free market lead the way, then we would all get it.

Perhaps if you weren't so dense, I wouldn't need coloring crayons, fun pictures, and charts to get you to understand something that I explained over the course of 3 pages. You don't understand international relations, business, economics, or basic political history. Your worldview is shaped by conspiratard blogs, so you won't understand.

 

[usernamedox11]

Ah, the inevitable name calling from the feelz group to the logical group.

All I want is teeth in the document to say what are the obligations of the other nations.

Why should we have obligations to give away money and technology if the recievers have no obligation?

We can be leaders without giving away money and technology. We already are leaders.

Again, all this was explained. You don't get it. I've explained this to multiple people in my every day life who were misinformed and they understood after I explained. You won't get it. The NWO/globalist take over of America narrative put forth by conspiratard blogs is what you consider a logical, coherent idea. Global warming is a conspiracy to people like you, too. Considering this, the only two conclusions I can reach are:

A) You aren't very bright and only very simple ideas that lack nuance are ones you can comprehend (like conspiracy theories: dolla go down cuz evil jew bankers did itz!)

B) You have an emotional investment into the alt-right/conspiratard worldview that you take comfort in for reasons unbeknownst to me.

Anyway, the conversation is over. If you want to be ignorant and believe nonsense like bilderberg running the world, feel free. Trump is a conspiratard himself. Hopefully the buffoon doesn't last his whole term.