Trump to back out of climate change pact

waterfield wrote:

If elected. For those of us who are genuinely concerned about our environment and its impact on our work force and-for that matter-all of us -this is what the guy’s goals are on the subject.

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-clinches-nomination-05262016-snap-story.html

——————-
We’re out of time on climate change. And Hillary Clinton helped get us here
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/apr/07/out-of-time-climate-change-hillary-clinton

…A new paper from Oxford University, published in the journal Applied Energy, concludes that for humanity to have a 50-50 chance of meeting the temperature targets set in Paris, every new power plant has to be zero-carbon, starting next year.

That is hard. Really hard. At a bare minimum, it requires a willingness to go head-to-head with the two most powerful industries on the planet – fossil-fuel companies and the banks that finance them. Hillary Clinton is uniquely unsuited to this epic task.

While Clinton is great at warring with Republicans, taking on powerful corporations goes against her entire worldview, against everything she’s built, and everything she stands for. The real issue, in other words, isn’t Clinton’s corporate cash, it’s her deeply pro-corporate ideology: one that makes taking money from lobbyists and accepting exorbitant speech fees from banks seem so natural that the candidate is openly struggling to see why any of this has blown up at all.

To understand this worldview, one need look no further than the foundation where Hillary Clinton works and that bears her family name. Its mission can be distilled as follows: There is so much private wealth sloshing around our planet (thanks in very large part to the deregulation and privatisation frenzy that Bill Clinton unleashed on the world while president) that every single problem on earth, no matter how large, can be solved by convincing the ultra-rich to do the right things with their loose change. Naturally, the people to convince them to do these fine things are the Clintons, the ultimate relationship brokers and dealmakers, with the help of an entourage of A-list celebrities.

The problem with Clinton World is structural. It’s the way in which these profoundly enmeshed relationships – lubricated by the exchange of money, favours, status and media attention – shape what gets proposed as policy in the first place…. see link

waterfield wrote:

I get how you feel about Clinton or for that matter anyone out there that might be considered a moderate democrat. But I really posted the article because of my concerns over a Trump presidency. Of course the Clinton haters can and will dodge that issue and use it as a vehicle to attack Clinton. As I said earlier the attack on middle of the road democrats are -on this board- far more intense than the spectrum of Trump becoming President. That scenario is far scarier to me than Clinton ever could be. Of course there are those who say its hopeless, the system is rigged. Even the opening sentence in your post is “were out of time on climate change”. Well I’m not as cynical as you and I don’t believe we are “out of time”. The part that is given is that climate change is here to stay. But we can do things to not further escalate it at the pace we have been going. A Trump presidency may well further the escalation at an even faster pace. But maybe climate change and the continued pouring of fossil fuels into our atmosphere ain’t all that important to you. That seems to be the case when you casually state its all over and “were out of time”.

The one thing I notice about my “moderate” republican and democrat friends is that they are not susceptible to “group think”. They are mostly independent thinkers who believe in some policies advanced by republicans and some by democrats. And they even disagree among themselves on issues. However my far right -and I mean far -as in tea party-relatives (wife’ side) in Arizona and Colorado are all on the exact same page on every single issue. I sense the same with the progressive left.

————————–

So, this kind of thing is ok with you?

“Big oil companies like ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips have given millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation, as have Saudi Arabia and other oil-rich nations in the Middle East. Thursday brought the latest exposé on this issue from the International Business Times, which reports on donations from Pacific Rubiales, a Canadian oil company accused of human rights violations in Colombia. Pacific Rubiales’ founder, Frank Giustra, now sits on the Clinton Foundation’s board. IBT reports, “After millions of dollars were pledged by the oil company to the Clinton Foundation — supplemented by millions more from Giustra himself — Secretary Clinton abruptly changed her position on the controversial U.S.-Colombia trade pact. Having opposed the deal as a bad one for labor rights back when she was a presidential candidate in 2008, she now promoted it, calling it ‘strongly in the interests of both Colombia and the United States.’” A cynic would say oil companies are buying influence with the Clintons without being subject to campaign finance laws. A Clinton defender would point out that the foundation gives away this money, it isn’t going into Hillary Clinton’s pocket or her campaign account.”
8 things you need to know about Hillary Clinton and climate change