Archive for Tuesday, June 6, 2017

Lawrence mayor takes stand against Trump’s withdrawal from Paris climate agreement

Lawrence Mayor Leslie Soden, left, has signed onto a statement expressing support for the Paris climate agreement. President Donald Trump, right, announced on June 1 that he was withdrawing the United States from the agreement.

Lawrence Mayor Leslie Soden, left, has signed onto a statement expressing support for the Paris climate agreement. President Donald Trump, right, announced on June 1 that he was withdrawing the United States from the agreement.

June 6, 2017

Advertisement

Lawrence Mayor Leslie Soden has joined with more than 1,000 other city and corporate leaders in the U.S. by signing onto a statement expressing support for the Paris climate agreement.

“I was happy to step up and say Lawrence is still in,” Soden said at the City Commission meeting Tuesday. “Climate change and the sustainability of our city is something I take very seriously, and I will continue to take any action that protects the future sustainability of Lawrence.”

President Donald Trump withdrew the United States from the climate agreement last week, making the U.S., Syria and Nicaragua the only countries in the world to not participate in the landmark accord. The president's decision has drawn global condemnation.

None by Leslie Soden

The Paris climate agreement is an effort sponsored by the United Nations to get nations to cooperate in addressing global warming and climate change.

In the aftermath of Trump's withdrawal, many states, cities and businesses, including more than a dozen Fortune 500 companies, are taking a stand against the president and making their own commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by signing onto a statement known as "We Are Still In."

The statement calls Trump's decision "a grave mistake that endangers the American public and hurts America's economic security and diplomatic reputation."

Check back as this story develops.

Comments

Harlan Hobbs 5 months, 2 weeks ago

That's nice. I am sure that it will make a world of difference. Ho hum!

Bob Summers 5 months, 2 weeks ago

The object of the Paris deal was to give tax payer money "climate finance" to third world countries.

What self respecting Liberal would be against giving other peoples money away?

answer: none

Good job Mayor.

RJ Johnson 5 months, 2 weeks ago

Sounds like Lawrence, robbing Peter to pay Paul!

Paul Beyer 5 months, 2 weeks ago

See the usual deplorable group doesn't like what she did.

Scott Quenette 5 months, 2 weeks ago

Is this mayor good for anything other than virtue signaling?

Harlan Hobbs 5 months, 2 weeks ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

Harlan Hobbs 5 months, 2 weeks ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

RJ Johnson 5 months, 2 weeks ago

City employees should keep their political views to themselves!

Paul Beyer 5 months, 2 weeks ago

You do realize she's an elected official, not a city employee? But anyone who questions the incompetent "prez" must be silenced. Go back to fox, they cater to deplorable people always. See harlan already had 2 mindless rants deleted, how's your record holding up?

RJ Johnson 5 months, 2 weeks ago

1. The Mayors position is not an elected position. The Mayor is appointment by the City Commissioners. #2. I have never had a post removed!

Paul Beyer 5 months, 2 weeks ago

But she is a City Commissioner, ergo she is an elected person. The fact that she was selected for a leadership position does not make her a city employee!

Michael Kort 5 months, 2 weeks ago

Gee.......i a wondering if presidential wonder assistant Kris Danger Man Kobach has discovered anyone trying to tamper with the US Presidential Elections this week ?...........i think that it might be another country, whose name just happens to starts with an " R " ?

The fact that the word Republican also starts with an " R " ............is just a coincidence .

Of course, they arrested the woman who outed the Russians' hacking of our election machine programs to the press because it was supposed to be top secret information that Trump wanted kept that way .........i wonder why ?......don't you ?.......because inquiring minds want to know all about Fake Elections that don't involve Mexicans but do involve the Russians and Fake President Trump .

I understand why people don't want to support this guy or the crazy things that he keeps doing .

David Reynolds 5 months, 2 weeks ago

I know some don't like this site but I present this to allow some perspective. The so called MSM haven't printed it I am aware. It doesn't fit the paradigm.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/06/06/delingpole-global-warming-is-myth-58-scientific-papers-2017/

Ken Lassman 5 months, 2 weeks ago

Ho, hum; the reason why your link is so silly is because even though it's way too early to pick cherries, your "article" has collected a whole bushel of them. For a perspective on such cherry picking activities from the real scientific community, try visiting: https://skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-january-2007-to-january-2008-intermediate.htm

Richard Aronoff 5 months, 2 weeks ago

Here is a link to Chris Wallace's interview with Al Gore on Fox News Sunday. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlVwN_RAWIQ

You will hear Gore admit that the Paris agreement would have had little or no impact on the climate --- but it sent an "important message."

Between my smart phone and email address book, I could sent an "important message" to several hundred people for free. I imagine the governments of the developed world could do the same thing.

The Paris agreement was like a candlelight vigil after a terrorist attack. It might make the participants feel better but it would have done nothing to fix the problem.

Better idea: The government should offer a multi-billion dollar cash prize to anyone who can develop an affordable, renewable and non-polluting replacement for fossil fuels. No subsidies. No tax credits. After announcing the prize the government should just get out of the way.

Ken Lassman 5 months, 2 weeks ago

Gore's point was that Paris doesn't go far enough: it's a good start, but the plan is that each country will get started and establish easier-to-reach-but-inadequate-to-stop-climate-change standards, and then in 2020, each country will be asked to revisit the standards that they set for themselves and up the ante.

This isn't a contest to create a magic bullet, winner-take-all type of scenario, either. For the scope and breadth of the required changes if we really want to convert to a low carbon future, every energy producer and consumer will be affected, up and down every supply chain of every industry, from countries with no or very little cash economy to emerging middle class economies in Asia and Africa, to mature economies with global outreach. The role of governments in this wide ranging of an issue is precisely what Paris is doing: giving each country control over setting up its own goals and monitoring, then ramping up the process over time at a rate the local economic conditions can bear, with the outcome hopefully heading off the worst long-term effects that will take millennia to reverse if we continue to go down the path we've been on.

David Reynolds 5 months, 2 weeks ago

Ken the reason you don't like the article is it challenges the GW/CC paradigm.

As we discussed before you want to talk about real science. Well in real science their are those challenging ideas. Each challenge leads to better science. In this case either in favor of AGW or not, or maybe if AGW is true in some respects then those respects get addressed.

I don't care if the articles are avocado picked, they cast doubt, which has yet to be refuted. (Your cherry picked remark is aimed to denegrate...sorry that liberal trick is all about the GW/CC crowd has left 😢)

Regarding Al Gore, why does anyone listen to him? He lives the lie, on one hand he promotes saving Mother Earth, yet between his jetting around & @ home lifestyle, his CO2 footprint embarresses him. Al is in this for his personal $$$$$$ gain. If Al is pushing for more efforts in GW, then watch the $ trail.

America doesn't need a Paris Treaty. It's the GW/CC crowd that needs the Paris Treaty.

America has & will continue to make progress in it's CO2 footprint. We just don't need some entity or foriegn government dictating to us.

Additionally we can keep our $ billions to invest in America.

And we don't need to be in a position to be sued by anyone or thing because we didn't do something.

What's really interesting here is the GW/CC crowd is missing the boat on their whole endeavor to get their way on CC. They missed the business side.

The GW/CC crowd only speaks in negative terms. They only speak about what's not being done. They need to speak about the positive sides. For example many companies for years have marketed the companies based on their green efforts thinking its good business.

The GW/CC crowd could promote those companies & applaud their efforts and show the positive economic gain by going green. Anything the GW crowd is doing, at least its not in the public domain.

I also really like Richards idea of a prize for a major break through or multiple prizes for various break throughs. England did this to develop a longitude clock (AKA Marine Chronometer) to solve navigation problems.

As I have said before America will move ahead on greening efforts based on sound economics.

If the GW/CC crowd would get on the positive side of the equation vs staying on the negative it might be surprising what can be accomplished by working together within our own economy.

Ken Lassman 5 months, 2 weeks ago

That article doesn't challenge the scientific consensus at all, David. Cherry picking is not real science and that's all that article was about! The aggregator did his homework all right: he found every dip or pause in local/regional weather record, distored X and Y axes to downplay upward trends and presented it as somehow representative of global trends, which is bad science, bad statistics, and bad distortion of the overall record, period. If you did that kind of selective statistical snipping in grad school, you'd be thrown out on your ear and you know it. You have yet to back up your words with real, statistically valid data or analyses, David, and your denialist go-to non-science aggregators have come up very quiet over and over again when asked what are the causal dynamics behind their statements. Physics is merciless; if you can't show a physical, reproducible cause, it's thrown out, plain and simple, and the denialists have come up with vague generalizations like: "we're still recovering from the last ice age" and the like, without any testable mechanism to explain the warming.

Furthermore, the fellow hard numbers crunchers, i.e. the insurance and reinsurance companies believe the numbers and are less and less tolerant of the "let's wait and see" or "humans are not the cause" crowd. The defense department has identified climate change as one of the greatest destabilizing factors in the future, and is unambiguous about what they think needs to be done.

And your ignorance about the Paris Agreement (not Treaty) continues to amaze me. We set our own goals, measure it ourselves and set the upgraded goals in 2020 ourselves. We can be a leader for the rest of the world to emulate, or not, but it is us who decides, not some foreign entity. Sheesh.

Ultimately, the decisions made in America are becoming less and relevant to the rest of the world, because they are increasingly able to shape their own future without us. It's up to us to try to be a part of the leadership in the coming global changes happening in the rest of the world's economies; those countries will change with us or without us. It's the trillions of dollars overseas that Trump is trying to lure back that will fuel growth in other economies across the world, because that is where the real growth will be occurring for the rest of this century, and if we don't want to be a part of it, so be it.

Chris Golledge 5 months, 1 week ago

Can you identify the research study which refutes Arrhenius 1896?

It has been challenged any number of times. It has not been successfully refuted ever.

David Reynolds 5 months, 2 weeks ago

Nice try Ken, but I think you protesteth to much about the articles. Is the data wrong/challenged?

That's how things work. GW proposes something. Other scientists, even some GW folks, find errors or challenge the result. GW folks should get busy and fix things, but no we get responses where folks get fired, or objections like yours but no facts that refute their critics. Sorry no cigar.

Ken say what you will about the title of the Paris document. The document name was watered down for several reasons, among them so President Obama wouldn't have to take it to congress for approval & so other nations would not be bound by having to meet it, like China.

Really on the sheesh?

The main reason we got out of the Paris accord is as I said...Activists and others like the IPCC suing the USA if for some unknown reason we didn't meet the stated "voluntary goals". Well it seems even the legal minds believe member signees could be sued. Please see the following article, and refer back to my previous blogs making this exact point.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/02/climate/trump-paris-climate-accord.html?_r=0

Some of the language states: The provision at issue, Article 4.11, states that a nation “may at any time adjust its existing nationally determined contribution with a view to enhancing its level of ambition.” The question is whether the ability to “adjust” is like a ratchet, allowing progress only in one direction — upward — or if it permits a country to weaken its commitment without violating the terms of the deal."

It goes on to say: "Christopher C. Horner, a senior legal fellow at the Energy and Environment Legal Institute, said liberal state attorneys general and climate activists would inevitably sue over efforts to weaken the targets. “This will be most aggressive in the Ninth Circuit, which hopefully triggers some memories in the minds of administration lawyers,” he said, referring to the fight over the administration’s immigration plan, which has been stayed by the California-based federal appeals court. “Despite the mad rush to insist that plain language means either the opposite of what it says, or else nothing at all, under any canon of construction, Article 4 does not permit revisions downward,” Mr. Horner said. “The language is deliberate and reads only one way: the way it was written and, as the context affirms, was plainly intended.”

Ken Lassman 5 months, 1 week ago

Yes, the data is simply a nonrepresentative sampling, kinda like taking ambient light settings between 10pm and 3:30am and concluding that there was not enough light to drive biomass production through photosynthesis. If you really don't get this, David, then ask anyone who uses statistics in their livelihood: reliable, representative sampling, whether it be determining demographic trends in sales, electric grid usage patterns, pharmaceutical development or political strategizing -- they all rely on valid, reliable, representative sampling and your Breitbart-featured article is the exact opposite of that: cherry picked data purposely skewed to show the result that you paid for. If you can't tell the difference between the IPCC statistical methodology and this truly pseudoscience opinion piece, then you tell me specifically where the 800 professional physicists, climatologists, biologists and other scientist went wrong when compared to your article. I am not holding my breath.

And the New York Times article makes it clear RIGHT AFTER YOUR QUOTED SECTION that if the echo chamber Bannon crowd had bothered to talk to the Paris Accord (not Treaty) negotiators or investigated the discussions that took place in Paris, they would have found that the language was left ambiguous specifically so that downward adjustments in goals would be possible, as Japan already did post Fukushima. Gee, David, please don't start cherry picking the New York Times like Breitbart has cherry picked the climate record!

David Reynolds 5 months, 2 weeks ago

Continued from above:

Thus the USA will proceed based on sound economic principles.

By the way, you didn't respond to the idea of cash prizes for innovation versus the current GW/WW approach of treaties/Accord/agreements, or increased taxes, restrictions on different kinds of fuel, etc.

The GW/CC crowd always takes the negative approach.

Why not the positive route? Anyone & everyone objects to being hit over the head with a stick...why not positive reinforcement & rewards?

As I mentioned earlier England couldn't solve the navigation problem, so they offered a reward & got the result they wanted.

Maybe just maybe, if the GW/CC crowd would listen to their critics & improve their science, and maybe just maybe the GW/CC folks were positive partners VS being negative you might gain cooperation.

Ken Lassman 5 months, 1 week ago

I already responded earlier to Mr. Aronoff's suggestion about creating a cash prize to create the solution, then the government getting out of the way. Since you missed it, I will copy it and paste it below:

"This isn't a contest to create a magic bullet, winner-take-all type of scenario, either. For the scope and breadth of the required changes if we really want to convert to a low carbon future, every energy producer and consumer will be affected, up and down every supply chain of every industry, from countries with no or very little cash economy to emerging middle class economies in Asia and Africa, to mature economies with global outreach. The role of governments in this wide ranging of an issue is precisely what Paris is doing: giving each country control over setting up its own goals and monitoring, then ramping up the process over time at a rate the local economic conditions can bear, with the outcome hopefully heading off the worst long-term effects that will take millennia to reverse if we continue to go down the path we've been on."

Commenting has been disabled for this item.

loading...