Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Trump Presidency -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (20289)	6/1/2017 10:08:12 PM
From: i-node	1 Recommendation Recommended By gamesmistress Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 358004

I believe the status quo remains unchanged as a result of this agreement, which does not have the status of a treaty. If Obama had wanted staying power, he should have pursued treaty status for it, in which case undoing it would have been more difficult. As it stands, Trump has the flexibility to cancel the agreement, even if it pisses off the neighbors. As to the status quo, I would argue little has changed since the agreement was ratified. As with the ACA, if a rogue president (including Trump) makes a deal that does not have the force of the people behind it, it is reasonable to expect it to run into trouble; the ratification occurred a day or two before the election. Given that Trump had been saying for more than a year the agreement was history if he would be elected, everyone was on notice that the ratification was built on quicksand. No one has a problem with aspiring to cleaner air. We can argue, legitimately, about whether it constitutes the threat some people would claim. But everyone can agree that cleaner air is a good thing. But there are some who would throw economics out the window to have it and Obama is one of those people. >> I have not yet heard an argument for dumping the agreement based on today's situation vs yesterdays alleged mistake. I think I understand and appreciate your point. However, I want to see more intense research weighing economic burden against the potential problems, and research that is not based on political and poor science. I do not, at this point, believe we have that. Also, while we hear about scientific consensus, it is IMO vastly overstated. The fact that purveyors of the "science" resorted to a political/sales campaign is really suggestive that we need to proceed slowly. I simply do not buy the notion that there is a sense of extreme urgency. Even if CO2 is causing temperatures to increase we know that the increase is not linearly correlated. Another decade or two is needed to calmly and honestly research the problem and then people can make a decision about how to move forward. During that time it is highly likely new technologies will make the problem smaller or less expensive to solve. There is considerable science to support what I'm saying here, although the voices don't get the alarmed exposure.