We need to talk about Donald – the Nightmare continues

[Forty Two]

[Forty Two]

So what's Trump's plan to tackle global warming?

First, don't you agree with the Politico analysis? Pretty spot on, isn't it?

And the MIT report is not 0.2 degrees C. It's 3.5 degrees C. Trump, not surprisingly, botched that (or more likely lied).

The MIT report is referenced in the Politico article from 2015, when the final talks were in process. MIT Joint Program Director John Reilly said “Those pledges shave 0.2 C of warming if they’re maintained through 2100, compared with what we assessed would have been the case by extending existing measures [due to expire in 2020] based on earlier international agreements in Copenhagen and Cancun." Reilly is coauthor of 2015 Energy and Climate Change Outlook. https://globalchange.mit.edu/publicatio ... te-outlook

[Forty Two]

A good example of the subsidies is the current Adani coal mine proposal in Australia. Look it up. A couple of billion loan from the government (as no banks or equity firms will fund it), government built train line to the (government built) port, and royalty reductions as a further incentive.

I'm surprised such behavior could occur in a civilized country.

[pErvinalia]

Well it does, and it makes the point to you about subsidies nicely.

[pErvinalia]

So what's Trump's plan to tackle global warming?

First, don't you agree with the Politico analysis? Pretty spot on, isn't it?

And the MIT report is not 0.2 degrees C. It's 3.5 degrees C. Trump, not surprisingly, botched that (or more likely lied).

The MIT report is referenced in the Politico article from 2015, when the final talks were in process. MIT Joint Program Director John Reilly said “Those pledges shave 0.2 C of warming if they’re maintained through 2100, compared with what we assessed would have been the case by extending existing measures [due to expire in 2020] based on earlier international agreements in Copenhagen and Cancun." Reilly is coauthor of 2015 Energy and Climate Change Outlook. https://globalchange.mit.edu/publicatio ... te-outlook

http://m.independent.ie/world-news/nort ... 80859.html

[Forty Two]

Well it does, and it makes the point to you about subsidies nicely.

It doesn't, exactly, because it results in vague numbers. A government constructed port, first of all, is not solely dedicated to a coal mine. So, a port would be considered a "subsidy" to any ship or shipping company using the port, if that's how you're defining subsidy. To analyze that issue we would need to see if the fossil fuel companies are being treated better or or worse than companies in general. Surely, a coal company is just as much entitled to use a port to ship its goods as any other company? Or is this to be viewed as something like "treating them like everyone else is a subsidy because they are worse than everyone else..."?

[pErvinalia]

Well it does, and it makes the point to you about subsidies nicely.

It doesn't, exactly, because it results in vague numbers.

God you are full of shit. Because it isn't an exact figure it therefore doesn't explain how some subsidies do in fact occur? Only in 42 Humpty-Dumpty land...


Didn't bother reading the rest.

[Hermit]

It doesn't, exactly, because it results in vague numbers. A government constructed port, first of all, is not solely dedicated to a coal mine. So, a port would be considered a "subsidy" to any ship or shipping company using the port, if that's how you're defining subsidy. To analyze that issue we would need to see if the fossil fuel companies are being treated better or or worse than companies in general. Surely, a coal company is just as much entitled to use a port to ship its goods as any other company? Or is this to be viewed as something like "treating them like everyone else is a subsidy because they are worse than everyone else..."?

The government's project is to expand the already existing port at Abbot Point, specifically to meet the needs of Adani's proposed Carmichael coal mines. There is no use for that expansion other than for shipping coal. The government also intends to finance the entirety of the 398 kilometre heavy haulage rail link from the mines to the port at a cost of around 1 billion dollars. There is no use of that link other than transporting coal. None of this can be described as special treatment, though. All mining companies operating in Australia are treated in very much the same manner.

[Forty Two]

http://m.independent.ie/world-news/nort ... 80859.html

Point 1 - Trump's allegation was that the climate agreement would decapitate the coal industry. The response was that Trump is wrong because coal has been in gradual decline for a while already. So, of course, the refutation doesn't refute what he said, because the fact that it has been declining doesn't mean we ought to hit it hard now, or that hitting it hard isn't properly described as "decapitating" it.

Point 2 - job creation - Trump's allegation is confirmed by the fact-checker as accurate, but they point out that Trump deserves no credit for it. I mostly agree, as his policies were not in force before the election. However, the accuracy of his statement is not dependent on who is credited, and it was accurate. Moreover, the fact of the increase in jobs was not asserted as a claim of credit, but as a fact that militates, in context, against the Paris Accord, which would work against that favorable trend.

Point 3 - I was elected by Pittsburgh, not Paris - it's a fucking figure of speech. He's referring to himself being the American President, not the world President. He probably should have just said Pennsylvania, not Paris, to retain the alliteration. It's an irrelevant point. And, cities don't vote - states vote - individual voters vote for their State electors, not city or county. Yes, most of Pittsburgh went Hillary, but that wasn't the point he was making.

Point 4 - studies vs studies - the white house pointed to studies showing a significant economic impact of the Paris Accords. The "fact check" says they think those studies are funded by the wrong people, those who oppose climate change. They don't suggest the numbers are wrong, just that some unspecified information was minimized and the studies used "worst case scenarios" they say. No back up is given, just a declaration. Then they say "academic studies" show that there isn't much economic impact - no reference to the studies, and who did them, and whether those studies were funded or undertaken by people who favor climate change, etc. They just hand wave it. If that's fact checking, then it's pretty piss poor. "We have other studies, which we like better, which say you're wrong." Whoop-dee-do.

The last point - notes that Trump correctly cited an MIT report which said .2 degrees C. Note, they quote a guy named Jacobs (not another report or source - just someone they talked to) who says that the Trump administration is quoting an outdated report. Well, the "outdated" report is from 2015, which is not that long ago, and the co-author of the report has been quoted as using that .2 C number. The updated or new report is not cited or referenced, so we don't know what Mr. Jacoby is talking about. He says, though, that the true number is 1 degree celsius. I'll point out that YOU, pErvin, said 3.5 degrees. So, you're wrong either way. However, without the back-up for the 1 degree number, we don't have anything to go on besides Mr. Jacoby word that 1 degree may not sound like a lot, but each tenth means a dramatic reduction on extreme weather events. They found a number that made the point they want to make," Mr Jacoby said. "It's kind of a debate trick."

So, that's the refutation of what Trump said. Wow. Wow.

Politifact said of the .2 degrees statement in Trump's speech - "Trump’s statement about the amount of temperature reduction expected under the treaty is broadly accurate but needs some additional context." -- note - the statement about the amount of temperature reduction is "broadly accurate." The "context" that politifact added was that Reilly, the coauthor of the report, said that the .2 degree number was not enough and we need to do more. Without citation, politifact claims that without the Paris Climate deal we'll have to make even deeper cuts in the future. So, they fact check without any citation, claim Trump is wrong, but only because he's "broadly accurate" but they think, without citation, that we'll have to do more later, if we don't do Paris now. Even though Politifact's check on that point is absurd, at least they didn't try to claim that Reilly's MIT report was "outdated" and then declare a new number without any backup.

I mean - come the fuck on with this nonsense. Fine, disagree with what he said. But there was nothing factually inaccurate about what he said, except, arguably, if you take his Pittsburgh reference literally, and not as a statement that he's President of the US and not other people - I'll give you that one. But, looking at the cite you linked to, and Politifact, which I searched on my own, they're just disagreeing with him, and providing literally no back-up for their rebuttal.

I did wonder why you just threw a link out there without comment. The link did fuck-all to refute Trump in any substantive way, and did nothing to bolster the value of the Paris Accords.

[Forty Two]

It doesn't, exactly, because it results in vague numbers. A government constructed port, first of all, is not solely dedicated to a coal mine. So, a port would be considered a "subsidy" to any ship or shipping company using the port, if that's how you're defining subsidy. To analyze that issue we would need to see if the fossil fuel companies are being treated better or or worse than companies in general. Surely, a coal company is just as much entitled to use a port to ship its goods as any other company? Or is this to be viewed as something like "treating them like everyone else is a subsidy because they are worse than everyone else..."?

The government's project is to expand the already existing port at Abbot Point, specifically to meet the needs of Adani's proposed Carmichael coal mines. There is no use for that expansion other than for shipping coal. The government also intends to finance the entirety of the 398 kilometre heavy haulage rail link from the mines to the port at a cost of around 1 billion dollars. There is no use of that link other than transporting coal. None of this can be described as special treatment, though. All mining companies operating in Australia are treated in very much the same manner.

Link? I'd oppose any public construction like that. Shit like that happens here with, say, sports stadiums. The privately run baseball team wants the taxpayers to foot the bill for the construction of the new facility, or they'll move the team to some other city. They claim that the revenue generated by the team and related businesses justify the public funds because the city makes it back and more down the line.

What I read is that Adani has to pay full royalties on it, with no holiday. the rail line, I read, is common use, open access, meaning it is not dedicated only to Adani. I also read that Adani owns and operates the port. I also read that the funding of the rail line is by a $900 million "loan." Loans are generally paid back with interest. The concern I read of was that the rail line could become a "stranded asset" - meaning that once the mine is no longer operating much, then there is no use for the rail line, which leaves it sitting there doing nothing. Fair point, but none of that seems much like a "subsidy." About the port, I read this - http://www.livemint.com/Companies/QwmMe ... t-Bul.html (doesn't look much like a subsidy).

Any source material on what, exactly, the subsidies are here?

[pErvinalia]

You are just interminable. There's nothing that can be posted to refute what you say without you wasting everyone's time arguing that black is white. I'm sure if you put your emaciated brain to it you can figure out why I only posted a link with no discussion. Discussion is pointless with you. You aren't interested in discussion. You only interested in being a contrarian so as to maintain your biases. A "guy named Jacob" is the co-founder of the MIT climate program. This is the sort of bullshit you pull.

[pErvinalia]

It doesn't, exactly, because it results in vague numbers. A government constructed port, first of all, is not solely dedicated to a coal mine. So, a port would be considered a "subsidy" to any ship or shipping company using the port, if that's how you're defining subsidy. To analyze that issue we would need to see if the fossil fuel companies are being treated better or or worse than companies in general. Surely, a coal company is just as much entitled to use a port to ship its goods as any other company? Or is this to be viewed as something like "treating them like everyone else is a subsidy because they are worse than everyone else..."?

The government's project is to expand the already existing port at Abbot Point, specifically to meet the needs of Adani's proposed Carmichael coal mines. There is no use for that expansion other than for shipping coal. The government also intends to finance the entirety of the 398 kilometre heavy haulage rail link from the mines to the port at a cost of around 1 billion dollars. There is no use of that link other than transporting coal. None of this can be described as special treatment, though. All mining companies operating in Australia are treated in very much the same manner.

Link? I'd oppose any public construction like that.

No one gives a shit whether you'd oppose it. No one is saying you support it. We are trying to explain the nature of some of the subsidies that are given to fossil fuels.

What I read is that Adani has to pay full royalties on it, with no holiday.

Nup. The Queensland government has offered them a discount on the royalties.

the rail line, I read, is common use, open access, meaning it is not dedicated only to Adani.

There's virtually nothing else out there. It's all coal. Technically something else could probably utilise it if it was part of the deal, but the reality is that there's nothing but coal moving on rail out there.

I also read that Adani owns and operates the port. I also read that the funding of the rail line is by a $900 million "loan." Loans are generally paid back with interest.

I've already explained this part to you. The project is commercial unviable without the government loan.

[/quote]

[pErvinalia]

I'll point out that YOU, pErvin, said 3.5 degrees. So, you're wrong either way.

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2017 ... imate-deal

[Feck]

[sarcasm]Can we take a step back from all this Trump bashing nobody wants to comment on all the good he has done ....
Think of the brave American hunters that now , thanks to Trump, can shoot hibernating bears both adults and young and set snares and leg traps in wolves breeding dens.[/sarcasm]
He went beyond stupid and selfish and plumbed the depths of fucking evil with that one .
If you voted for him please poison yourself YOU DESERVE A SLOW DEATH .
PS If you can't think of, or find a suitable poison PM me a postal address and I'll send you some free of charge .

[pErvinalia]

And here it is straight from MIT with quotes from one of the authors. Oh sorry, that should be quotes from "some guy"...

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/6080 ... mate-deal/