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.

Comments

Illegal treaty.

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact is that this is a treaty that hasn't been approved by 2/3 of the US senate. By that alone it should be invalid but the stupid "treaty on treaties" made us less sovern.

Re:Illegal treaty.

[spiritplumber]

Sovern? Wow, it's the second new word I learn today. Can you use it in a sentence with covfefe?

Re:Illegal treaty.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm just going to point out that the fact that a typo has made national headlines shows just how truly pathetic you bunch are. And yes, covfefe is currently a headline on the BBC. Pathetic. Is there really nothing more important going on?

Re:Illegal treaty.

[cayenne8]

I've not been able to track down to verify, but it appeared this agreement in Paris, would have us in the US paying more "tax"...carbon tax, etc on all sorts of things.

Screw that if true...we pay enough here in the US, and I certainly don't want to pay taxes to the "world" at large.

Re:Illegal treaty.

[Anonymous Coward]

Spelling flames have always been a bore.

Re:Illegal treaty.

[Mashiki]

Considering that seems to be the basis of all these agreements. Tax the piss out of the western world, and ignore what's going on in everyone else's, while watching them pay lip service and continue with business as normal. Yeah, I can see why the US would want to pull out. It's the same reason why the Liberals in Ontario are under a voter revolt for the same policies.

Re:Illegal treaty.

[mspohr]

I think the fact that the POTUS has progressive neurodegenerative disease which has reached the point where his extemporaneous speech is word salad and his tweets end in gibberish is a matter of worldwide concern.

Re:Illegal treaty.

[WindBourne]

meh. That AC was an idiot. If he had any brains at all, he would know that the senate vote is ONLY required if a law had to happen. It just so happened that was not the case.
That was one of those neo-cons/tea-bagger types with zero education.

Re:Illegal treaty.

[NicknameUnavailable]

This. Only the dumbest people disregard statements over typos - that's why Reddit admins have a feature to apply typos to posts they dislike, it fits their demographic.

Re:Illegal treaty.

[NicknameUnavailable]

If it changes internal US policies in ANY way it's the same as a law in practice. Nobody is perfect, not even the founding fathers, and that means the documents they put together shouldn't be regarded as airtight guidelines to secure the intention behind them. The fact the globalists found a loophole doesn't mean it's valid, it is illegal for going against the intent of the requirement of a 2/3rds vote for laws and frankly anyone trying to exploit such a loophole should be lynched for treason.

Re:Illegal treaty.

[bob4u2c]

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.

Re:Illegal treaty.

[Geoffrey.landis]

I've not been able to track down to verify, but it appeared this agreement in Paris, would have us in the US paying more "tax"...carbon tax, etc on all sorts of things.

Nope. The Paris agreement commits each nation "to put forward their best efforts."
That's it.

Re:Illegal treaty.

[dugancent]

According to Sean Spicer, it wasn't a typo. “The president and a small group of people know exactly what he meant.”

http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/31/...

Re:Illegal treaty.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

What's even more troubling is that the countries with the financial capability to do this are unwilling even though it will affect them directly for no reason other than 'its not fair we're not cleaning your mess up" when you're consumer culture is actually the primary source of demand that created the supply that caused all the problem

Step outside your stupid little partisan utopia of greed and ignorance and look at the big picture, the one that affects generations to come.

Re:Illegal treaty.

[Anonymous Coward]

Let me ask you this: If it was in the short term interest of the United States to exterminate every other human being on the rest of the planet, would you be in favor of it ?

Re:Illegal treaty.

[Stephan Schulz]

Estimates for the agreement would about $100 billion in funds per year to help out developing nations until 2025.

Whose estimates? Do you have a reasonable source for that claim?

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.

Are you aware of the fact that the US is about 1.3 billion US$ in arrears with respect to commitments it has voluntarily entered into?

Re:Illegal treaty.

[srmalloy]

...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?

Re:Illegal treaty.

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the fact that the POTUS has progressive neurodegenerative disease which has reached the point where his extemporaneous speech is word salad and his tweets end in gibberish is a matter of worldwide concern.

Translation:

I'm a barely literate liberal who used an online thesaurus to (desperately, hopefully) sound intelligent to invisible people on the intertubes.

Re: Illegal treaty.

[teeloo]

It's not a treaty idiot. It's an "agreement".

Re:Illegal treaty.

[Anubis IV]

I thought you were full of it because I didn't think that was even possible, so I went to look for evidence to the contrary. Instead, it turns out that you're actually right. From The Guardian's reporting of the US ratifying the Paris Agreement last year (emphasis mine):

In Washington, the Republican-controlled Congress has questioned Obama’s legal right to ratify the accord by decree, noting that the constitution grants the Senate a role of “advice and consent” in making treaties.

But the chamber does not ratify treaties, and the US also has increasingly relied on “executive agreements” since the second world war. Those agreements are not submitted to the Senate but are also considered binding in international law.

Wikipedia talks about ratification in the US in a bit more detail, since it's apparently more nuanced than I even realized as an American (again, emphasis mine):

Treaty power is a co-ordinated effort between the Executive branch and the Senate. The President may form and negotiate, but the treaty must be advised and consented to by a two-thirds vote in the Senate. Only after the Senate approves the treaty can the President ratify it. [...]

The US can also enter into international agreements by way of executive agreements. They are not made under the Treaty Clause and do not require ratification of two thirds of the Senate. [...] If the agreement is completely within the President's constitutional powers, it can be made by the President alone without Congressional approval, but it will have the force of an executive order and can be unilaterally revoked by a future President. All types of agreements are treated internationally as "treaties".

So, basically, a President has the authority to make executive agreements that bind their office, inasmuch as those agreements do not extend beyond their authority. Without having looked into the specifics of the Paris Agreement, I don't know if any of its requirements go beyond the authority of what the President alone can do, but if they don't, then Obama's actions were entirely legal, even if they commit future Presidents, such as Trump, to abiding by the terms of the agreement lest they face consequences.

Of course, if the Paris Agreement required anything beyond the President's authority, then you're quite correct about it being an illegal ratification, in which case...well...nothing really changes. Trump would still have the authority to revoke it, but his office would still be bound by it anyway, given that it has already entered into force internationally.

Re: Illegal treaty.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not a treaty idiot. It's an "agreement".

Tell that to everyone who tries to give it the legal force of a treaty.

Either it is a treaty, it which case it is one the USA has never been in (lack of Senate ratification), or it's just a meaningless piece of paper. The US Constitution gives no legal validity to any international agreement other than a treaty.

Re:Illegal treaty.

[Anonymous Coward]

Translation:

I'm an edgy alt-right incel, sitting in his evil-smelling spankies in my mom's basement, typing away furiously in an attempt to impress the world with the brilliance that my tech support job has somehow convinced me that I possess.

Re:Illegal treaty.

[interkin3tic]

Which is why Nicaragua didn't sign it.. The other non-signer, Syria, is in a civil war.

The US is alone in insisting "climate change isn't real because fuck you, liberals, scientists, and future generations, that's why."

Re:Illegal treaty.

[Gr8Apes]

it is illegal for going against the intent of the requirement of a 2/3rds vote for laws and frankly anyone trying to exploit such a loophole should be lynched for treason.

So you'll be first in line to indict most of the federally elected Republicans and quite a few Democrats?

Re:Illegal treaty.

[aicrules]

It is utter bullshit that we have to do this for it to work. United States turned the corner on its own. Yeah maybe some countries are behind us, but so? While pollution is generally accepted to be a "bad thing" there is NOT conclusive evidence that siphoning off money from US and other developed nations to SUPPOSEDLY combat pollution in developing nations is necessary to stop some cataclysmic climate change.

Re: Illegal treaty.

[fred6666]

It's not a treaty idiot. It's an "agreement".

Tell that to everyone who tries to give it the legal force of a treaty.

Either it is a treaty, it which case it is one the USA has never been in (lack of Senate ratification), or it's just a meaningless piece of paper. The US Constitution gives no legal validity to any international agreement other than a treaty.

Yeah, fuck the rest of the world, if it's not a treaty according to the US constitution, it has no value, anywhere on earth.

Re:Illegal treaty.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yet at the same time, the US is looked at by everybody to help them when they're in trouble. So I would say that its a fair trade.

Re: Illegal treaty.

[Anonymous Coward]

Does leaving this arrangement cause any of the major companies listed or any individual for that matter to not seek better policy and results? There is no law right now restricting a company from voluntarily lowering it's emissions. If they aren't willing to do this anyway, what is the real goal of this arrangement?

Re:Illegal treaty.

[aicrules]

And yet still pays more than anyone else.

Re:Illegal treaty.

[ganjadude]

the fact that an autocorrect error is all the media is talking about today shows that maybe things arent as bad as they are made out to be

Re:Illegal treaty.

[cryptizard]

When President Obama ordered a hamburger with dijon mustard it was a headline in right-wing media showing how elitist he was.

Re:Illegal treaty.

[Anonymous Coward]

its utter bullshit that those with the money and power, refuse to do anything to help beyond their own fence.

Re:Illegal treaty.

[ganjadude]

if its non binding its pointless to sign it! i mean what reason is there really if thats all it means? so that a smug group of people can pat themselves on the back saying they "did something"??

Re: Illegal treaty.

[ganjadude]

maybe other countries, but it has no meaning in the USA

Re:Illegal treaty.

[SlaveToTheGrind]

The Paris agreement commits each nation "to put forward their best efforts."
That's it.

Funny thing -- I went and pulled up the text of the Paris Agreement and couldn't find the words "put forward their best efforts" anywhere.

What I found were words like "bound," "obligation," and 117 instances of the word "shall" sprinkled like croutons in the 7300+ word salad.

But hey, let's say all that really does just compress down to "put forward their best efforts." If that's really true, "withdrawing" from such an amorphous "commitment" may not change anything at all in the real world and thus all this hyperventilating is premature at best.

Re:Illegal treaty.

[cayenne8]

its utter bullshit that those with the money and power, refuse to do anything to help beyond their own fence.

And exactly why should I care? What does my country get out of all this money being paid out?

I mean, hey, we all started at the same starting point, and it just so happens some countries developed faster and apparently were smarter at inventing and doing things.

Just because others couldn't keep up....why should we have to pay, or even lower out quality of life just because of the straggler countries in the world?

Why must I be my brothers keeper? What do I get out of it besides altruistic self sacrifice?

Re:Illegal treaty.

[Anonymous Coward]

"we all started at the same starting point". are you fucking nuts? tell that to the countries in Africa who are still scarred by the colonization by love approach of the west. Or the countries in South America. Try India. Her per capita (albeit with Pakistan and Afghanistan minus some parts) was closer to 25% of global GDP in the 17th century. And suddenly they got spectacularly lazy?
Read about Haiti and why it is as poor as it is as a direct result of our intervention in keeping it poor (don't want the slaves getting too successful there....).
I am not an altruist for no reason but a globalist. We are in this together; till we find an alternate planet, we've got to keep this thing afloat. Remember the rich fat cats in Titanic and what we thought of them? exactly.
If the US had not picked up a bunch of German technology from WW2, we'd know as much about rockets as Rwanda. I can go on and on about pretty much every innovation in different parts of the world.

Re: Illegal treaty.

[Anonymous Coward]

My takeaway here is your confirmation that the MSM is indeed left wing.

Re:Illegal treaty.

[Anonymous Coward]

"You'll pay more tax!" is the boogie-man that Republican parents use to frighten their kids into becoming conservatives.

Re:Illegal treaty.

[skullandbones99]

You have missed the following points.

Pollution is a world wide issue. Pollution from the US will affect other counties because we live in the same atmosphere.

The Paris strategy is:

1. Get governments to specify their own plans to tackle Climate Change for their own country. Periodically review the plan every few years to see whether more aggressive reduction targets can be reached such as due to better technology becoming available.

2. Recognise that Carbon Dioxide is a pollutant and create a Carbon Tax so that the pollutant becomes costed into the balance sheets of companies. This allows capitalist market forces to push towards cheaper and better solutions by reducing the amount of pollutant because now there is a cost for polluting.

3. Pay compensation to countries that are affected by the pollutant. Such as loss of land due to flooding due to sea level rises.

4. Provide clean technologies to developing countries so that their fossil fuel based solutions can be replaced.

Even if you are a climate change denier, you probably wish to live without breathing in Nitrogen Dioxide gas from car fumes. The Paris strategy will also fix car emissions.

I predict that various US state governments will defy the US Federal government and those states will continue to co-operate with the Paris agreement.

Re:Illegal treaty.

[by (1706743)]

Wait...is "you bunch" referring to the Americans or the British?

Re: Illegal treaty.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's well known that shall is a weasel word and unenforceable in any contract.

Re:Illegal treaty.

[rahvin112]

This is an outright lie.

The Paris agreement is a 100% voluntary "we'll do our best" agreement. It's precisely BECAUSE the US participated in the drafting that the agreement is like that. Trump dropping out of the agreement just ensures the US won't be involved in the future at the expense of an agreement that costs NOTHING.

The Paris agreement is a promise to do our best to lower carbon emissions and no one but us gets to decide what our best is. There is nothing hostile or bad about this agreement unless you're an ideologue that likes to ignore reality. Not surprising given the current administration.

Re: Illegal treaty.

[fred6666]

It does. Your president signed it. It means as much as anything else signed by your president alone.

Re:Illegal treaty.

[Anonymous Coward]

That quote doesn't say it wasn't a typo. Much like when I'm speaking and I garble my words, my friends still know exactly what I meant. Knowing exactly what somebody means does not negate a typo. Hell, the BBC article even said they were fairly certain it meant "coverage"

Re:Illegal treaty.

[SlaveToTheGrind]

Trump would still have the authority to revoke it, but his office would still be bound by it anyway

That's a mighty creative definition of the word "revoke" -- one that your Wikipedia article doesn't even espouse. Probably because it doesn't work that way.

Re:Illegal treaty.

[dugancent]

Okay, so what does this sentence mean? "Despite the constant negative press coverage"

Re:Illegal treaty.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well... if so, then at least he knows how to use one, and he makes an effort, unlike the other side... bigly... covfefe... surety... he was right about one thing, he really does have the best words, cracks me up how low U.S. of A. has fallen to be desperate enough to elect that clown to office.

Re:Illegal treaty.

[Anonymous Coward]

And exactly why should I care? What does my country get out of all this money being paid out?

Noblesse Oblige! Feudal Nobility certainly had its warts, but a lot of those "haves" understood that they had a duty to help the "have nots." One might even say "simple Christian charity" too. I'll bet you claim to be a Christian. amirite?

What do you get out of it? A world that isn't a festering, sweating shithole plagued by drought and extreme climate swings. You know, those things that Science tells us will happen. But I bet you're prefer to listen to uneducated boobs who tell you that Climate Change is just a theory and in their Opinion there's nothing wrong with the climate.

Re:Illegal treaty.

[Anubis IV]

Actually, it does. From page 7 of your own link:

The President is free to revoke, modify, or supersede his own orders or those issued by a predecessor.

Which is exactly what I said.

As for his being "bound by it anyway", I was referring to the fact that the international laws still apply to us on account of them already entering into effect, which would have been a bit clearer to you if you had included the second half of my sentence in that quote you pulled.

Re:Illegal treaty.

[Anonymous Coward]

What's troubling to me is how easily pacified people like you are by token gestures. From what I understand, there's no actual requirement for the nations receiving the funds to, you know, actually do anything. If there was a requirement that these countries measurably improve their emissions, I'd support it. But without that, this feels like nothing but a scam. And I'm personally not real fond of being scammed and am glad Trump dropped it. If these countries want money, then they have to show actual results, not just say they tried while pocketing it all. Because lets be blunt here, India especially is famous for doing just that.

Re:Illegal treaty.

[Namarrgon]

Here's a radical thought: why not read it for yourself? It's quite short. Until you do that, you're just echoing the opinions and preconceptions of others.

If you do, you'll note:
  - the word "tax" does not appear in the Agreement
  - the word "must" does not appear in the Agreement

The vast majority of it simply encourages parties to use their best efforts to reduce their domestic emissions. Nowhere does it lay down specifics as to what or how, and nowhere does it commit anyone to anything. It's all very vague and voluntary.

For the paranoid, Articles 9 and 11 are the ones about helping less-developed countries - let me know if you can find any onerous commitments in there. I'll wait.

Re:Illegal treaty.

[Anonymous Coward]

I feel sovern when I haven't had my covfefe yet in the morning.

Re: Illegal treaty.

[Anonymous Coward]

The real goal of this arrangement is to prevent corporation's inherently sociopathic nature to transform the entire country into a sociopathic nation.

But it's becomming increasignly clear that republicans in general, and Trump supporters more than any of them, hold the belief that sociopathy is actually a good thing.

Not surprising considering that the entire U.S. society was founded on values like fierce individualism, personnal freedom above everything, and social darwinism. Not surprising, but sad nevertheless, since the rest of civilized humanity has evolved past such primitive tribalism eons ago.

Re:Illegal treaty.

[lgw]

the word "tax" does not appear in the Agreement

"Nevertheless, it's a tax, not a penalty" - John Roberts, Chief Justice of the United States

Re: Illegal treaty.

[cryptizard]

What is mainstream? Fox News is the most watched news network and they are definitely not left wing.

Re: Illegal treaty.

[Anonymous Coward]

It does. Your president signed it. It means as much as anything else signed by your president alone.

Which is nothing at all. Trump "signs" tweets all damn day and look at how much value those have to the US and the world.

Re:Illegal treaty.

[Namarrgon]

Why not actually read it for yourself? It's only a few pages of relevant text, minimal legalese, well within high-school capabilities. Counting words tells you nothing, any more than the instances of "shall" in the US Constitution.

Then you'll see for yourself that there really are no specific commitments, and all actions are nationally determined and best-effort. Nothing is legally binding.

And yes, it's all largely symbolic, but statements of intent are still important. If Trump stays or withdraws, it changes no laws either way, but sends a clear signal to heavily-emitting industries that they either need to clean up their act, or that they're free to continue dumping their external waste costs on the public.

Re: Illegal treaty.

[Anonymous Coward]

Should is a weasel word and unenforceable in any contract. Shall is the correct legal term.

Re:Illegal treaty.

[Anonymous Coward]

Let me ask you this: If it was in the short term interest of the United States to exterminate every other human being on the rest of the planet, would you be in favor of it ?

Yes. The sum of all non-American life is less than the most vile lowly American that exists, has existed or ever will exist; the government seeing it ANY other way is treason.

Re: Illegal treaty.

[Anonymous Coward]

A corporation is made of people. People at the top, to middle management, down to the workers. All are people. The stockholders and creditors are people that can hold the management accountable. Lastly, the consumers are people that can choose to spend elsewhere and put them out of business. So sociopathy effectively nullified, why wont these companies get behind change or environmentalism without laws binding them to do so? What is it about a law that makes their morality justified? Couldn't they just lead by example?

Re:Illegal treaty.

[Anonymous Coward]

>> Let me ask you this: If it was in the short term interest of the United States to exterminate every other human being on the rest of the planet, would you be in favor of it ?

> Yes. The sum of all non-American life is less than the most vile lowly American that exists, has existed or ever will exist; the government seeing it ANY other way is treason.

In that case, I would have to choose to be a traitor.

Re:Illegal treaty.

[WindBourne]

LOL.
Look junior lawyer, when you hit high school, please take up civics. And if you go to college, take some more.
You not only need to learn how our constitution and system of laws works, but you also need to understand what treason REALLY is.
Being a president and doing the bidding of a foreign gov so as to get your personal debt down, is treason.
Figuring out loopholes in the law (which this is not)? Nope.

Re:Illegal treaty.

[Anonymous Coward]

It was supposed to be "kerfuffle" (a commotion or fuss, especially one caused by conflicting views.)

Thought that was obvious.

Re:Illegal treaty.

[Namarrgon]

First, if you read that in context, Edenhofer is clearly just reminding people that environmental policy is inextricably tied to economic policy, which seems obvious enough - if you accept that emissions are tied to growth. However, since that 2010 interview, and for the first time in history, that's clearly no longer the case - growth has continued, while emissions have actually slowed. A big reason for that is another thing he's been proved wrong about - gas is cheap now. The dramatic drop in cost of renewables is another.

But none of this is particularly relevant, because the IPCC does not set policies - countries do that. The IPCC's primary role is science - citing the evidence for climate change, and assembling the best predictions we can make, so that countries can make informed policies instead of reacting blindly. The science of what's happening to the planet exists independently of any responses we might choose to take.

Comments like yours are designed as distractions, attempts to discredit the organisations, but they can't make the evidence go away. You can certainly argue for your preferred policies or solutions, but you can't challenge the science with FUD about bureaucracies. Nature doesn't care, and closing your eyes to what's really happening is only going to raise the cost of coping with it.

Re:Illegal treaty.

[Anonymous Coward]

so the maldives who are responsible for a very small amount of all this, and have suffered the most land loss, need to use the money they get to reduce their emissions rather than try to stay above water?

god american's are retarded If the world ends due to climate change, at least all the fucking Americans will be gone too

Re: Illegal treaty.

[Anonymous Coward]

Dijon mustard is only elitist in those Grey Poupon commercials. Everywhere else it's just delicious.

Re: Illegal treaty.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's just a bunch of old idiots voting for that party. They'll be dead in 10-20 years and we will be back to normal after that.

In the meantime, note that Russia may have assisted.

Re: Illegal treaty.

[Anonymous Coward]

What do you get? You do know that global climate change is a problem for literally everyone, right? You should be asking what you don't get: desertification, drought, food riots, resource wars, coastal destruction, super violent storms.

Ass.

Re: Illegal treaty.

[Anonymous Coward]

And you are a stereotyping smug fuckface. Hint: 300+ million people do not think the same way, and do not believe the same stupid shit. There are plenty of Americans that would like to see the Paris agreement continue, and maybe that's exactly what TFA is about?

Go shit in your hat.

Re: Illegal treaty.

[fred6666]

There is a difference between sharing an opinion as an individual, and pledging to something as the head of state.

Re:Illegal treaty.

[Anonymous Coward]

Who you talking about "us" sunshine, I support the treaty as do a majority of US citizens. Oh and the US makes up less than 5% 0f the world population. The majority of who do support support the treaty.

Get a clue

Re: Illegal treaty.

[Anonymous Coward]

nope, RT is the most watched new network, by far

Re: Illegal treaty.

[Anonymous Coward]

What is it about a law that makes their morality justified? Couldn't they just lead by example?

Look, I'm going to be honest here. People are dumb, panicky animals, as "Agent K" says in the movie "Men In Black". They're cattle. Their choices must be limited with legal fences, their actions guided by regulatory livestock-chutes, and negative behavior given the cattle prod, segregation from the herd, or slaughter. "Freedom" is an illusion, the true "Matrix" if you will, giving the illusion of liberty and choice.

*That* is the reality below the social veneer and political smoke and mirrors.

Re: Illegal treaty.

[dougdonovan]

why does elon care ?

Re:Illegal treaty.

[Mashiki]

You mean besides sections 9(1), 9(3), 9(8), (9)? You know the parts where it basically says "use public money" aka tax the fuck out of your people and shovel it into undeveloped countries? Kinda like what happens here in Canada when we give $400m away for "climate development" with those same regulatory oversights that exist now. When there's 150k-250k homeless here in Canada, serious problems with healthcare, decaying infrastructure, and people who can't afford the medications to keep them alive.

Re:Illegal treaty.

[Anonymous Coward]

its utter bullshit that those with the money and power, refuse to do anything to help beyond their own fence.

The US gives more money, aid, and supplies globally, not to mention all the foreign aid given out each year, than any other nation by orders of magnitude, not to mention the US military protects much of the West, allowing you to save huge amounts on your own defense. The US could afford cradle-to-grave social support programs too, if the US only spent ~5%-10% of
the current defense budget like the nations that the US protects.

So in closing, fuck you, you ungrateful piece(s) of shit. Thank the US your ass isn't part of a radioactive dust cloud blowing around the blast crater, or mounted on some iron pike outside a radical-Islamic mosque.

Re: Illegal treaty.

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you're just a facist and opposed to freedom. You think you're smarter and know better than everyone else. You want top down economic control and 5 year plans.

These are all known absolutely failed systems.

The West owns and controls the world because we are free. The communists lost decades ago. It's over. Stop trying to resurrect dead ideologies.

Re: Illegal treaty.

[Anonymous Coward]

'You have to understand. Most people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inured and so hopelessly dependent on the system that they will fight to protect it.'

You're still thinking in terms of politics. It's much deeper than your '-isms' you rail on about, and quite separate and apart.

Take the red pill.

Re: Illegal treaty.

[I'm New Around Here]

You are right. One of those requires Senate approval.

Re:Illegal treaty.

[Anonymous Coward]

Translation:

I'm a barely literate liberal who used an online thesaurus to (desperately, hopefully) sound intelligent to invisible people on the intertubes.

So... That means that you think that the GP was using fancy words that require a thesaurus to look up? There were only 4 words with more than two syllables! The only one that I can even imagine could give someone trouble is "extemporaneous". Do you actually think that's such a big, fancy word that a thesaurus needed to be used? What word do you imagine it replaced?

Re: Illegal treaty.

[Anonymous Coward]

The US gives more money, aid, and supplies globally, not to mention all the foreign aid given out each year, than any other nation by orders of magnitude,

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_development_aid_country_donors

Nope, not really. 32 billion from the US, 18 from the UK, 17 from Germany, 10 billion from Germany and France?

You do know what an order of magnitude is, right?

not to mention the US military protects much of the West, allowing you to save huge amounts on your own defense. The US could afford cradle-to-grave social support programs too, if the US only spent ~5%-10% of the current defense budget like the nations that the US protects.

I'm sorry that the US is handing money to its military industrial complex but isn't that your problem to fix?

So in closing, fuck you, you ungrateful piece(s) of shit.

The word is resentful.

Thank the US your ass isn't part of a radioactive dust cloud blowing around the blast crater, or mounted on some iron pike outside a radical-Islamic mosque.

I'm not going to thank the US for not being stupid enough to start a nuclear war, and the US is responsible for getting many members of my country's military killed with its war in Afghanistan.

Maybe you should be more considerate.

Re:Illegal treaty.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's the name of the hooker the Donald paid $300 to piss on him.

Re:Illegal treaty.

[NicknameUnavailable]

You not only need to learn how our constitution and system of laws works, but you also need to understand what treason REALLY is.

If it worked it wouldn't be actively broken. The intent behind the constitution was good, the system of laws to enact that intent was not bulletproof. The underlying intent being perfect doesn't negate the ineffectiveness of not lynching traitors, or having a definition of "traitor" which doesn't allow for usurping a nation within the bounds of it's own guidelines. Lawyers nit-pick over inane concepts and interpretations to the letter of the law, they are not experts on anything but how to side-step the intent of the law.

Re:Illegal treaty.

[Namarrgon]

9(1) says developed countries "shall provide financial resources" to undeveloped countries. That's it. Nothing about tax, nothing about how much, nothing even says it has to be beyond existing foreign aid. Countries can provide whatever they like, including loans or loan guarantees. Nothing says it has to be taxpayer money.

9(3) says developed countries should take the lead in "mobilizing climate finance from a wide variety of sources, instruments and channels,
noting the significant role of public funds". Again, I'm failing to see anything about new taxes, or specific amounts, or anything beyond a suggestion to also consider public funds, in addition to the many other forms finance can take.

9(8) and 9(9) say only that the existing Financial Mechanisms should be used as intermediaries, i.e. the Global Environment Facility and the Green Climate Fund.

This whole "tax the fuck out of your people" invention is pure FUD, as anyone who takes the time to look for themselves can see. It's been literally made up to frighten people away from even considering the consequences of inaction.

Re: Illegal treaty.

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering that seems to be the basis of all these agreements.

Sure, you could say it seems that way, but you could say the piss running a down your leg seems like it tastes like Champagne.

Tax the piss out of the western world, and ignore what's going on in everyone else's, while watching them pay lip service and continue with business as normal.

Ignore what's going on in everyone else's? Did you forget the six trillion dollar war or something? Perhaps Trump's lovefest with tyrants and dictators. Yeah, he gave them lip service, by putting his mouth around their cocks.

Yeah, I can see why the US would want to pull out.

By and large, polling shows the US population doesn't.

It's the same reason why the Liberals in Ontario are under a voter revolt for the same policies.

Yes, yes, the voters are revolting, but even America didn't give Trump a plurality. Despite his claims of a landslide, even though he underperformed Bush in many states.

And in fact, he might depress right-wing performances across the border.

You'll never get him to be your Queen, even if it weren't illegal for him to do so.

Re:Illegal treaty.

[Anonymous Coward]

So does that in turn mean, that if the US senate didn't constitute of mostly old farts who don't have anything to lose by climate change, but everything to lose by laws making polluting more expensive, could overturn Trumps likely decision not to ratify the Paris treaty?

Re:Illegal treaty.

[Barsteward]

Unfortunately people use "tax" as a pejorative term, in most cases, in the absence of an argument based on facts/knowledge/understanding

Re:Illegal treaty.

[Barsteward]

we are all on the same planet and what happens in one country affects another, pollution etc does NOT respect borders. if you help people in the their own country, you keep them there, if you do not help them then they start migrating to the places without the problem i.e. your doorstep

Re:Illegal treaty.

[Barsteward]

"god american's are retarded If the world ends due to climate change, at least all the fucking Americans will be gone too"
Do not insult a whole population for the attitude of a few vocal idiots

Re:Illegal treaty.

[Anonymous Coward]

Pollution is a worldwide issue. Any agreement which is not binding on China and India and Brazil is not worth the paper it is polluting. The US has improved it's carbon dioxide production footprint more than any of these countries, and probably should be completely exempt until the aforementioned polluters produce ten per cent of the positive results.

This unconfirmed treaty is just another UN-type scam to suck money from the progressive nations and give it to the wastrels and despots. To be in favor of it is to hate the US and be a tool of despots.

Re:Illegal treaty.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's another UN-type scam where the elites get to travel on the public dime to the fancy spots of the world each year to to congratulate themselves for bilking the working public out of their hard-earned cash while supporting wastrels and despots.

Re: Illegal treaty.

[SlaveToTheGrind]

And it's the last part of your statement that is nonsense (the part that I snipped being a nonsense reason for the nonsense proposition I didn't snip). The current President can't take actions that bind the hands of future Presidents; the current Congress can't take actions that bind the hands of future Congresses, etc., for very good and very obvious reasons. Read more carefully the actual legal paper I referenced.

It's amazing to me the number of people who think themselves clever enough to suddenly come up with a way to wire around checks and balances that have been in our system for hundreds of years.

Re:Illegal treaty.

[thegarbz]

United States turned the corner on its own.

Turned what corner? The corner to become the nation with one of the highest emissions per capita?

CONGRATULATIONS! Now please get to building that glass dome so your achievement doesn't fuck up the rest of the world.

USA: The 1% problem just on a global scale.

Re: Illegal treaty.

[fred6666]

no it doesn't, as long as it stay within the powers of the president

let's face it, the Paris agreement is symbolic. There is no CO2 reduction target in the agreement.

Re:Illegal treaty.

[Anonymous Coward]

The US would very much hold themselves to those words if it became a signatory, as a Senate-approved treaty is adopted as law per the Constitution.

Re:Illegal treaty.

[Mashiki]

This whole "tax the fuck out of your people" invention is pure FUD, as anyone who takes the time to look for themselves can see. It's been literally made up to frighten people away from even considering the consequences of inaction.

Really? You ever bother to read a budget or wonder where that $500M, $1B, $5B drops into those buckets come from? I'll give you a hint, it's not from printing money. In other words you're trying to split hairs because you don't understand political speak. But it comes right down to one thing: "Tax the fuck out of your people." And if you don't think it is? You need to go look up the amount of money that's being thrown at things like this when there are pressing problems in said countries own backyards.

Re:Illegal treaty.

[Anonymous Coward]

The Paris strategy is:

1. Get governments to specify their own plans to tackle Climate Change for their own country. Periodically review the plan every few years to see whether more aggressive reduction targets can be reached such as due to better technology becoming available.

2. Recognise that Carbon Dioxide is a pollutant and create a Carbon Tax so that the pollutant becomes costed into the balance sheets of companies. This allows capitalist market forces to push towards cheaper and better solutions by reducing the amount of pollutant because now there is a cost for polluting.

3. Pay compensation to countries that are affected by the pollutant. Such as loss of land due to flooding due to sea level rises.

4. Provide clean technologies to developing countries so that their fossil fuel based solutions can be replaced.

#1 is o.k. The other three are a huge tax on the USA. There is no way it would ever get ratified, nor should it.
If Trump is withdrawing I applaud him for his courage and honesty,

I predict that various US state governments will defy the US Federal government and those states will continue to co-operate with the Paris agreement.

The most left-leaning state in the country would never do 3 or 4. Raising taxes as in (2) they do all the time because they need the revenue to support their left agenda. Companies will just pass it on to the consumer, so it is the consumer balance sheet that is really affected.

Re: Illegal treaty.

[I'm New Around Here]

You're right. I thought you meant, "pledging to something as the head of state" that actually matters, and binds the US to conform to an international treaty. As opposed to a president pledging that he likes bubble gum.

Re:Illegal treaty.

[SlaveToTheGrind]

Why not actually read it for yourself? It's only a few pages of relevant text, minimal legalese, well within high-school capabilities.

Oh, so most of it is irrelevant? Which part(s), and why?

And "minimal legalese" is frankly exactly the problem for a document that imposes legal obligations. Here's just one example of many: "Each Party’s successive nationally determined contribution will represent a progression beyond the Party’s then current nationally determined contribution and reflect its highest possible ambition, reflecting its common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, in the light of different national circumstances."

That mouthful of gobbledygook either means (1) absolutely nothing; or (2) anything the reader (e.g., lawyers of countries who feel like a given signatory isn't doing enough) wants it to mean at that particular juncture.

Then you'll see for yourself that there really are no specific commitments, and all actions are nationally determined and best-effort. Nothing is legally binding.

And yes, it's all largely symbolic . . . If Trump stays or withdraws, it changes no laws either way

Fantastic. In that case, as I said before, all the kerfuffle over this is completely pointless (or, as you put it, "largely symbolic").

but sends a clear signal to heavily-emitting industries that they either need to clean up their act, or that they're free to continue dumping their external waste costs on the public.

Poppycock. A worldwide agreement was not required to achieve the advances in both air and water quality the United States has achieved over the past century plus, and one is not required now.

Re: Illegal treaty.

[Anubis IV]

So, the UN is just going to say, "Ok, it's cool, not a prob if you want to leave"? Of course not. While what you're saying may be nice in theory, and is certainly true domestically, in practice it doesn't work that way at all. You can argue that Obama shouldn't have been able to ratify the treaty because it had this possibility, but it doesn't change that he did and that there are international consequences for revoking it.

Re:Illegal treaty.

[Anonymous Coward]

To make it binding, we'd need to discuss penalties and who oversees the whole thing - and it'd never get signed. The idea is that if everyone is not being a dick, people will more or less move in the right direction, and diplomatic peer pressure will steer that. National contributions can be whatever is acceptable locally, without the problems of imposing top-down targets that don't make local sense.

Mumbling Donnie is, of course, an utter dick.

Re:Illegal treaty.

[jaunty]

The fact is that this is a treaty that hasn't been approved by 2/3 of the US senate. By that alone it should be invalid but the stupid "treaty on treaties" made us less sovern.

"sovern" - I don't know about the education level of slashdot readers anymore - they vote this post as "informative" when this idiot doesn't even know how to spell, or use a spell-checker? Although in their defense, they did only scored it a "2"

Re:Illegal treaty.

[thaylin]

So much for that whole every man has a right to LIFE liberty and the pursuit of happiness thing.

Re:Illegal treaty.

[thaylin]

yea allowing slavery to continue was "perfect" in your mind, as it was part of the intent...

Re:Illegal treaty.

[Plumpaquatsch]

I'm just going to point out that the fact that a typo has made national headlines shows just how truly pathetic you bunch are.

And the fact that Spicer says it wasn't a typo, and that “The president and a small group of people know exactly what he meant” tells us what about you? That you are un-American? That you are not important enough for Trump to tell you what it means? And who the hell are these "people" - the Russians?

Re:Illegal treaty.

[cayenne8]

we are all on the same planet and what happens in one country affects another, pollution etc does NOT respect borders. if you help people in the their own country, you keep them there, if you do not help them then they start migrating to the places without the problem i.e. your doorstep

And THAT is when we *DO* start protecting our borders....

Frankly, I think it would kill two birds with one stone, so to speak, if we helped train our snipers to watch for anyone trying to illegally cross out border, and um...."discourage" such actions.

Re:Illegal treaty.

[Anonymous Coward]

Excellent strawman from totally unrelated subjects.

Re:Illegal treaty.

[Plumpaquatsch]

My guess is he's a fan of Little Britain. He just spelled "Kerfuffle" like he pronounces it.

Re: Illegal treaty.

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact that the US elected someone less intelligent than your average brick does not speak well of this nation.

Re:Illegal treaty.

[Anonymous Coward]

However, countries rarely provide funds or supplies when asked; except for the US.

[Citation needed]

Ah, perhaps you're thinking about when the US starts a war? Yeah, it's true that most other nations don't feel the need to fund that.

Re: Illegal treaty.

[Plumpaquatsch]

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

Re: Illegal treaty.

[fred6666]

Your president pledged that your country will work with the rest of the world to keep global warming under 2 Celcius. That's it. That's the Paris agreement, and it's as symbolic for the USA as it is for other countries.
Now, I heard there is a 4 years period to get out of the agreement, so technically the USA will still be bound by the symbolic agreement for the whole Trump mandate, but not that it changes anything.

Re:Illegal treaty.

[NicknameUnavailable]

Let me just cite something completely unrelated to try to make corruption sound right.

Moron.

Re:Illegal treaty.

[dwillden]

The Paris agreement would exceed the constitutional authority of the President to make an executive agreement as per the link you provided pertaining to executive agreements. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_agreement#In_the_United_States. As this treaty specifies financial promises that have to be funded by Congress it becomes a full formal treaty that cannot be made without Senate ratification. The President can make Executive Agreements pertaining to foreign relations, but if they cross into the powers of the Congress or the States he cannot without ratification.

Re: Illegal treaty.

[Anonymous Coward]

The only planet we have is going to not support humans anymore and you're ok with that? Mars we die it's that simple. Fuck you.

Re: Illegal treaty.

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because the emissions have been outsourced to china doesn't make the emissions disappear. Do you get that? The emissions are owned for each imported product.

Re: Illegal treaty.

[Anonymous Coward]

Countries have no money. Wealth belongs to the people. To hand wealth out from the country is to hand out the wealth of the citizens. If any funds leave, they are sending people's money abroad, and the mechanism by which those monies are consolidated is called taxes.

  The use of "shall" is legalese for "its going to happen or else." The biggest variable is that dollar amounts are not called out. Specific actioms are not called out, nor are penalties for noncompliance. As a binding treaty, this is garbage.

Re: Illegal treaty.

[SlaveToTheGrind]

So, the UN is just going to say, "Ok, it's cool, not a prob if you want to leave"? Of course not. While what you're saying may be nice in theory . . . there are international consequences for revoking it.

So now you're moving the ball. I completely agree that other countries will be mad at us for not continuing to subsidize them in yet another manner (speaking of the UN). And that other countries may be short-sighted enough to take action to "retaliate" for their loss of free cookies.

But that has nothing to do with whether the U.S. would continue to be "bound" by a revoked executive agreement, which was your original proposition.

Re:Illegal treaty.

[Anonymous Coward]

Autocorrect does not correct to fake words, dummy.

Not that I think it's worth all the kerfuffle.

Re: Illegal treaty.

[Anubis IV]

I don't think I'm moving the ball, but, frankly, this is not a topic I'm interested in arguing further, so I'll concede. I think you're trying to make a distinction that's flying over my head, but we're getting into minutiae about international legal theory that I really couldn't care less about. I simply wanted to share something I found interesting with others here who may have been similarly clueless about executive agreements.

I appreciate correction when I get things wrong, even if it flies over my head.

Re:Illegal treaty.

[amicusNYCL]

Hell, the BBC article even said they were fairly certain it meant "coverage"

Why didn't Spicer just say that, then? He could have just said "it was a typo, he obviously meant coverage, let's move on", but instead he seemed to imply that 1) it was intentional and 2) that a "small group of people" got the message. Why not just end the story instead of dragging it out for a long painful death?

Re: Illegal treaty.

[Anonymous Coward]

As a binding treaty, this is garbage.

The leading polluters (and others) wouldn't have signed on if there were binding penalties. What the accord really boiled down to was an agreement among almost all countries that something should be done, and that everyone would agree to try to do something, to varying degrees using varying mechanisms. Trump can't do that because he is essentially a climate change denier when it comes to considering any kind of restrictions on environmental exploitation.

Re: Illegal treaty.

[Anonymous Coward]

"why wont these companies get behind change or environmentalism without laws binding them to do so? What is it about a law that makes their morality justified? Couldn't they just lead by example?"

Good point, couldn't have said it better.

Re: Illegal treaty.

[I'm New Around Here]

Your president pledged that your country will work with the rest of the world to keep global warming under 2 Celcius. That's it. That's the Paris agreement,

That's what's known as an international treaty, which for the US requires the Senate to agree with it and approve it. If President Obama signed off on something without putting it before the Senate for approval, it means nothing to our nation. Our federal government does not put that much power into the hands of a single man, because that would be moronic.

and it's as symbolic for the USA as it is for other countries.

If it is only symbolic, why the big hubbub about Trump stepping back from it?

Now, I heard there is a 4 years period to get out of the agreement, so technically the USA will still be bound by the symbolic agreement for the whole Trump mandate, but not that it changes anything.

Again, what President Obama signed up for without Senate approval/confirmation can be rescinded by any other president just as quickly. Nothing can force us to follow an international treaty we never agreed to. And if it is only symbolic, as you argue, what can possibly be done to us for four years, symbolically speaking?

Re:Illegal treaty.

[NicknameUnavailable]

The American ethos are for Americans. We live in a resource-constrained world and you have to draw the line somewhere. The rest of the world is not our friend.

Re: Illegal treaty.

[fred6666]

Your president pledged that your country will work with the rest of the world to keep global warming under 2 Celcius. That's it. That's the Paris agreement,

That's what's known as an international treaty, which for the US requires the Senate to agree with it and approve it.

No, since it falls in the powers of the presidency. Just like keeping the US embassy in Tel-Aviv.

If President Obama signed off on something without putting it before the Senate for approval, it means nothing to our nation.

Wrong, the president has many powers that do not require senate approval.
I am not a US-american and I know your country better than you.

Our federal government does not put that much power into the hands of a single man, because that would be moronic.

Haha good one.

If it is only symbolic, why the big hubbub about Trump stepping back from it?

Because symbols matter in international diplomacy. The fact that Trump can't even keep a symbolic agreement means a lot on what he thinks of climate change.

Again, what President Obama signed up for without Senate approval/confirmation can be rescinded by any other president just as quickly. Nothing can force us to follow an international treaty we never agreed to. And if it is only symbolic, as you argue, what can possibly be done to us for four years, symbolically speaking?

I agree and Trump just did it. However, other countries will continue to consider the USA is part of the agreement if the 4 year clause exists (I didn't check).
And nothing can be done, since it is symbolic. Except of course naming and shaming the USA.

Re:Illegal treaty.

[gl4ss]

*If it changes internal US policies in ANY way it's the same as a law in practice*..

so.. a new senator joining the senate to replace someone needs a new law? the stupid fucking thing about trump leaving the treaty is that HE
DID NOT ACTUALLY NEED TO FUCKING BE DOING ANYTHING ABOUT IT, ignoring it would have been much better for him.

by the way you should be complaining about deciding to join new battlefronts without 2/3rds.

and again Musk is peeved because the only way Tesla is going to enter decent profits would be if trump suddenly announced euro style emission taxes on cars - which would hike up prices of non hybrids and non electrics 50%. no joke.

Re:Illegal treaty.

[Anonymous Coward]

And where do countries get "financial resources"? Oh yeah, from taxes. Or by going further into debt which is also a financial burden on its citizens.

Re:Illegal treaty.

[Namarrgon]

Heard of government bonds? Loans that get paid back? Loan guarantees, where you usually don't exchange money at all? These are just a few of the "financial resources" available to governments.

Re:Illegal treaty.

[Namarrgon]

Just point to one example of a US federal tax that's been added to support climate action. Doesn't even have to be onerous. Again, I'll wait.

Even if the Paris agreement actually asked for such an additional tax, do you think Congress would agree?

If you're actually complaining about where your existing tax dollars are being spent, then sure, that's reasonable. You may have the opinion that the government is already "taxing the fuck out of the people", which you're also of course entitled to.

But that's unrelated to the Paris agreement. You've completely failed to demonstrate that the Paris agreement would, in any way, require taxing the fuck out of anyone. At best you've implied that "political speak" means that they probably will, but unless you can show any examples of new taxes to support the Paris agreement, in any country, I'm not placing a lot of credibility there either.

Re:Illegal treaty.

[NicknameUnavailable]

the stupid fucking thing about trump leaving the treaty is that HE DID NOT ACTUALLY NEED TO FUCKING BE DOING ANYTHING ABOUT IT

A) It got rid of the liberals and corrupt bastards using globalist propaganda to prop up their businesses to remove themselves from his advisory board.

and again Musk is peeved because the only way Tesla is going to enter decent profits would be if trump suddenly announced euro style emission taxes on cars - which would hike up prices of non hybrids and non electrics 50%. no joke.

B) Good. Hope the power hungry slave driver goes out of all his businesses. Nobody who works high intellect talent the way he does deserves a cent, the fact his entire car business hinged on overbearing government regulations makes him all the worse. Trying to start a cult of personality like Steve Jobs did really just adds to it, if he weren't already overworking engineers and trying to set himself up as dictator of a slave camp on Mars using "surplus" from excessive taxation to prop it all up.

TL;DR: Fuck Musk, he's a symptom of corruption. Covfefe.

Re: Illegal treaty.

[I'm New Around Here]

Your president pledged that your country will work with the rest of the world to keep global warming under 2 Celcius. That's it. That's the Paris agreement,

That's what's known as an international treaty, which for the US requires the Senate to agree with it and approve it.

No, since it falls in the powers of the presidency. Just like keeping the US embassy in Tel-Aviv.

Making an international treaty does require the US Senate for confirmation. I thought we were past the "President's favorite bubblegum" part of the discussion.

If President Obama signed off on something without putting it before the Senate for approval, it means nothing to our nation.

Wrong, the president has many powers that do not require senate approval.
I am not a US-american and I know your country better than you.

No. Again, I am talking about international treaties, you are talking about bubblegum. Try to catch up.

Our federal government does not put that much power into the hands of a single man, because that would be moronic.

Haha good one.

If it is only symbolic, why the big hubbub about Trump stepping back from it?

Because symbols matter in international diplomacy. The fact that Trump can't even keep a symbolic agreement means a lot on what he thinks of climate change.

Again, what President Obama signed up for without Senate approval/confirmation can be rescinded by any other president just as quickly. Nothing can force us to follow an international treaty we never agreed to. And if it is only symbolic, as you argue, what can possibly be done to us for four years, symbolically speaking?

I agree and Trump just did it. However, other countries will continue to consider the USA is part of the agreement if the 4 year clause exists (I didn't check).
And nothing can be done, since it is symbolic. Except of course naming and shaming the USA.

I am not sure what the 4 year agreement is either, but since we are not bound by the unconfirmed international treaty, we can ignore it as soon as we want.

Re: Illegal treaty.

[fred6666]

You are stuck on calling it a treaty. It doesn't have to be a treaty under US law to be a treaty in the sense most people use the word. Call it an agreement instead if you prefer. So you are (were) part of the agreement, like it or not.

Re:Illegal treaty.

[Mashiki]

So far your entire premise is that money is going to come from nothing when the premise of the agreement is to use public funds, while trying to say that it's not really going to increase taxes. Well ask yourself this. Where is that money that's going from? Easy it's hospitals, LT care, policing, welfare, social assistance, and so on. Where's the shortfall going to be made up from? More taxes. And it's not going to likely be corporate taxes, it's going to be from income/sales/etc taxes.

Re:Illegal treaty.

[Namarrgon]

Like I thought, you have no actual examples of your fears coming to pass elsewhere, so it's just hypothetical FUD that someone's likely passed on to you.

Most likely, any money would be moved from the existing foreign aid budget, not hospitals. There won't be a shortfall because there's no minimum requirement specified, no need to come up with more than you already have available.

The reason I can be confident about this (and you should be too) is because, last I checked, Congress still holds the purse strings - and the current Congress is even more unlikely than ever to divert significant funds from domestics, let alone impose new taxes. Second, since Paris was an executive agreement rather than a ratified treaty, it can't possibly commit the US to any specific extra funding because POTUS doesn't have that power. Third, the text of the treaty clearly requires no such specific commitment anyway, as I should hope would be clear by now - it's all voluntary. And finally, none of it is legally binding in the first place.

Given that, your conviction that the Paris Agreement will inevitably lead to taxing the fuck out of the public is not only laughably implausible, but seems a clear tactic to frighten others away from thinking anything through.

Then of course there's the flip side of the Agreement, all the reasons and benefits for agreeing to it - the climate mitigation and large future costs it will save, the lucrative new energy industries (that China has already taken leadership from you), the international trade advantages of not being the only country besides Syria to ignore where the world is heading etc. But that's a separate discussion.

Re:Illegal treaty.

[ganjadude]

it sure can and does (if you screw up and accidentally add it to your auto correct library, i know i have for example "jist" when i type "just"

Re: Illegal treaty.

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope, not really. 32 billion from the US, 18 from the UK, 17 from Germany, 10 billion from Germany and France?

You do know what an order of magnitude is, right?

That only counts "official" aid spending. It does not count individual charity donations and donations by private charity organizations and/or Christian groups. Added together, the amounts dwarf "official" aid amounts.

So, the point stands, contrary to your cherry-picked stats.

Try harder.

its ok

[Osgeld]

I am sure the great negotiator will figure out something that everyone can agree on and totally not give in like everything else

Meanwhile in the lithium refinery in china.

[Anonymous Coward]

Mother earth is being raped up the garden path.

Re:Meanwhile in the lithium refinery in china.

[WindBourne]

yeah. So, what is your point?

Re:Meanwhile in the lithium refinery in china.

[pastafazou]

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.

Re:Meanwhile in the lithium refinery in china.

[Geoffrey.landis]

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.

Waste from rare earth mineral refineries. Nothing to do with solar panels, which don't use any rare earth elements.

Re:Meanwhile in the lithium refinery in china.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a direct consequence of Chinese companies being myopic and not properly handling their waste products.

Re:Meanwhile in the lithium refinery in china.

[DogDude]

Green energy isn't so green when you see this.

Oh, that's cute. We've got probably 200,000 people dying prematurely from air pollution from auto emissions.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/s...

And if you want to compare apples to apples, Google "Deepwater Horizon".

Re:Meanwhile in the lithium refinery in china.

[MachineShedFred]

Yeah, it has far more to do with the laptop or smartphone that you posted your incorrect assessment from than it does anything to do with solar panels. Hint: solar panels don't use rare earths, but your new shiny phone does.

Also, don't be a lazy git - if you want someone to google something, at least provide a damn link. HTML has been around and in wide use for like 25 years now.

Re:Meanwhile in the lithium refinery in china.

[CustomSolvers2]

Even though I have little interest in getting involved in CO2-related discussions, I want to clarify a tiny detail which quite a few people don't seem to know: CO2 is not harmful for human health (perhaps it might not be too good in very high doses, but this is an extremely unlikely scenario). In fact, it is a normal output of any combustion like the ones associated with the breathing process of all the living beings. That linked article can only refer to the other pollutants generated by car engines (e.g., NOx, HC, soot/particles, etc.).

I am not too familiar with the exact conditions of the Paris agreement, but in case of being exclusively focused on CO2/climate change it wouldn't have any impact on the deaths which you are mentioning.

Re: Meanwhile in the lithium refinery in china.

[Anonymous Coward]

Right, because if we stop burning fossil fuels because we want to lower CO2 emissions, we won't have any impact on NOx and particulate prodicfin

Re:Meanwhile in the lithium refinery in china.

[skullandbones99]

I am not too familiar with the exact conditions of the Paris agreement, but in case of being exclusively focused on CO2/climate change it wouldn't have any impact on the deaths which you are mentioning.

Indirectly the Paris Agreement will reduce the number of those deaths because electrification of transport will eliminate all the gaseous emissions from transport in the local area. Any gaseous pollution moves to the electrical power source which is usually in less populated areas. Therefore, exposure by the general population is reduced so the death rate will reduce.

Re:Meanwhile in the lithium refinery in china.

[WindBourne]

has nothing to do with solar panels or wind turbines. Few of them really use rare earth. That was all about a gov that pushes the heavy pollution so that they can destroy western companies and then have a monopoly.

Re:Meanwhile in the lithium refinery in china.

[WindBourne]

ah nope.
In POF, EVs in China will only make things worse there. They get 80-85% of their electricity from coal. Worse yet, they purposely leave off pollution controls. As such, things will get WORSE in China, not better.

Now with that said, in most parts of the world, EVs will actually improve things.

Re:Meanwhile in the lithium refinery in china.

[Anonymous Coward]

Tesla sure seems keen on selling whole house batteries with their solar roof. Though the panels themselves may not, the accessories sure as hell do.

Re: Meanwhile in the lithium refinery in china.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, because they will never change their energy mix and are not ramping up their solar production.

Re:Meanwhile in the lithium refinery in china.

[pipingguy]

Ahhh yes, the ever-nebulous 'externalities' that can never be quite proven, but do come in handy politically (just like CAGW itself) to yank the emotions. Won't somebody please think of the children?

Re:Meanwhile in the lithium refinery in china.

[I'm New Around Here]

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.

Waste from rare earth mineral refineries. Nothing to do with solar panels, which don't use any rare earth elements.

Excuse me?
https://e360.yale.edu/features...

Thin, cheap solar panels need tellurium, which makes up a scant 0.0000001 percent of the earth’s crust, making it three times rarer than gold.

Re:Meanwhile in the lithium refinery in china.

[I'm New Around Here]

Yeah, it has far more to do with the laptop or smartphone that you posted your incorrect assessment from than it does anything to do with solar panels. Hint: solar panels don't use rare earths,

You guys are really sure of things that are wrong.

https://e360.yale.edu/features...

Thin, cheap solar panels need tellurium, which makes up a scant 0.0000001 percent of the earth’s crust, making it three times rarer than gold.

Re:Meanwhile in the lithium refinery in china.

[I'm New Around Here]

https://e360.yale.edu/features...

Re: Meanwhile in the lithium refinery in china.

[Anonymous Coward]

Even though I have little interest in getting involved in CO2-related discussions, I want to clarify a tiny detail which quite a few people don't seem to know: CO2 is not harmful for human health (perhaps it might not be too good in very high doses, but this is an extremely unlikely scenario). In fact, it is a normal output of any combustion like the ones associated with the breathing process of all the living beings. That linked article can only refer to the other pollutants generated by car engines (e.g., NOx, HC, soot/particles, etc.).

You're actually mistaken, while Carbon Dioxide is not listed as a poison or toxic, and it is a waste product, there is strong medical evidence as to it being harmful for human health. It is not simply a matter of suffocation, but studies (including on the ISS) show issues with cognitive function, kidney function and bone loss.

I am not too familiar with the exact conditions of the Paris agreement, but in case of being exclusively focused on CO2/climate change it wouldn't have any impact on the deaths which you are mentioning.

The Paris agreement technically covers all relevant GHGs.

Sorry, two for two.

I'd post links but I am on mobile, so a bit more trouble.

Jennifer Law did one of the studies, as a NASA flight surgeon, it should be public documentation though. And fo the other, just read the treaty.

Re: Meanwhile in the lithium refinery in china.

[CustomSolvers2]

if we stop burning fossil fuels

This is probably the trendy idea with lowest applicability ever. We have been burning fossil fuels since we became an industrialised society over 200 years ago and we don't know anything better than that. Talking about not burning fossil fuels at all is almost like talking about magic.

Just replacing internal combustion engines (a tiny proportion of the burning-fossil-fuels reality) is so complex that, at this point, can even be considered a completely unrealistic long-term goal. We already have acceptable alternatives for small engines (cars) but replacing all the existing ones isn't a reasonable expectation for the next 20-50 years; and we are still not even close to replacing heavy-load ones (trucks, ships, planes, etc.), which are the biggest pollutors by far.

Down here in the actual reality where we have to deal with burning fossil fuels without dreaming about magical what-if scenarios, reducing CO2 and NOx (or any other pollutant) are completely different stories. Each emission type requires different approaches with different drawbacks (because most of people, many of them systematically complaining about non-environment-friendly policies, want their engines to continue running as so far, their electricity to continue being reliably provided, etc.), even different fuels and conditions are more (un)likely to output certain pollutants. NOx and CO2 will never be considered at an equivalent level absolutely anywhere unless in the mouths of generically-speaking people.

Re:Meanwhile in the lithium refinery in china.

[CustomSolvers2]

Indirectly the Paris Agreement...

Sure, as indirectly as dreaming with a number might have an impact on your chances of winning the lottery. No. Even by assuming that the most ambitious long-term CO2-reduction goals are achieved, we would continue heavily relying on fossil fuels and all the worldwide emission regulations would continue being eminently focused on reducing actually-harmful-for-health pollutants (+ including some references to the CO2 newcomer).

Re: Meanwhile in the lithium refinery in china.

[CustomSolvers2]

It is not simply a matter of suffocation, but studies (including on the ISS) show issues with cognitive function, kidney function and bone loss.

?! Seriously?! I worked during 2 years for a company whose business was focused on emissions (mostly from internal combustion engines) and, as per my knowledge, all the industry wasn't even considering CO2 as a pollutant until relatively recent times. Also I wasn't aware about the fact that humans (or any other living being) are systematically generating poisonous-to-themselves compounds. Are you saying that just breathing is bad for your health?! Wow! You should quickly let everyone know about your discoveries because there are lots of people wrong out there. The medical community should start recommending people not breathing and/or not being around of other breathing things. Logically, I believe that all what you are saying is completely true, but just for future readers not knowing you, your knowledge and intentions as well as I do (random other AC), would you mind to share some reference from a reasonably trustworthy source somehow supporting your words?

The Paris agreement technically covers all relevant GHGs.

According to Wikipedia, you mean H2O, CO2, CH4, N2O, O3, CFCs, HCFCs, HFCs. If this is true (why or how could I doubt about the reliability of such a trustworthy source of knowledge as you have proven to be?!), it would mean that, out of the main pollutants from internal combustion engines, they only care about the referred CO2. Note that N2O has nothing to do with the dangerous NOx (NO + NO2), also that its other name (laughing gas) gives a good idea about its actual relevance.

Sorry, two for two.

Yes, I agree I think that the first paragraph reflects much better your surprisingly in-denial (dishonest?!) ignorance though.

I'd post links but I am on mobile, so a bit more trouble.

But you did share all that knowledge with the rest of the world anyway. Thanks! And I am saying that as both a human and a learner.

Jennifer Law did one of the studies, as a NASA flight surgeon, it should be public documentation though. And fo the other, just read the treaty.

Jennifer Law doesn't sound like the kind of made-up name intended to be appealing to gullible audiences? Like the fake name used by a scammer or what Sarah Silverman's last trailer is mocking with "Tom Virtue"? Also a flight surgeon?! Are now (flight!!) surgeons taking care of emissions and their effects on health? I thought that all this was taken care of by biology-focused specialities, but what has a surgeon to do with anything of this? And also NASA (well... they might do some work on emissions, although not sure that via their flight surgeon)?! Please, do a little effort as soon as you can and share a like to that breaking-through research! We have to let the industry and the world know! They have done so many mistakes and Jennifer is so unfairly not extremely famous!

DISCLAIMER: yes, this post contains looooots of sarcasm.

Re: Meanwhile in the lithium refinery in china.

[CustomSolvers2]

I meant "share a link to that breaking-through research".

Re: Meanwhile in the lithium refinery in china.

[CustomSolvers2]

My original intention of not wanting to get involved in CO2-related discussions should be clearer now by reading the replies I got. Honestly, I was expecting much more aggressive attitudes + down-votes. Although I am pleasantly surprised with what I have seen so far, am still not interested in getting involved in these discussions.

Re:Meanwhile in the lithium refinery in china.

[archer, the]

Taking a sample size of one is never good. Try looking at all the known samples: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... .

The world has had 100,000 deaths per trillion kwh of coal generated power.

The world has had 36,000 deaths per trillion kwh of oil generated power.

The world has had 440 deaths per trillion kwh of solar generated power.

The world has had 150 deaths per trillion kwh of wind generated power.

The world has had 90 deaths per trillion kwh of nuclear generated power.

Re:Meanwhile in the lithium refinery in china.

[lerxstz]

So far. If you extrapolate that argument though, coal, oil and nuclear should be phased out. That stat regarding nuclear is like saying Russian roulette is safe

If you keep using nuclear eventually that 90 deaths will dramatically increase, making it far more dangerous than solar/wind. There will be no mass destruction due to solar/wind.

Re: Meanwhile in the lithium refinery in china.

[Anonymous Coward]

It is not simply a matter of suffocation, but studies (including on the ISS) show issues with cognitive function, kidney function and bone loss.

?! Seriously?! I worked during 2 years for a company whose business was focused on emissions (mostly from internal combustion engines) and, as per my knowledge, all the industry wasn't even considering CO2 as a pollutant until relatively recent times.

And? This means what, that because they didn't do something, they couldn't be wrong? The history of industry being ignorant of problems is well established.

Also I wasn't aware about the fact that humans (or any other living being) are systematically generating poisonous-to-themselves compounds.

Well, that's a feather in your cap, ain't it, to be ignorant of human and other living beings, having biological processes that are harmful to themselves.

Are you saying that just breathing is bad for your health?!

You've never been to LA in a smog alert, or just a dust storm, I take it?

Wow! You should quickly let everyone know about your discoveries because there are lots of people wrong out there. The medical community should start recommending people not breathing and/or not being around of other breathing things.

Indeed, the medical community does have to make a lot of recommendations regarding being around other people, for a lot of reasons. Why most of the places I've seen have had signs warning patients to avoid contact, and not get too close to each other.

Logically, I believe that all what you are saying is completely true, but just for future readers not knowing you, your knowledge and intentions as well as I do (random other AC), would you mind to share some reference from a reasonably trustworthy source somehow supporting your words?

I did give you sufficient reference, to a NASA flight surgeon, but as I was on mobile, so I found it more difficult than it was worth to seek out a link for you. Sorry.

Of course, your sarcastic response now disinclines me to provide you with anything more either.

You could simply search for it yourself.

The Paris agreement technically covers all relevant GHGs.

According to Wikipedia, you mean H2O, CO2, CH4, N2O, O3, CFCs, HCFCs, HFCs. If this is true (why or how could I doubt about the reliability of such a trustworthy source of knowledge as you have proven to be?!), it would mean that, out of the main pollutants from internal combustion engines, they only care about the referred CO2. Note that N2O has nothing to do with the dangerous NOx (NO + NO2), also that its other name (laughing gas) gives a good idea about its actual relevance.

Don't worry, as internal combustion engines mostly use , all of their waste products are covered.

It's really easy to read the agreement, and see how open-ended it is. It's not as limited as say the Montreal Protocol.

Sorry, two for two.

Yes, I agree I think that the first paragraph reflects much better your surprisingly i

Re: Meanwhile in the lithium refinery in china.

[CustomSolvers2]

And? This means what, that because they didn't do something, they couldn't be wrong?

I read that first sentence, then skimmed through all your links to find a reference to the marvellous contribution of Mrs Law (BTW, I didn't mock anyone other than you inventing a name which happened to have certain curious appearance), confirmed that it wasn't there and now I am writing these reasonably-respectful farewell lines. Bye.

Re: Meanwhile in the lithium refinery in china.

[CustomSolvers2]

ah! Big apologises! I seriously didn't read your comment (very bad impression from your first one), but you did include a reference to the (actually existing!) Mrs. Law! Really sorry about that. I will read it right away and come back to you ASAP.

Re: Meanwhile in the lithium refinery in china.

[CustomSolvers2]

Again: sorry, sorry and re-sorry. I am certainly not the kind of person ignoring others, easily misjudging or not adequately understanding their positions. I am not trying to justify my behaviour, but bear in mind that I answered your first reply after having written other two answers (+ not having too much time/planning to do that + as already said, not liking this kind of discussions too much). Also bear in mind my solid background on this front what makes kind of difficult to take certain statements too seriously. Hopefully, you will understand my position.

I took a quick look at the paper you were referring (this one, download the cached version because the NASA links don't seem to work) and it doesn't show any surprising to me result. Bear in mind that what we call (toxic) pollutants (e.g., the referred NOx) are very dangerous, what means that they provoke cancer in open space. Getting highly concentrated doses of virtually anything might be unhealthy, but this isn’t enough to say that certain substance is toxic. Also note that I did expressly clarify in my first comment that, under exceptional circumstances CO2 might be somehow problematic (as everything else under extreme conditions).

The basic conclusions of this paper are summarised in table 2 (page 19) which includes a very descriptive list of situations (good work, Mrs. Law! Sorry again :)) which describe the non-applicability of these conclusions to atmospheric (or any other kind of accidental/under normal conditions) contamination. You have to get a dose 20 times higher than normal atmospheric conditions just to reach "Empiric threshold established by flight surgeons" (= an astronaut is still able to perform his demanding work perfectly!), what also means getting locked in a very small room with lots of CO2 (BTW, if you do that with something like a car, the other pollutants, most likely CO, would kill you before that you could start feeling the indicated CO2 effects). You need to get over 40 times the normal atmospheric concentration to start feeling "Slight performance decrement after chronic exposure" (= after being under these conditions for too long, you might not be able to perform all the actions which an astronaut have to perform at 100%). If you get 65 times more, you would reach "the maximum Maximum CO2 concentration on Apollo 13" (= astronauts flight under these conditions!). If you keep increasing the values, you would get increasingly slightly worse effects eminently defined by symptoms like headache, sweating, dizziness, etc. I couldn't find in that paper any reference to words like "bone", "cognitive" or "kidney" (= you aren't too honest and/or don't know what you are talking about; an idea which was pretty clear in my mind since the very first second).

In summary, it seems a study only relevant under very specific conditions (= maximising the performance of astronauts), which doesn’t seem applicable anywhere else and, in any case, is certainly very far away from representing even the starting point for claims on the lines of "CO2 is bad for human health". No, it is certainly not. It isn't enough under normal atmospheric conditions and not even for very concentrated doses (inside an actual greenhouse). Taking a very high dose of CO2 (or anything else like water or oxygen) cannot be good, but this is evident and doesn't convert it into bad not even watch-your-dose material; just in don't-get-completely-crazy-and-start-living-24hours-with-a-high-CO2-concentration-because-you-might-get-headaches material. Anyone claiming that CO2 is bad for your health is plainly a liar. In any case, I do apologise again for my very far from ideal behaviour. Hopefully, this will be enough to finish this chat.

Re:Meanwhile in the lithium refinery in china.

[WindBourne]

you might want to look at the age of that article.
Wind turbines made in AMerica and Europe along with a number of the EVs such as Tesla are AC based, and do not have magnets.
Chinese MADE has a lot of rare earth, but that is because they now control a lot of the market.

Re: Meanwhile in the lithium refinery in china.

[WindBourne]

relative to coal,no, they are NOT ramping up AE. China is STILL growing their coal each year MORE than AE.

Re:Meanwhile in the lithium refinery in china.

[I'm New Around Here]

You may want to have a look at what it says about solar panels and rare earth elements.

Re: Meanwhile in the lithium refinery in china.

[Anonymous Coward]

Again: sorry, sorry and re-sorry. I am certainly not the kind of person ignoring others, easily misjudging or not adequately understanding their positions.

You may want to reconsider your approach then, as your manner of behavior doesn't fit very effectively with your professed belief in yourself.

I am not trying to justify my behaviour, but bear in mind that I answered your first reply after having written other two answers (+ not having too much time/planning to do that + as already said, not liking this kind of discussions too much). Also bear in mind my solid background on this front what makes kind of difficult to take certain statements too seriously. Hopefully, you will understand my position.

Understand? Sure, I understand a lot of things. This should not be construed as condoning, approving, or otherwise endorsing. It is merely a matter of comprehension.

In fact, if anything, my understanding likely differs from yours considerably. I think you believe you know more than you really do, and with your dislike are getting inclined towards intemperance and hastiness rather than moderate yourself based on wisdom and prudence.

It's not an uncommon sentiment, but that just means you should be more aware of it.

I took a quick look at the paper you were referring (this one, download the cached version because the NASA links don't seem to work) and it doesn't show any surprising to me result.

The NASA link worked for me, perhaps you had some other problem, or perhaps it was some transient error. I couldn't say.

Bear in mind that what we call (toxic) pollutants (e.g., the referred NOx) are very dangerous, what means that they provoke cancer in open space.

We're not talking about what is called "toxic" pollutants, or even "pollutants at all" as if you remember, your statement was:

CO2 is not harmful for human health (perhaps it might not be too good in very high doses, but this is an extremely unlikely scenario).

When in fact, medical evidence points to you being mistaken, as it can be harmful. Even beyond your qualifier's limits to cover.

Getting highly concentrated doses of virtually anything might be unhealthy, but this isn’t enough to say that certain substance is toxic.

Again, we're not talking about whether or not it is toxic, per se, but the issue of it being harmful.

Which it can be. That doesn't even fit under "not be too good" not that I know what you meant by that or the ambiguous statement of very high doses, but harmful on its own, due to its effects on the body.

Also note that I did expressly clarify in my first comment that, under exceptional circumstances CO2 might be somehow problematic (as everything else under extreme conditions).

Good for you, but as I noted, it's not simply of problematic, such as I might consider it as a matter of suffocation. So it's more than simply "not too good", but actual, medical effects that can be detrimental in themselves.

And do note, that while being on a space station may be unique (for now), there are not too dissimilar issues within other spaces that human beings are frequently found. It may be desirable to rethink our building and enclosed vehicle designs.

(BTW, if you do that with something like a car, the other pollutants, most likely CO, would kill you before that you could start feeling the indicated CO2 effects).

There are many things that are more harmful than others, we still recognize that harm can occur.

I couldn't find in that paper any reference to words like "bone", "cognitive" or "kidney" (= you aren't too honest and/or don't know what you are talking about; an idea which was pretty clear in my mind since the very first sec

Re:Meanwhile in the lithium refinery in china.

[WindBourne]

you might look at the fact that it was more than 5 years ago (written 4 years ago, but based on data from 6 years ago), and panels have changed due to those issues.
Now, the chinese panels continue to make use of rare earth, but not a big deal except for those that buy them.
Thankfully, SOlar city and several other companies here in the west are not making use of those.

Re: Meanwhile in the lithium refinery in china.

[CustomSolvers2]

In fact, if anything, my understanding likely differs from yours considerably.

I have no doubt on this front. In fact, this last message is further proving a kind-of-prejudice I got about you since the first moment (I am a prejudice-free person, but cannot avoid having likely-to-be-true expectations about certain people on account of my experience and my big interest in properly knowing and understanding others. Logically, I dismiss these pre-ideas as soon as possible, although they tend to be very accurate in certain contexts): you are a person who usually talks without knowing; one of those using expressions like "I am here to see the big picture"; the kind of personality usually working in managerial, political or other abstract talking environments; an individual who cannot see a discussion as a way to gain more understanding into the given situation (and/or grow as a person), but as something to win/lose; you rarely understand almost anything adequately and plainly focus on looking for weaknesses in your opponents (for you, everyone is an opponent to beat and everything is a game/war to win; you are also permanently afraid of virtually anything) to ease your win; the net contributions of persons like you to the world or to others is usually none as far as you only care about one person (= yourself), ironically you behave in a way which is mostly damaging for you (if those of your kind ever discovered how marvellous is truly knowing, truly not fearing, actually contributing, etc. you would change immediately your ways); etc.

I knew all this from your previous comments, but the absolute confirmation has been your reaction to my (over-)apology (something that a person like you never does, even though you are wrong most of the times): only people like you see an apology as an excuse to attack (a weakness?! No. It shows honesty and self-confidence or, by using an easier-for-you language, strength) and to try to cover their lacks. The normal/reasonable behaviour? Accepting/understanding the apology and, in case of being applicable, repaying it with your own (in this case? Something like "sorry for posting so misleading and clearly wrong statements; I honestly don't know too much about all of this and was just repeating what I read somewhere else" would make my aforementioned prejudice invalid and you respect-worthy for me).

I think you believe you know more than you really do

This is a new sample of generic talking which tries to cover your evident lacks on what is being discussed. Your whole message is full of meaning-nothing (or self-help-book-material or CEO-talk or abstract-nonsense or canned-knowledge samples) sentences on these lines which you (very wrongly) think that are helpful to deal with any situation where you don’t have the required knowledge. I have met many people like you and have tried quite a few times to make you understand (even just via "let's just understand that our positions are very different and what works for each one of us doesn't work for the other"), but always failed. Apparently, you don't want to see yourself and what you represent clearly (perhaps this is a basic requirement for a personality like yours); I am not sure whether you are fully lying to yourself or are so committed to your life role of selling-distorted-images that can never reach a point of acceptation ("OK. My techniques don't work with certain type of people and I would have to accept it"), a practical stalemate by applying your always-competing perception of the world.

You keep repeating your proceedings, standardised answers, calculated reactions, etc. which have worked on other contexts, by ignoring the reality in front of you clearly telling "your bag of tricks isn't good here". You will never understand even the tiny fraction of reality defined by the simple: there are actually honest, knowledgeable, wanting-to-understand-&-be-understood people for whom your world of abstract really-meaning-nothing is a complete (s

Re: Meanwhile in the lithium refinery in china.

[Anonymous Coward]

In fact, if anything, my understanding likely differs from yours considerably.

I have no doubt on this front.

One would hope so, after all I stated my understanding, so you being aware of your own, can thus confirm it for a certainty.

In fact, this last message is further proving a kind-of-prejudice I got about you since the first moment (I am a prejudice-free person, but cannot avoid having likely-to-be-true expectations about certain people on account of my experience and my big interest in properly knowing and understanding others.

Hmm, your message is further establishing to me, that the advice I already gave you, is something you really ought to consider, as your manner of behavior doesn't fit very effectively with your professed belief in yourself.

Logically, I dismiss these pre-ideas as soon as possible, although they tend to be very accurate in certain contexts): you are a person who usually talks without knowing; one of those using expressions like "I am here to see the big picture"; the kind of personality usually working in managerial, political or other abstract talking environments; an individual who cannot see a discussion as a way to gain more understanding into the given situation (and/or grow as a person), but as something to win/lose; you rarely understand almost anything adequately and plainly focus on looking for weaknesses in your opponents (for you, everyone is an opponent to beat and everything is a game/war to win; you are also permanently afraid of virtually anything) to ease your win; the net contributions of persons like you to the world or to others is usually none as far as you only care about one person (= yourself), ironically you behave in a way which is mostly damaging for you (if those of your kind ever discovered how marvellous is truly knowing, truly not fearing, actually contributing, etc. you would change immediately your ways); etc.

I'd this chain of pseudo-babble reflects your own self more than me. It's certainly more important to you, than it is to me.

I knew all this from your previous comments, but the absolute confirmation has been your reaction to my (over-)apology (something that a person like you never does, even though you are wrong most of the times): only people like you see an apology as an excuse to attack (a weakness?!
No. It shows honesty and self-confidence or, by using an easier-for-you language, strength) and to try to cover their lacks. The normal/reasonable behaviour? Accepting/understanding the apology and, in case of being applicable, repaying it with your own (in this case? Something like "sorry for posting so misleading and clearly wrong statements; I honestly don't know too much about all of this and was just repeating what I read somewhere else" would make my aforementioned prejudice invalid and you respect-worthy for me).

Yes, I was surprised even your timid approach to an apology. It wasn't very convincing, as you left out a significant amount of your error, and even with what little you offered, you were quite inadequate, but you managed to come to some degree of apology. Still, the things you left out, were quite meaningful, so even with what you did offer, you did fail to be convincing.

It's like when somebody says "I'm sorry if you thought something I said hurt you" rather than you know, actually admitting to their hurtful words.

I think you believe you know more than you really do

This is a new sample of generic talking which tries to cover your evident lacks on what is being discussed. Your whole message is full of meaning-nothing (or self-help-book-material or CEO-talk or abstract-nonsense or canned-knowledge samples) sentences on these lines which you (very wrongly) think that are helpful to deal with any situation where you don’t have the required knowledge. I have met many people like you and have

Re: Meanwhile in the lithium refinery in china.

[CustomSolvers2]

My first intention was to not read a single character of your likely-to-be dishonest, misinterpretation-prone, abstract, etc. new nonsense, but then I said to myself "what kind of person are you? Someone as sad as this clown? With no respect for yourself and others? Living in a made-up reality built over fears, misunderstandings and prejudices? Never willing to adequately understand anyone or anything? No. This isn't me". So, I reconsidered my decision and started to read your comment until reaching

Hmm, your message is further establishing to me, that the advice I already gave you, is something you really ought to consider, as your manner of behavior doesn't fit very effectively with your professed belief in yourself.

This is when I decided to stick to my original intention of plainly ignoring you and your "infra-world". Bye.

Re: Meanwhile in the lithium refinery in china.

[Anonymous Coward]

My first intention was to not read a single character of your likely-to-be dishonest, misinterpretation-prone, abstract, etc. new nonsense, but then I said to myself "what kind of person are you? Someone as sad as this clown? With no respect for yourself and others? Living in a made-up reality built over fears, misunderstandings and prejudices? Never willing to adequately understand anyone or anything? No. This isn't me". So, I reconsidered my decision and started to read your comment until reaching

Hmm, your message is further establishing to me, that the advice I already gave you, is something you really ought to consider, as your manner of behavior doesn't fit very effectively with your professed belief in yourself.

This is when I decided to stick to my original intention of plainly ignoring you and your "infra-world". Bye.

Yes, yes, you have been having a conniption fit with your calumnious burbling over this discussion for quite a while, but it's no shock to me that you can't keep your word. Would perhaps have been better for your karma if you had, but no shock to myself.

Re: Meanwhile in the lithium refinery in china.

[CustomSolvers2]

conniption

Your best (actually, only one) contribution so far: you have taught me a new word. Congrats! You should be very proud of yourself because people like you rarely teach me anything. Although it doesn't describe my behaviour here, only your crazy misinterpretations making up non-existent meanings for everything.

Your usage of the English language seems to indicate that my original guesses regarding the source of your evident in-denial behaviour, living in made up realities, always selling (and probably easily buying) dishonesty, etc. might not be fully related to your occupation (note that I didn't read your previous reply and don't know whether it contains more information about yourself), but perhaps also to your way of life understood in its widest sense, as defined by your social status, life choices and expectations. In any case, this doesn't have any effect on what really matters: your behaviour denotes not only serious understanding lacks, but also a distorted self-perception.

You being a knowing-nothing-and-talking-a-lot CEO, a rich kid who hasn’t ever done anything relevant or any other over-protected, detached from reality and completely unaware about this fact idiot is completely irrelevant. Additionally and as already explained, I don’t have generic prejudices and plainly focus on current personalities/attitudes (+ noting the high probability of certain conditions to generate similar outcomes). The only thing that matters is that I have nothing to do with you, I don't want to talk to you and all what you say (interpret, hope, etc.) is, by using an expression honouring your deep love for the English language, bollocks.

you can't keep your word

This is a new proof of your serious understanding limitations. It had nothing to do with keeping my word (to whom!? to myself?!), I plainly used a descriptive-enough (although nothing is descriptive enough for a person like you) approach to summarise an evident-to-anyone-reading-this-chat conclusion: I am not interested in continue reading your incoherent nonsense. Please, stop making a fool of yourself and inventing a whole conversation including your interlocutor being involved in it at all.

better for your karma

By assuming that you are not using karma in the sense of this site (i.e., the global assessment determining good/bad track-records of logged-in users, mostly relevant to become eligible in the random selection of moderators. BTW, mine is excellent), this reference would confirm your "solid" scientific background eminently formed by absolute truths like "science is good" (sorry, I meant "science is splendid"). A fact that makes even more ridiculous you expecting your opinion (better: aggregation of random irrelevant ideas only proving your unwillingness to adequately understand anything) being taken seriously regarding any scientific issue.

Get us out!

[Anonymous Coward]

... of the Paris climate con!

of course he is...

[Anonymous Coward]

his entire business is dependent upon strict environment and pollution controls.

Re:of course he is...

[erapert]

Agreed.

L. Cassius ille quem populus Romanus verissimum et sapientissimum iudicem putabat identidem in causis quaerere solebat "cui bono" fuisset.

The famous Lucius Cassius, whom the Roman people used to regard as a very honest and wise judge, was in the habit of asking, time and again, "To whose benefit?"

Re:of course he is...

[olau]

his entire business is dependent upon strict environment and pollution controls.

Actually, that's not true. Tesla cars have gotten subsidies but those are going to run out soonish. People are buying them despite their price tag because they like 'em. They're producing as many as they possibly can.

I think the SolarCity part is probably receiving subsidies one way or another (net metering is once such subsidy). But costs are dwindling so those are probably going away too, eventually.

Re:of course he is...

[LS1 Brains]

Once those subsidies run out, his product becomes stacked a little lower compared to the incumbent manufacturers who aren't all electric. Musk is merely looking for an angle, and if he can make life difficult for his competitors that works to his benefit. Think about it - keep Obama's crazy fuel economy regs in play, and what chance does a gasoline or diesel engine have against Tesla at any cost? Performance would by necessity be severely crippled, and Tesla can thumb their nose even more by showing how even their cheapest models outperform everyone else. Also think about who owns the electric car space through battery contracts, battery production, and power delivery technology. Becomes pretty clear the Paris nonsense works to benefit Musk in a bigly way.

Would have nothing to do with electric cars...

[mi]

The fact that the diminishing of the treaty may affect world-wide popularity of electric cars would not affect Elon Musk's feelings on the subject. Not at all...

Re:Would have nothing to do with electric cars...

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure he's got a stake in lowering vehicle emissions. So do every single auto manufacturer, they are all realizing. And ultimately, most every living thing on Earth has a stake also.

Re:Would have nothing to do with electric cars...

[Anonymous Coward]

And yet, when election time rolls around, the only issues the left wants to discuss is Islam and Transgender bathroom rights.

The takeaway is that it's all a big scam, nobody actually believes there is any impending doomsday, and it's all about big corporate interest and globalization.

The left aren't good at lying to anyone but themselves.

Re:Would have nothing to do with electric cars...

[DogDude]

The fact that the diminishing of the treaty may affect world-wide popularity of electric cars would not affect Elon Musk's feelings on the subject. Not at all...

Any same, intelligent human would prefer electric cars to what we have now.

Re:Would have nothing to do with electric cars...

[x0ra]

no, he's got a stake in selling electic cars, all the side greenbashing is just marketing.

Re:Would have nothing to do with electric cars...

[mi]

Any same, intelligent human would prefer electric cars to what we have now.

Because burning natural gas and coal to produce power, transmit it over wires (losing about 10% on the way), charge a battery (losing at least another 8%), and then discharge the battery, is better than burning oil on the spot?

Ah, yes, the cars' engines aren't very efficient — true. But the powerplants also aren't very good — losing about 65% right there at generation. Add to that the listed transmission, distribution, and transition losses, and electric cars become a questionable proposition. One a sane, intelligent human (rather than an arrogant idiot pretending) may very well reject...

Re:Would have nothing to do with electric cars...

[Anonymous Coward]

Because burning natural gas and coal to produce power, transmit it over wires losing about 10% on the way, charge a battery losing at least another 8%), and then discharge the battery, is better than burning oil on the spot?

Yes. By significant amounts. You see, the difficulties of oil engines are quite extensive, that's why you won't even find an oil-burning car, except in the antiques market. instead they use petroleum distallates such as gasoline and diesel.

Of course, some vehicles use Natural Gas, Propane, or Ethanol. And Hydrogen may also have some benefits.

But oil? No, the only vehicles that could use that are the occasional large ship, maybe a few trains. And they're very unpopular.

Ah, yes, the cars' engines aren't very efficient — true.

That's leaving out the biggest issue with them. They are more of a problem due to the actual results of their inefficiency.

In fact, electrical generation does not even require the burning of hydrocarbons. Miraculous. That could save us a lot of trouble

But the powerplants also aren't very good — losing about 65% right there at generation. Add to that the listed transmission, distribution, and transition losses, and electric cars become a questionable proposition.

What questions do you want to ask? Just saying something is questionable doesn't get us the questions, which means you can't get answers.

One a sane, intelligent human (rather than an arrogant idiot pretending) may very well reject...

Nope. They'd likely be suffering from the effects of inhaling. A common problem, as it has been shown that it does cause problems, and was even worse with an additive.

It does tend to make people irrational and incapable of proper cognition.

Or dead.

You should probably get yourself checked, you may not be as sane or intelligent as you think.

You might start to believe in the crazy and fantastic.

covfefe

[Anonymous Coward]

you forgot to finish your sentence with covfefe

Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Have to get the gubbermint and peeple off the international trade tit

MAGA don't give up soverntee

fai7zo8s

[Anonymous Coward]

This post 4bro0ght

Does Cook have a moral leg to stand on here?

[magarity]

OK, Musk's battery factory is in California and has to operate under some pretty strict environmental regulations. But Cook's company outsources all the manufacturing to China where who knows what is dumped in the rivers/ocean/air so I don't think he has much ground to complain about US pollution levels which are nowhere near the problem some places in the world are.

Re:Does Cook have a moral leg to stand on here?

[Fire_Wraith]

A couple of nitpicks:
One, the battery factory is in Nevada. Musk's car factory is in California, as is his rocket factory.
Two, the pollution this agreement deals with is the sort that has an affect on a global scale, hence the need for a global agreement.
Three, China is actually stating they'll remain in the Paris agreement regardless of what Trump does.

If Trump thinks he can negotiate a better deal, then I'm pretty sure most people, including those CEOs, would be all for him taking a crack at it. What he's considering is nothing of the sort.

Re:Does Cook have a moral leg to stand on here?

[whoever57]

But Cook's company outsources all the manufacturing to China

*If only.

* Dow and DuPont are in the process of merging.

Re:Does Cook have a moral leg to stand on here?

[CrimsonAvenger]

Two, the pollution this agreement deals with is the sort that has an affect on a global scale, hence the need for a global agreement.

2A, this agreement requires nothing be done before 2020 (Yes, Obama signed onto something that wouldn't actually take effect till the end of Hillary's/Trump's first term).

2B, The $100B/year that it is projected to cost is a myth. India alone needs almost twice that, according to India's government.

2C, guess who was expected to pay for the whole thing?

Re:Does Cook have a moral leg to stand on here?

[magarity]

I've traveled a lot in China and I'm pretty confident that if they meet the treaty requirements it will be because the official government report says they did.

Re:Does Cook have a moral leg to stand on here?

[Anonymous Coward]

Musk's car factory is in California, as is his rocket factory.

If that isn't the definition of my take on the world's greatest achiever. I don't think anyone can ever top "that's also where my rocket factory is".

Re:Does Cook have a moral leg to stand on here?

[pipingguy]

China doesn't actually have to DO anything (except build more coal plants) until 2030 or so. Why wouldn't they remain?

Re:Does Cook have a moral leg to stand on here?

[Anonymous Coward]

So, Elon Musk.

NO taxpayer subsidy for YOU!
10 year!

Re:Does Cook have a moral leg to stand on here?

[Anonymous Coward]

Pollution problems in China are pretty obvious, and imo they are being pretty upfront and obvious about implementing changes to combat it (e.g. cancelling a hundred coal plants). On the otherhand, despite the US's lucky windfall with natural gas, Trump wants to start mining coal again.

Well....

[JWW]

If you don't want international agreements of the United States to be predicated on the whims of Presidents, then you should make the international agreements treaties....

Re:Well....

[Trogre]

And actually ratify them so they apply.

Re:Well....

[interkin3tic]

This argument is compelling, until one considers the quality of congress.

Elect congress and the president through actual democracy, like as in the people who get the most votes win, and it doesn't matter as much who decides. As such, aggressively ignorant, uneducated hicks are going to vote for a GOP congress that will do the same thing, only with slightly more polish.

Re:Well....

[fred6666]

the US is free to choose whether it wants to consider the agreement a treaty (and pass it through the senate) or not. But it's not up to other countries to decide which kind of internal procedure the US should take to sign this international agreement.

Nothing in the agreement requires the consent of the US senate, by the way.

Re:Well....

[fredrated]

Easy for you to say.

Re:Well....

[Anonymous Coward]

"Nothing in the agreement requires the consent of the US senate, by the way."

Sooo, fuck democracy and the will of the people?

NO; America needs to leave it and tax instead

[WindBourne]

Seriously, the Paris deal is worse than the Kyoto deal. the fact that China, India, South Africa, South Korea, Japan, Russia, etc CONTINUES TO GROW THEIR EMISSIONS, says that it is wrong. Heck, Germany continues building NEW COAL PLANTS. INSANE.
3rd world nations, along with CHina (which is actually a 2world nation now) emit far more than they admit AND continue growing more than what even the west can drop, is a joke.

Hopefully, instead, the GOP will push for a tax on ALL CONSUMED GOODS/Services based on what state/nations the worst CO2 comes from.
All that needs to happen is that we need OCO3 to have precise measurements between states/nations, along with normalizing based on emissions / $ GDP.

With this, America raises the tax on the emissions/$GDP. This will force all nations to drop their emission over time, or lose their export market. In addition, it will benefit those nations that have low emission / $ GDP.

Re:NO; America needs to leave it and tax instead

[Anonymous Coward]

We are not building new coal plant. There were 6 replacements planned. However, the plant in Datteln is being built, but it is illegal. In Lünen they stopped the planning process. In Profen planning was cancelled. In Stade (Dow Chemical) they are planning, but there are legal issues. In Niederaußem they found out that it is economical unwise to built one. Looks not that great for coal plants in Germany. Also both large energy companies just moved their coal, oil and nuclear plants to separate companies to get rid of them. And in Kiel (north Germany) they are in the process to replace the coal plant by a gas plant and heat storage system.

Furthermore, I doubt they will raise taxes on CO2. While that would be great, I just don't see that coming from them.

Re:NO; America needs to leave it and tax instead

[allcoolnameswheretak]

Heck, Germany continues building NEW COAL PLANTS. INSANE.

List of planned Coal Power Plants in Germany
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
1st: Under construction. Construction plan has been subsequently declared invalid (future uncertain)
2nd: Planning frozen
3rd: Planning stopped
4th: Under planning. Legal dispute about engineering standards underway
5th: Under planning. Construction questionable due to uncertain economic viability

So, of the 5 coal power plants planned or under construction, only one is actually being constructed, which might never see operation, while the rest are only in the planning phase and the construction is uncertain at best.

Re:NO; America needs to leave it and tax instead

[enjar]

the GOP will push for a tax

Proof of the alternate universe theory? Sign of the end times? Pigs will start flying? Hell will freeze over?

Re:NO; America needs to leave it and tax instead

[fred6666]

Hopefully, instead, the GOP will push for a tax on ALL CONSUMED GOODS/Services based on what state/nations the worst CO2 comes from.

So they should tax countries like Qatar and... the USA. Worst CO2 emitters per capita.

All that needs to happen is that we need OCO3 to have precise measurements between states/nations, along with normalizing based on emissions / $ GDP.

Per GDP? Why per GDP? What kind of fucked-up measurement is that? If the global GDP doubles, do you really think the Earth will absorbs twice as much CO2?
The only valid metric is CO2 per capita. And we should cut all financial insensitive to birth to make sure the total population remains acceptable.

Re: NO; America needs to leave it and tax instead

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't see how your post invalidates the parent's assertion. Germany IS building new plants until they aren't.

Re: NO; America needs to leave it and tax instead

[allcoolnameswheretak]

Well, if you want to be nitpicky, for one thing, Germany is not building new plants, it is building a new plant. All others are speculative.

But the deeper point is that the parent post creates the impression that Germany is in some kind of Coal Power Rollout strategy, whereas in truth, if you consider the facts that a country like Germany has about 200 power plants total and they are building 1 new coal plant whereas another 4 are disputed, it is more indicative that coal power is actually in the process of being phased out.

Re: NO; America needs to leave it and tax instead

[WindBourne]

You are STILL building, and that is the problem. 14% of Germany's power comes from nukes which you are shutting down. AE is not able to replace it, since a true baseline is needed. As such, Germany will have to decide wether to stay with nukes and phase out their 40% coal dependancy, OR increase coal to 54%

America has brought our coal from around 1TW down to below .3Tw, and by end of 2018, will be below .2TW in coal. There is very little that trump can do to restart it as NOBODY in American utility is going to pick coal over nat gas.

However, neither Germany nor western europe, is the real problem. The real problem are nations like CHina, India, pakistan, poland, etc that are building new GW of coal EACH YEAR. China will add 40 GW of new coal plants THIS YEAR. Yes, by end of 2017, they will have added another 40 GW. America will have dropped 10 GW of coal with more coming in 2018, but China, India, Pakistan, South Africa, and I believe even poland will add more than 10 GW EACH.
This is how we lose at AGW. We need to get EVERY NATION TO STOP BUILDING NEW COAL PLANTS. Then and only then can we start to back off.

Re:NO; America needs to leave it and tax instead

[WindBourne]

LOL.
Per capita assumes that ppl make the choices for emissions. We do not. Not to a large degree that is. How much say do you think that the average chinese has on new coal plants being put in? Absolutely NONE. Otherwise, China would have a fraction of the plants that they have and ppl would not be dying from the pollution.
How much say do you think that the Average American, or even eastern European has on their say about coal plants going in? Do you really think that Poland's citizens want to continue putting in new coal plants? NOPE.
How about buying EVs? Until Tesla came along, how many types of EVs could you buy? The answer is NONE. Tesla, a corporation, is what created the opportunity for this and is forcing all car makers to go along with this.
We own a Model S and have 10 KW of solar city on our roof. How much influence did I have on society? Very little. HOWEVER, how much influence has Tesla and Solar city had? EVERYTHING.

And what drives businesses and govs? Not you or me. $$$$$.
As such, the ONLY sane measurement, is emissions / $ GDP.
As to the continuing rise in $GDP yearly, not a big deal. After all, the number of ppl rise as well. Instead, we tie it ultimately as a % of the global GDP. Buf for now, just getting taxes going and getting ALL NATIONS to change, is what matters.

Re:NO; America needs to leave it and tax instead

[fred6666]

LOL.

Per capita assumes that ppl make the choices for emissions. We do not.

Yes we do. We choose to have large cars and big houses.

Not to a large degree that is. How much say do you think that the average chinese has on new coal plants being put in? Absolutely NONE. Otherwise, China would have a fraction of the plants that they have and ppl would not be dying from the pollution.

They are not a democracy. It's their problem to fix.

How much say do you think that the Average American, or even eastern European has on their say about coal plants going in? Do you really think that Poland's citizens want to continue putting in new coal plants? NOPE.

They don't want coal, but they don't want to pay for wind power. You can't have both cheap and clean energy. Although these days natural gas is pretty cheap and cleaner than coal.

We own a Model S and have 10 KW of solar city on our roof. How much influence did I have on society? Very little. HOWEVER, how much influence has Tesla and Solar city had? EVERYTHING.

If people paid for the real cost of their CO2 emissions, we wouldn't need to subsidize electric cars so that they become attractive. And there would have been electric cars sooner. If it isn't Tesla, then somebody else would have done it.

As to the continuing rise in $GDP yearly, not a big deal. After all, the number of ppl rise as well. Instead, we tie it ultimately as a % of the global GDP. Buf for now, just getting taxes going and getting ALL NATIONS to change, is what matters.

So you are going to tell that poor African living with nothing that he has to forfeit his tap water because his share of the global GDP is close to 0? And all that so that big fat people continue to drive their big fat SUV?

It make no sense.

Re:NO; America needs to leave it and tax instead

[WindBourne]

you know, sadly, ppl like you speak often without even looking at the issues.
In terms of emissions / $GDP, MOST 3rrd world nations are in the middle to the low end of emissions / $GDP. IOW, they will actually come out ahead.
OTOH, nations that are working hard to cheat at production by manipulating their money, going to cheap coal, oil, etc, without pollution controls, dumping heavy pollution on the world (for example, 80-90% of the plastic in the oceans comes from south-east asia with the majority being china who dumps their garbage in the ocean), picking up the worst from the west, etc will lose, while nations that clean up or are poor economically, will actually do better.
And this will prevent businesses from simply jumping from nation to nation looking for whomever will cheat. Afterall, those nations will have a large tax on their exports, which will make it worthless for businesses to go there.
OTOH, for states/nations that do not cheat, and clean up, or already have low emissions / $GDP (say france, sweden, etc), they will join nations like Chad in not having a tax on their exported goods/services. Note that if those goods grabbed parts from China, then those items will be accessed at China's rate (which would be 100% tax), instead of at sweden's. However, if the item was composed of parts from say sweden, chad, france, and say California, it would be zero% tax.

Re:NO; America needs to leave it and tax instead

[pipingguy]

For some reason, these facts are never explored at any depth or discussed in the mainstream media. Very curious.

And what's the projected non-increase in temperature by 2100 ASSUMING everyone follows the rules and energy generation technology stays at a standstill? Is it 0.04 degrees C or something?

This is madness, pure inexplicable madness.

Re: NO; America needs to leave it and tax instead

[Anonymous Coward]

America has brought our coal from around 1TW down to below .3Tw,

No, it didn't. It was never that high. To must have mixed up some numbers somewhere. It has fallen,but only by about a quarter to a third.

And more importantly, you have to remember, a lot of factory production for US consumption has moved overseas anyway. The Chinese aren't just building plants for their own people, they are also selling you tiny little flags.

Re:NO; America needs to leave it and tax instead

[fred6666]

it doesn't matter, you shouldn't have the right to pollute more than someone living in a developing nation just because you happen to live in a country with a larger GDP/capita.

Re: NO; America needs to leave it and tax instead

[WindBourne]

china's factories have NOTHING to do with their choosing of coal. That is just plain BS. They have the ability to add nuclear power, but do not want to do so since it would be from a nation that they would have to depend on.
They could choose to spend all of the money that goes to coal plants on AE, but they are choosing to NOT do that. The reason is that coal is MUCH cheaper and more effective there, esp when they remove pollution controls.
These are choices that CHina's gov and businesses choose to do.
It is no different than America choosing to do nat gas and wind for the last 6-7 years.
>
And if you want to speak of GDP, well, America is doing loads of work for China on our GDP, and we do it for less than half of the emissions.
All because our gov and businesses choose to do things cleaner.

Re:NO; America needs to leave it and tax instead

[WindBourne]

this has nothing to do with larger GDP/capita.
This has EVERYTHING to do with how to stop the CO2. The fact is, that it is not you and I that are in control.
And I say that knowing that I have already brought my familes emissions WELL BELOW WHAT AN INDIVIDUAL INDIAN emits.
We have a tesla, bikes, 10 KW solar city system (which generates more than what my family uses), and keeps our trash low.
I doubt that YOU have done close to this much, since it is likely my family is pretty much at zero co2/year.

Re:NO; America needs to leave it and tax instead

[WindBourne]

what facts are never discussed?
And what is madness?

Re: NO; America needs to leave it and tax instead

[Anonymous Coward]

china's factories have NOTHING to do with their choosing of coal.

Good thing I didn't say that. Here's what I said, for your review:

And more importantly, you have to remember, a lot of factory production for US consumption has moved overseas anyway. The Chinese aren't just building plants for their own people, they are also selling you tiny little flags.

I merely reminded you that they were burning coal to operate their factories making products that gets shipped to the US.

You can wave your hands at their choice to do it, but it's not like American companies aren't involved in the supply chain, the same as they are with sweatshops in Bangladesh and mines in the Congo.

All those "made in China" labels? That's pollution brought forth by the auspices of trade. Enjoy waving your flag.

Re:NO; America needs to leave it and tax instead

[pipingguy]

This part:

Seriously, the Paris deal is worse than the Kyoto deal. the fact that China, India, South Africa, South Korea, Japan, Russia, etc CONTINUES TO GROW THEIR EMISSIONS, says that it is wrong. Heck, Germany continues building NEW COAL PLANTS. INSANE.

3rd world nations, along with CHina (which is actually a 2world nation now) emit far more than they admit AND continue growing more than what even the west can drop, is a joke.

Hopefully, instead, the GOP will push for a tax on ALL CONSUMED GOODS/Services based on what state/nations the worst CO2 comes from. All that needs to happen is that we need OCO3 to have precise measurements between states/nations, along with normalizing based on emissions / $ GDP.

With this, America raises the tax on the emissions/$GDP. This will force all nations to drop their emission over time, or lose their export market. In addition, it will benefit those nations that have low emission / $ GDP.

Re: NO; America needs to leave it and tax instead

[WindBourne]

no, they CHOOSE to burn coal. It was not needed.
For example, if you hire somebody to protect you and then run around just murdering ppl off the street, are you responsible?
Nope.

China gov and businesses are choosing to burn coal for their electricity. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with their working to pull manufacturing over there.

Re: NO; America needs to leave it and tax instead

[Anonymous Coward]

no, they CHOOSE to burn coal. It was not needed.

Indeed, we don't need those tiny American Flags. But we choose to have them.

And all the other things. Not because it was the right thing to do, but because it was easy.

For example, if you hire somebody to protect you and then run around just murdering ppl off the street, are you responsible?

Nope.

Wrong, especially if you keep giving them bullets after you know what they're doing.

Analogies work to illustrate, but they are very poor at making a convincing argument, since they're so easy to modify.

We knew what they were doing, and we still chose to let it keep happening. Can't even pretend to ignorance, not even when Nixon was running the show. There were actually reports back then.

China gov and businesses are choosing to burn coal for their electricity. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with their working to pull manufacturing over there.

It has plenty to do with it, they wouldn't be making the choice to build more and more power supplies except to feed those factories.

Really, your desire for absolute denial isn't persuasive, it's like you have no ability to demonstrate cognizance of a problem. You're just barking like a dog about the truck driving by, and having no real effect on anybody.

Elon's feeling a bit covfefe today

[Anonymous Coward]

This sounds a lot better than "Electric Vehicle & Solar Industrialist Asks Government to Impose Environmental Costs on Competition".

Trump's gonna Trump. He campaigned that the USA shouldn't be bound by this treaty, and now he's just committing to another promise, and everyone's freaking out. Policy wonks are quick to point out that, even if we are going to "drop out", no member nation can withdraw within 3 years of joining, plus 1 year to formally withdraw, so we're looking at 2020. If you actually declare the "Accords" a treaty, then it has never been formally approved by the Senate, which triggers a 1 year withdraw time frame.

In any case, economics are going to ultimately drive the discussion. Natural gas is cheaper by far than oil or coal, and we're looking at at least 50 years of reserves in the Appalachians. Coal is already being phased out, and if we continue to do so in an orderly fashion, then that will buy us time to build up the transmission infrastructure necessary to power the continent on wind, solar and storage. What you don't want is an economic shock of the government saying "do this in 3 years" when it is incredibly expensive to do it on that time frame. We can lower our emissions long before the next ice age hits with the Maunder Minimum in 2030. .

Trump should send it to the Senete

[Silver Surfer 1]

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.

Re:Trump should send it to the Senete

[Anonymous Coward]

It is even more stupid to ruin the climate. Especially for the US.

Re:Trump should send it to the Senete

[DogDude]

his is about America and what a terrible treaty this would be for America and all Americans

Yeah, it would be terrible to prevent a few hundred thousand deaths a year. Terrrible.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/s...

Re:Trump should send it to the Senete

[swillden]

Considering that Obama never sent the treaty to the Senate for ratification, the United states was never a signer of this treaty.

One nit: Treaties are rarely sent to the Senate for ratification. That's the constitutionally-defined process, but getting 2/3 approval of the senate is generally harder than getting a majority in both House and Senate. So usually what we do is to write legislation that contains the treaty terms and pass it through both houses and then on to the White House for signature like any other purely-domestic law. Treaties handled this way are called "congressional-executive agreements", and it's been the usual treaty process for most of the nation's history.

For completeness, in addition to congressional-executive agreements and formal treaties, there is one other type of international agreements the US enters into, called a "sole-executive agreement". Those are signed only by the president, because the terms commit the US only to things that are within the president's power to direct. A common example is treaties related to the behavior of US military forces stationed in other countries, called Status of Forces Agreements. As commander-in-chief, the president can order the military to abide by the agreements, so there's no need for Congress to get involved.

Re:Trump should send it to the Senete

[31415926535897]

"Congressional-executive agreements" are honestly the best way to do it, frankly, as any ratified treaty becomes as binding as the US Constitution itself and it's significantly tougher to back out of it if it's suddenly a bad treaty for the country. If we align our laws to match foreign treaties, then we can use the same law passing power (simple majority) to get out of it if necessary. Other countries may not feel as confident in that model as the Constitutional Treaty, but these days I believe other countries are getting a lot more out of us than we're getting out of them, so I'm sure they're more than willing to "risk" it.

Re:Trump should send it to the Senete

[Anonymous Coward]

Said Silver Surfer, without actual specifics about what makes the agreement bad in any way.

Re:Trump should send it to the Senete

[Anonymous Coward]

Which is why every major US company from Apple to Exxon Mobile (yes, really) is urging the president not to withdraw from it?

Re:Trump should send it to the Senete

[swillden]

any ratified treaty becomes as binding as the US Constitution itself

That's not true. It's a common mis-reading of the Supremacy Clause, but it's wrong, and SCOTUS has made that clear in multiple rulings. Specifically, the Clause says:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The confusion arises because it's easy to read the word "Constitution" in "any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of Any State" as referring to the US Constitution, but it doesn't, it refers to the "Constitution... of Any State". That is, it's "(Constitution or Laws) of Any State", not "(Constitution) or (Laws of Any State)". The correct interpretation is actually clear if you look at the first part of the Clause, which clearly places the Constitution, Federal Law and Treaties all on the same level. Not that they are on the same level, but they all supersede anything the states may do.

Treaties have exactly the same force of law as any other federal law, which makes the choice of senate ratification or the normal legislative process a purely tactical one, with no effect whatsoever on the "strength" of the agreement. If treaties (however passed) conflict with any other federal law, courts use the same processes for breaking the ties that they would use with any conflict between laws.

and it's significantly tougher to back out of it if it's suddenly a bad treaty for the country

This is true, for exactly the same reasons that it's easier to pass a congressional-executive agreement than to ratify a formal treaty in the first place.

Other countries may not feel as confident in that model as the Constitutional Treaty

Mostly they don't know or care.

these days I believe other countries are getting a lot more out of us than we're getting out of them, so I'm sure they're more than willing to "risk" it.

That's what Trump thinks. I think he's going to prove that it's not true.

Re:Trump should send it to the Senete

[Anonymous Coward]

these days I believe other countries are getting a lot more out of us than we're getting out of them

As a citizen of one of those other countries: can you give any examples?
 
Most people here in Norway think exactly the opposite: we've recently worsened our relationship to Russia by letting you establish a military base at Værnes; we've helped send soldiers and bombers to your wars in Afghanistan, Libya, and now Syria, none of which we started; and if you're pointing fingers at ISIS, that's just fallout from your Iraq war. Not sure what we're getting back — we have enough oil to make it on our own economically, and we haven't had a war on our soil for 70+ years...

Re:Trump should send it to the Senete

[Anonymous Coward]

his is about America and what a terrible treaty this would be for America and all Americans

Yeah, it would be terrible to prevent a few hundred thousand deaths a year. Terrrible.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/s...

*Sigh* Are you aware that the air the average person breathes has actually improved dramatically since the advent of fossil fuel technology? So has average life expectancy. So I'm pretty sure the millions upon millions of early deaths averted by fossil fuel technology since its discovery surpass the linked papers assertions on any moral grounds. I know some people love the smell of campfire smoke and all, but if you had to live and breath that shit every day to stay warm, you'd be looking at an early death some time in your 40s.

Re: Trump should send it to the Senete

[Anonymous Coward]

Our Iraq war? If you fuck up Europians wouldnt have drawn arbitrary lines in the middle east and made up a bunch of countries, we wouldnt have had to clean up yet another dictator mess.

You fucking sheep never see the grinder until youre in it.

Re:Trump should send it to the Senete

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not true. It's a common mis-reading of the Supremacy Clause, but it's wrong, and SCOTUS has made that clear in multiple rulings. Specifically, the Clause says:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The confusion arises because it's easy to read the word "Constitution" in "any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of Any State" as referring to the US Constitution, but it doesn't, it refers to the "Constitution... of Any State". That is, it's "(Constitution or Laws) of Any State", not "(Constitution) or (Laws of Any State)".

Given that the language (from your quotation of the constitution) specifies THIS constitution, I have a hard time reading it as referring to the state constitutions.

That is, I believe you are in error.

While laudable

[dasgoober]

While it is laudable that Musk is standing up for the Paris treaty, let's not forget that he has a financial stake in the US signing on.

Re:While laudable

[__aaclcg7560]

Bandwagon comes by... Musk jumps on... and that's laudable?

Re:While laudable

[Anonymous Coward]

While it is laudable that Musk is standing up for the Paris treaty, let's not forget that he has a financial stake in the US signing on.

No shit. So does everyone else. Your point?

Re:While laudable

[Anonymous Coward]

On the other hand, the only reason Trump isn't listening to the scientific consensus must be pressure from people with a financial stake in the US withdrawing from the agreement, so Musk is trying to cancel their influence.

Re:While laudable

[Anonymous Coward]

Bandwagon comes by... Musk jumps on... and that's laudable?

laudable (adj): deserving praise and commendation.

Why not? Like him or not, he's a successful & influential person. He's using his success & influence to push for something that is "good" according to the beliefs of the vast majority of the world. Why shouldn't he be praised for weighing in and urging Trump to do the "right thing"?

Re:While laudable

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, Musk is a talker and not a doer. We've seen that over and over from him.

Slashdor

[Anonymous Coward]

Not sure why I stick around slashdot. It used to be progressive liberal and non-psycho libertarian. Now it seems to be dominated by right wing nutcases.

Learn some fucking science and get yourselves the ability to think logically and analytically.

I don't understand how technology blog can hate Silicon Valley, hate science, hate innovators. The amount of people hating on Woz and hating on Jony Ive, Elon Musk, Bill Gates, Google founders etc is ridiculous. You know what it has to be none of you idiots invented or built anything. Show you can invent something for fuck's sake before taking down the top innovators of our time. And yes I do have inventions and have built things .. not on a grand scale but more than.any of you punks.

Re:Slashdor

[sexconker]

Whaaaaa whaaaaaaaaaaa whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!!

Music to my ears.

Re: Slashdor

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting. I am libertarian and I always considered that a strongly right wing stance.

Re: Slashdor

[Anonymous Coward]

I think libertarianism is technically right wing, but libertarianism is supposed to be pro free trade and pro free movement of labor across borders.

Nowadays I am hearing the same arguments used against affirmative action picked up by the anti-immigrants and isolationists.

Too bad HRC wasn't elected

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

>> [Famous CEO] Joins CEOs Calling For US to [Do Something]

Too bad HRC wasn't elected. I doubt she would have resisted the will of any group of CEOs / Global Initiative sponsors.

okay then

[Anonymous Coward]

those ceos are free to follow the accord and curb their own emissions as much as they want to

The climate deal is just promises

[Anonymous Coward]

Really the climate deal was just a bunch of promises. The US already leads the world in reducing pollution. China on the other hand is doing little to address the problem and frankly this is the country that has problems. Trump is basically pulling out of a worthless deal with no real deadlines anyway. Yes, its food for fire against Trump but what isn't these days. So we commit to climate initiatives others will never do all the while eliminating jobs in the process. We need a more balanced dedication to the climate questions and ask ourselves if any of it has even been proven effective?

Re:The climate deal is just promises

[mark-t]

What's "worthless" about the deal is that it amounts to not much beyond saying "we will try", but actively deciding to not participate sends a clear message that the USA does not even *want* to try...

Which of course they are legally allowed to do, but considering the issue at hand, and given that it affects everyone on the planet, I'm not entirely convinced that was the *right* thing to do, unless the US were to volunteer an initiative of its own that it will practice within its own borders which might achieve similar ends.

Re: The climate deal is just promises

[Anonymous Coward]

Were drasticly reducing emissions. We just dont wanna be part of your circle jerk.

Musk for President

[wolfheart111]

I wouldn't be surprised

Re:Musk for President

[Anonymous Coward]

Thankfully, he's ineligible to be president. He was born in South Africa, and didn't become a US citizen until 2002.

PR

[NetNed]

Was this right before he hit a big red button launching a giant carbon producing SpaceX rocket in to space then turning to the camera with a smile and a big thumbs up??? Gee, that really "hits home". Couldn't have anything to do with him making a lot of money off of carbon credits, could it???

Bad idea Elon

[Weaselmancer]

To remove yourself from a position where you can (hopefully) continue to try to influence Trump, to a position where you cannot influence him harms everyone.

Make your objections, make them loudly, but don't quit the council. We need you there.

Re:Bad idea Elon

[ClickOnThis]

To remove yourself from a position where you can (hopefully) continue to try to influence Trump, to a position where you cannot influence him harms everyone.

Make your objections, make them loudly, but don't quit the council. We need you there.

If Musk feels that he cannot actually influence Trump, and he's just there for window-dressing, then he should leave.

And I doubt Musk would succeed. Trump pretty much listens only to himself.

It's well known

[Anonymous Coward]

With a few exceptions, liberals and libertarians (the kind that would be in the libertarian party not the fake isolationist Republican ones) tend to invent stuff and pursue science.
Right wing nutcases make money off resource hogging activities like real estate, oil, and hate. I mean look at how Trump made his money he just sat on some land and made money off that. He didn't have to invent a search engine like the Goohle founders. He didn't have to design a computer like Wozniak did. He didn't have to do hard science science like most of the 36 living Nobel Prize winners who signed the Mainau Declaration in favor of UN climate change reforms. Trump just got some land and hogged it.

Steve Jobs was correct when he said right wingers like Sean Hannity and the folks running Fox News are ruining the world.

The problem with the Paris Treaty

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:The problem with the Paris Treaty

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't confuse the religious global warming followers with facts. They have their consensus and anyone who disagrees or wants to talk about logic and cost/benefit analysis is eeeviiillll!!!!

Re:The problem with the Paris Treaty

[fred6666]

The estimated cost of being in the treaty is $1.28 trillion. *

Bullshit, the cost is 0, because there is no commitment within that treaty. You can't sue the USA for not respecting the goal of keeping the planet under an increase of 2 C.

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)?

Let say your 1.28 Trillion was true. Where do you think that money will go? The goal of carbon taxes / cap and trade systems is exactly to help the development of new battery technologies and other stuff that will help fight global warming. If it's more efficient to do it in Kenya then why not?

Re:The problem with the Paris Treaty

[Anonymous Coward]

"But it stops pollution"

-Then spend the money fighting pollution directly. No need to be fighting a doomed war against "climate". Much more efficient, and Al Gore doesn't profit.

Re:The problem with the Paris Treaty

[Anonymous Coward]

Lomborg's analysis is based on emissions continuing (and increasing) after the term of the Paris agreement ends - i.e., it's a blatant lie.

Re:The problem with the Paris Treaty

[pipingguy]

Opportunity cost!

Re:The problem with the Paris Treaty

[thegarbz]

*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) **

Yes if the agreement is an end in off itself. It's not. It's a start. It has a date well before 2100, so extrapolating to there based on a deadline many years earlier is an abuse of science.

But really I don't give a shit about temperature rises. It would be nice however to sit at work and not breath in the fumes of the coal plant next door, it would be nice not to wipe my windows down every month to remove a layer of black diesel soot. It would be nice to smell that clean country air anywhere near a population centre or be able to watch TV without cutting mountains to pieces to extract coal, fraking the ground to get gas, or spilling a metric shitload of oil into the gulf.

Remember. The worst case scenario is that we make a better world for nothing.

Re:The problem with the Paris Treaty

[Talahamut]

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)?

Sounds great! But has the current U.S. administration that is jettisoning this agreement done or said anything that gives the impression that any savings would go to technologies like you described? Or does it sound like it just wants to feed more money into the status quo and let our environment and long-term wellbeing be damned...

Re:The problem with the Paris Treaty

[Anonymous Coward]

He has a separate estimate on his site if we assume that the treaty is extended in its current form for the full period until 2100. The impact then is about 0.5C instead of 0.05C (thus a increase of 4.5C).

Elon, fuck you too buddy

[Anonymous Coward]

America first. Time to get on the Trump train!

The reality is this is politics, not science.

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's a good summary of the massively misleading bullshit being pushed by the left.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8OfCPU9At-4

The treaty is half-assed and it’s half-baked

[Anonymous Coward]

So said Dr. James Hansen. So stop all the whining over this.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/cp/climate/2015-paris-climate-talks/hansen

International responsibility

[Anonymous Coward]

... placed a call to the White House ...

On the one hand, I'm uncomfortable with corporate heads influencing national policy; on the other, those same heads should be taking responsibility for their pollution and this nearly powerless agreement is a first step.

Mr Trump just spent his trip demanding other countries accept their international responsibility: Of course, he really meant 'instead of the USA paying for it'. If the USA doesn't pay for the world police, then US corporations don't get sweetheart tax-breaks and other counties don't kow-tow to US laws on commercial aviation, intellectual property, banking and pharmaceuticals.

not at all self-serving

[superwiz]

The treaty literally puts hurdles in the way of his business competition. I am sure he is taking a principled stand which has nothing to do with making billions from it.

Elon Musk

[Anonymous Coward]

Is a sociopath, delusional, and a megalomaniac. I actually believe in climate change predating even the Kyoto Accord, but he can suck my fat one, good riddance, if he actually has the balls to follow through (I doubt he has the balls to follow through).

It's only deadender states not complying

[WillAffleckUW]

Face it, the reason that there is an impact is that the states which became more efficient and invest in renewable energy now have cheaper energy and more efficient manufacturing and commercial and residential uses.

Which is why we win.

Not being in the accord just means we outcompete you more and we create even more jobs than you do.

Being out of the accord hurts you, not us. My bills are getting cheaper, while yours are going up, because of a lack of investment on your part in energy efficiency and expensive fossil fuel energy instead of cheaper renewable energy.

Air pollution

[ChrisMaple]

One of the goals in fighting air pollution is to keep stinky things out of the air. Stinky things like Musk.

Actually he didn't

[Anonymous Coward]

Read his tweet. He didn't

But all of us can live by the Paris agreement, nothing stopping us.

So live well and live by the agreement, if you want, read it and sign it yourself.

Elon Musk is a thief just like Al Gore

[Anonymous Coward]

The inconvenient truth is that Elon Musk's electric car and battery ventures will benefit greatly from a bullshit agreement based on bullshit science. Al Gore showed the way. Bravo, thieves.

General goes to war with the army he's given

[rsilvergun]

Battery tech is fine. But electric fill stations are useless. Gas cars are cheaper to own and operate and likely will be unless bat tech gets a _lot_ better. As for Hyperloops, a) good luck getting Americans to use them, we like our cross country drives and b) even better luck getting an infrastructure bill passed in America (you tax and spend liberal you).

Yeah, it's a bad treaty. But it's the kind of treaty you get in a screwed up world like this. And for the most part nobody wants to fix the things that make it a screwed up world. So here we are.

Re:General goes to war with the army he's given

[Anonymous Coward]

Admittedly, I did put aside the question of whether or not we actually have the $1.28T to spend in the first place for the sake of argument. The exact amount we're collectively willing/able to pay is up for debate and is a matter for the politicians to decide.

The examples I gave were just things off the top of my head though. Ideally, we'd find the biggest causes of pollution and target those with greener technology - whatever those were with whatever money we allocate. If, for example, cars were one of the top polluters, we should be looking how to switch over to all electric (or something else [hydrogen?]) and eliminating the problems with its adoption (drive range, cost, etc).

Getting governments looking at the problem is a good thing. This treaty comes with a price tag though, and it's fair to examine what we're getting for our money. And since the treaty doesn't actually solve the problem, the price tag is a bit too hefty for my tastes for being just a "starting point". I think we can do better.

Even if you decide you are for the treaty though, I ask you to please have the courtesy of not assuming that everyone against it is some mustache twirling villain intent on killing Bambi. If they were presented with a plan with a lower cost and/or higher ROI, you just might be surprised at how many people you previously thought of as "utterly hopeless on the environment" would hop on board such a plan.

Re:General goes to war with the army he's given

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, electric cars are cheaper to own & operate than gasoline cars, because they're simpler (fewer parts), more efficient, and electricity is cheaper than gas. However, right now, EVs are more expensive to purchase than gas cars because of the batteries. But battery prices are dropping quickly, and there's more money than ever going into battery research (because there are so many important uses) such that the drop in battery costs is actually accelerating.

Re: General goes to war with the army he's given

[Anonymous Coward]

Ive seen no decrease in the cost of 18650 cells.

No kidding? I wonder ..

[Ulfilas2000]

I wonder if his building and selling _electric cars_ might have anything to do with that... Hmm...

MoneyMouth

[sdinfoserv]

Musk and other CEO's are the oligarchy. If they truly wanted something done, all they need to do is focus their almost insurmountable cash pile and change it. In other words Elon, put your money where your mouth is or shut up. Elon may like working on the shiny new toys of the future, but if the knuckle draggers put in place by the rest of his elite class ensure policies in place keep the status quo - nothing matters because nothing changes.

Total Scam

[Anonymous Coward]

Even if you assume all the scientists are honest and the governments are doing this in our best interests:

"Even if its cuts to carbon dioxide emissions are fully implemented – not just for the 14 years that the Paris Agreement lasts, but for the rest of the century – the Clean Power Plan would reduce the temperature increase in 2100 by just 0.023 degrees Fahrenheit."

"To put it another way, if the U.S. delivers for the whole century on the President’s (Obama) very ambitious rhetoric, it would postpone global warming by about eight months at the end of the century. "

DELAYED BY EIGHT MONTHS BY THE YEAR 2100!!

And they want trillions for this scam.

The money is better used fighting pollution directly, not through a phony "ar on climate change".

I can't believe it

[Anonymous Coward]

Imagine that: A rich person wants us to stay in a deal that redistributes wealth to rich people.

just a little explanation

[gl4ss]

Basically musks big gamble is that USA should go full blown on emissions based taxing. Musk has now what.. 6 billion dollars riding on it?

to put some perspective. Maserati Ghibli S is about on par with tesla cheapeast model s in USA. In Places like finland or norway or whatever.. the Maserati Ghibli S is 50 000 EUROS MORE EXPENSIVE. Musks wet dream was for the same kind of car taxing to happen in USA and for the silly shit of classifying pt cruisers as trucks and all that to end.

if you go for the 130 000 euro teslas.. then the "competition" gets car taxes that are to tune of 100k(being 100k more expensive than the 130k tesla.. (of course, the "competition" can drive from south of finland to lapland in a day, so theres that..).

that's what Musk was riding on with Tesla. if that happened, he could raise the price of teslas maybe the critical 10% and still be kind of a good deal. ..also at the same though, all the other car manufacturers do have electrics ready to roll out once it makes profit to sell them at prices people buy them. this kind of matters because tesla has no technology that other car manufacturers didn't have.

Try again

[Anonymous Coward]

The US Constitution is a very small and simple document that has been openly published and freely-available for all to read for over 200 years. It explicitly says that any treaty the US president negotiates and signs does not take effect until 2/3 of the US Senate votes affirmatively to ratify it. Any and all competent international diplomats and ambassadors know this - it's never been a secret. As such, any foreign leader who asserts that the US must obey an un-ratified treaty is either an ignoran doofus or is being very dishonest, probably for geopolitical reasons.

No US President may unilaterally bind the American people, for decades to come (possibly permanently), to some agreement he/she has negotiated to his/her personal satisfaction and possibly in private through "back channels" and possibly with secret "side agreements" (like Obama's Iran nuke deal). That's not how democratic forms of government work; if the president wants some international rules that override American law, will be binding on American citizens, etc he has to have the support of the Senate - it's part of our system of checks-and-balances. It was global news that Obama joined the Paris climate agreement WITHOUT submitting it to the Senate (because he knew it would go down in flames there) and everybody on Earth who was paying attention knew full-well that this meant it had no substance and could be eliminated by the stroke of any future President's pen (or ANY federal judge in the US ruling that the feds were enforcing a non-law...) Obama and his supporters simply counted on never again losing the White House to any non-Democrat - which is the load of tripe abou demographics that progressives have been feeding eachother for the past 8 years and part of why they are so freaked-out to have lost.

As an immigrant, I'll accept that Musk does not

[Anonymous Coward]

fully grasp American laws, the Contitution, etc and therefore cut him a little slack.

The agreement is currently not in effect having never been approved by the United States Senate (Ratification requires 66% of the Senators to vote to ratify any treaty). Mr Trump can pull-out at any time and nobody in America, including the most dirty power plant imaginable, can be legally forced to obey it. Had President Obama actually had the gravitas and intelligence and persuasive arguments, he could have submitted it the the Senate and urged its ratification. He lacked the testicular fortitude and instead paraded around on the international stage collcting the same sort of Euro-worship and Germani adoration that got him a Nobel Peace Prize for doing nothing.

Mr Musk can posture and strut and think he is getting great PR with the progressives by sticking it to Trump and joining in on the H8 Trump bandwagon, but he should remember that his Tesla is dependent on electric car subsidies, his solar panel business is too, and Mr Trump's NASA team will get to decide how many Falcon flights are made on the taxpayer dime. If Musk really wants to pick a fight over a non-trreaty that has never been binding on the US anyway, then he's making a very bad business gamble with nearly ALL his companies (the Boring Company is apparently not tied to federal subsidies, but Trump COULD decide to tie it all up in eco-studies EXACTLY like Obama did to the Keyston XL pipelin for nearly a decade...)

Businessmen really ought to mind the bottom line and core competencies and stay OUT of politics (LEFT AND RIGHT). It's simply moronic too needlessly piss off customers and half the voting population (i.e. CUSTOMERS)

You have no fucking clue

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it's not an illegal treaty. It's a treaty. One you don't like. That is all.

Fucking idiot.

Do you see the word tax? how about must?

[Anonymous Coward]

No? Then the start of all this bollocks should have gotten your comment, but it did not.

AC is another idiot. Just like other deniers.

[Anonymous Coward]

So if you benefit from something, you're claiming that is corruption and disproves the claim. So you benefit from the current fossil fuel funded society, therefore your claims are null and void because of your corrupt benefiting from the status quo.

Whining crybabies

[Anonymous Coward]

Forget the stupid unratified treaty. It's not going to solve any real problem, it will just make oligarchs and CEOs like Musk richer. The only answers are going to come from science and engineering. Spend all the money on subsidizing STEM students and not poly-sci drones.

One can only hope that the AI lawyers will not be as greedy as the meat ones.

US Should Pay

[Anonymous Coward]

The US probably should pay for cleanup in other countries. We've basically outsourced our pollution, we send just about everything to China for manufacture because it's too expensive to do it cleanly in the US. We benefit by cheaper products as well as keeping the homeland clean.

$2.3 trillion a year lost due to fossil fuels

[archer, the]

Each year the US loses $600 billion due to the health problems caused by using coal as an energy source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/j... . That doesn't include any negative effects from climate change.

Gasoline-related health problem estimates are $1.7 trillion per year: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/... . Again, that doesn't include any negative effects from climate change.

So yes, I'd like to spend $1.3 trillion a year in an effort to stop harming my neighbors.

Ecological Footprint

[Anonymous Coward]

Reducing the ecological footprint can now be established by not buying USA made products...

News Flash

[Anonymous Coward]

People who make money from government subsidy in a thing, will support anything that assists governments in maintaining that subsidy.

Also, People who own companies who get free pass in refusing Unions in a state where people claim Union is more important than the jobs OR the members of unions, need to toe the Party line or that Party may stop looking the other way.

Really the Solar Power guy?

[Anonymous Coward]

Elon Musk runs SolarCity so his opinion on this is colored whether you believe in global warming or not. Is this really news to anyone?

Not used

[Geoffrey.landis]

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.

Waste from rare earth mineral refineries. Nothing to do with solar panels, which don't use any rare earth elements.

Excuse me?
https://e360.yale.edu/features...:

  Thin, cheap solar panels need tellurium, which makes up a scant 0.0000001 percent of the earth’s crust, making it three times rarer than gold.

That is a different technology than the panels made in China, which are all silicon panels.

(Also, tellurium is not a rare earth element, not that this matters, since it's not used in the panels made in China.)

You are excused.