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.

11 of 737 comments (clear)

  1. Finally! by Weaselmancer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Now, finally and at last - we can begin to set our standards as high as Syria and Nicaragua!

    I can't wait for the good 'ol USA to start living the good life like those guys. Makes you proud.

    --
    Weaselmancer
    rediculous.
  2. One Man by watermark · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Trump has really highlighted how much power/influence we choose to give to a single person. It amazes me that a president can unilaterally enter into or exit from agreements of this magnitude. If he has any positive legacy, I hope it's a legacy where we decided to further limit the power of the presidency.

    If we were to write a book for children of good vs. evil, it would be hard to cast Trump as the "good guy". Even if he were cast as the "bad guy", he makes decisions that seem so clearly wrong that it would be rejected as too cliche.

    1. Re:One Man by thegarbz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      That's kind of how presidencies work. A good president uses powers for the people, a bad one against them.

      Mind you good and bad could be taken in many contexts. Such as ability to befriend overseas nations vs insult them. Or just ability to express a coherent thought.

  3. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Nuclear power is orders of magnitude safer than coal. 60 deaths per TWh for coal power worldwide avg, vs 0.04 deaths per TWh for nuclear, so a factor of 1500 better.

  4. Leading from behind... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm sure the Chinese are thrilled to be leading the rest of the world as the US withdraws into isolation.

  5. What if we make a better world for nothing? by Camembert · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Pulling out of the climate agreement unfortunately makes me think of this cartoon: https://climatesanity.files.wo...

  6. Re:Good by stealth_finger · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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...

    Because coal/oil/gas plants never explode and any associated spillage is fine right? How many millions of barrels of oil are dumped in the sea through carelessness or accident again? How much extra co2 is in the air trapping extra heat in the atmosphere? Nope, totally no polluting at all and let's all run away from big bad nuclear, ohhh its so scary I'll run and hide in my filth where it's safer.

    --
    Wanna buy a shirt?
    https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
  7. He said he was doing this from the beginning by evolutionary · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is hardly a surprise. Everyone in the business sector was banking on this. Trump basically is doing anything pro-buisness and pro-Russia at the expense of literally everything/everyone else. Any claims he has that security is a primary concern of his is complete whitewash. Germany called him out on lack of environmental concerns and he basically Twittered "the Germans should mind their own business..or else". Thing of it is, it's EVERYBODY'S business. The German Chancellor has said EU has said they cannot rely on the USA to play a leadership role and the EU will have to step up. Trump is alienating all our allies, and getting cozy with historically hostile foreign powers. This should be concerning to all of us.

    --
    "Imagination is more important than knowledge" - Einstein
  8. Re:Who has the Evidence? by Ambassador+Kosh · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Obstruction of justice is a crime that has been committed.

    Trump publically admitted to that one when he said he fired Comey over the russian investigation. Regardless of if there was any collusion or not Trump knew his administration was under investigation by Comey and fired him. That is obstruction of justice. He even double down on it when he revealed to the russians that he had made his life easier by firing Comey to end the investigation.

    Trump has also definitely violated the Emoluments clause and could be impeached for that.

    I don't know if his campaign colluded with Russia during the election and that is still being investigated.

    --
    Computer modeling for biotech drug manufacturing is HARD! :)
  9. Climate Change Procrastination by foxalopex · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Some of the worst arguments I see on here are that China causes more carbon emissions. Sure imagine you're stranded on a boat with 10 other people and wearing a red shirt while everyone has a blue shirt. You're eating 5 times the amount of rations but arguing that you shouldn't cut back because "blue" is already eating more. This is why emissions per capita matters. Carbon emissions are directly related to food production and general economic wealth of a nation. As a resident of a well off nation, it stands to hurt us the least to cut back a little. The only way China can cut back is to effectively downgrade their economics so badly that it will probably start killing people.

    So yeah, wealth redistribution it is, but folks forget that we're already doing that. There are far far more poorer folks out there worldwide and when nature inevitably bites back due to climate change it will hit the poor much harder but we share the same planet. Expect more environmental refugees and don't be surprised if folks start fighting more. After all if you're staving to death because you don't have water or food or a way of living, blowing up your neighbour who seems to have everything, deserved or not seems like a good option.

    It's why we should pro-actively try to fix this even if it seems hopeless, letting it go to the latter doesn't sound like fun at all.

  10. Re:Good by greythax · · Score: 4, Insightful
    This is so incredibly inaccurate I don't even know where to begin. This is the worst kind of single step thinking I have ever seen. Lets start with this bit:

    Taxation, on the other hand, is the government coming and taking money from you, and you not getting anything in return.

    Sure, if the money just stopped in the government's hands, but what about this trillion dollar deficit government leads you to believe they won't spend it? And what you get back is roads, schools, a military, all the things that make commerce efficient and safe! I can't tell if this is supposed to be an argument towards anarchy or total ignorance of the fact that the american government is a GIANT part of the economy. About the only thing they could do to "take the money out of the economy" would be to pay off our debt. But unless you are suggesting that we should never do that, I don't see an eventual way around that one.

    Assuming that the money is 100% redistributed to people, they can do less with the money because economic activity has fallen. Nothing good comes out of this.

    What? Are you experiencing some kind of fever dream where you type? Assuming that 4 trillion dollars were handed out to to populace at large, there would be the same effect as we see from income tax rebate time. Want to know how much that stimulates the economy, stop by a gamestop and ask any manager what kind of massive sales increase they see. Now multiply that by 10,000. Short term, if such a reckless plan were enacted, you would see massive inflation, but only due to supply, and that is precisely why the government would likely find a more responsible way of using the money. Like our crumbling roads that business drive their goods on, or huge investment in good paying green energy which will require massive hiring.

    Honestly, you talk like nobody in the world even remotely asked anyone who knows anything about economics before proposing a carbon tax. We have these nifty guys called economists, and they have these fancy things called PHDs. In fact, other countries have them too! I am sure at least a few were consulted and didn't come up with the "this does nothing" claim that you seem to have arrived at.

    But hey, Trump University might teach a different take on it.