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 always recommend pulling out of Paris.
Trump might get that trade war after all as Europe and other like-minded trading blocs impose import tariffs.
But wherever the Republicans go, Australia's Liberals follow so it's no comfort living here.
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.
Have you seen some of the research on this? The long-term impacts may be catastrophic, and it's already fairly clear to anyone who cares to pay attention that climate change is already started! I find it really hard to believe anyone thought a treaty to cause climate change was a good idea in the first place.
Imagine all countries imposing pollution tariffs on everything made in the USA.
#DeleteFacebook
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.
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.
I'm sure the Chinese are thrilled to be leading the rest of the world as the US withdraws into isolation.
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.
your ignorance is frightening
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.
Pulling out of the climate agreement unfortunately makes me think of this cartoon: https://climatesanity.files.wo...
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.
I have lived next to a nuke plant for 30 years (indian point) and yeah. ill take this over coal any day
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
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
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
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.