ad

48 Comments

  1. 1

    Joan dillon

    We should all strive to do a better job of recycling and holding emissions down. What we should not do is stiff the American taxpayer to the tune of billions of dollars in payments to other countries who, historically, have taken our money and never oerformed. Delighted the liberal comoanies are willing to foot the bill if they want to voluntarily. About time someone put his money where his mouth is.

  2. 2

    Tom Reilly

    My deepest congratulations to President Schall and to Oglethorpe University. Thank you for doing the right thing instead of the “correct” thing.

  3. 3

    Barbara

    I am prob going to lean towards not taking advice from someone who moonlights as an Uber driver and has zero experience in leading a country or any other form of government. I am no trump supporter but that paris agreement was a pile of horse hockey designed solely to redistribute wealth of the United States. We can do a better job, but we don’t need to pay Bosnia to do it while China has no restrictions for 20 years. It was a bad deal, this guy should stick to running his small liberal acts college instead of writing letters about the president and chiming in on international deals he has nothing to do with

  4. 4

    Eddie E.

    Thanks Mr. Schall. We must depend on leadership from the learned since at the top of the State level and the Federal level we receive only delusions of the ignorant.

  5. 5

    Kerry McBrayer

    Thank you.

  6. 6

    Brittany Neighbor

    I agree, Barbara. He also didn’t seem to care about “human contributions to climate change” when his University ripped away acres of trees and ravaged a hillside to make way for Gables Oglethorpe across from Costco.

  7. 7

    Brittany Mother

    The Gables Oglethorpe land deal is a great example of “do as I say, not as I do” and money does speak loudly. Wait till you see what happens to the rest of that forested land in their possession. Between DCBOE and OU they could make a mint of a deal.

  8. 8

    MMK

    Disagree. We all have to live somewhere and unfortunately nature will have to be altered to make that happen. Given that fact, the development is favorable because students can walk to class/shopping and therefore cut down on their driving. A multi-story development also has a much smaller ecological footprint than spreading the same number of people out over one or two story homes.

  9. 9

    Nature Boy

    Yea! Brookhaven the tree city! My buddy Tom will save that forrest for us!

    They paved paradise
    And put up a parking lot
    With a pink hotel [Royal Hawaiian], a boutique
    And a swinging hot spot

    Don’t it always seem to go
    That you don’t know what you’ve got
    Till it’s gone
    They paved paradise
    And put up a parking lot

    They took all the trees
    Put ’em in a tree museum *
    And they charged the people
    A twenty and a half just to see ’em
    [inflation adjusted]

    https://brookhavenpost.co/2015/03/07/brookhaven-selected-as-tree-city-usa/28285/

    WOW! How neat is that!

  10. 10

    Barbara

    Everyone also seems to forget that many of the McMansions behind the university were supposedly built on what was once university property. Again, do as I say, not as I do. It’s ok for us to sell land and cut down trees for giant homes to make a ton of money but you better not do it.

  11. 11

    Eric Robert

    “I am no trump supporter but that paris agreement was a pile of horse hockey designed solely to redistribute wealth of the United States.” PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE do not believe Trump’s lies or the AM talk radio lies. The Paris Climate Agreement is a largely voluntary agreement that does not redistribute wealth – other than perhaps aiding the natural shift from dirty energy jobs to clean energy jobs and technology. The U.S. did commit to a one time contribution to aid developing countries in their pursuit of clean energy. But its a drop in the bucket.
    “As the New York Times reported Thursday, the U.S. has promised to supply up to $3 billion in aid for developing nations by 2020 to help them meet their emissions-cutting goals. That aid is part of a collective pool called the Green Climate Fund, as Trump says, which is administered by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, according to the Paris Agreement. While $3 billion may sound like a lot of money to most people, for the United States government, which took in some $16.5 trillion in GDP last year, it’s a pretty paltry sum. And it isn’t even an annual contribution. As of May, the U.S. has kicked in a third of its $3 billion pledge to the fund, according to the Washington Post.”

  12. 12

    Eric Robert

    If we want to talk conspiracy theories how about this. Putin benefits from Trumps withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement:
    Russia is a petrostate; its economic growth since the Soviet era has been driven by high prices in oil and gas production. With vast fossil fuel production, it ranks fourth globally in greenhouse gas emissions, after China, the US, and India; number one in the especially potent greenhouse gas, methane, and third among major countries* in per-capita carbon emissions. Its reliance on oil and gas and interests in expanding drilling into the Arctic give Russia reason to stall on the world’s pledges to phase out fossil fuels and its subsidies.
    Putin also pointed to the economic importance of the Arctic region as he argued global warming and ice melting in the area created beneficial conditions for economic improvement.
    “Climate change brings in more favorable conditions and improves the economic potential of this region,” he said. “Today, Russia’s GDPis the result of the economic activity of this region.” Putin explained as he revealed that 10 percent of his country’s GDP is linked to the Arctic region.

  13. 13

    Barbara

    Really Eric? You read all that NYT on the Marta train? The Paris agreement had pentalies for the US and not others. It also gave china 20 year break. It also is voluntary (non binding) for almost everyone but us. It’s dumb.

    So if the climate is so damn important to you and others, why are you for a non binding agreement that much of the world doesn’t have to obey or penelties on????

    It not our job to pay for everything for the world, they can pay for their own damn climate reductions, which shouldn’t actually cost anything anyway. They just want our money, that’s it. And this was admitted by the UN as wealth redistribution years ago. The UN hates the US, but they all want to live here/have their HQ HERE and enjoy our lifestyle. Then force us to change but asking for money. Notice the agreement didn’t ask us for climate scientist or people do help teach them to properly dispose of toxic waste. They want our cash.

    Try reading something other than the New York Times which by its own admittance and written apology is a poorly run publication. The Washington Post is just as bad as Fox News. Get out and gather your own REAL facts, please.

  14. 14

    Saul

    Eric, for an attorney you don’t read too well.

  15. 15

    Eddie E.

    Eric is probably quite different from you.
    He has probably READ the Paris Agreement rather than rely on talk radio and a certain misleading television service to tell him what’s in it.

  16. 16

    Saul

    Uh, no Eddie, Eric didn’t read that “Frog” agreement and from his comments is clueless as to it’s ramifications on America. Next?

  17. 17

    Barbara

    Since you have been proven right in not one argument you alststtef with me ed, why don’t you explain why this agreement was good for the world? It has no penalties for 99% of counties, is completely voluntary, and required nothing if China or India for years and years. So tell us all, how does it help the earth if it is worthless?

  18. 18

    Ellen

    Babs doesn’t read.

  19. 19

    Barbara

    It’s amazes me Ellen, how many times you leave insults towards me or others instead of backing anything up with fact or logical statements. I guess you can’t manage the latter

  20. 20

    Eric Robert

    Correct Saul I didn’t read the Paris Agreement, but I read a wide variety of articles about it from differing political perspectives. I’m not clueless, you are just a bit of a jerk, at least in your posts. As to Barbara, she/he/it can’t possibly be real. I suspect its someone who enjoys trolling message boards, or perhaps its an alias Trump uses.

  21. 21

    Eric Robert

    Saul can you or Barbara please provide a link on or explanation on what the penalty is to the U.S. if it doesn’t meet it’s set goal of Carbon Reduction in the Paris Agreement?

  22. 22

    Eric Robert

    Barbara if 99% of the countries are exempt, are you saying the U.S. is the only country that has a penealty for not meeting its goals? And what is that penalty? If you could provide a link to that information that would be very helpful.

  23. 23

    Saul

    Eric you just need to read the agreement and search for the details. But careful, it’s like reading the Affordable Care Act and it’s not all in one place.

  24. 24

    Barbara

    No. I am saying that 99% of the counties have to spend no money or “pay a penalty” for being successful. Which means giving our money to other counties who have unwilling and/or corrupt governments. tindisagree with Trump on most things but agree that the times of the USA being on a constant apology tour are over.

    Now Eric, can you explain how a non binding argreement that anyone can break, quit, or just ignore helps anything? If it Is important enough for them to demand our cash then why not make it biding for everyone, especially those taking our money?

  25. 25

    Ellen

    In other words, he can’t point to any specific provision.

  26. 26

    Eric Robert

    Yep

  27. 27

    Eric Robert

    Barbara so can find nothing that supports your contention that “99% of the counties have to spend no money or “pay a penalty” for being successful” So who are the 1%? And by the way the USA has never been on a constant apology tour, I too would oppose that. But we don’t have to act like an idiot to prove we are strong.
    True its the Paris Agreement is Non Binding on all including us. But at least it set goals that all but 2 countries agreed were worthy goals to meet. There is nothing wrong with setting goals.

  28. 28

    Barbara

    Look up how many counties are in the agreement and how many pay. Then do the math.

    I can set a goal to loose 50 pounds by this weekend. That doesn’t mean it’s a realistic goal or one that is setting. Nor am I being paid by someone else whether I reach that goal or not.

    It’s not about climate change eric, it’s about money. The fact that they demand cash without hard commitments is proof of that.

  29. 29

    Saul

    Eric wants you to do his research for him. If you don’t, he thinks you don’t know what you are talking about and is justification you have no facts.

  30. 30

    Eddie E.

    Barbara, your ‘argument’ is nothing but hot air.
    I for one value a liveable biosphere more than I want to whimper about who is paying how much to protect it.
    I salute Mr. Schall for taking an adult position, especially given the fact we are saddled with a petulant child in the White House.

  31. 31

    Barbara

    That’s because you are obviously not cutting the check. Tell me Eddie, who argues with everyone, how much money have you donated to other people/counties in regards to the climate change issue in the past year. Please also provide documentation.

    Also, I’m not sure what name calling the president has to do with anythinf but it clearly shows you do not hold the adult position to claim to value so highly.

  32. 32

    Eric Robert

    Saul if you guys had facts you would have provided a link to a reliable article by now! Instead all you can do Saul is accuse me of lacking reading comprehension. Give me a link to an reliable article for this 99% number Barbara is throwing around or to the “Penalties” the U.S. has to pay under the agreement. Tell you what, here’s one to get you and Barbara started: https://www.fastcompany.com/3067710/what-will-happen-if-the-us-withdraws-from-the-paris-climate-agreement

  33. 34

    Barbara

    So Eric, your link is nothing but a bunch of rhetoric and opinion. You use a resource that is is clearly a very left leaning website full of nothing more solid opinion and act like one persons views prove Saul and I wrong? Where are the facts? Here are some:

    “There’s a fundamental inequality when it comes to global emissions. Rich countries have plundered and burned huge amounts of fossil fuels, and gotten rich from them.”

    “So as part of the Paris agreement, richer countries, like the US, are supposed to send $100 billion a year in aid by 2020 to the poorer countries. And that amount is set to increase over time.”

    OR QUOTE FROM NICARAGUA OFFICIAL

    ““We’re not going to submit because voluntary responsibility is a path to failure,” I can’t help but notice you are not bashing him, even though he has the exact same point as the US Gov. Now, why is that?

    OR

    “Unlike much of the developing world, major countries such as the U.S., Russia and China did not make their commitments beholden to international financial support. The U.S. vowed to cut its emissions at least 26 percent by 2030 compared with 2005 levels”

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jun/5/paris-climate-agreement-shares-nations-wealth/

    The good news is North Korea has agreed, and as we all know they are always good to keep their promises.

    As I said before Eric, the US is paying a penalty. THERE ARE 193 COUNTIES IN THE PARIS AGREEMENT. THE US, RUSSIA, CHINA, CANADA, INDIA, UK, GERMANY, AND JAPAN. I PROBABLY MISSED A FEW MORE BUT THATS APPROX .04%, NOT 1%. THE MATH I SUGGESTED YOU TO DO BUT DID NOT IS 8/193. SORRY MY 1% COMMENT WAS OFF.

  34. 35

    Saul

    Eric, you would call any link I would post for your reference with slant or bias just as I am going to tell you the same about your Fast Company article.

    There is nothing better than finding the original material and seeing the negatives of the Paris Accord yourself for your own objective assessment.

    Maybe you should ask Adele Peters where she got her information from any links to sources to support her research.

  35. 36

    Barbara

    Still nothing from Eric or Eddie?

  36. 37

    Barbara

    Still waiting eric and eddie. Nothing on the 1% being correct or prof of personal funds you donated to climate change for other countries?

  37. 38

    Eric Robert

    Resident, I get an error message on that link

  38. 39

    Eric Robert

    Barbara the Washington Times article you posted said what i said originally, the U.S. committed to fund 3 billion to the fund – not annually total. Perhaps the 100 billion by 2020 is the total from all countries? But that’s foreign aid, and relatively its a fraction of the foreign aid we spend and an even smaller fraction of our military budget. Its a fund to help developing countries to develop Green Engergy. Are you saying Trump wants to stop foreign aid?
    I don’t agree Fast Times is leftist, its a business magazine unlike some of these crazed on line blogs. But I certainly don’t think it alone proves you wrong.
    You want me to bash the Nicaraguan leader? Ok Sure, he’s an idiot. He should be supporting the agreement and seeking aid to help his impovershed country develop in a more sustainable fashion. His country already has one of the hire poverty rates. He obviously cares little for his people. …. Hows that?
    And thank you for explaining that you deemed a penaty money the more wealthy nations had earmarked for funding sustainable development in greener countries. I think most people would not think that constitutes a penalty, as its money we committed to and is not contingent on us meeting any goals. And considering how small the amount is in the grand scheme of things its hardly worth trashing the only framework we have and sending the message that the U.S. does not support global cooperation in addressing climate change.

  39. 40

    Eric Robert

    Well if its a crazed news source I will discount it. But Barbara’s link to Washington Times is not a crazed article, granted they are right leaning. But read enough reliable sources on both sides to see what’s going on. Do you agree with Barbara that the only penalty to the U.S. is the 3 billion the committed to the fund to encourage greener energy/sustainable development in developing countires? In my original post I put in a quote about that. I have yet to see anyone call that a penalty. and the only time i see claims that the agreement penalizes the U.S. they don’t point to how. Give me a link, before writing it off as merely right wing trash I would to see it because frankly I have not really seen even a reliable right wing article saying that. The Washington Times Article does say Trump feels the 3 billion would be better spent in the U.S., Though isn’t he proposing the biggest deficits through massive military budget increases that make 3 billion look paultry? I mean come on, as Barbara said its an agreement with out enforcement mechanisms. I just don’t see how one gets to saying it penalizes the U.S.

  40. 42

    Ellen

    Gabs claims to be a Democrat but is a staunch Republican.

  41. 43

    Barbara

    Update: 9:40pm.

    Eric comments on multiple stories but doesn’t comment on this one following my comments. Eddie also comments on one story but ignores this one. Strange.

  42. 44

    Eddie E.

    If you would learn how the Paris Agreement works (really works, not the crap you heard on AM radio) you would realize how foolish your repetitious nonsense about ‘writing the check’ really is.
    The rest of the world is already doing what they promised, negating much of the ‘aid’ promised from the US.
    You people!

  43. 45

    Eddie E.

    Your refusal to accept reality negates wasting any more time on your ‘replies’.

  44. 47
  45. 48

    ellen

    $3 billion is a rounding error and a very small price to pay to save the planet. Far, far more money would be spent to terraform Mars.

Comments are closed.