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.

Comments

Wong

[fred6666]

The agreement dozen cost a single cent. It's only an agreement of good will, with no consequence for polluting countries.

Re:Wong

[KiloByte]

In this case, though, it'd be reasonable to actually make it cost them. Pollution does cause significant monetary expenses, so what about imposing an import duty on every country that doesn't at least try to fix the problem? It also causes a massive number of deaths worldwide -- estimates wary wildly as it's hard to define how directly a death must be related to be blamed on pollution, but by a rough calculation I get around one death per coal plant per two days. It's a gross oversimplification (no account for the power plant's size, merely count of them), but if you want a sort-of plausible sound bite:

By keeping a coal plant open two days, you are a murderer!

Thus, if the US refuses to sign at least an agreement of good will, it is reasonable to put them to account for all these deaths. A war to topple a bloody dictator might be arguable, using coal is not.

On the other hand, people are insanely unreasonable when comparing sources of energy. For example, all the "Greens" call nuclear (even fission) the devil, when it's the very least harmful energy source, even compared to those holiest of holy "renewables".

Re:Wong

[thegarbz]

Especially since one of the most polluting group of people just decided to opt themselves out.

In the mean time China is displaying more goodwill to the world than you country is.

Re:Wong

[MightyMartian]

It's hardly good will. China sees the US retreating into populist stupidity, and sees its chance to reach for the brass ring of major power status. Russia, no matter how much Putin puffs his chest, is a power in a long decline, and now the US, under possibly the stupidest man to ever inhabit the White House, abandons leadership. China and the EU both now have a path to basically running the world.

Re:Wong

[lactose99]

Yep, Trump just put China first with this one.

Re:Wong

[bobschneider8]

It's only an agreement of good will...

That's why Trump rejected it - he's been anti-good will his entire life

Re:Wong

[AmiMoJo]

China must be privately extremely happy about this move. It's a huge opportunity for them, both to get ahead technologically and economically by avoiding the inevitable pollution/CO2 tariffs.

Re:Wong

[MightyMartian]

And what do you imagine Canada and Mexico are thinking right now? Canada already has a free trade agreement with the EU, and is seriously looking at a trade agreement with China. Mexico certainly can't be far behind. In the short term both countries will likely suffer from any trade reductions with the US, but both have known for some time that they need to look further afield for trade agreements. And all future trade agreements are going to have much more rigorous climate and environment components. By the time the US regains its senses, it will be a follower, and will have little choice but to abide by what the EU and China decide, and what they will be deciding is that if you want any favorable market access, you're going to have to demonstrate emissions reductions.

In the short term, I'm thinking a number of major states, in particular California (the sixth largest economy in the world) will have to try to make up for Washington's stupidity. If the US is lucky, the "unofficial" climate agreements California manages to push through may be enough to make up for what will be at least four years of simpering morons running the country, but there's only so much US states can do, and they cannot enter any major international agreements. In the end, states like California will basically have to abide by whatever Paris or future agreements require, with no formal ability to negotiate future agreements. In essence, California will cease to be a strong economy that can use the muscle of the United States of America to gain some sort of preferential treatment, and will simply have to abide by whatever the climate bloc decides.

The EU-China bloc represents 2 billion people and a GDP of over 31 trillion dollars, as compared to the US's roughly 321 million people and 18 trillion per annum. Simply put, the US, rather than being a significant player in future economic agreements (because, as I said, climate change will be part of all future agreements), will end up having no international voice. It's phenomenal to imagine that anyone in Washington, even if they somehow believe God makes CO2's physical properties different because Jesus loves oil and coal, believes this is a good idea. It's absolutely phenomenal that the fossil fuel industry, with the value of its products steadily declining, could have such a strong hold over the US government. It really does appear that the US is run by a mentally retarded person, enabled not necessarily sociopaths, but by pure idiots. If they impeach that halfwit, they will have to replace him with a man just as equally shortsighted. The Republican Party surely must know at this point just what ruin they are wreaking on the country they claim to love. They are either utterly impotent, or utter fools.

Re:Wong

[pellik]

The agreement has foreign aid built in. It costs a hundred billion dollars which is in fact more than a single cent.

Re:Wong

[Dutch Gun]

By keeping a coal plant open two days, you are a murderer!

And you wonder why there's an anti-environmental, anti-science backlash? How about we stop with the hyperbole and present the facts as is, without embellishment or absurd scare tactics? How many ridiculous now-provably-false doomsday scenarios were proclaimed over the past 40 years? Did you not think this would undermine public opinion at some point? Well, congratulations. People no longer trust scientists!

A few articles down, some undoubtedly well-meaning activist wrote about how we're "scorching the planet". I swear, many environmentalists are their own worst enemy. They could turn the public against a "be kind to kittens and puppies" campaign. Maybe if we acted like adults and engaged people with reason, rather than lashing out at them for being a basket of deniers, we could make some progress. Trump is simply a reaction to nonsense like this.

Want to know how to appeal to Republicans and conservatives? Focus on the economics of a home-grown energy industry with long-term sustainability. Highlight the usefulness of energy independence, and the national security implications of reducing oil imports from countries who really don't have the US interests at heart. Argue that conserving our own valuable oil reserves for strategic emergencies or critical infrastructure makes more long term sense than burning it unnecessarily, and how more electric vehicles will help to further reduce smog and particulate emissions in major cities. Point out how this will be a long-term investment in our national infrastructure and create economic opportunities for technological exports. Remind them of the successful reduction in smog levels despite more cars on the road than ever, thanks to improved technology and tougher regulations.

What not to do: focus on punitive carbon taxes as a magic solution, belittle your opponents, and make insane doomsday predictions with beyond-worst-case-scenario projected data that will inevitably not come to pass. Some of you are advocating outright economic warfare against the US. Yeah, that'll go over well with average folks.

There are lots of upsides to transitioning to carbon-neutral power technologies even without considering climate change, but realistically, it's going to take time to move our entire grid over to those. Rushing into things without lots of prototypes and refinement is just asking for economic disaster. At the same time, pushing too hard on the public creates a lot of unnecessary resistance to otherwise sound and reasonable policies. You can see that we're now moving backwards thanks to a populist backlash.

We're going to need broad support and consensus of not just scientists, but *everybody*, if we're going to make some real progress in this area.

Re:Wong

[Hognoxious]

If you're such an expert on words how come you don't know the difference between "it's" and "its"?

Re:Wong

[penandpaper]

Thank you for the sane post. Good gravy I cannot believe the crap in this thread. Posts like your gives me faith in humanity.

Re:Wong

[marquisdepolis]

Want to know how to appeal to Republicans and conservatives? Focus on the economics of a home-grown energy industry with long-term sustainability. Highlight the usefulness of energy independence, and the national security implications of reducing oil imports from countries who really don't have the US interests at heart. Argue that conserving our own valuable oil reserves for strategic emergencies or critical infrastructure makes more long term sense than burning it unnecessarily, and how more electric vehicles will help to further reduce smog and particulate emissions in major cities. Point out how this will be a long-term investment in our national infrastructure and create economic opportunities for technological exports. Remind them of the successful reduction in smog levels despite more cars on the road than ever, thanks to improved technology and tougher regulations.

From what I've seen, all of this has been said, repeatedly for a decade or so, and vociferously. Yet the Republicans seem pretty insistent on their theories that a) climate change is bogus, b) we don't need to change anything or focus on sustainable energy because of point a. While I fully support the point of sane argument, when someone refuses to listen to logic repeatedly I'd love to hear what other rhetorical tactics there exist to use.

Once again, not saying scaring the public is the answer, but it sure as hell isn't the logical argument you're laying out above. That's just a John Oliver type argument which isn't going to convince anyone who wasn't convinced already.

Re:Wong

[fahrbot-bot]

How about we stop with the hyperbole and present the facts as is, without embellishment or absurd scare tactics? How many ridiculous now-provably-false doomsday scenarios were proclaimed over the past 40 years?

Don't know. Let me check the latest from Breitbart News and Fox News.

Re:Wong

[MillionthMonkey]

Well...Obama abandoned US leadership 8 years ago. If that's your point, it's nothing new.

And your argument for this is...

A. He went on an "apology tour"

B. He was a black guy

C. Both A and B

Re:Wong

[HeckRuler]

Maybe he's saying that Obama didn't unilaterally invade any nations against the wishes of the rest of the world?

You know, like Bush.

I also want him to expand on is this guy:

so sign it as it explicitly takes money from those nations to pay very corrupt nations to fix stuff.

Which nation are we paying? And... since it's so nicely explicit, could you give us, like.... a page number of where it spells that out?

I feel like the idea that the Paris Accord, which asks us to report how well we're doing with OUR OWN goals, forces us to pay someone is a talking-point that I somehow missed.

Re:Wong

[KiloByte]

By keeping a coal plant open two days, you are a murderer!

And you wonder why there's an anti-environmental, anti-science backlash? How about we stop with the hyperbole and present the facts as is, without embellishment or absurd scare tactics? How many ridiculous now-provably-false doomsday scenarios were proclaimed over the past 40 years? Did you not think this would undermine public opinion at some point? Well, congratulations. People no longer trust scientists!

And somehow you got modded up to +5, even thought you did nothing to counter the argument other than emotional claims about "hyperbole". Did you even bother to do some back-of-the-envelope calculations? The facts seem to be actually as scary. Coal is this bad.

150000 people die daily. There's 6683 operating coal plants above 30MW worldwide. It is strongly debatable how many deaths can be attributed to pollution -- in China big cities there are claims it's 1/3 total deaths! China makes a good part of world's population and is about 50% urbanized, same as world's average. I don't know the methodology of the source I took the data from (or even remember the place), but their figure of 1/20 sounds like an underestimation to me. But let's take it at face value. Coal power plants have a massive share of pollution compared to other sources, not sure what's the share: for electricity generation it's 44% but I'd guess it's more for heating, steel production, etc. Let's round it to 1/2. That results in 1/40 deaths being attributable to coal, which is more than 1/44 required for the figure of one per two days per power plant.

Re: Wong

[KiloByte]

it'd be reasonable to actually make it cost them

And who enforces them to pay?

The same way your Dear Leader proposed having Mexico pay for the wall.

Re:Wong

[KiloByte]

Another way of calculating: according to a WHO report, air pollution results in 7M deaths per year worldwide. For the 6683 power plants to kill one people per two days, coal would need to produce just 17% of air pollution -- it produces way more than that.

Re:Wong

[modmans2ndcoming]

yep....Trump is ceding the leadership role of the world economy and security to China. #MAGA #NOTSOMAGA

Re:Wong

[penandpaper]

right... yout alk of tribilism and uncontrlable emotion but yet fall victim to name calling and dismisal for what? because you fall prey to liberal iam so much better than you because my opinion is sooooo superior.

fuck you.

Re:Wong

[fisted]

dozen cost a single cent.

So 12 ct in total?

Re:Wong

[Barsteward]

all empires eventually recede, Greek, Roman, Ottoman, UK - all got to a point where they thought they were safe and solid then an upstart came along and took the reigns. The US is just another economic power experiencing a start to its downturn in influence with certain individuals thinking it doesn't need anyone else.

Re:Wong

[Barsteward]

you need to read this definition as it defines it in the context of politics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:Wong

[LoyalOpposition]

You're only counting the negatives. If you count only the negatives, anything looks bad. Just as if you count only the positives anything looks good. Counting only my weight losses, I've lost 150 pounds. I must be the most resolute health guru on the planet. Coal-fired heating provides power for hospitals, homes, industry, research. It frees up oil for plastics, detergents, medicines, paints, fertilizers, plastics, synthetic fibers, and synthetic rubber. It frees up natural gas for hydrogen, ammonia, fabrics, glass, steel, more plastics, and more paint. It frees up purified silicon (from photo-voltaic use) for computers, televisions, automobile electronics. It's tempting to say that if it saves one life we should do it, but on the other side of the ledger, if it saves one gallon of gasoline to run one ambulance to save one two lives, then maybe we shouldn't.

~Loyal

Re:Wong

[Migraineman]

I read the Paris Accord Financial commitment section last night. The "developing" countries are on the hook to contribute $100 Billion EVERY YEAR. There's a huge financial commitment ... and most of it is expected to come from the US.

Re:Wong

[WheezyJoe]

By keeping a coal plant open two days, you are a murderer!

And you wonder why there's an anti-environmental, anti-science backlash? How about we stop with the hyperbole and present the facts as is, without embellishment or absurd scare tactics? How many ridiculous now-provably-false doomsday scenarios were proclaimed over the past 40 years? Did you not think this would undermine public opinion at some point? Well, congratulations. People no longer trust scientists!

And somehow you got modded up to +5, even thought you did nothing to counter the argument other than emotional claims about "hyperbole". Did you even bother to do some back-of-the-envelope calculations?

But poster's got a point. Being right doesn't mean anyone will listen. The only fact that matters is that Trump won the election, and people who care about the environment lost. So, its not about the science. It's about persuading people. By now it should be clear that calling a person a murderer because of a coal plant somewhere does not persuade anyone to vote "no" for Trump or his climate-denying cronies. It may be infuriating, but all you do is generate yuk-yuks on Fox and Friends.

The real "inconvenient truth" is that most people zone-out and read their Twitter feeds while you perform your back-of-the-envelope calculations. If you want results, as opposed to snarky ridicule from Trump sycophants seeking to ride his gravy train, you need to take a breath and adopt a new approach, something that works. It may be a pain-in-the-ass at first, but politics and persuasion is just another application of science: experiment, observe the data, throw out what doesn't work, try again. Scare tactics, doomsday scenarios, and "you are a murderer!" may be good to preach to the choir, and may vent your frustrations a bit, but in the end, it fails to get 51% of the electoral college, or even defeat politicians who assault reporters in public. Climate facts, political facts, they're all facts. Accept them and work with them or we're fucked.

That said, there's an opportunity here. With Trump pulling the Federal Government out of the business of climate, there's a gap that may be filled by folks who really care, like the states. There's an opportunity to show that that Trump and climate-deniers are idiots, wasting an opportunity. But it's not going to be done by scare tactics. It's gonna be done by persuasion, like showing how west Texans are cashing in on wind power, or how great it would be to live in an electric-friendly city where rush-hour doesn't pump the air full of smog. Gosh, if only we had a different president, federal grants might be available so that more cities could get in on that.

Re:Wong

[MrSome]

Because at some point, the economic impact doesn't matter, does it? Sometimes you have to take the financial hit, to ensure your own safety. Think about the money we spend to clean up after hurricanes & floods. Financially it doesn't make sense to help New Orleans, does it?. It's built in a bad spot. It's an increasingly bad situation. Yet we do.

So we openly spend money after the bad stuff happens... why not spend the money BEFORE the ultimate bad thing happens?

That's where we're at. It's time to spend all the money to ensure there's a human inhabitable earth.

But I'm sure conservatives would rather spend another trillion on a fighter jet nobody really wants. Cause that helps...

Re:Wong

[Hognoxious]

Do you remember this one? https://slashdot.org/comments....

Re:Wong

[Anonymous Coward]

And you wonder why there's an anti-environmental, anti-science backlash?

Not really. The RINOs, with support of right wing TV and talk shows, have been pushing an anti-education and anti-science agenda for a couple of decades now. It's much easier to snowjob ignorant people, especially if that ignorance is willful.

How about we stop with the hyperbole and present the facts as is, without embellishment or absurd scare tactics? How many ridiculous now-provably-false doomsday scenarios were proclaimed over the past 40 years?

None. At least, not in scientific circles. The serious issues noted by scientists were all headed off in time, though action could have been taken much sooner on them if corporations weren't greasing palms and rolling out propaganda. Acid rain, ozone depletion, leaded gasoline, etc. were all dealt with more or less before they became critical issues, but it wasn't a pretty fight. Scientists were often dragged through the mud, publicly ostracized, etc. but in the end you simply can't fight reality.

Did you not think this would undermine public opinion at some point? Well, congratulations. People no longer trust scientists!

A result of the constant right-wing based propaganda efforts at the behest of well monied interests over the course of decades. The research journals are accessible to anyone who actually wants to get past the intellectually lazy bullshit pushed by the likes of Fox News. But that conflicts with their precious ideology, and on the right ideology trumps facts every time.

Maybe if we acted like adults and engaged people with reason, rather than lashing out at them for being a basket of deniers, we could make some progress.

No we won't. You can educate the ignorant. You can not educate the willfully ignorant. You can sit them down, use elementary school level science and math, show them the results of simple experiments you can do in your home, have a real live US general come in and explain the threats. It doesn't fucking matter. You could have God, Jesus, and Buddah all walk in, smack them upside the head and tell them that they're fucking up the planet and they would still call it a liberal conspiracy.

You can't have any sort of constructive dialogue with people like that.

Trump is simply a reaction to nonsense like this.

No, Trump was a reaction to 8 years of propaganda designed specifically to make people believe a bunch of garbage that simply wasn't true. The aim of it was to get people so wrapped up in their ideology that they ignore the bald face facts staring them in the face. That combined with help from Russia and a weak democratic candidate open the door for someone like Trump. Any reasonable person would have taken a look at his history and not let him within 10 miles of the White House.

Want to know how to appeal to Republicans and conservatives?

First, there have to be some to appeal to. There are very few real republicans left in Congress. The RINO's in congress now are neo-fascists who have usurped the republican name.

Focus on the economics of a home-grown energy industry with long-term sustainability.

Would that be real economics or the made up bullshit full of elementary school math errors we keep seeing republicans trying ram through lately? In regards to long term sustainability, which part of "drill baby drill" is the sustainable part?

If we were talking about the old-school republicans I would fully agree with you. But the slime that's currently in congress are not old school republicans. Not even close. They have no more interest in real economics and sustainability than they do a piece of used bubblegum.

Highlight the usefulness of energy independence, and the national security implications of reducing oil imports from countries who really don't have

Re:Wong

[Foxhoundz]

That is a flat out lie.

Re:Wong

[drinkypoo]

In the end, states like California will basically have to abide by whatever Paris or future agreements require, with no formal ability to negotiate future agreements. In essence, California will cease to be a strong economy that can use the muscle of the United States of America to gain some sort of preferential treatment, and will simply have to abide by whatever the climate bloc decides.

Nope. California is the only state permitted to set its own emissions standards, and a dozen other states are permitted to follow along and used California's standards. So actually, California can continue to set its own emissions standards, and a substantial bloc of the nation will follow along.

If other nations recognize this fact, and why wouldn't they, then goods from those states might well be treated differently in international trade than goods from other US states, which would then be motivated to sue for the right to follow California's emissions standards.

The Republican Party surely must know at this point just what ruin they are wreaking on the country they claim to love. They are either utterly impotent, or utter fools.

Some of them are idiots, some of them are evil, and some of them are evil idiots.

Re:Wong

[drinkypoo]

By keeping a coal plant open two days, you are a murderer!

And you wonder why there's an anti-environmental, anti-science backlash? How about we stop with the hyperbole and present the facts as is, without embellishment or absurd scare tactics?

OK. How about "By keeping a coal plant open two days, you are engaging in manslaughter"? It's not strictly murder, because you don't know who you're going to kill.

A few articles down, some undoubtedly well-meaning activist wrote about how we're "scorching the planet".

Oh noes, hyperbole! However will you survive?!?!

Maybe if we acted like adults and engaged people with reason, rather than lashing out at them for being a basket of deniers, we could make some progress.

When you engage someone with reason and then they say "nuh-uh" then you label them as a denier and you either move on, or move on to stronger tactics. You don't pretend that they're thinking.

Want to know how to appeal to Republicans and conservatives?

Tell them that they'll get their coal jobs back even when those jobs are going away no matter what?

What not to do: focus on punitive carbon taxes as a magic solution,

It's not magic, asshole. Punitive taxes work. If you want to complain that the money won't be spent on helping to clean up the environment, fine. Do that. But don't tell people not to do what works. That's bullshit.

and make insane doomsday predictions with beyond-worst-case-scenario projected data that will inevitably not come to pass.

Actually, things are spinning out of control faster than the mainstream predictions already.

Some of you are advocating outright economic warfare against the US.

Some of us are advocating taking the environment that all of our activity (economic or not) depends upon seriously.

Rushing into things without lots of prototypes and refinement is just asking for economic disaster.

That's not what's happening, nor it is a legitimate concern. What we need to do is strengthen the grid (it, like most American infrastructure, is actually quite pathetic, and incapable of handling its stated mission or indeed even acting like a grid) which makes point of production of energy less relevant. But for some reason we seem to be allergic to infrastructure or oversight in this country.

We're going to need broad support and consensus of not just scientists, but *everybody*, if we're going to make some real progress in this area.

Wrong. Only the 1% has to be convinced, because they make all the decisions for everyone else.

Re:Wong

[acrimonious howard]

This is a great, sane post ... for the 90's. I remember back when the science was in, and we made sane, logical pleas that making the change is time sensitive. Jeez, it's been 20 years, as we watched Germany make $ hand over fist on the solar market, then China stole it from them. We've been making sane, rational arguments but the problem is that nobody has cared, except for the people who could be convinced by the outlandish claims from the oil industry. So when nobody listens, what can you do besides starting to make points that are completely true, but more alarming sounding? I appreciate any logical answers, but remember that 20 years ago, we had just a little time to debate this. The consequences just get worse with time, even if unseen immediately.

How many ridiculous now-provably-false doomsday scenarios were proclaimed over the past 40 years?

Why did you not provide a single example? I don't think the problem is outlandish claims by the scientific community. The problem is propaganda from vested, wealthy interests. I can provide a lot of examples of that, start with the propaganda from tobacco.

Re:Wong

[c6gunner]

150000 [wikipedia.org] people die daily. There's 6683 [endcoal.org] operating coal plants above 30MW worldwide. It is strongly debatable how many deaths can be attributed to pollution -- in China big cities there are claims it's 1/3 total deaths!

What an incredibly silly argument. I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but all people eventually die. The total number dying per day tells us absolutely nothing. It's not as if, had we eliminated coal power 100 years ago, we would have fewer deaths today. What would have happened is a temporary dip in the death rate for maybe a decade, followed by a resumption. The number today would be the same; the same number of people would be dying every year, they would just be dying at a later age.

Obviously living to an older age is a good thing, but your numbers don't even look at that, and have nothing to do with what kind of energy sources we're using. You're using completely irrelevant metrics. If you actually wanted to make a relevant argument, you would be looking at average life expectancy. You could run the numbers, figure out what percentage of the deaths are attributable to coal, figure out by how many years those lives were cut short, and then apply that decrease to the national life expectancy rate. That would give you a meaningful figure which actually shows how much harm is being caused by coal.

I suspect the reason people don't do that is because the numbers probably wouldn't look nearly as alarming. It's much scarier to shout "10,000 people are being killed by coal!" then it is to shout "If we didn't use coal the average life expectancy in the US would be 78.98 years instead of 78.94 years!".

Re:Wong

[Archangel Michael]

I'm sorry? Myopia got you? Everyone is filled with hyperbole, especially the news media. The fact that you think ONLY Fox and Breitbart are doing it (or at least "worse" than CNN, MSNBC etc) then it shows you aren't paying attention.

The Democrat Playbook is filled with "Killing babies, raping dogs, and eating kittens" for every minor cut to a minor program that is duplicated by three other programs elsewhere. They do it, because "fear mongering" isn't just about "Terrorists".

This is why, you see them parrot the "Trump is going to ruin the planet" mantra, while ignoring the coal burning plant build out in China.

Re:Wong

[jeff4747]

Maybe if we acted like adults and engaged people with reason, rather than lashing out at them for being a basket of deniers, we could make some progress.

That approach has been taken for decades. It has just resulted in more denial.

We are now at the point where Miami is going to be destroyed. New Orleans is iffy. We're now deciding if Los Angeles survives. And you're more concerned about tone.

Want to know how to appeal to Republicans and conservatives? Focus on the economics of a home-grown energy industry with long-term sustainability.

We did. Republicans immediately rolled back those programs when they take over legislatures. So no, this does not appeal to Republicans and conservatives.

Highlight the usefulness of energy independence, and the national security implications of reducing oil imports from countries who really don't have the US interests at heart. Argue that conserving our own valuable oil reserves for strategic emergencies

Burning US oil instead of Saudi oil does not fix the problem.

and how more electric vehicles will help to further reduce smog and particulate emissions in major cities

If Republicans cared about this, they would not be so interested in repealing the "job-killing regulations" that have successfully reduced smog and particulate emissions in major cities since the 1970s.

and make insane doomsday predictions with beyond-worst-case-scenario projected data

That line above about Miami is actually a medium-case scenario. The fact that you don't particularly like it doesn't make it beyond-worst-case.

Rushing into things without lots of prototypes and refinement is just asking for economic disaster

We didn't want to rush, but Republicans and conservatives have spent the last two decades fighting any efforts to make this transition.

So we either get potential economic disaster from rushing, or we get guaranteed economic disaster by taking it as slow as you suggest. Choosing the latter may be more comfortable for you in this moment, but it is not the wise choice.

Re:Wong

[Archangel Michael]

Yup, because China is building out huge amount of coal burning plants to fuel its economic expansion, and the US has shuttered them. China wins when it doesn't have to really do anything while handcuffing the US.

Re:Wong

[DarkOx]

#false

The green fund would have been another transfer of American wealth via foreign aide. Now you as you say there would be no direct consequence for not contributing what we said we would, other than it would make it look like we don't keep our word.

Re:Wong

[wyHunter]

All of these things ARE true. Unfortunately, given the amount of self and USA hating that the left shows every time they open their mouths, you might realize why the Right is so skeptical of anything the Left says. I'm a right winger AND an engineer. I want sustainable power because, duh, it is sustainable. I'm also an avoid outdoorsman and I like unspoiled nature. But what does the left want to do with the outdoors? Why, keep people (except the uber wealthy) off of it. So voting dumbocrat doesn't help me, either.

Re:Wong

[wyHunter]

And of course, how many people stay alive due to electric power?

Re:Wong

[KiloByte]

And of course, how many people stay alive due to electric power?

You mean, electric power we could get instead preferably from fusion (in near future if actually funded), second best and available today being fission, then some of less harmful renewables?

As for the oft quoted cost of fission, please wrap every chimney of a coal power plant in a condom and store all of its waste -- not just pollutants but even CO2 -- in well-secured storage for hundreds of years, and then you can complain about fission's price.

Re:Wong

[KiloByte]

And finally, my hyperbole spewing Progressive, a wafer-thin mint.

Eh? I'm not a "progressive" at all -- heck, I believe Hillary was actually a slightly worse candidate, although not due to Trump not trying. But where the leftards are pushing proverbial attack helicopter as a gender, the rightards are about as insane when it comes to pollution.

And how exactly my argument is a hyperbole? That the facts sound scary doesn't make them any less true. The only error in my post was saying "murder" when non-targetted killing should be called "manslaughter".

Re:Wong

[fred6666]

it already look like that since you are pulling out of an agreement you were part of

Re:Wong

[modmans2ndcoming]

yeah...say that when the world leaves the Dollar standard for trade.

Re:Wong

[wyHunter]

I have no issue with fission power if appropriate safeguards are on there - e.g. unlike Fukushima if your power station is on the coast do NOT put the backup generators in a basement, put them in the containment building.

Re:Wong

[KiloByte]

But why are you ok with coal without such safeguards?

And please, do quote the number of deaths from Fukushima you want to warn us about.

Re:Wong

[wyHunter]

I didn't say that. Power station safety is important, vitally so, as is industrial safety that's appropriate for any industry. (I am not waffling, just meaning that different industries need different things)

Joy....

[Kierthos]

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.

Re:Joy....

[MachineShedFred]

Yeah, because we all know that waiting for perfection is an awesome reason to do nothing.

What a bunch of bollocks.

Re:Joy....

[cbeaudry]

China signed it. Because they dont have to do anything until 2030.
India signed it, because it allows them to double their coal production.

So what is your point?

The Paris accord is bad. Being on the green side of the fence or not, its a BAD accord, except for the Word Bank, for them, its Grrreeeaat.

Re:Joy....

[Falos]

Uh, no, they've actually declared to be aiming pretty high.

Nicaragua expects to get 90% of it's electricity from renewables by 2020.

Re:Joy....

[mrclevesque]

It's actually a common stance.

Re:Joy....

[mrclevesque]

it's not because someone finds something stupid that it's not true:

http://www.reuters.com/article...

Re:Joy....

[Mike Frett]

Nicaragua actually wanted a tougher agreement.

Re:Joy....

[budgenator]

The last thing of note that NATO did was to remove a ruthless secular dictator and replace him with several ruthless theocratic would-be dictators trying to out do each other.

Re:Joy....

[ventsyv]

[quote]China has pledged to reduce its emission intensity (CO2 emissions per unit of economic activity) to 60-65% below 2005 levels by 2030, increase the share of non-fossil energy to 20% of total energy consumption in 2030, and to peak carbon dioxide emission before 2030.[/quote] http://www.climatechangenews.c...

Does this matter?

[MAXOMENOS]

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?

Re: Does this matter?

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree with this. I hate that Trump did this. However, you are correct, in that market economics are going to make being green cheaper than being dirty. Companies will have financial incentives to invest in wind and solar because their operating costs will be lower with it.

Re: Does this matter?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe, but it will certainly happen at a slower pace than it should. Thanks Trump!

Re:Does this matter?

[ranton]

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?

It is impossible to know the foreign relations implications of this long term, except to know it can't be good. All but two nations signed this agreement, with one rejecting it because it didn't go far enough (Nicaragua) and one not even being invited to the table because of its government's legitimacy problems (Syria). The United States is now the only country on the planet who is not part of this agreement because it doesn't find the problem important enough.

It now becomes harder to get countries to work with us on just about anything if we aren't even willing to be part of a goodwill gesture that had no real consequences to us if we stayed in it. It shows the world grown ups are not in control of the executive branch.

Re: Does this matter?

[TopherC]

I don't think that market economics are enough to stop global warming. It requires a political component, which the Paris Climate Accord was a small but important part of. It also will require sequestration efforts in addition to CO2-neutral energy production. I can't see us avoiding an unpleasant future unless we enact some kind of CO2 tax to fund renewables and sequestration initiatives, etc. CO2 emissions are a cost that are realized globally but not privately, so market economics alone will not correctly optimize that industry. Pulling out of the Paris Accord really gives the wrong message. It's not that the Paris Accord alone solves much of anything by itself, but it adds political momentum in the right direction.

A lot of history can be told with the narrative that our ancestors went through hell, fought and died, to give future generations a better life. Maybe that's a romanticized view of the past, but regardless it reflects an ideology that's the exact opposite of what we are doing today.

Re:Does this matter?

[Anonymous Coward]

It amuses me that you think China would change its behavior due to a toothless climate accord being signed or not by the USA. Thanks for the laugh!

Re:Does this matter?

[iMadeGhostzilla]

Agreed. Paris is a top down thing. Letting companies develop green energy sources and consumers adopt them is a bottom up. Top down rarely works unless there is a consensus in society, which for climate change there isn't. That said I'd like that the government stimulates research in green energy sources.

Re:Does this matter?

[lgw]

s impossible to know the foreign relations implications of this long term, except to know it can't be good.

It's great! Fuck globalism. This is just another reclamation of American sovereignty.

As others have said, we're going to reduce CO2 emissions anyway, through consumer choice and technology. This isn't about CO2, it's about global government vs national government.

And that's swiftly replacing the old "left vs right" as the axis of political division. It's all about "globalist vs populist" now, with a still-rising tide of anti-globalist sentiment. Anti-globablist moves like Brexit and Trump are just the beginning of a long swing of the pendulum away form the globalist extreme we had reached.

Re:Does this matter?

[ranton]

Fuck globalism. This is just another reclamation of American sovereignty.

You can spout off about globalist vs nationalist policies all you want, but even the hermit nation of North Korea understood this issue was important enough to show solidarity with the rest of the world on. When Kim Jong-un can work with other nations better than your President, that is a problem.

Re:Does this matter?

[Obfuscant]

The United States is now the only country on the planet who is not part of this agreement because it doesn't find the problem important enough.

Some people keep saying that this agreement doesn't cost anything because it doesn't require anything, but then complain because we are no longer a signatory to an agreement that doesn't require anything and can thus not accomplish anything.

And you are quick to assign motives that weren't actually expressed. "Didn't find the problem important enough" is your opinion. It could also be that "this agreement does nothing to accomplish the alleged goal but will cost money complying with, even if it is just 'good will' compliance." It takes an adult to look at an agreement critically and avoid the emotionalism and politics behind it, and decide that the result of agreeing isn't worth the costs. You use "warm fuzzy feelings" to get children to do things you want them to, but once they grow up you expect them to be more discerning.

This treaty is "warm fuzzy feelings" with nothing behind it. Everyone seems to admit that, even those who argue we should stay in it. The result of agreeing" is not "clean air for all and falling global temperatures", the "result of agreeing" is purely political and emotional baggage. The "result of agreeing" is handing a bludgeon to third world countries to use to browbeat the US when the US doesn't give them money to help them meet their goals. It won't be missing a required payment, it will be the court of world opinion (kinda like today) where the opinion that "the US should be paying other countries because yada yada and they agreed to it in Paris" will become the endless refrain.

It now becomes harder to get countries to work with us on just about anything if we aren't even willing to be part of a goodwill gesture that had no real consequences to us if we stayed in it.

Agreements have to have some benefits to all the parties involved. If other countries don't feel like working with the US when it will benefit them, that's called "cutting off one's nose to spite one's face". It is always their choice to do that. And if an agreement brings them no benefit, I would never expect them to agree to it. But the US is expected to do so because "warm fuzzy feelings".

Or perhaps it is a lesson to other leaders of state that assumed that the US President had unilateral power to commit the US to treaties, despite the US Constitution being available to all online for their review of the actual requirements. It is lunacy to believe that any non-binding agreement with one political winner will survive a sea change in the political landscape, whether it is Angela Merkel believing it or 'ranton'. And it would be just as lunatic for Trump to believe that any non-binding promises that Angela Merkel makes on behalf of Germany would survive her replacement, especially if she is replaced by a political opposite.

Re:Does this matter?

[ctilsie242]

I agree with this. The invisible hand, which is popular with the current mindset in the Executive/Judicial/Legislative branches, is definitely giving a middle finger to fossil fuels and nuclear:

1: Solar, the cat is out of the bag. It is becoming more economical to have, rather than not. Especially with Tesla's roof and TeslaWall offerings.
2: Even with the EPA hamstrung, people don't like lignite coal plants, and will protest them.
3: The era of the SUV is behind us here in the US. Yes, you see the occasional Tahoe, but people are going for Lexus RX models or other CUVs. People know that a gas crunch can come at any time. Priuses are still selling like hotcakes. Even in the rural, banjo country areas, because there is so much distance to travel, higher fuel economy cars are desired.
4: Electric cars are advancing. Even the hayseeds would love a 1 ton pickup that has max torque at 0 RPMs, and the ability to have an inverter for 5-10k watts for a welder or other power tools for the secluded parts of a farm/ranch, and be recharged from a plug. Upkeep needs for an electric vehicle are minimal. No real oil changes needed, for example.
5: Nuclear is all but dead. It would have been viable, but with contractors and sub-contractors who can't even ground a showerhead, the attitude of "lets cut corners, get our golden parachutes, and let others deal with it" killed the technology cold.

Re:Does this matter?

[Trailer Trash]

We've been cutting CO2, anyway, since we're getting more electricity from natural gas.

Re:Does this matter?

[ranton]

If your argument is Trump is the only leader wise enough to see that the agreement's problems are worse than its benefits, then there is no reason to discourse with you. If this was a case of only 60% of world leaders being part of the agreement then you would have at least some argument. But there is no sanity in a man who thinks Trump's opinions about this agreement are far more insightful than every other executive leader in the world.

Re:Does this matter?

[mspohr]

We are on track to cut CO2 due to the availability of cheap solar and wind power.
What Trump has done will just push the US towards irrelevancy. China and Europe are taking over leadership of the world. The US is declining in power and influence. Even Russia will benefit.

Re: Does this matter?

[liquid_schwartz]

I don't think that market economics are enough to stop global warming. It requires a political component...

I think it requires a technical component. Man's greatest achievements have been enabled by science and technology, not politics.

Re:Does this matter?

[swb]

When you're willing to start a nuclear war, you'll agree to pretty much any hair-brained scheme.

Re:Does this matter?

[MachineShedFred]

Now we just need to step on the accelerator. Let's change out the majorities in Congress, and pass some legislation that prices in the damage into dirty generation. End all the subsidies, and let each technology stand on their own merits - coal and gas have to pay for their waste spewing up the stacks; wind and solar have to bear the full costs without tax or generation subsidy.

I have a feeling that solar and wind won't slow down.

Re:Does this matter?

[Misagon]

Which society are you talking about again?
Maybe there isn't consensus in your little town, but in the global society, there is. The world is bigger than "America" you know.

Re:Does this matter?

[HeckRuler]

We have a word for "anti-globalist", they're called "nationalist". They typically lead people to war. Do you think jack-boots are fashionable?

And it's REALLY hard for anyone in the US to bitch about "reclamation of American sovereignty" after we've forcefully shoved our IP laws down so many people's throats. And as the cable-leaks have shown, tried to force European markets to accept and buy our GMO products. Which, hey, could be good things. But it certainly doesn't respect "sovereignty".

And that's swiftly replacing the old "left vs right"

I wish. You never escape paste politics. There will still be foxnews and Rush and Glenn Beck. And they'll still throw about the term "leftists", which makes for a handy shibboleth for crazy people.

Oh, right. And you can't really call Trump a "populist" movement when he didn't get the popular vote. I get where you're coming from, he's got a lot in common with past populist leaders, but that's a hard technicality.

Re:Does this matter?

[Straif]

The Paris accords are 100% voluntary with no enforcement procedure. Honestly, what's their point? They do call for hundreds of millions of dollars in transfers to developing countries but with no penalties if those payments aren't made. It is simple PR fodder for politicians.

Trumps cancelation of US involvement will have less than zero impact on climate change as the US is already one of the world leaders in CO2 reduction just through simple normal advancements in business practices and technology.

If you truly need a piece of paper to make you feel safe then feel free to go print up a copy of the accords and place it under your pillow at night; it will have about the same affect as all those other politicians signing it.

Re:Does this matter?

[Pentium100]

IMO, any environmental agreements are incompatible with free trade, unless both countries have the same laws. Otherwise you just hurt your own businesses.

Let's say you open a factory in your country - the laws say that you cannot dump toxic waste into a nearby river, so you have to pay for proper disposal, the cost of that is passed to the consumer by way of increased price. That's OK. What's not OK, is that I can then open a similar factory in China (or wherever), dump the toxic waste into a river (either because of the lax laws or because I knew who to bribe), then making the product is cheaper for me and I can sell it cheaper than you (and still make money).

So, unless import tariffs are placed on products from countries with less strict environmental laws, all it does is shift the pollution (and jobs) to the less strict country. That may be fine in case of dumping toxic waste into a river (after all, it only matters that the rivers in my country are clean, if other countries are fine with rivers full of toxic waste then I guess it's OK), but if I understand correctly, CO2 affects everyone regardless of where it was produced.

Re:Does this matter?

[slack_justyb]

Or perhaps it is a lesson to other leaders of state that assumed that the US President had unilateral power to commit the US to treaties

I just want to add that this is not a treaty. Treaties require 2/3rd Senate approval. This was sought under a sole-executive agreement by the US and is why the agreement is ultimately non-binding, additionally, it is also why it is called an agreement, since agreements do not require anything from Congress except that the President give notice that the US has entered one within 20-days.

Side notes for anyone interested. There's also Congressional-Executive agreements (CEAs) which is basically the same as a sole-executive agreement but Congress also codifies the agreement into law, that's what NAFTA is just in case anyone was wondering. Also, stating that the Paris Accords is non-binding isn't 100% true. There are parts that are binding which use the power of the UNFCCC (an actual treaty we signed onto in 1992) to bind those who signed on. One of those agreements is that everyone has to wait three years before they can actually exit the agreement. Then it takes a little under a year to actually be out. If you are wondering, yes, that puts us squarely with full exit happening right about the time the 2020 US election gets into the heat of things. So while Trump has stated he'll be leaving, he can't actually file to leave until 2019.

Re:Does this matter?

[TemporalBeing]

It is impossible to know the foreign relations implications of this long term, except to know it can't be good. All but two nations signed this agreement, with one rejecting it because it didn't go far enough (Nicaragua) and one not even being invited to the table because of its government's legitimacy problems (Syria). The United States is now the only country on the planet who is not part of this agreement because it doesn't find the problem important enough.

Well, look at it this way - if your country is struggling for money and the government official siphon off funds from anything into their own pockets, why not sign something to give yourself more money? And yes, even China, India, and Russia are extremely corrupt in those terms too - and more likely to receive money than pay it out. Only Europe is really dumb enough to decide to join something that will be net-negative for them, ignoring corruption, etc - but that's part of being a Socialist system - it's expected so you can't fault them there they do it to themselves enough with the EU.

Any country like the US would be a fool to sign the agreement which basically requires them to pay those corrupt officials to do something that won't get done due to corruption. The idea that taking money from rich countries to pay corrupt, poor countries to do something never works. it's only an economic theorist that ignores the realities of corruption that would advocate it - IOW, the liberal left and the Obama administration.

So yes, renegotiate it so that it actually does something and makes real sense for countries to be part of, or don't join at all. And that's exactly what the Trump is doing.

Re:Does this matter?

[c6gunner]

You can spout off about globalist vs nationalist policies all you want, but even the hermit nation of North Korea understood this issue was important enough to show solidarity with the rest of the world on. When Kim Jong-un can work with other nations better than your President, that is a problem.

North Korea signed an agreement which doesn't require them to do anything? Oh wow! We better jump on board then!

Re: Does this matter?

[Nemyst]

You can actually even make an argument that a CO2 tax (or similar measure) is a way of allowing market economics to correctly optimize for it. By putting a direct cost on it that must be shouldered by the corporation, CO2 suddenly just becomes an expense like any other. Some corporations may still decide to just pay the tax and keep emitting, but then at least they'd be directly funding research and development to try to alleviate that, and the cost will be a deterrent to many.

Re:Does this matter?

[TemporalBeing]

Fuck globalism. This is just another reclamation of American sovereignty.

You can spout off about globalist vs nationalist policies all you want, but even the hermit nation of North Korea understood this issue was important enough to show solidarity with the rest of the world on. When Kim Jong-un can work with other nations better than your President, that is a problem.

Has nothing to do with that. Kim Jong-un signed it because North Korea would *receive* money, not pay it out. He'd be a fool to turn down free money.

Honestly, whether a nation signs or not has very little to do with recognition of the issue as being important and more to do with where money is going. IIRC, if the US had joined it then like with the UN the US would have been paying out more money than any other country - which makes zero sense for the benefit. UN at least had some controls that gave the US significant power in its operations (Security Council, etc). The Paris Accord does not do that - money comes from rich countries and goes to the corrupt, poor countries and dictators like Kim Jong-un - many of whom will probably turn around and use it for weapons instead of its real purpose, or at least siphon off a lot of it via bribes and do that even if they show a facade of implementing what the money was for - it'll cost a lot more as a result too.

No, this isn't about solidarity. It's about money.

Re:Does this matter?

[Nikkos]

This just in, belligerent nations also understand the value of global virtue-signalling.

China and India are the ONLY ones that matter in terms of global emissions. They still have 2 billion people between them that are dirt-poor and have yet to take part in their national economy in any meaningful way. Right now, with only 1/4 of their populations economically active, they account for over 37% of TOTAL GLOBAL EMISSIONS.

The US, with 350m people and 99% economic engagement accounts for 16% and decreasing. China and India will continue growing, and their overall percentage will increase dramatically in just 5 years.

Per-capita use isn't an argument either, sure the US has higher per-capita use, but if you look at the actual number of economically engaged people in India and China, their per-capita use is actually higher than the US, it's just averaged out across the other 2 billion people that aren't responsible for anything more than cookfire smoke - no cars, no consumer goods, no roads, no airplane travel, because they can't afford any of those luxuries.

The US was committed to 25%+ reduction in just 7 years. China and India's pledges were next to nothing - no percentages of reductions, just vague promises to spend more on renewables and the (non-binding) promise to do 'something' by 2030. That's a pretty one-sided agreement, and the 25%+ reduction in the US would do absolutely nothing in the long-term for the world, but would hurt the US economy.

Re:Does this matter?

[c6gunner]

If your argument is Trump is the only leader wise enough to see that the agreement's problems are worse than its benefits ...

Nah, it's safe to say that most of them see it. The question isn't who sees it; the question is which ones are willing to ignore public perceptions and do what they believes is right. Most politicians are quite happy to sign an agreement which does nothing, but makes the masses feel warm and fuzzy.

Re:Does this matter?

[Ogive17]

Once again Conservatives sell out long term stability for short term profits. What the fuck does Trump care, he'll be dead in 15-20 years (of natural causes).

Meanwhile, those of us who still hope to be kicking in 50 years would like something to look forward to.

Now I'm not saying the planet will be inhabitable from a climate perspective, I'm saying the greed of the right is going to turn this country into a shithole for most citizens in a few decades.

Re:Does this matter?

[lgw]

How is continuing to reduce CO2 emissions, but not paying out billions to other nations bad for the US in the long term, exactly?

Re:Does this matter?

[fatwilbur]

I think Trump is the only leader among them that doesn't care about the politics. Committing large amounts of resources and and supporting every effort attached to climate change is modern orthodoxy and dare not be questioned, like gender identity.

Look at the focus and scorn given the two other non-signatories within this thread (and I'm guessing most don't know the reasons behind it). Since the treaty doesn't actually require a signatory to do anything, how many do you think signed just to avoid bad press? Or, as the companies listed in the summary, to get some good press?

Re:Does this matter?

[Obfuscant]

If your argument is Trump is the only leader wise enough to see that the agreement's problems are worse than its benefits,

Then I would have said that. If the only way you can argue with me is to create straw men to knock down, then there is no reason to discourse with you.

If this was a case of only 60% of world leaders being part of the agreement then you would have at least some argument.

Trump was not elected to represent 60% or 40% of the world's countries, he was elected to represent the US in foreign affairs, which this is. I don't care whether 40% of the world's leaders or 60% of the world's leader think an agreement is valuable to their countries, I worry about the US.

But there is no sanity in a man who thinks Trump's opinions about this agreement are far more insightful than every other executive leader in the world.

Does that straw man kiss you goodnight when you go to bed?

Re:Does this matter?

[Obfuscant]

I just want to add that this is not a treaty. Treaties require 2/3rd Senate approval. This was sought under a sole-executive agreement by the US

What one president can enact through executive order the next one can rescind. That's how those things work.

If Obama had wanted us to be unable to withdraw when opposing politics won the next election, he should have gotten it through the Senate as a treaty. He didn't even try.

One of those agreements is that everyone has to wait three years before they can actually exit the agreement.

Exactly what would we be required to do over the next three years based on this agreement that we would not be doing anyway, if there are no requirements and no costs associated with it?

So while Trump has stated he'll be leaving, he can't actually file to leave until 2019.

So we'll just not do any of the things we weren't required to do anyway, and the difference will be ... what? And if we stay in the agreement and there is nothing we are required to do, then how does it force us to do anything we didn't want to?

This is like saying that you cannot cancel your cable TV contract for three years, but you can stop paying the monthly fees and can keep the equipment. Who cares if you can't cancel then?

Re:Does this matter?

[Obfuscant]

China and Europe are taking over leadership of the world.

If the US wants to be a world leader, then the US has to do what Germany and China and the UN tells them to.

Re:Does this matter?

[Ogive17]

We're going to have a brain drain if we continue living in the past, which is what this administration seems to want. It's not about innovation and leadership, it's about taking our ball and going home.. and then the rich kid down the block taking your ball and locking it away in his private gymnasium.

Income inequality is getting worse, that is not a good sign for a developed economy. I have yet to see any concrete plans to create well paying jobs. $15/hr manufacturing jobs aren't going to strengthen the middle class.

Re:Does this matter?

[HeckRuler]

Really dude? You're literally trying to call bullshit on that and ALSO squawking about "patriotism" in the same breath? Holy shit. If you wanted to try and deny that it's they're both nationalistic movements, then you wouldn't beat that drum.

Care to give a nice definition of who these "Common people" are? I think that'd be fun.

Re:Does this matter?

[HornWumpus]

Joe Rogan 2020!

Re:Does this matter?

[HeckRuler]

Did you mean to reply to me and not lgw? Because I didn't mention patriotism at all.

But you're right, the two are really one and the same for all intent. Technically any group of people can be a nation, but we're using it here to mean the group of people in a country. Same thing. The issue is with extremists. In all things, balance. Now, you see what you did there is say that "any patriot thinks for his country first". And that's the sort of black and white thinking like "you're either with us or against us" that turns you into an extremist. The moment you say that "ANY patriot does X..." is when you run afoul of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

In reality, there's a sliding scale of how patriotic you are. Too much and you... well... invade Poland and blame immigrants for everything and throw stones at visiting foreigners. Too little and you're an anarchist rioting and trying to a revolution. Hey, some places deserve a revolution. But both ends of the spectrum are fucking NUTS. Especially when we've got plenty of tools to change the nation from within.

  And of course I could say that being part of the Paris Accord, trying to control pollution, and (in this case) going along with the direction of the rest of the world IS putting America first. Because it's what's best for America. God-damned straight I'm a patriot. For all our flaws, of which there are many and we'd be deluded fools to ignore, we have a good balance of freedom and keeping the powerful at bay. It lets the little guy rise up and that give hope to all. Also yay democracy and all that. This partisian bullshit is tearing us apart though, and man... fucking healthcare costs.

Re: Does this matter?

[slack_justyb]

Guy or gal, I don't give a shit about the actual agreement. It's political theater. Trump had to make a big shit show about "pulling out" and the other countries are making a big shit show out of how insanely bombastic his attitude is to pretty much everything. Both sides got exactly what they were expecting would happen.

But it's not a treaty. Obama knew that Trump would pull out. The full exit happens in 2020 and the bet that side A is making is that they'll be able to use the circle jerk reaction to full exit as a topic down the road. Side B, I would hope, isâ going to spend the time to actually talk about a better deal or just sweep the whole thing under a rug, Trump's a hard read with him literally being everywhere.

So if you're looking for a snip to quote in future replies, try this, all of this is just countries playing politics, each side has their bigger goal to play at, none of the actual agreement means anything beyond rainbow points and fuzzies.

Someone pointing out the technical details does not always mean they're actually interested in politics.

Re:Does this matter?

[physicsphairy]

I'm not stepping out to defend Trump's decision, but you are falsely assuming that countries under this agreement are all signing up for the same deal. The accords call for transferring $100 billion per year from developed countries to developing countries. Pretty easy to imagine if that wasn't the case you would have 60% (or less) instead of unanimity. In addition, the present structure of a country's economy, pre-existing measures to mitigate carbon emissions, and strategic aims all could contribute to a different perceived cost for that country. There's certain countries that might well back it and push their allies to do the same *because* they see it as putting America at a relative disadvantage. It may be that there are compelling reasons to adopt it, but personally I would leave "everyone else is doing it" off of the list.

Re:Does this matter?

[ranton]

If you refuse to talk to people unless they already agree with you, then you are not going to be effective at convincing anyone of anything.

I have done no such thing, and have repeatedly replied to short concise comments with ones of my own. But Obfuscant's long comment basically boiled down to "every developed country was getting the shaft and only Trump realized it." Trump has shown to be thoroughly incompetent through his own actions when picking cabinet members, drafting trivially overturned executive orders, and helping push legislation which is dead on arrive even in a Republican controlled Senate (among plenty of other examples), so any argument that boils down to Trump being more insightful that the rest of the world combined is too ludicrous to reply to in detail.

The fact of the matter is the Paris Climate deal is the best our species is capable of at this time. No one can rationally believe they are capable of better. You either take what you can get if you think climate change is important to fight, or you trash it if you think it isn't. Wanting to get a better deal for America while still leading world efforts to fight climate change is not an option.

Re:Does this matter?

[ranton]

OTOH, your argument seems to be based only on Trump.

My reply to his specific comments are based only on Trump, but not all opinions on the matter. The only way the US leaving the Paris Climate Agreement can be considered a good idea is if you think Trump has a unique ability to negotiate a deal better than what the entire world was able to over 10 years. It is too ludicrous to bother refuting in detail.

Re:Does this matter?

[ranton]

Naturally you would also think then any leader who does agree to this accord must be sane... so let's talk about North Korea.

More sane than the US President ... quite possibly.

Re:Does this matter?

[ranton]

That was NOT the argument. He presented several reason why the agreement makes no sense

But this climate agreement is so complicated you couldn't accurately asses any shortcomings in a few hundred words. The burden of proving you have ideas which are better than the collective negotiations of hundreds of nations over a decade is a level of hubris too great to measure. The very fact it was signed by nearly every nation in the world is enough to know it was an intensely successful treaty. Even if it only gets 1% of what the US wants, its a great step towards getting the rest. Every 401k contribution I make gets me less than 0.1% towards my retirement goal, but its still worth it.

Re:Does this matter?

[ranton]

Fucking pathetic that your little "na na na I can't hear you" foot stopping tantrum got voted up.

You're a piece of shit

Someone claiming their ideas are better than the collective ideas and negotiations of hundreds of nations over a decade is just fine, but my giving them the benefit of the doubt makes me a piece of shit? Your ignorance is astounding.

Re: Does this matter?

[mspohr]

No, that's what followers do.

Re:Does this matter?

[Anonymous Coward]

The Paris accords are 100% voluntary with no enforcement procedure. Honestly, what's their point? They do call for hundreds of millions of dollars in transfers to developing countries but with no penalties if those payments aren't made. It is simple PR fodder for politicians.

This is the most asinine of all possible responses.

Either the accords were unfairly shackling American businesses and taxpayers because they were so horrible and onerous (as Trump asserted) or they're toothless and ridiculous (as you assert). If they're toothless, there's no point in withdrawing in a huff - we could have just not fulfilled our responsibilities and enjoyed the lack of repercussions.

Trump exited the Paris climate accord for one reason and one reason alone: he was pissy. He doesn't believe that anthropogenic climate change is real, but he does know that Merkel and Macron are mocking him, and that this is going to make them mad. It's ridiculous and pathetic.

Re:Does this matter?

[lgw]

If you can't distinguish between nationalism, patriotism, and populism, I mourn for the state of US education. They are 3 very different things.

Re:Does this matter?

[lgw]

Nothing you said addressed the question I asked. WTF does income inequality have to do with climate change? Or foreign aid?

Re: Does this matter?

[MatiasKiviniemi]

Market economy will deliver you the very best Rihanna-branded head masks at a competitive price when the sandstorms become prevalent

Re: Does this matter?

[Altrag]

And I suppose you plan to what.. pay God off to save the East coast when the sea levels rise high enough to drown Florida and half of New York?

Like it or not, America is on this planet. Looking out for the planet is looking out for yourself. But of course America isn't interested in protecting its citizens. Its interested in protecting its profits. Sometimes, maybe even often, those two goals align, but not always and definitely not in this case. Well, assuming you're concerned about future American citizens at least. If all you care about is yourself and to hell with your own grandchildren then I guess you may as well enjoy the Earth while it lasts.

Re:Does this matter?

[SirJorgelOfBorgel]

What a load of self-serving nonsense.

Even if those two countries are worse, the US is still worse (per capita) than virtually any other nation. Just because you aren't the absolute worst is hardly a justification for doing nothing.

China is working hard and beating the terms of any agreements they made.

A very large part of India is so poor they don't have access to electricity, gas, or clean water. Yes, these people are responsible for a lot of the bad gasses, because they literally cook on dung set on fire. But what do you expect these people to do? Not eat? They have no other option, and we cannot expect them to solve this issue, and you cannot expect India as a country to eradicate poverty in a 5 year time-span. And even including that, India isn't actually doing that bad on improving things.

But it does mean the rest of us, especially those with means (like us westerners), will have to work extra hard to make we're going to be alright.

As for the US' 25% reduction, how can you say it does nothing for the world? Even if you are right and the US is only 16%, that's still a 4% global decrease. If other countries do this as well, it is a lot more. But you're just thinking about yourself: if everybody does it but not us, then the difference is minor. What if everybody thought this way? Do you not think it costs other countries a lot of money to get there? Converting to clean energy and less polluting manufacturing isn't suddenly free outside the US borders.

If anything, Nicaragua is right and the Paris accords don't even go far enough. Even if it were followed, we're still set to reach near-catastrophic temperature increase...

Meh, maybe I'm just European...

Re:Does this matter?

[AutodidactLabrat]

Excellent point
Like it or no, Trump lacks what Hillary DOES have....The Consent of the Governed,
From which, all just power flows

Re:Does this matter?

[AutodidactLabrat]

Yeah, modern orthodoxy...supported by 99.81% of all peer reviewed formal journal of Climatology articles.

Re:Does this matter?

[dunkelfalke]

That has nothing to do with the US education, most nationalists like populist rhetorics very much and consider themselves patriots.

Re:Does this matter?

[greatpatton]

Yeap it's true nowhere! The first economy in the world China is a communist country...

Re:Does this matter?

[AmiMoJo]

The Paris accords are 100% voluntary with no enforcement procedure. Honestly, what's their point?

China, the world's biggest emitter, has exceeded the goals it agreed to. India has too. Much of Europe has or is at least trying hard to.

Renewables are where the jobs and money are. The agreement really helps by giving governments political capital to reduce subsidies for other forms of energy and redirect them. It also helped develop the huge market for renewable technologies, which the US is now turning away from.

Re:Does this matter?

[del_diablo]

This isn't about Trump being smart or stupid, this is about Trump reading the ink on the wall, of symbol politic, and just saying "we are paying for something we don't get results for" and add on a few silly PR spins on top of that.
And unlike a lot of other people, he isn't a established politician. He seem to understand that he shouldn't wait for Election Number Two to start being willful. And unlike most of them, if he fails, he gets to go back being Donald Trump in his Trump Tower.
And USA is in a position where they would fund India's and Chinas expansion of pollution. But since he isn't a career politician, he doesn't have loyalty to the platform. So he can say no.

And I would argue he has a good understanding of due process: If its not properly ratified, it can always be struck down. This is a case where Obama signed something, but didn't dry the ink.
Which is what allows Trump to do as he pleases.
And what is so interesting about this, is to see fucked the global media coverage of the case is.

Re:Does this matter?

[lyovushka]

So what is the point of withdrawing from a voluntary agreement other than scoring political points? Paris agreement is toothless, but it sets a precedent and has a symbolic value. It is like having elections where the autocratic leader wins with huge majority. It isn't democracy, but it is better than a monarchy.

Re:Does this matter?

[aquacrayfish]

Trump was not elected to represent 60% or 40% of the world's countries, he was elected to represent the US in foreign affairs, which this is. I don't care whether 40% of the world's leaders or 60% of the world's leader think an agreement is valuable to their countries, I worry about the US.

Great, so how about the rest of the world seeing this as an action that we're not willing to cooperate with the rest of the world on a global initiative. It's like any other social dynamic, in a sense. Once people see you not participating in a group, you're going to be left out of future engagements.

Now, if you think strictly through our country's general ability to innovate will allow us to forge ahead and still be a major player in renewable energies and other changing tech then, fine, people like Musk and others we don't know about now may help us get there. We must still consider for a moment that other leaders are already using coded language that they may no longer see the U.S. as leader of the world and a reliable ally (Merkel, Macron, etc.). Whatever it is, I don't see it as a beginning of a good trend for us.

Re:Does this matter?

[hey!]

Well, why not sign on? The Paris Accord requires nations to set their own non-binding goals and mechanisms for CO2 reduction. And even without the accord, US carbon emissions have been dropping, thanks to fracking.

There's really only one consequence to exiting the Accord, which is a loss of transparency. The US will not participate in being compared to other countries in its CO2 emissions. Which won't stop people from doing exactly that, but the federal government will not have a hand in the data they use.

Re:Does this matter?

[hey!]

The main point is that if you are a signatory, you agree to a process that will result in your CO2 emissions being measured and thoroughly characterized.

Information if power; or if not power at least leverage. Membership in the accord would open us up to embarrassing comparisons to other industrialized nations. Not that those comparisons won't happen anyway, but under the accord they'd be easier to track back to policies like favoring a return to coal over natural gas, and with the administration's own data, to boot.

Re: Does this matter?

[swillden]

I don't think that market economics are enough to stop global warming. It requires a political component...

I think it requires a technical component. Man's greatest achievements have been enabled by science and technology, not politics.

Obviously. But what motivates the development and deployment of the technology? If you rely only on the market to do that, then green technology will only win when it's cheaper than fossil fuel technology... which it will certainly do, eventually, if for no other reason that the stocks of easily-accessible fossil fuels will be depleted. But there's absolutely no guarantee that will happen fast enough to avoid severe impacts on humanity from climate change. Adding a carbon tax, or similar, serves to increase the market incentives for creating greener technology and building out greener infrastructure. There are still no guarantees that we'll avoid severe impacts, of course, but it increases the odds.

Re:Does this matter?

[deathguppie]

Meanwhile China and the EU will make sure that there are incentives in place to promote renewable energy and emerging technologies in renewable energy. While the US gets to add a couple hundred low paying coal worker jobs the EU and China will be adding thousands higher wage jobs in the form of technology that the US is leaving behind. Technology that will be used through out the world as it gets cheaper and easier to maintain than any other existing method of power production and it will happen. We'll just be buying it from the Chinese like any other third world country.

Re:Does this matter?

[drinkypoo]

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?

It's not beyond the powers of the presidency to make coal economically viable by throwing subsidies at it, and removing alt power subsidies, even placing tariffs on it. We are on track to significantly reduce our automobile CO2 emissions no matter what Trump does, and transportation is a significant section of CO2 emissions, but it's only a portion.

Re:Does this matter?

[penandpaper]

There is a difference between the science of climate and the politics to solutions. The agreement is politics. You can agree with the science and disagree with the political solutions.

Re:Does this matter?

[penandpaper]

Is there any nation with a policy that is purely motivated by altruism? I am willing to bet that NK signing on had little to no risks compared to the rewards.

Re:Does this matter?

[Archangel Michael]

It is much easier, when you put the GDP/per capita ratios out there. The US has one of the Highest GDP/Per Capita ratios in the world. And if you add in CO2 to the equation, we actually use less per CO2/GDP/PerCapita. But then again, that kind of equation doesn't fit the globalist agenda of making everyone in America as poor as the poorest in North Korea. Because that is the equality they are looking for.

Re:Does this matter?

[Archangel Michael]

agreement critically and avoid the emotionalism

Pay closer attention, this is a "morality" play. They are equating Global Warming with some sort of Moral Agreement to institute worldwide socialism with a global elite governance that divides up the loot (taxes) and spread them to "under privileged" countries, like China and India.

Never mind this was a Treaty ("You can't leave!!!") that was never ratified by the Senate, because Obama was playing semantics with wording ("Accord"). Either it is a Treaty (power of law) or it is an "Accord" (No power to accomplish anything). And if it is an Accord, with no teeth behind it, then what harm is there not pretending it is something it is not (treaty)???

Re:Does this matter?

[Nikkos]

Do the math. The promises look good on paper, but don't match reality.

China is already at twice the emissions per GDP than they were in 2005. (2005 = ~400, 2016 = ~960 metric tons) Assuming their average GDP growth is the same as it has been for the last ten years, the promise to peak by 2027-2030 and get to 65% of what they were in 2005 is nonsensical. They would have to be at peak TODAY, and implement drastic actions to cut their current emissions/gdp by 75% within the next 12 years.

If the best the US can do is offer a 27% cut in overall emissions, there's no fucking way China can cut theirs by 75%. The whole agreement is virtue-signalling theater.

Re:Does this matter?

[Archangel Michael]

Globally? You queried the 2 billion people in China and India on Global Warming? I'll lay dollars to donuts that Most of the world couldn't give a rats ass about "Global Warming" because they are more concerned with "hunger", clean water and abject poverty to give a shit about anything more than two days out.

Global Warming is a first world concern, and even there, most of the people are blindly following what their leaders are saying. America hasn't succumbed yet to the idea that some Elitist in some far away city knows whats best for me.

Yes, the world is much bigger than the US. It is bigger than the 1st world countries in fact. Most of the world is suffering from dictatorships and elitists, and poverty.

Re:Does this matter?

[s.petry]

Well, why not sign on? The Paris Accord requires nations to set their own non-binding goals and mechanisms for CO2 reduction. And even without the accord, US carbon emissions have been dropping, thanks to fracking.

There's really only one consequence to exiting the Accord, which is a loss of transparency. The US will not participate in being compared to other countries in its CO2 emissions. Which won't stop people from doing exactly that, but the federal government will not have a hand in the data they use.

Horse shit! The consequence of the US signing is that we are _immediately_ forced to pay taxes into two funds which pays money to other countries as a "tax" for producing energy. Other countries had no such obligations, and had custom rules which gave them economic benefit at the expense of the US. Worse, those receiving the funds are sovereign nations and there is no assurance that they actually use the funds for Green Energy production.

In fact, when President Obama signed the accord Democrats all claimed "it's harmless because it's toothless" *wink wink*, which was true for everyone but the US. Now all of a sudden, it's world shattering that this toothless non-binding agreement gets pulled out of. Which is it Leftists?

This was yet another poor tax, where America's least wealthy are required to pay taxes to support a wealth redistribution program helping foreign nations instead of ourselves.

Re: Does this matter?

[Archangel Michael]

So, what you're saying is that the Paris Accords was a Treaty, and never properly ratified by the Senate, and we should just ... ignore the Constitution because it is a silly document that secures our country and rights. And who needs silly things like rights and laws when there is GLOBAL WARMING!!

Re:Does this matter?

[jeff4747]

Because we'd like to keep Miami above the ocean.

That money to help other nations reduce emissions is MUCH less money than we'll be paying in sea walls, handling floods and cleanup from increased storms.

Re:Does this matter?

[DarkOx]

Bullshit, most of the rest of world signed on because it was good for them. Many of the signatories promised to do virtually nothing.

If I can get you to promise to fight with one hand tied behind your back while I am allowed to do whatever I want, why the hell would I NOT agree to that!

It was worse than that even the green development funds, would have been American tax payers pay to give money to places like the DPRK to do 'something' while the 90% of the dollars they take are used to line the pockets of the politically well connected.

Seriously FUCK THAT

Re:Does this matter?

[budgenator]

When Kim Jong-un can work with other nations better than your President, that is a problem.

Yes it is a problem, and trust me it has been noted. When Germany leads you down the path to WW III, The US will be much less inclined to rebuild your sorry asses as we were last time.

Re: Does this matter?

[TopherC]

I don't understand the specific consolidation of power that you're referring to. As another poster mentioned, some government-imposed mechanism like a CO2 tax is an effort to correct for a market failure. Correcting this would decentralize power. How many wind, solar, fusion etc companies are there? How many oil and coal companies? The fossil fuel companies are few, large, and politically powerful. What we have today *is* consolidation of power.

I'm just saying that a free, unregulated market does not self-optimize in many industries, and the energy industry is one of those for multiple reasons. Yes political organizations have problems, but as citizens we do whatever we can to help. You can't say "government has done many stupid things therefore I'm anti-government in every way." Let's say that some pothole damaged your car. You determine that the pothole was supposed to be fixed but the winning contractor had abused the system and never planned on completing the work. Government is to blame ultimately, so to solve that we should remove all government funding for roads. Downsize that evil government! That's allowing yourself to be ignorant of the bigger picture. Overly-simplistic thinking is a trap that many extremists fall victim to.

Transportation is another industry that cannot be fully privatized without any regulations. There are parallels.

Re:Does this matter?

[budgenator]

China is not only taking over leadership of the world, they are demanding you peasants pay tribute by hamstringing your economies with CO2 reductions while they are completely unrestrained!

Re:Does this matter?

[mspohr]

China is taking over leadership of the world (along with the EU minus GB). A large reason is the abdication by the US. Trump is damaging the US by withdrawing from global trade and climate agreements. These agreements are voluntary and negotiated to provide benefits and costs to each side. The US got a good deal in the Paris climate agreement where the demands on the US were very weak. China has much stricter requirements than the US under the agreement.
China will also benefit from the $4 trillion worldwide market for renewable energy products whereas we will still be mining coal and selling it to a rapidly dwindling market.

Re: Does this matter?

[TopherC]

This is an interesting point. Some journalists report that the Accord is clearly a treaty, others say that it's an agreement that does not require congressional approval. This sounds like one of those issues that requires more self-education than I've done. I doubt we could get 2/3 majority in the Senate today, and I doubt we could have gotten it a year ago either. This is a deeply sad fact more than any one president or action. Today Trump has backed out, saying that we're the laughing stock of the world for having signed on in the first place. Now we are joining the proud ranks of the non-signatories: Holy See, Nicaragua, and Syria.

Re:Does this matter?

[wyHunter]

Actually we're doing better than a lot of Europe at the moment. Presently we're doing better than Germany https://www.electricitymap.org...

Re:Does this matter?

[wyHunter]

No. He wanted money from the 'climate fund' he doesn't give a rats.

Re:Does this matter?

[wyHunter]

Presumably this is sarcasm.

Re:Does this matter?

[Straif]

There was a proposed bill to the US and other developed countries but there were no penalties so even if they refused to pay nothing would really happen. As I said, just PR fodder.

Re: Does this matter?

[Straif]

If you have no intentions on meeting the proposed requirements of the accord (mainly the billions in transfer payments to less developed countries) why bother continuing with the façade?

There are already too many laws/accords/agreements on the local, State/Province, Federal and International levels that have no real impact and exist solely so some politicians could look good; why bother adding another.

Re:Does this matter?

[lgw]

A very large part of India is so poor they don't have access to electricity, gas, or clean water. Yes, these people are responsible for a lot of the bad gasses, because they literally cook on dung set on fire. But what do you expect these people to do? Not eat? They have no other option, and we cannot expect them to solve this issue, and you cannot expect India as a country to eradicate poverty in a 5 year time-span. And even including that, India isn't actually doing that bad on improving things.

Pre-industrial people produce far less emissions than industrial. Are you really trying to claim otherwise? Burning random crap suck for particulate pollution, but we're talking about CO2. CO2 is directly related to total energy consumption. So, most of India and China are still consuming very little power indeed, and you can expect their CO2 emissions to skyrocket as that changes.

Meanwhile, the US uses more power than any other nation, and thus more CO2. We're already on the right track though - fracking has really helped eliminate coal use, and solar will come soon enough. Within a couple generations fossil fuels use will be down to mostly industrial needs, which have no easy fix (but that's a small % of today).

Not that has anything to do with the agreement we pulled out of - that was a foreign aid agreement, with nothing binding related to climate.

Re:Does this matter?

[lgw]

yes, yes, Trump is Literally Hitler - the news has told me so every day since the election. Whatever.

But the people who support him mostly just want jobs, and more abstract want the US government to act for their benefit - stop immigration, stop trade deals that hurt our working class, and so on. Same shit with Brexit supporters. Niether Trump nor Brexit supports have any interest in invading their neighbors, and it's dickish of you to imply otherwise.

Re:Does this matter?

[orgelspieler]

One of my co-workers is anti-globalist. But he has a list of industries we need to get back up and running before we go around cutting international ties and pissing off our allies and trade partners. It's scary shit. Did you know the US only makes 1.4% of the worlds aluminum? We're low on the list for uranium, vanadium, and tantalum. China makes ten times as much steel as we do. It would be foolhardy to become completely isolationist, especially before we have any way of making/mining enough raw materials to keep our country going.

Your dichotomy of "globalist vs populist" is interesting. Traditionally it would be "globalist vs nationalist" or "globalist vs isolationist." You can be populist and globalist at the same time. The thesaurus says the opposite of populist is elitist. But I'm not sure that's quite right, given the baggage both of these words have developed over the years. Some might argue that the opposite of populist is corporatist, but that's not even a word (at least not a word with an agreed-upon definition).

Re:Does this matter?

[lgw]

You're proposing a cost-benefit analysis that there's just no data to back up. Oh, sure, there's plenty of qualitative hand-waving, but quantitative science? Not even close (yet - young science matures eventually).

Also, if you think foreign aid sent to government leaders will be used for the intended purpose, or any purpose other than Swiss bank account filling, I have a bridge to sell you.

Re:Does this matter?

[lgw]

What you call "globalist vs populist" I call "free market vs protectionist mercantilism."

There are very few "free" and equitable trade agreements. That's not really what trade agreements are about. There's about carefully negotiating "you get an unfair advantage over here, but we get an unfair advantage over there". The US forces IP agreements down other nations throats, but is quite OK with our partners protecting their local agribusiness and manufacturing. Benefits our elite at the expense of our "common man".

Anyhow, it's more than trade agreements, it's issues like immigration and whether we need to consult the UN before bombing someone.

Re:Does this matter?

[luis_a_espinal]

The United States is now the only country on the planet who is not part of this agreement because it doesn't find the problem important enough.

Some people keep saying that this agreement doesn't cost anything because it doesn't require anything, but then complain because we are no longer a signatory to an agreement that doesn't require anything and can thus not accomplish anything.

And you are quick to assign motives that weren't actually expressed. "Didn't find the problem important enough" is your opinion. It could also be that "this agreement does nothing to accomplish the alleged goal but will cost money complying with, even if it is just 'good will' compliance." It takes an adult to look at an agreement critically and avoid the emotionalism and politics behind it, and decide that the result of agreeing isn't worth the costs. You use "warm fuzzy feelings" to get children to do things you want them to, but once they grow up you expect them to be more discerning.

This treaty is "warm fuzzy feelings" with nothing behind it. Everyone seems to admit that, even those who argue we should stay in it. The result of agreeing" is not "clean air for all and falling global temperatures", the "result of agreeing" is purely political and emotional baggage. The "result of agreeing" is handing a bludgeon to third world countries to use to browbeat the US when the US doesn't give them money to help them meet their goals. It won't be missing a required payment, it will be the court of world opinion (kinda like today) where the opinion that "the US should be paying other countries because yada yada and they agreed to it in Paris" will become the endless refrain.

It now becomes harder to get countries to work with us on just about anything if we aren't even willing to be part of a goodwill gesture that had no real consequences to us if we stayed in it.

Agreements have to have some benefits to all the parties involved. If other countries don't feel like working with the US when it will benefit them, that's called "cutting off one's nose to spite one's face". It is always their choice to do that. And if an agreement brings them no benefit, I would never expect them to agree to it. But the US is expected to do so because "warm fuzzy feelings".

Or perhaps it is a lesson to other leaders of state that assumed that the US President had unilateral power to commit the US to treaties, despite the US Constitution being available to all online for their review of the actual requirements. It is lunacy to believe that any non-binding agreement with one political winner will survive a sea change in the political landscape, whether it is Angela Merkel believing it or 'ranton'. And it would be just as lunatic for Trump to believe that any non-binding promises that Angela Merkel makes on behalf of Germany would survive her replacement, especially if she is replaced by a political opposite.

Walking away from the accord because it lacks teeth or whatever amounts to "shit ain't perfect so I will do no nothing!"

The agreement is a first step to achieve quorum, a consensus that something needs attention.

You can't fix what you can measure. He'll you have to agree everybody that they need to measure CO2 emissions, somehow.

Discrepancies aside, that's the vision that needs to be agreed upon. Then you build from there.

Expecting to get an agreement where every player is on board, with enforcement mechanisms and all, you are demanding the impossible just to justify doing nothing.

Re:Does this matter?

[jeff4747]

You're proposing a cost-benefit analysis that there's just no data to back up

No, there's plenty of data. Such as 99% of the climate models.

The fact that it's inconvenient data does not mean it doesn't exist.

Re:Does this matter?

[lgw]

Climate models are not even close to predicting the economic consequences of climate change. Heck, they're only giving 2-signma accuracy on stuff like worldwide temperature predictions (slightly better than random guessing, but there are social science results with better accuracy).

Re:Does this matter?

[jeff4747]

Climate models are not even close to predicting the economic consequences of climate change

You're right. They vastly underestimate the cost, since they only show us the areas that will be inundated by the ocean, the areas that will get more severe storms, etc. That can't account for secondary and tertiary effects caused by events like the destruction of all real estate in South Florida.

Heck, they're only giving 2-signma accuracy on stuff like worldwide temperature predictions

In some models. In other models, especially more localized models, the accuracy is better.

Look, let's pretend the 99% of climatologists are right and we radically change our energy sources. The net result is we save trillions to quadrillions of dollars by not destroying every low-lying city.

Now let's pretend the 99% of climatologists are wrong. So all we did was create tons of jobs installing all those new energy sources, can tall the Middle East we don't give a damn about them anymore, and vastly lowered overall pollution. Resulting in a net savings because we aren't invading Iraq again, we aren't treating as many cases of lung diseases, and lots of taxes from those jobs.

If you aren't CEO of an oil company, where's the downside to either scenario?

Re: Does this matter?

[Archangel Michael]

The choice is "binary". Either it is a Treaty, and has legal binding, or it is an agreement to agree (basically meaningless) having no real consequences.

Either way, there is no reason for the apoplectic nature of the "Trump is ruining the world!!" hyperbole.

If It was a "treaty" then the Constitution says the President had no authority to sign the treaty, and the US is not a party to the Treaty, or it is a worthless Accord, that has no real power to do anything, and it was for appearances only.

And the left has figured out that it is both, and neither, depending on their need at that moment.

Re:Does this matter?

[lgw]

Now you're just making up numbers.

How bout we don't pretend the high priests have the gospel truth, and instead let accurate scientific information guide us before sacrificing trillions on the altar?

The US is reducing, and will continue to reduce, its CO2 output because the alternatives are better and cheaper. Isn't that your goal, or is your goal giving more money and power to a totalitarian state?

We won't have any meaningful influence on India and China as they industrialize, regardless.

So all we did was create tons of jobs installing all those new energy sources,

Broken windows fallacy. We benefit when people work to produce what others want and need. We get no benefit from makework.

Re:Does this matter?

[lgw]

That's not unfair advantage. That's comparative advantage

Now you've abandoned free markets (that didn't take long) and are embracing protectionism as long as it benefits the other guy.

Nah, it benefits those who take personal responsibility of their lives over those who seem to think the world owes them a job.

Not everyone is going to be producing IP, and very few indeed will be part of the MPAA/RIAA. We have millions of skilled manufacturing jobs unfilled, but no programs to train people displaced from old school manufacturing. How about we fix that? Personal responsibility extends only to what's reasonably in your power to accomplish or plan for.

Sounds like the Occupy movement: a whole bunch of disorganized complaints,

They all follow the same theme: govern for the interests of the people, not the largest donors. A lost cause IMO, but I'm sympathetic on principle.

accepted without question or scrutiny because apparently they are the majority?

Yup, democracy sucks worse than any other kind of government, except everything else that's ever been tried. (And, yes, a republic is a kind of democracy.)

Re:Does this matter?

[bingoUV]

The existing anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere was in a large part placed there by the US (and other countries of today's developed nations). If the rest of the world goes through the same cycle of emitting a lot of CO2 before getting below the today's US levels, the world is in deep shit.

So tell me, with this CO2 enabled prosperity, why shouldn't the US help today's developing countries lower their CO2 production faster, with technology and know-how the US generated while being the single largest producer of CO2 for decades ?

Re:Does this matter?

[Plumpaquatsch]

So your point is: as long as a country can benefit from polluting, the USA should be that country, MAGA!

Re:Does this matter?

[Pentium100]

Why not? I do not live in the USA, but I like the way Trump does as he promised and considers the needs of the USA first.

Neither Putin, nor Trump should consider the needs of my country over those of their own countries - that's the job of the leaders of my country (and I think that the should consider the needs of my country first - only do what is profitable for other countries if it is profitable for my country too or avoids an invasion).

Either nobody should profit from pollution (preferred result) or my country (or the USA in Trump's case as he is working for the USA, not my country) should also profit from CO2, or at least, not incur any losses associated with it while some other country profits.

So, enact some import tariffs that allow local businesses (less polluting) to compete with the factories in China (more polluting) and everything will be great. Otherwise this agreement is only going to help China and similar countries as the other countries stop competing all by themselves.

As for the aid to third world countries - the idea is great, but it needs some way of making sure that the money ends up being used for reducing pollution and not, say, disappears into the pockets of the leaders of that country.

Re:Does this matter?

[AutodidactLabrat]

No.
An Orthodoxy is a religious grouping which is ENFORCED
Using the term orthodoxy is perjorative
A standard KNOWLEDGE gleaned by the scientific method is not an Orthodoxy
Care to try again, without the emotive shading?

Re:Does this matter?

[Obfuscant]

But Obfuscant's long comment basically boiled down to "every developed country was getting the shaft and only Trump realized it."

Bullshit. That's your straw man, your deliberate misinterpretation of what I wrote. You own it, lock, stock and barrel.

The fact of the matter is the Paris Climate deal is the best our species is capable of at this time.

More bullshit. Pathetic rationalization.

Re:Does this matter?

[dunkelfalke]

Is it now? The very same people cheered Bush for invading two countries. It is difficult to be more dickish than that.

Re:Does this matter?

[HeckRuler]

He's not literally Hitler, he only shares a number of traits, political views, and mannerisms with Hitler. And his rise to power is somewhat similar. I dunno, is consorting with the enemy to hack an opponent similar to arson and pointing the finger at the communists? That one still isn't settled.

But the people who support him mostly just want jobs, and more abstract want the US government to act for their benefit - stop immigration, stop trade deals that hurt our working class, and so on.

Oh, for sure. For varying quantities of "just". But that doesn't mean SHIT when it comes to argument at hand. Furthermore he didn't say SQUAT about invasions. That was me, up above. And it was just the aside about nationalists typically being pro-war. And you want to talk about dickish, it's

Niether [sic] Trump nor Brexit supports have any interest in invading their neighbors

Adorably technically true but so laughably false. No we don't want to invade Canada or Mexico, our neighbors. But that really misses the whole.... "gist" of the current nationalism in America doesn't it?

How about ISIS? And engaging military action in Syria and RE-invading Iraq?

Or N. Korea? Be a shame if we sent 2 carriers up there for nothing.

Trump has also increased military spending. Why?

But hey, go ahead. Differentiate patriotism and nationalism for me. Because other than some positive and negative connotation, they're essentially the same. We should take them in moderate doses. And I'm still waiting on just who the fuck you think "the common people" are.

Blue Consortium

[Tablizer]

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.

Re:Blue Consortium

[MAXOMENOS]

I've heard rumblings about states like California and New York entering a multi-state compact towards meeting the Paris climate goals. IANAL but AFAIK this sort of agreement is perfectly constitutional.

Re:Blue Consortium

[Anonymous Coward]

Individual US States playing a role on the international stage. This sounds like the beginning of a movement towards secession. I would whole-heartedly support such a movement.

Re:Blue Consortium

[Anonymous Coward]

How are blue states going to come up with the $3 billion dollars the agreement requires to be given to some of the worst polluters and most corrupt countries on Earth?

Re:Blue Consortium

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm seriously starting to wonder if this wasn't the Alt-Right's plan all along: critical weakening of the federal government in return for the strengthened rights of 50 separate nation-states. I honestly can't see them as smart or forward thinking enough to pull such a thing off, but damn if it isn't happening.

Re:Blue Consortium

[Anonymous Coward]

Article I, Section 10, Clause 1:

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

Re:Blue Consortium

[Anonymous Coward]

Article I, Section 10, Clause 1:

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

But that does not mean they cannot abide by the letter of the agreement, it only means they cannot formally enter into it. Do I have to formally agree not to rape someone to not actually rape someone? No, I simply have to avoid raping them. Similarly, to abide by the Paris accords all CA and NY have to do is keep working to reduce their emissions implement cap and trade and destroy their economies, but they do not have to SIGN anything.

Re:Blue Consortium

[bill_mcgonigle]

IANAL

hey, you don't need to be. The US Constitution is 8th Grade material, and is meant to be understand all (part of that "consent of the governed" thing). It's a minimal requirement for a complete public education.

but AFAIK this sort of agreement is perfectly constitutional.

Sure, Interstate Compacts are perfectly constitutional, Article I Section 10. Congress just needs to approve them. The Port Authority of NY & NJ is one that many readers may be familiar with. There is an effort to have a group of States form a Healthcare compact as well.

Re:Blue Consortium

[MightyMartian]

And they will, largely because the next phase after Paris is for the climate bloc to begin disincentivizing emissions-heavy industries, which means US manufacturers may find export markets becoming a lot more expensive. A lot of states rely pretty damned heavily on exports, and they'll have little choice but to join a compact that guarantees low emissions as a qualifier for products they ship abroad.

This is the real irony. The halfwit at the top of the heap who keeps talking about how the US needs a better deal is in fact going to fuck over the very people he claims to help, and right now they'll cheer, because everyone loves a guy who confirms their prejudices, but in five, ten years, it will be a rather different story. By then, of course, oil's value will have dwindled even more, and all the folks who pushed Trump to get out of Paris will have made all the money they can. The reason the US is pumping so much oil out of the ground, no matter how much it increases inventory, and regardless of slipping demand, is because if the oil doesn't get pumped out in the next decade or so, it will never get pumped out at all.

Re:Blue Consortium

[Anonymous Coward]

Pretty easy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_between_U.S._states_and_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29

America's GDP is just under $18T.

California's GDP is $2.5T. New York's is $1.4T. Let that sink in for a moment: Just these two typically blue states is responsible for 21% of the *ENTIRE* US productivity.

Raising $3B (especially if they secede from the US: they don't need to offset the social security and healthcare of states that don't produce, etc) is pocket change.

Re:Blue Consortium

[SlaveToTheGrind]

Yes, it's called federalism. A concept that liberals have been trying to muscle out of existence for a long time now. This is hilarious.

Re:Blue Consortium

[HeckRuler]

Just.... What money and to what foreign country do you think the paris agreement compels us to give to?

Re:Blue Consortium

[DogDude]

It'll happen with health care for sure. Progressive places like CA and MA , etc will have a network of single payer healthcare. The economies and quality of life will continue to grow in those states. The rest of the states will continue to devolve towards the Mad Max quality of life that they apparently desire.

Re:Blue Consortium

[Nikkos]

Your entire comment is based on fantasy.

China is the one who the primary exporter of most emissions-heavy industries, and other countries will never stop importing products they need, just to make some sort of moral ecological stand.

Re:Blue Consortium

[Cajun Hell]

The citizens of those states though will probably vote out of office any politician who tried something this retarded.

Wait... retarded is a reason to vote people out now? I thought I was up to date with the 2016 rules.

Oh shit, 2016. This is 2017, isn't it? Dammit!

Re:Blue Consortium

[Obfuscant]

But that does not mean they cannot abide by the letter of the agreement, it only means they cannot formally enter into it.

If they make a pledge to the world stage that they will abide by the agreement, they've formally entered into it. If they just do the right thing, then no.

Re:Blue Consortium

[sexconker]

Looks like you didn't get the memo. We're calling them the "Alt-Reich" now.

Re:Blue Consortium

[sexconker]

California has no water. How much do you think other states will charge CA for water if they try to secede?
How much coastline do you think the US Navy is going to let California take away from them?

Re:Blue Consortium

[0100010001010011]

CARB's next revision will just look very similar without any papers being signed.

Re:Blue Consortium

[HornWumpus]

I hope your not putting the port authority forward as an example of anything but a corrupt, organized criminal enterprise, unaccountable pseudo government.

Re:Blue Consortium

[HornWumpus]

If CA secedes from the USA, the next day 80% of the land area (and 95% or the water) secedes from CA and rejoins the USA.

Not unlike Quebec's problem if they ever seceded from Canada. The next day Quebec would be _much_ smaller and Canada would have a new english speaking province.

Re:Blue Consortium

[Razed By TV]

What if the troglodytes become economic refugees, migrate to the blue states, and shift the political balance to the right?

Re:Blue Consortium

[hey!]

Already done.

Re:Blue Consortium

[Archangel Michael]

Section 10
1: No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

2: No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

3: No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

That Damn Constitution thing is in the way ... again.

Re:Blue Consortium

[wyHunter]

Rather like the blue states are an embarassment to the rest of us people here, yes.

Maybe not such bad news

[Anonymous Coward]

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....

Re:Maybe not such bad news

[MightyMartian]

The risk here is that the China-EU-lead bloc will start pushing for international trade rules that require emissions controls for favorable access to their markets. The EU and China are only doing this partially out of some sort of grand global altruism, they're also doing it because the US walking away from climate commitments is creating a power vacuum which they intend to occupy. This is the 21st century version of Rome pulling out of Britain.

Re:Maybe not such bad news

[liquid_schwartz]

This is the 21st century version of Rome pulling out of Britain.

I forget, what happened after the end of Pax Romana?

Re:Maybe not such bad news

[MightyMartian]

Lots of bad shit.

Re:Maybe not such bad news

[prefec2]

The US did not get its act together under Obama. However, other countries will impose taxes on CO2 in products or similar measures which will harm US exports, as long as, the US is not fulfilling its reduction goals. Therefore, this withdrawal will hurt US economy. Furthermore, it shows that the US is now only working for its own short term interests. The Us administration is considered not trustworthy. On that basis you cannot make any deals.

Re:Fuck off america

[OrangeTide]

Can't really blame a guy for following through with his campaign promises.

You can blame all the people that voted for him though. When climate change costs your nation money, you ought to sue the US and others for damages. I suspect international courts in 20 years will be really receptive to the idea when willful ignorance played such a big part in the US's choices around climate change denial.

I'm not suprised...

[bobbied]

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...

Re:I'm not suprised...

[CannonballHead]

you have to admit that he generally tries to do what he promises...

Not ... particularly. I voted for neither Trump nor Clinton. But I would hardly call Trump one who "does what he promises." Or even "tries."

How many times did he say he was going to drain the swamp, again?

Then again, he promises so much that I suppose almost anything he does is "trying" to fulfill a promise. :)

Re:I'm not suprised...

[Anonymous Coward]

you have to admit that he generally tries to do what he promises...

Yeah, no matter how stupid, he tries. I'd like him to try to bill Mexico again for the "Big Wall". That was really fun.

Re:I'm not suprised...

[meta-monkey]

"Draining the swamp" means 5 specific promises related to lobbying, and he's enacted them for the executive branch (no lobbying after executive branch service for 5 years, no lobbying for a foreign power ever). The rest require the legislature, and they're working on that.

You can't just make up whatever you want "Draining the swamp" to mean and then say he's not doing it. "Trump didn't appoint only lesbian eskimo transmidgets to the Supreme Court! So much for 'Draining the Swamp,' huh?!?!"

Re:I'm not suprised...

[HornWumpus]

Don't have to bill them, just keep their foreign aid until it's paid for.

Re:I'm not suprised...

[shmlco]

You mean like hiring Goldman Sachs alumni as economic advisors, into the Treasury department, and into the SEC?

Yep. Let's let the wolves watch the sheep....

Re:I'm not suprised...

[GameboyRMH]

Foreign aid from US to Mexico per year: $320M

Estimated cost of Trump's useless monument to xenophobia in the desert: $12B~$67B

Estimated increase in wall maintenance costs: $150m/yr

Time foreign aid needs to be withheld: 70~394yrs

What are the odds it would be 70 years before some future President demolishes the wall as a symbolic goodwill gesture?

Re:I'm not suprised...

[meta-monkey]

What does changing lobbying rules for executive branch employees have to do with individual cabinet appointees?

What do you think "Drain the Swamp," as a campaign pledge, referred to? I mean specifically?

Re:I'm not suprised...

[Lisandro]

It is a good time to recall Trump's "100 days contract with the American People". Tip: it didn't really went well.

Re:I'm not suprised...

[bugs2squash]

You make it sound like we cut them a check, the foreign aid is more like those dodgy valuations on donations to goodwill that people put on their tax returns.

Re:I'm not suprised...

[CannonballHead]

You're right; the main promise does seem to be a 5 point thing.

But it got expanded in use. Including his tweets.

Also, as a partial change in my tune, I'll leave politificat's score card here with the comment that it does look like he's actually doing okay so far on actual promises.

Re: I'm not suprised...

[PopeRatzo]

Again, "draining the swamp" means "changing the lobbying rules." It has nothing to do with appointments.

Did you know that Trump just waived his own lobbying rules for members of his administration?

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

Re: I'm not suprised...

[PopeRatzo]

So, Trump's campaign manager got to join his administration, and a chief strategist is allowed to talk to a website he runs.

Man, your perusal sure missed a lot, including...

His aides who received ethics exemptions include Michael Catanzaro, a domestic energy and environmental policy adviser. Catanzaro was granted permission to work on a broad portfolio of matters of interest to his former energy sector clients, including emissions regulations, clear air standards and renewable fuel standards.

Shahira Knight, a White House adviser on tax and retirement policy, received a waiver to participate in a range of tax and financial policy matters. Knight, a former tax lobbyist, served as vice president of Fidelity Investments' public affairs and policy group before joining the White House.

Andrew Olmem, who lobbied on bankruptcy and securities issues at the firm Venable before joining the White House as a financial policy adviser, has an exemption to meet with former clients involved in Puerto Rico's financial crisis and engage in a range of insurance and financial policies.

Re:I'm not suprised...

[bobbied]

And it's a good time to note that Trump's cabinet wasn't confirmed for MOST of that 100 days because democrats where knuckle dragging all the way though the process.... Which, by the way, set a record for how long Congress took to confirm ANY new president's cabinet.

Not to mention... Most of this was accomplished and what was not accomplished was attempted or requires the actions of other parties (including the democrat obstructed congress) to be done. (with ONE exception that I see, the proposing of a constitutional amendment, which arguably he's already done what he can, given the president has no authority to initiate amendments to the constitution in the first place, only Congress and the States may do that.) Trump is attempting to keep his promises, unlike the pervious administration which had a habit of lying when is was convent for them....

So.. I'm now going to ask you if you expected Hillary to keep her promises? If so, she made some she had zero chance of actually keeping too... You want to play who's blacker the pot or kettle here or what?

This is political posturing, on BOTH sides. It's been going on in this country for over two centuries now, though in the last few decades it's been made into a blood sport.

Re:I'm not suprised...

[Lisandro]

So.. I'm now going to ask you if you expected Hillary to keep her promises? If so, she made some she had zero chance of actually keeping too... You want to play who's blacker the pot or kettle here or what?

Expected? Of course i would've. What do you choose your presidents on otherwise?!

Re: I'm not suprised...

[PopeRatzo]

So, Trump has 3 former lobbyists on his staff.

Trump's already given ethics waivers to 17 of his staff allowing them to lobby while they work for the government and he's just getting started.

Number of Obama waivers: 0.

Re: I'm not suprised...

[Lisandro]

Jesus fucking Christ, the official White House link is right there on the second paragraph in the article: https://www.whitehouse.gov/sit... .

Make of that what you will.

Re:I'm not suprised...

[drinkypoo]

"Draining the swamp" means 5 specific promises related to lobbying, and he's

...issued an order of magnitude more exceptions to his own rules than Obama did so that he could avoid draining the swamp while claiming that he's draining the swamp.

Re:I'm not suprised...

[Plumpaquatsch]

What does changing lobbying rules for executive branch employees have to do with individual cabinet appointees?

What do you think "Drain the Swamp," as a campaign pledge, referred to? I mean specifically?

Well, you obviously think creating a whole new swamp under Trump's control is okay with hat campaign pledge...

Re:I'm not suprised...

[RyoShin]

What do you think "Drain the Swamp," as a campaign pledge, referred to? I mean specifically?

Absolutely nothing, he went with it because it was popular:

"Funny how that term caught on, isn't it?" Trump mused during a rally this month in Des Moines, Iowa. "I tell everyone, I hated it. Somebody said 'drain the swamp' and I said, 'Oh, that is so hokey. That is so terrible.'"

"I said, all right, I'll try it," Trump continued. "So like a month ago I said 'drain the swamp' and the place went crazy. And I said 'Whoa, what's this?' Then I said it again. And then I start saying it like I meant it, right? And then I started to love it, and the place loved it. Drain the swamp. It's true. It's true. Drain the swamp."

Gingrich Says Trump Must Address Business Conflicts Soon, Urges Monitoring

On Trump's often-stated promise to "drain the swamp" in Washington
I'm told he now just disclaims that. He now says it was cute, but he doesn't want to use it anymore. ... I'd written what I thought was a very cute tweet about "the alligators are complaining," and somebody wrote back and said they were tired of hearing this stuff.

You get what you vote for

[allcoolnameswheretak]

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.

Re:You get what you vote for

[Gravis Zero]

can build their bunkers with drugs and hookers

what, no blackjack? ;)

Re:You get what you vote for

[sinij]

Yeah, fuck the future! Fuck the planet! Fuck humanity!

While I think withdrawal from Paris Climate Accord is a very bad idea, the above is a hysterical over-reaction. I am of two views about this - if direst models hold true and no technical solution exists, with or without Paris Climate Accord we are fucked by a runaway greenhouse effect. If technical solution exists, such as atmospheric filtering and pumping it into underground vaults then lack of Paris Climate Accord support will only make it more expensive in the future. Considering future is about 50 years away, this may be worthwhile tradeoff with sufficiently high IRR.

Re:You get what you vote for

[Oswald McWeany]

Yeah, fuck the future! Fuck the planet! Fuck humanity! Our industrial corporate overlords need moar profits now!

The ironic thing is that mid-term (not even long-term) this hurts us financially. The more climate changes the more we need to spend preventing coastal erosion. The more we need to spend upgrading our sewage and storm drainage. The more we need to spend recovering from weather related disasters and extreme weather events.

Where is all this money going to come from? Probably future taxes, on both citizens and businesses.

Also, more farmers will hurt as their traditional crops no longer grow in their area and they need to adjust their crop output accordingly, this might require all new equipment. Climate change will affect where is a tourist zone and where isn't. Which costs money as infrastructure needs to move.

Avoiding regulation may help for the next 2 or 3 years, but it will hurt even over as short a span as 10 to 20 years.

Re:You get what you vote for

[CanadianMacFan]

Just build walls to hold the water back and bill the mer-people.

Re:Fuck off america

[interkin3tic]

Put up sanctions against us. Seriously. It would be entirely justified and then some. The world puts sanctions on countries for merely looking at certain countries the wrong way, and we're basically attacking all of you, and all your children, and all your children's children.

The areas of the country that realize climate change will be hurt by such sanctions, sure, but we didn't do enough to prevent this. Plus, it'll punish the red states that gleefully thumb their noses at the rest of you more. Deserved.

If you put sanctions on us and refuse to buy shit from us or trade with us, that drives down the amount of carbon we put in the air. It'll hurt us now, but that's better than letting us ruin shit.

Sanctions didn't really stop the spread of communism, despite many decades of trying, but I'm willing to bet that it could be effective in trying to prevent the spread of climate change.

Please, fuck us up economically. It's the only way we'll change and we deserve it now.

Re:It's too bad Trump's father didn't announce

[Tablizer]

He did. T is a virgin birth; the spawn of the orange deity, Cov Fefe.

Trump... Trump... Trump...

[__aaclcg7560]

Must be a slow news day with no important going on.

Re:Trump... Trump... Trump...

[__aaclcg7560]

[...] a functionary who was hired to fill the disabled human quota [...]

What's my disability then?

Re:Trump... Trump... Trump...

[__aaclcg7560]

Failure to realize an AI has already replaced you.

For the record, I've never claimed to be disabled for employment purposes. Although I attended Special Ed for eight years, I was misdiagnosed due to an undiagnosed hearing loss. Since I started my technical career, no employer has ever asked about my pre-college education. As an IT support contractor, my job ends when the contract ends. If the client wants to replace me with an AI, I don't care as I'll be on my next job.

The bill is in the mail

[heretic108]

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.

Re:The bill is in the mail

[Kjella]

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.

Every country can impose tariffs for any reason they like, I really doubt any treaty they've withdrawn from prevents the US from returning the favor. If there are, Trump can always withdraw from those too. And if he really wants to mess with the international community he can declare them null and void on the spot. The US is a sovereign nation, the worst anyone can do is pass a UN resolution but they can't even rattle a two bit dictator in North Korea. If the US really wants out, it's out. And as I understand the US system, unless he's impeached for some reason there's nobody who has the authority to say otherwise.

Re:The bill is in the mail

[Tailhook]

The US runs an epic trade deficit with most of the planet. If you think Asia and Europe is going to start a trade war with it's biggest customer you're delusional.

Re:The bill is in the mail

[fustakrakich]

Hmm, some of the USA's impact is actually China's.

Re:The bill is in the mail

[Kielistic]

The absolute number might have meaning to the atmospheric levels of CO2.

Re:Fuck off america

[ranton]

Can't really blame a guy for following through with his campaign promises.

Why not? He said "piss off" to his constituents on plenty of other topics, such as Nafta or his hard stance on China. This is simply the willful ignorance of a single man. Individual voters can at least say they voted for him for other reasons and climate change wasn't a litmus test for them, but Trump has no excuse.

The U.S. is still leading in renewable energy tech

[SuperKendall]

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...

Re: Fuck off america

[Anonymous Coward]

"Fuck my economy while I watch"

I am beginning to understand why the right has been calling you "cucks".

Action is required

[the_other_one]

The countries that are doing something about climate change should implement trade sanctions against the USA.

Re:Action is required

[meglon]

They could now, and get away with it. These fucking idiots in office are so busy putting their grab-them-by-the-pussy-GOP party before their country, they can't look ahead and see how much damage they're doing. Either that, or they simply hate the United States. My money is on both... they're fucking idiots that hate the United States.

Path of least resistance

[Freischutz]

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!

Re:Path of least resistance

[Cajun Hell]

Amateur hour? We're talking about this instead FBI investigations, aren't we?

If people complain too much about this, he'll just do something else that people hate even more, then we'll be talking about that ins-- oops, he'll already be on the next thing by then. You are going to stack overflow before you ever get to hold him accountable for anything.

By the time Congress impeaches him, he'll be saying something like "I can't believe you people are impeaching me over this trivial Russia thing. You don't care that I started a nuclear war that killed 90% of our citizens, outlawed women from owning property, deported all the negroes back to Africa, got caffeine onto the DEA's schedule 1, and made the FCC reclassify broadband as a food service?" and you'll reply by admitting you had forgotten everything near the middle of the list, though you do faintly remember that nuclear war thing. That was sure a bad day, but it was like, 2 months ago, and there have been so many scandals since then.

Competing with James Buchanan?

[Steve1952]

Well, when your competition includes James Buchanan, you need to do something to distinguish yourself. #shootthemoon.

Re:Fuck off america

[OrangeTide]

And if a President doesn't follow through on his campaign promises? He's still attacked.

I'm glad I'm not President, half the [unreasonable] people would be pissed off one way or another.

Re:The U.S. is still leading in renewable energy t

[GameboyRMH]

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?

Not a big deal

[Nidi62]

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.

Re:Not a big deal

[thegarbz]

the next time a Democrat is president they will probably either join the Paris accords, or adopt policies that align with the accords anyway

Have you heard of the first mover advantage? Trump is complaining about the trade balance to Germany. Well by sticking your heads in the sand for another 3 years (no one would vote for him again right?) you get to sign onto the agreement and instead of exporting your knowledge and R&D you can start importing technology from others.

This "anyway" stance is only looking at the cost rather than the economic benefit. The world is moving in this direction and a lot of other countries are subsidising an industry of the future not just reducing emissions.

Re:Not a big deal

[BigBuckHunter]

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.

I feel roughly the same way. I am of the opinion that we should withdraw from all of these idiotic inconsequential agreements, but should continue to strive to eliminate the environmental damage we're causing. I think NASA climate programs should be defunded... In favor of funding NOAA appropriately. Etc, Etc... As someone that voted for Johnson, Trump is doing exactly half of what I wanted, and it makes me look bad because I 'coincidentally' agree with ~50% of his actions (Gut the EPA, Gut the FDA, Fire Comey, abolish slavery).

Re:Not a big deal

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

So Obama came in an overruled some preponderance of GWB's policies for reasons that seem likely to boil down to political posturing? Bullshit.

Lack of progress on climate change mitigation and renewable tech development in America is directly attributable to Republicans and the people too lazy to draw that distinction.

Enough "both sides do it" karma whoring.

Re:Not a big deal

[Trailer Trash]

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.

Right. Meanwhile, here's what Democrats actually DO:

http://freebeacon.com/politics...

Here's the entire email exchange between Hillary and Huma Abedin when going to former First Lady Betty Ford's funeral:

"Looks like plane won't be an issue," Abedin wrote. "Also, looks like Michelle Obama also going."

"Is it ok [sic] that we and Mrs. O take two separate planes?" Clinton asked.

"I think it's ok [sic]. But let me see what kind of plane she's taking," Abedin responded.

"I would rather have our own of course," Clinton added.

So, yeah, Clinton wants *you* to do something about climate change. But she'd rather take an entire separate airplane than ride on one with Michelle Obama.

Do you see why many of us don't think the Democrats really care about this stuff as much as they claim to?

Re:Not a big deal

[Pfhorrest]

That may be true for what Trump is doing now but it definitely was not true when Obama took office, which is actually one of the big reasons I was disappointed with him as a president. The ACLU had this elaborate document made up between the election and inauguration day cheerfully outlining all of the good things the new President could do to reverse the damage GWB had done within days, weeks, months, etc, of taking office, a nice timeline of how quickly the damage could be undone. Pretty much none of it happened. A few lukewarm improvements were made over the years like the ACA, but basically all the things Bush fucked up have stayed fucked up despite the opportunity for Obama to have reversed them.

I was told at the time by loyalist democrats that the reason he didn't was to preserve political capital and keep things from turning into a game of every new president immediately reversing everything the old president did. Obama can't undo Bush's damage, they said, or else the next Republican will just undo all of Obama's progress.

Well, that's happening anyway, so I guess it's no steps forward, two steps back for us.

Re:Look on the bright side

[GameboyRMH]

Millions? That's at least 2500% growth in coal jobs! Don't you think that's a bit optimistic?

Will those 25 companies

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Announcing the announcement..

[Altrag]

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.

What about "the people"?

[grasshoppa]

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.

Re:What about "the people"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hail corporate. These corporations hate the people and are trying to shove this bad treaty down our throats.

Re:What about "the people"?

[serviscope_minor]

In all honesty, however, if these companies so badly want something I'm immediately suspicious of their intentions.

Tempting, but ultimately that's purely reactionary. Not every issue has two (sane) sides.

A victory for nationalism

[rsilvergun]

Trump desperately needs to hand the nationalists that put him in the White House a victory. Any victory. This is it.

Re:The U.S. is still leading in renewable energy t

[amicusNYCL]

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?

Re:Fuck off america

[ranton]

And if a President doesn't follow through on his campaign promises? He's still attacked.

I'm glad I'm not President, half the [unreasonable] people would be pissed off one way or another.

But in cases like this, you will piss off half the unreasonable people and 100% of the reasonable people.

Re:It's too bad Trump's father didn't announce

[l0n3s0m3phr34k]

LOL! is Cov Fef now a ritual component for the FoK? I have to admit, the FoK are probably the most interesting magickal emergence since the OTO. I would love to find out what Peter J. Carroll thinks of the FoK.

Re:Look on the bright side

[squiggleslash]

Not if the agreement collapses because the country with the biggest CO2 footprint just opted out.

In the time I've been on this planet, the US has gone from being the most revered and respected, albeit with justified criticism, to one of the most feared, to one of the most irrelevant. That last part took a little over a hundred days. How did we get here? And no, the answer isn't "emails".

Re:#anyonedemocrat2018

[Anonymous Coward]

If the Republican Congress is going to let this happen, they need to be fired.

They can't prevent it any more than they could stop Obama from signing it to begin with.

Dang...

[Freischutz]

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.

Re:The U.S. is still leading in renewable energy t

[GameboyRMH]

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.

Sounds familiar

[purple_cobra]

It's not the first time an unwelcome trump has polluted the air.

Re: Fuck off america

[Anonymous Coward]

Half? It's a lot higher than half.

No matter what type of nationalist you are/aren't, you're an idiot if you do not want to take sane feasible measures to reduce potential human contributions to global warming.

People can quibble about nuances of the deal but folks, we have one planet. This self-destructive, childish, race to the bottom of the barrel "well if they can do it, we should too" mentality blows my mind. It's short-term thinking, not long term, though I'm not surprised.

Re:The U.S. is still leading in renewable energy t

[bill_mcgonigle]

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.

Re:Fuck off america

[DickBreath]

All Trump is managing to do is alienate our allies. If he is dismantling anything it is America. The rest of the world, which is 96 % of the world's population will go on without us if necessary.

Re:Fuck off america

[Frosty Piss]

Why not? He said "piss off" to his constituents on plenty of other topics, such as Nafta or his hard stance on China.

Getting rid of NAFTA and pissing off the Chinese costs his buddies money. This take nothing out of his friend's pockets.

Of course it's just one more reason for the rest of the woerld to hate us, but there's no shortage of that these days.

Re:Paris accord is a scam

[acebaron]

Agreed. There are much better ways to help the environment. Nuclear should be where our money is spent. Liquid-metal cooling and other design advances greatly reduce the chance of a meltdown. I read this earlier today: http://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/31...

Re:Fuck off america

[DickBreath]

> Individual voters can at least say they voted for him for other reasons . . .

It should have been clear to individual voters 18 months before the election that this guy was unfit for office. Certainly by 12 months. Or 6 months.

I asked the question earlier.

[GlennC]

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.

Re:I asked the question earlier.

[Nemyst]

Your comment is completely untrue. Don't try to pull the "they're both the same!" card, it hasn't worked in quite some time. The Democrats are essentially unanimously in favor of the Paris accord and acknowledge AGW. The Republicans do not. You don't need a third party candidate here or anything like that.

Re:Fuck off america

[sinij]

Sanctions against US, that will inevitably will lead to retaliation, will be God's gift to Russia and China. There won't be Western Civilization left standing when this all plays out.

Re:Paris accord is a scam

[ranton]

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.

You unveil your intense ignorance with each sentence. There are no costs mandated by the Paris Climate Agreement. It was non-binding and had no ramifications if we didn't uphold our end of the bargain. It is hard to not just spout expletives when responding to your comment since it shows such an immense lack of knowledge and the belief your ignorance should be considered in public policy.

No part of the US Climate Action Plan included sending money overseas. It was about investing in industries and technologies so we could reduce our damage to the planet while being leading innovators in the fastest growing energy sector in the world. Stop reading Breitbart and get your head out of your ass.

If any of your proposed solutions could reduce carbon emissions while not damaging the environment even more in other ways, then sure they should be considered. The Paris Climate Agreement didn't stop us from building nuclear plants or developing natural gas.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Fuck off america

[MightyMartian]

The US is basically surrendering its global leadership. It will probably rejoin any climate accords within the decade, but it will cease to have the ability to negotiate their terms. Trump is the harbinger of the US's eclipse. The EU and China will take over the global leadership, for better, and sadly, for worse.

Not so fast

[nospam007]

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.

Re:Not so fast

[Anonymous Coward]

You should have read the Constitution. All treaties must be ratified by the Senate. This Accord / Deal / Agreement has never been ratified, and thus can be shut down within 1 year.

Old White Conservatives - TEA Partiers

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:The return of common sense and practical realit

[DickBreath]

That sword cuts both ways.

If the agreement is truly a meaningless symbol, then sticking with also will have no effect.

Re:Fuck off america

[lgw]

When climate change costs your nation money, you ought to sue the US and others for damages. I suspect international courts in 20 years will be really receptive to the idea when willful ignorance played such a big part in the US's choices around climate change denial.

Heh. International courts. How many nukes do they have?

I propose we fund the US entirely by taxing non-US citizens. Well, OK, technically it would be tribute, not tax, but it would be fun.

Who am I kidding: in a few years we'll elect a democrat who will give $1 trillion in reparations ($900 billion of which will mysteriously end up going to bankers, of course).

Much complaining about nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Much complaining about nothing

[mrbester]

Odd that it was the coal industry that was most vocal about withdrawing from the accord, then. The accord wasn't going to insist the industry get reduced any faster than it already is.

When even companies like Exxon think it's a good idea to stay in, perhaps it is.

Re:Much complaining about nothing

[dwillden]

I'll believe that when I see the EU effectively intervene in any genocidal civil war without the US backing them up. Europe wrung it's hands about the situation in the Balkans until the US said enough, and led the way in. It takes a willingness to enforce your will to become a hegemony. The EU can't even figure out what it's "will" is let alone try to enforce it.

Re:Paris accord is a scam

[shmlco]

Nice link. The author of the article self-admittedly represents oil and gas companies and his sole link to the "devastating" costs of the agreement is a "report" issued by the Heritage Foundation.

Sigh.

Re:Fuck off america

[ranton]

reasonable = people who agree with me

When 100% of the countries invited to be part of the Paris Climate Agreement felt the agreement was either worth signing or didn't go far enough to curb emissions, its safe to say you can objectively say what the reasonable opinion is. There are no other world leaders ignorant enough to do what Trump did, we have the worst one. Even North Korea ratified it.

You are objectively wrong on this one.

Quit babbling and think rationally

[scatbomb]

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.

Re:Exactly

[MightyMartian]

And what is "it really is". Virtually every climatologist states CO2 emissions are increasing surface and ocean temperatures. We're already seeing the direct verifiable signs of that warming, and it will only get worse. Even without US in the Paris agreement, demand for oil is steadily shrinking, so all that really happens now is the US gives up any say on future targets, and will have to rejoin the international community on future agreements with little power save to accede to whatever the EU and China have decided. And for what? For a resource that's value is dwindling, and will never recover? For a decade or two more before oil's value is so low that it's not worth pumping out of the ground? So the Koch Brothers and a few Trump cronies can make a few more bucks, and meanwhile the very people that voted for this halfwit are the ones that get screwed the most?

Oil is dying. Natural gas will follow. Fossil fuels are the past, and good riddance, and the US will regret this for decades to come. But this is how empires die, I suppose, once morons can get to the top of the heap, what's left?

Let's imagine in ten years, when new trade agreements, particularly with large trading blocs, start demanding CO2 reductions as part of any favorable access? Let's try to imagine how much this will cost US manufacturers over the coming decades? Do you think the EU-China climate bloc is just going to let the US off the hook for paying for their towards a carbon-less future? The US will pay, and it will pay dearly, and I hope when the time comes, everyone remembers that it was the sociopaths and morons of the Republican Party, and that payback may come sooner than people think when SCOTUS starts disemboweling gerrymandering and some of these so-called "red states" start turning blue.

Re:Fuck off america

[bazorg]

Trade sanctions are difficult to put in place. Choosing non-US alternatives is what I will do when possible.

Re:Fuck off america

[DickBreath]

> [citation needed]

1. Trump alienating our allies is headline news lately.
2. If he's not dismantling the "globalist octopus", then what is he dismantling?
3. Google "US Population", about 321.4 million. World population is 7 Billion. So the rest of the world is about 95.4 %, sorry I said 96 %.

Good Riddance

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[randomlygeneratename]

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.

Re:It's worth reiterating

[Megol]

Why do you talk about the mind of some other when you have your own to take care of? Because it (=your) seems really confused...

Re:It's worth reiterating

[Archangel Michael]

You just explained why socialism always fails, eventually. Thanks for proving the whole Global Warming is a socialist play.

Re:It's worth reiterating

[randomlygeneratename]

My intention was to show how laissez-faire capitalism will never be able to solve this problem. Forget socialism, capitalism, communism, and all the other convenient labels, the fact is all of the pure ideologies have flaws. Pure socialism has a flaw relating to the lack of incentive for efficiency, and pure capitalism has a fundamental flaw relating to the prisoner's dilemma -- you will always 'cheat' the system if possible, because if you don't, someone else will, and you will be the loser. ('Cheat'=pollute, find loopholes, settle court damages instead of fixing problems, etc). In this case, it is this tendency that will make us unable to take meaningful action on climate change without government intervention.

It's subtle, but not complicated.

Re:Look on the bright side

[GameboyRMH]

Maybe Poe effect. It's damn near impossible to tell anymore.

Re:Paris accord is a scam

[slew]

You unveil your intense ignorance with each sentence. There are no costs mandated by the Paris Climate Agreement.

Actually, the Paris agreement required developed countries to provide *at least* $100B per year by the year 2020...

Agreement shall set a new collective quantified goal from a floor of USD 100 billion per year , taking into account the needs and priorities of developing countries; Recognizes the importance of adequate and predictable financial resources, including for results-based payments, as appropriate, for the implementation of policy
approaches and positive incentives for reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, and the role of conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks; as well as alternative policy approaches, such as joint mitigation and adaptation approaches for the integral and sustainable management of
forests; while reaffirming the importance of non-carbon benefits associated with such approaches; encouraging the coordination of support from, inter alia, public and private, bilateral and multilateral sources, such as the Green Climate Fund, and alternative sources in accordance with relevant decisions by the Conference of the Parties;

Have you read the agreement?

Re: Fuck off america

[Anonymous Coward]

It is completely unhelpful to attack all Americans. Why should Americans want to work with people with attitudes like your own?

These climate accords notoriously been ineffective, whether it's Paris or Kyoto. Just because the United States has been a terrible polluter, should not be a license for China and India to do the same for awhile. The Paris Climate Accord is actually pretty weak and doesn't do nearly enough. The United States, Europe, China, India, Brazil, and the rest of the world, must all do their fair share to address climate change and carbon pollution.

The problem is that Trump isn't genuinely interested in reducing pollution and doesn't accept that humans are causing climate change. However, a majority of Americans do believe that people are causing climate change. A majority of Americans do want us to reduce carbon pollution.

China produces more carbon pollution than the United States, though the United States is second on the list. Shouldn't China be doing more to reduce their carbon emissions, too?

Re:Fuck off america

[liquid_schwartz]

I suspect international courts in 20 years will be really receptive to the idea when willful ignorance played such a big part in the US's choices around climate change denial.

The notion of listening to "international courts" is a slippery slope. Is some 3rd world country going to sue for one hundred trillion dollars and get it - maybe. Politics can drive such absurdities. However I think much of the US will say come and try and take it.

Re:Paris accord is a scam

[ranton]

Actually, the Paris agreement required developed countries to provide *at least* $100B per year by the year 2020...

And if we don't do it, what is the penalty? If you can find that in the agreement you get a gold star, because you would then know more than I do about it.

I may have been mistaken

[Rick Schumann]

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.

Re:I may have been mistaken

[Midnight Thunder]

The America First policy seems to be doing more to be making America last?

Re:Fuck off america

[bugs2squash]

What happens when the remaining signatories to the climate accord decide to implement a 5% carbon tax on all products imported from countries that are not substantially meeting their obligations under the deal. One man's climate treaty is another mans trading block. I don;t care if we're in or out provided that we're making substantial efforts to clean up our environment, but if we're out then we don't get to say how the block operates.

Trump you got it wrong

[presidenteloco]

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.

Re:Exactly

[liquid_schwartz]

Do you think the EU-China climate bloc is just going to let the US off the hook for paying for their towards a carbon-less future? The US will pay, and it will pay dearly...

You're funny. You count China as if they are a bastion of green glory. I suspect that you are aware of just how bad their pollution is. Yet somehow you give them a pass. The sooner the US pulls out of various accords and agreements the better. If we were to focus on getting our situation right instead of worrying about everyone else we would be much better off. Somehow I think that when the supercop leaves the world will go back to fighting - and then and only then might they miss the US.

YEAH!! It is time for America to make improvement

[WindBourne]

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.

Re:Fuck off america

[MachineShedFred]

Should be pretty easy, with everything being made in China these days...

Re:Fuck off america

[butchersong]

This treaty was never a treaty. It was an agreement between Obama and the other countries. If he wanted anything he did to last he should have gone through the Senate as the constitution dictates. I realize there would have been pushback to say the least by the GOP but you don't get to ignore the constitution just because it is inconvenient.

Dead?

[mwvdlee]

So I guess trumpy put the climate in the corfoffin?

Re:Paris accord is a scam

[butchersong]

Your point is that we should have honored the agreement by ignoring the agreement?

Re:Fuck off america

[skids]

1. Trump alienating our allies is headline news lately.

Give the guy some credit. At least he didn't try to give Angela Merkel a backrub.

Re:Paris accord is a scam

[ranton]

Well, yes. But it's non-binding! So clearly the Grand-poster is in favor of just lying to the rest of the world. Keep agreeing to this arrangement until the invoice comes, and then just say no?

Or as part of the ongoing negotiations about how we reach the $100 billion mark, we put forth arguments about other things we are doing which would allow us to not put money towards the $100 billion. Perhaps we invest more than any other country in clean energy technology instead. There are plenty of ways we as a country can show we are serious about climate change without giving money to other countries if that was really the problem.

But in reality this figure is just a scapegoat used by children who want to pretend climate change is not a problem worth trying to fix. Trump just wants to pull out and it grasping at straws to find excuses some people are stupid enough to listen to.

Re:Fuck off america

[Joce640k]

Trump is the new King Canute. He believes his words can command nature itself.

This is moronic

[WillAffleckUW]

Now we're as stupid as Syria.

Re:Exactly

[cbeaudry]

When you dont know what you are talking about you make up nonsense.

You do know China has signed into this non binding treaty that they will do absolutely nothing until 2030.

You know India will double its coal production under this agreement?

If you believe in the AGW propaganda or don't, the Paris accord is bad for America.

Re:Exactly

[skids]

Their bad pollution is why they are starting to take leadership on this. It's that, or riots.

Re:Fuck off america

[Joce640k]

And remember: The leaders of some of those countries have degrees in Science

(unlike King Stupid).

Re:Fuck off america

[Frosty Piss]

What happens when the remaining signatories to the climate accord decide to implement a 5% carbon tax on all products imported from countries that are not substantially meeting their obligations under the deal.

Tariffs!

Re:Paris accord is a scam

[David_Hart]

Nuclear is the most expensive and most dangerous power. Solar and wind are cheaper than nuclear, gas, coal, etc. (everything).
Burning natural gas creates CO2 (in case you didn't know) and the methane leaks are 30 times as damaging to the climate as CO2.
The US is the greatest contributor to global warming so it should pay the most to clean it up.

Really... Nuclear is safer that many of the others, including solar. Even accounting for nuclear accidents. It's also cheaper than solar according to Wikipedia. There is a huge startup cost and shutdown cost but produces a huge amount of energy that ends up making it cheaper in the long run. Plus, you are comparing 1970's and 1980's nuclear technology to modern energy sources. There have been huge advances in nuclear power design and safety but we'll never see it in the US except on subs and aircraft carriers...

https://www.forbes.com/sites/j...

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

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

Re: Fuck off america

[OrangeTide]

I use the word "half" to refer to the division within the country. And that Trump won with 46% of the popular vote (roughly, but not quite half) versus Clinton's 48% of the popular vote (again, not exactly half, but you're the one quibbling over a low order digits)

Re:Paris accord is a scam

[Megol]

Mostly people that have enough energy to learn of (mostly) theoretical methods reactors can be improved but not enough to learn how and why nuclear energy in general isn't a money efficient energy form. They also tend to ignore the risks and problems even with cleaner forms of nuclear energy, it still require fuel which means either uranium mining or fuel enrichment and they still generate waste products with high radioactivity. The core will always be highly radioactive and a security issue. Even the fact the power source is concentrated is a problem in itself making infrastructure more sensitive to attacks, breakdowns etc.

The post you replied to seem to think liquid metal cooling is something novel - enough proof of ignorance.

As always with politics.

[ColaMan]

"Two things only the people anxiously desire - Bread and Circuses."

Re:As always with politics.

[clickety6]

Better hope you have good circuses because bread is going to be harder and harder to come by...

Re:Fuck off america

[Joce640k]

Here's hoping...

We know what will happen though, King Stupid will simply slap a double-tax on the rest of the world.

Let him try it, I say. I'd love to see the next generation of Americans working in shoe factories for $1 a day while the rest of the world makes their own machinery.

(America's biggest export right now is machinery).

Re:Paris accord is a scam

[scatbomb]

You obviously haven't read the agreement. It includes massive costs to the participants.

Re:Paris accord is a scam

[scatbomb]

Nice link. The author of the article self-admittedly represents oil and gas companies and his sole link to the "devastating" costs of the agreement is a "report" issued by the Heritage Foundation.

Sigh.

So you have no actual argument then?

not an argument

[scatbomb]

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.

Re:not an argument

[gumbi west]

I agree nuclear is a good caseload option, and is needed for nighttime usage. However, the French cycle is enviable but mainly works because you play hot potato with the really nasty stuff and keep it in the existing reactors. When you shut them down or your cycle gets old enough you still have a really nasty mess on your hands.

Don't get me wrong, even with that, I'd still take nukes over coal. But at least admit there is a problem.

Re: not an argument

[scatbomb]

You seem to know more about this. I was involved in some R&D with liquid/liquid extraction of radioisotopes but don't know much about fission itself. Recycling is very easy though.

Re:not an argument

[DarthVain]

From what I've read it is pretty much the opposite of what you just said. The reason nuclear costs are so high is due to the construction cost and the length that it takes (and how those costs change over time). Fuel is nothing for nuclear in the grand scheme of things. On the other side, the second most reason is the decommission costs, which are usually built into the construction funding (which also inflates the cost, and again when you are talking about 60 years later, those costs change... upwards).

As far as waste goes it is a bit of a weird one. Currently without re-processing (which is what happens in the US), much of the fuel is left, meaning the halflife is quite long, meaning it really isn't all that radioactive, nor is the material that it has come in contact with. However that also means storage is much longer. Should they re-process to use most of the fuel, the halflife is much shorter, meaning much more radioactive, meaning much less to store for way less time, though more dangerous to handle. Damned if you do damned if you don't so to speak. Though I don't think either decision has anything to do with storage and more to do with how facilities were made with the making of weapons in mind. Anyway, all of this is probably a bit of a oversimplification, but more less the gist of it.

I agree 100% with your baseload comment however. Until the magic storage problem is somehow resolved this issue doesn't ever go away. I could see something like distributed battery solution a la Elon Musk (particularly when combined with distributed renewable generation, smart guy he may rule the world in a few decades), however producing billions of batteries isn't exactly all that environmentally friendly either...

I think the sad part is that most of the technical challenges with nuclear seem to be because all the facilities are old using old technology. Because new ones are not being built not only are newer safer better designs not being built, but also stagnating the progress in advancing those technology due to the limited market for them. I know Canada somewhat recently partially sold it's nuclear program, and another company (Westinghouse?) recently had the division that did their nuclear program go bankrupt. Only China seems to be building anymore, but post Japan they've cut back their plans by like half (though still a lot). However they have a bigger coal problem than anyone, and the alternative is gas and being politically beholden to Russia which probably isn't a real option either.

Re:Fuck off america

[butzwonker]

Well, Syria and Nicaragua are on the side of the US in this matter, so technically the US has not yet alienated the whole rest of the world...

Re:Fuck off america

[skids]

Pretty much. That aside, politicians would be best advised to realize that not every one of their campaign promises is supported by a majority of people who voted for them. So even if they decide to govern for their supporters only, which is awful, they aren't even doing that.

Also people change their minds. Especially when they wise up after being lied to. Witness the health care issue. All the Rs saying "we ran on repeal" as if that's a justification for screwing us all over need to eat a reality cookie.

Re:Fuck off america

[OrangeTide]

I'm glad you already know what willful ignorance is. Gold star for you.

Incorrect

[SuperKendall]

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.

Re:Look on the bright side

[serviscope_minor]

Millions? That's at least 2500% growth in coal jobs! Don't you think that's a bit optimistic?

I don't see why: Mexico can pay for them.

Re:Paris accord is a scam

[Tailhook]

massive amounts of taxpayer subsidy

Taxpayer subsidies are bad? Every significant form of renewable energy has been and/or is being supported by all manner of subsidy. Somehow it's only a problem for nuclear/fossil fuels...

And you're badly wrong about the cost of nuclear power. France, for instance, pays less for electricity than every other major European economy because of it's large and well operated nuclear energy system [1]. France also emits far less carbon than its neighbors; have a look at the live map: https://www.electricitymap.org...

[1] http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/s... c/KWh 2016: France: 0.089 Germany: 0.149 UK: 0.128

Re:Zero Population Growth Would Do Far More...

[Spy Handler]

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.

Incorrect. The human primal instinct is to fuck, not necessarily have babies. In most of Europe, N. America, and the prosperous Far Eastern countries (Japan, S. Korea, Singapore) the birthrate is at or below replacement levels. If you ignore immigration, their population is already falling or close to it. And this all happened organically, with no forced gov't action and nobody getting killed by population control nazis; it was simply people deciding that they prefer having less (or no) children.

The lack of discussion for population reduction has puzzled me, especially from the Left. Let's assume that conservatives will always oppose population reduction due to religious doctrine. Why aren't leftists talking about it? They sure used to, especially back in the 70's, but not anymore. It has become a taboo subject.

After some deliberation I've come to the conclusion that it's because it's in the best interests of Powers that Be to have a constantly growing population. No gov't official wants to rule over a small country with a tiny population. Bigger population = more heads to tax, more money to slush around with, more soldiers in your army to command. Basically MORE POWER. And business leaders also want a bigger population so there's more customers to buy your stuff. Note how every business journal talks about nothing else but GROWTH GROWTH GROWTH. It's hard to have earnings growth in a society with a falling population.

That's fine, the gov't/business cabal wants population growth, but why have leftists and environmentalists abandoned population reduction? After all the #1 best thing you can do for the environment is reducing the population. And I think the reason is that the gov't/business cabal have a lot more control of society now than they did in the 70's, and they have successfully infiltrated and co-opted the environmentalist movement.

To illustrate my point I give you two examples. First, coffins getting unloaded from airplanes. In the 60's journalists would report on the dead soldiers arriving from Vietnam and even show footage of coffins being wheeled out of airplanes. This had a dramatic effect on the public opinion of the war and the military in general. The Powers that Be have decided this was intolerable, and since then they've put a lot of effort into "Molding the Public Opinion" by controlling the press. This was accomplished by having their mega corporate conglomerations buy up news outlets, and also by planting journalists directly (CIA is known to have plants in the media). Notice how these days you never, ever see anything anti-military coming out of even supposedly liberal outlets like MSNBC. Every commentator religiously shouts "Thank you for your service" with every other breath.

Second example: Sierra Club. They were vehemently anti-population growth and anti-immigration in the 70's through the 90's. Makes sense, larger population hurts the environment and immigration increases the population. Not only that but *illegal* immigrants damage the environment more. This isn't me saying it, it's THEM (Sierra Club, back in the day):

"Reprehensible damage being done to towering cactus, Joshua trees, flowering cactus varieties, colorful wildflowers and rock formations" [by illegal immigrants, on their northward trek through the desert]

Then in the early 2000s the Sierra Club was given $100 million by hedge fund billionaires in exchange for never opposing immigration again. After that, not one peep about immigration.

Re:Exactly

[MightyMartian]

China and INdia both are moving as quickly as they can towards renewables. The problem here is you've bought into the fossil fuel industry's talking points, and even as you demonstrate your ignorance and stupidity, oil inventories keep going up and demand keeps falling. Oil is dying, you moron, so why in the name of fuck would you applaud while the President of the United States literally cut off his balls despite his dick?

Re:Leaders signing a letter

[PopeRatzo]

I recall a little thing called the American Revolution where leaders of the time didn't agree with the provisional govenment decision and had the stones to back it up.

And the first thing they did was ask France for a loan and military help.

Re:Paris accord is a scam

[ranton]

Your point is that we should have honored the agreement by ignoring the agreement?

No, but no where in the agreement does it show which countries pay the $100 billion. If the US really didn't want to fulfill its obligations it could make other guesters, such as spending $100 billion ourselves in clean energy per year. Still kind of shitty that we wouldn't directly help developing nations not pollute as much as we did when we were growing, but at least we could say we are doing something.

By pulling out we are simply saying we don't care at all.

Re:Fuck off america

[Notabadguy]

It should have been clear to individual voters 18 months before the election that this guy was unfit for office. Certainly by 12 months. Or 6 months.

Everyone on the ballot was unfit for office.

Re:Fuck off america

[PopeRatzo]

I'm glad I'm not President

Don't get to comfortable. According to the Constitution, you're #637 in the order of presidential succession. You may yet find yourself in the Oval Office.

Re:Paris accord is a scam

[Megol]

Nuclear power isn't the most dangerous one - fossil fuels are. Burning fossil fuels releases more radioactive elements into the atmosphere (and locally into the ground) than nuclear power and also releases a lot of other nasty things _proven_ to be hazardous to health. A modern nuclear reactor is pretty damn safe and the Fukushima mess* actually proves that - the complex suffered a tripple(!) meltdown with relatively little radioactive leakage most of which were due to hydrogen-oxygen explosions that destroyed containment features. Even the Chernobyl radioactive release were actually mostly due to the graphite moderator being on fire rather than actually suffering a meltdown without having any modern protective features (filter system, containment design).

Statistical analysis of nuclear vs fossil fuel deaths are showing clearly that the later is much more dangerous.

(* it was more than accident and more than one mistake combined -> a bloody mess)

Re:Fuck off america

[Sique]

Fuck you are you saying everyone including scientist are nuts if they disagree with the official global warming narrative wtf?

Yes, that's what we are saying. So what?

Re:Fuck off america

[PopeRatzo]

International courts. How many nukes do they have?

Good question. Actually eight of the countries that are signatories to the Paris accord have nuclear arsenals. So the question you have to ask yourself is, "Do I feel lucky?"

Well, do you?

Re:Fuck off america

[interkin3tic]

If we're ignorant and foolish enough to go to war with Europe rather than give up our right to fuck up the atmosphere, we deserve it.

Re:Fuck off america

[ranton]

Well, Syria and Nicaragua are on the side of the US in this matter, so technically the US has not yet alienated the whole rest of the world...

Nope, Nicaragua thought the agreement should be binding so they pulled out, and Syria wasn't even invited to the discussions. The US is all alone on this one.

Re:Exactly

[cbeaudry]

MightyMartian we all know you are a little irrational when it comes to this subject.

My point is that the Paris accord is a bad one.

Why would anyone remain in a deal that is bad? For appearances?

China is building nuclear plants. If the USA would be doing the same, Id be all for it.

You know nothing of what I have bought from the fossil industry, which is absolutely nothing exept for a tank of gasoline a few days ago.

If oil is dying, what is all the hubbub about? Why exactly do we need to transfer billions of dollars to the World Banks slush fund?
And if demand is falling, why do we need to go to some crazy efforts to make useless promises to reduce emissions which have badly defined results?

Ive been saying for decades, technology will slowly but surely resolve these issues on their own given enough time. And there is NO REASON to believe we will hit a catastrophic brick wall before it takes us there.

A giant middle finger to the rest of the world

[rsilvergun]

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.

Re:A giant middle finger to the rest of the world

[penandpaper]

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.

I don't take much stoke in CNN's opinion but if those countries act in their self interest I don't see it as a problem as I expect the US to do the same. That is the point of diplomacy and deals. It must benefit all parties involved. If those nations care about the actual solution to climate change then virtue signalling is pointless. I am more interested on an actual amicable solution than a unfair unenforceable virtue signal of a accord.

Which nation has a policy purely motivated by altruism? None.

Re:Paris accord is a scam

[serviscope_minor]

Oh fuck off. 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.

THings have gone badly wrong with the managing of the nuclear industry. It's the safest form of power measured in deaths per TWh, but we're stuck with ageing 1970s tech, and building brand new 1970s tech. The mismanagement caused by misplaced fear means we're running the equivalent of nuclear Pintos in 2017.

Safety and density have a lot going for it. It doesn't matter as much for a country like the USA, but for smaller, denser countries, it's the only way to gain energy independence to any degree. Once you get to a country like the UK, renewables aren't going to cut it.

What do the Paris accords "do"?

[guruevi]

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).

Re:Fuck off america

[OrangeTide]

I'm glad I'm not President

Don't get to comfortable. According to the Constitution, you're #637 in the order of presidential succession. You may yet find yourself in the Oval Office.

I wish I could commit some felonies in order to keep myself out of the Oval Office, but that strategy appears to no longer work.

Re: Fuck off america

[MillionthMonkey]

Nah, we don't want them to fuck over the American economy. We want them fucking over jobs in Appalachia and the South.

The real cucks were the fools in the North who granted the Confederacy their statehoods back, instead of permanently designating them as territories to be plundered.

Re:Fuck off america

[serviscope_minor]

Well, if only there was another trade bloc larger than Russia and China combined.

Re:Exactly

[MightyMartian]

Not only is everyone else going to remain in your supposedly "bad deal" but China in particular is soon going to use it to turn the screws on the US. You fail to see the big picture here, that the "deal" isn't just about future emissions targets, it's about who gets to call the shots going forward, and the EU-China climate pact represents the largest trading and population group on the planet.

This idea that some people, like you, apparently have that Paris will fall part because the US backs out is not only just wrong, but utterly delusional. China, and likely now that Trump has gone out of his way to show his contempt for Europe, the EU as well, are going to use Paris and successor agreements to pummel the US.

And then you still have to factor in the ever-mounting costs to the US having to actual deal with the physical effects of AGW. Oil isn't dying fast enough to keep emissions, and consequently temperature increases, from royally fucking things over, so if China, the EU and everyone else that signs aboard has to pay a large proportion of the bill, then they are going to use the overwhelming economic clout of this new pact to make the US pay in every other conceivable way.

Re:Exactly

[haruchai]

China's pollution is horrendous & they made a very bad mistake by both allowing it to get like that as well as to build so many substandard coal plants.
But now they have or are moving on, and doing so quickly. Not only are newer plants much more efficient & cleaner, none of the old ones will be grandfathered - it's clean up or shut down.
In contrast, it took the USA 40 years to get to more than 2/3rds of their coal plants fitted with emission controls and only the advent of cheap natgas (and all its attendant problems) forced the closure of more than a few of the older coal-fired ones.
If India also gets its act together, it's not inconceivable that Asia will be the clean energy powerhouse in 10-15 years.
India's plan is to have 100GW solar installed by 2022, a target they're not likely to meet.
But they went from 160 MW in 2010 to just over 1 GW in 2012 and with 1/2 of 2017 still remaining, have exceeded 13GW!! So it's not inconceivable they'll at least get to 50GW by 2022 which is nearly a quadrupling of the current installed base of solar PV and would probably land them somewhere in the lower 1/2 of the Top 10.

Re:Fuck off america

[MillionthMonkey]

Actually China is now the bulwark of Western Civilization, and has been for some months now.

Re:Zero Population Growth Would Do Far More...

[Megol]

No.

Re:Fuck off america

[haruchai]

Still better than putting forward a budget with a $1 Trillion arithmetic error.

Re:Paris accord is a scam

[xession]

You may have read the agreement, but you apparently don't understand it. You think each country was supposed to pony up $100B a year for this? Lets just skim the top countries and say there are 20 "developed" nations. You think we are a few years away from dumping $2TRILLION into green tech with public funds? No...

Thats $100B a year collectively among the signed members and it doesn't even have to entirely come from tax revenue! The goal is to get private and public interests aligned by providing hard money and in-kind contributions to that goal.

There is nearly 200 countries signed to this agreement but if we just take the top 20 countries that emit >1% of the greenhouse gases globally, that's $5B per country. If we were to suggest each country contribute a nearly equal amount, that's about $500M. Obviously thats not going to be possible for the smallest and most struggling of countries, but it can clearly be seen that its not nearly as striking as you are suggesting it to be.

You also conveniently neglected to acknowledge that even though the agreement mentions $100B, its strictly mentioned as a goal and not an absolute requirement. In fact, the lack of any enforcement was one of the most controversial aspects to the agreement to begin with.

Have you read the agreement?

Don't be an asshat.

Re:Fuck off america

[lgw]

Are you including the Norks in that total? :)

If we don't feel lucky yet, we need to get our missile defense right.

Re:Fuck off america

[rahvin112]

The funniest thing of all is that the Paris agreement was 100% voluntary. Each individual nation could set whatever parameters for reduction it wanted including no reduction at all. He could have just changed the numbers and marched on and no one could do anything about it.

The funny this is it takes 3 years to withdraw plus a one year wait after the 3, when he loses in 2020 the new president will be able to halt the process. Hell when the Democrats take back Congress in 2018 they will be able to halt his action. If he's just stayed in and revised the numbers no one could have stopped him and it would have been immediate.

Re:Paris accord is a scam

[rahvin112]

Voluntary aid, NOT mandated. Did you read it?

Re:Fuck off america

[mrbester]

And most of them are close enough to the US to use medium strike range ordnance. Hello from UK, by the way.

Re:Fuck off america

[OakDragon]

Trump is the new King Canute. He believes his words can command nature itself.

this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal

- Barack Obama

Erasing Obama's legacy?

[Midnight Thunder]

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.

Re:Erasing Obama's legacy?

[Valacosa]

I think Trump ran for President just so he could stand next to Obama in line and wear an "<-- I'm with Stupid" T-shirt.

Re:Fuck off america

[CaptainDork]

All centers of power decline over time and replacements fill the void.

America has voted to be isolationist, anti-globalist, anti-science, pro-white supremacist, Islamophobic, batshit crazy Evangelical Christian, anti-immigration, anti-refugee and anti-business.

Blaming Trump is vacuous. We the People have spoken and it is what it is.

HRC had too much baggage; was Obama 2.0, and ignored the undereducated poor white trash voters.

As America continues to peg the meter to the right, she'll get what she deserves.

Power will now shift to China and India.

God rest (in peace) America.

It was a great ride.

US states should go to Paris

[Ranbot]

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.

Re:Fuck off america

[cfalcon]

Listen to yourself, lol. You want other nations to hurt us? What is wired so backwards in your head?

I hope most Democrats disagree vehemently with you and all of your sentiments, or we won't see many Democrats winning elections in the near future. I know I'd never vote for anyone with even a hint of the stench of self-hatred you reek of in your post.

Re:Fuck off america

[DickBreath]

I never dreamed I would say something like this, but: I would be very happy to have George W. back again. (And I didn't not vote for him.)

W. may have had some bad policy ideas. But he surrounded himself with people smarter than he was. He may not have been very bright. But he was sane.

Re:Fuck off america

[Sique]

You environmentalists just assume man made global warming is a certainty and there is no reason to discuss facts or the science.

There is always reason to actually discuss facts or science. But whenever I show a calculation that shows, the increase of carbondioxide from 1895 (0.027 percent) to today level (2017: 0.040 percent) can be solely explained by burning of about 75 percent of all the coal mined and all the oil pumped between 1895 and 2017, somehow the discussion stops.

Re:Fuck off america

[mrclevesque]

"you don't get to ignore the constitution just because it is inconvenient."

Ha Ha, that has nothing to do with this.

Unless you're trying to start a fake narrative ...

Bad for the U.S.

[WheezyJoe]

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.

Re:Bad for the U.S.

[WheezyJoe]

Sure, but not "agreeing to it" is not the same as dis-owning it and walking away. Trump and Co. aren't "re-negotiating" like they say they will do with NAFTA; they're dis-owning years of negotiations carried out by the U.S., and offering nothing to replace it, leaving all the other parties wondering a big-fat what-the-fuck??? (some deal-maker this Trump is turning out to be). This leads to a perception, all-important in international trade-deals or anything where real money is transacted, that the U.S. is unreliable. And indeed, all indications from Trump's campaign promises is to play hard-ball tariffs, whereas so far the only action carried out by the T-administration is some kind words to China's leaders at a golf course.

That leaves a bunch of Pacific countries, appetites whetted for a lucrative Pacific trade deal, sitting around wondering what we do now. China, itching to get American power out of the China Sea, South Korea, and Taiwan, itching for more trade and influence in South America, itching to show off its new aircraft carriers (with with more to come), would be happy to fill that empty seat at the table with everything that its hard-working, highly-educated, smart-phone-making, super-productive but no freedom-of-speech or freedom-to-unionize workforce has to offer.

Like any clubhouse, once you're out, you're out - it's never easy to get back in. If this keeps up, you're witnessing the decline of the United States as a world power. Thanks, big T, and thanks to all the cock-sure he'll-never-win people who slacked off and let him squeak to victory.

Re:Paris accord is a scam

[MoaDweeb]

So the USA abandons 'Leader of the (free) world' appellation. Who gets to have the moral authority now? Looks like Europe i.e. France/ Germany are the best contenders.
America may now be considered a heavily armed bully.

Re:Paris accord is a scam

[mspohr]

You've listed a number of nuclear myths in your post. There are many more pushed by nuclear proponents.
Here's a rundown of the whole list before you post more:
http://energypost.eu/renewable...

(I'd take a look at Myths 5 through 9 to address your concerns.)

Re:Fuck off america

[Boronx]

G. W. still worse. Way higher body count. Don't use rose colored glasses. I think Trump will surpass Bush if he lasts much longer.

Re:Exactly

[marquisdepolis]

China has been leading the way in renewables spending, and not just in nuclear. Also, fwiw, the money isn't going into the World Bank, it's just countries agreeing to spend money on THEIR OWN industries.

Source 1: http://www.publicfinanceintern...
Source 2: http://uk.reuters.com/article/...

Re:Fuck off america

[Boronx]

The whole thing is just for show. He wants to stir up some noise and stick it (symbolically) to the establishment and the environmentalists.

Re: Fuck off america

[Anonymous Coward]

It's amazing how people like you are unable to see anything without applying the finantial lens. Maybe... maybe they're mad for a different reason? An environmental reason?

Re:Exactly

[Anonymous Coward]

China has already cut its coal consumption year on year since 2013, even while markedly increasing its total energy consumption. Overall CO2 emissions from China have fallen by almost 3% since its peak in 2013, despite continued growth. They have already decommissioned more than 100 coal-fired power plants, and cancelled all plans and current projects that involve building new ones.

India is not so far advanced, but has put a moratorium on new coal development and plans to start cutting back its coal usage in absolute terms by 2024.

Re:Fuck off america

[presidenteloco]

The reason that the Paris agreement allows for example China to take longer before putting on the brakes has to do with fairness.

Since 1850, the average US person has contributed 10 x the GHGs to the atmosphere as the average Chinese person. US economic growth has been built on that 10x bigger fossil-fuel energy consumption and emissions per person.

China starts by saying, well look, in a sense, we have as a population have a right to emit like 10x more than we've ever collectively emitted, starting from after the moment you (US) cut to 0 emissions, for our total historical emissions to be the same per person (US to China).

Then China sees itself CONCEDING from that "right" down to "ok we'll consume for 13 more years than you" then rapidly ramp down with you, or more rapidly than you.

It's all about perspective. They have a damn good point.

Little of column A, little of column B.

[fahrbot-bot]

Trump said the Paris agreement "front loads costs on American people.

Like the Republican "American Health Care Act" does, but this hurts rich people.

To be fair ...

[fahrbot-bot]

Update: Former president Barack Obama said the U.S. "joins a small handful of nations that reject the future."

... the future is probably overrated - especially now.

Re:Fuck off america

[guises]

What is this nonsense? Who called it a treaty? Where are you getting this from?

Do you even know what a treaty is? Do you know what an agreement is? Do you know what the constitution actually requires? It doesn't say: "The President is congress' little bitch and has to get approval before he says anything to anyone." Under the present circumstances that may be an unfortunate truth, but it is a truth.

Re:Fuck off america

[archer, the]

Yep.

You also don't get to ignore physics. I guess we'll watch several coastal cities flood in the next century due to AGW. Further, we'll keep losing $2.3 trillion a year due to the health problems caused by fossil fuel pollution.

Re:Paris accord is a scam

[sexconker]

There are no costs mandated by the Paris Climate Agreement. It was non-binding and had no ramifications if we didn't uphold our end of the bargain.

So it's not an agreement and it's not a bargain? It's just pointless theatrics? All the more reason to leave the circus and let the clowns frolic as they please.

Re:Paris accord is a scam

[gordo3000]

I don't get these kinds of comments. Why do you think investment and significant expansion of the nuclear industry is not inline with the Paris accords? There is nothing in them (that I've seen, maybe I am misinterpreting legalese) that says solar or wind are the ways and CCS or nuclear are "not counted". It's just about reduced emissions, every country can get there however it pleases.

There also doesn't seem to be any requirement in the transfer rules for developed countries to developing countries that this transfer be cash. We could transfer anything, including giving limited tax breaks to companies that pool IP and "give" it to certain poor countries at a licensing cost (that companies set but we don't collect) that gets us there. You could even be even more creative and make that license a right to buy the goods from US manufacturers only. There are so many ways to transfer with it only costing the US a fraction of what it has signed up for (which is already a pretty small number, it's 100 bio a year spread across every developed country in the group). We already do things like this when it comes to medical assistance to poor countries, and all that window dressing is just for PR.

These were all options we had yesterday and Trump could have put forward such a multipronged approach if his closest advisers were people who had expertise in things like energy generation and economic policy. It could basically have been a revival of GWB policy on energy in so many ways. Instead the entire opportunity to show thoughtful leadership was squandered.

Re:Fuck off america

[tburkhol]

I want my country to be a rational, creative, compassionate leader within the community of nations. Failing that, I want my nation's policies to promote our own long-term growth and success without stepping on the rights of other people. Failing that, which is apparently where we are today, I want the community of nations to pressure my nation into pretending to value those principles.

Re:Fuck off america

[JoeMerritt]

Do you get to sue someone if compliance with the Paris accords costs you money?

Re:Fuck off america

[hazardPPP]

The whole thing is just for show. He wants to stir up some noise and stick it (symbolically) to the establishment and the environmentalists.

...and this is the problem arising from making climate change policy an ideological issue. Instead of a facts- and evidence-based issue. It's like arguing over whether clean drinking water is a "right-wing" or "left-wing" thing. Nuts. The Left is just as much to blame here as is the Right, except that the Right maybe started it, due to being beholden to corporate fossil fuel interests.

Note: there are both "right-wing" (market-based) and "left-wing" (state-action, regulation-based) approaches to dealing with climate change and CO2 emissions. How best to deal with climate change can be a right/left point of contention. However making belief in climate change a right/left thing is completely insane.

Re:ignorant idiot

[sexconker]

You need to t y p e more s l o w l y when explaining things to Kjella.

Act locally.

[archer, the]

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.)

Re:Act locally.

[halivar]

If everyone who hated Trump went out and suddenly did these things due to our leaving the Paris Accord, it would have a bigger positive effect on the environment than the Accord itself. Furthermore, these are things self-proclaimed environmentalists could (and should have) have been doing all along.

Re:haha!

[sexconker]

It's "Haw-haw!".

Re: Fuck off america

[Anonymous Coward]

Wtf are you talking about. There are other solutions for energy and have been for ages. Hell, these days some countries are actually producing an excess of renewable energy on some days

Re:Fuck off america

[grcumb]

If we are willing to work for it, and fight for it, and believe in it, then I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on earth.

Context matters, dipshit.

Re: Fuck off america

[Anonymous Coward]

The whole planet was set to benefit, just like when we all banned CFCs which fixed the hole in the ozone layer.
Climate change is real, we have damaged the ozone layer and suffered for it. That's fixed now because of agreements like this.

Re:Fuck off america

[Captain Splendid]

Yeah, the amount of own goals this admin has managed in such a short timeframe is amazing. I knew Trump was stupid but not this stupid.

Worthless piece of shit

[meglon]

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.

Re:Zero Population Growth Would Do Far More...

[rsborg]

You make a lot of assertions without any citations.

The "left" was big on population reduction 40 years ago. You know how Europe collectively did that reduction? Mainly by leftist policies like access to birth control and sex education.

Where is the "right" on this? Yeah, shutting down planned parenthood centers and praising anti-abortion terrorists.

Re:Good and Obama needs to STFU

[meglon]

Congrats. You've risen to a new height of being a complete fucking idiot.

Re:Fuck off america

[rahvin112]

And it's beyond stupid, he took America away from the negotiating table. For a claimed deal maker not sitting at the table is about the stupidest deal you can make! Without the US at the table the rest of the world could decide to impose carbon tariffs on the US exports. You gain absolutely NOTHING by not participating, you can only lose.

Re:Paris accord is a scam

[dtmancom]

There are no costs mandated by the Paris Climate Agreement. It was non-binding and had no ramifications if we didn't uphold our end of the bargain. It is hard to not just spout expletives when responding to your comment since it shows such an immense lack of knowledge and the belief your ignorance should be considered in public policy.

How can it simultaneously be non-binding and also the EOTWAWKI?

Re:Fuck off america

[MoaDweeb]

To be fair to the late Mr Canute, he took his throne and advisors to the sea to show that even he, a King, could not stop the sea by command.
He was iterating the point to his advisors that mortal power had a limit.

Re:Then submit it for Senate ratification

[ranton]

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?

Because Republicans would vote against Christmas if they thought it would make Obama and the Democratic party look bad. They need too confuse the electorate with as much nonsense as possible (in this case climate change denial) to distract from the fact they have no reasonable policies proposals of their own. They cannot even agree on the cornerstone of their party over the past 8 years (overturning Obamacare).

Just because somebody's not a globalist

[rsilvergun]

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.

Re:Exactly

[cbeaudry]

I agree with your comment about China.

Though Nuclear will be their main source of energy.

About your second comment, you are misinformed.
http://unfccc.int/cooperation_...

By then they'll be another Dem in the white house

[rsilvergun]

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.

Re:Exactly

[cbeaudry]

First you say oil is dying anyways so lets all jump on the "spend too much for expensive energy" bandwagon, and now you say its not dying fast enough so "lets all jump on the expensive energy" bandwagon. In short, you want poor people to die.

For the rest of your diatribe of words, you make allot of presumptions and obviously hate the USA, however you, like allot of your greeny friends, no nothing about the global economy.

We will see, but I have an overwhelming feeling that everything you mentioned, will NOT come to pass.

Moahr Doom and Gloom Hyperbole!

[s.petry]

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).

Re:Moahr Doom and Gloom Hyperbole!

[drinkypoo]

Not only do we still have a fully functional EPA,

What? Who told you that, and why are you repeating it? Are you getting paid, or do you just want to seem cool? The EPA has been effectively shut down. It wasn't worth much before, now it's worth even less.

Re:Moahr Doom and Gloom Hyperbole!

[jeff4747]

The President does not have the authority to sign treaties with foreign Governments. This is the job of the House and Senate.

Uh, no. Go review the Constitution.

The Executive branch negotiates and signs treaties. The Senate must ratify a treaty before it goes into effect. The House has no role in treaties.

And yes, the Paris agreement can be an "accord", because of its non-binding nature. It essentially says "we'll think really hard about reducing emissions, and say we'll hand out foreign aid in the future but we don't guarantee it".

Since it doesn't actually obligate the US to do anything, it doesn't have any real effect. Obama was using the wiggle-room provided by rule-making to work towards what the agreement wanted, but that's entirely within what the Executive branch is allowed to do.

Re:Moahr Doom and Gloom Hyperbole!

[MountainLogic]

Strictly speaking this is not a treaty. It is a non-binding accord and legally little more than than a Presidential proclamation declaring national broccoli day with a pledge that all American's must eat their broccoli. Yes, we have had years of Gingrich inspired gridlock with republican refusing to come to the table to participate. Too many leaders have had the single minded goal of party over everything else. That has indeed driven presidents to fill in the void left by congress abdicating their responsibility. If you are not happy with President Obama's actions blame the republicans for hiding in their offices and not participating - they could have had a say. I would never hire a chef who hates food and cooking, why do republicans keep electing people who hate government, governing and the art of compromise?

Re:Moahr Doom and Gloom Hyperbole!

[CrimsonAvenger]

Not being signed up to a treaty which (was signed illegally by the last President[1])

Two things:

1) It's not a treaty. A treaty must be ratified by the Senate to be in force.

2) It wasn't signed illegally. It was an Executive Agreement, which is binding on the Executive branch of our government for as long as the Chief Executive says so.

Okay, THREE things.

3) Trump dumping the Agreement doesn't actually render it void just now. Technically, it actually can't be dumped till it takes effect. Which is in 2020 (yes, the agreement everyone is getting excited about does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING for another three years). What Trump has effectively done is give three years warning that he's not going to do what is required by the agreement (note that what is required is to set some goal to reach by 2025, then in 2025, set a more restrictive goal to reach by 2030. Note that the agreement doesn't actually require any party to actually KEEP their promises).

Note also that the next President can change his mind and do what is required by the Agreement if he/she/it wants to. Or not. And the one after that can ignore it if he/she/it wants.

What's needed is a Treaty! Which has to be ratified by the Senate, but which is effectively an extension of the Constitution.

Re:Moahr Doom and Gloom Hyperbole!

[s.petry]

1) It's not a treaty. A treaty must be ratified by the Senate to be in force.

Which was what I said.

2) It wasn't signed illegally. It was an Executive Agreement, which is binding on the Executive branch of our government for as long as the Chief Executive says so.

So by your logic, the DPRK is really a Democratic Republic and not a Dictatorship. It's the label that counts, not what's inside the box. Again, read the agreement and you will see that it _is_ a treaty which diverts US Funds from Tax payers to foreign Governments. That last part means precisely that it must be ratified by the Senate as a treaty and not an EO.

Re:Moahr Doom and Gloom Hyperbole!

[MachineShedFred]

I was talking about Nicaragua's stance. But thanks for putting a shload of words into my mouth.

Re:Paris accord is a scam

[blindseer]

If the treaty cost nothing, did nothing, and has no penalties for acting or not acting then why is anyone upset if the USA withdraws? Why were so many people overjoyed upon it's signing?

If people want to see the USA use more wind and solar energy then the solution is simple, make it cheaper than coal. I believe that the wind and solar subsidies made the situation worse for renewable R&D. They were all happy swimming in government dollars instead of doing the hard work of competing with coal.

I have to wonder if we'd have all ethanol fueled cars by now if the teetotalers hadn't prohibited private distilling. Even after the prohibition was lifted the taxes on ethanol made it difficult and it continues even today. I believe the free market is the best means to fix any problem. Get rid of the taxes and subsidies and let people do their R&D without the government getting in the way.

Re:Paris accord is a scam

[blindseer]

If the aid is voluntary then all POTUS did is signal that the USA "volunteers" not to pay out. Either we don't pay now (by withdrawing from the treaty) or we don't pay later (by not volunteering to donate the money).

Apparently nothing was lost here, which make me wonder why anyone is upset about POTUS "unsigning" the treaty.

Re:The U.S. is still leading in renewable energy t

[blindseer]

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.

Re:Exactly

[anonymous_echidna]

Reneging on an international agreement is bad for America - worse than supporting it would have been.

Re:Exactly

[cbeaudry]

No it would not have been.

Non binding, means... NON binding.

Supporting it would have cost hundreds of billions + increased energy prices for no reason.
It would have meant giving over (eventually) control to an un-elected body in determining policy in the USA.

BTW, I see your Feynman quote. You should do a little research on what he though about the GHG effect, also about vague theories.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re:Zero Population Growth Would Do Far More...

[Spy Handler]

please read my post more carefully. Yes I KNOW leftists were big on population reduction 40 years ago. That's what I freakin said. I also said leftists TODAY do not dare mention population reduction. Then I stated my belief that the reason for this is the growing power of gov't/business cabal who have more control of the press, and the ability to buy off environmental groups (who used to be big on population reduction but now are not, even though the world population has doubled since the 70's)

Re: Fuck off america

[PoopJuggler]

Trump has no choice but to surround himself with people smarter than him because literally everyone on the planet is smarter than he is.

Re:Fuck off america

[MatiasKiviniemi]

"There won't be Western Civilization left standing in America when this all plays out." Fixed

Re: Fuck off america

[PoopJuggler]

Trump is just a narcissistic con-man who thinks he's a great deal-maker. He hasn't closed one single deal since he took office because running a country and managing foreign policy isn't like greasing a local zoning board so you can build a golf course. He's completely incompetent as a leader.

Re: Fuck off america

[Anonymous Coward]

You haven't spent much time in the red states, have you? Those hillbilly dipshits don't care about anything except being able to afford tickets for the next monster truck rally, or fender flares for stupid truck that gets 12 mpg and then complain when gas prices go up..

Re:Exactly

[scatbomb]

>Climatologists agree CO2 is a greenhouse gas (Yeah, no shit, really? that's not the issue here)
>EU and China are so advanced
>Drumpf just wants more money
>US will regret not paying trillions of dollars for literally nothing

I could be wrong, but it sure seems like you know absolutely shit about climate change and the Paris accord. From where I sit it looks like a do-nothing agreement (less than 0.05C impact over 100 years) that would have cost trillions of dollars for what, exactly? How does paying money to the developing world help the climate? Do you think all those 3rd world kings and rulers are going to use that money responsibly to combat climate change? I can think of any number of projects that would be a far more useful investment: solar farms, updating ourselves on nuclear fuel rod recycling like France does, improved/expanded fracking for natural gas, the list is innumerable. Why waste your money on Paris exactly? Please enlighten all of us why this is the best use of our money.

Re: Paris accord is a scam

[MoaDweeb]

Mate, I am from New Zealand, feel free to liberate us anytime you like.
We may not be on your map anyway.

Re: Fuck off america

[gumbi west]

Coal burning has enormous economic costs, Just ask the national bureau of economic research who say that it should cost at least a factor of four more to offset just local costs.

Re:Fuck off america

[gumbi west]

They had a super majority for 72 days, and Joseph Liberman, who had endorsed McCain, was part of that so called supermajority.

Re:Fuck off america

[gumbi west]

Says a guy who doesn't work in an industry that exports to China. I think you'd hear a pretty big cry of uncle form Trump's base if he actually started a trade war.

Re:Fuck off america

[capebretonsux]

At least he didn't try to give Angela Merkel a backrub.

Given his history, at least he didn't try to grab her by the crotch...

Re:Paris accord is a scam

[gordo3000]

It also doesn't explicitly require that the help be cash. We could have done it similar to how we do many other forms of aid with the money having to be spent with US based companies,and we could via interesting tax incentives induce private companies to foot most of the explicit bill. You could comfortably get to a reasonable number of "assistance" and that assistance can come in so many ways.

Accord is obsolete.

[hackus]

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.

Re:Accord is obsolete.

[drinkypoo]

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.

A typical mild hybrid gets 40 or better, with just a small battery and replacement of the alternator with a starter/motor/generator. A small diesel gets 40 or better even with smog controls. My 1960 Dodge Dart weighed over 4k and was 19.5' long and 6.5' wide and got 21 mpg on the freeway. Your Jetta gets mediocre mileage at best.

But right now there is no way everyone can drive an electric car as there is not enough lithium to go around unfortunately.

Yeah, there's only enough to meet peak projected demand for the next twenty years or so, what a crisis.

Re:Fuck off america

[wildstoo]

"I went to an Ivy League school. I’m very highly educated. I know words, I have the best words."

"The Wharton School of Finance is probably the hardest there is to get into. Some of the great business minds in the world have gone to Wharton."

"The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive."

- Donald Trump

Re:Paris accord is a scam

[Barsteward]

because without consensus agreements, the greedy and corrupt take advantage

Re:Exactly

[Barsteward]

the US, per capita, produces twice the amount of pollution than China even though its a quarter of the population

Re:Exactly

[Barsteward]

because it will take long time to turn the amount of coal fired power stations into something better, they are not resting on their laurels, they are already leading in solar production.
The Paris accord is only bad for America because they are so profligate with cheap fuel, its cheap to burn burn burn and sod the consequences. it should have been the incentive for a large part of the US population to grow up and be more efficient, insulate their homes properly, get rid of the gas guzzling vehicles etc etc

Re:Paris accord is a scam

[Barsteward]

Is that $100B an investment with returns or just a give away?

the whole announcement is stupid.

[gl4ss]

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.

Withdrawing from Paris & TPP, worst of both wo

[lowkeyknight]

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.

Re:Fuck off america

[houghi]

*IF he loses in 2020

FTFY

Re:Good and Obama needs to STFU

[houghi]

Just watch. It will get worse. This is a problem for Late Night TV, because they can not even hyperbole his stupidity.

We'll always have Paris...

[TeknoHog]

...and the mental image of Trump pulling out of her.

Re:Fuck off america

[Anonymous Coward]

I am from Europe, I find it hard to believe we would put a tax on US products even tho they left the agreement. Because US is producing less CO2 now than in start date 2005, and even tho they will not meet their promised ~25% reduction by 2025 they will produce a considerable amount less (even with Trump). Not when the agreement allows China to increase their CO2 production up until 2030. Americans could say that we are reducing, China is increasing, why tax us? And we would have no answer...

Re:Fuck off america

[ABEND]

If "climate change/global warming" was so critical, why didn't President Barak Obama and his Democrat super-majority in Congress forego the piddling little issue of health insurance and instead make some real changes to address "climate change/global warming?"

Please people, try to think "outside the box."

Re:Good and Obama needs to STFU

[meglon]

To be fair, it is hard to out-stupid those who worship stupidity itself.

Re:Paris accord is a scam

[vittal]

Also remember that aid is not some blackhole than money disappears into.

China will say to any number of nations: "Here, have some climate impact mitigation aid money, but you must buy Chinese equipment/services with it.".
The money soon flows back to Chinese companies (after being skimmed for kickbacks and some local handling). These Chinese companies use the money to ramp up production, gaining economies of scale through what in effect is government based support that neatly does an end run around WTO state aid rules. Now, not only has the USA been locked out of these initial deals, it's locked out of the long term contracts (services, maintenance, upgrades), has lost vital mindshare in these new markets and has potentially allowed Chinese companies to undercut US prices because they've had a big whack of state aid.

Sure, you've made some coal miners temporarily happy and sold a few more #MAGA hats, but you've potentially buggered up some juicy long term markets in which America could have competed.

And that's the best case scenario, because if the agreement parties decide that more urgent action is needed, a carbon tariff on non-signatories could really cause headaches for American companies.

Given the Trump administration seems to be getting a kick out of giving the rest of the world the middle finger, I can imagine the rest of the world won't have too many qualms about sticking it to the USA in return.

Re:Exactly

[Bongo]

I'm always reminded of the story of some very left wing US acquaintance who, upon hearing of 9/11, was telling all their UK friends that "we have to bomb someone!!"

Values come from context and life conditions.

One of the very tricky things about the energy debate is that many of the people who have strong views about this, can currently turn the lights on, make breakfast, and get to work.

This gives politicians and companies a lot of leeway in playing with things like wind power and biofuels.

Subsidies or no subsidies, green or fossil, old or new, we are not conscious of the real numbers and whether we'll be able to turn the lights on.

Likewise, we cannot really be conscious of climate change because the "real effects" are nowhere to be found, really. They only appear as hand-wavy interpretations of this or that storm or melt.

Likewise people can argue over the global warming pause till the cows come home.

So it is all rhetoric. Like this thing that India and China are moving really fast as possible... which is a rhetorical point simply to counter the older rhetorical point of, what's the point of CO2 cuts if China and India don't do the same?

This arguing has been going on for 15 or 20 years now, and one of these days, it might actually start to matter. Or maybe not.

And before anyone takes offence at my nonchalant attitude here, remember that, well by coincidence, Prince Charles in the UK, who given his position, you'd think would be well informed to comment on this, said exactly 8 years ago that, we had just 8 years to save the planet.

And even though very little has been done -- he was talking of ending capitalism, "the age of convenience is over" -- here we are today, and either nothing really happened to the planet, or, if he was right, it is now too late anyway.

usa - a coal workers paradise

[gluonic]

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.

pathetic

[zolia]

Its just pathetic.

Re:Fuck off america

[dwillden]

Yes an executive agreement is basically saying We agree the Climate is changing perhaps something should be done.

A treaty is anything that obligates us to act, to pay money and to change laws. The Paris Accord called on the US as a first world nation to give money to other countries. That makes it a treaty and that requires Senate Ratification (and full congressional action to appropriate the money.

Re:Paris accord is a scam

[Nocturna81]

How, exactly, do you propose nuclear is safer then solar? Of all the accidents I can think of the don't really amount to anything more significant then a burned down complex.

Re:Fuck off america

[jeremyp]

The USA with 5% of the World's population generates 15% of the World's anthropogenic greenhouse gases. Damned right it owes the World something.

Also, in what way is the USA super successful? It's got the most guns. Wow. How about providing its citizens with a half way decent healthcare system. Even here in the UK we have managed that.

Re:Paris accord is a scam

[dwillden]

Nuclear is only so expensive due to the extensive lengths the environmentalist's will go to, in order to try to prevent it.

As soon as someone even mentions the idea of building a Nuc plant they will be sued, and the lawsuits will continue every step of the way.

Get the greenies to wake up and realize the harm they are causing to the environment by preventing us from getting away from fossil fuels and the price will drop greatly. Get a President willing to revoke the Carter ban of fast breeder reactors and the waste fuel issue is greatly diminished.

Nuclear is a great option, but groups that quiver in fear of the word have made it so expensive that new plants are rare when they should be going up right and left.

Re:Paris accord is a scam

[dwillden]

Any article that starts out calling anyone who disagrees with it a shill is not getting my time to read it. If you can't make an argument without resorting to insults from the very beginning then your argument is flawed and weak and you know it.

Re:That makes him about 1 for 10,000 so far?

[DirkDaring]

You keep right on thinking that. Maybe you should watch something beyond liberal media.

Re:Paris accord is a scam

[pscottdv]

People fall off roofs while installing solar power. https://asiancorrespondent.com...

Re:Fuck off america

[halivar]

Also, and correct me if I'm wrong here, the US has a 2/3 import/export ratio with the EU. A tariff war would disproportionately affect the EU. In fact, other than food products and overvalued pop media, I'm not sure what exactly we have to slap tariffs on.

Re:Fuck off america

[halivar]

I meant export/import ratio. /sigh

Re:Fuck off america

[KingSkippus]

I hate to burst your bubble, but Democrats aren't going to take back Congress in 2018. Hell, Trump will probably be re-elected in 2020. And I am most emphatically not saying that because that's what I want. I hate Trump and the Republican party with a purple passion you cannot measure.

But the sad fact is that collectively, American voters are dumb as dirt. I mean, we're really, really stupid. Sure, there are a lot of good, smart people out there, but not nearly as many as idiots. I used to be hopeful and optimistic, but the 2016 election irrevocably changed that. We had a man running who literally said that he could get away with anything, including sexual assault, and who was a cultural icon of the greed and excess of our most decadent decade of greed and excess. People lined up in droves to vote for him.

And on the left? We still have a contingent of people, our own version of the Tea Party, who insist that Hillary Clinton is "just as bad," embracing weird conspiracy theories posited by the crazy branch of the right-wing, such as her "rigging" the primaries or deleting thousands of incriminating emails, things there has never been any evidence of her doing.

Some people (including Clinton herself) chalk all of these woes up to misogyny or Russian interference. Yeah, that had some impact. But personally, I chalk it up to a more basic truth: We Americans are collectively as stupid as they come. While most of the world praises intelligence and experience, we have an active disdain for it. When someone excels at something, we look for ways to take them down a peg because they're "elitist." Instead, we bow to the cult of Trump, where you don't have to be smart, motivated, and have a proven track record of getting worthwhile things done. You just have to have a larger-than-life personality and willing to say literally anything, even if it contradicts something you said two minutes ago. We'd prefer electing someone who's openly lying to our face because the person who's telling the truth must be hiding something nefarious.

I know, you're probably thinking that now that Trump has steered our boat straight down shit creek, people are finally waking up. I'll remind you that just a week ago, the people of Montana elected a man who literally physically and deliberately harmed another person because he was "sick and tired" of being asked questions about health care, the most important domestic issue facing America today. We pay lip service to teaching our kids to play nice, share, and be good people, but then we turn right around and reward people like Gianforte with being elected to what used to be an esteemed office. Which lesson do you think they're learning?

And before that, when Democrats lost a mayoral election in Omaha, Nebraska, the Sandersesque contingent came out of the woodwork yet again to point fingers at the national Democratic party for somehow failing to win the seat, even though that election was much closer than the one four years ago. And why? Because the DNC leadership criticized the Democratic candidate for being anti-abortion. Gasp! Democrats had the audacity to vocally support women's rights? No wonder they lost!

I always get amused at people who want term limits for Congresspeople, or who say things like, "Throw them all out!" What exactly makes you think that anything would be any different? I mean, the idiots in Kentucky who keep electing Mitch McConnell, the man who plainly stated that his number one political goal was to make Barack Obama a one-term president (and, incidentally, who spectacularly failed at even that number one goal) would just find some other jackass to line up behind in the following election. Maybe even someone worse.

So yeah, I'd like to think that Democrats are going to make a resurgence in 2018. I'd like to think that 2020 will see a wave of blue overtake the country and finally sweep out the assholes and villains of the right-wing that have been holding this country back for decades. I can't help but roll my e

Thank you. We the People will take it from here.

[fygment]

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.

An epitaph for coal.

[hey!]

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.

Re: Fuck off america

[butzwonker]

...or 190 other nations in the world who signed the Paris Agreement? Well, maybe you should start asking yourself whether any other nation will want to ally with the US in the future if your country continues to go down that path...

Re:Fuck off america

[necro81]

America has voted to be isolationist, anti-globalist, anti-science, pro-white supremacist, Islamophobic, batshit crazy Evangelical Christian, anti-immigration, anti-refugee and anti-business.

Blaming Trump is vacuous. We the People have spoken and it is what it is.

Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.

Re: Fuck off america

[butzwonker]

Oh, that's easy to explain. I belong to the Illuminati. We don't give away our names easily.

Re:Fuck off america

[cayenne8]

Seriously, what does this change?

All the talking heads, like Kerry...saying "well this wasn't binding anyway".

If this was the case, they what difference does it make if we're in it or out of it?

I wouldn't mind going back into it, IF it was non-binding, AND we leave out the part about the US funding up around $3B a year to other countries for them to "clean up"...but that being money with no strings attached to it.

I'm tired of the US sending money we could use at home to the rest of the planet.

But back to original point...if it wasn't binding, then what real difference does it make?

Re:Fuck off america

[AchilleTalon]

Western countries can claim greener and cleaner economy because they moved the dirty business in these countries. Trump wants them back in USA. That's why he withdrawal from Paris Climate Accord. These dirty businesses provide job for the less educated in the country.

Re:Fuck off america

[mysidia]

Blaming Trump is vacuous. We the People have spoken and it is what it is.

Yep. And Trump promised during his campaign to take the US out of this agreement, So he's doing what he said what he would do which is better than what thousands of current and past politicians have done.
If you didn't like it, then you should've voted someone else into office.

Re:Fuck off america

[pastafazou]

I doubt there would've been pushback. The GOP were great at talking, but when it came time to stand for conservative principles, they were nowhere to be found. Just look at how they staged their opposition to Obama's Iran deal. They introduced a fatally flawed bill (Corker bill) that allowed Obama to bypass the 2/3rds Senate majority rule required for a treaty.

Re: Paris accord is a scam

[mspohr]

There are nuclear and fossil fuel shills spreading these myths. If you're not a shill, the term doesn't apply.

Re:Fuck off america

[zifn4b]

All Trump is managing to do is alienate our allies. If he is dismantling anything it is America. The rest of the world, which is 96 % of the world's population will go on without us if necessary.

Or we could just keep spending money we don't have on the rest of the world until we destroy our own country, then we won't be good to anyone including our own citizens. The "rest of the world" as you say will go on without us in that case which is precisely what you're advocating.

Re:Fuck off america

[kilfarsnar]

1. Trump alienating our allies is headline news lately.

Give the guy some credit. At least he didn't try to give Angela Merkel a backrub.

Ugh, how bad is it that Trump makes me nostalgic for George W Bush? I thought he would go down in history as America's worst President, but then this orange clown showed up.

Re:Fuck off america

[zifn4b]

Do you know what the constitution actually requires? It doesn't say: "The President is congress' little bitch and has to get approval before he says anything to anyone." Under the present circumstances that may be an unfortunate truth, but it is a truth.

Well my my aren't you dramatic? Ok, let's revisit Civics 101. If the President wielded supreme executive power, we would have a monarchy thus not needing a system of checks and balances, an executive, legislative or judicial branch of the government. You see friend, we have precisely those things so that no single entity within the government, including the President, can have supreme authority because history tells us that this often leads to dictatorships and tyranny and the outcomes are typically not favorable to citizens nor representative of their will. While the President probably couldn't be categorized as "Congress' little bitch", neither party can arbitrarily do anything it wants to without agreeing to a certain extent the criteria for which is outlined in the Constitution.

Re:Fuck off america

[thegarbz]

Yes a 100% voluntary agreement with paragraph 17 being:

"17. Each party to such an agreement shall be responsible for its emission level as set out
in the agreement referred to in paragraph 16 of this Article"

There's 117 other shall statements in your "voluntary" treaty. In fact there's 5 voluntary clauses in the entire treaty. 4 of them are concerned with transferring emissions via agreed trading schemes, and the 5th says that signatories may voluntary implement more ambitious plans.

But really what the treaty says is irrelevant compared to the actual actions that the signatories are taking, and so far all signatories are taking your so called "voluntary" actions. ... Except the USA of course.

Re:Paris accord is a scam

[thegarbz]

Every significant form of renewable energy has been and/or is being supported by all manner of subsidy.

You're wrong. Every significant form of energy has been and or is being supported by all manner of subsidy.

Not just the renewables.

Re:Exactly

[kilfarsnar]

Somehow I think that when the supercop leaves the world will go back to fighting - and then and only then might they miss the US.

Or they'll realize that the supercop wasn't as essential as everyone thought. It's not good when the most powerful nation on the planet decides to not be part of the process. The rest of the world will move ahead anyway and the US may lose its seat at the table.

Re: Fuck off america

[zifn4b]

The whole planet was set to benefit, just like when we all banned CFCs which fixed the hole in the ozone layer. Climate change is real, we have damaged the ozone layer and suffered for it. That's fixed now because of agreements like this.

Are you nuts? What do you want to do, ban the combustion engine? The economic disaster that would follow from that would be devastating. You must deal with the reality that we have a global economic system that is reliant on fossil fuels. Alternate energy sources is the answer and that can only be accomplished with science not regulation. Learn how to be pragmatic instead of a hippie idealist. It's people like you that cause suffering for other people with your wishful thinking.

Re:Fuck off america

[Buchenskjoll]

Fun fact: King Canute's (or Knud den store as he is known in Denmark) grandfather was Harald Bluetooth after whom the bluetooth protocol was named.

Re:Paris accord is a scam

[merky1]

Sadly, your link is a thinly researched opinion piece. The references are basically 3 "green" energy blogs and 1 senate bill.

My favorite Myth is the Yucca mountain costs without mentioning the political aspect of the costs and failure of the mountain (thanks Harry Reed).

Also, holding up Japan's failed nuclear policy as an example is bit of a stretch. The problems in Japan are linked more in corruption and culture than technology.

Don't get me wrong, nuclear is scary and deserves respect, but I have faith in humanity that we can sort it out.

Re: Fuck off america

[cayenne8]

...or 190 other nations in the world who signed the Paris Agreement? Well, maybe you should start asking yourself whether any other nation will want to ally with the US in the future if your country continues to go down that path...

Hell, everyone says the agreement wasn't binding in any fashion....so, WTF difference does it make if the US is in or out of it officially?

Also..shouldn't congress have voted on this anyway?

Re:The U.S. is still leading in renewable energy t

[swillden]

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.

Re:Zero Population Growth Would Do Far More...

[swillden]

The "left" was big on population reduction 40 years ago. You know how Europe collectively did that reduction? Mainly by leftist policies like access to birth control and sex education.

I'm completely uninterested in this leftist vs rightist crap, but I don't think you can substantiate this claim. The strongest indicators of low birthrate are per-capita wealth, infant/child survival rate, and median level of female education. Cheap/free access to birth control and state-mandated sex education likely have some effect, but it's down in the noise.

Now, you can argue about whether it's the left's policies or the right's policies which most help the relevant factors.

Re: Paris accord is a scam

[mspohr]

Yucca mountain reinforces the fact that there is no realistic way to store nuclear waste safely.
Japan follows US nuclear regulations. They failed. You can't say nuclear is safe and not count Fukushima and Chernobyl. Real world systems are complex and nuclear is dangerous.

Re:Fuck off america

[DickBreath]

> But back to original point...if it wasn't binding, then what real difference does it make?

The importance of this is that . . . (gasp!) . . . a man with non-white skin made this agreement! Unacceptable!

I think that is the most likely underlying reason this is so important to some people.

Re: Fuck off america

[Critical Facilities]

Alternate energy sources is the answer and that can only be accomplished with science not regulation.

I do not agree. I think that regulation in some form MUST be a component because as we've all seen, massive corporations are reluctant to make expensive investments unless prodded to do so. Do you honestly believe we'd have had the increases in fuel efficiency or the proliferation of hybrid vehicles without some of the regulations that have been imposed?

No one's talking about banning the internal combustion energy, dude. Just like we didn't just ban CFCs, we phased out the CFC based refrigerants over 20 years, and you know what? It worked.

So, why don't you get that enormous cock off your chest and quit accusing people of being "hippie idealists" who are essentially saying the same thing you are? Any idiot with half a brain recognizes that our planets reliance on fossil fuels is a dead end street, and everyone agrees renewables is the way to go (well.....except those die hard Trumpies.....they just want their coal jobs back...).

Re:YEAH!! It is time for America to make improveme

[drinkypoo]

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.

Re:Fuck off america

[budgenator]

All Trump is managing to do is alienate our allies. If he is dismantling anything it is America. The rest of the world, which is 96 % of the world's population will go on without us if necessary.

1. It doesn't matter what the US does to reduce it's CO2 emissions as long as China increases twice as much as we reduce.
2. The US is reducing it's CO2 emissions and we're on a continuing downward trend even without the Self-flagellation the Paris Discord would require of us.
3. The Paris Discord has no verification process, so at best it'll be a lier's club.
4. Most of the "Allies" we are managing to do is alienate, have been alienating us pretty well over the last few decades.
5. If the rest of the world thinks it can go on without the U$ 100 Billion a year to the UN Green Climate Fund, then have at it.I see no reason to fund African Dictator’s pensions anyway.
6. At best the Paris Discord would have stopped the average global temp from going up 0.2K and that would have mostly been due to decreased night time cooling, not increased day time warming. Measurement error is bigger than 0.2K!

Re:Fuck off america

[Z00L00K]

Promises only takes you so far. And it's one thing to fulfill a promise, another to maintain it.

It would be fun to see where we end up at the next election. I think it's hard to find a candidate wilder than Trump.

The people behind House of Cards even complains that Trump stole all their ideas.

Re:Fuck off america

[cayenne8]

The importance of this is that . . . (gasp!) . . . a man with non-white skin made this agreement! Unacceptable!

I think that is the most likely underlying reason this is so important to some people.

Seriously....?

Even this gets the racial card thrown out on it? Sheesh...

For me, a large part of it was the language that had the US pumping out about $3B annually to other countries with no strings attached, for them to "clean up" their act. Even if it had no binding obligations to the agreement....I'm willing to be the MONEY part would have been observed, and I'm tired of sending our tax dollars out when they could be put to much better use here at home.

Re: Fuck off america

[cayenne8]

from how Trumpcare (grandiose over a House vote that is Dead in the Senate)

Well, they gotta do something, obamacare is failing under its own weight, and many voted to get rid of the damned thing, this is him trying to keep election promises.

Muslim Ban (Even aside from the issues in court, the sudden implementation was flawed)

Hmm...he was wanting to restrict travel from a small subset of countries with heavy terrorist activity, that was largely the same list the Obama administration restricted for awhile when he was in office?

Again, seems more common sense than acrimony or racism....it does happen these areas are largely muslim, but hey...if we have an upturn in terrorist Buddhists or Presbyterian activity, I expect to enact similar restrictions.

...we know we have another indication that he just wants to tear down Obama.

Well, a lot of people didn't like many of the things Obama did, and hence voted for someone to reign them in vs continue another 4 years of the same policies. Again...keeping election promises...

Hell, he could have scored more points by simply forwarding it to the Senate as a treaty.

OH just great..then it *would* have made it binding....no thanks.

Re:THANK YOU PRESIDENT TRUMP!!!!

[Miser]

How's about you sign in when you type those words?

Re:Paris accord is a scam

[budgenator]

China beats us by a wide margin, and Chinese pollution is really pollution.

Re:Fuck off america

[budgenator]

The notion of listening to "international courts" is a slippery slope. Is some 3rd world country going to sue for one hundred trillion dollars and get it - maybe. Politics can drive such absurdities. However I think much of the US will say come and try and take it.

I agree, One needs to be careful when the cost of your existence far exceeds the cost of your elimination. I've often wondered why patent trolls don't end up in body bags.

Re: Fuck off america

[gtall]

This is really the danger for Agent Orange. There's nothing stopping the rest of the world from imposing a carbon tax on American products with the proceeds used to advance other countries' green industries. That idiot better hope that doesn't happen.

Re:Fuck off america

[gtall]

Do you really think other nations give a flying rats ass what we call the Paris accords in this country. For them, its a treaty and the U.S. signed on. I wish Obama had submitted it to Congress. He didn't because it would have been rejected but at least he would have gotten the moron Republicans on the record of thumbing their nose at the rest of the world. Now it just appears some whacko in the White House and a few fellow travelers are thumbing their nose.

Re:Fuck off america

[gtall]

Asshole lost the popular vote and given what the Democrats were running in opposition, he won. Yes there are a significant number of white trash voters who believe as he does. I do think he has a tin-ear for politics. He just happened to run at the right time for a moron of his limited intellectual prowess.

If the Democrats can get out of their Warren-Biden-Sanders rut and run to the center, el Presidente Tweetie will get dis-elected and the next president will spend about 6 months undoing all the executive orders that moron has pushed out. If he gets impeached, Pence has a similar tin ear and will only push the same dumb policies. The Republicans still think it is the 1980s, and they've not learned anything since. It turns out the Democrats haven't either.

Trolling?

[s.petry]

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).

Re:Trolling?

[drinkypoo]

I can find tens of thousands of EPA regulations which are in effect.

It's irrelevant if they're "in effect" if people aren't being prosecuted for violating them, which was overwhelmingly the case even before pretty much everyone at the EPA was told to stop doing their jobs.

Re:Trolling?

[drinkypoo]

The EPA was never told to stop doing their job, they were told "until further notice, any new regulation requires the cancellation of 2 old regulations".

That is in effect telling them to stop doing part of their job, actually, since part of their job is making new regulations. It's not eliminating regulations, and it should not be, either.

They have not been told to stop prosecuting or even investigating current regulations.

Bull Shit.

Continued spewing of ignorant nonsense will be considered trolling. You do have a history of such, so I'm not surprised.

HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA

Coming from you, that is the finest compliment I could be paid.

Re:Fuck off america

[gnick]

When 100% of the countries invited to be part of the Paris Climate Agreement felt the agreement was either worth signing or didn't go far enough to curb emissions, its safe to say you can objectively say what the reasonable opinion is.

Don't exaggerate. It's only 99.5% - Syria claims it has other things to worry about right now. They're obviously planet haters like DJT.

Re:Paris accord is a scam

[mspohr]

Per capita, the US emits more pollution.
China is doing something about it (largest solar and wind installations, cancelling 107 coal plants, etc.) vs the US which is run by the fossil fuel companies with Trump as their useful idiot.

Re:The U.S. is still leading in renewable energy t

[blindseer]

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?

Paris Climate Treaty

[argStyopa]

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.

Re:The U.S. is still leading in renewable energy t

[swillden]

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.

Obama led well. Trump leads poorly.

[fyngyrz]

This treaty was never a treaty.

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.

Re:Fuck off america

[Shotgun]

Well, it sucks to be "them" then.

If I have a meeting with a bunch of people and "agree" to give away your house, the other people may get upset, but they don't get to have your house.

Obama had a meeting with a bunch of people, and agreed to give away the American taxpayer's money. There is a process he has to go through before he is able to do that. He didn't go through the process. "They" don't get to have our money. Cry me a river.

Re:The U.S. is still leading in renewable energy t

[blindseer]

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.

Re:Fuck off america

[Shotgun]

in what way is the USA super successful?

It's got the most guns.

Funny how you answered your own question.

Re: Fuck off america

[Shotgun]

I have. And from your comment, it is apparent that you haven't.

Re: Fuck off america

[zifn4b]

Alternate energy sources is the answer and that can only be accomplished with science not regulation.

I do not agree. I think that regulation in some form MUST be a component because as we've all seen, massive corporations are reluctant to make expensive investments unless prodded to do so. Do you honestly believe we'd have had the increases in fuel efficiency or the proliferation of hybrid vehicles without some of the regulations that have been imposed?

Increasing fuel efficiency is science and engineering. Hybrid vehicles have failed to make any substantial improvement. The reason is because they are cost prohibitive compared to combustion engine vehicles. The solution to that problem is to close the gap in cost. If you were to make the hybrid vehicles cheaper than combustion engine vehicles and afford similar amenities, the problem would solve itself.

My criticism of idealists and/or wishful thinkers is valid because you folks start with an end result and work your way backwards instead of starting with the problem and using the problem to define the solution. You can spend all the time you want ignoring the properties of the problem you don't want to deal with. You're not going to solve anything that way. If you really care about these problems, you would do well to accept the whole problem and persistently work within that problem context to find a solution. Otherwise, you're not doing anything useful. Get going on it. Everyone is rooting for you. Or just stay behind your computer and just be a loud mouth.

Very liberal thinkers have a tendency to want to ignore economic systems entirely. My interpretation of that type of thinking "I reject reality and insert my own." What you don't realize is that this thinking is essentially suggesting to burn everything to the ground and start over again. I'm fairly certain you would not enjoy the outcome of that and be incessantly bitching and moaning about that pointing fingers at everyone.

Re:Paris accord is a scam

[Tailhook]

Every significant form of energy has been and or is being supported by all manner of subsidy.

The part where I claimed subsidy is unique to renewables is confusion inside your head; you're having reading comprehension problems.

Re: Fuck off america

[TopherC]

I'm trying to comfort myself by wondering if the US being so tragicomically stupid well help the resolve of other countries and help to set a good example by failure. Like Papa Berenstain Bear?

Re:Fuck off america

[CaptainDork]

Mod +1 (Insightful)

Re:Paris accord is a scam

[budgenator]

China is canceling 107 cleaner more modern coal fired plants, instead of closing 107 old obsolete plants belching pollution!

Re:Fuck off america

[CaptainDork]

Learn to read and comprehend, asshole.

I said America wants this, essentially in agreement with you.

I sure as hell didn't vote for that tiny pee-pee'd pussy grabbing son of a bitch immature naive ignorant sexual predator.

The problem is not Trump, at all.

It's much less shallow that Trump.

The batshit crazy right-wing Evangelical white trash poor under-educated Christians (like you) have gotten what you want.

You have achieved success, so shut your goddam pie hole and find something else to bitch about, like no fucking jobs.

Re:Fuck off america

[CylanR77]

You are free to leave this nation and its citizens that you hate with such a passion and relocate to somewhere else far more forward thinking. I hear that Nicaragua has just emerged as being in the forefront of progressivism, perhaps you will be more comfortable among your peers there?

Of course, I don't think that you will actually leave, because deep down you know that you have it good in this country - and you don't want to give up your way of life.

More than half of US GDP is ignoring Trump

[WillAffleckUW]

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.

You forget one thing: WE'RE FLAT BROKE!

[scatbomb]

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.

Re:Fuck off america

[eheldreth]

That reasoning may resonate as a political talking point but it's factually flawed in a number of important ways. The US was a massive exporter during it's heyday of C02 emissions. To accurately calculate a countries individual historical impact you would need to account for all of the goods and advances they imported from the US. This line of reasoning seeks to force western nations to absolve their advantages through the use of guilt.

Beyond that western nations obviously didn't have modern alternatives available to them when they where industrializing. That's not the case today. We have both the science to explain the issue and technologies to help alleviate it. Knowingly ignoring the issue to leverage economic advantage on the world stage is not morally equivalent to the western worlds build up over the last couple of hundred years.

We should work on the issue from the realistic stand point of where we are. Anything else isn't attempting to solve climate change it's attempting to speed up redistribution of western wealth and power to developing nations. Fairness doesn't enter into it because the conditions are not equal.

P.S. None of that's to say I think the US should have pulled out of the agreement, if only because it cost us little beyond our current trajectory and provided motivation to other countries.

Re:Fuck off america

[lgw]

Yes, you got the reference. Or are that that guy who has to explain every joke he sees?

What you think about CNN is irrelevant

[rsilvergun]

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.

Re:What you think about CNN is irrelevant

[penandpaper]

Yes the prisoner's dilemma. Any deal or negotiation to address the tragedy must be fair to all parties else it breaks apart. That is why any nation acting in their self interest is fine to me just as I would expect the US to act in their self interest. Sure, if those countries want to cut off their own nose to spite their face they are free to do so by all means.

Re:Fuck off america

[OrangeTide]

few people voted for him. The Russian/GOP strategy was to lower voter turnout

Please don't misrepresent this. Trump received 46.1% of votes. That's hardly a "few people". And some states were up in voter turn out, TX, PA, FL, GA, AL, and others. A few were down only slightly like NY, CA, MI, OH, MA, VA, TN, NC, and others. Certainly the demographic shift in the turn out lead to Trump getting as many votes as he did, and the way our electoral collect work is the only reason he won. Even if we eliminated the electoral college, the popular vote was very close between Trump and Clinton and in that hypothetical situation nobody would have considered Hillary's victory a land slide.

I blame the arrogance of the DNC for suppressing grass roots movements during the primary election. The insiders in the DNC chose Hillary as the candidate, rather than giving some of the other candidates a fair chance. Strategically a far left candidate that had a squeaky clean record like Sanders would have motivated far better voter turn out than Clinton with the open questions on her emails and Benghazi involvement. I have no problems with Hillary Clinton and I have confidence in her leadership abilities especially in complex international politics. But the accusations surrounding her hurt her campaign severely, regardless if they had merit or if they were baseless accusations designed to discredit her.

If we can trace this to being an international campaign to spread misinformation, that would be huge news. But because of the kind of politician she is, it would be difficult to separate the false accusations from the lies she regularly makes. I doubt she has done anything criminal with regard to her email server or to Benghazi, but she provides limited details and inconsistent answers because she is constantly trying to cover her mistakes. It's behavior that is normal to any politician, but when it is so blatant it makes people not want to vote for her.

Re:Fuck off america

[OrangeTide]

Democrats are probably incompetent.

Also Obama's term only saw 59 active Democrat senators. He would have needed 60 for a true super majority.

Re:Paris accord is a scam

[ender8282]

China will say to any number of nations: "Here, have some climate impact mitigation aid money, but you must buy Chinese equipment/services with it.". The money soon flows back to Chinese companies (after being skimmed for kickbacks and some local handling). These Chinese companies use the money to ramp up production, gaining economies of scale through what in effect is government based support that neatly does an end run around WTO state aid rules. Now, not only has the USA been locked out of these initial deals, it's locked out of the long term contracts (services, maintenance, upgrades)...

So only countries who have signed up for the Paris Climate accord are allowed to give money to other countries with strings attached? Not that this administration would do it but I'm pretty sure that we are just as capable of giving clean energy money to other countries with strings attached today as we were before the announcement.

Re: Fuck off america

[OrangeTide]

I believe the Gallup poll from last year worked out to 64% of Americans expressed concern over climate change. So you want to quibble over slightly less than two thirds instead of half?

Honestly it's fucked up that it's not 90%. Might as well be zero if we have a hundred million people in this country who still deny climate change.

Re: The U.S. is still leading in renewable energy

[blindseer]

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.

Re: Fuck off america

[Critical Facilities]

Man, you really like to be obtuse don't you?

Listen, dipshit, yes, fuel efficiency is science and engineering......that was fucking PUSHED by regulation. You think those companies like Ford and Chrysler just decided to do something nice for the planet because it was the right thing to do? Hell no. They did it because regulations tightened on emissions and efficiency, so they were forced to adapt. And I love your anecdotal horse shit "hybrid vehicles have failed to make any substantial improvement" trip. What the hell are you even talking about here?? Where do you live that you don't see any substantial use of hybrid vehicles?

And yes, initially hybrids were cost prohibitive, but that has evolved due to regulation and subsidization. The problem with you curmudgeonly fucks is that you can't see past your own nose, and you cannot imagine the steps necessary to initiate a true sea change. Guys like you who love to believe that they're financial analysts try to boil things down to back of the napkin comparisons, when the reality is so much more complex.

But, go ahead and be an asshole, I don't care. We smart folks will happily leave you behind.

Yes all must reduce but US has duty to do the most

[presidenteloco]

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.

Re:The U.S. is still leading in renewable energy t

[swillden]

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.

Re:Fuck off america

[cmdr_klarg]

HRC had too much baggage

Yup, 25 years worth of it heaped on her from the GOP character assassination campaign. Never mind that the great majority of it was not actually hers.

Certainly not completely without her own baggage but not of the magnitude the GOP would like you to believe.

Re:Good and Obama needs to STFU

[axis_omega]

Yes to be fair, we are asking stupid people to understand the consequences in a far away future. That will really happen sooner now...
And those people post anonymously also. Let's hope they'll teach some science lessons in US to help them a little. Oh wait...

Re:THANK YOU PRESIDENT TRUMP!!!!

[axis_omega]

Let's hope it is sarcasms...

Re:Paris accord is a scam

[mspohr]

First, there is no such thing as a clean coal plant. Newer plants are slightly cleaner and more efficient but still terribly polluting.
Second, they are also closing hundreds of old obsolete coal power plants. The remaining plants are only operating at less than 50% capacity (and dropping). They are installing 1000 Gigawatts of renewable power (more than the capacity of the entire US electrical grid).

Re: The U.S. is still leading in renewable energy

[swillden]

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 :-)

Re:Paris accord is a scam

[DarthVain]

I don't disagree with you, however the UK is probably better positioned than just about anyone for renewables as it is surrounded by water which is where all the best windpower is located. Though you have to get past all the NIMBY's and real estate barons first. A better example might be some small landlocked European country.

The US is a Jerk!

[DarthVain]

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!

Re:The U.S. is still leading in renewable energy t

[blindseer]

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.

Re:Fuck off america

[tbannist]

Blaming Trump is vacuous. We the People have spoken and it is what it is.

Except, you know, the people spoke and what they said was actually "Clinton", but because of the electoral college, the candidate with the second most votes won... Again...

Re:Paris accord is a scam

[thegarbz]

Oh okay. Let's review:

Every significant form: - All major things related to what follows in the sentence.
of renewable: - An adjective that describes a subset of the noun with which its associated.
energy: - The subject of the sentence, limited to a subset defined by the adjective that preceded it.
has been and/or is being: - Indicating present or past tense of the following verb applies.
supported by: - The verb applying to the subset of the subject defined by the adjective that preceded it.
by all manner of: - A colloquialism describing the whole of the noun which follows.
subsidy: - The item being applied to the subset of the subject defined by the adjective that preceded it.

Now I can't stress this enough, the adjective defined a subset of the noun that formed the subject of the sentence, not in my head but in the general understanding of every English speaking person who correctly read your sentence.

Do you even English man?

Re:Fuck off america

[tbannist]

It should have been clear to individual voters 18 months before the election that this guy was unfit for office. Certainly by 12 months. Or 6 months.

You can divide Trump voters into three groups:

1. People who voted for Trump because he was the Republican candidate
2. People who believed everything he said
3. People who believed nothing he said and voted for him because he was obviously unfit for the job.

Group 3 is surprising large.

Re:The U.S. is still leading in renewable energy t

[swillden]

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.

Re: Paris accord is a scam

[tbannist]

Come on, you know as well as I do that if Russia invaded Paris while Trump was president, America would officially congratulate Russia on their bold, humanitarian actions.

Re:Paris accord is a scam

[tbannist]

Any article that starts out calling anyone who disagrees with it a shill is not getting my time to read it. If you can't make an argument without resorting to insults from the very beginning then your argument is flawed and weak and you know it.

That interpretation of the article's pre-amble is so divorced from the actual text that it makes it seem like you were reading a totally different article. Of course, we all know the real reason is that you didn't want to read it in the first place, so you seized the very first reason you could find to ignore everything that runs counter to your pre-existing beliefs.

Re:Paris accord is a scam

[Tailhook]

Your understanding and precise parsing of one sentence is correct and I agree with it. It clearly states that all renewables are supported. It does not follow that non-renewables are not also supported by "all manner of subsidy." It simply doesn't. You misunderstood a straightforward sentence and then spouted off based on that misunderstanding. Your belief that something I wrote implies that ONLY renewables ("Not just the renewables") are subsidized is false. I wrote no such thing at any point. I wouldn't because I know that is false.

That has been a sincere attempt to address your confusion. Go ahead and get your last word in if it makes you feel better, but I'm done with this.

Re:Fuck off america

[CaptainDork]

Makes no fucking difference at all.

Like football scores, this election outcome is in the record books and armchair quarterbacking is nothing more than a review of the facts.

It is what it is.

Re:Fuck off america

[CaptainDork]

Blaming the electoral college directly, or as part of the system doesn't work.

The presidential elections proceeded in a lawful manner and until the law is changed, it is what it is.

America WANTS a fucking pussy grabbing white nationalist under-educated president who doesn't know much about civics, social studies, geography, politics, military or governance.

America panicked and voted for jobs and fuck everything else.

It reminds me of tobacco litigation whereby people who KNEW they were killing people still wanted their jobs even if it killed them and other people.

Re:Paris accord is a scam

[serviscope_minor]

ok, the small landlocked ones do have it worse. Even with the UK though, the numbers don't add up, not entirely. They more than do for the USA though.

Re:Exactly

[MightyMartian]

I don't hate the USA, I hate the fucking moron at the top and the fucking morons that back him.

Yes, oil is dying. Look at the price, supply is up, demand is down, but it isn't dying fast enough to hold back temperature rises.

And renewables are dropping in price, so what's really needed is a way to start properly pricing emissions.

Re:Exactly

[cbeaudry]

Why? Why does it need to die faster?

Its well on its way, technology is doing its thing. Renewables are dropping in price. Things are on track.

Its a fallacy that we need to accelerate this.

Trump is new to all this, this debate has been going on for much longer, its just the new face and you want to blame it all on him.
He's right, its simple. The Paris deal was bad, is bad and would have done absolutely nothing but send money to the world bank.

The fact that you dont know how bad for the world economy this whole thing is, is the problem. I just dont know how to make you understand, but I guess maybe you just dont want to.

Constitutional considerations of a treaty

[GPS Pilot]

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.

Re:Fuck off america

[tbannist]

Why do you think Russia wanted Trump to win the election? The Russian government wants to break the west and destroy NATO and Trump is childish enough to give them everything they want, whether he knows it or not.

99% economic engagement?

[GPS Pilot]

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.

Hyperbole

[GPS Pilot]

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?

What the Constitution actually requires

[GPS Pilot]

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.

Re:What the Constitution actually requires

[guises]

Thanks for laying that out, that was informative.

Re:Fuck off america

[fustakrakich]

I knew Trump was stupid but not this stupid.

Stupid? In what way? You think he or the party will lose votes and money over this?

Re:Zero Population Growth Would Do Far More...

[rsborg]

please read my post more carefully. Yes I KNOW leftists were big on population reduction 40 years ago. That's what I freakin said. I also said leftists TODAY do not dare mention population reduction. Then I stated my belief that the reason for this is the growing power of gov't/business cabal who have more control of the press, and the ability to buy off environmental groups (who used to be big on population reduction but now are not, even though the world population has doubled since the 70's)

Big Business has bought off environmental groups, government, scientists, the press, and everyone else. Of course, everything sounds so business friendly, otherwise one risks offending the ones who control ALL the purse-strings.

And Big Business needs to be bigger. They're never satisfied - until the collapse when they cry about their losses.

Re:YEAH!! It is time for America to make improveme

[WindBourne]

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.

Re:YEAH!! It is time for America to make improveme

[WindBourne]

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.

Re:YEAH!! It is time for America to make improveme

[WindBourne]

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.

Re:Exactly

[marquisdepolis]

Thanks .. That link is pretty interesting!