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."
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.
Trump is rejecting not because of what the Paris Climate deal is, he's rejecting it because it was his predecessor's doing.
This is the problem with a President going out and creating legislation through Executive Orders. The next President that comes along can just as easily undo them with the swipe of a pen. This isn't something new to Obama or Trump, it's been done by multiple Presidents. If you want a law to stay a law, have it ratified by the LEGISLATIVE branch, not the EXECUTIVE branch.
I know the majority of voters in America can't even name the 3 branches much less describe their function, but a simple civics test at the polling booth could easily weed out those that should be allowed a vote in our Democracy versus those that should be sent to an American Idol polling booth and would never know the difference.
The Paris Climate Agreement contains no enforcement mechanisms. That means it was created so countries could say they were doing something without having to actually do anything. We have been down this road before a couple times. So how is an unenforceable agreement going to "save the planet?" Its previous versions didn't.
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.
However the 96% of the worlds population outside the USA may decide buying US made goods is a bad thing for the environment.
Feel free to quit all the trade agreements you have, build as many walls as you like, there rest of the world will learn to carry on without you.
Its 100% your choice to leave.... HOWEVER its 100% OUR choice to let you back in and it will be on OUR terms, not yours.
US is rogue state.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
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.
Look, the actual economic powerhouse cities and states that drive more than half of the US GDP are already meeting and exceeding the Paris Accords.
It's just the inefficient tax-subsidized states that aren't, which is why they aren't growing their GDP.
Renewables and efficient buildings and plants allow us to outcompete you buggy whip manufacturing denialists.
Cheaper, faster, better.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
I don't see how you get "relentless commitment" out of "non-binding" "agreements".
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.
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!
Which make pulling out of it a move that the rest of the world will see as a giant "Fuck You!"
If it's not binding, then it cannot possibly harm the USA.
The only reason for this is to mug for a few coal miners and an even smaller number of mine owners.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Does anyone believe that a single policy will stop global climate change?
The Paris Climate Accord was a step in the right direction. If Trump wants to say he's taking a different step in that direction, fantastic. On the other hand, if he's saying that climate change is a Chinese conspiracy (or a normal fluctuation, or due to solar flares, etc.), that's another matter.
Ob XKCD: https://xkcd.com/1732/
Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
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.
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
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...
It's always fun to be called out by ignorant fuckwits who want to push an agenda, but the facts are not on their side:
https://www.technologyreview.c...
"The inflection point has already been reached in the West, and by 2021 solar will be cheaper than coal in China."
Yes, fracking has historically been the reason coal is going away, but renewable sources are now adding to that.
"Those milestones will surely lead to greater adoption of clean energy. And the report predicts that of the $10.2 trillion expected to be invested into power generation between now and 2040, 72 percent will be channeled into renewables."
So crawl back under your bridge and STFU.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
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.
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.
Except a) POTUS has no power to commit the US to any monetary payments (not even Obama), b) any targets and/or monetary contributions are determined entirely by the country itself (i.e. Congress again), and c) there's no enforcement, so no legal commitment in any form. Your whole post is a straw man.
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.
"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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
I never heard the reason for its rejection being that AGW is false. No one advocating its rejection said so.
Well apart from the guy who runs the country, who was responsible it's rejection, who said so himself with his own words: https://twitter.com/realdonald...
Or is this fake news?
Trump didn't deny climate change as these media outlets would have you believe
Ok stop with the fake news/evil media thing. This is straight from the clown himself: https://twitter.com/realdonald...
Unless you can buy me a new planet, still the US.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
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.
China is doing incredibly well, vastly exceeding its already aggressive targets: http://climateactiontracker.or...
"Chinaâ(TM)s CO2 emissions appear to have peaked more than a decade ahead of its Paris Agreement NDC commitment to peak its CO2 emissions before 2030. The latest analysis from the Climate Action Tracker indicates that CO2 emissions may, in fact, already have stopped increasing and reached peak levels.
The on-going reduction in coal use for the third year in a row has had a major impact... China has already surpassed solar PV deployment target for 2020, and has now doubled its PV target for 2020 in response..."
Their main criticism is that the NDC target is too low (50-70% below 2005 levels) and should be further reduced to meet the maximum 2C global temperature rise goal, which is likely to happen in the next 5 year plan.
Here's the US assessment, by the way: http://climateactiontracker.or...
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
If it's not a binding deal, it's a useless turd.
It is non-binding. However, that doesn't make it useless. It is not unusual to first pass a non-binding resolution, wait to see the effects and problems that arise, and then from the weaknesses pass a binding resolution that's learned from the previous mistakes. Now that said, the resolution was always meant to be non-binding but it was indeed changed quite a bit to allow the US to pass it without Senate approval.
So this isn't unusual in the steps that the nations are taking, but the truth being is that a multitude of nations were having difficulty with getting the respective governments on-board and so there were changes to the original plan, US especially. Did that ultimately change the underlying outcome? Well, we won't really know until after we're a few more years into it. But truth be told, yes it was changed to make it easier to subvert the Senate, however, it being non-binding was kind of the entire goal, the degree and legal basis had to be carefully selected to ensure passage in not only the US but in other countries that were hostile to the plan.
So if you need a sound bite: The Paris agreement was going to be non-binding to start with since that's a normal thing, but because of the level of hostility many nations different legal wording was required to ensure that nations who objected wouldn't have any clear path to objection, especially the US.
I can't stand folks that take such binary viewpoints of insanely complex international agreements. Non-binding agreements do have a point to them. I'm so sorry that human beings cannot in one sitting create a 100% perfect plan for how to change a broad cross section of global industry on massive scales on the first go.