America is Falling Behind On Its Paris Climate Pledge (technologyreview.com)

An anonymous reader shares a report: The US remains well behind pace to meet its commitments to cut greenhouse-gas emissions under the landmark Paris climate agreement. Under current policies, the nation will reduce climate pollution between 12 and 20 percent from 2005 levels by 2025, according to a Rhodium Group analysis published today. That's well below the 26 to 28 percent target agreed to under the Paris accords. The report estimates that total emissions between 2020 and 2030 could be 196 million metric tons lower than Rhodium projected last year. That's due to an increase in the number of planned coal plant closures, as well as the falling costs of natural gas, renewables, and electric vehicles. Slower economic growth forecasts were also a factor.

Comments

Paris Climate Agreement

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean the same 'Paris Climate Agreement' that we ARE NOT A PART OF??

The OP seems to have forgotten that part.

We withdrew from the Paris agreement

[XXongo]

I don't understand the article.

The U.S. has no commitments to the Paris agreements; we withdrew from them in 2017.

Re:We withdrew from the Paris agreement

[Chris Mattern]

The US government didn't agree to it. Obama agreed to it. Without any backing from Congress. And now Obama's gone.

Re:We withdrew from the Paris agreement

[HornWumpus]

Only complied with the 'laws of the United States' because it _wasn't_ a binding treaty.

So either it's not binding or it's moot. Pick one.

Re:We withdrew from the Paris agreement

[quantaman]

We never had any commitments to this agreement. Obama made the agreement on his own accord and not with the backing of congress. This pretty much makes it worthless.

What we are seeing is people trying to guilt us back into the agreement so the money can keep flowing. This was nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to transfer wealth to 3rd world nations.

You really expect a developing economy, responsibly for almost none of the accumulated CO2 in the atmosphere and very little of the new CO2, to be held to the same standard as rich developed economies who got rich by doing exactly the thing we want those developing nations to avoid?

Of course any climate deal is going to involve wealth transfers to developing countries.

Re:We withdrew from the Paris agreement

[jwhyche]

u? Are you really that retarded?

If you can't have a discussion with out having to use personal insults then you have no discussion to bring to the table. You are not here to debate you are here to argue. Change your tone and I'll answer your question. Till then you are not worth my time.

Re:We withdrew from the Paris agreement

[mysidia]

In their consent they gave the President, who was then Bush #1, the ability to agree to whatever, so long as it was within the framework of the UNFCCC.

The Senate's action did not give Bush and successors any ability to bind the US to whatever agreement came from UNFCCC as a treaty --- another act by the Senate would be needed to confirm the actual text of the agreement. The constitution requires the senate confirm the exact treaty being agreed to: there is no procedure by which the senate can provide a "vague" confirmation that automatically approves whatever document the president comes up with.

This is a surprise?

[rnturn]

Since the current administration's opinion on the matter can be summed up with "fake news!", "climate change? what climate change?", and "we're bringing back coal". And whose appointed head of the EPA has those same attitudes but in all caps?

Re: Not a surprise

[jwhyche]

The proposed "solutions" to climate change would lead to the deaths of millions of people right now instead of the theoretical deaths of millions of people a century from now.

This is something that "climate warriors" leave out of the conversations. They want change NOW, no mater what the cost. Well the cost would be millions of lives in third world countries. We are completely dependent on mechanized farming to feed the 7B people in this world. Not to mention transportation and storage of food. We cut this back NOW as they want and we will not be able to feed so many people.

An these deaths will occur in the third world because they are most dependent on food shipments from first world countries. So is it will come down to countries feed themselves or feeding them. I can't imagine any country picking to feed another population over its own.

Re: Not a surprise

[jwhyche]

hy would climate change solutions kill people? There's a fairly clear path forward on fixing climate change now. The first step doesn't even touch oil or other farm chemicals.

There are some well developed plans to fight climate change that don't involve people starving, or economies collapsing. Looking at what you posted and it looks like the start of a good plan.

The problem is these plans take time to put in place. You stated if put in place "aggressively." There in lies the problem. Such radical changes can not take place over night. Infrastructure has to be developed, people educated, and equipment built. We can't not just flip a switch and change the nature of the beast.

People don't think about this and want change Now. They don't think about the consequences of rapid change.

Re:hmm

[Jane Q. Public]

We didn't even have to "pull out". We were never in.

Obama unilaterally agreed to this accord (which by definition, being an international agreement, is a "treaty"), but it was never ratified by Congress, which treaties must be in order to obligate the United States.

You can't pull out of something you were never in.