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.
That's all just fuck off america.
self centered pieces of shit
The agreement dozen cost a single cent. It's only an agreement of good will, with no consequence for polluting countries.
We get to join Nicaragua and Syria in not being part of the Paris Climate Accord. And Nicaragua didn't sign it because they think it doesn't go far enough.
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
Between California regulations, consumer-driven conservation, the increasing market for electric cars, and the price drop in renewable energy, aren't Americans on track to seriously cut CO2 emissions anyway?
Finding God in a Dog
he was pulling out as well
Blue states should get together and promise internationally to try to keep the spirit of the agreement alive in their respective states. While it may not be constitutional to make formal agreements, at least token pledges can be given.
Time to leave the troglodytes in the dust; they will drag us backward if we let them set the agenda. And they are an embarrassment to the USA.
Table-ized A.I.
There's some analysis suggesting that the US being out of any agreements like this will allow the other 194 countries that "believe" in science to be more aggressive on emission targets, and that on net might be a positive result. The US could then get its act together if and when we stop electing Republican idiots, which could happen as early as 2020.
God, to think DT makes GWB look intelligent and wise....
The next President can just opt right back in, and the US has given every other country on Earth a head start on renewable energy tech.
Really, the only downside is increased CO2 emissions hastening the effects of global warming. Oh and I guess job losses and your country being a laughing stock, if you're an American.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Trump ran on this position.. I'm not surprised he's doing this... Like him or not, you have to admit that he generally tries to do what he promises...
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
He made thousands of promises during his campaign and has broken or walked back from most of them (and of course the wall would bankrupt our country). This might be the first one he has actually accomplished. I can't say based on his track record so far that the devastation that will come from it is at all outside the normal range for his actions.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Yeah, fuck the future! Fuck the planet! Fuck humanity! Our industrial corporate overlords need moar profits now! Management level and the politicians sucking up to them can build their bunkers with drugs and hookers to be safe in while the rest of the world goes to shit!
Kind regards,
the GOP, represented by the Donald who just Trumped your ass.
The Paris agreement was not going to do anything anyway - so why stick with it?
Trump could not lose by withdrawing from this meaningless symbol - it will have no ill effect for the climate, and in the meantime (as you will see from the comments here and elsewhere) it will drive his detractors even more insane than they already were, and they state they were in was pretty far gone.
If you truly want to help the climate figure out how to act and help in real ways, rather than sign a meaningless document that will provide no real change other than making you feel good about yourself.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Must be a slow news day with no important going on.
Every country that remains a signatory under the Paris Accord, and upholds its respective commitments, has the right to impose unilateral tariffs on the USA to cover the economic and social impacts resulting from the USA's impacts on the climate.
-- In the beginning was the WORD, and the WORD was UNSIGNED, and the main(){} was without form and void...
The government being in the Paris agreement or not is totally independent of the U.S. leading in renewable energy development, which will continue to be true.
If for no other reason than Musk...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
It was a bad treaty that did nothing to curb global warming. It was just a money grab that would never have been ratified.
Obama knew it was crap when he signed it, but he is a pandering weasel.
Trump doesn't believe the environment is something that ought (or needs) to be protected. He's also a fucking idiot who will never be convinced he wears no clothes when his gut tells him different. Now can we have something that we don't know?
The countries that are doing something about climate change should implement trade sanctions against the USA.
134340: I am not a number. I am a free planet!
Trump Will Announce US Withdrawal From Paris Climate Accord
I'm not surprised, It's the one big thing he can do quickly to fulfil a campaign promise and stick it to the 'libruls' where he does not have to deal with congress, the constitution or the judicial system. He can just pull out of the Paris Accord and declare a glorious victory, temporary balm for a bruised ego. Meanwhile China stands by on the sidelines with plans for a $900 billion fund to invest in overseas energy and infrastructure projects and watches approvingly as the US shoots it self in the foot by abandoning any leading role it may have in the development of clean energy tech. Same for Germany which is in the middle of doing the exact opposite of what Trump plans to do and will along with China probably be a world leader in renewable energy tech if by the time Trump is done takign a machete to the US clean energy tech sector. So, folks! It's amateur hour at the White House for the 132nd day in a row!
Well, when your competition includes James Buchanan, you need to do something to distinguish yourself. #shootthemoon.
So you think a giant wealthy country's reduced demand for renewable energy tech will have no negative effect on their own renewable energy industry? Will Elon personally buy all the solar roofs and electric cars needed to make up the shortfall?
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Let's be honest: the next time a Democrat is president they will probably either join the Paris accords, or adopt policies that align with the accords anyway. This is what American has turned into: our politics are so partisan that pretty much the first thing a new party administration does when they take office is to overrule or counteract policies of the previous administration (except of course for policies that erode away our rights in the name of "national security"). America is running around in circles (and wasting trillions of dollars in the process) while the rest of the world passes us by. And the sad thing is a lot of Americans are cheering as it happens.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
And he's it.
Willfully comply to the provisions in the accords? Nothing stops them from doing so. Also they could require their vendors, partners, and suppliers to comply as well or not do business.
Fake politicking by signing on to something that you know is going to die and help your business is fake. If they really believed in it, they could just do it themselves. You know, that whole lead by example thing.
I love how often we see "something will be announced soon!" announcements these days. I mean I guess it gives people who are powerful enough to get a quick line to POTUS a last-second chance to change his mind but in the vast majority of cases where that doesn't happen, it just seems kind of redundant and weird. At least to me.
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.
Never has there been a better reason to do it, in my opinion. :D
In all honesty, however, if these companies so badly want something I'm immediately suspicious of their intentions.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
Trump desperately needs to hand the nationalists that put him in the White House a victory. Any victory. This is it.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Do you really think that the Paris climate deal was the major reason that American consumers decided to install rooftop solar or buy electric or hybrid vehicles?
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
If the Republican Congress is going to let this happen, they need to be fired.
A baby boomer is ruining everything for every other generations following his.
why do politicians prioritize bathroom issues over climate change if it's such a big issue
Yes, because paying trillions of dollars in carbon taxes to *maybe* lower the temperature by 0.1C 100 years from now is such a great use of money.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2017/05/31/on-paris-climate-agreement-the-president-is-doing-the-right-thing-the-wrong-way/
I agree with the post, he should have left it to a vote instead of going at it unilaterally, but who cares. The Paris accord is absolute shite.
Here's another idea, why not keep our money and spend it on developing natural gas and reducing the cost and danger of nuclear by undoing the regulations that prohibit fuel rod recycling. That would do more for reducing CO2 emissions than throwing our dollars into a U.N. black hole ever will.
Paris accord is a scam, designed to extract money from wealthy countries and siphon it to god only knows where. Good riddance.
Trump just got Democrats and (some) Republicans to agree about an issue to do with environmentalism: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/... It must be freezing in hell.
From Wikipedia: "Paris Agreement, with its emphasis on consensus-building, allows for voluntary and nationally determined targets"
In other words, it's a "feel good" wet noodle, not really a treaty, and definitely not a regulation or a law. So why would any environmentalists care if we leave or not? (It's not like it was the Kyoto Protocol.)
By itself, no, but it's the first link in a chain of government incentives that ends with subsidies for renewable energy and EVs, and those absolutely do make a difference in people's purchases. Tesla sales aren't going to eat dirt tomorrow, but the effects will eventually hit the consumer, and they will be long-lasting. There will be as much lag as fixing this as there is in breaking it.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
If the Paris accord set the same standards per person for all countries, it might have been ok. It lets countries set their own standards. China (that fresh are bastion) and India claim "emerging economy" status and belch out back smoke. It puts ridiculous chains on the US.
Make it a level field and we might want to play.
When air quality was getting rid of Sulfuric Acid and Particulate Soot, I was on board. When you are trying to get rid of CO2, not so much. When you just want a big cash grab from the US because of ridiculous CO2 targets, GET LOST!
The earth will warm and eventually be eaten by the sun.
Get over it.
Ah, but the Energy Secretary, Rick Perry, has something to say about that. He's going to re-level the playing field so that traditional fuels have an advantage again over nascent renewable technology. So we won't have the financial help with our innovation.
It's not the first time an unwelcome trump has polluted the air.
Stabilizing the world population be far more effective to reducing pollution. From what I've read, the world population grows at the rate of a moderate size city of 200,000+ being added every day! Or to put it another way, like adding another city of Philadelphia every week! One is enough, but that's another topic entirely.
The lack of discussion nor taking serious steps in reducing population growth, shows how strong the human primal instinct is to reproduce regardless of the consequences.
And to make matters worse, reducing population growth could be devastating to some regions due to political and religious reasons unless it was done equally across all countries and cultures. Hopefully, society figures out a way to reduce population, otherwise nature eventually will in a brutal way.
In short, zero population growth will reduce pollution far more effectively. Simple as that.
The U.S. is a laughing stock because so many idiots voted for a cartoonish character for president.
Let's face, when the leader of your nation is what many have called a "Cheetoh-faced shit-gibbon", everyone's going to laugh.
The government being in the Paris agreement or not is totally independent of the U.S. leading in renewable energy development, which will continue to be true.
Bingo. Watch Tesla put up a few tens of millions of solar roofs and technological innovation will accomplish that which government treaties could never hope to.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Yeah, it was the tax credits and government incentives that helped push these technology forward. Without the government help, we wouldn't have gotten the economies of scale to make the price competitive. When Georgia cut the state incentive to buy electric cars, the market for electric cars in the state evaporated.
The planet will be fine. It will only be sad for PEOPLE and other creatures that made this planet blue, green and vibrant. Die offs have happened before, and why should we be different? At least the Dinos didn't pilot the Asteroid to the planet.. but we ..(sentient creatures) ... participate in .. no wait... drive the process that causes our own demise. Thanks alot Mr T.
He has destroyed the USA in less than 6 months. Damn him and his entire family of ignorant narcissistic illiterate fucktards! Don't worry about impeachment, Trump isn't competent to hold the office and this is the final proof. Trump will kill himself once he realizes how stupid this decision was.
All the companies in favor of a non-binding climate agreement are all tech or finance.
What are you going to do about it?
Between the extensive gerrymandering, the corporate ownership of both the "Democrats" and "Republicans" and the general bias against third parties, there's really no way that the average American citizen has any voice in the Federal government.
Until and unless We The People take matters into our own hands, I see no real reason for us to even discuss the actions of the nation's "leaders".
Once more, I refer you to my signature.
Go on, citizen, stamp the vote card. R or D, your choice.
The US has long threatened peace and stabiliy across the world. Now it threatens envionmental catastrophe too. It is now time to introduce a strong sanctions regime against our common enemy.
The US bowed out of a group hug. That's about all the teeth the Paris agreement had. It was as multilateral voluntary agreement with no teeth. Pardon me if I have to "so what" for a moment. Folks, it wasn't all that great to begin with. If you are serious about saving the world from a climate disaster perhaps it's time to consider ideas that might actually work instead of these ridiculous multilateral efforts that are toothless or doomed from the start.
How about this, tech exists to run fuel cells backwards. It uses electricity to combine water and CO2 to produce methane. If one was to build a giant nuclear reactor in the middle of nowhere, you could begin aeroforming the planet by extracting the CO2 into methane and replacing liquid fossil fuels with a carbon-neutral alternative until the world more fully abandons the ICE engine. That sounds a lot more realistic than 150 countries all agreeing on a climate deal with real teeth.
Instead of the U.S. "Rejecting the future", we are one of the few taking off our blinders and looking to reality as it is, not as paper and good feelings would have it be.
Just like so many other areas with Trump, perhaps this will bring press to bear on what ACTUALLY may help, as opposed to everyone feeling good because we are in an "agreement" that has no actual effect.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
http://images6.fanpop.com/image/photos/36300000/Nelson-Muntz-image-nelson-muntz-36388753-1000-1000.png
Comment removed based on user account deletion
He should have read the contract, withdrawal will only be effective 4 years after notification.
At that time he will be either in a dementia home for billionaires or in jail.
For the true Trumpians, today is a day to celebrate doing something great.
For everyone else, it will bury the lead story about Comey testifying, and giving back the Russian spy residences. Misdirect, mislead, profit!
It's a the TEA Partier subset of the Republican party that threw us of the rails.
We have a segment of our population composed mostly of old white conservative men who are on a steady diet of talk radio and Fox News. As a result, they are uninformed and the facts they have about the issues are complete horseshit. They have this delusional World view that isn't based on reality but on a what some professional trolls tell them: Rush, Hannity, O'Reilly, and a few others that are complete bullshitters and say crap to keep those people listening.
What's really pathetic is that those people are not capable of realizing that they are being bamboozled. I happen to know a few - and one of them has a BS ME from Texas A&M. And you can put the facts under their noses and they'll just ignore it as being from "Mainstream liberal biased" media. They are beyond reason. The only that can be done is let them die in their ignorance.
Fortunately, they are old and will die off soon. We can only hope that we can fix the damage they have and will cause.
That sword cuts both ways.
If the agreement is truly a meaningless symbol, then sticking with also will have no effect.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
This entire scenario is a giant nothing burger and is demonstrative proof that this is purely a political treaty with no real science behind it because not one, NOT ONE of the defenses for staying in is to give concrete evidence of what parts of the envrionment will be saved or what these actions will do. It's all hand wringing and political pontificating to deflect from real world issues that the rest of the worlds leaders (including former President Obama) FAIL to resolve.
The treaty is not enforceable in the US as congress never (and will not) ratify it.
If Obama and Tim Cook and Elon Musk are so damn concerned about the fate of the world they can put their energies AND MONEY towards climate change as much as they want. As it is, they ALL make token efforts and pat themselves on their back for spending other people's money to solve problem they are concerned about.
I, for one, applaud a return to rationality in terms of governmental action towards concrete results.
The Paris Accord is non-binding. Agreeing to a binding resolution would have required the approval of the Senate, which the Obama administration knew wasn't going to happen with Republicans in control. Meanwhile, the U.S is abandoning coal and using more natural gas, pursuing more electric cars, more wind and solar energy, etc.
Pulling out of the Paris Accord is nothing more than a meaningless gesture to appease the hard-core rightwing factions who are opposed to anything and everything that might actually be good.
In what way is the Paris accord scientific, exactly? Were you aware that the changes proposed in the actual agreement bring us nowhere near the 2C goal? In fact, implementing all of the changes in the agreement leads to a ~0.05C cooling by 2100 compared to business as usual using the IPCC models (95% of which over-predict warming as observed to present date). Source:http://www.lomborg.com/press-release-research-reveals-negligible-impact-of-paris-climate-promises The rest of the 2C goal assumes as of yet unspecified regulations/changes. In other words, the cost of committing to Paris accomplishes just about nothing. Pulling out of Paris accord is a fantastic idea. Why would you want to take our shitty economy and chop it's balls off to the point it collapses so you can pay extra taxes? Why not spend that money on natural gas expansion, fixing our infrastructure, researching more efficient green power sources, you get the picture. You and everyone else needs to face the fact that green energy will NEVER compete until it is a good investment. That is the revolution we need, once we have that the world will no longer have to subsidize and will actually BEG for more green power. Until then, what you need to do is go to China and tell their emerging middle class they can't have cars, manufactured goods, energy, and all the other things that come with fossil fuels. Then go to India and tell them the same thing. Then go to Africa and tell them the same thing. Etc. Because if they don't buy in, you're pissing in the ocean. You just need to be patient: cheap green power will come, look at the solar cost learning curve. Module cost decreases by 20% per doubling of installed capacity. This will be the trend that ultimately causes a green revolution, not Paris. Solar will be cheaper than conventional power in a few years - decade maybe. Until then, good riddance to the Paris accord. Next we need to figure out storage, but that's still a ways off.
Trump can always withdraw from those too.
sorry, idiot, it doesn't work that way
I mean, how could he not? Its so unfair, EVERYONE else is signing up for it and promising to follow the same recommendations. It doesn't give the US any favoritism or advantage over them, so its just too unfair for the USA....
Support TBI Research: http://www.raisinhope.org
Where does this drivel come from? There is no way you actually believe this, otherwise that is just some incredible willful ignorance. The U.S. was already half way towards their goal of reducing emissions. This has a net effect of slowing the warming that we are already seeing. On top of that we didn't see this crazy job loss that Republicans keep talking about.
On top of all of this, with the EPA being gutted with hundreds of regulations being rolled back to the era of lakes catching on fire we're going to be rushing towards the climate change models faster than ever.
While it is certainly not the end of the world, it is certainly going to hurt many millions of U.S. citizens let alone the hundreds of millions of people that live near the oceans.
It astounds me that China can agree to this with a billion people and much worse legacy power but somehow we can't do it. We are actually forcing China and Russia into leadership positions and seeding our own which we've had since the end of WWII.
Any deal that puts the majority of the burden on a single country (us) without even requiring anything of China or India should be scrapped in its entirety.
Get the polluters in chief under control - China and India. They are the worst polluters on the planet, by a yuuuuuuge margin.
It's worth reiterating to doubters out there, that the biggest problem with climate change is that it's a giant prisoner's dilemma. It's like a large collective weight to carry, and the fewer people agree to help lift it, the harder it is to lift -- and the easier it is to justify doing nothing. This is not a problem that can be solved by a few individuals planting trees or even giving up their car. But if we all put in goodwill and agree to do something, we actually don't individually have to do that much. The incentives will kick in and it will be profitable to keep our standard of living with green energy. But it will never happen unless we are willing to take the first step.
Even if the agreement doesn't go far enough, it's even worse to see that we can't even promise what little it asks. I doubt anything stronger would come around, not until the underlying philosophy of the governing party changes.
Ever notice that it's the bad Presidents that can't keep their mouth shut after they leave office? Carter is by far the worst. Others should be careful.
Good we need to get rid of job hurting regulation! Go Trump !!
I'd been thinking, like so many others, that Trump was in Vladamir Putins' pocket, either directly or indirectly, but now I'm starting to think that maybe that was misdirection; Trump might in fact be in Chinas' pocket. "How?", you say? Because I'd already been reading that some countries have started looking to China for leadership on environmental concerns, since it was becoming obvious that the current U.S. Administration wasn't going to be doing that anymore, and in fact would be turning back the clock on much climate-related legislation and action. Trumps' plan to 'Make America great again' appears to be amounting to 'Turning back Americas' calendar to the 1940s' and sticking it's head in the sand on many issues.
Moving forward Trumps' so-called 'America first' protectionism policy will continue to alienate even long-standing and steadfast allies of the U.S., and he will, apparently, finish the job started by the Bush family of traitors so far as alienating every nation on Earth and ceasing to be a World Leader in any sense of the word. The only hope we have is that current FBI and Senate investigations will find enough traitors in the White House to invalidate the entire Administration -- including that Dominionist, Pence. The U.S. would be better off at this point with the Speaker of the House in the Oval Office. Sadly all of this might take a year or more to happen and who knows how much more damage this pussy-grabbing Cheetoh-haired clown can do in the meantime. At least in 2020, when we have an opportunity to get someone (hopefully) more competent and trustworthy to do the job, we can then start the process of mending fences and apologizing profusely for all the utter stupidity. Sadly I may not see the world reputation of the United States repaired before I'm dead, there's quite a lot of it.
Meanwhile I sure hope all of you who voted for Trump enjoy unhealthy air, unhealthy tap water, more and more strange extreme weather, floods, droughts, unhealthy food, etc, because that's the administration you all voted for. Guess it'll Make America Great Again for Oncologists at least.
The only reason those companies care is that they are probably losing government subsidies and tax breaks related to the Accords.
That Tesla character is just walking away in a huff because he worries he will lose the government subsidies on his little cars and solar panels. If his products had to sell on merit at full cost, he wouldn't have gotten anywhere.
China and India do not have any obligations until 2030. According to MIT, this agreement will result in up to a 5 C temp rise by 2100. We should implement renewables and improve our energy efficiency on our own and lead through technology innovation, not rely on symbolic sham words that do not accomplish anything.
A FAR greater impact will be had by halting industrial investment and consumption of products in/from countries that do not have stringent environmental regulations on emissions NOW. Yes, industrialized countries are large historic emitters. That doesn't mean we should continue deploying those polluting methods in areas where environmental protections are nonexistent.
MIT source: http://news.mit.edu/2015/paris-commitments-insufficient-to-stabilize-climate-by-2100-1022
Seriously. Losing Elon Sucks is no big deal. His company really is making money anyways.
America was not always being laughed at. It's true that some people get laughed at occasionally because of their small "hands", but that does not extend to the international diplomatic stage. So try to get over that particular insecurity.
Because now you have a real insecurity to worry about. The rest of the world will now be both laughing at and thinking of creative ways to economically punish the USA, because of its leaderships' small brain.
Headline: America withdraws into isolated hide-and-seek "safe place". Rest of world does not bother to look for it.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
That sword cuts both ways.
If the agreement is truly a meaningless symbol, then sticking with also will have no effect.
Except for the $100B/year developed countries pledged to help other countries avoid deforestation....
I suppose now other countries are on the hook for this and not the US...
The Earth is even more scorched now than it was yesterday. Oh whatever shall we do?
Hopefully, instead, we will implement 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 (not necessarily accurate; just precise is what is needed) 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.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
... really, I don't. USA just handed the keys of the world to the EU and China (and probably tying together the possible next biggest world power - China - with the institution that aggregates a number of countries that are seen as the most honorable and moral in the world, EU, and China will happily role with it), and pretty sure that that power combined will make USA pay one way or the other (either commercially or politically because the geopolitical center just moved out from US this past months).
So I'm just waiting for this clown-president to end his term because it will be glorious, the most glorious end of term any has ever seen... it will be bigly, I have great surety.
So I guess trumpy put the climate in the corfoffin?
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
So much butthurt here.
n/t
Looks like someone needs to learn who is really in charge.
Now we're as stupid as Syria.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
"Two things only the people anxiously desire - Bread and Circuses."
You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
There is a lot of hype here.
Nuclear is almost the expensive way to produce power there is. What is this obsession with nuclear? It only makes sense when you're prepared for massive amounts of taxpayer subsidy.
Nuclear is expensive in a large part due to the cost of fuel and waste handling. Both costs can be reduced dramatically by implementing fuel rod recycling like is done in most other countries. Currently we take the "spent" rods (which are still 95% fissible material) and dissolve them in giant acid vats, vitrified, and must be treated as highly radioactive waste for 1000's of years. Instead, we could be recycling them and producing only low-grade non-radioactive waste. We don't because of nonproliferation treaties, not a lack of capability. France uses nuclear as it's primary power source and already recycles its fuel.
This change, combined with safer and more efficient modern reactor designs could make nuclear far cheaper than it is today. Good luck reaching high penetration of wind/solar without a baseload power source. Nuclear seems like a good option given it doesn't directly emit CO2.
http://www.anl.gov/articles/nuclear-fuel-recycling-could-offer-plentiful-energy
Oh fuck off.
LOL sad. Also, not an argument.
If the agreement is truly a meaningless symbol, then sticking with also will have no effect.
Sticking with a bad agreement provides cover for many countries to do nothing, because after all they are in an "agreement" that protects the climate.
The fire that has erupted over leaving this will in all probability cause more actual action to be taken to protect the environment than the agreement ever would have helped. In all probability Greenpeace begged Trump to leave.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
And the first thing they did was ask France for a loan and military help.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Sooooooooooo much butthurt in these comments. Trump gave the finger to globalist trash the acolytes of the climate religion and everyone here is crying about an agreement they all admit was non-binding and pointless anyways. Even the unelected nazi thug juncker is whining and crying and wringing his hands publicly. Thanks for the entertainment guys
If you have reproducible evidence, as in something that follows the scientific method, then by all means, share. Although you should have done that a long time ago because we're at the point where the debate is over, we've discussed it for decades now. We refine the models but the basic conclusion has not changed because the data has not changed. We have documented the human sources of CO2 and CH4 and have quite accurate estimates of our contribution. The outcomes are matching the models, and the models work when we change things like civilization's CO2 output.
CO2 levels spiked in only the last 60 years, not 200. Temperatures always change, and there are a lot of factors that contribute to the immediate temperature. Not coincidentally ocean temperatures have begun to rise at the same time as CO2 levels spike. We can really go on for pages of this, the information has been collected elsewhere and in better detail than I can fit into an internet forum.
If you want to refuse to believe it, fine. We're under no obligation to convince people who stubbornly refuse to agree. We simply do not need your consensus at this point, you've been given ample information and ample time to understand and failed to improve on the scientific understanding. You're free to call this a conspiracy, or a hoax, or oppression, or suppression or whatever fantasy satisfies your fringe beliefs. Because at this point your position is irrelevant, so step aside and shut the fuck up.
that's what we're worried about. Yes, it has no force of law or actual requirements. It's a feel good treaty all around. That's what makes pulling out so bad. There's only one reason to pull out, and it's to say: Fuck You World. By pulling out we send a message that we're not willing to even consider working with the rest of the world.
CNN has an article describing how this could lead to a trade war. TLDR: Frustrated nations slap carbon taxes on imported goods because they're building with clean energy while we shamelessly pollute (which is much cheaper) and then Trump responds with his own tarriffs. Then it escalates from there and badda bing badda boom, recession/depression.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
We should end all the ridiculous government subsidies for them... stop wasting taxpayer money on a scam
There seems to be little impact as it is from the accords, perhaps the only actionable thing in it is unwritten interpretation of it.
It is supposed to go into effect in 2020 (well after Obama knew he wasn't going to be holding the ball) and agrees to reduce global temperature to pre-industrial levels within a 2 degree margin (aka: no change).
To do this, it will tax the richer nations that use carbon fuel and funnel that money to other nations that do implement "renewable" sources (aka EU) so they can give out their credits to the poor nations to ... buy carbon fuel.
The problem is that nobody actually wants to make payments or owe credits to anyone, the US no longer wants to uphold the failing EU states, especially now that the richest of them are talking about exiting, even the EU no longer wants to keep its poorest economies up (e.g. Greece and Portugal).
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
We are unable to alter our own course as evidenced by our inability to control population growth. Be adaptable or go extinct. The first step is to learn to embrace whatever climate change carries with it.
Not pessimism, realism.
If it's such a great idea and only Trump is against it, why didn't Obama follow the US Constitution and submit it to the US Senate for ratification?
Sometimes I wonder whether some of Trump's actions are doing things that are what he believes are good for the country or whether he has just has a hard-on for destroying anything Obama enacted?
I can almost imagine Trump in a mental asylum scrawling 'I hate you Obama' on the walls, like a crazy man.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
Blue states should get together and promise internationally to try to keep the spirit of the agreement alive in their respective states. While it may not be constitutional to make formal agreements, at least token pledges can be given.
Why not just sit at the table? US states have a lot of leeway to enforce environmental laws and give incentives within their borders. There's a lot they can do shy of entering a international treaty. To put it in some perspective, if California was a nation it would have the 6th highest GDP in the world. Many US states are at least as qualified to sit at the table to reduce greenhouse emissions as signatory nations like Narau, Togo, St. Lucia, etc. The Earth doesn't care about your nation status or who the POTUS is.
Fuckwidth ... living humans eat their fellows ... it's called being a carnivore. 2nd Law. Go fuck your vegetarian boyfriend, freeze in your baby-mamaz hot-tube and stay out of my face or else ...
What leaving DOES do is give up the opportunity for the U.S. to have a leadership role, or any role, in international discussions on climate change. The rest of the world will move on, without us. That means uncountable opportunities missed, picked up by, I don't know, China?
This is the same reason scrapping the Trans-Pacific Trade Agreement was stupid. You don't like it, you change it. You don't just walk away, because if you do, some other power will gladly take over. Like China.
Giving up American power and influence around the world, with 1,251 days to go.
Take it easy, Charlie, I've got an Angle...
... shoot him and his team, so we're done with the morons...
Congratulations to américains for their stupidy !!!
Too bad he won't be in office in 2019 to actually sign you out though, eh?
How do you get by, day to day, ignoring the facts on the ground?
Just today, Putin admitted that Russians interfered in your election. He's never going to admit the state was involved, but even he knows he has to admit that Russians were.
Do you seriously not understand that nothing your president promises that won't take effect for three years can't be reversed?
So we're agreed: in or out doesn't make a difference in terms of CO2 emissions. So what's your problem then? We're out now. Good. One less level of bureaucracy to worry about.
Trump is an asshole.
Why lead in the development of clean energy tech? R&D in solar panels has consumed lots of money, and industrial espionage will make up a lot of ground quickly.
Climate is chaotic. We can't know how it'll turn out. We just have probabilities. So why make things hard now when it could turn out all right? Let's just have fun and burn all the oil and coal we can get our hands on! Let's just party with Trump and play russian games!
Make America Great Again!!!
Trump said the Paris agreement "front loads costs on American people.
Like the Republican "American Health Care Act" does, but this hurts rich people.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
... because it makes it easier for the overwhelming majority of the countries remaining in the treaty to live up to their promises and actually do something serious about climate change.
Update: Former president Barack Obama said the U.S. "joins a small handful of nations that reject the future."
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
After 30 years of Pascal's wager answers to scientific questions which satisfy the imagination of children and the religious, AGW is finally going the way of other weather scares such as Witches controlling the weather (where the term 'denier' as in 'a denier of witch craft' and 'skeptic' as in 'skeptical of witchcraft') and now I think it also means that activists can no longer skip to what the mob would say "Burn them at the stake".
It has been a fun 30 years to watch. But I guess with the Artic and Antarctica growing in ice, is it now time activists shift to 'we are 86% sure it really is man made global cooling'?
We finally have a President that puts America first.
You argue from a fundamentally retarded premise. The problem with Paris is, as even Trump could figure out, at the US pays everyone else. Your argument has no bearing on reality.
Do what you can to go green in spite of Trump.
Conserve by replacing failed equipment with energy efficient versions
If you have a good roof for solar, get solar, either by paying cash or getting a loan. Don't lease.
When it's time to replace a car, and if you have a place to charge it from natural gas- or renewably-generated electricity, get an EV or Plugin Hybrid. If you don't have a place to charge it and don't expect to have one in the near future, get a non-plugin hybrid.
Support green efforts in your town/city/state.
Yes, you will need to spend a little money today, but it'll be better than the billion-pound cure we'll need to buy in the future. (Or even the $hundreds of billions we're losing in pollution related health costs each year.)
Conservatives have just ceded leadership of the free world to Russia and China. How can people be so fucking stupid as to not understand that in this global economy, which is what it is regardless of their whiny little asshatery, unless you are moving forward you are falling behind. Conservatives don't care... they are a cult of anti-American shitstains.
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
We cannot halt the progression of climate change without radical and drastic action such as the following:
1. Tear down the factories
2. Block industrialization of developing countries
3. Ban all combustion engines
4. Ban all plastics
5. No more global trade. Trade occurs locally and regionally
6. No more pesticides, herbicides, or industrial agriculture
We cannot claim to make progress on climate change without eliminating the products and manufacturing processes that produce emissions.
Now that we are officially out of the "treaty", which was never submitted for ratification by the Senate, including violating the sense of the Senate resolution, and no money was actually voted for support of the "treaty", it's time to sue to recover the billion Obama transferred out of the military budget to the UN for this and arrest him and his cronies for theft and embezzlement. Maybe some hard time will help to clear his head.
anything. That is more than I am willing to chip in. You pay for it, I will not.
doesn't make them a populist. In fact, if you're trying to carve out your own little fiefdom that's kinda the way to go.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
to take the blame for the mess Trump left in his wake. Same thing happened to Obama. You'd be amazed how many people blame him for the crash that started before he took office. Even the smart ones blame him for not fixing it better and ignore the congress of Republicans & DINOs.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Thats the vacuum that Trump is forming as he disengages the US from leadership roles around the world. And who is rushing in to fill that lack of leadership? China. Yes in making America Great Again (R), Trump is ceding our role as a world leader. Destroy the education system that produces some of the best engineers in the world. Don't think that true? Visit any engineering school and see how many foreign students are training here. American manufacturing will be restored when we become the peons of our Asian overlords and engineers
Not being signed up to a treaty which (was signed illegally by the last President[1]) does not in any way mean that the US is doing nothing. Not only do we still have a fully functional EPA, but some of the toughest regulations in the world for clean air and water. Better still, if you listened to the whole speech by the President, you would have heard that he was already starting to negotiate a new treaty which is more fair for Americans. Specifically, US Tax payers were mentioned in the speech.
Why so many people believe it is so much easier to listen to hours of CNN and MSNBC interpreting the Presidents few minute speech than to listen to the source is astounding. Listen to or read the transcript for all you need to know, instead of relying on propagandists for their "opinion" of something instead of deciding for yourself based on actual facts.
[1] The President does not have the authority to sign treaties with foreign Governments. This is the job of the House and Senate. President Obama bypassed his legal authority by claiming this was not a treating and calling it an "accord". Wording in the agreement is exactly that of a treaty with multiple foreign Governments. If a Republican President had signed a similar agreement, Democrats would have yelled for impeachment (rightly so).
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
If you voted trump, you deserve to die. Just the fact.
If the government had not baled out GM then their factories would have been bought by the likes of Tesla, and we'd have had those same workers back to work building electric cars in a matter of weeks.
If the government was interested in pushing electric vehicle technology forward then they would have left GM to die or innovate.
I'll believe that the federal government is interested in getting off of oil when they get rid of the road taxes on gasoline. We should be using gasoline for fueling airplanes, as a paint thinner, and nothing else. That will happen precisely when we run out of oil or the government gets rid of the taxes. That's assuming the sun doesn't consume the Earth first.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
I think you and your party are the ones who usurped the meaning of swamp draining. Ask yourself, why do people drain swamps? The answer is to build something expensive and hopefully profitable on it like a hotel, a casino, a condominium complex, etc. If you thought a construction mogul who screamed about swamp draining wasn't gonna build something profitable on that reclaimed swampland then that's one more thing to add to the list that proves just how ignorant or malicious you really are. We warned you guys. You got what you wanted. trump won. GET OVER IT!
That's My President!!! MAKE AMERICA GREAT Again!! My grandkids will thank him for undoing the previous villainy the Republic has undergone.
The president can sign any treaty. It has no force of law in the States unless ratified by a two-thirds majority of the Senate.
For instance, Woodrow Wilson signed the League of Nations treaty. The Senate refused to ratify so we never became part of the League of Nations. No great loss really. The League was busy debating European standards for tariffs on shoes the morning of September 1, 1939 when Hitler invaded Poland.
China and India currently have over 350 large coal generation plants under construction.
They have been bringing over 20 new coal plants online every month for over a decade. And they have no intention of slowing down at all. At the earliest, they may take some action in 2030 to reduce their emissions.
America, by comparison, has greatly reduced its coal plants under 0bama and has converted many more to natural gas, a far less damaging fossil fuel. Our carbon emissions are now at the level we had back in the early 1990's and will decline further due to natural gas. I was at the local public power office today and they told me that they were completing their own conversion from coal. So our coal-fired plant will shortly be powered entirely by hydrogen and not by trainloads of coal. The hydrogen is being generated as a by-product of local natural gas here in the Plains states and is being produced by a local gas processing company. So our local coal plant will soon be emitting only pure H2O, no carbon at all.
talking all rational and stuff
"In order to fulfill my solemn duty to protect America and its citizens, the United States "
How is not dealing with world-wide climate change protecting Americans?
Maybe you should check the actual records. That "global warming" you are talking about NEVER HAPPENED. While the claims of "record temperatures" are thrown around all the time, when you check the historical records you can see that the claims are not even in the top 5 spots.
There is reason why they are now calling it "climate change". And that reason is because facts did not match the "global warming" rhetoric.
Are the aliens giving you advanced information from the future? That other person in your head telling you what's going to happen? When is your doom and gloom forecast for, so I can laugh at you after you are another fraud spreading FUD?
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Exactly. The reason Musk (i.e., Tesla) is complaining is because he will lose all the government subsidies he is counting one to build his factory for of the mostly useless and inefficient solar panels.
http://freedomkeys.com/collectivism.htm
its collectivism vs individualism
You could argue the at accord is obsolete.
Given the advances we are seeing in Electric Vehicles, and new propsoed infrastructure projects propose by Trump many of the cities stand to be revitalized, with more efficient self driving buses and vehicles.
All electric, which will drive emissions to focal points at power plants which will centralize their eventual reduction.
Also my first car got 24 miles to the gallon. My new Jetta gets 31 miles to the gallon, and some of the newer gasoline engines coming down the pipe will be even more efficient.
Each 5mpg increase in efficiency per car probably destroys billions in Oil revenue and millions of barrels will not be burned.
if we ever solve the battery issues, everyone could own their own electric car eventually.
But right now there is no way everyone can drive an electric car as there is not enough lithium to go around unfortunately.
So we need a different battery tech. I am hoping Copper Sulfate.
Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
Congress, Senate, Supreme Court, FBI, NSA, POTUS, armed forces, the popular mass media ... every motherfucking last one of them wilfully ignores the parts of the US constitution they don't like whenever it's "inconvenient".
Haven't you been paying attention recently?
Bush 2 was correct - it's just a "piece of paper", and because no one wants to pay for the Iraqi war crime lies (only the most obvious of the multitude of ancient and modern US war crimes), the constitution will be wifully ignored well into the distant future.l
Welcome to Planet Earth.
How long does Elon Musk continue to invest in the USA before he sees the writing on the wall and moves his operation to a different country?
I'am proudly american and I hate all this international agreements. I hate G7, G20 too. When we won the II World War we were just a sovereign nation. We have defeated the evil, the fascism, Hitler, and all those european bullshits...Let's make America Great Again. Thank you Mr. President.
it's not like USA was doing much really anyways and could have KEPT DOING JUST AS THEY ARE DOING even while staying technically in the paris deal.
because the deal is just .. well, it's an intent deal.
it's not real. it doesn't impose anything that usa actually has to do or some big bully will come and do something to them if they stay in the deal.
on that the announcement is really baffling.
however we know that Musk is peeved because he wants gasoline cars to have a penalty tax just the same as other countries have (what he fails to understand is that teslas cars are going to get car taxed the same as others pretty soon in the countries where they're half price compared to gasoline luxury cars of the same price in usa).
Maserati ghibli s in usa is the base tesla price. in Finland the ghibli s is roughly 50 000 euros more expensive than the base tesla. and the base tesla sucks in range.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Withdrawing from Paris Accords opens the possiblity of future Carbon Tariffs on US goods. But TPP (I'm not advocating TPP by the way, glad it's dead) would have prevented the signatories from imposing Carbon Tariffs on imports from the US (for fear of litigation if for no other reason). By pulling both, Trump has made US trade and industry more vulnerable, not less.
...and the mental image of Trump pulling out of her.
Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
Climate change now accelerated to 1 degree per HOUR!!!!
As the sun cums up, the earth's temperature goes up
average 1 degree per hour. And when then sun goes
down, the globe cools 1 degree per hour.
Awe noooo!
Your president is turning usa into a coal workers paradise. And everybody else can just move out of there. Uncle sam wants all the coal workers of the planet.
If trumps continues this way the US will not be an export or any other kind of desirable market any longer.
Its just pathetic.
The world is being actively destroyed while you elect stupid trolls.
I say we work harder to compensate for the US being stubborn and boycott every American product -- to minimize damage from their foolishness.
We already wasted a lot of time trying to convince them to follow international units. They show they have their own way and do not want to help.
We cannot afford to lose more time before we take the necessary steps to protect the world. They were invited and decided not to come aboard.
Since the country cannot be moved, the good people will have to move from the US. I cannot speak for anyone, but I guess progressive Americans will always be welcome in some countries.
Not sure this changes anything in regards to the US commitment to making our world cleaner? The deal was just that, a deal to make world figures look important.
China the worst offender was not a country willing to really commit to anything. Verbal agreements are great, makes you look as though your trying.
I agree with Trump on this on, it was unfair, committed the US too heavily all the while China committed to very little. At the very least it needs to be a agreement that every country commits to equally.
All around the World, money is being invested into alternative energy and "Green" technologies - even with this weirdly cheap oil and natural gas.
China is going gangbusters because their leadership thinks long term. As a matter of fact, today if you want those solar panels, buy smart; buy Chinese. They have the best stuff.
China and many other companies are also doing plenty of R&D and starting to manufacture electric vehicles.
And they are not waiting for subsidies from anyone. They are doing it because that the future and where the money is going to be made. Oil and gas is going to be the next coal - an energy source that is going to get killed by cheaper sources: green energy.
And what are we Americans going to do then? Import that technology because we're too short sighted and half our population is unable to accept facts.
I don't think the exporters are that concerned about losing the American market. Is it a speed bump for them economically? Of course it is. But in the long run they're putting the planet's health and survival above their own interests.
This is as it should be. If you are arguing for government to deal with climate change then you are abdicating _your_ responsibilities in regard to climate change.
Lobby your local government to make changes.
Lobby your local companies to make changes.
Turn away from corporations and their products that don't help with climate change.
Do without the second and third family vehicle.
Use mass transit.
Turn off your air conditioning more often.
Use public pools instead of getting one of your own.
Turn off electrical and electronic devices you aren't using.
Waste less.
When we the people take responsibility for our climate and environment, then we'll see change. Leave it to government and all you will get is 'hot air' and higher taxes.
"Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
The biggest source of US reductions in CO2 has been a switch from coal to natural gas.
Natural gas of course produces CO2, but it produces less per kwh of electricity delivered to the consumer. If you've ever seen a coal train, which is an astonish sight if you ever tried to watch one from start to finish, you'll see one of the reasons why. Another is that natural gas generators are much more efficient, because you can turn the power output up and down almost instantly by twisting a valve.
It's not regulation that's killing coal. It's lower prices driven by competition with natural gas. And like competition it creates jobs in one place (fracking) and kills them in another (mining). Here's the epitaph for all those mining jobs: Coal, killed by the free market.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Look at USPS vs UPS, social security vs 401k, and most of the public transit system. Anything the government touch, local, state, fed, DIE, and then becomes zombie, consume resource and produce nothing. If you don't want the planet die, and become zombies, don't let the government get involve. I don't know any government that is 'over deliver, and under promise'l, or simply deliver what it promised at a reasonable cost. Look at Flint, same thing happened to DC 10 yrs prior. Think about how much time you can't get it back from DMV, passport application, getting marry at the local city hall, just waiting for your turn.
Besides, how much energy we can derive from solar and wind? Since the dawn of human, we jumping from one type of pollution to another without ever consider cleaning after ourselves, eventually, our Earth will have no more room for all the pollutants that we produced, and break down ... now that's an irreversible disaster.
The problem with the media is that he said the US is withdrawing, then either coming up with a better agreement or joining the Paris agreement under better financial conditions.
I ask you, fellow slashdotters, what's your favorite part of the Paris Agreement? Be specific.
...are uniquely unfavorable. The Paris agreement is extortion.
Excellent.
So long, myth of human-made global warming.
Scientists can not agree on that, so why should a country block it's business - in a ploy to slow down it's economy.
I'll believe that the federal government is interested in getting off of oil when they get rid of the road taxes on gasoline. We should be using gasoline for fueling airplanes, as a paint thinner, and nothing else. That will happen precisely when we run out of oil or the government gets rid of the taxes.
How will eliminating gasoline taxes discourage the use of gasoline in cars? It will make fuel cheaper, so make operating gasoline-powered vehicles cheaper.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
I see people sitting in their cars in parking lots with the car running everyday. Cars are now one of the main sources of CO2. The cars that are running while parked are not electric cars. They are just as frequently trucks as sedans/coupes. If they were electric cars, I may not notice them.
I see people run into the dry cleaner to drop off or pick up an order and they can't be bothered to turn off their vehicle. I see people pumping gas and they don't turn off their car. While pumping gas. That person is not going anywhere at least as long as the pump is inserted in the car's gas receiver, yet the car still runs.
With behavior like that, where are the cuts you are talking about?
captcha: menial
Hopefully, instead, we will implement a tax on ALL CONSUMED GOODS/SERVICES based on what state/nations the worst CO2 comes from.
That's not going to happen because it would put the USA at a severe disadvantage compared to basically everyone, except maybe China.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Hang on for a millennium while I find a tax that solved anything....
Do it to reduce emissions.
How many of the people who oppose pulling out of the Paris agreement also want to flood the USA with 3rd world immigrants? Do we have an epidemic of cognitive dissonance on our hands?
"I want to reduce U.S. carbon emissions!" && "I support more people coming to the U.S.(who will increase energy demand)!"
According to Wikipedia U.S. energy consumption per capita is 4.5X that of Mexico. How can these people who are sooooooo concerned about climate change also want millions more people adopting the energy intensive U.S. lifestyle? How are we going to cut carbon emissions by 25% in the next 8 years if we keep increasing energy demand through immigration? Without immigration, the U.S. population is relatively stable. If we maintain the population at current levels, at least we won't have population growth working against us as we're trying to transition to renewable energy and reduce overall consumption.
Solving a hard problem is going to mean hard decisions. If you are genuinely concerned about "climate change" then you should, at the very least, oppose any policies which are directly exacerbating the problem(it won't kill you to agree with Trump but for different reasons). You can do enough virtue signalling with your stance on the environment. You don't need to also demonstrate what a good little "anti-racist" you are by supporting immigration.
P.S.
How far would we be toward meeting the Paris targets if we deported 20 million illegals or ~6% of the population?
"If your argument is [insert something I'm offended about here because I'm a snowflake], then there is no reason [for me not to stick my fingers in my ears and yell "la la la la la" so that I can't hear you]." <Insert pointless rant here that the person I've just blown off is never going to read.>
Idiots in the halls of power, corruption, lack of education/common sense, mistreatment of its citizens (or select groups), waste, these are the underpinnings of a nations fall from grace. It eventually happens to all powers, I had hoped that I at least wouldn't see it in my lifetime. Sadly it's looking more everyday like we won't be so lucky.
All of the democratic states were grographically attached to Canada or indirectly via another state which was direct.
Just move some borders and join Canada.
If you are not being sarcastic, I can find tens of thousands of EPA regulations which are in effect. I can find tens of thousands of EPA employees being paid by my tax dollars. I can find a recommendation by the Executive branch to cut funding to the EPA by around 8%, but I have not seen Congress take even that little bit of action.
Who exactly is getting paid for FUD here? Me with facts to back my opinion, or you simply repeating FUD which has no factual basis? Yeah, you are trolling (or Shilling).
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Riiiight.... 195 countries got together in some ploy to slow down their own economy. Just for the lulz.
You guys are absolutely retarded, idiocracy at it's best.
Currently we take the "spent" rods (which are still 95% fissible material)
Fuel rods start at most 5% enrichment (enriched to 5% Uranium-235). Uranium-235 is fissile. The remaining Uranium is primarily Uranium-238. Uranium-238 is fissionable but fissile (meaning it requires addition of energy to make it split).
The fission process uses up Uranium-235, so end-of-use fuel rods are less than 5% fuel. The production of other fissile isotopes like Plutonium-239 does not offset this loss of Uranium-235.
We also generally store spent fuel rods on-site in interim storage facilities (until something like Yucca Mountain is developed). These rods have had time for short-lived isotopes to decay. These spent fuel rods are stored in high-integrity canisters where natural circulation takes away the remaining heat generated from additional decay of radioactive isotopes.
Some links:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spent_nuclear_fuel
https://www.nrc.gov/waste/spent-fuel-storage.html
How will eliminating gasoline taxes discourage the use of gasoline in cars?
It won't and I did not claim it would.
I said I will believe the government is interested in removing gasoline fueled cars from the roads when they remove the road taxes from gasoline. If the majority of cars on the road will be electric in ten years, or whatever the claim is this week, then to pay for the roads we will need a funding mechanism for the roads that does not rely on those cars burning gasoline.
Right now the government justifies the road taxes on gasoline because a majority of the gasoline used is for cars on the road. There's some used for things like lawn mowers, off road vehicles, light aircraft, and such which is likely to continue for some time after cars transition to electric but that cannot fund the roads due to its much smaller usage. If the powers that be in the government actually believe that gasoline cars will be rare soon, are responsible about government spending, and can think beyond the next election (which is what planning for a 3C rise in global temperatures requires) then they need to plan for the transition to road funding that does not rely on gasoline fueled cars.
If we are going to be driving electric cars in ten years, and that electricity is going to come from windmills, then we should see someone proposing legislation to tax windmills to pay for the roads, no?
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
If this was such a critically important Treaty, then perhaps the President at the time should have actually dealt with it legally as a TREATY - ie get the ratification of congress?
The fact is, he chose not to, making its repeal simply a matter of the whim of a subsequent president.
Liberals will cry "he didn't send it to congress because they'd have just blocked it anyway". Well sure, if your idea of 'compromise' is "JUST DO IT MY WAY AND WE'LL BE HAPPY", it wouldn't have gotten far. But our three-branch government is built on negotiated compromise: giving something to get something.
If this treaty was so /critically/ important to the future of the human species as is being asserted, then one might logically believe that Mr Obama would have been willing to give up something substantial in order to get it ratified. That's how it works. I guarantee you if he'd been willing to, I dunno, shelve Obamacare, he would have easily picked up enough GOP votes to pass this into Law.
He did not make any such offer.
3 part government means that compromises require sacrifice. If you choose to rule by fiat, understand that you can be undone by the same method.
-Styopa
I said I will believe the government is interested in removing gasoline fueled cars from the roads when they remove the road taxes from gasoline. If the majority of cars on the road will be electric in ten years, or whatever the claim is this week, then to pay for the roads we will need a funding mechanism for the roads that does not rely on those cars burning gasoline.
Ah, okay. I wondered if the word "road" was the point of distinction.
Sure, the government(s) should stop calling gasoline taxes "road" taxes, and should start thinking about alternative highway funding mechanisms. Personally, I like mileage taxes, assessed on a scale that increases based on gross vehicle weight, based on the amount of road damage heavier vehicles do. I'm told that damage increases with the fourth power of GVW, but I've never seen that substantiated. We already have the core measuring tool for a mileage tax in place, the odometer, though we might find it necessary to increase the penalties associated with altering odometers. Or we can just go to toll roads everywhere, though that requires deploying a lot of infrastructure.
However, we should also begin seriously increasing taxes on fossil fuels, of all forms, in direct proportion to the amount of CO2 emitted by burning them. There should be a mechanism for getting a rebate on the taxes for provably-recaptured and sequestered CO2. This would harness the power of the market to find and deploy low- and zero-emission alternatives to fossil fuels as well as recapture and sequestration technologies. To avoid hammering the economy, the taxes should be phased in over a few years -- but everyone should be made aware of the phase-in schedule so they can prepare for it.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
It won't and I did not claim it would.
You did however, speak poorly in terms of expression. However, that paled in comparison to your far more egregious error in asserting that Tesla had the funds or resources to put those GM employees back to work in a matter of weeks.
Hardly. They weren't even producing the model S back then. GM was out of bankruptcy before Musk got that far.
If we are going to be driving electric cars in ten years, and that electricity is going to come from windmills, then we should see someone proposing legislation to tax windmills to pay for the roads, no?
No, I would, instead you tax EVs for road usage, not windmills. And yes, those proposals were happening years ago. Before the Model S came out too, I believe, but even right now, there are at least six states with EV tax proposals on the docket. California, Minnesota, Indiana, South Carolina, Tennessee and Montana.
Some others have them on the books already. Georgia is one, North Carolina is another, I think. Not much, but still there, yes.
It's mostly on the back burner, but you only asked for proposals anyway, and that, yes, they have happened.
You seem out of touch. Perhaps you put hands on the wrong part of the Trained Armodon?
Well, here's the thing. Climate change is climate change. It doesn't respond to "president" or "senate", it responds to ameliorative, neutral and aggravating action.
The smart move is to ameliorate; regardless of the degree of change that may or may not be coming down the pike, the environment we have had, land, air and ocean, is the one we are most prepared to cope with, and it is very clearly changing.
Trump's chosen to back away from ameliorative action. That's not smart. It's poor leadership.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
And also, every country that isn't a signatory, whether after or before the Paris Accord, also has the right to impose tariffs. And they can do it to the USA or anyone else, for whatever reason they want to. If you can't impose a tariff, you're not a government.
And as for "unilateral" I have to assume you're joking. Not only can the US retaliate, but the US has already made "unilateral" moves in that direction, so it wouldn't even be retaliation. We are attacking first.
Hell, they'd crucify Jesus a SECOND time if they could hang Obama alongside him.
That sounds kinda good but a proper crucifixion comes in threes, i.e. Jesus plus two thieves.
So if you had Jesus in the middle with 0dinga and Hitlery on either side, that would be a proper crucifixion scenario.
PPV, baby.
Really, "insightful" for not only flagrantly misunderstanding the Accord and the Constitution, but being sanctimonious about it at the same time?
Better still, if you listened to the whole speech by the President, you would have heard that he was already starting to negotiate a new treaty which is more fair for Americans.
Oh my god. It never occurred to me that people that can read and type might believe crap like that. Negotiating with whom? The dudes he pushes out of the way at summits? The foreign leaders who are happier to see each other than him? And when the fuck, exactly, would he have been doing this "already"?
However, we should also begin seriously increasing taxes on fossil fuels, of all forms, in direct proportion to the amount of CO2 emitted by burning them.
YOU ARE GOING THE WRONG WAY!
Don't increase taxes on fossil fuels, that only makes the government more reliant on their use for their funding. America is not addicted to oil, the American federal government is addicted to oil taxes. Sure, the import tariff on oil is little to none but the taxes on fossil fuels is HUGE. The federal government is not going to enact a tax on an item to only later discourage it's future use.
I know that seeing taxes on gasoline reduced is unlikely. I also know that if society is to reduce its oil use it will be because of market forces, not some dictate from the federal government.
We will stop burning petroleum when the costs outweigh the benefits. One way for that to happen is an energy source, like nuclear power, to become cheaper, more reliable, more abundant, and cheaper. (I know I stated "cheaper" twice, it's that important.) Wind, solar, and hydro simply cannot compete with coal and oil, even with a "smart grid". Once we have nuclear power cheaper than oil then it won't matter what kind of taxes are put on gasoline because no one will be buying it anyway.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
We will stop burning petroleum when the costs outweigh the benefits. One way for that to happen is an energy source, like nuclear power, to become cheaper, more reliable, more abundant, and cheaper. (I know I stated "cheaper" twice, it's that important.) Wind, solar, and hydro simply cannot compete with coal and oil, even with a "smart grid". Once we have nuclear power cheaper than oil then it won't matter what kind of taxes are put on gasoline because no one will be buying it anyway.
To quote you, you are going the wrong way. You seem focused on nuclear power replacing gasoline, when the primary usage for gasoline is in motor vehicles, a utilization which nuclear is poorly situated to supplant in itself.
So what you really want is more Electric Vehicles (And possibly Hydrogen), but sadly, what you need to do is increase production, the costs of operation of an EV is already lower.
In any case, you talked about the costs outweighing the benefits, so your own premise supports the notion of taxes(that would be a way for that to happen after all), therefore, if your goal is to avoid a tax-based solution, you need to rephrase your own expression.
This is especially important since your option as expressed is actually not focused in that direction anyway, so why hinder yourself?
We've rerouted around the damaged person.
Paris Accord is in effect. It save all the states which have joined it large amounts of money and makes our industry and commerce and even residential consumers more efficient and paying less for energy than the deadender states that Comrade Trump and his Russians represent.
Which is why we green capitalists will crush you. We pay less for more efficient production, more efficient data centers, and our utility bills are small while our output is huge.
Enjoy your whale oil and kerosene and coal, deadenders. Hope your buggy whips work.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Even if giving away trillions of dollars would help deal with CO2 (it won't), we shouldn't do it because (1) we can't afford it because we don't have any fucking money and (2) giving away money is not sustainable and does not bring about any permanent change. We are running a deficit year after year, borrowing money to keep the lights on. How can you argue it's reasonable for us to borrow *more* money to give it away? Do you want to turn into Venezuela? That's exactly how to begin.
Even if we could afford it and knew that the money wouldn't be wasted on lining corrupt politician's pockets of every 3rd world country, giving away money is a stupid idea. Giving away anything is stupid. See "give a man a fish vs teach a man to fish" argument. How many lotto winners go from rags to riches back to rags in a span of less than 5 years? Most of them. Food aid doesn't prevent starvation, it encourages it because farmers can't compete with "free" and birth rates go up. Financial aid doesn't encourage fiscal responsibility, it encourages recklessness and waste because the recipient didn't spend any effort in the acquisition. Over and over again we know what happens when you attempt to jumpstart success by dressing something up to make it look like something else. You change the outward appearance but fix nothing of the substance. Real change comes from within. It's painful, slow, and requires a lot of patience and discipline. I'm sorry, but you simply cannot fix the world's problems by printing dollars and handing them out. It's reckless, stupid, and doomed from the outset. I'm so glad we don't have Bernie or Hillary in the White House. Trump is a deeply flawed man, but at least he seems to realize that you can't solve every problem by throwing money at it.
To those who are saying the USA is reducing CO2 emissions anyway, why does Trump keep saying he wants to burn coal?
CAPCHA: whaling
their idea is still very plausible. Also look up "Tragedy of the Commons" or just plain how traffic jams get started. One bad actor can get everyone doing the same and then everything goes to crap for everyone.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
You seem focused on nuclear power replacing gasoline, when the primary usage for gasoline is in motor vehicles, a utilization which nuclear is poorly situated to supplant in itself.
Nuclear power replaces gasoline by the way of electric vehicles, as you seemed quite an advocate of EVs I thought that would be clear to you.
the costs of operation of an EV is already lower.
But the total cost of ownership is higher. The initial cost is higher. What happens to that cost of operation as they become more common? Will the demands on the electric grid raise the price of electricity?
When the total cost of ownership is close to parity then we will see greater adoption of EVs. As it is now EVs are toys for the wealthy.
In any case, you talked about the costs outweighing the benefits, so your own premise supports the notion of taxes(that would be a way for that to happen after all), therefore, if your goal is to avoid a tax-based solution, you need to rephrase your own expression.
Taxes do not and cannot change the cost/benefit analysis. This is because a tax on an item does not change the costs to society. It changes the cost to the individual but in the aggregate the taxes just move money around, it cancels out in the end.
Also, a government can only govern by with the permission of the governed. People tolerate gas taxes now because gasoline is a convenient energy source for vehicles and people understand the need for those taxes to fund roads. I know that the money does not actually all go towards roads but so long as that lie is generally believed it is tolerated.
For a gas tax to get people to move to another source of energy there must be something of equal value to replace it. With the high costs of EVs compared to gasoline vehicles there would have to be a crushing tax on gas to get people to switch, and the governed will not tolerate that. People will vote in officials to remove the tax, or a black market will develop.
The only proven way to get people to move is with market forces, not taxes and mandates. We saw this with light bulbs. There was a subsidy on CFL which prompted people to buy them. I bought some too. Then I realized how much they suck. They did not reach full brightness for an hour, they interfered with infrared TV remotes, and if broken they left a toxic mess. Oh, and they never lasted as long as promised. When LED lights came on the market I saw CFLs nearly disappear. No one I know buys CFLs any more. The market found the solution much better than taxes and mandates ever could.
Electric vehicles may be the solution but I have serious doubts on that. If they are the solution then the market will decide, not the government. For electric vehicles to actually reduce CO2 output then we need low carbon energy, and nuclear power is the lowest carbon energy we have right now. Wind and solar are still future energy sources because they cost more in real dollars than coal. We can afford to subsidize wind and solar only because a majority of our energy comes from cheap coal, nuclear, and natural gas. Tax subsidies don't change the real cost to the consumer, it just means taking the money by gunpoint instead of having them hand it over willingly.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Musk got about half a billion dollars from the Feds for starting up Tesla. Musk's solar and battery businesses depend on state and federal subsidies to end users, as does his Tesla business. Even his Boring and Hyperloopy businesses would probably eventually depend on mass transit subsidies, much like Jerry Brown's bullet train for the rich. All of that is needed in order to meet Obama's goals put forth as part of Paris. I can't imagine why Musk would be opposed to leaving Paris.
What I'm really saying is that blaming climate change on China given that you've been 10 times worse a contributor to it is the absolute height of hypocrisy.
The US has no valid arguments as to why its velocity of emissions reduction should not be the greatest among all countries, in any agreement on reductions.
1) It has contributed by far the most CO2 per person to the atmosphere.
2) It is roughly the wealthiest and most able to move (and to help others move).
3) Its emissions per capita are STILL more than double China's and more than three times the world average.
This is the position Trump should be talking from. Humility, recognition of outsized role in causing the problem, and determination to be a world leader in correcting the problem. Instead he's pathetically mansplaining some excuse not to act, and blaming it on his little brother like a toddler. Pathetic and lame to the extreme. Dumb, counterproductive, harmful.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
No, I'm not going the wrong way, unless you can think of some way other than taxes to internalize the fossil fuel-burning externalities. Merely hoping that other technologies will magically become cheaper than fossil fuels when fossil fuel-burners remain free to ignore the costs they're imposing on others won't work.
I'm a strong believer in the power of free markets, but they only work when all costs are internalized.
Unfortunately, there's really no practical way to internalize the cost of carbon emissions. The only impractical way I can think of doing it is also to use government: ban all CO2 emissions. That would force fossil fuel burners to find a way to capture and sequester all of their output which would do a marvelous job of internalizing the costs, but it seems completely impractical.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
The only impractical way I can think of doing it is also to use government: ban all CO2 emissions.
Oh c'mon, I can think of at least two impractical ways to do it.
1. Permit lawsuits to recoup expenses incurred as a result of injuries occurring from combustion of fossil fuels.
2. Require all exhaust gases to be fed directly to the persons benefitting from the fuels being burned.
But seriously, don't worry much about blindseer, he may mean well (at least, he isn't an outright fraud like some other posters), but he lacks cognizance of his own self in a way that prevents recognizing his own mistaken approach.
The only impractical way I can think of doing it is also to use government: ban all CO2 emissions.
Oh c'mon, I can think of at least two impractical ways to do it.
Good point. I'm sure there are lots and lots of impractical ways :-)
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
The US should have signed the agreement and then totally failed to live up it and miss all their targets without any repercussions like the rest of us!
I'm a strong believer in the power of free markets, but they only work when all costs are internalized.
I believe the costs of CO2 emissions have been internalized. We did this by informing people of the costs. People know that if they burn fossil fuels now that their children will pay for it later. People understand the need to care for their children and make choices to give them the best chances for success in the future. Put up billboards, put public service announcements on TV, and provide informative articles on the internet and dead tree form.
Creating taxes to "push" people to make certain choices creates a dislike for government. The people that want to impose these choices on others will vote for these taxes, those that don't want the taxes will vote them away. It's not just the "climate deniers" that will vote against these taxes but also the people that believe that CO2 emissions are bad but also believe that government enforcement of "good" choices is not the way to run a free society.
I see a problem with these alarmists that think man made CO2 creates runaway global warming. There is a large and vocal group that make the claim that man made CO2 is bad but "next year" or "next decade" or more vaguely "real soon now" we will have cheap wind and solar power, maybe even fusion reactors, that will solve all of our problems. They have just built this huge argument on how we are destroying the planet and then flushed it all down the toilet. There's nothing we need to do today if the problem will be solved for us tomorrow.
A responsible adult hearing this will make their choices much like this... The children need food, shelter, clothing, and an education. To do this I need the best products for the lowest price because what is left over goes into their college education fund. I'll get the cheap gas powered car, I'll heat and cook with natural gas. I can justify this because "real soon now" we will have cheap fusion power and all our CO2 emission problems will be solved. By the time the children are old enough to go to college they'll pack their things in their hydrogen powered hovercraft and float off to a bright future.
Al Gore is the biggest example of this. He shot himself in the foot on how future technology can save us, right after he stuck his foot in his mouth when scaremongering on how we are killing the planet. Al Gore hasn't been making many speeches lately. It seems he's realized his brand of saving the world isn't so popular any more.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
I'm a strong believer in the power of free markets, but they only work when all costs are internalized.
I believe the costs of CO2 emissions have been internalized. We did this by informing people of the costs.
Dude, you're nuts. Just telling people about the costs will not change their behavior.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
You seem focused on nuclear power replacing gasoline, when the primary usage for gasoline is in motor vehicles, a utilization which nuclear is poorly situated to supplant in itself.
Nuclear power replaces gasoline by the way of electric vehicles, as you seemed quite an advocate of EVs I thought that would be clear to you.
Nope, I was actually forced to read through your unclear statement, like I said, you went the wrong way yourself. Try considering ways to improve your phrasing to more effectively present your ideas.
That was my point. Same with my point about EVs. The biggest concern is not the operational costs, but the production costs. You need to focus on that.
Taxes do not and cannot change the cost/benefit analysis.
You may believe them to be wrong, but it's a pointless fight, You're going uphill, when instead you should circumvent it, by not choosing words that encourage the implementation of increased costs in the form of taxation.
Like I said, going the wrong way. Pick a phrasing that doesn't lead to the outcome you opposed being considered.
says the AC.
Trump's previous efforts have been towards increasing CO2 emissions in the USA. His attempt to pull out of the Paris Agreement is just more of the same.
So, in answer to your question: mu. You have not made a valid question or statement.
If they have been so concerned with environment issues it would be logical for them to choose serious non-disputed issues, like Fakushima and storage of massive amounts of so called spend fuel, Mercury in consumed fish, PCB, BPA, air and water pollution. Instead they did what they typically like to do the most - go to petty mass gathering of similar uneducated salesheads to pump their own collective simple minds up. And it does not matter it is fake news, fake science of fake art, as far as it please them with their own imaginative grandeur.
You are correct to call it a "treaty." And because it was never ratified by the U.S. Senate, the U.S. was never a signatory to this treaty.
The former president personally thought it was a good idea (which has nothing to do with what the Constitution says about how treaties are entered into). But now, it has neither Senate ratification nor the personal approval of the current, Constitutionally-elected president. So the US' hands are rather tied.
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
The US, with 350m people and 99% economic engagement
That sounds like a made-up number. The most recent figure I saw was a 62.7% labor force participation rate, which is approximately as bad as it was 38 years, ago, when Jimmy Carter was proclaiming an economic "malaise."
So, 37.3% of Americans are not in the labor force. They are being provided for by some combination of the following: (a) family members who are in the labor force, (b) living off savings, or (c) government entitlement programs.
The unemployment rate reported by the media (the U-3 rate) is not 37.3%, because it uses a very narrow definition of "unemployed": those who have applied for a job in the past four weeks. It excludes those who have become too discouraged to look for work. A large pool of discouraged workers is certainly bad sign, so the U-3 rate (which buries its head in the sand when it comes to discouraged workers) is a very poor way to measure unemployment.
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
abandoning any leading role it may have in the development of clean energy tech... takign a machete to the US clean energy tech sector.
How does withdrawing from the Paris accord preclude any U.S. company from doing R&D in clean energy tech?
In your mind, is not providing taxpayer subsidies to a sector of the economy the same thing as "taking a machete" to that sector of the economy?
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
Do you actually LIVE in California? California has the absolutely most aggressive automobile pollution standards in the country, if not the world RIGHT NOW... Also, people are buying electric cars in California by the truckloads. Just drive down the 101 in LA or Silicon Valley and see how many Telsa cars are on the road.
Did the CA folks give up all their cars already?
Tesla has not yet produced 200,000 cars. Only the first 200,000 cars will qualify for the $7,500 tax credit.
CNN, 2016:
Anyone who buys a plug-in car in the U.S. today is eligible for a federal tax credit of up to $7,500. That's more than 20% of the Model 3's $35,000 starting price.
But that tax credit won't last forever -- in fact, it's only good on the first 200,000 U.S. cars that any manufacturer sells.
And it looks like the tax credit could start phasing out for Tesla buyers just as it ramps up production of Model 3's in early 2018.
That could put a huge dent in demand said Karl Brauer, senior analyst with Kelley Blue Book. More than 40% of car buyers interested in a Model 3 told a KBB survey that they wouldn't buy a one without the tax credit.
"You've got people counting on the tax credit and they'll be frustrated when they discover it's gone," Brauer said.
We'll see how many still want to pay the full price when the federal government (taxpayers) no longer subsidize over 20% of their Tesla purchase.
Do you know what the constitution actually requires?
Yes. The Wikipedia article on this, which is pretty reliable, describes three types of international agreements.
1. Treaties. Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 says that treaties negotiated by the president must be ratified by a two-thirds majority of the Senate.
2. A Congressional-executive agreement (CEA) have a lower bar for ratification -- a simple majority of both houses.
3. A sole-executive agreement can be ratified by the President alone. This type of agreement can also be nullified by a President alone.
Thomas Jefferson said that treaties are "are forever irrevocable but by joint consent," and that CEAs are sometimes preferable because "when they become too inconvenient, can be dropped at the will of either party."
Sole-executive agreements are even more ephemeral and temporary than CEAs. U.S. participation in the Paris Climate Agreement was a sole-executive agreement. One could argue that was a poor choice on the part of the previous president. But depending on your perspective, it may have been the best choice, given the fact that Congress never would have approved it as a CEA, let alone as a treaty.
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
why would that put us at a disadvantage? It would not.
It would put nations and states at a disadvantage that have high emissions / $ GDP.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Actually, America imports more than any other nation. It would make our states, and nations that either import directly, OR that include parts/services from nations/states that have high emissions/ $GDP to start lowering.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
huh.
Chinese economy is caused by MODERATE VAT COMBINED WITH LARGE numbers of Tariffs(even though they agreed to drop them), combined with limited time subsidies.
Brazil was similar.
Europe was the same after WWII.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
The paris accord is a poor agreement for america. The president can ignore it, and should.