Slashdot Mirror
Trump Announces US Withdrawal From Paris Climate Accord (reuters.com)
It's official. President Donald Trump announced today that the United States will withdraw from the Paris climate agreement, following through on a pledge he made during the presidential campaign. Trump said the Paris agreement "front loads costs on American people. In order to fulfill my solemn duty to protect America and its citizens, the United States will withdraw from the Paris climate accord but begin negotiations to reenter either the Paris accord or an entirely new transaction on terms that are fair to the United States," the president said. "We are getting out. But we will start to negotiate, and we will see if we can make a deal that's fair. And if we can, that's great." Trump said that the United States will immediately "cease all implementation of the non-binding Paris accord" and what he said were "draconian financial" and other burdens imposed on the country by the accord.
This means that Elon Musk will leave Trump's Business Advisory Council. On Wednesday, Musk said he did "all he could to advise directly to Trump." (Update: Elon Musk is staying true to his words. Following the announcement, Musk tweeted, "Am departing presidential councils. Climate change is real. Leaving Paris is not good for America or the world.")
Twenty-five companies, including Adobe, Apple, Facebook, Google, HP, Microsoft, Salesforce, Morgan Stanley, Intel signed on to a letter which was published on the New York Times and Wall Street Journal today arguing in favor of climate pact.
Update: Former president Barack Obama said the U.S. "joins a small handful of nations that reject the future."
Also, the New York Times points out that despite Trump's public statements, the U.S. can't officially leave the Paris climate agreement until 2020.
This means that Elon Musk will leave Trump's Business Advisory Council. On Wednesday, Musk said he did "all he could to advise directly to Trump." (Update: Elon Musk is staying true to his words. Following the announcement, Musk tweeted, "Am departing presidential councils. Climate change is real. Leaving Paris is not good for America or the world.")
Twenty-five companies, including Adobe, Apple, Facebook, Google, HP, Microsoft, Salesforce, Morgan Stanley, Intel signed on to a letter which was published on the New York Times and Wall Street Journal today arguing in favor of climate pact.
Update: Former president Barack Obama said the U.S. "joins a small handful of nations that reject the future."
Also, the New York Times points out that despite Trump's public statements, the U.S. can't officially leave the Paris climate agreement until 2020.
When climate change costs your nation money, you ought to sue the US and others for damages. I suspect international courts in 20 years will be really receptive to the idea when willful ignorance played such a big part in the US's choices around climate change denial.
Heh. International courts. How many nukes do they have?
I propose we fund the US entirely by taxing non-US citizens. Well, OK, technically it would be tribute, not tax, but it would be fun.
Who am I kidding: in a few years we'll elect a democrat who will give $1 trillion in reparations ($900 billion of which will mysteriously end up going to bankers, of course).
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Nice link. The author of the article self-admittedly represents oil and gas companies and his sole link to the "devastating" costs of the agreement is a "report" issued by the Heritage Foundation.
Sigh.
So you have no actual argument then?
Thats $100B a year collectively among the signed members and it doesn't even have to entirely come from tax revenue! The goal is to get private and public interests aligned by providing hard money and in-kind contributions to that goal.
There is nearly 200 countries signed to this agreement but if we just take the top 20 countries that emit >1% of the greenhouse gases globally, that's $5B per country. If we were to suggest each country contribute a nearly equal amount, that's about $500M. Obviously thats not going to be possible for the smallest and most struggling of countries, but it can clearly be seen that its not nearly as striking as you are suggesting it to be.
You also conveniently neglected to acknowledge that even though the agreement mentions $100B, its strictly mentioned as a goal and not an absolute requirement. In fact, the lack of any enforcement was one of the most controversial aspects to the agreement to begin with.
Have you read the agreement?
Don't be an asshat.