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."

Comments

"Not possible to be fair"

[WoodstockJeff]

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

Re:"Not possible to be fair"

[Anonymous Coward]

And, cost us up to nearly a hundred thousand times as much money as some other countries.

Re:"Not possible to be fair"

[Kohath]

Because the international religion of environmentalism demands it, obviously.

Also because it will be 0.2 degrees C cooler in the year 2100 if everything works out exactly as the agreement predicts and all nations meet their targets. So clearly the Paris agreement “saves the Earth”.

Don’t you want to “save the Earth”?

Re:"Not possible to be fair"

[Anonymous Coward]

So lets get a few things out of the way:

In our atmosphere:

  * The current CO2 levels are at 0.04%, or 400 ppm.
  * The current O2 levels are at 20.9%, or 209,000 ppm.

Now some other information:

  * Plants will die if the CO2 level fall below 150 ppm.
  * The optimal amount of CO2 for plants is 2000 ppm.

The effective oxygen level at 18,000 feet is 10.5%, half of what it is at sea level. Those of you that have been to high altitudes know how hard it is to breath at that height. Imagine how the plants are doing at 1/5 of their optimal CO2 levels–and that is just at sea level.

It turns out that historically (in terms of millions of years), CO2 levels have been steadily declining. The theory of this decline is because mollusks and other abundant sea creatures have been storing carbon in shells. That carbon does not get released, but remains in those shells after the creature dies. We are now at 400 ppm. Once we get down to 150, all the plants will die off, and the people soon after.

The real problem is not too much CO2 in the atmosphere, it is too little. And how to reverse this trend of lowering CO2 levels?

Re:"Not possible to be fair"

[GLMDesigns]

As a result of fracking we've greatly cut our CO2 emissions. We will meet the CO2 and particulate standards even without being a signatory to the Paris Climate Treaty.

I hope you realize that a large part of the Paris Climate Deal includes income transfer from the US to countries such as Turkey, Pakistan, Nigeria and that this will not help "the climate" in any way. It will enrich a few, impoverish many in the US and do NOTHING for the climate.

Re:"Not possible to be fair"

[HermMunster]

I would disagree. The honorable thing is to keep Americans from being put in an unfair position. Trump tried to renegotiate but that attempt was rejected. We'd likely be a participant had they agreed to renegotiate.

Syria's commitment, though is momentarily noteworthy, is really just a matter of paperwork. They will monetarily benefit from the accord more than their commitment to reducing climate change.

Re: "Not possible to be fair"

[MoaDweeb]

Correct, your wars are about MAGA!!!!

Re:Chomsky is right

[oldgraybeard]

Who the heck is Chomsky and why should anyone care?

so?

[superwiz]

If the US is the only country asked to foot the bill for it, wouldn't it stand to reason that it would reject it? I never heard the reason for its rejection being that AGW is false. No one advocating its rejection said so. The only reason ever given was that the US was asked to pay for it. You wouldn't expect that those getting paid would reject it.

The headline belies the true issue.

[HermMunster]

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. I read numerous articles talking about congresses' dissatisfaction to Obama committing the US to the accord without their consent. They were even looking for a way to defund the program.

https://www.washingtontimes.co...?

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. 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.

Some even considered the fund to be a massive wealth distribution program coming at the expense of the American taxpayer.

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

Re:The headline belies the true issue.

[wyHunter]

AND the EU economy is larger than ours AND the US pays an extraordinary amount for the defense of Europe. (Except for UK, they carry their weight).

Re:It's not possible

[Migraineman]

Really? Fair?

Please explain how the US having the lion's share of a $100 BILLION per year financial obligation is fair. The Paris Accord is all about transferring wealth from the US to [elsewhere]. It's global Socialism covered in a thin veneer of "omg save the planet!"

Re:This is why I left slashdot.

[jwhyche]

This seems to have been Obama's normal mode of operation. This is just a number of programs that Obama didn't have the power to implement, so he would just change what its called and move on. 50 years from now once all the dirt has been found I believe history will judge Obama as one of he worse presidents in history.