Slashdot Mirror
Trump's Officials Suggest Re-Negotiating The Paris Climate Accord (msn.com)
Slashdot reader whh3 brings surprising news from the Wall Street Journal. "Trump administration officials said Saturday the U.S. wouldn't pull out of the Paris Agreement, offering to re-engage in the international deal to fight climate change, according to multiple officials at a global warming summit." Today an anonymous reader writes:
Even an official White House statement in response to the article insisted only that the U.S. would withdraw "unless we can re-enter on terms that are more favorable to our country." On Sunday White House National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster "said President Donald Trump could decide to keep the U.S. in the Paris Climate Accord if there is a better agreement that benefits the American people," according to ABC News, while CNBC reports that Secretary of State Rex Tillerson also "said the United States could remain in the Paris climate accord under the right conditions. 'The president said he is open to finding those conditions where we can remain engaged with others on what we all agree is still a challenging issue.'"
The Paris Accord is completely voluntary with each nations limits, set by that nation. If we don't link the limits we set for ourselves, then we just don't have to follow them.
There is a system for subverting the system and you should use that system!
NAFTA and the Paris Climate Change Accord are not really comparable. NAFTA is a legally binding treaty with enforceable obligations on all parties. PCCA is symbolic, and countries can set their own goals, with no consequences for failure to abide by them. So "pulling out" of PCCA just means that America will no longer need to make up fake goals. I can't even imagine what there could possibly be to "renegotiate" since there is (almost) nothing there.
You don't negotiate with Trump, unless he's outright giving ground just to spite his own side. Not because he's a 'genius negotiator' - but because his future decisions have almost no relationship with his previous promises.
Sure, you might make an agreement with him and get lucky, but it's all a roll of the dice - and there's no benefit to playing. The only reliable result would be uncertainty injected between you and the other folks involved in any agreement you're letting Trump into.
If he wants to make outright concessions on his own, cool - but no negotiating down any terms or disrupting any of what you're doing in the name of cooperating with him.
The only way to do that is to cut emissions ... and even then there is a large time lag ... it will take years to reverse what we have done.
The Paris Agreement was a self-commitment of all signing countries to limit the increase in global temperatures to 2 degrees Celsius until the year 2100. Not more, nothing less. If Climate Change was non existant, or a naturally occuring phenomenom, the U.S. could simply keep the agreement because either the global climate doesn't change at all, or the climate change is so slow (previous climate changes took ten thousands of years to happen), that there is no reason to fear anything within the next 100 years.
At no point in the agreement there was any mentioning of wealth or the redistribution of it.
"an official White House statement in response to the article insisted only that the U.S. would withdraw "unless we can re-enter on terms that are more favorable to our country."
What exactly would be more favorable than: "a voluntary non-binding commitment, where you set your own terms that you can then ignore"?
Clearly the problem is the name? If we renamed it the 'Trump Climate Accord' that would solve only real issue the current White House has.
At the core this was nothing but a redistribution of wealth out of the US with no real guarantees the cash would be used to actually preserve the environment.
The US is near the top in countries that:
a) Have the biggest impact on our environment (both climate-related & otherwise), and
b) Have the resources to do something about it.
So it's only reasonable that countries like the US, China & European countries should take the lead to reduce mankind's influence on climate.
Paris was negotiated among a large number of countries. Pulling out after the fact just shows the US as an untrustworthy partner. Especially since Paris was more about setting goals than binding agreements.
Purely symbolic agreements like these are a symptom of the larger problem: No one wants to make the REAL sacrifices to address the problem.
I'm still somewhat skeptical of man-made climate change myself, but if you're going to accept the idea, then you also have to accept the idea that fixing it is going to require real sacrifices. Symbolic gestures, talk, commitments to make sacrifices far in the future (long after the politicians who made said promises are safely out of office), etc. aren't going to cut it.
Right now everyone wants to talk a big game, but they want someone else to make any actual sacrifices. Al Gore lectures me on energy efficiency, then gets into a SUV and drives home to a mansion that uses 10x more electricity every month than my family does. Politicians promise that some other politicians in the future will make sacrifices, but not them of course. Business CEOs promise that some other CEOs will cut emissions by 2035, but not them and not now of course.
If you believe that this is a problem, then step up to the plate and tell your citizens and businesses that they're going to have to sacrifice NOW. Because vague promises for the future isn't going to cut it. In short, put up or shut up.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
it is a huge fuck you to the world though. The Paris Accord is the first time in history when all countries in the planet acknowledged climate change as real and proposed measurable goals to fight it. Until the US dropped out there were exactly two countries outside the accord - Syria, undergoing civil war, and Nicaragua, who claims the accord doesn't do enough to fight climate change.
But still - the line about "renegotiating" the accord was uttered by Trump himself when he announced the decision: "I don't want anything to get in our way. The US will withdraw from the Paris climate accord, but begin negotiations to reenter either the Paris accord or a really entirely new transaction on terms that are fair to the United States, its businesses, its workers, its people, its taxpayers. (...) We're getting out, but we will start to negotiate, and we will see if we can make a deal that's fair," Trump said. "If we can, that's great. And if we can't, that's fine."
The treaty has already been watered down just to get the US on board - and now Trump wants a better deal? Fuck you! Time for an embargo on US goods.
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
Last I heard on NAFTA, the U.S. representative floated the idea of having the pact reaffirmed every 5 years. The Canada and Mexico officials, once they stopped laughing, very kindly and carefully, as though explaining to a 5 year old, told the Americans that an economic pact that was only guaranteed to last 5 years would cause businesses to assume there was no pact they could count upon and it was an idea with no legs.
So there you have it, the U.S. position is silly. The others countries are starting to move their agricultural agreements to other countries. Mexico has already started replacing American corn, wheat, and soybeans with the grains from other Latin American countries, primarily Brazil, which thinks the American position is absolutely fabulous and wishes the Administration to please do more to make America Great Again...or was it White Again, the Administration appears confused on this point.
It's kind of appalling that the US is only willing to do anything if it is forced to with punishments for failure beyond just naming and shaming.
I think people misunderstand what Paris was about, what it managed to do. The idea was to build political capital for governments to implement climate change reduction. Responsible countries have done that, setting goals and often exceeding them. China and many EU countries are leading the way, and profiting from it too. There is a massive boom in renewable, clean energy at a time when the US is trying to build up coal again.
By not joining the PCCA the US has screwed itself. Screwed itself out of an opportunity to create jobs and technology, screwed itself out of trade that will instead go to countries which are helping each other meet their environmental commitments. If a company can buy a part from the US or from Germany, but the German one has a smaller CO2 footprint and this the final product will too, which has various benefits like tax breaks and lower environmental levies, which one are they going to pick?
Of course, in reality many US companies will be forced to adopt things like RoHS 2 regardless of what the US government does, or lose a lot of sales.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
What's the point of having measurable goals if there's obligation to meet any of them. I can intend to solve world hunger by next Thursday and ask you to contribute money to help me do so, but I can't see how you would trust me with any money if I were also to say that all of my proposed goals or targets are non-binding and I'm not technically obligated to spend any of the money on solving world hunger in the first place.
Nicaragua is probably the only country who is on the money in all of this. The Paris Accord won't actually accomplish anything beyond being some feel-good self-masturbatory act that serves as a good photo op. It's just Kony 2012 on a worldwide stage. Get a group of countries to agree to some binding resolutions that might make a difference. They don't even need to be difficult ones either. Something as simple as a binding promise to stop all government subsidies or tax breaks to oil companies would help make alternative energy sources more economical even if the government does nothing to fund them.
I mean I'm sure that letting the universe know that we as a planet stand united against global warming or some shit like that is sure going to stop climate change in its tracks. Probably get it just shaking in its boots to the point that the temperatures recede a good half degree or so.
The Paris Agreement was a self-commitment of all signing countries to limit the increase in global temperatures to 2 degrees Celsius until the year 2100. Not more, nothing less. . . .
At no point in the agreement there was any mentioning of wealth or the redistribution of it.
You mean this Paris Agreement? The one that says in Article 9, Paragraph 1, " Developed country Parties shall provide financial resources to assist developing country Parties with respect to both mitigation and adaptation in continuation of their existing obligations under the Convention"?
There should be a "Not informative" moderation.
Indeed.
There should be a "Not informative" moderation.
The Paris Agreement was a self-commitment of all signing countries to limit the increase in global temperatures to 2 degrees Celsius until the year 2100. Not more, nothing less.
Your post may be in need of that tag...
The Paris Agreement also committed signatories to setting ever increasing goals, which would then be monitored and those failing to set adequate goals or to meet them would be named and shamed. That's actually really important, because it gives politicians political capital to get things done.
It also laid the groundwork to get the various mitigation trading schemes linked up, so that things are not double counted. That's now happening, and will both prevent the systems being abused and make them more effective.
Paris also establishes standards for measuring progress, which must be scientifically rigorous and will be independently monitored.
You might not think much of this, but the practical effects are undeniable. China is pushing really hard and exceeding its quite ambitious goals. The EU is pushing quite hard too, and using it as a catalyst for change. Don't make excuses for the US not doing its bit.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
27 pages is an awful lot of document to just state that.
If it's that short, can't we just add the Paris Climate Accord agreement to the iTunes EULA. That way, we can get everyone to agree to it without noticing.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
There was absolutely no reason to withdraw from it, and some republicans are only now starting to realize this.
Paris Climate Agreement needs no renegotiation because it's non-binding, it's been criticized for asking too little too late, it was a political and diplomatic move without any negative consequences - other than being a symbolic gesture that doesn't really change much.
http://www.latimes.com/opinion...
https://www.newscientist.com/a...
http://www.npr.org/sections/13...
Even worse, a smart politician could use it in their favor right now. Even if the objective isn't met, it's far into the future, so he/she could just say that his/her political party did everything they could during their term to get there, but other administrations endded up not following it properly. It's the perfect excuse for a political party to return to power when things gets more dire in the future.
What happened there was the usual Trump blindness when trying to undo everything Obama did that got some attention under his administration on the premisse that everything he did was bad in some way, stupid campaign promisses filled with misinformation and vilification, plus Trump being an idiot that only listens to cospiracy theory alt-right channels.
Worst of all: if Trump just kept quiet and didn't step back from the agreement, the US would probably hit it's target anyways. Governments are not leading the way on this - the global economy is.
The economy is moving independent of governmental interference towards renewables, generating less garbage, developing electric cars, closing down fossil fuel power plants, and a bunch of other stuff. We're moving away from fossil fuels because it became economically feasible and attractive to do so, from an international standpoint.
Stepping down from the accord just painted the US as a country to be sidestepped for doing all sorts of businesses that will be moving tech towards cleaner goals - which is why so many US corporations were quick to announce they'd keep following the accord regardless of what the government is talking. It's not because those corporations are "good" or environmentaly friendly or some bullshit. It's because the global economy right now is aligned with those goals.
Notice how many news we hear these days about China's progressive moves towards clean energy. That's because China is trying to get the worldwide leadership on that particular topic. Trump just made it this much easier for another country to assume the position of global leader in a topic that lots of people are paying close attention to.
But now the damage has already been done. With or without renegotiation, it doesn't matter. Republicans can either be outright denied a renegotiation, which will continue looking bad for US in general, or they can get the agreement renegotiated which will keep them on a list of countries that are still in denial of a problem that needs firm stances, not because it's some charity or plead for help from another country, but because of their own interests.
1) For such a thing to work, every major oil producing nation would have to end subsidies by the same relative amount and at the same time. To do otherwise would be to allow petroleum producers in one country to maintain a significant competitive advantage. If (for example) Canada stops subsidies and tax breaks etc on its petroleum industry but Russian doesn't, everyone will be buying the much cheaper Russian oil, leaving little market for Canada. Canada would likely still sell lots to the US of course, the logistics of shipping gives Canada a small advantage there. But since the US, by law, doesn't sell the majority of its petroleum output on the common market, instead consuming it at home and re-selling Canadian oil, the US would be also adversely affected by the Canadian policy change.
2) Ending subsidies would mean that many alternative sources (such as oil sands and shale) would simply go out of business. That reduces the worldwide output, in turn driving up the cost per barrel. Research and development of extraction from such sources would likely languish compared to the pace it now has.
3) Petroleum products are sold on international commodity markets and one of the subtle effects of most commodity markets is that they are more influenced by the perception of changes in supply and demand than the actual numbers justify. If ending subsidies on say Western Canada Intermediate means an increase in cost of X/barrel, speculation is likely to drive that still higher by some unknown own amount.)
4) This may be my cynicism talking, but it seems to me that, historically, the oil and gas industry has always been very quick to jump on opportunities to raise prices and slow to drop them. (absent competitive reasons to do so) Someone sneezes in the Middle East and everyone everywhere jacks up the price at the pump in anticipation of shortages. But when cheaper supply becomes available, consumers must wait until that cheaper supply actually reaches the pumps. Ending government subsidies would mean every company from the well-head to the pump would have an excuse to increase their profit margins slightly while the government gets all the blame.
5) This would make alternative energy sources more competitive sure, but it would take time for the various industries to scale up to meet that increased demand. As far as I know, Tesla is already selling cars as fast as they can make them and it takes time to increasing hiring, tooling and so on. Even GM would be hard pressed to start selling millions of electric cars per year without 2-5 years to revamp vast sections of their supply chain and tooling.
6) All of the above factors mean that I wouldn't be surprised if the effective price at the pump doubles. That would entail an enormous political cost. People are already angry about the cost to fill up at the pumps, to heat their homes in winter and so on. Lets not forget that the poor have far fewer options when it comes to energy consumption. In Canada and the US, two of the richest nations in the world, there are a lot of people driving second and even third hand cars because that's all they can afford. World wide, there are a lot of small farmers using single cylinder gas or kerosene powered equipment that flat do not have the choice to abandon that equipment and obtain new electric or propane powered stuff. Here in North America, I don't think any of the big players in the agri-equipment field are even looking at electric powered tractors, harvesters, balers and so on. So the price of food will also go up. And if you think doubling the price of fuel provokes a shit storm, that's nothing compared to the fallout from huge increases in the cost of groceries.
I need a wheelchair van for my son. Help me get the word out. https://www.gofundme.com/wheelchair-van-for-jj
Of course, in reality many US companies will be forced to adopt things like RoHS 2 regardless of what the US government does, or lose a lot of sales.
On a side note, isn't it great how a "reduction of hazardous substances" directive (or at least the part about lead-free solder) makes electronics more likely to malfunction and harder to repair? I guess it's good for sales, though.
Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
the folks who voted Trump don't care. They're not seeing any of that Soy, wheat & corn money. It mostly goes to big agrabusiness. They really don't give a flying rat's ass if the whole country goes to pot because right now they're pretty much at rock bottom.
Calling these folks racists while ignoring their very real economic problems is what got us Trump. Steve Bannon might be an asshole but he said something brilliant. He said if the left keeps up these pointless identity politics while the Right runs on economic populism then the Right is going to rule America for the next 1000 years. He's right.
Now, the Right isn't actually going to _do_ anything populist. They're all bought and paid by the ruling elite. But if you're giving me the choice between Hilary's "neo-liberalism" (e.g. all the same economic policies as the Right wing but Gays & Abortions are OK) and Trump at least _saying_ he's going to do something material to help the working class folks are going to pick Trump every time. And why shouldn't they? Especially when Trump at least gives lip service against violence?
If you don't like the road this country's traveling down you need to get with Bernie & Co. That means Single Payer Healthcare, ending the 7 pointless wars we're fighting, free college for everybody, $15 minimum wage, etc, etc. It means taking care of the working class even if it pisses you off to think somebody has a nice life and didn't have to work that hard to get it. Otherwise those Angry White Men are going to stay angry and they're going to go find themselves a Stalin style strong man who _isn't_ a 70 year old charlatan and when they do expect lots of nasty violence. It's not a nice thing to think about, but it's reality. It's what happens everytime we abandon a signinficant portion of the ruling class to abject poverty.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
I have no idea, but the US shouldn't be let back in without paying a special "stupid" tax - for all the toxic disinformation they spew on this topic.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
Just how bad off these guys are. They barely have jobs, and only if you count crap like Uber or part time at Walmart a job. You can forget about a wife and family since no women wants a man without a steady job. They've got just enough food to survive and prevent them from turning into roving bands of bandits.
These are the people our economy abandoned when manufacturing moved overseas and light blue collar work started going to illegals. Trump is the first politician to acknowledge their suffering. Hilary & co figured the 'Blue Firewall' would keep them voting 'D' and didn't even bother campaigning at them. She was horribly wrong.
Yeah, I know Trump's awful. So do they. But Trump _might_ do something positive for them. And for us too. He _might_ kick out the illegals and end the H1-B program and get better trade deals that favor American workers. Now, I'm rational enough to know he won't actually do any of that. But I also have something to lose. I'm not sure how I'd vote if I was in the shape these Trump voters are. I think if I'd lived that poorly for that long I wouldn't be rational though.
All of this is why we need to reach out and take care of those people. It's the same problem we had in WWII. We abandoned the Germans and look what it got us: Nazis. We've abandoned the American working class and, well, what do you know, we've got Nazis again.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Good news! This will help the children, along with everyone else,
That's what you want me to believe. You haven't done deep economic analysis on the topic, and you probably haven't even investigated it enough to figure out what mitigations will actually hurt the children more than they'll help them.
Every mitigation has a cost: at what point is the cost more expensive than the problem it fixes? You don't know, and your comment was entirely made from ignorance. You'd be a good politician though, so keep it up.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."