Slashdot Mirror
Trump Is Pulling US Out of Paris Climate Deal: Sources (axios.com)
An anonymous reader shares a report: President Trump has made his decision to withdraw from the Paris climate accord, according to two sources with direct knowledge of the decision. Details on how the withdrawal will be executed are being worked out by a small team including EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt. They're deciding on whether to initiate a full, formal withdrawal -- which could take 3 years -- or exit the underlying United Nations climate change treaty, which would be faster but more extreme. Pulling out of Paris is the biggest thing Trump could do to unravel Obama's climate legacy. It sends a combative signal to the rest of the world that America doesn't prioritize climate change and threatens to unravel the ambition of the entire deal. News agency Reuters has corroborated the report with its own source. Further reading on Politico (which has also corroborated the news) and BBC. Update: Trump Announces US Withdrawal From Paris Climate Accord.
I believe the science behind AGW, but I do not think these global attempts to restrict carbon emissions are realistic.
With that said, giving up participation in these treaties is a poor choice. I don't mind the US giving up some of our leadership role in the world, but this was low-hanging fruit. It also had the secondary effect of lowering our dependence on foreign oil, which has broader strategic benefits.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
China has double the US Emissions - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
India's emissions are gaining.
The Paris deal lets countries set their own goals ('Nationally Determined Contributions') and isn't legally binding. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
So really the Paris Agreement is a plan made up by idealogues who want to 'save the planet'. Those ideologues want to set strict goals in the US (and the EU), affecting Western economies, while countries like India, China, and Russia set goals that do little to curb their emissions (and, of course, don't hurt their own economy)
In short, it's political theater that hurts the west.
The President has the power to negotiate treaties and contracts but they're not binding on the US until the legislature ratifies it.
Obama NEVER sent the treaty to congress for ratification - because it wouldn't pass to begin with and tried some legal chicanery to try to say that it was "deemed" ratified because it fell under existing UN treaty agreements previous congress' already signed off on and besides with world political pressure (that Obama continues to foment) the US would be forced to comply.
But that's ok - you can continue your fantasy that Obama is the "good guy" and Trump is the "bad guy" because you liked Obama's decisions and methods... except you hate them when they're used against you.
They have Nuclear reactors that can be designed where it is impossible for them to meltdown.
Climate change politics are increasingly about wealth redistribution.
Truer words were never said, particularly by someone with so little grasp of the truth.
You think the OP is clueless? Then check out this article: $4 trillion carbon tax is needed
In the report, there is this gem:
The revenue can be used to foster growth in an equitable way, by returning the revenue as household rebates, supporting poorer sections of the population, managing transitional changes, investing in low-carbon infrastructure, and fostering technological change
The report doesn't mention how sucking four trillion dollars out of the economy actually impacts the climate in any way.
Looks like wealth redistribution to me.
Why would I go to right wing echo champers like Brietbart and gab and reddit, where they routinely ignore evidence?
Lets look at your post for example, it shows you know nothing of how the country works.
1) Obama was never Senate majority leader, not was he ever DNC chair, so your statement "but the then-leader of the Democratic party (senator Obama) chose not to prosecute because "it would divide the nation"." makes absolutely ZERO sense
2) In order for the senate to actual prosecute the house must FIRST vote on articles of impeachment.
Facts, not your friend
But lets look at your numbers. Republicans are always the "party over country" party, this is known, they would rather double down then admit mistakes, for example, it peaks at 87%, far short of the 96% that would vote for him again, that shows that even among the group who voted for him many are not happy with him.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
Chernobyl and Fukushima were old reactor designs. Chernobyl lacked the protective housing US designs required and Fukushima didn't follow US generator policy changes that were made in the 1970s for that type of reactor that said they needed to be protected from flooding if in a flood plain. Because the power grid was down and they had flooded generators, they weren't able to shut down the power plant. That was a known design problem with this very old reactor.
Marcoule and Flamaville were accidents that happened at nuclear reactors but neither were nuclear accidents. One was a furnace used to melt metals that contained an extremely low amount of hazardous radiation that exploded and the other was a turbine explosion. Ever seen a wind or gas turbine explode? It isn't all that uncommon.
Waste for the most part is unnecessary. Most if not all Gen IV reactors can breed what we call waste into fuel and passive safety is a requirement. What remains after these new reactors burn the fuel and waste will have radiation levels lower than background radiation in about 200-300 years, not thousands. Just and FYI if you haven't kept up.
What's to tear up?
Obama had no authority to commit the US to anything. All he did by signing that was to indicate that HE would use his executive power to guide policies and regulations i support of the agreement. Once Obama Left, the agreement was dead. Trump can simply reverse the policies and procedures put into place and ignore the rest of the agreement.
Nothing in that "agreement" has the force of law. Only treaties that have been ratified by the Senate can have any legal effect.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
They may well believe it, but it's not one of the top 3 issues for them: those remain the economy, healthcare and terrorism. Climate change comes somewhere after that, even if they believe it. And support for the Paris agreement is just not there outside the Democrat Party, which explains why the entire Senate refused to endorse the Paris agreement - both Republicans and Democrats!
Because Chernobyl or Fukushima Daiichi never happened, right? Marcoule in France, or the recent blast in Flamaville station?
And that's just a few of the accidents out of a long list of accidents on nuclear facilities, don't get me started on leaks incidents in waste storage facilities...
Of course they did. That's why the number is 0.04 instead of zero. That number also includes deaths due to mining uranium by the way.
The ONLY 'Constitutional Crisis' has been over the travel restrictions. That is only a crisis because of activist judges. Judges who in even recent times would have been hound (rightly so) from the bench for even suggesting that the President's personal prejudices should have any bearing whatsoever on the plain meaning of the law.
You misspelled "executive order". Executive orders are not laws, and they (quite rightly) get a very different level of scrutiny from the courts. Because they're the dictates of a single individual, that individual's motivations in issuing them definitely are relevant to questions of their constitutionality. There are countless examples of this in the judicial record, especially with respect to orders issued by law enforcement officials and state governors. The intent of the order has a great deal of bearing on its constitutionality.
This principle hasn't (AFAIK) been applied to presidential executive orders until now, but that's only because past presidents (with the possible exception of Andrew Jackson) haven't been batshit crazy. Note that I'm not saying executive orders haven't been struck down, several have, just that the analysis of intent hasn't been explicitly considered. SCOTUS came close by lightly analyzing intent when they struck down Obama's recess appointments, and it can be argued that intent was a factor in their decision (though I don't think it was really necessary to consider intent in that case; it was a pretty clear subversion of the constitutional process).
BTW, before you go calling me a "liberal", I should point out that I voted for the Republican candidate for president in 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008 and 2012. In 2016 I voted for a conservative independent in order to avoid voting for Trump.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Oh, and the US is a Republic, not a Democracy. . .
I had no idea they were mutually exclusive.
They aren't. "Republic" has two meanings.
1. Not a monarchy.
2. Representative democracy
The first definition is by far the most common. But in America, and only America, the second definition is also common. In neither case does the definition exclude democracy. Canada and Japan are not republics but are democracies, while China and Cuba are republics but are not democracies. For the second definition, democracy is specifically included, since a representative democracy is still a democracy, just not a direct democracy.
But some Americans insist that in a "true" democracy every decision must be made directly by the people. So if, say, the bulb in a streetlight needs to be replaced, we need to hold a referendum. To them it is obvious that America is not a democracy.
When you buy a good that incurs pollution, you pass on the cost of that pollution to everyone else. If I choose to buy nuclear power and you choose coal power, I get the CO2 pollution regardless of my choice.
This is called an externality and classically "economists often urge governments to adopt policies that 'internalize' an externality, so that costs and benefits will affect mainly parties who choose to incur them. For example, manufacturing activities that cause air pollution impose health and clean-up costs on the whole society".
The whole point of the tax is to make it more expensive to buy something that costs society money. Is it somehow unjust to have a cigarette tax that pays for lung cancer treatments in public hospitals?
-- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
1 and 3 are going ahead anyway because they understand the economic implications:
https://www.theguardian.com/en...
India is steaming ahead with solar with plans to install 100s of GW's by a prime minister with a proven track record .
Russia, well, Putin, oil baron.
Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.