Slashdot Mirror


The US Is Now the Only Country In the World To Reject the Paris Climate Deal

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: Today, Syria announced that it would sign the Paris climate agreement -- a landmark deal that commits almost 200 countries to reducing greenhouse gas emissions to fight global warming. With Nicaragua also joining the deal last month, the United States is now the only country in the world that opposes it. In June, President Donald Trump announced that the U.S. will withdraw from the Paris climate accord, unless it is renegotiated to be "fair" to the United States. But other countries in the deal, such as France, Germany, and Italy, said that's not possible. The Trump administration is also taking steps to roll back regulations passed under former President Barack Obama to achieve the emissions reduction goals set under the Paris deal. The U.S. is the second largest emitter of heat-trapping greenhouse gases in the world after China. "With Syria's decision, the relentless commitment of the global community to deliver on Paris is more evident than ever," Paula Caballero, director of the climate change program at the World Resources Institute, told the Times. "The U.S.'s stark isolation should give Trump reason to reconsider his ill-advised announcement and join the rest of the world in tackling climate change."

44 of 719 comments (clear)

  1. real headline (for better or worse) by rogoshen1 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    "The US is the only country to not pay lip service to the Paris Claim Deal"

    1. Re:real headline (for better or worse) by computational+super · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The US is the only country that would actually have to do anything under the Paris Climate Deal.

      --
      Proud neuron in the Slashdot hivemind since 2002.
    2. Re:real headline (for better or worse) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Try reading it. It's kind of its own source.

      In short, countries like China and India don't have to do a damn thing about their pollution for 10+ years, whereas the US and some other western nations have to cut all pollution massively and immediately, thus screwing their industries.

      Further to that, if the western nations were able to do that, the TOTAL reduction in global pollution over those 13 years would be offset by the amount of pollution China and India emit in just one year or so. In other words, China and India, who produce 10 times the pollution, would be free to keep doing it while the rest of the world surrenders economically. That's why Trump backed out.

    3. Re:real headline (for better or worse) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In other words, China and India, who produce 10 times the pollution, would be free to keep doing it while the rest of the world surrenders economically.

      Dunno where you're getting your figures. I know 2015 was 2 years ago, but a quick google shows that in 2015 India and China combined had roughly 2.5 times the co2 output of the USA, not 10 times. Given that they have about 8 times the USA population betwee them, the average person from those 2 countries cause less than 1/3rd the amount of co2 an American does.

  2. LEMMINGS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Maybe they should convince us why we should join and and then have it approved by Congress?

    1. Re:LEMMINGS by franzrogar · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'll byte. Here's the answer:

      Why should WE convince YOU? Well, because you're polluting MY air and, hence, YOU MUST be punished; or we WILL HAVE TO stop buying ANYTHING FROM YOU because it will DESTROY the world my people will inherit.

      Ain't that clear enough?

  3. Re:"Not possible to be fair" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Because we should. Noblesse Oblige.

    If you don't "get" Noblesse Oblige, it's because you're a selfish, spoiled, cretin. If you have it good, it's probably because of the people around you. You owe them something back.

  4. This is why I left slashdot. by DoctorNathaniel · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Yup. Decided to come back to slashdot to see if it really was as ignorant and stupid as I feared it had become.

    Congratulations, you completely verified it.

    Indeed, why should you sign on to an agreement that will save the planet? What has the planet ever done for YOU?

    I'll be back in a year to check on you all again.

    1. Re:This is why I left slashdot. by admin7087 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Nah, it's obvious that you and the US in general is just making cheap excuses. Donald Trump would certainly *not* sign a binding, enforcable climate deal either. If the US is not even willing to sign a declaration of intent, so much the worse for the US. What becomes of this formerly mighty country? The assclown of all nations, apparently.

    2. Re:This is why I left slashdot. by Boronx · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Did you miss the whole rest of the thread? I presume so, since OP was just the tip of the iceberg. Slashdot has turned into a cesspool.

      A decade ago, we would laugh at the guy who had "figured out global warming" because scientist hadn't taken the variability of solar output into account, somehow forgetting that he only knows about solar output variability because scientists told him it was a thing.

      A decade ago, if a female programmer complained that she should be able to go work without fear of being raped, we would be disgusted at the guy who would be offended by her message. Not offended by the potential for rape, but offended by her voicing her concern, as if he stood personally accused.

      Stupid, ignorant, selfish, mean. Now they seem to be a majority.

    3. Re:This is why I left slashdot. by butzwonker · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The OP has a point, it's gotten worse over the years. There used to be a lot more sane, scientifically literate and overall reasonable US conservatives on Slashdot. Despite being a European genuine liberal - not what is called "liberal" in the US, I'm way more liberal and conservative-democratic than that -, I used to very much enjoy the input of people who had different, more conservative and more US-centered viewpoints. Now we mostly get trash, it's as if the majority of reasonable and educated people had been deafened, because a radical minority is shouting so loud.

      Maybe some guys have just become defiant/spiteful/sulky because of hidden regret, though, and don't really mean it. That's my favorite theory.

  5. Re:Good by PA23 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Trump is rejecting not because of what the Paris Climate deal is, he's rejecting it because it was his predecessor's doing.

  6. Re:"Not possible to be fair" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    As opposed to the selfish sanctimonious virtue signaling cretins like yourself?

  7. Also by DaMattster · · Score: 4, Insightful

    We are the only country to have a reality TV star with neither any political experience nor any experience in international relations as our president . We are the laughing stock of the civilized world.

    1. Re:Also by tsa · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You would be if he wasn't a dangerous fucking moron who talks but doesn't think. The rest of the world now just braces itself and hopes it doesn't turn out as bad as we think it will.

      --

      -- Cheers!

  8. Re: "Not possible to be fair" by dilvish_the_damned · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Itâ(TM)s not symmetric. The obligations of the US are very different than those of Syria or any other country. Insulting individuals who take issue with that is just cruel marketing.

    --
    I think you underestimate just how much I just dont care.
  9. Re:The U.S.A. is not a monarchy by sit1963nz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yeah if you did that, the only people able to vote would be immigrants.

  10. Re:"Not possible to be fair" by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So why should we sign on to something that does not benefit us, or is even "fair"?

    Because the data suggests that if Donald Trump is against it, there is very nearly a 100% chance that it's the right thing to do.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  11. Chomsky is right by mapkinase · · Score: 4, Insightful

    US is rogue state.

    --
    I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
  12. Re: "Not possible to be fair" by irving47 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm not even sure it's marketing. At best, it's just ignorance of what the deal entailed for us, and what it committed us to. At worst, which seems to be the trend, it's just glossing over the facts deliberately to fit an agenda.

    --
    I had a sucky sig.
  13. Re:The U.S.A. is not a monarchy by MightyYar · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Well, the pendulum sure has swung the other way, hasn't it? Voters are now so low-information that we need to include the party of affiliation right there next to the candidate's name, and a single button to vote all one party. Because knowing even the slightest thing - even the most basic information - about the candidates before you step into the voting booth is too hard. But, you know, get out there and vote! Because for some reason!

    --
    W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  14. Re:Oh, well, if the Syrians are doing it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    then we should follow their example, as they're clearly our moral superiors.

    The US should be setting the example for Syria to follow, but we are not. Our current behavior is making Syria our moral superior, on at least this issue. We should all be embarrassed that EVERYONE including Syria, Yemen, Somalia, North Korea, and China, are doing the right thing, and the US is not.

  15. No by sexconker · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I don't see how you get "relentless commitment" out of "non-binding" "agreements".

  16. Re:Good by Obfuscant · · Score: 2, Insightful

    He's rejecting it because of what it is not. It is NOT a solution to global climate change. His predecessor is irrelevant, although it is convenient that he tried implementing a treaty commitment without going through the constitutional process required.

  17. Re:The U.S.A. is not a monarchy by argStyopa · · Score: 1, Insightful

    The Democrats have ardently opposed any sort of testing or requirements for any voters, asserting that any such test is inherently biased against minorities and the poor.

    Hell, you have to show a DL to cash a check or buy a beer in the US, but Democrats insist it's not necessary to vote.

    Personally, I'd be fine with making it the US citizenship test: there are 100 questions, you get asked random 10 of the 100. You only need to answer 6 of the 10 correctly to pass.
    https://www.uscis.gov/sites/de...

    Seems fair.

    Civics test: will never happen.

    --
    -Styopa
  18. Re:"Not possible to be fair" by superwiz · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You owe them something back.

    You don't owe anyone anything you haven't agreed to owe.

    If you don't "get" Noblesse Oblige, it's because you're a selfish, spoiled, cretin.

    Not nearly (not even by a long shot) as much as if you are demanding Noblesse Oblige from others. Those demanding it are the true bona fide villains.

    --
    Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
  19. Re: "Not possible to be fair" by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The obligations of the US are very different than those of Syria or any other country.

    The average American produces 17 tonnes of CO2 annually. The average Syrian produces less than two. Insisting that we should all make the same reduction is idiotic.

  20. Re:"Not possible to be fair" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

    Stop with the income/wealth distribution baloney.

    You think the US just gives out money and says "do what you want with it!"? Or are you so mentally deficient that you cant grasp that the money comes back to the US in the form of foreign contracts and purchases.

  21. Re:"Not possible to be fair" by whoever57 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Because transitioning the USA's energy sources to renewables does benefit the USA?

    Coal is dying, not because of "regulations", but because it is being out-competed by solar and wind. Why promote a dirty, polluting energy source that is dangerous to human life on earth over cheaper, non-polluting sources?

    --
    The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
  22. Re:"Not possible to be fair" by quantaman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So why should we sign on to something that does not benefit us, or is even "fair"?

    I'm not going to climb into a rabbit hole full of BS trying to argue that it's fair and/or to the US's benefit.

    It's the exact same tactic denialists use, to obscure the obvious by getting lost in the details.

    You should believe Climate Change is a threat because an overwhelming majority of scientists with relevant expertise believe it's a threat.

    And if the Paris Climate deal wasn't a good idea then literally every other country on the planet wouldn't have signed on.

    Before you start arguing the nuances of "benefits" and "fair" you need to explain why everyone else is getting it so wrong.

    --
    I stole this Sig
  23. Re:Bringing up an old argument from the mother's s by Strider- · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The better analogy would be "If everyone is hitting the brakes to avoid driving off a cliff, shouldn't you do the same?"

    --
    ...si hoc legere nimium eruditionis habes...
  24. Re: "Not possible to be fair" by Xenx · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Except, the government is actively trying to reduce/remove regulations on emissions. They didn't pull out of the agreement to reduce emissions on our own terms, they pulled out to not have to reduce emissions.

  25. Re:"Not possible to be fair" by HermMunster · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That's bogus logic. If Trump was that bad the US would be nosediving.

    Maybe the politicians and the religious aspect of politics sets others off, sometimes radically (now moreso than in the past), but it doesn't justify saying that pissing off the establishment and their supporters is a bad thing.

    Frankly, aside from pissing off the establishment and their supporters I don't see him doing much wrong. He's not presidential? So be it. He pisses off his party and the democrats? So be it. The American people hired him to drain the swamp. That's going to piss a lot of people off.

    Don't give me that shit about racism or treason or whatever. I've followed this from before the primaries. Trump wasn't a racist nor was he treasonous before the election and he isn't now. It is clear that the establishment (including the media) is attempting to run the presidency through extortion (ala, play ball or we'll impeach you).

    --
    You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
  26. Re:"Not possible to be fair" by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1, Insightful

    If Trump was that bad the US would be nosediving.

    Not true, thanks to Trump being so ineffectual as a leader. In fact, Trump is the one nosediving.

    Look at tonight's election results to see what American voters think of Donald Trump.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  27. It's not possible by n329619 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    because it's already fair. The U.S. gets to pick and choose whatever they like and do under their own regulation to reduce emission. That's the Paris agreement. If they wish, they can do nothing.

    There's nothing to renegotiate or even negotiate when it's already a buffet to pick whatever they like.

  28. Re: "Not possible to be fair" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Slashdot never fails to deliver these days. I can only wonder in awe at the kind of deranged mind that thinks New York is Communist, having vanished over the far right event horizon into pure batshit insanity.

  29. Re:"Not possible to be fair" by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Trump tried to renegotiate" He did? He formally approached the other members of the Paris Accord with an actual proposal? Someone in his administration actually said "we wish to renegotiate", outside of press releases or tweets?? If one looks at how the Agreement is designed, there is nothing to "renegotiate". All we have to do is submit a new “nationally determined contribution”, that's it. No negotiation required. For someone who claims to be "the best negotiator ever" who has a "a very good brain" he sure doesn't seem to understand the accord he just dropped us out of. Either he doesn't understand it, or is purposely being deceitful about all of this to play to his base.

  30. Re: "Not possible to be fair" by Gussington · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The United States was the only country to make concrete promises. There was no way to verify that other countries kept their vague promises.

    Of course you have a citation for this? Because without one it's sounding an awful lot like Trumpbabble.

    The US should reduce its pollution, but never enter into such a lop-sided "agreement".

    The US produces a lop-sided amount of pollution right now, so any agreement will have lop-sided measures. The world is naturally lop-sided, so calling for absolute perfection or nothing is pretty lame.

  31. Re:"Not possible to be fair" by Gussington · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That's bogus logic. If Trump was that bad the US would be nosediving.

    Let's give it a couple more years before declaring success ok?

    The American people hired him to drain the swamp.

    Yeah, yeah draining in the swamp. Good one. We hate the wealthy so let's elect a bunch of rich white guys with a life long track record of fucking over poor people to save us. How is that working out?

    It is clear that the establishment...

    The Establishment? What exactly is that? Because from here it looks like Trump is the Establishment. I mean it's rough playing victim when you know, you actually run the country. How long does Trump keep blaming others fro everything before he actually takes responsibility for something?

  32. Re:"Not possible to be fair" by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I would be interested in where you got this information from? Probably from the same place that predicted Hillary would win in a landslide.

    It is not a prediction. The candidates that Donald Trump endorsed lost tonight by much bigger than expected margins. The elections are over and the votes have been counted. Even the Virginia House flipped from Republican to Democratic.

    I would also like to see the data that you have that says Trump is an ineffective leader.

    He hasn't been able to get a single bit of his landmark legislative agenda passed. The greatest deal-maker to have ever lived can't seem to cut a deal.

    All of the polls...all of them, including the right-leaning ones, show Trump at his lowest approval ratings since he was elected. Here's a conservative website that has the news for you:

    https://www.realclearpolitics....

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  33. Re:The headline belies the true issue. by quantaman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Trump didn't deny climate change as these media outlets would have you believe, not as it relates to the climate accord. He simply reversed the Obama era commitment to pay billions of US tax dollars unless the powers that be agreed to a renegotiation. They rejected it.

    Obama ran an end run around congress and committed the US to billions every year.

    And where in the Paris Climate deal was the US required to pay into the Green Climate Fund?

    In the end, China (a country that pollutes twice as much as the US) is allowed to continue to 2050 and will receive money from the fund. India, which is also heavily polluting will also be allowed to continue and even increase their pollution while still receiving payment from the fund.

    As it should be, countries who are modernizing and have far lower per-capita emissions are given more slack than countries who have grown rich using up the planet's budget for carbon emissions.

    The US is responsible for only a few percentage points more in pollution than the EU, yet the US would have to carry the largest burden. According to numerous sources the US has already met the goals set forth in the accord through renewable energies.

    If you don't want to play catchup then don't slack, besides, if the fall of coal is giving you the reduction for free then what are you whining about?

    Nothing is keeping the other countries from stepping up their commitment in order to meet the shortfall cause by the US pulling out.

    Ah yes, the good ol' "I can exploit the system as much as I want because someone else will pick up the slack."

    Comments like that make me hope that in 20 years the US finds itself on the receiving end of punitive sanctions for its inaction in response to global warming.

    --
    I stole this Sig
  34. Re:"Not possible to be fair" by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So - your argument isn't that it transfers $100 billion to foreign Governments, but rather transfers $100 billion to large corporations who then donate $100 billion worth of goods and services to foreign Governments?

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  35. Re: "Not possible to be fair" by kanweg · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "The obligations of the US are very different than those of Syria or any other country. "

    It is not that the US hasn't been a major contributor in the past which lead to the level of CO2 we're at now and to the problem we're facing now. You want fair, the US would have to do way more than is in the Paris climate deal.

    Bert

  36. Re: "Not possible to be fair" by rally2xs · · Score: 2, Insightful

    We are reducing emissions more than any other country by the increasing use of natural gas, and replacing coal-fired generating stations as the go obsolete (and NOT by gov't edict that causes a good generating station with a lot of service life to be wasted - Waste, that's what gov't does, always.) We're building wind and solar out the wazoo, although those efforts amount to still a tiny fraction of the more reliable sources of power of coal, oil, natural gas, hydro, and nuclear.

    Getting out of the damned agreement was all about not shipping cubic money out of the country to pay for OTHER COUNTRY's climate mitigation efforts. We make agreements and act like we have a bottomless pit of money, when in actuality we teeter on the brink of economic collapse with a 20+ Trillion Dollar Debt. We have to stop doing stupid shit, and paying for the rest of the world's climate efforts, which will be like paying them for anything else - the money will end up decorating some potentate's palace - is stupid shit.