To give you a short overview about the original Paris climate deal in 2015; many leaders of countries all over the world met in Paris to debate how to tackle climate change in a single agreement but the USA pulled out and many others failed to comply.
Now, it is said that White House representatives announced that the US would either stay in the 2015 accord or review its terms. .
In June, President Trump said that there should be more fairness in the climate deal because about 6.5 million people would lose their jobs under its conditions.
Questions:
1.Do you think people losing their jobs is more important than the need to cut greenhouse gas emissions?
2.Are you happy you are not in the position to have to make decision for an entire country?
My answers:
1.In my opinion it is more important to help the whole world instead of caring about those people who would lose their jobs. Of course, it is sad and hard to imagine how it would feel to be one of those people but we should work harder to control climate change.
2.I think that it must be very hard to make decisions which impact a country (or even the world) and especially in this case I am very happy I’m not the president.
Replies
1. No because as long as the government is able to provide people in need/ out of job financial support, everyone this applies to should be fine. It will give us time to worry about what truly matters. This planet.
2.Yes I don't want the responsibility of making millions of people upset .
I don't think losing their jobs is more important than cutting down on greenhouse gas emissions but it also doesn't have less importance either. Yeah I'm happy that I don't have to make that decision for the entire country because if I did I feel like it would be the wrong one.
You can really go either way with this. If people keep there jobs and keep pumping pumping green house gasses in our atmosphere we won't have a world to live on. But at the same time if you do cut down green house gasses and some people lose their jobs is it worth it to not have money for your family and house so you can live on this earth until it's your time.
It is difficult to say, because if these people don't have jobs, they will lose money. Although, we need our world healthy, or else we'll be unhealthy and sick. I am very happy that I'm not in their position, because I can barely make decision with my own self at times, let alone the whole country. I'm a very 'whatever you want to do' type of person.
I think that both are important because it's terrible to be without a job, especially if it's not your fault, but I also think that having a clean environment is also important. I am very happy that I'm not in that position because I don't have to worry about everything that could happen and how the decision I chose will make an impact on the US.
1. I would say it is important for as many citizens to have jobs but also our environment matters, I would say a fair balance must be kept. Yes, I would not be able to make a decision with such gravity.
I think having a job and taking care of your family is more important than having to worry about the climate. Yes I am happy that I'm not in control of anyone because there are so many people that wont agree with me or they would start fighting against what is being said.
I don't really know. People losing their jobs leads to poverty and it's not something that the world needs, but greenhouse gas emissions aren't good for the planet either. Well of course I'm happy it's not me, I don't want to have to deal with that kind of pressure.
I think it is important that we help the world but I also think it's important to care and help those who might lose their jobs. It would probably be be very hard and stressful to take on that responsibility so I would say yes.
There's kind of a relationship between your two points. If we wouldn't help the world with reducing the climate change, we wouldn't have to help those people who might lose their jobs. So I hope that we are going to help both, like you said.
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
-
5
of 5 Next