Slashdot Mirror
Trump Announces US Withdrawal From Paris Climate Accord (reuters.com)
It's official. President Donald Trump announced today that the United States will withdraw from the Paris climate agreement, following through on a pledge he made during the presidential campaign. Trump said the Paris agreement "front loads costs on American people. In order to fulfill my solemn duty to protect America and its citizens, the United States will withdraw from the Paris climate accord but begin negotiations to reenter either the Paris accord or an entirely new transaction on terms that are fair to the United States," the president said. "We are getting out. But we will start to negotiate, and we will see if we can make a deal that's fair. And if we can, that's great." Trump said that the United States will immediately "cease all implementation of the non-binding Paris accord" and what he said were "draconian financial" and other burdens imposed on the country by the accord.
This means that Elon Musk will leave Trump's Business Advisory Council. On Wednesday, Musk said he did "all he could to advise directly to Trump." (Update: Elon Musk is staying true to his words. Following the announcement, Musk tweeted, "Am departing presidential councils. Climate change is real. Leaving Paris is not good for America or the world.")
Twenty-five companies, including Adobe, Apple, Facebook, Google, HP, Microsoft, Salesforce, Morgan Stanley, Intel signed on to a letter which was published on the New York Times and Wall Street Journal today arguing in favor of climate pact.
Update: Former president Barack Obama said the U.S. "joins a small handful of nations that reject the future."
Also, the New York Times points out that despite Trump's public statements, the U.S. can't officially leave the Paris climate agreement until 2020.
This means that Elon Musk will leave Trump's Business Advisory Council. On Wednesday, Musk said he did "all he could to advise directly to Trump." (Update: Elon Musk is staying true to his words. Following the announcement, Musk tweeted, "Am departing presidential councils. Climate change is real. Leaving Paris is not good for America or the world.")
Twenty-five companies, including Adobe, Apple, Facebook, Google, HP, Microsoft, Salesforce, Morgan Stanley, Intel signed on to a letter which was published on the New York Times and Wall Street Journal today arguing in favor of climate pact.
Update: Former president Barack Obama said the U.S. "joins a small handful of nations that reject the future."
Also, the New York Times points out that despite Trump's public statements, the U.S. can't officially leave the Paris climate agreement until 2020.
We get to join Nicaragua and Syria in not being part of the Paris Climate Accord. And Nicaragua didn't sign it because they think it doesn't go far enough.
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
Between California regulations, consumer-driven conservation, the increasing market for electric cars, and the price drop in renewable energy, aren't Americans on track to seriously cut CO2 emissions anyway?
Finding God in a Dog
Blue states should get together and promise internationally to try to keep the spirit of the agreement alive in their respective states. While it may not be constitutional to make formal agreements, at least token pledges can be given.
Time to leave the troglodytes in the dust; they will drag us backward if we let them set the agenda. And they are an embarrassment to the USA.
Table-ized A.I.
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.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Trump ran on this position.. I'm not surprised he's doing this... Like him or not, you have to admit that he generally tries to do what he promises...
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
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.
He did. T is a virgin birth; the spawn of the orange deity, Cov Fefe.
Table-ized A.I.
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.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
"Fuck my economy while I watch"
I am beginning to understand why the right has been calling you "cucks".
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!
Let's be honest: the next time a Democrat is president they will probably either join the Paris accords, or adopt policies that align with the accords anyway. This is what American has turned into: our politics are so partisan that pretty much the first thing a new party administration does when they take office is to overrule or counteract policies of the previous administration (except of course for policies that erode away our rights in the name of "national security"). America is running around in circles (and wasting trillions of dollars in the process) while the rest of the world passes us by. And the sad thing is a lot of Americans are cheering as it happens.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
Trump desperately needs to hand the nationalists that put him in the White House a victory. Any victory. This is it.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Do you really think that the Paris climate deal was the major reason that American consumers decided to install rooftop solar or buy electric or hybrid vehicles?
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
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.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
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.
It's not the first time an unwelcome trump has polluted the air.
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.
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.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
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.
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
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.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
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.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
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.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
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.
Nullius in verba
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.
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.
Someone had to do it.
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.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
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
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
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.
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
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.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
that's what we're worried about. Yes, it has no force of law or actual requirements. It's a feel good treaty all around. That's what makes pulling out so bad. There's only one reason to pull out, and it's to say: Fuck You World. By pulling out we send a message that we're not willing to even consider working with the rest of the world.
CNN has an article describing how this could lead to a trade war. TLDR: Frustrated nations slap carbon taxes on imported goods because they're building with clean energy while we shamelessly pollute (which is much cheaper) and then Trump responds with his own tarriffs. Then it escalates from there and badda bing badda boom, recession/depression.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
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.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
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.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
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.
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.
Context matters, dipshit.
Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
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.
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
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.
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.