Report says global climate deal hinges on Obama reelection

bripat9643

Diamond Member
Apr 1, 2011
169,942
47,187
2,180
Report says global climate deal hinges on Obama reelection - The Hill's E2-Wire

Prospects for striking a binding global climate deal by 2015 are probably toast if President Obama loses in November.

That’s among the conclusions in a wide-ranging, new climate and green energy outlook from banking giant HSBC’s research branch.

A major outcome from the United Nations climate talks in December was a plan to craft a deal by 2015 — one that would include big, developing nations such as China — and have it come into force by 2020.

But Obama’s main Republican White House rivals are critical of emissions limits and skeptical of climate science. HSBC predicts an international agreement by 2015 is highly unlikely if Obama loses the election. From their research note:

[T]he prospects for a new global climate deal in 2015 depend considerably on the election of a pro-climate action president. The election of a President opposed to climate action will not only damage growth prospects for low-carbon solutions in the USA itself, but will make the hard task of negotiating a new global agreement by 2015 almost impossible.

The report finds that elections will have consequences in other nations too. In France, for instance, HSBC notes that opposition Socialists and Greens want to sharply cut the country’s dependence on nuclear power from 75 percent in 2010 to 50 percent in 2025.

Here’s a bit more:

If implemented, this would mark a more decisive shift against nuclear than the post-Fukushima decision in Germany to accelerate nuclear phase-out. The future of nuclear also lies at the heart of possible elections in Japan, where Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda has indicated that a general election could be called after the tax bill which is due in March. Elsewhere, two presidents closely linked with ‘green growth’ are stepping down — Calderon in Mexico and Lee in Korea — creating uncertainty about future commitments.
 
So, no nuclear, no coal, no oil.

WTF do these morons expect to power civilization with? I mean, besides their usual vision:

rainbows.jpg
 
I agree with HSBC. But I also think a lost climate deal would only be one of the casualties of a Republican President.

Yeah, we're hoping his healthcare monstrosity and all his EPA regulations will also be on the chopping block.

That's precisely why we need him out of there.

They would all be on the chopping block with a Republican President. You're right.

It's sad though that you think that's a good thing.
 
I agree with HSBC. But I also think a lost climate deal would only be one of the casualties of a Republican President.

Yeah, we're hoping his healthcare monstrosity and all his EPA regulations will also be on the chopping block.

That's precisely why we need him out of there.

They would all be on the chopping block with a Republican President. You're right.

It's sad though that you think that's a good thing.


It's sad that anyone thinks destroying the American economy and converting this country to fascism is a good thing.
 
Report says global climate deal hinges on Obama reelection - The Hill's E2-Wire

Prospects for striking a binding global climate deal by 2015 are probably toast if President Obama loses in November.

That’s among the conclusions in a wide-ranging, new climate and green energy outlook from banking giant HSBC’s research branch.

A major outcome from the United Nations climate talks in December was a plan to craft a deal by 2015 — one that would include big, developing nations such as China — and have it come into force by 2020.

But Obama’s main Republican White House rivals are critical of emissions limits and skeptical of climate science. HSBC predicts an international agreement by 2015 is highly unlikely if Obama loses the election. From their research note:

[T]he prospects for a new global climate deal in 2015 depend considerably on the election of a pro-climate action president. The election of a President opposed to climate action will not only damage growth prospects for low-carbon solutions in the USA itself, but will make the hard task of negotiating a new global agreement by 2015 almost impossible.

The report finds that elections will have consequences in other nations too. In France, for instance, HSBC notes that opposition Socialists and Greens want to sharply cut the country’s dependence on nuclear power from 75 percent in 2010 to 50 percent in 2025.

Here’s a bit more:

If implemented, this would mark a more decisive shift against nuclear than the post-Fukushima decision in Germany to accelerate nuclear phase-out. The future of nuclear also lies at the heart of possible elections in Japan, where Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda has indicated that a general election could be called after the tax bill which is due in March. Elsewhere, two presidents closely linked with ‘green growth’ are stepping down — Calderon in Mexico and Lee in Korea — creating uncertainty about future commitments.

Prospects for striking a binding global climate deal by 2015 are probably toast if President Obama loses in November.

Another excellent reason to defeat him in November!
 
Earth as a whole has a demand for products that harm our atmosphere. Even if we stop making trinket A, someone else will make it to fill the demand. Thus the only thing that changes is we, as a nation, get left behind.
 
Yeah, we're hoping his healthcare monstrosity and all his EPA regulations will also be on the chopping block.

That's precisely why we need him out of there.

They would all be on the chopping block with a Republican President. You're right.

It's sad though that you think that's a good thing.


It's sad that anyone thinks destroying the American economy and converting this country to fascism is a good thing.

So now not poisoning our drinking water is considered fascism?

You're an idiot.
 
Yeah, we're hoping his healthcare monstrosity and all his EPA regulations will also be on the chopping block.

That's precisely why we need him out of there.

They would all be on the chopping block with a Republican President. You're right.

It's sad though that you think that's a good thing.

I don't care for the conservatives injecting their religious views into the government and I don't care for the left forcing their mythical beliefs in man made climate change (which is your religion) on us as well and fucking with everyone's ability to live their lives the way they see fit.
 
Yeah, we're hoping his healthcare monstrosity and all his EPA regulations will also be on the chopping block.

That's precisely why we need him out of there.

They would all be on the chopping block with a Republican President. You're right.

It's sad though that you think that's a good thing.

I don't care for the conservatives injecting their religious views into the government and I don't care for the left forcing their mythical beliefs in man made climate change (which is your religion) on us as well and fucking with everyone's ability to live their lives the way they see fit.

Are there scientific studies proving man-made climate change? Yes.
Are there scientific studies proving God? No.

Yeah, good comparison there, sport.
 
So now not poisoning our drinking water is considered fascism?

You're an idiot.

False Dichotomy. Furthermore, you think a world run by corporations dictating so-called "green" technology isn't equally fascist?

You're an idiot.
 
So now not poisoning our drinking water is considered fascism?

You're an idiot.

False Dichotomy. Furthermore, you think a world run by corporations dictating so-called "green" technology isn't equally fascist?

You're an idiot.

I never said that. Never even hinted it. I think it would be equally fascist.

Maybe you should stick to commenting on what I actually wrote.
 
Are there scientific studies proving man-made climate change? Yes.

False. There are scientific studies THEORIZING man-made climate change. Just because you choose to believe them does not make them proof. There are hundreds of other actual proven reasons for changes in the earth's climate and geological structure, just as it has been doing for 6 billion years.

You stand corrected and you're welcome.
 
They would all be on the chopping block with a Republican President. You're right.

It's sad though that you think that's a good thing.


It's sad that anyone thinks destroying the American economy and converting this country to fascism is a good thing.

So now not poisoning our drinking water is considered fascism?

You're an idiot.


But nobody is poisoning our drinking supply. We're simply going through a geological cycle. Its been happening for hundreds of millions of years. Anyway, its just not possible for mankind to destroy the earth.
 
They would all be on the chopping block with a Republican President. You're right.

It's sad though that you think that's a good thing.

I don't care for the conservatives injecting their religious views into the government and I don't care for the left forcing their mythical beliefs in man made climate change (which is your religion) on us as well and fucking with everyone's ability to live their lives the way they see fit.

Are there scientific studies proving man-made climate change? Yes.
Are there scientific studies proving God? No.

Yeah, good comparison there, sport.

Are there scientific studies proving man-made climate change? Yes.

How much of the CO2 was caused by our activity?
How much warmer is the planet because of that amount of CO2?
If we add another 100 ppm, what will the increase in temperature be?
How many trillions should we spend to reduce that increase by 0.2 degrees in 2080?
Please give your answers in ppm, degrees celcius and trillions of US dollars.
Don't forget the link to the study that shows your proof. Thanks!
 
Are there scientific studies proving man-made climate change? Yes.

False. There are scientific studies THEORIZING man-made climate change. Just because you choose to believe them does not make them proof. There are hundreds of other actual proven reasons for changes in the earth's climate and geological structure, just as it has been doing for 6 billion years.

You stand corrected and you're welcome.

You really need to look up what a Scientific Theory is. You're kind of embarrassing yourself here.
 

Forum List

Back
Top