[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k] [s4s] [vip] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Home]
Settings Home
/news/ - Current News

4chan Pass users can bypass this verification. [Learn More] [Login]
  • Please read the Rules and FAQ before posting.
  • There are 31 posters in this thread.

10/04/16New board for 4chan Pass users: /vip/ - Very Important Posts
06/20/16New 4chan Banner Contest with a chance to win a 4chan Pass! See the contest page for details.
05/08/16Janitor acceptance emails will be sent out over the coming weeks. Make sure to check your spam box!
[Hide] [Show All]


>As President Donald Trump contemplates whether to make good on his campaign promise to yank the United States out of the Paris climate accord, an unlikely lobbying force is hoping to talk him out of it: oil and coal producers.

>A pro-Paris bloc within the administration has recruited energy companies to lend their support to the global pact to cut greenhouse gas emissions, according to two people familiar with the effort who asked not to be identified.

>Cheniere Energy Inc., which exports liquefied natural gas, became the latest company to weigh in for the pact to cut greenhouse gas emissions in a letter Monday to White House energy adviser G. David Banks.

>"Domestic energy companies are better positioned to compete globally if the United States remains a party to the Paris agreement," Cheniere wrote. The accord "is a useful instrument for fostering demand for America’s energy resources and supporting the continued growth of American industry."

Exxon Mobil Corp., previously led by Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, Royal Dutch Shell Plc and BP Plc also have endorsed the pact.

>The industry campaign to stick with the Paris accord comes amid deep divisions in the Trump administration over the carbon-cutting agreement. Both the president’s daughter, Ivanka Trump, and her husband, Jared Kushner, a White House special adviser, have urged the president to stay in the deal, along with Tillerson.

>On the other side are senior adviser Stephen Bannon and Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt, who on Friday said "we need to exit" the pact.

>Gas producers and exporters are highlighting the value of the agreement, which could help prod a worldwide move toward that fossil fuel.

>Exxon Mobil argued in a letter last month that U.S. slashed its carbon emissions to 20-year lows because of greater use of natural gas, and "this success can be replicated globally” as part of the accord.

>BP spokesman Geoff Morrell said the company continues to support the Paris deal, noting that "it’s possible to provide the energy the world needs while also addressing the climate challenge." And Shell spokesman Curtis Smith said the company remains "strongly in favor" of the agreement.
>Coal producers Cloud Peak Energy Inc. and Peabody Energy Corp. also are lobbying in favor of the accord, even though the miners could be disadvantaged by a global shift toward cleaner sources of electricity. Cloud Peak pitches the Paris agreement as a platform for the U.S. to advocate using carbon capture and other high-efficiency, low-emissions technology to generate electricity from coal.

>Trump is nearing a decision on whether he will fulfill repeated pledges to withdraw the U.S. from the accord he previously derided as "bad for U.S. business." The White House postponed a planned Tuesday meeting of senior administration officials, including Pruitt, Tillerson, Kushner and Bannon, to go over the pros and cons of staying in the agreement, according to an aide citing a scheduling conflict.

>The administration will decide what to do before late next month, when world leaders gather for the Group of Seven summit in Italy, White House press secretary Sean Spicer said.

>Not every energy executive is on board. Coal baron Robert E. Murray has been outspoken in criticizing the deal, arguing it’s "just a way for other countries to get American money."
>Chevron Corp. Chief Executive Officer John Watson said in a Columbia University Center on Global Energy Policy podcast that more needs to be known about how the Paris accord will translate into policy under Trump.

>And some independent oil companies -- those without significant gas production that could benefit from greater international demand -- have quietly opposed the pact.

>Perhaps for that reason, the leading oil industry trade group, the American Petroleum Institute, has not taken a formal position on the Paris agreement. Instead, API spokesman Michael Tadeo casts the accord as a missed opportunity to talk about U.S. leadership “in reducing carbon emissions which are near 30-year lows in electricity generation due to increased use of natural gas brought by hydraulic fracturing."
>Supporters have argued that remaining in the pact would maintain goodwill with international trading partners, facilitating U.S. energy exports, including expanded sales of liquefied natural gas abroad. Business Council for Sustainable Energy, which represents Calpine Corp., FuelCell Energy, Johnson Controls Inc., and 50 other companies and trade groups, warned Tillerson that backtracking on the Paris pledge risks "retaliatory trade policies reducing market share for U.S. products" and "consumer boycotts of U.S. goods and services."

>Trump has already moved to dismantle a raft of Obama-era climate policies that would help the U.S. satisfy the commitment it made with more than 190 other nations to slash greenhouse gas emissions. His budget director, Mick Mulvaney, described plans to cut government spending on climate change as stopping a "waste" of taxpayer money. And energy ministers from G7 nations earlier this month took the unusual step of declining to issue a joint statement endorsing the Paris agreement after the U.S. balked.

>The Paris agreement itself is really an array of individual, country-specific pledges, such as the U.S. promise to cut greenhouse gas emissions at least 26 percent from 2005 levels by 2025. It is not legally binding and there are no formal sanctions in place for failure to comply.
>White House officials who support Paris highlight the lack of repercussions. A key argument is that the U.S. can stay in the agreement without satisfying its pledge or maintaining regulations designed to help achieve the target, said one administration official.

>Remaining in the pact preserves options for the White House -- even years down the line, ClearView Energy Partners said in a research note to clients Monday. There’s no near-term imperative to abandon it, ClearView said, but there may be a political incentive to wait: "The Trump administration might want to keep Paris defection in its pocket, because jettisoning it later could serve as a way to gin up political support closer to the 2020 re-election race."

>Trump can’t pull the U.S. out of the worldwide pact immediately, though he could begin a four-year process of withdrawing. And the president has several possible techniques for formally extricating the U.S.: He can make the change unilaterally or punt the decision to the Senate, by interpreting the accord as a treaty that requires the support of two-thirds of the chamber’s members to be ratified. That’s currently an insurmountable political hurdle.

>Trump has effectively defanged the Paris deal by rescinding domestic greenhouse gas regulations, said Richard Reavey, Cloud Peak’s vice president of government affairs, so there’s little to gain from the U.S. forfeiting its formal status at the United Nations climate fund after giving $1 billion to it.

>"We own the seat, and we’re not going to incur the economic harm that the U.S. pledge would have imposed," Reavey said by phone. "Why would the U.S. give up the opportunity to stay at the table, even if it’s just to tell everybody they’re wrong?"
>Conservatives alarmed by the corporate advocacy are stepping up their opposition, arguing that the potential international political benefits the U.S. may gain on the world stage by staying in the deal are outmatched by the political fallout Trump would experience at home.

>"This is a campaign promise -- a specific promise the president made repeatedly," said Mike McKenna, a Republican energy lobbyist. "He’s not just going to be able to walk away from it."

>The U.S. has a unique opportunity to disentangle itself from the accord now -- while Trump is a new president and the deal itself is in its infancy. Any diplomatic blowback from international allies would be short-lived, argues Chris Horner, a senior legal fellow with the Energy and Environment Legal Institute.
>By contrast, he said, remaining in the deal would ensure a constant cycle of international criticism because countries have committed to a new round of carbon-cutting commitments every five years. "The Paris agreement pressure machine will trigger blowback every time the president, Congress or future administrations deviate from Obama’s emission-reduction promises, hesitate to subsidize green-energy ventures abroad" or fail to adopt more stringent targets, Horner said.

>Critics of the deal also warn that the U.S. commitment could extend from Paris to the courtroom, seized by environmentalists as evidence the EPA is bound to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. Paris opponents plan a deep analysis on those potential legal risks to bolster their case against staying.

>"The Paris agreement is designed to undermine American self government over the long term because the whole point of it is to put the United States inside a political pressure cooker" and influence domestic energy policy, said Marlo Lewis, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. "The coal companies and oil and gas companies that are flirting with the Paris agreement don’t understand the existential threat that they’re buying into.”
They've finally found a way to make money off it, no other reason why they would defend it so abruptly.
Climate change isn't real
lol science
>no other reason why they would defend it so abruptly.
How about it's actually happening?
NB4 globalist shills.
what does gloablsim have to do with it?
>UN conspiracy theories.
>calls to withdraw from the UN.
Oh so The Heritage Foundation then.
>Koch conspiracy theorist.
You give big Oil and Coal too much credit.
It isn't a theory if it's actually happening.
What about the Soros conspiracy?
good PR and increased cost for any who tries to become a big oil or coal business
Now they can say in court when the lawsuits start to fall, "we never denied climate change".
Doesn't matter if President Trump himself believed in AGW, it would not make it true.


>There is little doubt the air's CO2 concentration has risen significantly since the inception of the Industrial Revolution; and there are few who do not attribute the CO2 increase to the increase in humanity's use of fossil fuels. There is also little doubt the earth has warmed slightly over the same period;

>but there is no compelling reason to believe that the rise in temperature was caused by the rise in CO2. Furthermore, it is highly unlikely that future increases in the air's CO2 content will produce any global warming; for there are numerous problems with the popular hypothesis that links the two phenomena.

>A weak short-term correlation between CO2 and temperature proves nothing about causation.

>Strong negative climatic feedbacks prohibit catastrophic warming.

>Growth-enhancing effects of CO2 create an impetus for cooling.

>There is no evidence for warming-induced increases in extreme weather.

>Elevated levels of atmospheric CO2 are a boon to the biosphere.

>Atmospheric CO2 enrichment brings growth and prosperity to man and nature alike.
Damn Chinese!
For every Soros on the left there are 10 billionaires on the right doing worse things.
Republican double think at its finest!

>Global warming action is bad because it hurts the energy sector and therefore our economy.

>Global warming action is bad because it benefits the energy sector. They're just saying it to make money!!

Get your fucking opinion straight.
Well, what you gonna do about it?
About what? Everything's fine.
Demonstrably untrue. Most big donors are leftist.


Charles and David Koch are the two most evil people in American politics, right? We know that because Jane Mayer proved it with her landmark "Covert Operations" tour de liberal force in 2010.

Well, it turns out that Mayer's aim was off just a little, by like 58 slots on the all-time biggest donors in American politics list, as compiled by OpenSecrets.org.

OpenSecrets.org tallied the top donors in federal elections between 1989 and 2014. Koch Industries -- privately owned by the Evil Koch Bros -- is on the list, to be sure, but doesn't appear until the 59th slot, with $18 million in donations, 90 percent of which went to Republicans.

Unions, unions, unions

So who occupies the 58 spots ahead of the Evil Koch Bros? Six of the top 10 are ... wait for it ... unions. They gave more than $278 million, with most of it going to Democrats.

These are familiar names: AFSCME ($60.6 million), NEA ($53.5 million), IBEW ($44.4 million), UAW ($41.6 million), Carpenters & Joiners ($39.2 million) and SEIU ($38.3 million).

In other words, the six biggest union donors in American politics gave 15 times more to mostly Democrats than the Evil Koch Bros.

Wall Street and Act Blue, too

Three of the remaining four slots in the top 10 were taken by AT&T ($56.4 million), National Association of Realtors ($51.2 million) and Goldman Sachs ($44.8 million).

So, if money is the measure of evil in American politics and the Evil Koch Bros only come in 59th, who is really the most evil donor ever?

Turns out it's Act Blue, with just short of $100 million in contributions during its lifetime, which only started in 2004, 15 years after the Evil Koch Bros in the OpenSecrets.org compilation.

>implying you care about big donors
>Demonstrably untrue
Wrong. Most billionaire political activists are conservative. Further, they fund most of the policy institutes and think tanks in the world, which are also are conservative.

>quotes a Washington Examiner blog post with cherry picked opensecret.org data instead of actually going to opensecrets.org
Oh boy do you've got a lot to learn.


Nice websites. Those are the same ones i just used to make my case, you dumbass ideologue.

6/10 top donors are leftist.
No you didn't, you posted the condensed and spun version from the washington examiner, a notorious smear merchant blog. What they (and you) left out is that 6 out of the top 10 are liberal (Bill gates donates equally to both so it should really be 5 out of 10) but 70 out of the top 100 are conservative, ,and that doesn't count dark money, through which conservatives outspend liberals 10 to 1. Don't take my word for it, go ask Americans for Prosperity and The Eagle Forum where they get their money and see if they tell you.
You're a joke. You don't even give a fuck about donors, obviously.

Republicans are bad! That's all you jave to say. And you'll say anything to give that impression.
Way to ignore 100% of the substance of my post and resort to adhoms. Try not to be so predictable next time.

This projection is sad. Are you that liberals who's replys I kept predicting? I guess you got pretty butthurt.

I posted facts provibg that most big donors are liberal. You posted some irrelevant bullshit and pretended that was an argument. You actually libked to the exact website that proved my case.

That's exactly the kind of reply I was mocking you for making in the other thread.
Whoa there hoss, don't go changing the goalposts so quickly. Let's break this down one by one.

>This projection is sad.
Typical /pol/ buzzword usage here. If anyone asked an actual psychologist they would tell you there is little to no projection being indicated on either side.

>Are you that liberals who's replys I kept predicting?
Does this happen a lot?
>I guess you got pretty butthurt.
That's why you keep replying with adhoms and buzzwords instead of arguments, right?

>I posted facts provibg that most big donors are liberal.
No, you posted a Washington Examiner spin-ladended whopper which misrepresented what was on opensecrets.org. It listed the "top 10 donors" but left out the other 90.

>You posted some irrelevant bullshit and pretended that was an argument.
No, I posted the links to the opensecrets pages the Examiner was referencing so you or anyone can see how radically different the information on those pages is from what the Examiner was claiming.
>You actually libked to the exact website that proved my case.
No, I linked to the actual fact, as where you linked to the "alternative" fact.
>That's exactly the kind of reply I was mocking you for making in the other thread.
I don't know who you think I am but you might have a megalomaniacal problem.
Wow look at all that bullshit. Really gives the impression of substance.



>50 top donors broken down by party affiliation
>26/50 are leftist
>of the top 10, 8/10 are leftist
>only 20/50 donors are right wing

Basic math. You were wrong. Not that you give a shit. Republicans are bad, that's the point! You'll say anything to make tgat case.
>actually bringing math up
And if I was conveniently totally ignoring that 70+/100 are conservative like you are, you'd be right. Good thing that isn't how it is though.


And then additionally conveniently ignoring Karl Rove's and Dick Durbin's dark money farms.


This is misleading.

8 of the top 20 donors are leftist. But thats far too simple! They'd rather show some the biggest conservative donors and imply most donors are leftist.

When you look at the forbes ranking of the people on that page, its not ranks 1-10.

Its number 7, 8, 10, 20, 29, 40, 49, 92.

Why not use the richest 10 people? Because that shows they're leftist.

You dirty lying rat.
This bullshit list also focus on people, rather than organizations, which also skews the list to favor communists.
>karl rove
>dick literally who

Why is it that whenever one debates a liberal, they find themselves discussing irrelevant nonsense.

I'm starting to get the impression you're just a liar.
opensecrets has separate categories for that if you'd to care to peruse the data for yourself, or then you might accidentally see something bad about conservatives and your head would explode.

They show the biggest conservative donors because conservatives are the biggest most prolific donors. They are not leftist and I'm not the dirty lying rat in the conversation.
>doesn't even know who the House Minority Whip is and biggest wrangler of dem dark money
Get on my level, Anon.

What could I be lying about when I've proved what I'm saying is true? Lying about what?
>opensecrets has separate categories
Irrelevant facts wow Really looks like an argument

>They show the biggest conservative donors because conservatives are the biggest most prolific donors.

Then why are 8 of the top 10 donors leftist?

Its sooo simple. The simplest sort of math. You are plainly wrong.

See how the liberal tries to take the conversation in another direction

Its almost like you're just trying to mislead people???? Nah ur probably just stupid.

Pretty smart of this communist government to try and buddy up to Trump. They need help, and America is the only option.

Gl Venezuela
Why was Citizen's United pushed by Bannon and other rich conservatives?

Why would rich capitalists support a movement that hates them and wants to take away their wealth?

Rich can differ greatly on social policy, but they're mostly on the same page when it comes to economics and taxes.
>I only speak the truth and only the truth
> I showed undeniable fact that Humans have nothing to do with Climate Change and that you're all butthurt that you liberalfags lost the government. In fact, you communist scums are going to lose to the raising nationalist party of people with more brains that you children fucking faggots.
>You liberals are always predictable.
> I'm ain't going to elaborate shit because of >>133826 >>133761
>I came to laugh at you liberals, because I'm convince I'll never get a well rounded argument with you losers.
This proves that Liberals can't hold a fucking argument that they're resort to insults and mockery!

Explain Earth's Historic Data.

Explain why we have 1000x more CO2 in the Ice Age.

Explain why the melting of glaciers isn't a good thing.

You can't! And that's why AGW is a fucking Myth created by Communists to inslave the economy!
Rich people do things that make and keep themselves rich. Poor people do the opposite. The rich deserve their wealth because they are the only ones who matter in human society. They are the best and brightest, the most ruthless and intelligent, the very tip of the human race, who've clawed their way to the top. The rest of us are just taking part in the economy and society they created for us.
Since they're too pussy to reply I'll practice my liberal impression.

First of all, your source is shit.

Second of all, I actually agree! But you're wrong.

Thirdly, 2+2 = 4. Therefore, youre wrong again!

Forth of all, who cares? You're like obsessed LOL. Racist much?

Fifthly, you hurted my feelings so you couldnt possibly be right.
They're all pussies, and /news/ is infected with them.

That's why we should call out all the marxists that supported unwanted regulations like the Paris Agreement.
Who are you talking about, Cletus?
Fuck off you lefty racist
lol I believe the response you are craving is NO U
You said something racist. I called you a racist. There was no "no u."

Once again the liberal displays his total lack of originality. Shit doesn't even make sense.

This will never change until you stop bring a communist.
Everyone except libtards like you.
Are you done with your autistic screeching fit now?
ok listen guys usa vs russia and prok is just a distraction Exxon is making a potential 8 trillion doller possible long term oil deal with russian oil and happy 420

Would you happen to have a source on that my good man?
You failed to address >>133964

You proved that Liberals are incapable of having an honest debate.
exxon requested some sanction waiver papers to be signed the russian oil company that owns the 8 trillion dollas worth of untapped oil and gas in russia and blacksea is rosnef, exxon is investing 500billion and estimated return is about 7 trillion that money goes some to the oligarchs anf some to le putin
Found it

HOUSTON — Exxon Mobil is pursuing a waiver from Treasury Department sanctions on Russia to drill in the Black Sea in a venture with Rosneft, the Russian state oil company, a former State Department official said on Wednesday. An oil industry official confirmed the account.

The waiver application was made under the Obama administration, the officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity, and the company has not dropped the proposal.

The proposal is now before the Trump administration at a delicate time in Russian-American relations, with rising tensions over the war in Syria and a looming congressional inquiry into reports of Russian efforts to influence the United States presidential election.

The appeal did not come up during Senate confirmation hearings for Secretary of State Rex W. Tillerson, who was Exxon Mobil’s chief executive before his nomination by President Trump and was known to have a strong working relationship with President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia. At the time, Mr. Tillerson and other company officials said they had not lobbied against the sanctions, which were imposed on Russia in response to its military intervention in Ukraine.

But Mr. Tillerson and company officials did note that Exxon Mobil had received a waiver to complete drilling of an exploration well in Russia’s Arctic waters. Company officials also disclosed that they had urged Obama administration officials to make American sanctions consistent with European Union sanctions, which gave greater latitude to European companies to continue taking part in some Russian projects.

Post articles from real sites, like Fox News.


Anything from Ultra conservative sites like Breitbart?
trust its all a cover up no war will happen
>Ties to the American Legislative Exchange Council which is a corporate lobbying group

>Unions, unions, unions.
You want to do a little math there bud, it seems that a large group of individuals has only a small advantage with political power versus the two brothers. Per brother, That's 9, count it Nine... Millions dollars as opposed to IBEW with 725,000 members. Doing averages, that would put it at $60, that is six tens, $60 from each person that contributed to politics. You just need another two and a half brothers to match All of IBEW's members

A single Koch brother has the Power of 84,000 Auto workers. (UAW)
A single Koch brother has the Power of 120,000 Carpenters. (Carpenters & Joiners)
A single Koch brother has the Power of 150,000 Electricians. (IBEW)
A single Koch brother has the Power of 200,000 Public service workers. (AFSCME)
A single Koch brother has the Power of 450,000 Health care workers, Public service workers and Property service workers. (SEIU)
A single Koch brother has the Power of 500,000 Educational professionals (including janitors). (NEA)

Now I don't care who they throw their money at, Left, Right, Up, Down, it just seems a bit unfair.
This is too committed to be trolling, I've never honestly believed it until now but is this guy just a shill? Like did someone pay this guy to go insane in this thread? If you're so interested in this, and have such a passion against liberals, why not write a book, or do a podcast, or something else than just scream at nobody because everyone else abandoned the thread?
He's from /pol/. Enough said.
Lots of fucking shills in here
They worked for all that money and power. If being rich was easy and didn't take talent, then everyone would be rich.

>implying that's a bad thing

CREW going overtime.
Reminder that greenhouse gas emissions are a red herring
The real issue is an energy crisis
Attempts to reduce emissions are futile since we're going to use every barrel of fossil fuels we can anyway, and measures to reduce emissions are costly and largely ineffective
You forget luck is a big factor in whether you can get rich or not.
If you are born in a poor area with poor access to any knowledge and with the stupid and ugly genes, you are never going to be rich. Now this talent you speak of, it doesn't exist. You are fed lies by those that want to keep their skill in specific areas above yours. Practice plus brains equals your so called 'talent', you can practice all you want but a stupid shit will always produce shit and someone who doesn't practice... well you get the picture.
Ugh communism is disgusting

You're just a loser and its your own fault
Oh dear, I realize I was arguing for equity for all. Hmm...

>You're just a loser and its your own fault
Yes, yes it is. It seems you are mad about that too. I suggest you calm down and take a breather, maybe go outside and enjoy some daylight as well.
you're arguing for communism

You want to give the government more power

You want to steal shit from hard working peope because youre a lazy shitlord
You're wrong about the lazy and giving the government more power. I do see I was going down the commy route though (wealth distribution), and I admitted that here:
>Oh dear, I realize I was arguing for equity for all. Hmm...
The rest is all in your head though. Bud, go outside, I'm about to do that too! I'm going to go get those freedom rays from the sun. Freedom because they are free as in free beer and not as in free slave.
>taxes are theft
when will this meme die
and the friendly neighborhood mobster needs to collect his "protection money" for the safety of the community, right?
I speak for the truth against the lies from welfare queens, communists, tree huggers, and othe parasitic liberals that infest /news/ with their "social justice environmentalism".

You liberals are the source of my entertainment.
The main problem with arguing for wealth distribution is that you're missing and misnaming the actual problem.
It doesn't matter if a person becomes inmensely rich, as long as he's not raping your daughters and shit. The true problem is that low classes are too poor. Whether it's Capitalism itself that causes this, or simple exploitation and corruption, or something else, that's the debate.
I don't know of a fancy meme name for this, and I fully believe the lack of one is the reason why it became such an important argument for the commies, for they do not always see the problems of communism and instead adhere to "we're too poor, you're too rich".
To hell with your marxist propaganda.

Wealth gaps are natural; it's what separates the great from the small, the hard workers from the lazy parasites, the good from the bad, and the geniuses from the retards.
>marxist propaganda
You belong in another century, my friend.
You belong in a synagogue*

>*note: jewish is not a race, therefore anti-jewishism is not against the rules regarding "blatant racism"
It is a race culture and religion anon try again.
if it's a religion, what are their beliefs?

if it's a race, what is the ethnicity?

it's just a culture.
I don't need to spoon feed you go look it up yourself.
why would you even reply if you don't have anything to say?
You don't think Judaism is a religion?
Judaism is not a precursor to jewishness

See: athiest jews
This right here. I personally don't understand why we need to be in a pact to try and promote climate protection. It's a core aspect we should research and get better at regardless if we impact the climate that much or not.
I think it doesn't have to do with how poor the low class is but how big the low, middle and high classes are. At it's most basic, taxes are wealth redistribution, wealth redistribution for a cause that usually produces something the general populace will use. Roads, Military, Subsidized Electric and Water/Sewer, FireFucks and the list goes on and on.

When libertards finally kick the bucket. Nobody in their right mind would leave all of the good that taxes for an anarcho-capitalist dystopia. Go to Russia if you want that kind of life.
The -ist in alarmist suggests that someone blows every issue out of proportion.
As in, it's a typical characteristic of their behavior; their default mode.

Like, if all those scientists then went on to say that healthcare reform and gay marriage and the price of milk would lead to the destruction of the climate, that would be alarmist.

Scientists raising alarm about something alarming (or really, dozens of alarming global problems that collectively constitute global warming) isn't alarmist. It's just being alarmed at a thing that is alarming, because it's well understood to be a massive, very well established series of problems with massive consequences.
Scientists aren't alarmed about the climate. It's just politicians and liberals.
Pretty much this, regulations are hated before implementation but once enacted and dealt with they are appreciated by large industries. This being because every regulation is an additional cost for a would be competitor.
Not commenting on whether or not dropping the Paris accord is good or bad, but saying large companies don't want it repealed is hardly news. It's really just propaganda for the pro-Paris camp to say 'even they think it's bad to repeal!' Of course with them not stating that the reasons of the environmentalists and industries are completely different.
Yep, not news, just propaganda.
>pro-Paris camp
So the entire civilized word then? Your comment is more propaganda than the OP post is.

Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.