Climate Vigil Tomorrow: New Time And Site

Sunday’s Candlelight Vigil for Climate Protection has drawn interest far beyond Westport’s beach-stickered citizens.

So organizers have moved the event — planned to protest President Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris Accord — to a spot accessible to everyone: Jesup Green.

The start time is changed too, to 8 p.m. (Sunday, June 4).

Click here for more information, on the group’s Facebook page.

Nicaragua did not join the Paris Accord because it did not go far enough. Syria did not sign because it is consumed by a civil war. The US is withdrawing after signing because … ?

52 responses to “Climate Vigil Tomorrow: New Time And Site

  1. Nancy Hunter

    “Make Our Planet Great Again”

  2. I hope nobody burns any candles or arrives in a SUV.

  3. Kevin O'Brien

    …because among many other things it requires the US to give hundreds of billions of dollars to CHINA, whose economy will overtake the United States as the largest economy in the world next year, and after spending more than 100 TRILLION dollars will reduce the temperature in a hundred years by 3/10’s of one degree. it’s not the goal, it’s the methods. I’ll wager that fewer than one in fifty attending know what’s in the accord and what it requires. Angela Merkel called the accord an important step toward globalization, meaning no wold or national borders. I’m a Democrat, but I don’t come here for politics. I can get that at anywhere else. It’s what I DID like about this site.

    • Susan Iseman

      If I’m not mistaken, this blog is about all things Westport, and “where it meets the world.” Tomorrow’s event seems to fit in that category. Politics can be distasteful, to say the least, but Dan Woog does a tremendous job juggling it all. Thanks to him for this posting!

    • Russell Gontar

      First of all, the Paris accords are non binding. Second of all, I am unable to locate any information that verifies the US is “required to give hundreds of billion dollars to China”. Please cite your sources for this statement.

    • Bill Rogers

      Because the Paris Accord is non binding it does not require us to do anything, especially not give hundreds of billions of dollars to China. The Accord involves voluntary goals set by each country for themselves. Spending 100 trillion for 3/10 of a degree reduction in 100 years is inaccurate and misleading. Even still, lets keep in mind that a small decrease is much better than a large increase.

    • Jack Whittle

      Do any of those who decry Trump’s withdrawal of the US from the Paris accord even know what the Paris accord says? What the US is obligated to do? The identities of the other countries who are required to do something, and those who are not? I’m curious why you think it was such a wise thing for Obama to commit the US to (improperly, but that’s another issue), hopefully demonstrating an understanding of the terms that apply to us.

      And no, I don’t think the “lots of other countries signed it” argument is compelling.

      • Russell Gontar

        Based on your remark, I can only conclude you probably don’t believe in Science. That’s “Science”‘with a capital S.

        • Jack Whittle

          and that’s your explanation of the Paris treaty? To attack me as some sort of science denier?

          Thanks Russell you just proved my point – you have no idea what the Paris treaty says, what it obligates the US to do, which countries have similar obligations and which ones don’t – not a clue, right? As I suspected. I suspect your level of knowledge about the Paris treaty is shared in common with the others here.

          Please, take the time to educate yourself about an agreement you take a public position on. I won’t comment on how not doing so makes you look when you then publicly post about it.

          If you had bothered to do so, you would see that the US obligated itself to pay billions (yes, billions) into a kitty to be distributed to other countries to pay for their environmental clean-up efforts. So a country that has made great environmental strides pays billions to those countries who have not. Doesn’t sound so great.

          Of course, you would think the other superpowers are obligated to likewise pay billions into the kitty – especially those that are major polluters on a grand scale, such as China, right? Ah, no – under the Paris treaty, environmental leaders like the US pay billions into the kitty fior distribution to other countries, including China, to pay for their environmental clean-up efforts. Sounds kinda crazy, especially since China is certainly capable of paying for its environmental cleanup efforts.

          It’s no wonder why so many countries signed it – there are a few givers and many takers in the Paris treaty.

          • Russell Gontar

            It was your claim. I asked you to back up your statement but you did not.

            • Bob Stalling

              And what was the “science denier” bit all about Russell?

              • Russell Gontar

                Mr. Whittle volunteered his view that the other 190 nations that signed the accord is not a compelling act. I guess the leaders of those countries, acting on the indisputable world wide scientific consensus that climate change is real and that human activity has significantly contributed to the consequences, just don’t know what they’re talking about. I didn’t attack Mr. Whittle as a science denier, I only concluded that there was a good chance he might be based on his dismissal of those other 190 nations.

                So for clarity’s stake, do you accept that climate change is real and that human activity is a significant factor in that change or not?

                • Bob Stalling

                  The GAT over the past 140 years has increased .8C.
                  Man most certainly could have had an impact on that increase, but can you tell me what percent of that ,8C increase is a direct result of man?

                  Thanks.

                • Bob Stalling

                  Russell to Jack Whittle – “I can only conclude you probably don’t believe in Science. That’s “Science”‘with a capital S.”
                  Russell to me – “I didn’t attack Mr. Whittle as a science denier”

                  You be the judge,

          • I think you did a superlative job of “backing up your statement” Jack – despite what that smarmy little pissant thinks.

  4. Nancy Hunter

    An interesting article in today’s NYT: “How G.O.P. Leaders Came to Reject Climate Science”.

    • Russell Gontar

      Ronald Regan set the GOP agenda when he removed the solar panels Jimmy Carter had installed in the White House roof.

    • The NYT; really? Not a reliable source.

      • Russell Gontar

        Only according to Lyin’ Donald Trump. And you.

      • Nancy Hunter

        All news sources are news sources. I guess it’s how the reader interprets the “news” and “facts” to decide what matters. Better to travel yourself to trust what is reliable from your own eyes and ears, no? Or read. Read a lot.

  5. Gee, this issue is so serious. But when people use insulting language and fowl mouthed insults, it is hard to want to get involved. Can we try to argue narrow positions from fact based positions?
    Even in relatively well-educated Westport, many people can manage to sound like they don’t know much. Please re-read your comments before posting them. We owe that to each other. Just because we somehow elected a President who promotes lies, innuendoes, and false statements, is no reason for the the rest of us to succumb to the same nonsense.
    I believe we should all show up at Jesup Green tonight, meet face to face and attempt to clarify facts with the idea of the town of Westport taking an official position of what and how much it is willing to commit to fight global warming. A couple of us, I am sure, want to do nothing at all. There will always be those few people. But let’s the rest of us be willing to speak up and commit. Yes Jack and Bruce, that might mean being willing to pay something. But goodness a good planet is hard to find.
    Let us not forget that the United States has already put 4 times more carbon into the air as any other country. Sure China is absolutely putting out more carbon right now, but on a per capita basis is less than 1/3rd of the US. Those of us who live in the more fortunate parts of this country should count our blessings and be happy to help solve this planet shaking problem, if we can and if it is not too late.
    Kevin, I would like to request that you research some of your facts before our 8 PM rendezvous. You make it sound more pessimistic than what I have been reading.

    • Nancy Hunter

      … and, albeit a different tragedy, maybe take a moment to think about London, Manchester… too.

      • Bob Stalling

        And while you are thinking about those tragedies, think about how we can prevent them from happening here…too.

        • Nancy Hunter

          What is your solution?

          • Bob Stalling

            How about we start with stronger boarder security and better vetting of people coming in the country from declared terrorist states or better vetting of refugees?

            Sounds illogical, inconsiderate, racist, xenophobic and outright cruel, correct?

            • Nancy Hunter

              What is a “declared terrorist state”?

              • Bob Stalling

                Is it your style to just ask questions?

                So what is your solution? In detail please…

                State Sponsors Of Terrorism –
                Countries determined by the Secretary of State to have repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism are designated pursuant to three laws: section 6(j) of the Export Administration Act, section 40 of the Arms Export Control Act, and section 620A of the Foreign Assistance Act. Taken together, the four main categories of sanctions resulting from designation under these authorities include restrictions on U.S. foreign assistance; a ban on defense exports and sales; certain controls over exports of dual use items; and miscellaneous financial and other restrictions

            • Russell Gontar

              The USA has the most thorough vetting process on the planet. It takes YEARS for the process to be completed.

              • Bob Stalling

                The vetting process can always be improved…and it can be avoided by walking across the border.

                • Russell Gontar

                  Yeah, who do those children and their families think they are? As if RUNNING FOE THEIR LIVES justifies “walking” across the border.

                  • Bob Stalling

                    Yes, because only women and children walk across the border…and they are all running for their lives.
                    Makes Sense.
                    You should be in charge of Homeland Security, they could learn a few things from you.

    • And you too promote lies innuendos, and
      false statements.

      • Nancy Hunter

        Such as? Please explain.
        Michael, you never explain yourself so that we can have a civil, interesting, conversation.
        You seemed smarter not to fall into this trap.
        Your Socratic method is null and void.

      • Russell Gontar

        Once again, empty smears. I guess you’re fresh out of civil comments.

    • Bob Stalling

      “Just because we somehow elected a President who promotes lies, innuendoes, and false statements, is no reason for the the rest of us to succumb to the same nonsense.”

      You just showed your hand….and it’s nonsense.

      • Nancy Hunter

        “Nonsense” how? Please explain.

        • Bob Stalling

          Nonsense because he throws out accusations with no examples. Nonsense because he feels the need to denigrate the President .
          Nonsense because the President isn’t to blame for words on this comment board.
          And now more nonsense because you don’t ask him to “explain” his words.

          • Nancy Hunter

            Yes, what I’d like to hear is nonsense explained by all.

          • Bill Rogers

            Anyone who thinks Trump doesn’t promote lies, innuendos, and false statements isn’t paying attention, or is a believer in alternate facts. There are almost too many examples to list.

            • Bob Stalling

              No worries Bill, it’s all good…”you can still keep your doctor.”

              • Bill Rogers

                I wish that it were all good Bob, my doctor is not my concern.

              • Russell Gontar

                Here’s a textbook example of language taken out of context. When Obama said “you can keep your doctor”, he was talking about the vast majority of Americans who get their health care through their employers. The statement was correct but ran into a shit storm of lies and distortions. When the exchanges opened, some of these plans forced out some doctors an effort to hold down costs. Or more likely, to maximize profits for their investors, otherwise known as the root of all evil.

          • Russell Gontar

            The President, I mean Putin’s factory installed puppet, is incapable of not lying. Perhaps you’ve already forgotten his “Obama wiretapped the trump campaign” charge. You want others? Just google “Trump lies”.

            • Bob Stalling

              Interesting Russell…when Michael Petrino suggested the NYT was an unreliable source, you stated:
              “Only according to Lyin’ Donald Trump. And you.”

              Yet, the NYT on January 19th 2017 had a headline that read… “Intercepted Russian Communications Part of Inquiry Into Trump Associates”….and within the article stated…”One official said intelligence reports based on some of the wiretapped communications had been provided to the White House.”

              Granted, there is no evidence Obama wiretapped, but the NYT’s is claiming there was “wiretapping”

              Do you believe there was wiretapping Russell? Or is the NYT an unreliable source to Trump, Michael and YOU?

  6. Carol Barrett

    How did it go?

    Sent from my iPhone

    >

  7. This thread has run its course. Comments are now closed.