Soundwave said:
Aeolus451 said:
It's a really shitty deal for the US. Coal at the moment is jobs for a good bit of people around the world. Why not make it a bit cleaner and keep using it til have we have a clean energy that can meet our energy needs? I also don't agree with giving other countries any foreign aid over this. The tradeoff at the moment is not worth it for the US to be in the paris accord. I'm all for renegotating it but it can't cause the US the harm it does. Other countries can pay the foreign aid while India and china reduce their emissions alot quicker.
|
Coal employs less people than Arby's shitty restaurants
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/03/31/8-surprisingly-small-industries-that-employ-more-people-than-coal/?utm_term=.96bdec78d32f
Totally worth accelerating possible global warming for this tiny segment of the earth's population. Totally worth it.
|
The US has continued to decrease its emissions and has increased the amount of clean energy development and use. That'll continue whether or not we're donating $100b for zero US benefit. (there's some debate on how many billions will actually be given, but regardless, we shouldn't be responsible for that anyways)
