Since84
Moderator
To infinity and beyond!
Posts: 3,933
|
Post by Since84 on Jun 2, 2017 2:27:22 GMT -8
Good morning everyone. GREEN across the board, including AAPL which is trading at $153.87 +0.69 (0.45%). June is off to a good start. Little in the news this morning beyond the withdrawal from the Climate Deal and the Essential Phone. Anyone coming back from vacation? Pretty bad when you miss the FUD... Macalope addresses the latter in Essentially losing it: Unbridled enthusiasm for an upcoming phone. I'm going to watch the apple's blossom. Have a great day. Let's make money.
|
|
|
Post by phoebear611 on Jun 2, 2017 3:25:57 GMT -8
From PED here is a copy of what TC sent his employees yesterday evening:
Trump to planet: Drop dead. Apple 2017 Environmental Progress Report Tim Cook is pissed. Here's what he told Apple employees:
Team,
I know many of you share my disappointment with the White House's decision to withdraw the United States from the Paris climate agreement. I spoke with President Trump on Tuesday and tried to persuade him to keep the U.S. in the agreement. But it wasn't enough.
Climate change is real and we all share a responsibility to fight it. I want to reassure you that today's developments will have no impact on Apple's efforts to protect the environment. We power nearly all of our operations with renewable energy, which we believe is an example of something that's good for our planet and makes good business sense as well.
We will keep working toward the ambitious goals of a closed-loop supply chain, and to eventually stop mining new materials altogether. Of course, we're going to keep working with our suppliers to help them do more to power their businesses with clean energy. And we will keep challenging ourselves to do even more. Knowing the good work that we and countless others around the world are doing, there are plenty of reasons to be optimistic about our planet's future.
Our mission has always been to leave the world better than we found it. We will never waver, because we know that future generations depend on us.
Your work is as important today as it has ever been. Thank you for your commitment to making a difference every single day.
Tim
___________
|
|
chinacat
Moderator
AAPL Long since 2006
Posts: 4,431
|
Post by chinacat on Jun 2, 2017 6:41:01 GMT -8
|
|
Ted
fire starter
Posts: 882
|
Post by Ted on Jun 2, 2017 6:41:03 GMT -8
It's disturbing how quickly and easily this board slips into divisive political talk. I see enough of this already, and to have our aapl board polluted is too much. Can we make it stop? The board seems equally split between Dems and Repubs - let's leave it at that...
|
|
|
Post by rob_london on Jun 2, 2017 6:43:42 GMT -8
Mary Meeker's 2017 Internet Trends was published a couple of days ago. A lot of information to digest...355 slides in the deck! www.kpcb.com/internet-trendsIncidentally it is pleasing that virtually nothing has leaked from the WWDC, other than the rumoured Siri speakers. We know that hardware is much harder to keep secret.
|
|
|
Post by artman1033 on Jun 2, 2017 8:37:05 GMT -8
Mary Meeker's 2017 Internet Trends was published a couple of days ago. A lot of information to digest...355 slides in the deck! www.kpcb.com/internet-trendsIncidentally it is pleasing that virtually nothing has leaked from the WWDC, other than the rumoured Siri speakers. We know that hardware is much harder to keep secret. IMHO: from her slides: Smartphone sales WILL decrease. Interest in ALL things health related are increasing.
|
|
|
Post by phoebear611 on Jun 2, 2017 9:29:35 GMT -8
It's disturbing how quickly and easily this board slips into divisive political talk. I see enough of this already, and to have our aapl board polluted is too much. Can we make it stop? The board seems equally split between Dems and Repubs - let's leave it at that... This Board isn't half as bad as other boards that I look at. There are huge brawls that break out in others. Politics has become pervasive - particularly for this Board - because policy issues may affect the stock price (i.e. repatriation or major corporate tax reform). So to some degree it will creep up on here. Add to that that TC has also become somewhat political (not unlike many in the Valley) and so if we want to know what he is saying (as we should if we are invested) it may be political. Last night's letter to employees is a perfect example. But credit given to the folks on this Board - no one took a shot at it (God I miss JD - he was fun ) but just read it to see what the commentary was. We aren't perfect but we are better than most. After all, what's the old adage, "Perfect is the enemy of good".
|
|
|
Post by david on Jun 2, 2017 10:19:52 GMT -8
It's disturbing how quickly and easily this board slips into divisive political talk. I see enough of this already, and to have our aapl board polluted is too much. Can we make it stop? The board seems equally split between Dems and Repubs - let's leave it at that... You don't feel withdrawing from the Paris accord might have any effect on AAPL? As far as I can tell, almost every tech CEO feels it will, for immediate economic reasons, if nothing else. France is already recruiting scientists from the US. Have I said anything political, yet?
|
|
|
Post by phoebear611 on Jun 2, 2017 10:20:00 GMT -8
I hope the reason there have been no leaks is due to better security and NOT that there is little to leak!
|
|
|
Post by phoebear611 on Jun 2, 2017 10:40:41 GMT -8
It's disturbing how quickly and easily this board slips into divisive political talk. I see enough of this already, and to have our aapl board polluted is too much. Can we make it stop? The board seems equally split between Dems and Repubs - let's leave it at that... You don't feel withdrawing from the Paris accord might have any effect on AAPL? As far as I can tell, almost every tech CEO feels it will, for immediate economic reasons, if nothing else. France is already recruiting scientists from the US. Have I said anything political, yet? Is there a site that can help better inform a person about this Paris Agreement - an unbiased site. If you heard Trump's speech (which I did) it sounded like it was a "voluntary" and "non-enforceable" accord - everyone is on their best behavior and no ramifications for not complying. It also allowed China great latitude by not having to commit to changes (I believe) till 2030 plus it funded India with $$$ (wondering where that would come from?). In the meantime, we (the US) are the world leaders in innovation in energy and have reduced our carbon footprint back to 1990 (according to every major news show last night). So their party line is that the US is leading through actions and not through a bogus agreement that will cost us a ton of money. On the flip side - all of these CEOs can't possibly be wrong - they have ENORMOUS brains (altho some may be selfish as to what is good for them or their businesses ... although I scratch my head with how it is relevant for Iger - Disney's CEO - other than good PR). You can see my lack of understanding here. So instead of this becoming an all out war on this topic - is there a BALANCED site that anyone can refer me to at all? Would immensely appreciate it. P.S. And I don't want a site that says "because everyone thinks it is a good idea" .... because I grew up with a mother who always asked me, "Well Phoebes, if everyone thought jumping off a cliff was a good idea would you be doing that and following them?" I just want a site (or two) or an article that truly sums it up. I don't need the Iliad or the Odyssey tho, I would settle for the Cliff Note version. TIA
|
|
|
Post by phoebear611 on Jun 2, 2017 10:47:41 GMT -8
I believe today's move is somewhat fueled by these comments:
"Loop Capital surprised by Broadcom 'candid disclosure' about iPhone content Loop Capital analyst Betsy Van Hees noted that Broadcom's (AVGO) Q2 results beat her Street high estimates, adding that she was "positively surprised" by the company's "candid disclosure" that its content in Apple's (AAPL) iPhone 8 is increasing by 40% from the 7. "
|
|
|
Post by artman1033 on Jun 2, 2017 10:58:29 GMT -8
You don't feel withdrawing from the Paris accord might have any effect on AAPL? As far as I can tell, almost every tech CEO feels it will, for immediate economic reasons, if nothing else. France is already recruiting scientists from the US. Have I said anything political, yet? Is there a site that can help better inform a person about this Paris Agreement - an unbiased site. If you heard Trump's speech (which I did) it sounded like it was a "voluntary" and "non-enforceable" accord - everyone is on their best behavior and no ramifications for not complying. It also allowed China great latitude by not having to commit to changes (I believe) till 2030 plus it funded India with $$$ (wondering where that would come from?). In the meantime, we (the US) are the world leaders in innovation in energy and have reduced our carbon footprint back to 1990 (according to every major news show last night). So their party line is that the US is leading through actions and not through a bogus agreement that will cost us a ton of money. On the flip side - all of these CEOs can't possibly be wrong - they have ENORMOUS brains (altho some may be selfish as to what is good for them or their businesses ... although I scratch my head with how it is relevant for Iger - Disney's CEO - other than good PR). You can see my lack of understanding here. So instead of this becoming an all out war on this topic - is there a BALANCED site that anyone can refer me to at all? Would immensely appreciate it. P.S. And I don't want a site that says "because everyone thinks it is a good idea" .... because I grew up with a mother who always asked me, "Well Phoebes, if everyone thought jumping off a cliff was a good idea would you be doing that and following them?" I just want a site (or two) or an article that truly sums it up. I don't need the Iliad or the Odyssey tho, I would settle for the Cliff Note version. TIA From Scott Pruit EPA admin. TODAY: www.c-span.org/video/?429431-1/white-house-wont-say-president-believes-climate-change Russia uses 1990 as THEIR beginning DATE to measure future cuts of CO2. (that was the year the Soviet Union dissolved) ONE could imagine their CO2 emissions was higher in 1990 than it is today. Therefore, one could surmise Russia will not have to do as much to reduce emissions. China does not have to start until 2020? Coal in China en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_in_ChinaIndia does not have to start until 2030, provided India gets funding from 1st World countries? USA and some others start in 2016. Therefore, one could surmise the USA would have to do more and spend more to cut CO2 emissions. AS for SILICON VALLEY. THEY are the COMPANIES who will share in the government FUNDING to reach the CO2 cut goals.
|
|
|
Post by macster on Jun 2, 2017 11:15:30 GMT -8
You don't feel withdrawing from the Paris accord might have any effect on AAPL? As far as I can tell, almost every tech CEO feels it will, for immediate economic reasons, if nothing else. France is already recruiting scientists from the US. Have I said anything political, yet? Is there a site that can help better inform a person about this Paris Agreement - an unbiased site. If you heard Trump's speech (which I did) it sounded like it was a "voluntary" and "non-enforceable" accord - everyone is on their best behavior and no ramifications for not complying. It also allowed China great latitude by not having to commit to changes (I believe) till 2030 plus it funded India with $$$ (wondering where that would come from?). In the meantime, we (the US) are the world leaders in innovation in energy and have reduced our carbon footprint back to 1990 (according to every major news show last night). So their party line is that the US is leading through actions and not through a bogus agreement that will cost us a ton of money. On the flip side - all of these CEOs can't possibly be wrong - they have ENORMOUS brains (altho some may be selfish as to what is good for them or their businesses ... although I scratch my head with how it is relevant for Iger - Disney's CEO - other than good PR). You can see my lack of understanding here. So instead of this becoming an all out war on this topic - is there a BALANCED site that anyone can refer me to at all? Would immensely appreciate it. P.S. And I don't want a site that says "because everyone thinks it is a good idea" .... because I grew up with a mother who always asked me, "Well Phoebes, if everyone thought jumping off a cliff was a good idea would you be doing that and following them?" I just want a site (or two) or an article that truly sums it up. I don't need the Iliad or the Odyssey tho, I would settle for the Cliff Note version. TIA I think you have it pretty well figured out.
|
|
|
Post by rickag on Jun 2, 2017 11:57:53 GMT -8
I hope the reason there have been no leaks is due to better security and NOT that there is little to leak! +1
|
|
|
Post by phoebear611 on Jun 2, 2017 12:28:22 GMT -8
Well pretty good week - let's see what Monday brings although I'm hoping we hear a little something over the weekend to start building the excitement. We'll see.
|
|
|
Post by archibaldtuttle on Jun 2, 2017 12:28:42 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by phoebear611 on Jun 2, 2017 12:40:49 GMT -8
It was a bit helpful but not tremendously. I don't need to be convinced about climate change - I am trying to understand WHY it was so important for us to be a part of this accord while we were required to abide by stricter rules, it would cost us more (by us funding several others) and yet we are already ahead of everyone else because as a nation we care and are striving for it in the private sector. The site was a little helpful though so thank you. I wish there existed a place where facts were given and there was no overlay of bias. Just the facts to help us be better informed - let the public make up their own minds. I'm struggling that if many of these restrictions/rules in the accord are what DJT said they were, would these brilliant CEOs cut a deal like that for their companies? Something is wrong or I'm just missing something here. I need to continue to look thru the internet to attempt to educate myself.
|
|
|
Post by hledgard on Jun 2, 2017 13:20:23 GMT -8
It was a bit helpful but not tremendously. I don't need to be convinced about climate change - I am trying to understand WHY it was so important for us to be a part of this accord while we were required to abide by stricter rules, it would cost us more (by us funding several others) and yet we are already ahead of everyone else because as a nation we care and are striving for it in the private sector. The site was a little helpful though so thank you. I wish there existed a place where facts were given and there was no overlay of bias. Just the facts to help us be better informed - let the public make up their own minds. I'm struggling that if many of these restrictions/rules in the accord are what DJT said they were, would these brilliant CEOs cut a deal like that for their companies? Something is wrong or I'm just missing something here. I need to continue to look thru the internet to attempt to educate myself. I like your point about neutral reporting. I agree, it is very hard to find. The weather.com article is hardly unbiased. I think part of the reporting issue is lack of depth. The people who write for so many websites are not as learned as in past times. Fancy headlines get the clicks.
|
|
|
Post by david on Jun 2, 2017 13:46:31 GMT -8
It was a bit helpful but not tremendously. I don't need to be convinced about climate change - I am trying to understand WHY it was so important for us to be a part of this accord while we were required to abide by stricter rules, it would cost us more (by us funding several others) and yet we are already ahead of everyone else because as a nation we care and are striving for it in the private sector. The site was a little helpful though so thank you. I wish there existed a place where facts were given and there was no overlay of bias. Just the facts to help us be better informed - let the public make up their own minds. I'm struggling that if many of these restrictions/rules in the accord are what DJT said they were, would these brilliant CEOs cut a deal like that for their companies? Something is wrong or I'm just missing something here. I need to continue to look thru the internet to attempt to educate myself. Here's USA Today's fact checking on the subject. www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/06/02/fact-checking-trump-speech-paris-climate-agreement/102399674/
|
|
Since84
Moderator
To infinity and beyond!
Posts: 3,933
|
Post by Since84 on Jun 2, 2017 14:29:51 GMT -8
June is off to a good start. Let's hope it continues.
|
|
|
Post by phoebear611 on Jun 2, 2017 14:31:52 GMT -8
It was a bit helpful but not tremendously. I don't need to be convinced about climate change - I am trying to understand WHY it was so important for us to be a part of this accord while we were required to abide by stricter rules, it would cost us more (by us funding several others) and yet we are already ahead of everyone else because as a nation we care and are striving for it in the private sector. The site was a little helpful though so thank you. I wish there existed a place where facts were given and there was no overlay of bias. Just the facts to help us be better informed - let the public make up their own minds. I'm struggling that if many of these restrictions/rules in the accord are what DJT said they were, would these brilliant CEOs cut a deal like that for their companies? Something is wrong or I'm just missing something here. I need to continue to look thru the internet to attempt to educate myself. Here's USA Today's fact checking on the subject. www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/06/02/fact-checking-trump-speech-paris-climate-agreement/102399674/That was by far the most informative - but again- you can see the writer is somewhat biased. Are we (the public) to believe that there was NOTHING that was said (by DJT) was correct? It seems that in the cases where there are several scenarios that could play out - Trump picks the worst case and the author picks the best. I guess somewhere in between lies the truth. Thank you for the article though...really appreciate it.
|
|
|
Post by macster on Jun 2, 2017 14:48:20 GMT -8
It was a bit helpful but not tremendously. I don't need to be convinced about climate change - I am trying to understand WHY it was so important for us to be a part of this accord while we were required to abide by stricter rules, it would cost us more (by us funding several others) and yet we are already ahead of everyone else because as a nation we care and are striving for it in the private sector. The site was a little helpful though so thank you. I wish there existed a place where facts were given and there was no overlay of bias. Just the facts to help us be better informed - let the public make up their own minds. I'm struggling that if many of these restrictions/rules in the accord are what DJT said they were, would these brilliant CEOs cut a deal like that for their companies? Something is wrong or I'm just missing something here. I need to continue to look thru the internet to attempt to educate myself. Here's USA Today's fact checking on the subject. www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/06/02/fact-checking-trump-speech-paris-climate-agreement/102399674/USA Today is a highly slanted and sometimes a partisan place for facts. I cannot lead anyone to a page that is fair and balanced because its too hypothetical. Its all about money not climate change. It widely understood though, the accord will hardly make a dent in CO2 emissions. As I said in another post, the Paris climate accord was simply the latest incarnation of the old Kyoto Protocol from the 1990s that sought to redistribute wealth from the industrial nations. The Green Climate Fund, which is part of the Paris agreement, is the latest effort in that regard. Where does the UN money go?Much wasted and no action. The US gives the most as usual and gets nothing but thank yous and anti-american sentiment. The US already gives tremendous amounts of our tax dollars overseas to developing nations and defense. The accord does not fit into Trumps america first economic plans. And it is obscene that Corporate america would make a deal like it for its shareholders.
|
|
|
Post by gtrplyr on Jun 2, 2017 14:54:43 GMT -8
USA Today is a highly slanted and sometimes a partisan place for facts. I cannot lead anyone to a page that is fair and balanced because its too hypothetical. Its all about money not climate change. It widely understood though, the accord will hardly make a dent in CO2 emissions. As I said in another post, the Paris climate accord was simply the latest incarnation of the old Kyoto Protocol from the 1990s that sought to redistribute wealth from the industrial nations. The Green Climate Fund, which is part of the Paris agreement, is the latest effort in that regard. The US gives the most as usual and gets nothing but thank yous and anti-american sentiment. The US already gives tremendous amounts of our tax dollars overseas to developing nations and defense. The accord does not fit into Trumps america first economic plans. And it is obscene that Corporate america would make a deal like it for its shareholders. Calling USA Today "highly slanted" is akin to calling CNN "Fake News" .... it's NOT true. Facts is Facts. Yes maybe we will end up paying to help 3rd world countries who don't have the resources to get off of fossil fuels as easily but we have been benefitting from those countries in many ways .... including using them for cheap labor as many US companies including Apple do. Sometimes it's just morally right for us to step up and do the right thing regardless of cost. Digging in our heels and insisting that old tech such as coal will be relevant in the years to come is stupid and the ONLY reason the Orange Moron did so was for votes. IF you believe so highly in coal be my guest an invest in the industry .... there are plenty of "Coal" plays out there ... my guess is no one on this board has or is investing in Coal .... those industries may get temporary relief if they are not held to the Paris accords. I'm thankful states and several companies , including Apple have publicly stated that they will abide by the Paris agreement regardless.
|
|
|
Post by macster on Jun 2, 2017 15:18:58 GMT -8
USA Today is a highly slanted and sometimes a partisan place for facts. I cannot lead anyone to a page that is fair and balanced because its too hypothetical. Its all about money not climate change. It widely understood though, the accord will hardly make a dent in CO2 emissions. As I said in another post, the Paris climate accord was simply the latest incarnation of the old Kyoto Protocol from the 1990s that sought to redistribute wealth from the industrial nations. The Green Climate Fund, which is part of the Paris agreement, is the latest effort in that regard. The US gives the most as usual and gets nothing but thank yous and anti-american sentiment. The US already gives tremendous amounts of our tax dollars overseas to developing nations and defense. The accord does not fit into Trumps america first economic plans. And it is obscene that Corporate america would make a deal like it for its shareholders. Calling USA Today "highly slanted" is akin to calling CNN "Fake News" .... it's NOT true. Facts is Facts. Yes maybe we will end up paying to help 3rd world countries who don't have the resources to get off of fossil fuels as easily but we have been benefitting from those countries in many ways .... including using them for cheap labor as many US companies including Apple do. Sometimes it's just morally right for us to step up and do the right thing regardless of cost. Digging in our heels and insisting that old tech such as coal will be relevant in the years to come is stupid and the ONLY reason the Orange Moron did so was for votes. IF you believe so highly in coal be my guest an invest in the industry .... there are plenty of "Coal" plays out there ... my guess is no one on this board has or is investing in Coal .... those industries may get temporary relief if they are not held to the Paris accords. I'm thankful states and several companies , including Apple have publicly stated that they will abide by the Paris agreement regardless. Blah USA Today has a history of partisan reporting. Thats a fact! May help many with the Unhingemosis over Paris accord withdrawal....WRITTEN BY Akshat Rathi @akshatrathi The US has a history of playing the bully in global climate negotiations. It tried to weaken the 1997 Kyoto Protocol—the world’s first emissions-reductions treaty—and then never ratified it. In response, the EU stepped up, boosted the treaty’s ambitions, and got 84 other countries on board. Now, US president Donald Trump is attacking the 2015 Paris climate agreement, which his predecessor formally signed and ratified. {EDIT-THIS IS NOT TRUE- THE SENATE NEVER RATIFIED THE PARIS GREEMENT-OBAMA USED EXECUTIVE ACTION} Trump said the US will quit the agreement and “see if we can make a deal that’s fair.” Legal experts, UN negotiators, and US allies like France, German, and Italy have all said the accord cannot be renegotiated. Trump could face stiffer penalties for his decision than former presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush received for their U-turn on Kyoto. One way to retaliate would be to levy a border-adjustment carbon tax or tariff on American exports. If the rest of the world has agreed to reduce their emissions, the renegades could be forced to pay a price if they want to continue trading with Paris-bound partners. How large could the tax be? “If it is to be proportionate, it should cover the harm caused to the Earth from the production of the goods, a harm that will not be reflected in their price if the US presses ahead with the unfettered use of fossil fuels,” writes Chris Hope of Cambridge University’s Judge Business School. The best estimate for the environmental harm caused by carbon-dioxide emissions puts the cost at between $150 and $250 per metric ton of CO2. Taking into consideration America’s emissions and its GDP, Hope estimates that a tax rate of between 6% and 10% on US exports would enough to compensate for the damage caused by its emissions. Europe imports about $400 billion worth of goods and services from the US every year, so the tax would be worth between $25 billion and $40 billion annually, on paper. But potential effects on the price and availability of of goods, and the diplomatic fallout from such a move, would surely test America’s trading partners’ resolve in their commitment to reducing emissions. Former French president Nicholas Sarkozy floated a similar idea in November, when Trump first suggested he might withdraw the US from the Paris agreement. His suggested tax rate was between 1% and 3%. Around the same time, officials from Mexico and Canada began discussing carbon tariffs. “A carbon tariff is a power tool,” Dirk Forrister of the International Emissions Trading Organization, a nonprofit group, told New York Times last year. “There is no need to start a trade war over climate change. But it might happen.”
|
|
Ted
fire starter
Posts: 882
|
Post by Ted on Jun 2, 2017 15:26:15 GMT -8
It's disturbing how quickly and easily this board slips into divisive political talk. I see enough of this already, and to have our aapl board polluted is too much. Can we make it stop? The board seems equally split between Dems and Repubs - let's leave it at that... You don't feel withdrawing from the Paris accord might have any effect on AAPL? As far as I can tell, almost every tech CEO feels it will, for immediate economic reasons, if nothing else. France is already recruiting scientists from the US. Have I said anything political, yet? David, if a political issue affects AAPL, then, sure, let's discuss it, but that's often not what we're seeing here. Some people are happily doing victory laps over trump's latest decisions without relating them back to Apple in any relevant way. We didn't see that during the Obama era, so let's keep it cool under the orange regime...
|
|
|
Post by tuffett on Jun 2, 2017 15:54:23 GMT -8
Nice move in AAPL today.
Off-topic but since it's the weekend:
Yes, the Paris accord is not "fair" in the sense that some nations need to act faster and spend more money than others. What the people who complain about this either conveniently ignore or don't understand is that these nations are the major prior contributors to the problems that we are facing today and are going to face going forward. China and India are still growing towards having the bulk of their population middle class. It's also not "fair" to handcuff the growth of 2nd and 3rd world nations. A human life is a human life no matter where they were born or what country they live in. As global citizens we should aspire to improve the standard of living for everyone, and this might mean a few sacrifices from those who are already extremely fortunate.
China is an interesting one. They are facing a massive pollution problem, but in the past who has been the primary consumer of all the products they make? \
The "America first at the expense of everyone else" mentality is so narrow minded. All countries have their best interests in mind, but most manage to also cooperate for the greater good.
|
|
|
Post by phoebear611 on Jun 2, 2017 16:18:28 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by phoebear611 on Jun 2, 2017 16:24:55 GMT -8
Nice move in AAPL today. Off-topic but since it's the weekend: Yes, the Paris accord is not "fair" in the sense that some nations need to act faster and spend more money than others. What the people who complain about this either conveniently ignore or don't understand is that these nations are the major prior contributors to the problems that we are facing today and are going to face going forward. China and India are still growing towards having the bulk of their population middle class. It's also not "fair" to handcuff the growth of 2nd and 3rd world nations. A human life is a human life no matter where they were born or what country they live in. As global citizens we should aspire to improve the standard of living for everyone, and this might mean a few sacrifices from those who are already extremely fortunate. China is an interesting one. They are facing a massive pollution problem, but in the past who has been the primary consumer of all the products they make? \ The "America first at the expense of everyone else" mentality is so narrow minded. All countries have their best interests in mind, but most manage to also cooperate for the greater good. Although you bring up good points I do actually feel that this (the U.S.) country does get taken advantage of at many levels. I do believe most Americans do want to make the world/planet a better place but I also feel that we get hooked into things ALL the time. Two examples are NATO defense funding ... we know that folks aren't pulling their own weight there and it is mostly the U.S. I believe in NATO but c'mon already. And secondly, and I don't know exactly how this began but the whole cost of pharmaceuticals. I can appreciate paying more because folks in Zimbabwe can't pay as much but what is Germany or Japan or the UK or Canada's issue to mention but a FEW. No one pays the drug prices we pay. Having family members that require pharmaceuticals that have a VERY high cost through preconditions that they did not contribute to but were born with - the insanity of it is mind-boggling. I don't know why this continues...truly.
|
|
|
Post by appledoc on Jun 3, 2017 5:44:47 GMT -8
Trump's move to pull from the accord stems from a desire to create fairness for the US. This is what he promised in his campaign. This is what he's doing with his international policy.
1. The accord is less binding than a gentleman's handshake. 2. Like every other global fund, the US is expected and asked to bear the brunt of the cost. We've pledged $3B out of the total $10.3B to the GCF. We're one of four countries who have pledged at least $1B. China and India have pledged exactly $0. When do they start kicking in their fair share as the biggest polluters in the world? 3. There exist too many questions about where the GCF funding will come from going forward, and how that money will be used.
|
|
JDSoCal
Member
Aspiring oligarch
Posts: 4,185
|
Post by JDSoCal on Jun 3, 2017 13:25:53 GMT -8
Is there a site that can help better inform a person about this Paris Agreement - an unbiased site. The Paris Accord was the biggest scam ever. Redistribution of wealth under a different name. Trillions of dollars to (alleged by junk science) save like half a degree over 50 years. If you believe that man made carbon emissions affect world climate (I do not. It's junk science). While China and India are free to build coal plants, we have to shut ours down, losing precious resources, jobs, and making energy more expensive? No. And yeah, surprise surprise, Exxon Mobil and BP CEO's wanted coal shut down. And surprise surprise, other countries like China loved the idea of the US putting the brakes on its strategic advantages and spending more of our taxpayer wealth on nonsense instead of on productive things. And this nonsense canard about "green jobs" is total BS. Show me where in the real world the green jobs have replaced an equal number of gas or oil jobs. Here's all you need to know about what complete bullshit this "accord" was: How the world solved the 'shall' crisis and reached a new climate accordObama and Kerry wanted to change the Accord's carbon emission mandates from "shall" to "should." Even Obama didn't want to use the word "shall," because that would be binding and he doesn't have the authority to do that without a Senate vote to ratify it (newsflash to liberals, this is still a democratic republic). The great thing about Trump backing out is that climate "science" will finally be exposed as the fraud that it is, as world temps drop despite carbon emissions continuing to increase. And we'll help our economy and save taxpayer dollars, merely by shunning climate religion. Not to mention, energy costs. Germany, which loves to crow about all its green energy, costs ratepayers more than THREE TIMES what Americans pay due to all the green energy mandates and surcharges. Which is why some people freeze to death in Germany in the winter - Seven million Germans live can't afford to heat their homes! Not to mention in the UK, where they pay double that we do in the US, and as many as 40,000 people die in a year from freezing due to what is known as "fuel poverty." That's about as many people as die in car accidents in the US every year. Or drug overdoses. But at least they are using less energy! As for good & fair climate sites, Bjorn Lomborg (author of the Skeptical Environmentalist) has a great Twitter feed. And Website. Climate Depot is also good.
|
|