Slashdot Mirror
Elon Musk Joins CEOs Calling For US To Stay in Paris Climate Deal (bloomberg.com)
Billionaire Elon Musk said on Wednesday he would leave President Trump's Business Advisory Council if the White House withdraws from an international agreement aimed at curbing climate change. From a report: The appeals from chief executives such as Tesla's Musk, Tim Cook of Apple and Dow Chemical's Andrew Liveris come as Trump's advisers also present him with closing arguments on the potential risks and rewards of remaining a party to the global pact. Trump also got an earful from foreign leaders and Pope Francis urging him to stay in the agreement during his first international trip as president. Cook placed a call to the White House on Tuesday to urge the president to keep the U.S. in the agreement, according to a person familiar with the move. Liveris was the driving force behind a letter from 30 major company executives backing the deal. And Musk tweeted Wednesday that he has "done all I can to advise directly to" Trump. If the U.S. leaves Paris, Musk said he would drop participation in White House advisory councils. [...] Twenty-five companies, including Intel, Microsoft and PG&E, have signed on to a letter set to run as a full-page advertisement in the New York Times and Wall Street Journal on Thursday arguing in favor of climate pact.
Considering that Obama never sent the treaty to the Senate for ratification, the United states was never a signer of this treaty.
The reason Obama never sent it to the Senate is that both Republicans AND Democrats were against it and would not vote for it.
This is not about Trump and his policy's. This is about America and what a terrible treaty this would be for America and all Americans if the Senate ratified it as currently written.
Trump would be smart to punt this to the Senate and let everyone see that most Democrats in the Senate would not support it as written either.
Google Baotou Lake. It is a direct consequence of buying Chinese solar panels and wind turbines. Green energy isn't so green when you see this.
Estimates for the agreement would about $100 billion in funds per year to help out developing nations until 2025. That money would come from developed nations, ie the US being a major funding source. That alone is troubling that the US will pay to clean up other nations pollutions. Except, that is no guarantee, the nations just pledge to clean up. If they do, great; if they don't then there is no penalty or responsibility to pay back the funds.
So essentially we are just paying to bribe nations to clean up the planet, but if they don't, ehh, no big deal.
The whole things sounds like the UN, where every country has a vote and a commitment to provide funds and supplies for the common good. However, countries rarely provide funds or supplies when asked; except for the US.
I realize this is going to be an unpopular analysis, but hear me out. Let's do a cost/benefit analysis:
Cost:
The estimated cost of being in the treaty is $1.28 trillion. *
Benefit:
*IF* everyone meets their goals (which they wont), the temperature will reduce 0.05C by 2100 *from* the projected 5C. (so an increase of only 4.95C) **
Some other facts:
- The global temperature increase which scientists say will be "catastrophic and irreversible" is 2C ***
So, the question you need to ask yourself is NOT "am I a good person, because I'm 'doing something'?", but rather "Do I want to pay $1,280,000,000,000 to jog off a cliff rather than sprint off a cliff?"
Yes, we should do our best to keep the planet clean and the habitable - but is stuffing $1.28T into this the best way to go about it? Couldn't the money be better spent on battery technology, nation-wide electrical fill stations, hyperloops, and other technology we have not even thought of yet (rather than paying someone like Kenya for carbon credits to excuse us using old polluting technology we can't afford to replace)?
* https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060042242
** http://www.lomborg.com/press-release-research-reveals-negligible-impact-of-paris-climate-promises
*** https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jun/02/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-paris-climate-summit-and-un-talks
...and I certainly don't want to pay taxes to the "world" at large.
Unfortunately, that's the entire premise of UN climate policy. In a 2010 interview with Ottmar Edenhofer, then co-chair of the IPCC Working Group III, he stated: "One must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy ... One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy any more. ... That will change immediately if global emission rights are distributed. If this happens, on a per capita basis, then Africa will be the big winner, and huge amounts of money will flow there."
The IPCC is nothing more than a cleverly-assembled government-supported lobbying organization, which seeks to enrich the UN by putting it in charge of "solving" climate change. If the UN fails to find manmade global warming to be a problem, it no longer has a reason to continue the climate panel, and therefore can't be in charge of proposing "solutions" to climate change. How many bureaucracies across history have returned reports stating that there was no reason for their own existence?
What is mainstream? Fox News is the most watched news network and they are definitely not left wing.
Of course if all you watch is FOX News, you'll never learn about their ratings drop. Failing Faux News would never report on that.
http://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/may-2017-ratings-for-first-time-since-2000-msnbc-beat-fox-news-cnn-on-weeknights/330611
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.