By the time he's done, we will have been out 4 years...

I don't see Trump running for re-election (assuming he even lasts that long). A loss in 2020 would be a rejection of whatever he claims to have accomplished. By bowing out after one term, he can point the finger at others when his "accomplishments" are undone by the next POTUS. Plus, he'll be positioned to start reaping the benefits of the self-serving policies he puts in place.

Posted by tecwrg on 6/1/2017 6:15:00 PM (view original):
I don't see Trump running for re-election (assuming he even lasts that long). A loss in 2020 would be a rejection of whatever he claims to have accomplished. By bowing out after one term, he can point the finger at others when his "accomplishments" are undone by the next POTUS. Plus, he'll be positioned to start reaping the benefits of the self-serving policies he puts in place.

Bloomberg just predicted Trump will win reelection. I highly doubt Trump bows out. That's wishful thinking.

Posted by moy23 on 6/1/2017 6:44:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/1/2017 6:15:00 PM (view original):
I don't see Trump running for re-election (assuming he even lasts that long). A loss in 2020 would be a rejection of whatever he claims to have accomplished. By bowing out after one term, he can point the finger at others when his "accomplishments" are undone by the next POTUS. Plus, he'll be positioned to start reaping the benefits of the self-serving policies he puts in place.

Bloomberg just predicted Trump will win reelection. I highly doubt Trump bows out. That's wishful thinking.

You call it "wishful thinking". I call it "covfefe".

Forget about climate change, global warming, all that bullshit which is backed by questionable "science" at best for the moment.

Why would we want to continue to harvest and consume fossil fuels, of which there's only so much left in the ground, and which humans are consuming at an unsustainable rate, and which is known to pollute both the water and the air when harvested and burned?

Why wouldn't we want to make a directed effort towards turning to renewable energy, such as solar and wind, which has significantly less impact on the environment when both harvested and consumed?

I can't speak to wind, but solar is becoming more mainstream. There is solar all over my town (including 48 panels on my roof), and I see large solar arrays all over the place. There's even a proposal to build New England's largest solar farm in my town that's currently being debated. Solar would not be proliferating at the rate it is if it wasn't efficient enough to warrant it.

but I do agree with your comment about the Frenchies. They kind of suck.

may i say something in english

Posted by DoctorKz on 6/2/2017 6:02:00 AM (view original):
http://www.thedailybeast.com/paris-can-waitit-was-a-bad-deal

According to one report commissioned by the American Council for Capital Formation with support from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Institute for 21st Century Energy, “the Paris climate accord could cost the U.S. economy $3 trillion and 6.5 million industrial sector jobs by 2040…”

One might argue that this is a matter of life or death, so the sacrifice is justified if it saves humanity. Here’s where the deal really falls apart. According to another study, the Paris deal would shave about 0.2 degrees off warming by 2100. You heard me right. Assuming everything works perfectly according to plan, we could plausibly be trading 6.5 million jobs for a 0.2-degree payoff.

But remember, there is no enforcement mechanism. These pledges are not binding. So even if you assume the best case scenario regarding predictive models, there’s no guarantee other countries will follow through.

China and India are building more coal plants. They won't do their fair share anytime soon. This accord does little or nothing to change our climate, is non binding. Is a bourgeois liberal agreement that lets us feel good about us doing our part, but does virtually nothing except voluntarily hamstrings our economy. Trump can do better.

China canceled the building of 100 coal plants in the last two years. They now get alnost 30 percent of their energy from clean renewable resources, compared to 15 percent for us. They are on a pace. To reach their Paris Accord goal 10 years early. Quit listening to your head of the EPA. Pruitt is there to destroy it and nothing else.