The day the US stepped down from leadership

[JBond]

Finally, a president with some common sense.

so spaketh only uneducated delusional rightwingnut trump loons.

Jill, on occasion you have been an ok poster. Help im2 and in your own words, explain the benefits of the Accord for the US.

I'll start - it makes a global issue into something treated as - a global issue. It also makes it more expensive for other nations making the playing field that much more even (over time).

Thanks Righty. Even if that is true, and I don't believe it is, how does that benefit the middle class in the US?

 

[RightyTighty]

Finally, a president with some common sense.

so spaketh only uneducated delusional rightwingnut trump loons.

Jill, on occasion you have been an ok poster. Help im2 and in your own words, explain the benefits of the Accord for the US.

I'll start - it makes a global issue into something treated as - a global issue. It also makes it more expensive for other nations making the playing field that much more even (over time).

Thanks Righty. Even if that is true, and I don't believe it is, how does that benefit the middle class in the US?

They have a better chance of competing on a global scale. If the same rules apply (they don't now), the game is on. Maybe the only middle-class people you know work as maids and mow lawns?

 

[Cellblock2429]

Trump pulls US from Paris accord (full speech)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djATp3AoUxI

A new leader of the free world has emerged.

Macron SLAMS Trump for WITHDRAWAL of Paris Climate Accord Agreement 6/1/2017 its NOT RENEGOTIABLE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzcrSvF7ZJA

/----- I'm in tears Snowflake bwhahaha bwhahaha bwhahaha

 

[JBond]

Finally, a president with some common sense.

so spaketh only uneducated delusional rightwingnut trump loons.

Jill, on occasion you have been an ok poster. Help im2 and in your own words, explain the benefits of the Accord for the US.

I'll start - it makes a global issue into something treated as - a global issue. It also makes it more expensive for other nations making the playing field that much more even (over time).

Thanks Righty. Even if that is true, and I don't believe it is, how does that benefit the middle class in the US?

They have a better chance of competing on a global scale. If the same rules apply (they don't now), the game is on. Maybe the only middle-class people you know work as maids and mow lawns?

So you believe increasing energy costs on the middle class in the US will benefit them and give them a better chance to complete on a global scale. Interesting theory.

 

[jillian]

None of the countries that signed the accord are "required" to do anything, IM2...they've signed on to do things voluntarily! The thing that makes it an awful deal is that Obama signed us up to cut our emissions first and by a large amount before countries like China and India have to cut theirs. There is nothing in that accord that guarantees us that after crippling our economy by making our businesses buy more expensive energy that our competition will comply with the accord years down the line. Once again...who would sign such a bad deal?

Leadership starts with the word lead. You lead by example. Lead means you go first. Follow is when you go after someone else has done it. Seems that a whole bunch of CEOs do not see things as you guys do. Including Tillerson and the new head of Exxon. Too bad.

Again, you are saying to be a leader, the President has to follow what other people think. That makes no sense. The Paris Agreement appears to be a feel good political gesture that will not effect climate change in any meaningful way, but will raise the cost of energy, costing us many good paying jobs and will slow down development which will cause hardships. Unless there is a clear analysis of what would be gained by going along with the Europeans, it would be irresponsible to pay the cost of the Paris Agreement.

First im2 says we must lead, not follow, and then says we have to follow. He is an internet clown. Need to figure out how to use the ignore feature. Starting to think he has the mental capacity to match his name, a two year old.

you should learn to read with comprehension.

trump trolls are funny.

 

[jillian]

Trump pulls US from Paris accord (full speech)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djATp3AoUxI

A new leader of the free world has emerged.

Macron SLAMS Trump for WITHDRAWAL of Paris Climate Accord Agreement 6/1/2017 its NOT RENEGOTIABLE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzcrSvF7ZJA

/----- I'm in tears Snowflake bwhahaha bwhahaha bwhahaha

so cute how whiny trump loons pretend they aren't the snowflakes.

you can go back to trolling the internet now.

 

[RightyTighty]

so spaketh only uneducated delusional rightwingnut trump loons.

Jill, on occasion you have been an ok poster. Help im2 and in your own words, explain the benefits of the Accord for the US.

I'll start - it makes a global issue into something treated as - a global issue. It also makes it more expensive for other nations making the playing field that much more even (over time).

Thanks Righty. Even if that is true, and I don't believe it is, how does that benefit the middle class in the US?

They have a better chance of competing on a global scale. If the same rules apply (they don't now), the game is on. Maybe the only middle-class people you know work as maids and mow lawns?

So you believe increasing energy costs on the middle class in the US will benefit them and give them a better chance to complete on a global scale. Interesting theory.

Increasing regulations on other nations is what makes making things here more competitive. And increasing prices spurs innovation (if you'd stop giving the technology to China instead of subsiding new industry here).

As I said, you know maids and people who mow lawns. They are worried about the power bill (which is rising as it gets hotter).

 

[IM2]

None of the countries that signed the accord are "required" to do anything, IM2...they've signed on to do things voluntarily! The thing that makes it an awful deal is that Obama signed us up to cut our emissions first and by a large amount before countries like China and India have to cut theirs. There is nothing in that accord that guarantees us that after crippling our economy by making our businesses buy more expensive energy that our competition will comply with the accord years down the line. Once again...who would sign such a bad deal?

Leadership starts with the word lead. You lead by example. Lead means you go first. Follow is when you go after someone else has done it. Seems that a whole bunch of CEOs do not see things as you guys do. Including Tillerson and the new head of Exxon. Too bad.

Again, you are saying to be a leader, the President has to follow what other people think. That makes no sense. The Paris Agreement appears to be a feel good political gesture that will not effect climate change in any meaningful way, but will raise the cost of energy, costing us many good paying jobs and will slow down development which will cause hardships. Unless there is a clear analysis of what would be gained by going along with the Europeans, it would be irresponsible to pay the cost of the Paris Agreement.

Again you don' t seem to understand what real leadership is. What you are talking about has nothing to do with leadership and everything to do with being an arrogant asshole who thinks that you know what's best for everyone so you don't have to listen to anyone. In this situation every nation on earth but 2 had agreed to these things. 1 did not agree because it did not go far enough, not that they opposed it. So then we see that really only one nation did not agree with these accords and that's because its in a civil war and probably not in attendance. So then when you have that kid of agreement between diverse populations of people al with different ideologies and beliefs, it is apparent that things are not as Trump or you think they are.

The entire planet is not getting swindled nor is the entire planet falling for fake science. This is a mistake made by our president and it has reduced our standing in the world.

 

[JBond]

Jill, on occasion you have been an ok poster. Help im2 and in your own words, explain the benefits of the Accord for the US.

I'll start - it makes a global issue into something treated as - a global issue. It also makes it more expensive for other nations making the playing field that much more even (over time).

Thanks Righty. Even if that is true, and I don't believe it is, how does that benefit the middle class in the US?

They have a better chance of competing on a global scale. If the same rules apply (they don't now), the game is on. Maybe the only middle-class people you know work as maids and mow lawns?

So you believe increasing energy costs on the middle class in the US will benefit them and give them a better chance to complete on a global scale. Interesting theory.

Increasing regulations on other nations is what makes making things here more competitive. And increasing prices spurs innovation (if you'd stop giving the technology to China instead of subsiding new industry here).

As I said, you know maids and people who mow lawns. They are worried about the power bill (which is rising as it gets hotter).

So, some more regulation of other nations combined with many more regulations for the US, and some cash payouts by the US, along with more expensive energy will benefit US citizens. Got it. Maybe...

What technology did I give China? I didn't support Bill Clinton.

It is telling that you believe higher energy costs only affect maids and yard maintenance people.

I'm also curious why so many countries are eager to give us this advantage.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Trump pulls US from Paris accord (full speech)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djATp3AoUxI

A new leader of the free world has emerged.

Macron SLAMS Trump for WITHDRAWAL of Paris Climate Accord Agreement 6/1/2017 its NOT RENEGOTIABLE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzcrSvF7ZJA

Face it! All you want is American tax dollars!

BUSINESS REACTION

Bob Iger, chief executive of Walt Disney: “As a matter of principle, I’ve resigned from the President’s Council over the #ParisAgreement withdrawal.”

Tim Cook, chief executive of Apple: (From an internal email obtained by the FT) “I spoke with President Trump on Tuesday and tried to persuade him to keep the US in the agreement. But it wasn’t enough . . . I want to reassure you that today’s developments will have no impact on Apple’s efforts to protect the environment.”

Mark Zuckerberg, founder of Facebook: “Withdrawing from the Paris climate agreement is bad for the environment, bad for the economy, and it puts our children’s future at risk . . . Stopping climate change is something we can only do as a global community, and we have to act together before it’s too late.”

Lloyd Blankfein, chief executive of Goldman Sachs: Jamie Dimon, chief executive of JPMorgan Chase: “I absolutely disagree with the administration on this issue, but we have a responsibility to engage our elected officials to work constructively and advocate for policies that improve people’s lives and protect our environment.”

Microsoft: “We all live on a small planet and every nation needs to work with others to protect it . . . We believe that continued US participation [in the Paris agreement] benefits US businesses and the economy in important and multiple ways.”

Walmart: “We think countries working together on shared goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is a laudable and necessary goal.” CEO Doug McMillon will stay on the White House economic advisory council because Walmart feels it’s “important to engage”.

PepsiCo: “PepsiCo’s longstanding commitment to addressing climate change will not change. We have a science-based goal to reduce absolute greenhouse gas emissions across our value chain by at least 20 per cent by 2030, and we will continue taking action to deliver on this goal.”

Jeff Immelt, chief executive of GE: Robert Murray, chief executive of Murray Energy: “We applaud President Trump’s steadfast leadership, and his delivery on this important campaign commitment. Indeed, complete withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord is an integral part of President Trump’s energy agenda”.

Paul Bailey, president of the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity: “The previous administration volunteered to meet one of the most stringent goals of any country in the world, while many other countries do far less to reduce their emissions. Meeting President Obama’s goal would have led to more regulations, higher energy prices, and dependence on less reliable energy sources.”

Barry Worthington, executive director of the US Energy Association: “The US energy industry will continue to reduce emissions, Clean Power Plan or no Clean Power Plan, Paris accord, or no Paris accord. A renegotiated plan will be far superior to the poorly negotiated agreement. We are confident that President Trump took the right step today, putting US interests first.”

David MacLennan, chief executive of Cargill: “It is extremely disappointing. Exiting international accords like the Paris Agreement will negatively impact trade, economic vitality, the state of our environment and relationships amongst the world community.”

General Motors: “GM will not waver from our commitment to the environment and our position on climate change has not changed. International agreements aside, we remain committed to creating a better environment.” Mary Barra, the carmaker’s chief executive, will remain on Mr Trump’s strategy and policy forum.

Ford: “We believe climate change is real, and remain deeply committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions in our vehicles and our facilities.”

Would get some sense, this is backing Coal, which does not create jobs and is a dying method of Energy...

Coal is dead, Fracking is the one killing it... Coal were the only gave credit for this... All the others including oil said this is bad for a America.

Bad for the environment, bad for jobs..


----

"We don't want other leaders and other countries laughing at us anymore, and they won't be. They won't be," Trump said, styling the Paris accord as a global plot to rob America of his freedom and its riches.


Not laughing, just pity...

I'm quite sure corporations are sharing their views as a part of their PR, in relaying their views to avoid a boycott or negative backlash that could hurt their bottom dollar. Very few companies are willing to stand up with their own views and personal beliefs if it could lead to hurting their bottom dollar, most tend to follow what they believe to be "popular trend" at the time. They will say what they believe others want to hear.

 

[S.J.]

Finally, a president with some common sense.

Yep, but you'll have to move to France to take advantage of it.

Sadly, trumpery just handed world supremacy overly to China and the Arctic to Pooting.

Stupid RWNJs knew he would do this. That's why they voted for him - to screw over working class Americans.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

Can you say that in Earth language?

 

[IM2]

Trump pulls US from Paris accord (full speech)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djATp3AoUxI

A new leader of the free world has emerged.

Macron SLAMS Trump for WITHDRAWAL of Paris Climate Accord Agreement 6/1/2017 its NOT RENEGOTIABLE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzcrSvF7ZJA

Face it! All you want is American tax dollars!

BUSINESS REACTION

Bob Iger, chief executive of Walt Disney: “As a matter of principle, I’ve resigned from the President’s Council over the #ParisAgreement withdrawal.”

Tim Cook, chief executive of Apple: (From an internal email obtained by the FT) “I spoke with President Trump on Tuesday and tried to persuade him to keep the US in the agreement. But it wasn’t enough . . . I want to reassure you that today’s developments will have no impact on Apple’s efforts to protect the environment.”

Mark Zuckerberg, founder of Facebook: “Withdrawing from the Paris climate agreement is bad for the environment, bad for the economy, and it puts our children’s future at risk . . . Stopping climate change is something we can only do as a global community, and we have to act together before it’s too late.”

Lloyd Blankfein, chief executive of Goldman Sachs: Jamie Dimon, chief executive of JPMorgan Chase: “I absolutely disagree with the administration on this issue, but we have a responsibility to engage our elected officials to work constructively and advocate for policies that improve people’s lives and protect our environment.”

Microsoft: “We all live on a small planet and every nation needs to work with others to protect it . . . We believe that continued US participation [in the Paris agreement] benefits US businesses and the economy in important and multiple ways.”

Walmart: “We think countries working together on shared goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is a laudable and necessary goal.” CEO Doug McMillon will stay on the White House economic advisory council because Walmart feels it’s “important to engage”.

PepsiCo: “PepsiCo’s longstanding commitment to addressing climate change will not change. We have a science-based goal to reduce absolute greenhouse gas emissions across our value chain by at least 20 per cent by 2030, and we will continue taking action to deliver on this goal.”

Jeff Immelt, chief executive of GE: Robert Murray, chief executive of Murray Energy: “We applaud President Trump’s steadfast leadership, and his delivery on this important campaign commitment. Indeed, complete withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord is an integral part of President Trump’s energy agenda”.

Paul Bailey, president of the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity: “The previous administration volunteered to meet one of the most stringent goals of any country in the world, while many other countries do far less to reduce their emissions. Meeting President Obama’s goal would have led to more regulations, higher energy prices, and dependence on less reliable energy sources.”

Barry Worthington, executive director of the US Energy Association: “The US energy industry will continue to reduce emissions, Clean Power Plan or no Clean Power Plan, Paris accord, or no Paris accord. A renegotiated plan will be far superior to the poorly negotiated agreement. We are confident that President Trump took the right step today, putting US interests first.”

David MacLennan, chief executive of Cargill: “It is extremely disappointing. Exiting international accords like the Paris Agreement will negatively impact trade, economic vitality, the state of our environment and relationships amongst the world community.”

General Motors: “GM will not waver from our commitment to the environment and our position on climate change has not changed. International agreements aside, we remain committed to creating a better environment.” Mary Barra, the carmaker’s chief executive, will remain on Mr Trump’s strategy and policy forum.

Ford: “We believe climate change is real, and remain deeply committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions in our vehicles and our facilities.”

Would get some sense, this is backing Coal, which does not create jobs and is a dying method of Energy...

Coal is dead, Fracking is the one killing it... Coal were the only gave credit for this... All the others including oil said this is bad for a America.

Bad for the environment, bad for jobs..


----

"We don't want other leaders and other countries laughing at us anymore, and they won't be. They won't be," Trump said, styling the Paris accord as a global plot to rob America of his freedom and its riches.


Not laughing, just pity...

I'm quite sure corporations are sharing their views as a part of the PR, in relaying their views to avoid a boycott or negative backlash that could hurt their bottom dollar. Very few companies are willing to stand up with their own views and personal beliefs if it could lead to hurting their bottom dollar, most tend to follow what they believe to be "popular trend" at the time. They will say what they believe others want to hear.

Not quite the wayt it is in this situation.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

This is a huge mistake folks. I don't give a damn what conservatives think. The fact is that everything conservatives have ever said or proposed has been wrong.

That's enough from you asshole! Permanent Ignore!

Well lets see. Reagan set records fro deficits. The deficits were so bad that Bush had to raise taxes when he said read my lips. But he didn't raise them enough to stop the bleeding so Cintron had to raise them because of the damage Reagan caused and so here comes Newt with all this liberals this and liberals that mess. So then you got in 2000 absolute republican control of DC and in 7 years we faced a depression with new record deficits set because of conservative policies.

Everything conservatives have said has been wrong.

Which President put America further in debt, IM2...Ronald Reagan or Barack Obama?

Bush's policies might have added significantly to the debt while Obama was in office.

While Bush's rate of rise was slower, he nearly doubled the US debt ( 86% ) compared to Obama ( 49% ).

In fact, the upward trend began with Ronald Reagan’s fiscal 1982 budget, declined somewhat from fiscal 1997 through 2001, and resumed the upward climb with George W. Bush’s first budget in fiscal 2002 (which started Oct. 1, 2001).

And the rise accelerated as the economy slid into the worst recession since the Great Depression, starting in December 2007. As the economy shrank, the debt-to-GDP ratio jumped 5 percentage points in the fiscal year that started Oct. 1, 2007, and another 14.8 percentage points during the following year. Obama took office nearly one-third of the way into that 12-month period. At the time, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office was projecting the deficit for that fiscal year would be $1.2 trillion. It later rose to $1.4 trillion after enactment of Obama’s economic stimulus package, to be followed by back-to-back deficits of nearly $1.3 trillion in fiscal 2010 and $1.3 trillion again in fiscal 2011.

If we break this down, we can see that the cost of Bush's policies amount to more than five times the cost of Obama's policies. The Bush tax cuts plus the costly Iraq and Afghanistan wars cost about 2.5 trillion dollars in debt. Also, the Bush administration overspending on defense cost another 1.2 trillion, which spiraled the debt out control. Let's now take a look at Obama's policies. Much of his spending has focused on the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act, but even more has come from a combination of a two-year extension of the Bush tax cuts and other mandatory spending. However, Obama's increased focus on deficit reduction has paid off significantly in the long run. Automatic spending cuts have reduced the deficit by $503 billion, and cuts to defense and Health Care have amounted to a total of about $400 bilion.

Assuming the accuracy of this chart, we can conclude that: The cost of Bush's policies was $5.1 trillion, and the cost of Obama's policies was a mere $983 billion.

You also have to take into account that the year of 2009, in which the debt escalated rapidly, was not the blame of Obama. A new president is forced to adopt the old president's fiscal policies for one year, before they can implement their own more successfully. Therefore, excluding the stimulus package, one added year of debt can be mostly attributed to Bush and his policies.

Bottom Line: It's not fair to blame the debt situation on Obama, singularly because the debt numerically went up more than it did under Bush. Bush inherited a booming economy at the time of his inauguration, but his handling of many events left the country absolutely devastated; Hurricane Katrina, 9/11 (two unnecessary wars), and the looming recession. Obama inherited a country that couldn't go further down, in one of the worst recessions since the Great Depression. He had to live with the Bush tax cuts for 2 years, and two long, brutal wars for 2 after that.

https://www.quora.com/Who-created-more-debt-–-Bush-or-Obama

Pittsburgh mayor hits back after Trump invokes city in climate speech - CNNPolitics.com

BUSH!! BUSH!! BUSH!!

You guys crack me up.

 

[RightyTighty]

I'll start - it makes a global issue into something treated as - a global issue. It also makes it more expensive for other nations making the playing field that much more even (over time).

Thanks Righty. Even if that is true, and I don't believe it is, how does that benefit the middle class in the US?

They have a better chance of competing on a global scale. If the same rules apply (they don't now), the game is on. Maybe the only middle-class people you know work as maids and mow lawns?

So you believe increasing energy costs on the middle class in the US will benefit them and give them a better chance to complete on a global scale. Interesting theory.

Increasing regulations on other nations is what makes making things here more competitive. And increasing prices spurs innovation (if you'd stop giving the technology to China instead of subsiding new industry here).

As I said, you know maids and people who mow lawns. They are worried about the power bill (which is rising as it gets hotter).

So, some more regulation of other nations combined with many more regulations for the US, and some cash payouts by the US, along with more expensive energy will benefit US citizens. Got it. Maybe...

What technology did I give China? I didn't support Bill Clinton.

It is telling that you believe higher energy costs only affect maids and yard maintenance people.

I'm also curious why so many countries are eager to give us this advantage.

They prefer living (to a slow death).

And we gave China solar power (and they are kicking our asses and eating our lunch) because their government paid up and we - didn't.

 

[HenryBHough]

**** macron.

Get in line.

Merkel's not done yet.

 

[JBond]

None of the countries that signed the accord are "required" to do anything, IM2...they've signed on to do things voluntarily! The thing that makes it an awful deal is that Obama signed us up to cut our emissions first and by a large amount before countries like China and India have to cut theirs. There is nothing in that accord that guarantees us that after crippling our economy by making our businesses buy more expensive energy that our competition will comply with the accord years down the line. Once again...who would sign such a bad deal?

Leadership starts with the word lead. You lead by example. Lead means you go first. Follow is when you go after someone else has done it. Seems that a whole bunch of CEOs do not see things as you guys do. Including Tillerson and the new head of Exxon. Too bad.

Again, you are saying to be a leader, the President has to follow what other people think. That makes no sense. The Paris Agreement appears to be a feel good political gesture that will not effect climate change in any meaningful way, but will raise the cost of energy, costing us many good paying jobs and will slow down development which will cause hardships. Unless there is a clear analysis of what would be gained by going along with the Europeans, it would be irresponsible to pay the cost of the Paris Agreement.

Again you don' t seem to understand what real leadership is. What you are talking about has nothing to do with leadership and everything to do with being an arrogant asshole who thinks that you know what's best for everyone so you don't have to listen to anyone. In this situation every nation on earth but 2 had agreed to these things. 1 did not agree because it did not go far enough, not that they opposed it. So then we see that really only one nation did not agree with these accords and that's because its in a civil war and probably not in attendance. So then when you have that kid of agreement between diverse populations of people al with different ideologies and beliefs, it is apparent that things are not as Trump or you think they are.

The entire planet is not getting swindled nor is the entire planet falling for fake science. This is a mistake made by our president and it has reduced our standing in the world.

I've tried to listen to your nonsense, but it is nothing more than shallow end of the pool drivel. You can't even answer a simple question. At least righty tried.

 

[JBond]

Thanks Righty. Even if that is true, and I don't believe it is, how does that benefit the middle class in the US?

They have a better chance of competing on a global scale. If the same rules apply (they don't now), the game is on. Maybe the only middle-class people you know work as maids and mow lawns?

So you believe increasing energy costs on the middle class in the US will benefit them and give them a better chance to complete on a global scale. Interesting theory.

Increasing regulations on other nations is what makes making things here more competitive. And increasing prices spurs innovation (if you'd stop giving the technology to China instead of subsiding new industry here).

As I said, you know maids and people who mow lawns. They are worried about the power bill (which is rising as it gets hotter).

So, some more regulation of other nations combined with many more regulations for the US, and some cash payouts by the US, along with more expensive energy will benefit US citizens. Got it. Maybe...

What technology did I give China? I didn't support Bill Clinton.

It is telling that you believe higher energy costs only affect maids and yard maintenance people.

I'm also curious why so many countries are eager to give us this advantage.

They prefer living (to a slow death).

And we gave China solar power (and they are kicking our asses and eating our lunch) because their government paid up and we - didn't.

Not sure about we. Obama gave a ton of money away to buddies to start some solar firms, and China undercut them using larger subsidies and then purchased several of them for pennies on the dollar.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Trump pulls US from Paris accord (full speech)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djATp3AoUxI

A new leader of the free world has emerged.

Macron SLAMS Trump for WITHDRAWAL of Paris Climate Accord Agreement 6/1/2017 its NOT RENEGOTIABLE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzcrSvF7ZJA

Face it! All you want is American tax dollars!

BUSINESS REACTION

Bob Iger, chief executive of Walt Disney: “As a matter of principle, I’ve resigned from the President’s Council over the #ParisAgreement withdrawal.”

Tim Cook, chief executive of Apple: (From an internal email obtained by the FT) “I spoke with President Trump on Tuesday and tried to persuade him to keep the US in the agreement. But it wasn’t enough . . . I want to reassure you that today’s developments will have no impact on Apple’s efforts to protect the environment.”

Mark Zuckerberg, founder of Facebook: “Withdrawing from the Paris climate agreement is bad for the environment, bad for the economy, and it puts our children’s future at risk . . . Stopping climate change is something we can only do as a global community, and we have to act together before it’s too late.”

Lloyd Blankfein, chief executive of Goldman Sachs: Jamie Dimon, chief executive of JPMorgan Chase: “I absolutely disagree with the administration on this issue, but we have a responsibility to engage our elected officials to work constructively and advocate for policies that improve people’s lives and protect our environment.”

Microsoft: “We all live on a small planet and every nation needs to work with others to protect it . . . We believe that continued US participation [in the Paris agreement] benefits US businesses and the economy in important and multiple ways.”

Walmart: “We think countries working together on shared goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is a laudable and necessary goal.” CEO Doug McMillon will stay on the White House economic advisory council because Walmart feels it’s “important to engage”.

PepsiCo: “PepsiCo’s longstanding commitment to addressing climate change will not change. We have a science-based goal to reduce absolute greenhouse gas emissions across our value chain by at least 20 per cent by 2030, and we will continue taking action to deliver on this goal.”

Jeff Immelt, chief executive of GE: Robert Murray, chief executive of Murray Energy: “We applaud President Trump’s steadfast leadership, and his delivery on this important campaign commitment. Indeed, complete withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord is an integral part of President Trump’s energy agenda”.

Paul Bailey, president of the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity: “The previous administration volunteered to meet one of the most stringent goals of any country in the world, while many other countries do far less to reduce their emissions. Meeting President Obama’s goal would have led to more regulations, higher energy prices, and dependence on less reliable energy sources.”

Barry Worthington, executive director of the US Energy Association: “The US energy industry will continue to reduce emissions, Clean Power Plan or no Clean Power Plan, Paris accord, or no Paris accord. A renegotiated plan will be far superior to the poorly negotiated agreement. We are confident that President Trump took the right step today, putting US interests first.”

David MacLennan, chief executive of Cargill: “It is extremely disappointing. Exiting international accords like the Paris Agreement will negatively impact trade, economic vitality, the state of our environment and relationships amongst the world community.”

General Motors: “GM will not waver from our commitment to the environment and our position on climate change has not changed. International agreements aside, we remain committed to creating a better environment.” Mary Barra, the carmaker’s chief executive, will remain on Mr Trump’s strategy and policy forum.

Ford: “We believe climate change is real, and remain deeply committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions in our vehicles and our facilities.”

Would get some sense, this is backing Coal, which does not create jobs and is a dying method of Energy...

Coal is dead, Fracking is the one killing it... Coal were the only gave credit for this... All the others including oil said this is bad for a America.

Bad for the environment, bad for jobs..


----

"We don't want other leaders and other countries laughing at us anymore, and they won't be. They won't be," Trump said, styling the Paris accord as a global plot to rob America of his freedom and its riches.


Not laughing, just pity...

I'm quite sure corporations are sharing their views as a part of the PR, in relaying their views to avoid a boycott or negative backlash that could hurt their bottom dollar. Very few companies are willing to stand up with their own views and personal beliefs if it could lead to hurting their bottom dollar, most tend to follow what they believe to be "popular trend" at the time. They will say what they believe others want to hear.

Not quite the wayt it is in this situation.

Of course it is. Look at the views projected on Chic-Fil-A for standing up for their views and convictions AGAINST what the main stream liberals believe. Every company has their PR and consumer research team, unless you are now suggesting these CEOs and various company representatives aren't in their positions to obtain a profit.

 

[S.J.]

Trump pulls US from Paris accord (full speech)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djATp3AoUxI

A new leader of the free world has emerged.

Macron SLAMS Trump for WITHDRAWAL of Paris Climate Accord Agreement 6/1/2017 its NOT RENEGOTIABLE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzcrSvF7ZJA

/----- I'm in tears Snowflake bwhahaha bwhahaha bwhahaha

so cute how whiny trump loons pretend they aren't the snowflakes.

you can go back to trolling the internet now.

Sort of like you're doing now?

 

[RightyTighty]

They have a better chance of competing on a global scale. If the same rules apply (they don't now), the game is on. Maybe the only middle-class people you know work as maids and mow lawns?

So you believe increasing energy costs on the middle class in the US will benefit them and give them a better chance to complete on a global scale. Interesting theory.

Increasing regulations on other nations is what makes making things here more competitive. And increasing prices spurs innovation (if you'd stop giving the technology to China instead of subsiding new industry here).

As I said, you know maids and people who mow lawns. They are worried about the power bill (which is rising as it gets hotter).

So, some more regulation of other nations combined with many more regulations for the US, and some cash payouts by the US, along with more expensive energy will benefit US citizens. Got it. Maybe...

What technology did I give China? I didn't support Bill Clinton.

It is telling that you believe higher energy costs only affect maids and yard maintenance people.

I'm also curious why so many countries are eager to give us this advantage.

They prefer living (to a slow death).

And we gave China solar power (and they are kicking our asses and eating our lunch) because their government paid up and we - didn't.

Not sure about we. Obama gave a ton of money away to buddies to start some solar firms, and China undercut them using larger subsidies and then purchased several of them for pennies on the dollar.

We gave no money (and very little support) while China did the opposite. That's why we get our solar technology from them now.