world

Trump says climate change not a hoax, but not sure of its source

72 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2018 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

©2018 GPlusMedia Inc.

72 Comments
Login to comment

SO he thinks something is happening, but he doesn't know what it, but he knows that it"ll change back in a million years or so ....

This guy is a tool

21 ( +25 / -4 )

Embracing the technology to mitigate the human impact on climate change will create millions of jobs and trillions of dollars.

Trump displays his ignorance once again.

16 ( +20 / -4 )

Trump blowing hot & cold! Haha

4 ( +8 / -4 )

Trump called climate change a hoax in November 2012 when he sent a tweet stating, "The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive."

"You'd have to show me the scientists because they have a very big political agenda."

Really frightening times when the POTUS starts sounding like the nutjob Alex Jones.

15 ( +19 / -4 )

The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive." He later said he was joking about the Chinese connection, but in years since has continued to call global warming a hoax

Moron

16 ( +20 / -4 )

He does have a point, for every scientist that says climate change exists, you have almost as many saying it’s a big giant hoax.

-31 ( +6 / -37 )

He will come around eventually. Regardless, America's culture of private enterprise and innovation ensures that America is heading and will continue to head in the same direction as much of the rest of the world towards renewables etc.

As I said previously, rather than focus on climate etc, which is a more contestable issue among some throwbacks, much easier for the U.S to contribute with parks and reforestation and its just as constructive.

-11 ( +5 / -16 )

He does have a point, for every scientist that says climate change exists, you have almost as many saying it’s a big giant hoax.

Stunningly inaccurate. Mind-blowingly wrong.

17 ( +24 / -7 )

Bass4funk:

He does have a point, for every scientist that says climate change exists, you have almost as many saying it’s a big giant hoax.

WRONG

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

97% of scientists concur that man-made climate change is happening now.

So don't talk cobblers.

19 ( +24 / -5 )

The ecosystem has a way of dealing with imbalance which generally doesn't end well for those causing the imbalance. Global climate will eventually return to its natural state whether humans help it or hinder it.

9 ( +10 / -1 )

LagunaToday 11:38 am JSTThe ecosystem has a way of dealing with imbalance which generally doesn't end well for those causing the imbalance. Global climate will eventually return to its natural state whether humans help it or hinder it.

That doesn't give us a license to play God and mess it up.

Dumpyboy is backpeddling now, but he's STILL a big time LIAR.

7 ( +10 / -3 )

Cant believe I get negatives for highlighting America's innovation culture and pushing for parks and reforestration. It cracks me up. I assume its the typical leftist mob on this site? You would think they would praise those aspects of America, but no, its a negative apparently. Laughable.

-11 ( +5 / -16 )

Let's see how many people change their tune who think it's a hoax

Earth's climate is always changing - as they say, the only constant is change

The crux is the rate of change - is the rate of change significantly affected by human activities or not

For an extreme example of what happens when there's too fast rate of change: huge extinctions throughout Earth's history had been brought upon when there's rapid rate of change in the environments such that species could not keep pace to adapt to the newer environments

Sometimes the rate of change was significantly affected by external factors (ex: the meteor that eventually brought an end to the age of dinosaurs). Sometimes the rate of change was significantly affected by activities of Earth's denizens themselves (ex: ancient cyanobacteria that changed the Earth's atmosphere to become oxygen-rich)

In either case illustrates that Earth's climate can be significantly affected by 3rd parties, and that Earth does not always control its climate by itself

5 ( +6 / -1 )

I completely understand why countries like Russia and Canada don't care about climate change - they are set to come out on top with a 2degree rise in temperatures.

But America ? You guys are going to get hit hard by this

1 ( +4 / -3 )

It'll take Wall St being underwater to make him understand, and even then he'll find a logic-defying explanation.

5 ( +8 / -3 )

Cant believe I get negatives for highlighting America's innovation culture and pushing for parks and reforestration. It cracks me up. I assume its the typical leftist mob on this site? You would think they would praise those aspects of America, but no, its a negative apparently. Laughable.

Can't speak for everyone and I didn't downvote you, but I'm guessing the reaction is based on your lead line:

He will come around eventually.

Asking for Trump to come around to a position based on logic and persuasion isn't in the playbook of what he is capable of. Acknowledging the science of climate change and pushing ahead with policies to tackle it is what a leader would do. A guy who just wants to keep stoking anger among his base to keep himself in power and has zero interest in actually governing on the other hand is fine with ignoring problems like this - or worse by being disruptive and obstructionist against those who are actually trying to solve it - and isn't going to be persuaded otherwise.

Also Trump has drastically rolled back protections for America's parks and forests so your apparent faith in him on those (narrower) grounds is also misguided.

7 ( +9 / -2 )

He will come around eventually.

So they based it on a throw away line rather than the meat of what I was saying.

This is what's wrong with public debate and comment, is it not?

We have to move away from that don't we or we all just go around downvoting and upvoting based on what one-liners and the most superficial comments appeal the most.

Might as well shut the comment section down on this site. Its contributing nothing if that's the case.

-10 ( +3 / -13 )

Stunningly inaccurate. Mind-blowingly wrong

Yeah, the left always say that, many us feel the same about the lefts scream and cry for doom and gloom.

-24 ( +4 / -28 )

97% of scientists concur that man-made climate change is happening now.

And most of them are liberal, so of course you’re going to say that that’s that liberal one side the point of view.

So don't talk cobblers.

Back at you.

https://www.dailyrepublic.com/all-dr-news/opinion/local-opinion-columnists/climate-change-hoax-continues/

-22 ( +3 / -25 )

Stunningly inaccurate. Mind-blowingly wrong

Yeah, the left always say that, many us feel the same about the lefts scream and cry for doom and gloom.

Please post evidence to support your claim that “for every scientist that says climate change exists, you have almost as many saying it’s a big giant hoax.”

Thanks in advance.

8 ( +11 / -3 )

So they based it on a throw away line rather than the meat of what I was saying.

Its hardly a throw away line, though short it is substantive and cuts right to the heart of the issue. A huge portion of our ability to deal with climate change is dependent on political leadership. If we don't have that (and under Trump we definitely do not) and worse have the most powerful politician in the world actively sabotaging the efforts of everyone else to deal with it, we are truly screwed regardless of the rest of what you wrote.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

The climate has been changing for 10's of thousands of years. Huge hurricanes, etc. will always occur; the problem is we are building dwellings in areas that are susceptible to any storm surge. (Hint #1: your house is going to be destroyed if built in a susceptible storm surge area. Hint #2: if the town/city has "beach" in its name, have an ample supply of sandbags on hand).

-5 ( +4 / -9 )

The climate has been changing for 10's of thousands of years.

Really its been changing for about 4 billion years since the Earth formed, but either way its not an observation that tells us anything useful.

the problem is we are building dwellings in areas that are susceptible to any storm surge.

No, the fact that too many buildings are located in vulnerable coastal areas is a symptom of the problem, not the problem itself. The problem is that we have too much CO2 in the air which is trapping heat in the atmosphere and causing stronger storms, higher storm surges and higher sea levels (to name just a few).

5 ( +7 / -2 )

And most of them are liberal, so of course you’re going to say that that’s that liberal one side the point of view.

Perhaps they are mostly liberals but they are all scientists, and scientific opinion requires strong evidence.

More significant is that when ordinary people are presented with scientific facts that they personally do not like, they do not change their opinion (as logic would suggest), but rather they seek to undermine the science and the scientists.

This is not just an issue with the right, but also the left too. And it works the other way round - science that supports one's opinion is never questioned.

In this case, the right ignores or disputes the strong evidence. It throws up woolly arguments about volcanoes and CO2. It questions the motives of the scientists.

10 ( +12 / -2 )

And most of them are liberal, so of course you’re going to say that that’s that liberal one side the point of view.

Amazing, if useless, observation. I guess if you define science per se as liberal, which seems to be the current practice in Trump's America, then its sort of a self fulfilling prophecy that all scientists would turn out to be liberal.

8 ( +10 / -2 )

First deny it, then make it a possibility, and finally agree.

But still he doesn't know why climate change is happening.

Said this before and say it again: maybe he should attend some additional elementary school lessons?

He definitely was absent most of the time when he was supposed to be there!

4 ( +6 / -2 )

This:

I think something’s happening. Something’s changing and it’ll change back again. I don’t think it’s a hoax, I think there’s probably a difference. But I don’t know that it’s man-made.

beggars belief. I challenge any conservative to defend it, if they can make sense of it, because no piece of that sentence makes any sense, and when you put them together, they are somehow able to take zero sense to a lower level.

7 ( +9 / -2 )

Yeah, the Earth's climate is changing. That's overwhelmingly Mother Nature.

Can humans stop typhoons or hurricanes or change their direction in the slightest? No.

Are humans significantly changing the Earth's climate for the worse? Doubtful. It's virtually all Mother Nature. The Earth and the sun are gonna do what the Earth and the sun are gonna do. All we can do is try to adapt and overcome. And it would be nice if we could all work together on this instead of warring on each other.

The headline - "but not sure of its source" is being dishonest. Trump, like everyone else on the planet, can't say for sure how much of the change in climate is caused by humans. That's what he's saying. He wants to make sure the U.S. is not unfairly burdened by climate change policies - the world needs to work together on this.

-14 ( +4 / -18 )

Are humans significantly changing the Earth's climate for the worse? Doubtful.

Doubtful according to whom?

It’s virtually all Mother Nature

Who is claiming this? A lunatic in a basement and Tucker Carlson?

7 ( +9 / -2 )

He does have a point, for every scientist that says climate change exists, you have almost as many saying it’s a big giant hoax

This statement has no basis in reality.

Yeah, the left always say that, many us feel the same about the lefts scream and cry for doom and gloom.

It doesn't matter what the right thinks about the left or what the right thinks the lefts screams, it's science.

And most of them are liberal, so of course you’re going to say that that’s that liberal one side the point of view.

This isn't how science works in reality. Maybe in conservative la la land, but not in reality.

Some people's hyperpartisanship has blinded them to science, facts, andthe definitions of words.

https://www.dailyrepublic.com/all-dr-news/opinion/local-opinion-columnists/climate-change-hoax-continues/

You retorted against a cite to NASA with an opinion piece from a right wing rag. Hmmmm . . . Which is more accurate?

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Please post evidence to support your claim that “for every scientist that says climate change exists, you have almost as many saying it’s a big giant hoax.”

Don't hold your breath for that evidence.

9 ( +10 / -1 )

You retorted against a cite to NASA with an opinion piece from a right wing rag.

This is the problem in a nutshell. This is very dangerous and a total failure of education.

We’ll be getting links to a gibbering, cross-eyed Fox News bobble-head refuting NASA’s claims next.

10 ( +11 / -1 )

This is the problem in a nutshell. This is very dangerous and a total failure of education. 

Couldn't agree more. A certain poster was trying to tell me that the definitions of words depend on individual's perception. Apparently, that poster has never heard of The Book of Meanimgs by Merriam and Webster.

We’ll be getting links to a gibbering, cross-eyed Fox News bobble-head refuting NASA’s claims next.

Agreed. The bobble-heads will be attempting to refute NASA's claims, but only Fox News viewers will be convinced. It's far easier to have your information spoonfed to you than by reading.

Troubling times.

7 ( +8 / -1 )

Earth beings can definitely affect Earth's climate. Above I already gave the cyanobacteria example. In this, there is no difference between us and cyanobacteria - we're not special; we're both just Earth beings who're highly successful. Earth's climate is not all the time controlled by Earth alone

There's no question, just as cyanobacteria, humans affect the environment. But the issue is whether it's significant enough to affect the rate of change

3 ( +3 / -0 )

for every scientist that says climate change exists, you have almost as many saying it’s a big giant hoax.

There are scientists who disagree with some of the IPCC positions. There are some who complain about the hysteria that often surrounds climate change debates. But I don't know of any who describe it as a hoax.

97% of scientists concur that man-made climate change is happening now.

On the other hand, this is perhaps an example of the hysteria that some complain about. Is it all scientists or just climate scientists? What is it they concur on? There are different sources for the 97% figure. One of the earlier ones was based on two questions in a survey - Is carbon dioxide a greenhouse gas? - Has man-made carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increased? But not on questions about how damaging the effects will be.

-8 ( +1 / -9 )

Bass4funk

Are you seriously trying to compare the validity of NASA research with that bolleaux from a right-wing rag?

This is the problem with the likes of you. You don't read anything unless it reinforces what Fox News told you.

13 ( +14 / -1 )

Trump lives by a reality that exists in his own head. Nobody can say anything to change his reality.

The journalist David Rothkopf explained it well:

"Trump is a Transcendental Solipsist. It is not just that he has a strong sense of self. His view of the universe does not extend a single inch beyond the boundaries of his own interests. That is why normative concepts like truth or commonly held values or the national interest are completely alien to him. There is Trump world, and then there is oblivion." (David Rothkopf March 24, 2017)

4 ( +5 / -1 )

On the other hand, this is perhaps an example of the hysteria that some complain about. Is it all scientists or just climate scientists? What is it they concur on? There are different sources for the 97% figure. 

No, this is not an example of the hysteria that some complain about:

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities.*

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

6 ( +6 / -0 )

I completely understand why countries like Russia and Canada don't care about climate change - they are set to come out on top with a 2degree rise in temperatures. But America ? You guys are going to get hit hard by this

Don't forget that those countries coming "on top" will be the target of mass exoduses when feces hit the fan. Half the world will try to get in. Will not be pretty.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Well, they quietly escaped from the earlier concept of 'global warming' but whoever confusingly named what is happening 'climate change' surely left open a window and scored a resounding own-goal. Otherwise why would we have to endlessly define and redefine what this is supposed to mean? No wonder Trump wanted to join in and take a shot at the concept.

Surely the essence is in the perceived increasing speed, severity, and unpredictability of climactic events, and not in 'change' per se? Ought we not to be looking more at words like 'climate wobble' or 'climate unbalance' or 'runaway climate'?

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

Are humans significantly changing the Earth's climate for the worse? Doubtful.

"Doubtful according to whom?"

Jimizo... think about it. Humans can't do a thing to stop, slow down or redirect typhoons or hurricanes. What makes you think humans can significantly change the climate? If the Earth was cooling instead of warming, ya think we can somehow warm it up significantly?

I will admit that according to a 2014 study published in an American Geophysical Union journal that study found that a "limited, regional nuclear war" using 100 "small nuclear weapons" — such as the bomb dropped on Hiroshima — could cause a decades-long nuclear winter.

In the researchers' scenario, the aftereffects of a nuclear war between India and Pakistan alone would eliminate between 20% and 50% of the ozone layer that protects us from the sun's radiation over populated areas. At the same time, surface temperatures would become colder than they've been for at least 1,000 years.

So we don't wanna use nukes. But even if we cut C02 emissions to zero ( go back to the Stone Age since we don't have sufficient alternatives to fossil fuels ), if Mother Nature wants to warm up the planet, it's gonna happen.

-13 ( +2 / -15 )

The Climate Changers are hungry to fund their NGOs, and whispering fear into everyone's minds is the only way they can simultaneously slide straws into the wallets of the taxpayer nations while making parents feel good about having less capital and self-worth. Climate change is as real as day is day and night is night, but the Euro-Bureaucrats want all the money they can get to fund eco-mind-terrorism on the average Joe's taxed-freedom.

So I applaud Trump on defunding these scoundrels! They all hate America anyways, so why should America fund its haters?

-10 ( +0 / -10 )

Bass:. And most of them are liberal, so of course you’re going to say that that’s that liberal one side the point of view.

Fascinating.

You thought scientists were evenly split, some on our side, some on yours. Then you found out it's not evenly split, so your brain tells you that most scientists are liberal so you can ignore them.

The same group of scientists went from legitimately defending your point of view to pushing a liberal agenda.

10 ( +11 / -1 )

Fascinating.

You thought scientists were evenly split, some on our side, some on yours. Then you found out it's not evenly split, so your brain tells you that most scientists are liberal so you can ignore them.

Yup.

-15 ( +1 / -16 )

Could it be because you see every point as a larger war between liberalism and conservatism? Meaning if you conceed one point, no matter how obvious or proven, it's like losing the overall battle?

10 ( +10 / -0 )

*concede

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Since stone age, climate is changing but not because of human activities.

-13 ( +1 / -14 )

Jimizo... think about it. Humans can't do a thing to stop, slow down or redirect typhoons or hurricanes. What makes you think humans can significantly change the climate?

Embarrassingly simple and irrelevant comparison. The answer to the question is 'Yes, because there is evidence of it'. Human activity produces lots and lots of CO2. Plants eat CO2, and we have less and less of them. CO2 traps heat; this is an easily proven fact, not a liberal plot on behalf of a gas. Atmospheric CO2 has increased by a third since the industrial revolution. It makes the air warmer, and as a result the seas, and then the entire planet.

Nobody but you in the entire world thinks that because we can't push around typhoons then we can't not make things hotter.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

@Chip Star,

The 97% figure at your link refers to a study by Cook (and others) which caused a fair bit of controversy. Some other views appear here:

https://judithcurry.com/2013/07/26/the-97-consensus/

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

89% of scientists who don't want to be called 'racist' and get fired agree, climate change is undeniably caused by human activity.

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

97% of scientists concur that man-made climate change is happening now.

And most of them are liberal,

seriously dude most scientists dont give two F about being liberal or conservative as many dont even live in the political dogmire that is the USA, they base their facts on scientific evidence, now if you could give us creditable papers in scientific journals written by creditable scientist that show that climtae change is a hoax then were very interested to see what links you can come up with

4 ( +5 / -1 )

"Human activity produces lots and lots of CO2."

So do cows.

 "climate change is undeniably caused by human activity."

Uh huh. And what about the billions of years before human activity? No climate change? Oh wait, what about all the Ice Ages from like billions of years ago? No humans then...

-10 ( +2 / -12 )

All Climate Changers want to tax you and claim legitimacy based on the income of others.

-8 ( +0 / -8 )

"And most of them are liberal, so of course you’re going to say that that’s that liberal one side the point of view."

Yeah, forget what they say ...They're all wrong and you are right of course.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

You thought scientists were evenly split, some on our side, some on yours. Then you found out it's not evenly split, so your brain tells you that most scientists are liberal so you can ignore them. Yup

dude just bookmarked that comment, youve basically proven to all of us your view on climate change arent based of scientific facts but political agendas, large percentage of climate scientist arent located in the political plauge that is the USA yet their results almost always read the same as those that do live in the USA. maybe its coincidence or some form of conspiracy against conservatives, or maybe just maybe their research has some truth too it. Youll probably side with the anti-conservative excuse but if climtae change is real and is happening would you be willing to sacrifice the future livability of the planet for your children and their children just to win some political points for your team!? History has shown famine drought social upheaval has a habbit of detroying governments and countries for better or worse

5 ( +6 / -1 )

"Human activity produces lots and lots of CO2."

Especially the Chinese, the #1 producer. Tell them to cut it out, Clippety.

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

"Human activity produces lots and lots of CO2." So do cows.

seriously is that your answer!? there have never been more cattle pigs livestock in the history of the world as their are now, who do you think eats the meat and drinks the milk produced by this liverstock, Ill give you a hint theres 7.7 billion of them now on the earth and theyre expected to be 10 Billion within 40yrs

4 ( +5 / -1 )

As always, NO FACTS cited. Al he can say is, "they say..." or "people say...". So everyone can see just who is the source of FAKE NEWS.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Especially the Chinese, the #1 producer. Tell them to cut it out, Clippety.

the US is about 5% of the worlds population yet consumes 25% of its resorces , Americans produce more than twice the CO2 per capita than the average Chinese. Seems like you should be telling the US to "cut it out" first

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Right now we show 1 person from each side and it incorrectly makes people believe both sides carry equal weight. As John Oliver pointed out, it would be better for the news to have 95 people on one side and 5 on the other to let people understand the real situation.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

"the US is about 5% of the worlds population"

And the Chinese are 20% of the world's population. If you're so concerned about the rise in world population, wtf, go complain to the Chinese, lol.

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

Especially the Chinese, the #1 producer. Tell them to cut it out, Clippety.

OK, "Cut it out, China". However China, unlike medieval Trump America, has signed up to the Paris agreement and is quickly becoming a world leader in renewables. On the other hand, Trump's admin is actively seeking to make his own country a dirtier, more polluted country in the name of political revenge. And your best shot was, "We can't make typhoons move so how can we change climate!".

A nation of the greatest innovators led by uneducated, carbon-funded Luddite leaders

6 ( +7 / -1 )

You thought scientists were evenly split, some on our side, some on yours. Then you found out it's not evenly split, so your brain tells you that most scientists are liberal so you can ignore them.

Yup.

I admire the honesty.

Partisanship defined.

8 ( +8 / -0 )

And the Chinese are 20% of the world's population. If you're so concerned about the rise in world population, wtf, go complain to the Chinese, lol.

no the thread is about C02 output , which you blamed on cows , yet humans are the result of all these cows. AMerica produces twice as much C02 per capita than China yet its only 1/5 its population, China is also still a member of the Paris accord, something Trump pulled out of becuase he thought climate change was a hoax, now he doesnt. LOL

6 ( +6 / -0 )

Thank you for agreeing that you are far-right.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

The 97% figure at your link refers to a study by Cook (and others) which caused a fair bit of controversy. Some other views appear here:

Appreciate the response and link. The peer-reviewed part in the NASA article is what sways me because it ensures accuracy.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Serano

Trump, like everyone else on the planet, can't say for sure how much of the change in climate is caused by humans. That's what he's saying. He wants to make sure the U.S. is not unfairly burdened by climate change policies - the world needs to work together on this.

Actually, we can quite easily be sure that the change in climate is cause by humans. It's actually one of the easier aspects of climate science. (Agreed that Trump probably can't.)

One carbon isotope, C14, is radioactive and dies away to undetectable levels in 50,000 years or so. Fossil fuels, being millions of years old, have no C14 left. Adding ancient carbon lowers the proportion of C14 in the atmosphere. By measuring the non-C14 isotopes compared to C14 and we can see the amount of CO2 humans are adding to the atmosphere.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Hang your head in shame, Donny Traitor. the world doesn't revolve around you and it doesn't like you either. Cry, baby. Wah.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

How embarrassing.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Trump says climate change not a hoax, but not sure of its source - Headline

President Trump also said he doesn't want to put the U.S. at a disadvantage in responding to climate change.

"I think something's happening. Something's changing and it'll change back again. I don't think it's a hoax. I think there's probably a difference. But I don't know that it's manmade. I will say this: I don't want to give trillions and trillions of dollars. I don't want to lose millions and millions of jobs." And as a consequence vacate power to the benefit of China, Russia, Iran & other rogue nations.

Bullseye and thank you, Mr. President!

Perhaps if all those charlatans led by example, i.e. Al Gore and all those other climate change fanatics stop using fossil-fueled electricity and give up all their private jets and mansions, those well-paid "scientists" give up and donate their grants, stipends and lucrative deals and gave the cash to Africa for clean water and sanitation for instance, perhaps then they'd earn some credibility.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Miyam_Musashi

"I think something's happening. Something's changing and it'll change back again. I don't think it's a hoax. I think there's probably a difference. But I don't know that it's manmade. I will say this: I don't want to give trillions and trillions of dollars. I don't want to lose millions and millions of jobs." And as a consequence vacate power to the benefit of China, Russia, Iran & other rogue nations.

The problem with this viewpoint is that staying with hydrocarbons and shunning renewables is a sure fire way to vacate power to the benefit of China.

China is going full steam ahead with renewables and if the US ignores this China will benefit. China realizes that climate change is real, is making great strides to combat it, and reaping the benefit in doing so.

The US used to be forward thinking and innovative. Not any more it seems. China is taking its place.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

China is going full steam ahead with renewables and if the US ignores this China will benefit. China realizes that climate change is real, is making great strides to combat it, and reaping the benefit in doing so.

The US used to be forward thinking and innovative. Not any more it seems. China is taking its place.

The USA is near energy independent, is an energy exporter, and is a forerunner in the use and development of renewables.

People who hold China on such a pedestal as quoted by the person above should ask the Chicoms to pony up the USD 3 trillion plus to fund the UNFCC Paris Agreement. (To share the burden, we'd help dismantle their illegal islands in the West Philippine Sea - free of charge.) 

And while at it, go tell your pals there's bridge in Brooklyn that can be purchased for a great bargain.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites