Could This Be The Next Shoe to Drop?

[Rightguide]

The U.N. Says America Is Already Cutting So Much Carbon It Doesn’t Need The Paris Climate Accord​

Ellen R. Wald
Former Contributor
New! Follow this author to improve your content experience. Got it!
Follow
Dec 10, 2020,12:14pm EST

Yesterday, The United Nations released its Emissions Gap Report 2020, an annual assessment of contributions to greenhouse gas and carbon emissions. The report has some notable information amid an array of complicated projections that may or may not come true. It claims, for instance, that “despite a brief dip in carbon dioxide emissions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, the world is still heading for a temperature rise.”

But for the United States, the real value in this report is as an advisory that it need not join the Paris Climate Accord. This report is evidence that, instead, the U.S. should just keep doing what it is doing to cut its own emissions. The U.S. is the most successful major country at mitigating its own pollution, and the U.N. shows this.

According to the report, “the United States of America emits 13 per cent of global GHG emissions.” Comparatively, “China emits more than one-quarter of global GHG emissions.” The U.S. still contributes the most greenhouse gas emissions per capita in the world, but, over the last decade, the country’s GHG emissions have been in decline (0.4 per cent per year).“ Greenhouse gas emissions per capita in the U.S. are dropping precipitously while those of China, India and Russia continue to rise. With the world’s most successful economy (over $21 trillion in 2019), it is not a surprise that the U.S. pollutes more per person, but the U.S. is making great strides in changing this.

GHG emissions for the top 6 emitters

UNITED NATIONS EMISSIONS GAP REPORT 2020



And the U.S. is making these improvements while it refuses to participate in the Paris Climate Accord. In 2017, the White House said, that if it remained a part of that agreement, “compliance with the terms of the Paris Accord and the onerous energy restrictions it has placed on the United States could cost America as much as 2.7 million lost jobs by 2025 according to the National Economic Research Associates.” Instead, the U.S. continued decreasing its greenhouse gas emissions faster than any other major polluter, and it did so without the Paris agreement.

More here:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/ellenr...-of-the-paris-climate-accord/?sh=27de2af127e5

Even the left wing UN knows the truth that you deny.

 

[ll74]

The US joining the accord is more than just adhering to emission limits

 

[HisArpy]

The US joining the accord is more than just adhering to emission limits

Of course it is. It's the acquiescence by our government to sending even more of our tax dollars overseas to enrich foreign bureaucrats.

They don't need us to help them reduce emissions and pollution or to encourage us to reduce our own emissions, they just need our money.

Which is what the Paris agreement is all about and nothing else.

 

[JohnEngelman]

Did the decreases occur or not? That's ALL that matters, not who reported it where.

I am skeptical of factual assertions made by organizations with obviously ideological agendas. I want more data.

 

[LdyHoneybee]

One more blockbuster Supreme Court decision could still be coming even after Friday's abortion ruling​

Supreme Court's abortion ruling rocked nation last week but West Virginia v. EPA could also be huge​

By Liz Peek | Fox News

Believe it or not, overturning Roe v. Wade may not be the Supreme Court’s most dramatic decision this year. Instead, its ruling on West Virginia v. the Environmental Protection Agency could prove far more consequential. It could literally upend how our government works.

For the better.

West Virginia vs. the EPA asks whether important policies that impact the lives of all Americans should be made by unelected D.C. bureaucrats or by Congress. This SCOTUS could well decide that ruling by executive agency fiat is no longer acceptable.

The case involves the Clean Power Plan, which was adopted under President Barack Obama to fight climate change; the program was estimated to cost as much as $33 billion per year and would have completely reordered our nation’s power grid. The state of West Virginia, joined by two coal companies and others, sued the EPA, arguing the plan was an abuse of power.

By deciding in favor of West Virginia, the court could begin to rein in the vast powers of the alphabet agencies in D.C. that run our lives and return it to legislators whom we elect to create…legislation. Just as the Supreme Court ruled in Roe v. Wade that abortion laws are more appropriately left up to the people’s elected representatives, it may decide in West Virginia vs. EPA that Congress, and not federal agencies, should write our laws.

A decision that puts Congress in charge would stall environmental rules intended to replace fossil fuels with renewable energy. Legislators, back in the driver’s seat, would have to debate and go public with the consequences – and costs -- of regulations that are now adopted with little buy-in from the public.

More here:

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/one...still-be-coming-after-fridays-abortion-ruling

Judging from the June 15th decision in the AMERICAN HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION ET AL. v. BECERRA, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, ET AL. It would fall right in with the ramifications discussed in that decision. We may be seeing the end of unlawful bureaucratic overstep if such a decision was made in this case.

If they do that, maybe they will also abolish the EC, a rather antiquated and undemocratic institution. Someone who is unable to get a popular majority really should not hold the singular power of the president and the states have plenty of representation in congress.

 

[JohnEngelman]

So only the left wing can have an opinion, right? So show me where they have erred.

I am equally skeptical of assertions by leftists on issues that arouse them emotionally. Leftists claim that the assertions of Charles Murray and Professor J. Philippe Rushton have been "decisively refuted," but they never explain how they have been refuted. The fact that leftists suppress the discussion on the relationship between genes, intelligence, crime, and race tells me that they privately know what the truth is, and they fear the legal changes likely if the truth is widely acknowledged and acted on. I give conservatives credit for not trying to suppress the discussion of climate change.

 

[Rightguide]

If they do that, maybe they will also abolish the EC, a rather antiquated and undemocratic institution. Someone who is unable to get a popular majority really should not hold the singular power of the president and the states have plenty of representation in congress.

What's being discussed are powers and authorities not enumerated or contemplated by the Constitution.

The EC (“electors”) are established in Article II and the 12th Amendment of the Constitution. The term "Electoral College" is a term used to refer to the body of electors established by the Constitution. It will take a constitutional amendment to abolish it or amend its function. So in your opinion, only the top four states in population should have a voice in the national elections, right? If that was how it is why would the other 46 still want to be in the Union?

 

[Rightguide]

I am equally skeptical of assertions by leftists on issues that arouse them emotionally. Leftists claim that the assertions of Charles Murray and Professor J. Philippe Rushton have been "decisively refuted," but they never explain how they have been refuted. The fact that leftists suppress the discussion on the relationship between genes, intelligence, crime, and race tells me that they privately know what the truth is, and they fear the legal changes likely if the truth is widely acknowledged and acted on. I give conservatives credit for not trying to suppress the discussion of climate change.

I provided another source using UN and US government data, but alas it was the Trump administration, so it must be bullshit too, right?

 

[LdyHoneybee]

We don’t really need it anymore and it just sets most people in the country up for anger and frustration. The president should really have the support of most people in the country, at least to start. The EC was just to preserve an institution that no longer exists and, like it or not, one person one vote is the only path to a fair and free election. Eventually, it will go down.

 

[LdyHoneybee]

And amending someone else’s opinion to suit your argument is not productive at all And does not help you win With people who know what you are doing.

 

[Rightguide]

We don’t really need it anymore and it just sets most people in the country up for anger and frustration. The president should really have the support of most people in the country, at least to start. The EC was just to preserve an institution that no longer exists and, like it or not, one person one vote is the only path to a fair and free election. Eventually, it will go down.

It was a compromise to secure the nation. It might go down, but only by the amendment process that will require the affirmative vote of 38 states.

 

[LdyHoneybee]

And amending someone else’s opinion to suit your argument is not productive at all And does not help you win With people who know what you are doing.

One man in one state should really not be deciding who the president should be.

 

[LdyHoneybee]

It was a compromise to secure the nation. It might go down, but only by the amendment process that will require the affirmative vote of 38 states.

And it didn’t, did it?

 

[Rightguide]

And it didn’t, did it?

What, "secure the nation?" It has done so up until Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Joe Biden came along to divide the nation with a generation of ignorant dummies, but the truth is, it isn't going anywhere anytime soon. If you think that 46 states are going to be dictated to by the remaining but more populous four, you better think again. You have 137 days to get it done before the radical left is kicked to the curb and stripped of much of its power to subvert and destroy the nation.

 

[JohnEngelman]

I provided another source using UN and US government data, but alas it was the Trump administration, so it must be bullshit too, right?

So you did, in comment #51.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

That was my point in starting the thread. This decision, absent specific legislation, could completely shut down the green new deal and a host of other Bureaucratic actions in which the government has assumed far reaching authority not authorized by Congress. The court started this ball rolling with the June 15th decision in the AMERICAN HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION ET AL. v. BECERRA, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, ET AL, it could very well expand upon that ruling in the West Virginia v. the Environmental Protection Agency case. We should see it today or tomorrow.

This court doesn't seem to worry about huge changes, so I don't see that changing.

The court’s job is to rule on the law

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Environmental protection is necessary expensive. It interferes with economic growth, and it costs money. It is also necessary to prevent global warming and to create environments that are safe and healthful to live in.

The ruling does not prevent environmental protection legislation.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Businesses understand that global warming is a threat to their business.

Good

The ruling does not prohibit legislation that restricts GHG emissions. It’s up to Congress to write the laws, not the EPA.

 

[ll74]

The ruling does not prohibit legislation that restricts GHG emissions. It’s up to Congress to write the laws, not the EPA.

This isn't a reply to my comment.

 

[Chobham]

If they do that, maybe they will also abolish the EC, a rather antiquated and undemocratic institution. Someone who is unable to get a popular majority really should not hold the singular power of the president and the states have plenty of representation in congress.

In reality the president represents ALL the states, not the people. And that's exactly why the EC exists and why you aren't going to get rid of it anytime soon.

 

[icanhelp1]

What's being discussed are powers and authorities not enumerated or contemplated by the Constitution.

The EC (“electors”) are established in Article II and the 12th Amendment of the Constitution. The term "Electoral College" is a term used to refer to the body of electors established by the Constitution. It will take a constitutional amendment to abolish it or amend its function. So in your opinion, only the top four states in population should have a voice in the national elections, right? If that was how it is why would the other 46 still want to be in the Union?

I thought it was referring to the energy commission

 

[icanhelp1]

In reality the president represents ALL the states, not the people. And that's exactly why the EC exists and why you aren't going to get rid of it anytime soon.

It seems the more the high court gives power back to congress the more batshit crazy the DEMS get. WHO KNEW!! LMFAO

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

It seems the more the high court gives power back to congress the more batshit crazy the DEMS get. WHO KNEW!! LMFAO

This month’s SCOTUS rulings have illustrated that Democrats like representative government except when they don’t.

 

[icanhelp1]

This month’s SCOTUS rulings have illustrated that Democrats like representative government except when they don’t.

Schumer and Warren are as incompetent as Biden, neither wants to do the job they were elected to do. Warren is my cross to bear and Schumer’s a 150 miles down the road, both should be expelled from the senate. More stack the court rhetoric from them two dumbasses.

 

[LdyHoneybee]

And it didn’t, did it?

What, "secure the nation?" It has done so up until Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Joe Biden came along to divide the nation with a generation of ignorant dummies, but the truth is, it isn't going anywhere anytime soon. If you think that 46 states are going to be dictated to by the remaining but more populous four, you better think again. You have 137 days to get it done before the radical left is kicked to the curb and stripped of much of its power to subvert and destroy the nation.

Your memory is too short. The real steal was Bush v. Gore.