comment by Quincey peacock, esq. (U19119)
posted 18 minutes ago
trumps actions so far just show how self centred and idiotic the man is. And by extension those who voted for him.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you actually speak to some of those who voted for him you'll realise it's not true.
comment by Sir Digby (U6039)
posted 2 minutes ago
To make America 'great' again, it needs to stand with and lead the international community. It needs an ear, it needs respect, and it needs to persuade and influence. Trump's isolationism is going to - it has started to - strip the US of its leading role, its credibility and its influence
-----------
Baring some snide comments from world leaders and people getting angry on twitter it hasn't really
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well the American public, politicians and media are always prattling on about the president (not just Trump) being the 'leader of the free world' so yes he does need to.
Who has cut off relations with America since Trump has taken over? Pretty much all his meetings with other world leaders have gone well
The only strong relationship essentially needed is with canada, most other cases the countries need the US far more.
comment by 8bit (U2653)
posted 23 minutes ago
As long as the US has the largest economy and biggest military they'll have respect and influence regardless of who's president. As much as countries might dislike Trump they'll still need to work with him and compromise.
From the BBC with the US in the Paris accord global temps will increase 3.3 degrees by 2100, 3.6 without the US. If we can handle 3.3 would 3.6 be catastrophic? I don't know much about climate change so maybe it would be, but it seemed like a huge overreaction as usual to Trump. These figures are estimates with a large margin for error so could be wildly wrong, which wouldn't surprise me.
And China/India various other countries signing up is just all talk atm, whether they actually stick to the agreements is a different matter.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The global ecosystem cannot handle a 3.3 degrees rise.
3.3 degrees would see us incredibly quickly in the midst of irreversible, catastrophic climate change.
To put it in context, in the three-and-a-half billion year history of the planet, there *may* have been up to (but no more than) five other occasions on which the global temperature has increased by such a large amount so quickly.
There may have been zero.
What we would see with a 3.3 degree change would be completely unprecedented in terms of its impact on life on Earth.
People need to understand that the Paris Accord is not a solution. It is a first step - a stepping stone - towards a much more radical plan that will be required to combat climate change. It has never been anything else.
Trumps decision to leave will not change America, states control emissions not central government
In many respects, I hope that technology comes to our rescue. The climate has such a huge impact on wars and regional stability, it should be treated very seriously. Civil wars are often preceded by drought and crop failures. China's own populous are demanding the government address the air quality issues.
As unsightly as wind turbines are, they are temporary and likely to be gone 100 years from now, as we move on technologically. In the meantime, I think countries such as the UK striving for cleaner energy, put us in a much better position as far as global standing goes.
Cars will advance enough to become cleaner, renewable energy needs to advance a lot still before it can be considered replacing fossil fuels
Paul Miller, Associate Director, Clements Center for History, Strategy & Statecraft, University of Texas at Austin:
"The US’s unpopularity undermines our soft power and will probably make it harder to win international support for diplomatic initiatives, such as sanctions on Iran or Russia, which is regrettable."
Kurk Dorsey, Professor of History, University of New Hampshire:
"If over time the world concludes that the United States is a selfish nation rather than one with temporarily bad leadership, or if the world concludes that the United States is drastically cutting back on its commitment to global leadership based on the principles of democracy and freer trade, even though that leadership has often been flawed, then governments will recalculate their national interests.
"Trump risks damaging America’s ability to build coalitions to get things done."
Jack Goldstone, Professor of Public Policy, George Mason University:
"In this very interconnected world, how the US or any country is perceived around the world matters – it matters for national strategy (which countries will ally with you and how loyal will they be?), for economic growth (will people desire your products and workers, invest in your country, and expect you to honor your trade deals?), and for security (how much do your enemies want to take you down?).
"Trump’s “America first” foreign policy has greatly weakened favorable views of the US around the world, as shown in the most recent PEW poll. Only Israel (slightly), and Russia (significantly) have increased their positive view of the US since Trump was elected; all other nations had moderate to very large negative changes.
"Trump seemed to promise his supporters the US would be stronger, less burdened, and more secure in the world. In fact, so far his policies have made the US look weaker, less popular, and more confused."
Garret Martin, Professorial Lecturer, School of International Service, Editor at Large at the European Institute, American University:
"You can imagine that some foreign leaders will be tempted to be more vocal in their opposition to the US, if they believe that it can appeal to their public opinion. I can think of the parallel with Gerhard Schroeder who took an anti-American line in 2002 in Germany, as he thought that would play well with voters before elections. So that type of development might become more likely with an unpopular US president, and could hinder to some extent US policies."
Darrell West, Vice President and Director of Governance Studies, The Brookings Institution:
"It is difficult for the United States to be effective in foreign policy when so many people around the world have doubts about American leadership. There needs to be trust and confidence for people in other countries that the U.S. is reliable in what it does. When people have major doubts, it is more difficult to exercise leadership and negotiate deals with other countries."
Very nice opinions but all of them are if and buts, what country has said they won't deal with the US? Has it actually affected them?
Apart from Iran and north Korea,
Even they can't name a single country
comment by Admin1 (U1)
posted 5 minutes ago
In many respects, I hope that technology comes to our rescue. The climate has such a huge impact on wars and regional stability, it should be treated very seriously. Civil wars are often preceded by drought and crop failures. China's own populous are demanding the government address the air quality issues.
As unsightly as wind turbines are, they are temporary and likely to be gone 100 years from now, as we move on technologically. In the meantime, I think countries such as the UK striving for cleaner energy, put us in a much better position as far as global standing goes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The civil unrest that ultimately triggered the Syrian civil war was in certain regions exacerbated significantly by water shortages and crop failure.
There is one German academic I met who described the Syrian civil war as the world's first climate change induced conflict.
The climate change did not cause political corruption and mass unemployment
comment by Sir Digby (U6039)
posted 6 minutes ago
Very nice opinions but all of them are if and buts, what country has said they won't deal with the US? Has it actually affected them?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's not about refusal to deal with the administration; it's about influence and standing. It's about being involved in the discussion about where the world's powers direct their attentions and how they work together.
After the US's announcement on its withdrawal from the Paris Accord, the EU said it would "cut out the White House to deal directly with the US states and major corporations, many of whom have already pledged to live by the terms forged in Paris."
Chinese Prime Minister Li said:
"There have been changes in the international situation and there have been rising uncertainties and destabilising factors and in such circumstances it is important for China-EU relations to become more stable."
comment by Sir Digby (U6039)
posted 1 minute ago
The climate change did not cause political corruption and mass unemployment
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue's relating to under investment in irrigation or other such infrastructure undoubtedly play in issue in unemployment. Much of the farming belt in the USA, would struggle, weren't it for such mechanisms. In much of the world, potentially viable farm land is rendered arid due to war and corruption.
comment by Sir Digby (U6039)
posted 5 minutes ago
The climate change did not cause political corruption and mass unemployment
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, it caused poverty and hunger.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/mar/02/syrias-drought-has-likely-been-its-worst-in-900-years
Us states have always controlled it. Trump coming out made no difference. They still will control their own emissions.
China has said it wants to work with the EU more after trump made the point of wanting to focus on using US steel instead of Chinese. Its not shocking that China would want to try and make other trade deals
comment by rossobianchi (U17054)
posted about a minute ago
comment by Sir Digby (U6039)
posted 5 minutes ago
The climate change did not cause political corruption and mass unemployment
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, it caused poverty and hunger.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/mar/02/syrias-drought-has-likely-been-its-worst-in-900-years
----------------------------------------------------------------
Corruption did far more damage
comment by Sir Digby (U6039)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by rossobianchi (U17054)
posted about a minute ago
comment by Sir Digby (U6039)
posted 5 minutes ago
The climate change did not cause political corruption and mass unemployment
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, it caused poverty and hunger.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/mar/02/syrias-drought-has-likely-been-its-worst-in-900-years
----------------------------------------------------------------
Corruption did far more damage
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As did the CIA who put the Assad family in charge with an illegal coup. Don't forget that.
comment by Sir Digby (U6039)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by rossobianchi (U17054)
posted about a minute ago
comment by Sir Digby (U6039)
posted 5 minutes ago
The climate change did not cause political corruption and mass unemployment
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, it caused poverty and hunger.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/mar/02/syrias-drought-has-likely-been-its-worst-in-900-years
----------------------------------------------------------------
Corruption did far more damage
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I wouldn't want to argue either way, because I'm not an expert on modern Syrian sociopolitical history.
But given the evidence and support for the argument, it's hard to argue that climate change wasn't a contributing factor to social unrest.
If you are trying to push a climate change agenda then you can yes
comment by Sir Digby (U6039)
posted 2 minutes ago
If you are trying to push a climate change agenda then you can yes
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Surely you believe in man made climate change?
Yes I do, but if you think it was a big enough factor in the Syrian war then you are just trying to push a point
You could contribute it to most things if you wanted though history
Sign in if you want to comment
Anything Goes Politics Edition
Page 148 of 274
149 | 150 | 151 | 152 | 153
posted on 5/7/17
comment by Quincey peacock, esq. (U19119)
posted 18 minutes ago
trumps actions so far just show how self centred and idiotic the man is. And by extension those who voted for him.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you actually speak to some of those who voted for him you'll realise it's not true.
posted on 5/7/17
comment by Sir Digby (U6039)
posted 2 minutes ago
To make America 'great' again, it needs to stand with and lead the international community. It needs an ear, it needs respect, and it needs to persuade and influence. Trump's isolationism is going to - it has started to - strip the US of its leading role, its credibility and its influence
-----------
Baring some snide comments from world leaders and people getting angry on twitter it hasn't really
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well the American public, politicians and media are always prattling on about the president (not just Trump) being the 'leader of the free world' so yes he does need to.
posted on 5/7/17
Who has cut off relations with America since Trump has taken over? Pretty much all his meetings with other world leaders have gone well
posted on 5/7/17
The only strong relationship essentially needed is with canada, most other cases the countries need the US far more.
posted on 5/7/17
comment by 8bit (U2653)
posted 23 minutes ago
As long as the US has the largest economy and biggest military they'll have respect and influence regardless of who's president. As much as countries might dislike Trump they'll still need to work with him and compromise.
From the BBC with the US in the Paris accord global temps will increase 3.3 degrees by 2100, 3.6 without the US. If we can handle 3.3 would 3.6 be catastrophic? I don't know much about climate change so maybe it would be, but it seemed like a huge overreaction as usual to Trump. These figures are estimates with a large margin for error so could be wildly wrong, which wouldn't surprise me.
And China/India various other countries signing up is just all talk atm, whether they actually stick to the agreements is a different matter.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The global ecosystem cannot handle a 3.3 degrees rise.
3.3 degrees would see us incredibly quickly in the midst of irreversible, catastrophic climate change.
To put it in context, in the three-and-a-half billion year history of the planet, there *may* have been up to (but no more than) five other occasions on which the global temperature has increased by such a large amount so quickly.
There may have been zero.
What we would see with a 3.3 degree change would be completely unprecedented in terms of its impact on life on Earth.
People need to understand that the Paris Accord is not a solution. It is a first step - a stepping stone - towards a much more radical plan that will be required to combat climate change. It has never been anything else.
posted on 5/7/17
Trumps decision to leave will not change America, states control emissions not central government
posted on 5/7/17
In many respects, I hope that technology comes to our rescue. The climate has such a huge impact on wars and regional stability, it should be treated very seriously. Civil wars are often preceded by drought and crop failures. China's own populous are demanding the government address the air quality issues.
As unsightly as wind turbines are, they are temporary and likely to be gone 100 years from now, as we move on technologically. In the meantime, I think countries such as the UK striving for cleaner energy, put us in a much better position as far as global standing goes.
posted on 5/7/17
Cars will advance enough to become cleaner, renewable energy needs to advance a lot still before it can be considered replacing fossil fuels
posted on 5/7/17
Paul Miller, Associate Director, Clements Center for History, Strategy & Statecraft, University of Texas at Austin:
"The US’s unpopularity undermines our soft power and will probably make it harder to win international support for diplomatic initiatives, such as sanctions on Iran or Russia, which is regrettable."
Kurk Dorsey, Professor of History, University of New Hampshire:
"If over time the world concludes that the United States is a selfish nation rather than one with temporarily bad leadership, or if the world concludes that the United States is drastically cutting back on its commitment to global leadership based on the principles of democracy and freer trade, even though that leadership has often been flawed, then governments will recalculate their national interests.
"Trump risks damaging America’s ability to build coalitions to get things done."
Jack Goldstone, Professor of Public Policy, George Mason University:
"In this very interconnected world, how the US or any country is perceived around the world matters – it matters for national strategy (which countries will ally with you and how loyal will they be?), for economic growth (will people desire your products and workers, invest in your country, and expect you to honor your trade deals?), and for security (how much do your enemies want to take you down?).
"Trump’s “America first” foreign policy has greatly weakened favorable views of the US around the world, as shown in the most recent PEW poll. Only Israel (slightly), and Russia (significantly) have increased their positive view of the US since Trump was elected; all other nations had moderate to very large negative changes.
"Trump seemed to promise his supporters the US would be stronger, less burdened, and more secure in the world. In fact, so far his policies have made the US look weaker, less popular, and more confused."
Garret Martin, Professorial Lecturer, School of International Service, Editor at Large at the European Institute, American University:
"You can imagine that some foreign leaders will be tempted to be more vocal in their opposition to the US, if they believe that it can appeal to their public opinion. I can think of the parallel with Gerhard Schroeder who took an anti-American line in 2002 in Germany, as he thought that would play well with voters before elections. So that type of development might become more likely with an unpopular US president, and could hinder to some extent US policies."
Darrell West, Vice President and Director of Governance Studies, The Brookings Institution:
"It is difficult for the United States to be effective in foreign policy when so many people around the world have doubts about American leadership. There needs to be trust and confidence for people in other countries that the U.S. is reliable in what it does. When people have major doubts, it is more difficult to exercise leadership and negotiate deals with other countries."
posted on 5/7/17
Very nice opinions but all of them are if and buts, what country has said they won't deal with the US? Has it actually affected them?
posted on 5/7/17
Apart from Iran and north Korea,
posted on 5/7/17
Even they can't name a single country
posted on 5/7/17
comment by Admin1 (U1)
posted 5 minutes ago
In many respects, I hope that technology comes to our rescue. The climate has such a huge impact on wars and regional stability, it should be treated very seriously. Civil wars are often preceded by drought and crop failures. China's own populous are demanding the government address the air quality issues.
As unsightly as wind turbines are, they are temporary and likely to be gone 100 years from now, as we move on technologically. In the meantime, I think countries such as the UK striving for cleaner energy, put us in a much better position as far as global standing goes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The civil unrest that ultimately triggered the Syrian civil war was in certain regions exacerbated significantly by water shortages and crop failure.
There is one German academic I met who described the Syrian civil war as the world's first climate change induced conflict.
posted on 5/7/17
The climate change did not cause political corruption and mass unemployment
posted on 5/7/17
comment by Sir Digby (U6039)
posted 6 minutes ago
Very nice opinions but all of them are if and buts, what country has said they won't deal with the US? Has it actually affected them?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's not about refusal to deal with the administration; it's about influence and standing. It's about being involved in the discussion about where the world's powers direct their attentions and how they work together.
After the US's announcement on its withdrawal from the Paris Accord, the EU said it would "cut out the White House to deal directly with the US states and major corporations, many of whom have already pledged to live by the terms forged in Paris."
Chinese Prime Minister Li said:
"There have been changes in the international situation and there have been rising uncertainties and destabilising factors and in such circumstances it is important for China-EU relations to become more stable."
posted on 5/7/17
comment by Sir Digby (U6039)
posted 1 minute ago
The climate change did not cause political corruption and mass unemployment
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue's relating to under investment in irrigation or other such infrastructure undoubtedly play in issue in unemployment. Much of the farming belt in the USA, would struggle, weren't it for such mechanisms. In much of the world, potentially viable farm land is rendered arid due to war and corruption.
posted on 5/7/17
comment by Sir Digby (U6039)
posted 5 minutes ago
The climate change did not cause political corruption and mass unemployment
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, it caused poverty and hunger.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/mar/02/syrias-drought-has-likely-been-its-worst-in-900-years
posted on 5/7/17
Us states have always controlled it. Trump coming out made no difference. They still will control their own emissions.
China has said it wants to work with the EU more after trump made the point of wanting to focus on using US steel instead of Chinese. Its not shocking that China would want to try and make other trade deals
posted on 5/7/17
comment by rossobianchi (U17054)
posted about a minute ago
comment by Sir Digby (U6039)
posted 5 minutes ago
The climate change did not cause political corruption and mass unemployment
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, it caused poverty and hunger.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/mar/02/syrias-drought-has-likely-been-its-worst-in-900-years
----------------------------------------------------------------
Corruption did far more damage
posted on 5/7/17
comment by Sir Digby (U6039)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by rossobianchi (U17054)
posted about a minute ago
comment by Sir Digby (U6039)
posted 5 minutes ago
The climate change did not cause political corruption and mass unemployment
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, it caused poverty and hunger.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/mar/02/syrias-drought-has-likely-been-its-worst-in-900-years
----------------------------------------------------------------
Corruption did far more damage
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As did the CIA who put the Assad family in charge with an illegal coup. Don't forget that.
posted on 5/7/17
comment by Sir Digby (U6039)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by rossobianchi (U17054)
posted about a minute ago
comment by Sir Digby (U6039)
posted 5 minutes ago
The climate change did not cause political corruption and mass unemployment
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, it caused poverty and hunger.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/mar/02/syrias-drought-has-likely-been-its-worst-in-900-years
----------------------------------------------------------------
Corruption did far more damage
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I wouldn't want to argue either way, because I'm not an expert on modern Syrian sociopolitical history.
But given the evidence and support for the argument, it's hard to argue that climate change wasn't a contributing factor to social unrest.
posted on 5/7/17
If you are trying to push a climate change agenda then you can yes
posted on 5/7/17
comment by Sir Digby (U6039)
posted 2 minutes ago
If you are trying to push a climate change agenda then you can yes
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Surely you believe in man made climate change?
posted on 5/7/17
Yes I do, but if you think it was a big enough factor in the Syrian war then you are just trying to push a point
posted on 5/7/17
You could contribute it to most things if you wanted though history
Page 148 of 274
149 | 150 | 151 | 152 | 153