Should the U.S. join a binding international agreement to curb greenhouse gas emissions?

American negotiators are buoyed by broad public support for stronger international and domestic actions that address climate change as they head into the United Nations climate change conference in Paris on Monday.

Two-thirds of Americans support the United States joining a binding international agreement to curb growth of greenhouse gas emissions, but a slim majority of Republicans remain opposed, the poll found. Sixty-three percent of Americans — including a bare majority of Republicans — said they would support domestic policy limiting carbon emissions from power plants. (New York Times)

Today’s Question: Should the U.S. join a binding international agreement to curb greenhouse gas emissions?

  • Gary F
  • PaulJ

    The devil is in the details. In any event, sooner or later; politicians are going to have to get the nerve to open Yucca mountain and destroy some Arizona desert ecosystems with solar collectors. Unless the aliens arrive with new technology and start a new era of wonderfulness that we all can vote for.

  • Rich in Duluth

    Yes, the U.S. should be leading the rest of the world in the reduction of greenhouse gasses.

    • MarthaRN

      Yes! Yes! Yes! Obama should be leading! Ahh well, but how about acting like a real man with some real courage and not like a nutless wonder___, and lead the world to end Islamist jihadists instead? Climate Change has killed how many this year? Islamist jihadists have killed over 255,000 and at least 35 Americans. There are as many as 1,000 active cases, at least 48 ISIS
      suspects are considered so high-risk that the FBI is using its elite
      tracking squads, known as the mobile surveillance teams or MSTs, to
      track them domestically. Yeah_ as Sanders said, climate change is the biggest threat, in his mind, or maybe he said that to get more donor $$.

  • Hunter

    For those unaware or who have yet to read many of the UN documents, lets review some facts.
    1. In the 1970’s we were warned by the global climate folks that a new ice age was about to happen within the decade. Hmmm….brrrr. It didn’t happen. So they went with Global warming_ didn’t happen. Then they switched to “climate change” term to cover their bases on any slight changes. ” It was brilliant, a “Heads I win, Tails you lose” strategy.
    2. The Antartic’s ice fields have grown. This winter, the maximum total Antarctic sea ice extent was reported to
    be 19.47 million square kilometers, which is 3.6% ABOVE the winter
    average calculated from 1981 to 2010. This continues a trend that is
    weakly positive and remains in stark contrast to the decline in Arctic
    summer sea ice extent (2013 was 18% below the mean from 1981-2010). Natural variability.
    Climate change is based on computer modeling_ except, when you have junk data in and junk data comes out.
    3. Documents from the UN show BP Oil co. was one of two that went on record as saying the climate change was endorsed because_ it would raise their stock..Hmmmm.
    4. There are many Progressives, including Obama and his ilk, that wish for greater UN control over all and using climate change ideology is one way to try to get that result..bigger government ( one world order) type of scenario has been pushed by Obama and his supporters; e.g., George Soros in his taped interviews for pushing the need for a One World Order, its on the record.
    5. If man made carbon output was so bad, then how do the scientists explain the fact accepted by NASA and the Geo researchers that forest fires, volcanoes and solar flares account for 30-35 times more CO2 and heat in the atmosphere than all the coal plants and SUVs? Hmmmm. kinda ruins their argument.
    6. Earth has had at least 3 glaciers and it takes a huge melt to recede and then freeze to return..all before man had power…Hmmmm. Natural variability.
    Obama is wasting our time when he could be fighting the war on ISIL and/or acting to stop child trafficing but wait! Those issues don’t get him donor support for his party. If this wasn’t so, then why did every Democrat vote NO to Kate’s Law? Are Democrat leaders more sympathetic to illegals that commit crimes than they are to innocent ladies shot dead while walking with their Father? Climate change crap seems to be a safer topic for them to address and get environmental radical donor money for re-election.

    • Rich in Duluth

      Here’s a nice little site that might help you understand the science of climate change. http://www.explainingclimatechange.ca/Climate%20Change/Lessons/lessons.html

      • Yanotha Twangai

        I suspect your assumption that Hunter might actually want to understand the science of climate is faulty.

        • Rich in Duluth

          Yes, I agree. I’ve seen enough of Martha’s, MarthaRN’s, and Hunter’s comments to know better. But, I’ve got this thing about logic and evidence and reason that keeps getting in the way of finding better things to do……..I’m going to go work on my windmill, now…