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.

12 of 737 comments (clear)

  1. 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 Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative
      You REALLY don't understand how the US government works do you?

      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.

    2. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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...

  5. Re:Good by ganjadude · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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
  6. Re:Good by Creepy · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  7. Re: Sanctions by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Europe has nothing on the USA when it comes to overreaction to terrorist attacks.

    I remember having planned a trip to Europe, to a city where there was an attack a few days before I went. My friends and coworkers were freaking out, said I should cancel the trip. I went anyway, and had no problems. I even went right to the very site of the attacks, and saw the flowers/etc left in memorial. That and the reporter filming a piece were about the only indication that anything was amiss. Sure, I noticed some police patrolling around, but nothing that seemed unusual to an American. Some of them were armed, which again wasn't unusual to me as an American. But none of the spaces were closed off, tourists and locals were still flocking to large public spaces, drinking and eating at streetside cafes, et cetera.

  8. Re:Good by thegarbz · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  9. Re:Pulling out by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  10. Re:Sanctions by MrL0G1C · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.