Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

3

lustysociety wrote (edited )

IMO, it makes the USA an even more outstanding harmful rogue nation compared to the rest of the world.
But I do not think that the reluctance of the POTUS has much importance because:

  • Most US citizens and US politicians (states, cities) seem to care about the climate change. Probably even more as their president does not seem to care.
  • Trump made the promise to cancel the Paris agreement. He can not break it so soon. He justified his reluctance by "unfair treatment of the USA" and not by "climate change is a hoax". He will change his mind in some years or even months.
  • IMO, the US industry has not much to win by using coal and fossil fuel. The coal and fossil fuel industry is already dying and without future.
3

Defasher wrote

He will change his mind in some years or even months.

No he won't.

3

lustysociety wrote (edited )

We will see.
But even if not, it might not matter much what the POTUS (of the next 4 or 8 years) thinks regarding climate change despite the fact that the US is the second largest producer of greenhouse gases (15.6%).

4

Defasher wrote (edited )

It sends a message to US corporations: pollute at will and burn all that coal. Trump got your back.

4

lustysociety wrote (edited )

True.
But what industry or company is willing to do that ? Does the coal and fossil fuel industry matter that much in the USA ?
I hope that the other nations of the world start to tax US products based on their ecological footprint.
I hope that US shaming becomes a trend worldwide.

3

______deleted_ wrote (edited )

Shaming isn't enough when the US holds all the cards (e.g. the petrodollar). I fear war is the only answer.

3

Defasher wrote (edited )

Agreed. America is responsible for so much suffering. A billion people are hungry because of the US-led imperalist neoliberal 'free market' policies that keep food out of the mouths of the poor. America is a threat to all life on the planet and it needs to be stripped of its power to decimate the planet permanently.

3

______deleted_ wrote

But how does any other country declare war on the US without being nuked into oblivion?

3

Defasher wrote

Realistically, the only country that could stand a chance at winning a war against America is China. But China is just as guilty (they're neck and neck as the 2 biggest polluters). And China's profits depend on American consumers continuing to buy buy buy their plastic junk. So a conventional war isn't going to happen.

But the only way to win a war against a nuclear superpower would be to use its own weapons against it without giving it any clear target they could retaliate against.

2

lustysociety wrote (edited )

IMO the problems in the Middle East and with Russia are not about oil.
It is about power, land, water, competition in all markets and old fashioned friend-or-foe worldview.
With solar technology (panels or microbes producing fuel) and fusion reactors (in some decades) and probably other technologies, the oil selling states better hurry to sell what they have before fossil fuel becomes worthless. The Paris Agreement makes this even more difficult now.
The Stone Age came to an end, not because we had a lack of stones, and the oil age will come to an end not because we have a lack of oil.