Obama's rotten climate deal with China

[untermensche]

The deal lacks an enforcement mechanism. Thus it will not be followed, it's a bad deal.

Of course nobody is going to agree to something with an enforcement mechanism, that would mean they actually had to follow through.

Yes, we know your opinion.

Any deal with China is a bad deal.

The deal is what was agreed to.

China is suffering because of it's pollution.

It's insane to think it doesn't want to address it.

 

[Underseer]

The deal lacks an enforcement mechanism. Thus it will not be followed, it's a bad deal.

Of course nobody is going to agree to something with an enforcement mechanism, that would mean they actually had to follow through.

Yes, we know your opinion.

Any deal with China is a bad deal.

The deal is what was agreed to.

China is suffering because of it's pollution.

It's insane to think it doesn't want to address it.

It's not insane if you believe polluting has no negative consequences and that any attempt by the government to curtail pollution is an act of oppression against innocent corporations.

 

[bilby]

Yes, we know your opinion.

Any deal with China is a bad deal.

The deal is what was agreed to.

China is suffering because of it's pollution.

It's insane to think it doesn't want to address it.

It's not insane if you believe polluting has no negative consequences and that any attempt by the government to curtail pollution is an act of oppression against innocent corporations.

The Chinese are, today, in a similar position to where the US and UK were in the 1950s - they have ignored pollution as a minor issue and 'cost of doing business' to the point where it now impacts everyone - including the ruling classes - almost daily.

Once that happens - once the Prime Minister, President, or First Secretary can't walk from his office to his limo without coughing up half a lung, despite having relocated to a nice rural setting - something finally gets done. Nobody cares about the workers, but when the ruling class are affected, it is time to act.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The deal lacks an enforcement mechanism. Thus it will not be followed, it's a bad deal.

Of course nobody is going to agree to something with an enforcement mechanism, that would mean they actually had to follow through.

Yes, we know your opinion.

Any deal with China is a bad deal.

The deal is what was agreed to.

China is suffering because of it's pollution.

It's insane to think it doesn't want to address it.

It's not that they are China that means it's a bad deal. Rather, on this topic China isn't interested in actually addressing the issue--that would step on too many powerful toes and do too much economic damage. Thus any good deal they aren't going to sign.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Yes, we know your opinion.

Any deal with China is a bad deal.

The deal is what was agreed to.

China is suffering because of it's pollution.

It's insane to think it doesn't want to address it.

It's not insane if you believe polluting has no negative consequences and that any attempt by the government to curtail pollution is an act of oppression against innocent corporations.

It's not that they think it has no negative consequences. Rather, it's a matter that for those in power the downside is greater than the upside. Doing something about it would cost money and it would cost the kickbacks they get for ignoring the problem. It wouldn't help the powerful much, though, and since China is not a democracy they don't have to worry about the candidate that will pledge to actually do something.

Thus the strategy of paying lip service to it in order to keep the grumbles under control, but not actually addressing it.

 

[untermensche]

It's not insane if you believe polluting has no negative consequences and that any attempt by the government to curtail pollution is an act of oppression against innocent corporations.

It's not that they think it has no negative consequences. Rather, it's a matter that for those in power the downside is greater than the upside. Doing something about it would cost money and it would cost the kickbacks they get for ignoring the problem. It wouldn't help the powerful much, though, and since China is not a democracy they don't have to worry about the candidate that will pledge to actually do something.

Thus the strategy of paying lip service to it in order to keep the grumbles under control, but not actually addressing it.

This is pulled from your rear end.

It has nothing to do with the real world.

Your two dimensional black and white comic book view of the world is noted.

Again.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It's not that they think it has no negative consequences. Rather, it's a matter that for those in power the downside is greater than the upside. Doing something about it would cost money and it would cost the kickbacks they get for ignoring the problem. It wouldn't help the powerful much, though, and since China is not a democracy they don't have to worry about the candidate that will pledge to actually do something.

Thus the strategy of paying lip service to it in order to keep the grumbles under control, but not actually addressing it.

This is pulled from your rear end.

It has nothing to do with the real world.

Your two dimensional black and white comic book view of the world is noted.

Again.

You have a very unrealistic view of the motivations of governments.

You assume anything from the US is wrong, you assume anything from someone opposed to us is right.

If China actually cared about pollution why do they basically turn a blind eye to things that make Love Canal look like the Garden of Eden?