Elon being Elon

A treaty with no ramifications to enforce it, and without being ratified by the senate, wholly dependent on future president to follow limitations set by a previous president. A treaty that, if all non-mandatory goals are met reduce global warming by (from everything that I've heard anyway) .2 degrees Celsius in 100 years (*.2-1.8). Spoiler: no one expected the goals to be met in full anyway.
I believe Trump said he would rejoin the deal should it be renegotiated so that it doesn't make America pay, from what I understand, a larger portion of the costs to offset how energy limitations cripple developing nations (assuming they follow it), than any other country. If your goal is to slow global warming, you'd expect other countries to jump at having what, the 3rd/4th (*2nd) biggest polluter, in the deal in SOME capacity? Some being better than nothing? Other countries have said they have no interest in renegotiating. Seems like virtue signaling to me on a worldwide scale.
*s_42 based edit

Boy you got so many things wrong...

Then correct me

You're basing your entire argument as if the US is a victim in this case. It's not. Every country is doing their fair share to reduce the effects we have on nature. The .2 degrees doesn't sound much but it isn't something bad. You make it seem pointless. The fact is that that's about the lowest we can go because we've already fucked up. The treaty was supposed to jumpstart a new age of green energy and Trump went ahead and fucked it up even more.

So why should the US foot the bill for anyone else?
If everyone really wants to go green, they can do it themselves. Offering American money will only open up avenues for us to be taken advantage of.
And if things really are too bad to help, why not stop championing green energy in favor of focusing more on adapting to the changes?

I said that America was paying the most. Which is true. "Fair." The number 3 polluter was paying the most. 1 and 2 are China and India. Would you like to take a guess at how much they were contributing? Spoiler: neither are in the top 20.
That doesn't make us a "victim," or at least that wasn't what I was going for with that comment. What might would be these:
"An overall average shortfall of nearly 400,000 jobs;
An average manufacturing shortfall of over 200,000 jobs;
A total income loss of more than $20,000 for a family of four;
An aggregate gross domestic product (GDP) loss of over $2.5 trillion; and
Increases in household electricity expenditures between 13 percent and 20 percent."
http://www.heritage.org/environment/report/consequences-paris-protocol-devastating-economic-costs-essentially-zero
Might you care to provide a source refuting these numbers?
.2 degrees doesn't sound like much because it isn't. Not for those costs anyway. Not when industry is already moving in that way.

Also:
no ramifications: True
Not ratified by the senate: true
required future president to following limitations to work: true
.2 degrees Celsius in 100 years with 100% compliance: true (*estimates range from ~.2-~1.8)
will not achieve 100% compliance: true
Trump offered to rejoin if renegotiated: true
America as 3rd/4th biggest polluter: true (*2nd biggest)
Some is better than nothing: true
Others are unwilling to renegotiate: true
I see this as virtue signalling: true
*Denotes edit based on stream_42 comments/sources
Score: 8.5/10
Verdict: Not quite fake news

China and several African nations are building NEW coal power plants. Are we shutting down ours just to allow somebody else to have them? If there is to be an international pollution treaty it needs to be applied equally.

You can't "apply it equally" because the world isn't equal. For the most developed nations efficient practices are taxing. For less developed nations trying to build infrastructure or catch up to other nations the technological and resource limitations would cripple those efforts. See, developed nations have existing resources to provide while slowly weaning off as new ones are built. Many of these countries do not. Environment asides new tech like cars, planes, and computers were seen as toys that didn't have the ability to do anything useful. The first cars were less able than horses. Because certain countries embraced new technology they emerged as forces capable of becoming global powers. Simply put climate or no, new technology is our future and not advancing is a long term mistake unless you want to be dependent on foreign sources to provide your needs. "Sustainable" technology is a path to self reliance and a tactical strength for future generations.

Nobody said anything about not wanting to advance. Only that the US should not cede any legislative autonomy/force change nor should we give others avenues by which they could use to take advantage of us.
Technology marches on, and when green energy surpasses fossil fuels the same way automobiles surpassed horses, the majority will go green of their own accord.

People didn't go to automobiles when they surpassed horses. Massive conglomerates bought up other options such as the enormous Los Angeles electric rail system, and bribed politicians to destroy competition forcing adoption. The aircraft/travel industry has been a ward of the state since its inception up until they were "too big to fail."Very little happens "of our own accord" without that accord being guided. you have little choice over what country/company gets your money, but you have limited choice on how it gets in their pocket. As for autonomy- theres no legal entity to enforce the Paris accord, and if there were the United States is known to not even honor deals it makes with itself, no one could compel it by force. You can't claim "the market will decide" when the market is heavily government influenced and the government is on loan from corporate boards of directors. Someone else will decide and the law will follow.

W/o... you guys really think that the entire world has some conspiracy against you... damn
.
Also the US is the second largest polluter in the world. So yeah. And China are investing more in green energy than the US is. It's true that the US can fix the pollution my themselves, but Trump doesn't care about that. He even tried to bring back more coal.

Ayy, you found it! I was wrong on America's position. By one spot. You went through them one by one didn't you? So much for so many things wrong...
*poorly dances away*

It was really easy to find, one google search. Just shows that you don't even care to look things up before you say something.
.
You're basically mocking me for looking up facts...

One (*and a half) thing. One (*and a half) thing that I was wrong on. By One position. That is what I, at the time of me writing it, "knew." It was wrong. Fully admit it.
Like you said, one google search to find it. You claimed that I had gotten "so many things wrong," when it was really just one minor detail.
I'm not mocking you for looking up facts, I'm mocking you for trying to call me out on knowing nothing about what I was talking about when I got one thing wrong. Then failing to correct me like I asked until nearly a day later. When all it took was one little google search.
My source was wrong. I should have double checked it. I didn't. My bad.

Coal, oil and other non-reneweable energy sources will one day run out. It's better to be prepared for that day and start moving towards green energy no.matter the effects on the climate. I don't doubt that jobs were lost, but those jobs will come back within the green energy market. You're not removing jobs, just replacing them with new ones.
.
As for the .2 degrees, that is much. Just one degree increase in temperature can significantly alter nature. Just because .2 degrees doesn't sound like much doenst mean we should just dismiss it as nothing.
.
A reason America is paying more than China is probably because it produces about double the amount of CO2 per capita.

Please provide statistics on how many jobs will be gained. I have provided statistics on how many will be lost.
.2 degrees would be a lot. If it wasn't after 100 years. That's what makes it small. It would also be a lot bigger if .2 degrees was what was expected. But it's not. The effects of the PCA will NOT have .2 degrees of impact in 100 years. It will be less, unless there is a miracle.
And yet, the first and third biggest polluters by CO2 emissions, aren't paying anywhere near as much as the second. Hell, from what I see, they aren't even contributing anything to the fund.
http://www.greenclimate.fund/partners/contributors/resources-mobilized
Maybe you can 'ctrl f,' and find China, India, or Russia, but I know I couldn't.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-paris-climate-agreement-speech-fact-check/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/02/did-us-get-bad-deal-paris-climate-agreement/
.
I see you completely ignored the "per capita" and just went on with your argument. Nice move.

Thank you. Anyway, I went with total emissions because I see that as being far more relevant than "per capita." Because according to my second source, Luxemburg has the highest per capita emissions, with Australia being tied with us. Assuming your "double per capita," is true, Canada, Estonia, S. Korea, Finland, Netherlands and Czech Republic emit more per capita than China as well. Noticed they were paying substantially lower than us as well.
I'm surprised. You missed a perfectly good chance to get me to 8/10 (or at least 8.5 since there is debate on which is "true") instead of 9/10. With your own source no less. And one that I was absolutely unaware of.
Second of your sources is mostly locked behind a pay wall, and I'm not paying so sorry bout that.
I do find it funny that one of your sources say that a good scenario is only an "average yearly reduction was 2.2 percent," (of GDP from 2034-2040).
I'm tapping out for tonight. Just got off work and wanna relax, though I do enjoy (cont)

seeing your perspective. It just takes more effort than I want to put in tonight. If you reply expect me to respond tomorrow early morning.

If I interpreted that data right the 2.2 percent drop is only counting within the fossil fuel jobs. Not the new jobs that will be created within green energy. The job market is always changing and sooner or later fossil fuels will be out of date. It would have been smarter of Trump to change the goals and pay a smaller sum while remaining in the deal (since it wasn't binding in any way).
.
I know that there are countries that have more or are tied with us when it comes to per capita. The difference is that they don't have as much money as the US does. Therefore it's smarter for them to focus within the country rather than spending enormous sums on other countries. Of course I'm all for the US paying less in the treaty. The goals were set by the countries themselves, not anyone else. The money is going to help developing countries with developing green energy instead of relying on coal.

Don't know how you're interpreting it that way, I only see it saying the GDP will be reduced, not just fossil fuels sector.
We agree they will eventually be outdated, but I would say later rather than sooner. Just spitballin but I'd guess we "need" them for maybe 80 more years. Again: not an expert.
Don't know how everything worked. Says we pledged "$3,000 Million" and "signed" for the same. Maybe withdrawing was the only way not to pay it, maybe just didn't want America to seem like it was breaking its word without officially withdrawing, maybe you're right.
The reason *I* think we (and developing countries) will need fossil fuels is that (unless I'm wrong) they are currently much more "powerful" sources of energy (like needing a gallon to go X miles vs. needing a day of solar charging to go the same. Just an example of what I mean by powerful, not saying it's exactly how it is) and reliable. You can (unless mistaken) have energy "droughts" with solar and wind, or have (cont)

periods where you have too much energy and have to get rid of energy. I *think* people sell their energy extremely cheap to get rid of it. In a first world country, those droughts might just be a nuisance where your fridge goes out and stuff like that, but I'm afraid that in a developing/poor country the results could be more severe. If you rely on that power to clean your water and that drought goes on for too long, you could be outta luck. Having never lived in one of those countries I can't think of any other examples, but if you are relying on power, I expect you'd want that power to be as reliable as possible. I see fossil fuels as being necessary until solar and wind can work out their kinks. I'd like to see more nuclear energy to help fill that gap, but people hear "nuclear," and think Chernobyl, Godzilla, and Fukushima and adopt the NIMBY policy: Not In My Back Yard.

These problems are why we need to invest in the technology. Hydro, solar and wind power are not nearly as powerful or effective as they could be. That doesn't mean we should neglect them, on the contrary we need to focus more on them. A solution for the droughts is also focusing in fusion energy. Clean and basically an endless supply. Just because fossil fuels are more powerful today doesn't mean we should keep relying on them just because the alternative isn't as developed. The Paris treaty was supposed to help this development. It was a crude and maybe not the best treaty, but it was a start. Leaving it is like a sportsman that stops training because he can't see immediate results.
.
It doesn't look better to completely leave it rather than changing the goals. Trump could have dodged a bullet if he just stopped paying or decreased it by 1/2 or 1/3.

Up until you say fusion: fully agree.
Fusion part: the only thing I know about that is it's the opposite of fission, incredibly hard to solve the problems with it, but if it ever is it'll be a fantastic boom of clean energy. Fingers crossed on that.
Maybe it would have been better to utilize the fact that there were no ramifications to just adjust the treaty without leaving it. That may boil down to Trump (I believe) having promised to leave it during the campaign. I don't know if he would have "dodged a bullet," by just changing it, because those in favor of it were going to hammer him if he left it or did less than was promised. I can hear it now: "Trump not fulfilling America's promise to the World has weakened our standing in the World. He has renegaded our responsibility, and permanently damaged America's reputation as THE World Leader."
He did offer to renegotiate, and if others took him up on it, it could still have the same effect, but I don't think they will.

Even if that were true, so what?

just means half of americans are stupid to think a billionaire with no political experience would care about helping them with money problems since that seems to be a big argument with the whole "they took our jobs" (when he himself has production for his products in different countries)

He's trying to make it so that the smarter business move is to work in America. That's why business are leaving, regulations and taxes are making America a bad place to do business.
And there are arguments besides money. Many of us aren't economists, we're just sick of globalism taking away our national identity and autonomy, or of the military being forced to fight with their hands tied.

"Even if that were true" he lost the popular vote. That's fact. And the hate against Trump isn't childish. People are complaining about how he's acting and how he contradicts himself. Also when he does bullshit things like the Paris convention and how he fired Comey after he had asked him to stop the Russia investigation. I'm not saying he has any ties to Russia but he damn sure acts like he is. Also how he is restricting the media, only allowing chosen newsnetworks into his presscomferemces and how he has made the Trumptards believe that everyone who speaks against him is "Fake news"

I believe OP meant no one voted for Musk.

@stream_42
If you won't even try to be civil or entertain the opposing viewpoint, I won't debate with you.

I will! If you wish to be technical, only 25% of Americans voted for Clinton (give or take a point or too) because yay 50% voter turnout. To be fair "over half of Americans didn't vote trump," is correct, it's just also true for Clinton.
"when he himself has production for his products in different countries"
....exactly? Isn't the fact that he, a greedy billionaire that cares about profits, is maximizing profits by moving production out, proof that America could be better for business? Wouldn't he then have knowledge on how to change that?
"Also how he is restricting the media, only allowing chosen newsnetworks into his presscomferemces [sic]."
Press conferences weren't always a thing, and neither is restricting who is or is not allowed in them new. Freedom of association is a right the president does in fact have. Being in a press conferences is NOT a right. Not exactly violating the first Amendment.

It's pretty obvious he doesn't care about profit for the entire country, only himself and other rich families. Moving business back into America, as he said he would, will only make products more expensive since the American minimum wage is a lot higher than that in for example China. More jobs are lost to atomization rather than moving the business offshore. Bringing those businesses back won't bring back all the jobs. As you said he is a greedy billionaire. That just means he wants to maximise his on wealth, not the people's. It's kind of obvious when he wants a tax cut on the major rich families in the US, even though they are the ones who should actually pay more tax. If he lowers their tax he will only lose budget money. That means he will have less to spend on military and his "improved" healthcare. Since he is a republican it is probably the healthcare that will take the blow. That means loads of Americans will lose insurance, opposite of what he said he would do.

And famousone, I wanted trump to be a good president because he s the fucking president of the United states. You think I've been all.against him but I've TRIED to look positively at him. Sadly he has time and time again proved his stupidity and ignorance. And for the press matter, it's very possible it doesn't go against the first amendment, but choosing which news get to be present and making the population believe that everything bad being said against him in the media is fals news is a sign of a bad leader and a tyrant. That is exactly what dictators have done throughout the ages. When someone says something bad against them they say it's not true and that the people only should listen to this media outlet. In the cases where said tyrant already has the power of a dictator they will dispose of the people who wrote the bad things. And open and diverse media is crucial for democracy and freedom. If that's what you stand for you should know it's wrong.

"It's pretty obvious he doesn't care..."
One of the beautiful things about democracy: You either care enough to do a good job, or you don't get reelected.
"Moving business back into America... will only make products more expensive since the American minimum wage is a lot higher..."
You just made a perfect argument to getting rid of federally mandated minimum wage. Besides that though, American products are very often high quality. You may pay more for the sticker price, but the worth and use will likely make up for that.
"More jobs are lost to atomization[sic] rather than moving the business..."
Moving business = net job loss
Automation= more net job loss
Because we're losing jobs we shouldn't try to get as many jobs as we can back?
"even though they are the ones who should actually pay more tax"
Not too familiar with Trumps tax plan other than the basic outline was 1 page long and Bill Mahr made fun of him for that. The current tax code is 70,000 pages. Now, who benefits more (cont)

from the current tax code? A family of four, a small business, or a large corporation that can afford to hire a team of lawyers to read through it and find every single loophole they can? As I recall of his campaign, he called for lowering the Business tax (of which America has the highest of industrialized nations) and closing the loopholes that companies used to pay far, far less. As you'll recall, Wallstreet supported Hillary. Maybe they thought that they'd pay higher taxes overall without those loopholes even with a lower business tax overall?
"his stupidity and ignorance"
There are a lot, A LOT, of insults that describe Trump. A successful billionaire, who manages to recover after multiple failures, who managed to be elected POTUS with no prior political experience, without the support of the party he was running in, is stupid and ignorant?
"That is exactly what dictators have done throughout the ages"
Dictators I am aware of have historically threatened and (cont)

used physical force or destroyed media that they found distasteful. If you can find an example of a previous dictator that I am not aware of that simply called media fake news, let me know. Perhaps I'm not as familiar with their rise to power as you are, and I am only aware of when they are in power?
"And open and diverse media is crucial for democracy and freedom."
Not entirely sure what you mean by "diverse media," but you and I agree on this. The only thing I would add would be that the media must also be honest. I'm all for holding someones feet to the fire, so long as you hold Everyones feet to the fire when they deserve it. If you let your own political leanings influence who you do or do not hold accountable, I will find another news source. One with principles. I'm not talking about honest mistakes... Well here: http://articles.latimes.com/1993-02-10/news/mn-1335_1_gm-pickup
"If that's what you stand for you should know it's wrong."
Please explain this line for me.

I meant that if you stand for freedom and democracy you should know that it's wrong to choose which media gets to report on you and which media is fake and telling lies. He should not interfere with the media the way he does. If he thinks the media is lying, instead of tweeting "fake news", he should adress the matter formally and present a counter argument.
.
Back to economics. If America brought busniess back in it would increase the price making it more expensive to live. The quality doesn't necessarily go up. The compazny will most likely still use the same machines, techniques and materials as before, the difference will be the nationalioty of the workers. If the minimum wage is removed or lowered that will just make the lower middle class and lower classes poorer. It would certainly not help the poeple who Trump promised to help. The prices may go down for everyone else but the workers will in that case get similar conditions to those that we have offshore now. (cont)

If anything that will lower the lower classes even more and increase poverty. Other companies that are already in the US will also see their chance to lower their workers paychecks. Sure, more people will get jobs but that doesn't mean poverty in the US will go dowen. At the same time companies are always trying to automize their productions more and more. If the minimum wage isn't removed the companies will have all the more reason to invest in machines that in the end will be cheaper than American minimum wage workers. The busniess will have moved back to the US but ultimately more people worldwide will have lost jobs. Let's say the prices increase because of American minimum wage workers. They will then demand higher pay so that they can afford to live off of the now higher prices. That in turn will just lead to higher inflation because of the excessive ammounts of money on the market. The only ones who profit are the people who already have money, the CEO's and higher ups. (cont)

I've heard countless of times that people think those higher ups deserve the money becuase they worked for it. It's true that they worked for it, but if only those who are already rich gain from this it will create a monopoly on the market. That is not a good thing in any society (unless it's something state run). For a free market to work there needs to room for several busnisses, not just the big companies. Taxes would help regulate this, besides the already rich have enough money as it is. If America wants the population to feel good those taxes will only help. Not only does it give the state more monmey to use on for example healthcare (which in my opinion is something important that every citizen should have free or cheap access to), the military, roads or whatever. At the same time it will be easier for smaller busniess to open up independantly which will create more jobs. All in all those taxes will profit the common citizen.

Just because Trump is a billionare and was elected POTUS doesn't mean he isn't ignorant or stupid. He was bnorn into a rich family. That's like playing sims with cheat codes. The fact that he "recovered" from his bankruptcies shouldn't be a positive thing. He filed bankruptcy several times, that's not a good thing, at all. The only reason he managed it was partly because of his rich family and beacuse of his other companies keeping him afloat. He misinterpreted the study he based his desition to leave the Paris agreement on. That's not an opinion, the scientists who wrote it criticised him for it. The Paris agreement is for the greater good, not some scam for the rest of the world to take the US' money. Every country who signed it has to contribute. Besides the future lies in renewable energy, whether you believe in cilimate change or not. Fossil fuels will eventually run out, sooner or later. Some within our lifespan. Jobs won't come back just becuase you increase coal production...

Some might be generated for the moment but that's not even guaranteed. Neither is pumping more oil. The faster you use up those resources the faster they will run out and the faster you will lose jobs. If you want to generate more jobs you have to focus on renewable energy. It will not only save the planet but it is where future energy work lies.
.
For the media, I agree that it has to be honest. However there's a difference with repoorting on something new without all the facts and end up getting it wrong and reporting news with the intent to fool the viewers and present false proof that they know are false. Since America is so split up it's important that media outlets get to do their thing, the more there are the better. It means there will be several newspapers talking about the same subject from different perspectives. That way it's easier to get all the facts.

"I meant that if you stand for freedom and democracy"
I do
"it's wrong to choose which media gets to report on you"
Media continues to report on Trump regardless of whether they are in press conferences or not. All it does is prevent them from asking questions at a certain location: the White House Briefing room. Simply never calling on them to ask a question would have the same result, and neither of these options are unprecedented
.
"quality doesn't necessarily go up. The compazny will most likely still use the same machines, techniques and materials"
Quality can vary plant by plant. Plant managers have to have some power to control what they are doing because relying on directions from corporate is just too far removed to be efficient and responded to changes. Also, anything that can be assembled, welded, soldered, nailed, screwed, riveted or bolted can vary in quality. The quality of those small things can greatly influence the quality of the entire product. cont

"workers will in that case get similar conditions to those that we have offshore now"
Labor Unions over here, so probably not
Basically everything you say on automation:
Most of the automation will replace low-skill minimum wage jobs. Taking an order for example requires nothing but an interactive menu. But making the burger? That would require the entire restaurant to be automated and that's much more expensive to build. Self-driving cars and truckers (though, I personally think drivers should remain in the cab in case of emergencies, and unless they're solar they're gonna need somebody to fill the tank. Even then, what do they do when it's too cloudy for days at a time?). Gonna be a problem, and we can only try and do our best when it happens, though I imagine labor unions might try and push contracts saying they're jobs can't become automated. cont

"people think those higher ups deserve the money becuase they worked for it"
That's what I believe. As I see it, why does the government deserve more (percentage) of my money because I make $500,000 instead of $100,000? Glad you address this next
"if only those who are already rich gain from this it will create a monopoly"
Government can and will break up monopolies, unless I'm misunderstanding you here.
"Taxes would help regulate this (free market)"
Government regulating a free market means it isn't a free market. That'd make it mixed. I believe. I'm no economist.
"the already rich have enough money as it is"
When do I have "enough money?" Who determines that? Better yet, what are my taxes when I have "enough money?" Under Carter, the cap was 70 cents on the dollar went to the federal government. When Reagan was an actor, he was paying 94% of the top of his income to the federal government. cont

Here's the best part though: it costs money to make money. I buy a car at $10,000 dollars with plans to fix it up and sell it at a profit (just using round numbers to make it easy on me).
I start $10,000 in the hole. I put in X hours working on it, and I spend Y dollars on parts, paints, supplies etc.
Now I sell it with the government taking 70 cents on the dollar as taxable income (if this isn't correct currently, just go with it). In order to get back my original $10,000 dollars not counting time or extra money spent, I have to sell it at $33,333. To. break. even. But I'm guessing such high rates would apply only to the rich. Well, add some more zeroes and we find that a 1 million dollar investment must return 3.3 million at the tax rate to break even. That's a hell of a risk to take, basically neutering profit incentive. Why invest money with odds stacked against you, when you could just sit on that money if you're already rich? If they don't, then those tax rates don't return much