Slashdot Mirror


61 Mayors Commit To Adopt, Honor and Uphold Paris Climate Accord After US Pulls Out (curbed.com)

After President Trump announced his intent to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris Climate Accord, 61 mayors across the country have pledged to adopt the historic agreement themselves. The group of mayors, who represent 36 million Americans and some of the largest U.S. cities, outlined a plan to align with the other 194 nations that adopted the accord. From a statement provided by the climate mayors: We will continue to lead. We are increasing investments in renewable energy and energy efficiency. We will buy and create more demand for electric cars and trucks. We will increase our efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions, create a clean energy economy, and stand for environmental justice. And if the President wants to break the promises made to our allies enshrined in the historic Paris Agreement, we'll build and strengthen relationships around the world to protect the planet from devastating climate risks. The world cannot wait -- and neither will we.

15 of 247 comments (clear)

  1. Hints of Future History by Jzanu · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Here is the real story and the eventual history that will be Trump's: Destruction of the US global power and influence, and fanning the flames of the sub-national groups that will replace nations as a whole. The fall of the US leadership will coincide with the fall of the US as a functioning nation, but rather than subsuming into a failed state like Somalia and Yemen, its best cities will rise into global roles. Consider this Greek history in reverse, with city-states becoming the real holders of power.

  2. Win for trumps legacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Look how he unites the American people.
    What a hero.

    1. Re:Win for trumps legacy by Anubis+IV · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I never thought I'd find myself thinking about that overused The Dark Knight quote about "the hero we deserve" in relation to Trump, but here you've gone and made me think it.

      You don't suppose he's actually making himself the villain in order to unite us? That's a scary thought.

  3. Re:Article 2? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    want to fight about it in the Supreme Court?

    What part of this do you think violates Article II? They're not talking about joining into a treaty, only abiding by it.

    It's funny, but when the Right wants to limit black voters or take away some woman's rights to birth control, it's all about the 10th Amendment and "states' rights", but when states want to do something that Donald Trump doesn't like, they forget everything about federalism and insist on a strong centralized government.

    I don't mind hypocrites, as long as they're honest about it.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  4. Re:Article 2? by Loki_1929 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And when the left wants to smoke weed, they suddenly remember states' rights and the 10th Amendment, but when they don't like what the local board of education is doing or don't like that people are allowed to own and carry firearms, that memory fades into a cloud of pipe smoke.

    Both sides do plenty of picking and choosing about when and where they respect the rights of states. Conservatives tend to more frequently side with states' rights over the Federal government because that fits with their fundamental principles, but obviously isn't applied in all cases. Let's be honest about the fact that nobody is 100% consistent with their principles in all cases, though that doesn't mean we shouldn't point out hypocrisy. Just don't get too holier-than-thou about it.

    --
    -- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
  5. Re:Article 2? by HornWumpus · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Don't give the left legal weed, they never supported it, still don't.

    Legal weed is a libertarian success. Simple as that.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  6. Re:I don't like this trend by markdavis · · Score: 3, Informative

    >"I have seen this more and more since Trump took office. Trump dismantles EPA's public protections. Local governments agree to pick up the slack."

    Actually, this is generally the way the country is supposed to be run. By the design of the country and explained in the Constitution, most of the power and running of the country is SUPPOSED to be at the state and local levels. In this manner, it keeps the Fed under control, gives localities more freedom to meet the specific needs of their citizens, and creates competition/exploration/choice. Of course, that doesn't work with everything, but that is why there are a few SPECIFIC powers granted to the Federal government- they are listed right in the Constitution (coining money, common defense, post office etc). Those rights NOT listed that the Fed has commandeered are numerous- things like healthcare, education, welfare, are good examples.

    We are the United States of America, not the Federal State of America.

  7. Re:Article 2? by rahvin112 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The same could be said of the right, states rights aren't important when it comes to sanctuary cities, abortion or anything else. States rights is false flag by the republican party, they believe in it less than the democrats do they just lie about it. Unfortunately their own voters are stupid enough to believe them while they try to take states rights away and dramatically expand federal power.

  8. Re:And also... by grcumb · · Score: 5, Informative

    Some questions:
    .) Does pulling out of the Paris agreement prevent us from making as good or better climate decisions?

    Yes it does, because it diminishes the ability of nations to coordinate their actions. It leaves US-based corporations (a large constituency among polluters) free to continue flouting established science and driving their aging, archaic business models along, dragging the American economy with it. This is bad for voters.

    .) Is our participation important enough that the other countries are willing to renegotiate?

    No. China and the EU see a strategic opportunity here to use technological advances to do the the USA in the 21st Century what the USA did to Britain in the 19th Century—use newer industrial technology to out-compete the established corporate interests.

    There is a global cost to this, but China especially is willing to suffer in order to win. Its more interventionist economic policies have already given it a strategic advantage in terms of alternative energy tech (especially solar), and if it has to accept a 1-2% mid-term drop in GDP in order to sideline the USA, it will happily pay that price.

    .) Does the treaty lay out any penalty for non-compliance, or is it merely a feel-good PR stunt?

    Fuck your straw man.

    Just because you can't see the wisdom of a largely voluntary commitment process, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The Obama administration managed a near-miracle in the way this was structured, so that the bulk of the commitments came into the non-binding schedule 2 portion of the agreement. This meant that countries would not be straitjacketed into onerous commitments that they had no hope in honouring. By allowing signatories the right to choose how far they want to go, and when they'll get there, they made it possible for everybody to sign the same document. And the genius of that is because it allows recalcitrant countries to be singled out and cajoled into coming along for the ride without having to deal with corrupt, backward, reactionary legislatures like the American Senate, just to take a random example out of the air. But more on that in a moment....

    .) Is the Paris agreement actually about climate, or redistribution of wealth?

    Redistribution of the ability to survive. Because countries don't survive climate change, species do.

    ... or don't.

    .) Did congress ratify our participation, or did the previous president cheat that democratic process?

    You know what cheating is? Cheating is when simply fucking lying about climate change because you're fat and rich today and "fuck you that's why" becomes your ruling mantra. That is pretty much what the Republican party had done. Nowhere else in the world is the question of climate change a partisan platform issue.

    The only other nations who didn't ratify the Accords are Nicaragua and Syria. Syria didn't attend COP21, because they were kind of distracted. Nicaragua refused to sign on because they didn't think the Accords went far enough. The USA is literally alone in this folly.

    The Senate majority's willingness to put party before country (or species, for that matter) is the cheat. President Obama acted in the national and global interest, doing everything within his legal power to ensure that American came along, even if the Republican party didn't want to.

    --
    Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
  9. Re: Article 2? by someone1234 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If you don't live in any of those cities, then it is not your business. The city spends its own citizen's taxes on the city.
    If you live in one of those cities, you should be happy they try to poison you less by decreasing smog emitted by the city.
    I have absolutely no idea, why would you have any problem with this. If you are a jobless coal miner go and enter a chinese reeducation programme (in case you want to work) for building solar panels/wind turbines OR vote for basic income (in case you don't want to work).

    --
    Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
  10. Re:Article 2? by sound+vision · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Only it's not quite so simple. This particular issue cuts widely across party, ideological, religious, and other divides. What we have seen in the marijuana legalization movement is a true bottom-up, single-issue, grassroots, non-affiliated reform movement. It's a result of people analyzing the facts available to them and seeing that the laws don't match up. And there was no party or ideology guiding all these disparate individuals, over half the population now, to the same conclusion. Having followed this particular issue very closely, from without and within (knowing personally activists involved with NORML and MPP), I feel qualified to make this statement. You can either take my word for it, or look at the polls, or really any other hard data you can find. None of it contradicts what I am saying.

    Doubtlessly, there will be political groups trying to claim the mantle of marijuana law reform. I have even heard, in the wild, things like "Trump is relaxing marijuana laws" when he is totally disinterested in the issue, and his appointees (Jeff Sessions) are taking direct action in the opposite direction. It should be noted that what Sessions is undoing is the Obama-era, states-rights policy of not enforcing federal marijuana laws in states that have voted to bypass them.

    I'm sure you can cite examples of libertarians calling for marijuana law reform, because I've heard it too. But to say that it can be claimed as a "libertarian success" - how is that? Do most reform advocates identify as libertarian? Have libertarians campaigned anywhere in the same league as non-affiliated groups like NORML and MPP? Have elected libertarians swung the marijuana vote in any state legislature? Hell, do they even have any representatives in the legislatures in question?

  11. Re:Article 2? by quantaman · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Don't give the left legal weed, they never supported it, still don't.

    Legal weed is a libertarian success. Simple as that.

    Uhhh... what?

    Libertarians generally support legalization true... but they're fairly anemic as a political force in the US. They generally just make a bit of noise during the GOP Primaries when some form of libertarian pops up and takes a chunk of the base with them for a few months.

    Liberals also generally support legalization, and they're a much stronger political force.

    Legal weed without Liberal support is just another fringe idea.

    Legal weed without Libertarian support is still a plausible outcome.

    --
    I stole this Sig
  12. Re:Article 2? by Ambassador+Kosh · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In Colorado the left and the right supported legal weed. That is how it passed. The best arguments though for legal weed where from some of the groups on the right. The argument boiled down to locking up pot heads is a waste of money. None of them hurt anyone else, the vast majority held stable jobs and the cost of locking them up was bankrupting the state so even if the state made no money from tax revenue it would still be a huge net win. The state does actually get quite a lot in tax revenue from weed at this point.

    Part of the reason I voted for legalization of weed was the conservative arguments. I have never used it in my life, I have no real intention to use it but I don't rule it out but spending money to lock up pot heads that mainly threaten bag of chips and pizzas while playing video games or considering how deep a flower is wastes a lot of money. All the money spent to arrest them, charge them, convict them, lock them up etc for someone that is not a threat to society is a gigantic waste. If we are going to spend that much money it needs to be worth it.

    --
    Computer modeling for biotech drug manufacturing is HARD! :)
  13. Re:Cool beans by Barsteward · · Score: 3, Informative

    i think you'll find the $100B is the total for ALL the countries involved

    --
    "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
  14. Re: I don't like this trend by Plus1Entropy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Oh I'm sorry, was Obama in charge of the entire Congress? Because the last time I checked the motherfucking Constitution, Congress, and not the President, is responsible for spending and taxation.

    The reason the debt problem will never be solved is because people who need a serious crash course in civics keep blaming the wrong branch of the bloody government! Hold Congress responsible for their fucking job and make them pass surplus budgets until the debt is cleared. That is the only way, besides becoming a failed state, to get rid of our debt.

    So please, for our country's sake, read the Constitution or shut the fuck up.

    --
    Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.