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

hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

How can the US be behind commitments it didn't make. We pulled out.

Re:hmm

[Austerity Empowers]

Sometimes when you pull out you get left with 20 years of trouble

Re:hmm

[cre1mer]

My parents ran into that problem on Thanksgiving Day 1968. Beer and no condoms. Not a good mix.

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.

Re:hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Jane you are right.
Treaties have to be ratified by the Senate. A president can't just disavow them. Unfortunately for the left, President Obama's "I have a pen and a phone" presidential orders suffer from the same problem. The next president can negate them. Legally. That part of the civics lesson was missed by the rabid left. Obama had been dismantled one executive order at a time. And it's all been legal.

Re:hmm

[Jane Q. Public]

You can't obligate the U.S. to a treaty by Executive Order.

FYI, here's how those work:

The President is head (chief executive officer, if you will) of the Executive Branch. Pretty much just like the CEO of a corporation.

He can use Executive Orders to tell his employees (people in the Executive Branch) what to do. That's all.

Executive Orders do not, and cannot by law, obligate anybody but Federal employees to do anything.

Re:hmm

[sysrammer]

Yes, that sounds about right.

ummmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

didn't the Cheeto in Chief pull out of the Paris agreement?

Didn't..

[Anonymous Coward]

The US pull out of this agreement?

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.

Re:Paris Climate Agreement

[Anonymous Coward]

No, the 'Paris Climate Agreement' that we have announced that we are withdrawing from in 2020.

But don't let the facts disturb you, carry on as usual.

Re:Paris Climate Agreement

[Anonymous Coward]

Never ratified by the Senate = No withdrawal necessary since we were never in

But don't let the facts disturb you, carry on as usual.

Re:Paris Climate Agreement

[higuita]

Since it is a voluntary pledge made by your president as representative for the USA, you are still part of it, no congress approval needed...
As it is voluntary, you can still ignore it, but the treaty was signed anyway!

And as the current president only announced that they would exist it, but only in 2020, that pledge is still in effect (but again, you can ignore it without any problem other than destroying the planet where you and your family and friends live!!)

Re:Paris Climate Agreement

[Anonymous Coward]

We would have to be part of it to pull out. Congress never ratified it. Turns out Obama's phone and pen were more of a phone and pencil.

From Wikipedia:

Rather, emissions targets for each nation were separately negotiated and are to be voluntarily enforced, leading United States officials to regard the Paris Agreement as an executive agreement rather than a legally binding treaty.

You're a part of it.

So we are a part of the "voluntarily enforced" emissions targets, and we have voluntarily decided to not enforce.

Re:Paris Climate Agreement

[JDAustin]

And how many times did the US have to keep the Europeans nations from killing each other or getting steamrolled by the Soviets in the 20th century?

Re:Paris Climate Agreement

[Anonymous Coward]

Since it is a voluntary pledge made by your president as representative for the USA, you are still part of it, no congress approval needed...
As it is voluntary, you can still ignore it, but the treaty was signed anyway!

And as the current president only announced that they would exist it, but only in 2020, that pledge is still in effect (but again, you can ignore it without any problem other than destroying the planet where you and your family and friends live!!)

No SENATE [sic] approval needed?

WRONG

It's not a treaty if it's not ratified by the Senate.

The EU parliament RATIFIED the Paris Agreement.

The UK Parliament RATIFIED the Paris Agreement

The Japanese Diet RATIFIED the Paris Agreement.

Every other nation that has a domestic-legislature ratification requirement for a TREATY actually RATIFIED the Paris Agreement.

If domestic ratification isn't needed, why did every other nation with such a requirement that signed the agreement go through the trouble to ratify the Paris Agreement?

Barack Obama never submitted the Paris Agreement the the US Senate for a Constitutionally-REQUIRED ratification.

Ergo, the US is not bound by it own laws to follow the Paris Agreement.

Unless you want Trump's policy decisions that are outside of US law to be binding on his successors, you can't argue Obama's mere agreements outside of US law are binding.

Re:Paris Climate Agreement

[mysidia]

Since it is a voluntary pledge made by your president as representative for the USA, you are still part of it, no congress approval needed...

False..... Whether you call it a "treaty" or a "pledge"; The president of the US has no authority to make it on his own without the consent of the senate --- he can only sign provisionally as a representative contingent on approval by the government body, for the US itself to agree to the "pledge".

Re:Paris Climate Agreement

[higuita]

On WW1, the USA army was a joke and New Zealand+Australian armies helped more, so did Canada, both with way smaller population.
The USA enter late to the war (already after making big profits selling guns and ammo) and avoid fighting (almost unless forced), despite the big number of soldiers

On the WW2, again only entered late and only after being directly attacked... and again made huge profit with the war, with the British having a huge dept that was only totally paid around 2006. Despite Hollywood movies, europe war was won by russia, D day and allied attack only made the Germany bleed faster, but they already had lost the core of their army. So on the european battle ground the USA did help, but was not really critical... yes, europe would be under soviet influence... so much power and tech over the soviet side vs the USA was not something that the USA would like too (just think, no ballistic missile to the USA, but sooner to the URSS)
On the pacifc battleground was where the USA was useful, but japan was playing in the USA back garden, so USA wasn't helping other countries, they were helping then-self.

If the USA didn't enter WW2, japan would control the pacific and asia, probably would attack russia back and maybe help a lot the nazi russia attack. Germany would win russia and the middle east, gaining the needed fuel and finally turn to the UK, already in a very weak position. With europe, middle east, asia and pacific, guess what country they would attack next. With lots of fuel, resources and slave labor, the USA would be in a very bad place to defend... and probably at that time, Mexico would join to the axis with the promises to recover texas, california and maybe more land... giving the foothold to attack the USA by land. Even with a atomic bomb, it would take years to produce more than those 3 bombs and nazis would then see that it could work and quickly would also build some. With the country being attacked, it would be harder to produce more bombs

Sorry break your dream, but while the USA was important in many places, it was not what Hollywood shows, they didn't won the war alone, far from it, and they were not the Europe and the rest of the world saviors, if they didn't entered the war, they would be the next target (either a reinforced Axis or URSS) and in a very bad position

Re:Paris Climate Agreement

[higuita]

with arguments like yours, i must be wrong for sure! :D

Re:Paris Climate Agreement

[higuita]

bingo!

how to leave the Paris climate agreement in 2020 if you are not even there? that is not logic ...do not worry, we all know that trump can't do logic, neither many of their followers, so it is easy to get confused! :D

Re:Paris Climate Agreement

[higuita]

there is no spoon^^^treaty, it is a agreement! :D

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

[presidenteloco]

"In accordance with Article 28 of the Paris Agreement, the earliest possible effective withdrawal date by the United States cannot be before November 4, 2020"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:We withdrew from the Paris agreement

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't understand the article.

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

Not quite. The U.S. announced the intent to withdraw from the Paris agreements in 2017, but the actual withdrawal doesn't take effect until November 2020.

Still, since the commitments don't take effect until 2025, five years after that, it still seems to be a non-story.

Re:We withdrew from the Paris agreement

[arbiter1]

I think the part they mean are failing in out commitments to that when other countries lower their emissions they get $ for it as a good job, US lowers theirs we got the pride of PAYING more money as we did. We paid no matter what we did while other offenders got paid for little effort.

Re:We withdrew from the Paris agreement

[borcharc]

This was never ratified by the Senate, President Obama's signature was conditional on ratification. The US has no obligations under the Paris agreement and never did.

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

[Wrath0fb0b]

President of the United States Obama agreed to it, and by the laws of the United States, the United States agreed to it.

The law in the United States is that the President may agree to treaties only with the consent of the Senate.

[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;

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

[Mr D from 63]

When, how, and whether or not we agreed or are bound to it has little impact on any progress we may or may not have made.

Re:We withdrew from the Paris agreement

[Anonymous Coward]

Take your racism elsewhere.

Nice logic! Take your ignorant stupidity elsewhere.

The President of the United States -- whether they are black, white, or mellow yellow colored -- cannot ratify treaties without the approval of Congress. Then-President Obama tried to do an end-run around the US Congress and, because of it, a major part of his legacy was easily undone. It is the same reason that, for his legacy, the best thing that he did with the ACA was going through Congress to get it implemented.

https://harvardlawreview.org/2014/01/limits-on-the-treaty-power/

Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution gives the President the power “to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur.”

And, as such, please stop commenting on political discussions because you clearly have no educated place in them.

Re:We withdrew from the Paris agreement

[ole_timer]

we never ratified the treaty - has no binding on the US

Re:We withdrew from the Paris agreement

[sexconker]

The US never entered into any binding agreement. A former President made a personal promise. He had no authority to enter the US into such an agreement. The US is not a party to any such agreement.

Re:We withdrew from the Paris agreement

[ole_timer]

the senate never ratified the treaty - we have no commitments...zero nada nil

Re:We withdrew from the Paris agreement

[ole_timer]

the senate never ratified the treaty - we have absolutely no commitments...zer0 nada nil

Re:We withdrew from the Paris agreement

[PolygamousRanchKid]

And now Obama's gone.

Obama's not gone. He's in the TV business now.

Maybe he can make a show about the Paris Accord . . . ?

It sure worked out well for Al Gore . . .

Re:We withdrew from the Paris agreement

[Bradac_55]

Irrelevant, it was a non-binding agreement not ratified by congress so we where never in it to begin with.

Re:We withdrew from the Paris agreement

[jwhyche]

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.

Re:We withdrew from the Paris agreement

[ole_timer]

very useful - NOT!

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]

China is a developing country and it as of 2018 puts out more CO2 than the US does as a total. India is also a developing country and it is second on the chart, expecting to pass the US soon. So, yes developing countries are putting CO2 into the are at a ever increasing rate. Don't hand me that tired line "developing countries are not responsible."

The Pars agreement was nothing more than a attempt to grab money from developed countries, while forcing them to hobble their economies at the same time. That money would be paid to developing countries while at the same time mostly absolving them from current CO2 emission and future emissions.

Nothing wrong with transferring wealth to developing countries as long as it is done in fair nature to both parties.

Re:We withdrew from the Paris agreement

[angel'o'sphere]

You seem to mix up Senate with Congress, or you are bad in quoting.

Re:We withdrew from the Paris agreement

[angel'o'sphere]

The Pars agreement was nothing more than a attempt to grab money from developed countries, while forcing them to hobble their economies at the same time.
And how exactly would that be? The treaty (which is not binding in the US) forces the US to build solar plants for China in China? Hu? Are you really that retarded?

Re:We withdrew from the Paris agreement

[WindBourne]

what a joke.
In what way was Obama a traitor? Did he sell us out to an enemy? Nope. Did he aid/abet an enemy? Nope. Did he try to start a war against America? Nope. Did he engage in a war against America? Nope.

As such, he can NOT be considered a traitor.

Re:We withdrew from the Paris agreement

[WindBourne]

China is NOT a developing nation anymore than America was in 1950. China is second world.
More importantly, it is important to get ALL nations to stop adding coal, if not all fossil fuels, plants. If they want to replace one, with one that is cleaner, fine. BUT, the vast majority of what ALL NATIONS are doing, is not replacing, but adding. Yes, that is esp true of China since some 300 GW of their ~700 GW of new coal plants over the next couple of years, goes into other nations of which some do not even have coal. They will get their coal from China.

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

[WindBourne]

Yes, I expect that ALL nations will quit building new coal plants, if not new fossil fuel plants. And considering that China is NOT a developing nation, but a developed nation, they should not have any leeway. In particular, we need to stop them from building in other nations. That is total BS.
India is moving quickly towards nuke and AE. In fact, they are growing their coal plants at a fraction of the pace of China for this very reason.

Re: We withdrew from the Paris agreement

[dhawton]

Senate is part of Congress, not separate. Just like you can say the president or executive branch.

Re:We withdrew from the Paris agreement

[angel'o'sphere]

A typical retard answer.

A baseless claim and now a baseless defense.

Re: We withdrew from the Paris agreement

[angel'o'sphere]

Seems I mixed up "The House of Representatives" with Congress, does not change the fact that the parent was wrong.

Re:We withdrew from the Paris agreement

[jwhyche]

China is NOT a developing nation anymore than America was in 1950

Since you put it that way, what you have said it truth. I accept your reclassification of China.

You will not find me arguing with you about coal. I'm in total agreement. Coal has to stop, it's a filthy fuel. I'm not debating about needed change. Change is needed. What I'm mostly debating is sudden change will end in nothing but disaster.

Using coal as an example. It needs to go, has to go. But we can't just shut them all down over night. We have to gradually phase them out as we bring newer and better systems online. In some cases we will have to build new coal plants because that is the best option.

Re:We withdrew from the Paris agreement

[slack_justyb]

The President did get consent from Senate to the agreement. In 1992. The Senate consented to membership with the UNFCCC on June 4th, 1992. 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.

Fast forward a lot, the Paris Agreement is drafted within the UNFCCC framework. Which, oh looky there, the Senate already gave the President broad authority to agree to whatever under that framework. Huh, funny how giving away power so broadly usually isn't good for the Senate. Gee, maybe the Senate ought to rethink the last 40 years of slowly giving the President the ability to do everything without their say.

The Senate got bamboozled, they need to man up and perhaps while they are at it, strip some of the power they've given the President over the last four decades. They can start with national security tariffs, the WTO memberships and judgeship, NATO bylaw changes, and UN special diplomatic mission assignments for starters. The Senate bemoans pretty much everything the President does when it doesn't serve the majority's interest. Well how about not letting the President have that power? Ya think?!

I'm more pissed at crybaby nation that is the Senate than anything else within the US government. I mean seriously, you're the upper house, grow some damn balls people!

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.

Re:We withdrew from the Paris agreement

[jwhyche]

Please stop posting now. There are smarter people than you reading this. Your contributions are only serving to lower the over all IQ of the tread and distract them from the real topic.

Re:We withdrew from the Paris agreement

[mysidia]

You really expect a developing economy, responsibly for almost none of the accumulated CO2 in the atmosphere and very little of the new CO2

If this were really about CO2, there should be no wealth transfer in the agreement.
The responsibility for existing accumulated CO2 goes equally to all countries in the world.
It's the TOTAL volume of new CO2 per square meter of country's land mass that needs to be capped and reduced; Not "amount of of CO2 per capita" or other such rubbishness.

Re: We withdrew from the Paris agreement

[CanHasDIY]

Seems I mixed up "The House of Representatives" with Congress

The House of Representatives is also part of the US Congress, along with the Senate. Two houses, ergo the term "bicameral legislature."

does not change the fact that the parent was wrong.

About what, specifically?

Re:We withdrew from the Paris agreement

[LynnwoodRooster]

And yet we're the ones with an actual drop in emissions as compared to the EU (whose emissions were up 1.5%).

Re: We withdrew from the Paris agreement

[angel'o'sphere]

About the fact that only the Senate was required to agree and not the Congress.

Re:We withdrew from the Paris agreement

[LynnwoodRooster]

We're actually reducing our emissions in the US, agreement or not. The EU is increasing their emissions. Yet somehow the US is the bad guy for actually taking positive action but ignoring the fancy language...

Re:We withdrew from the Paris agreement

[jwhyche]

I'm in total agreement again. This is a problem that nobody wants to talk about. People want to phase out old nuclear plants with out addressing what to replace them with. Most often the answer is a coal burning plant because it's cheap to throw one up and walk away.

While we need to cut our reliance of fossil fuels as low as we can I would accept natural gas as a short term solution. It's 10 times cleaner than coal and in many cases easier to get too.

Re:We withdrew from the Paris agreement

[LynnwoodRooster]

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?.

I do.

I thought that wind and solar was cheaper than coal and natural gas and nuclear, so those who are deploying new electricity in the 3rd and 2nd world should benefit from cheaper, more plentiful, and lower CO2-emission power generation. Or is that not the case, and wind and solar actually cost MORE than coal and natural gas and nuclear?

Why would a developing nation deploy the more expensive source of electricity? If "clean power" is really lower cost, then why not deploy that from the beginning, in which case why do they need exemptions from CO2 generation?

Re:We withdrew from the Paris agreement

[LynnwoodRooster]

The treaty called for the US to provide $100 billion annually to China, India, and the rest of the developing world. Cash-up-front to be spent on "renewable energy", supposedly. With no audits, of course. Perhaps you should go and read the Paris accord and realize how much money was supposed to go from the US and Europe to the rest of the world...

Re:We withdrew from the Paris agreement

[slack_justyb]

You know what? You take that up with your Senator. You tell them that they ought to have an strict reading of the Constitution. Let me know how that goes. Till then, that's the legal basis the Obama admin went into the Paris Agreement with, that position was never challenged in a court of law, and Trump pretty much legitimized that thinking by pulling out of the agreement in the exact manner that the UNFCCC dictates.

So you can feel a certain way about what the Constitution "says", but if everyone is doing things counter to your viewpoint on what is written, it just might be that it's not actually written the way you think it is written. Or at the very least, no one elected cares that it is written that way. But it's mostly the former.

Oh also, if that's the case, the Senate hasn't signed off on any of the tariffs the most recent admin, nor is the travel ban been agreed to by the Senate, but they are all happening none the less and the SCOTUS gave the President the thumbs up on the travel ban. Again, that's just the President unilaterally acting, which (I know this is going to be hard for you to swallow) the Senate has kind of given that power to the President and he doesn't have to check with them.

So just once more to hammer it home. You can say that, and I'm not going to call you wrong, just, no one is doing it (it being govern) the way you are talking about. Have fun on that letter to your Senator.

Re:We withdrew from the Paris agreement

[swillden]

President of the United States Obama agreed to it, and by the laws of the United States, the United States agreed to it.

The law in the United States is that the President may agree to treaties only with the consent of the Senate.

That's irrelevant in this case, because the Paris Agreement was specifically structured with the constitutional situation in the US in mind, so that Obama would not need ratification by the Senate.

To understand this, we first have to take a step back and look at how treaties are handled by the United States. The US actually enters into three different kinds of treaties, only one of which uses the constitutional process. No, this doesn't make the other two kinds unconstitutional.

The first kind is what you've described, per Article II. The US rarely uses this kind, because the Senate is a pain in the ass to work with.

The second kind is what are called "congressional-executive" treaties. These are treaties which the president (the executive part of the name) signs, but which don't directly obligate the US to do anything. They only represent an agreement by the president to seek legislation (the congressional part of the name) to enact the terms of the treaty. This enactment is performed via the same process that any federal law is made: majority vote of both houses plus the signature of the president.

The third kind is what are called "sole-executive" treaties. These are treaties signed by the president with no involvement of either legislative house. They are constitutional because they only obligate the president, not the country, and are written so that they cover only things that the president already has the authority to do. One very common example is a "Status Of Forces Agreement". These describe the terms under which US military forces in US bases on foreign soil will operate. Because the president is commander in chief of the armed forces, he can and does simply order the military to comply with the terms of the treaty.

The Paris Accord was a sole-executive treaty. When Obama signed it, he really only promised to do three things:

1. Meet every five years to make new, more aggressive goals on climate change reduction.
2. Meet every five years and publish how we're doing on our climate change reduction goals.
3. Track how we're doing on climate change reduction.

That's it. The president can easily order the relevant departments of the executive branch to do these things.

So, Obama could sign the treaty without Senate involvement. Then he needed to ask Americans to meet the specified goals, whatever that involved, but he could really only ask. Likewise, Trump could back out of the treaty without Senate involvement. That just means that the US isn't going to show up to the goal-setting and goal accomplishment review meetings. Nothing more.

Re:We withdrew from the Paris agreement

[quantaman]

China is a developing country and it as of 2018 puts out more CO2 than the US does as a total. India is also a developing country and it is second on the chart, expecting to pass the US soon. So, yes developing countries are putting CO2 into the are at a ever increasing rate. Don't hand me that tired line "developing countries are not responsible."

Cute how you changed "responsible almost none of the accumulated CO2 in the atmosphere and very little of the new CO2" to "developing countries are not responsible".

It's hard to find number but I suspect China and India are still responsibly for a relatively small portion of the accumulated problem. Now they're emitting a lot now, and accounting for an ever bigger portion of the problem, but they also contain 34% of the world's population. It's hard to argue they shouldn't be allowed to make about 34% of the world's emissions.

The Pars agreement was nothing more than a attempt to grab money from developed countries, while forcing them to hobble their economies at the same time. That money would be paid to developing countries while at the same time mostly absolving them from current CO2 emission and future emissions.

Nothing wrong with transferring wealth to developing countries as long as it is done in fair nature to both parties.

So define fair. There's people in China and India who are still largely subsistence farmers without electricity. Is it fair that China and India not give them power because they can't afford solar or nuclear, nor give them tractors because of the CO2 emissions. Even as they still have a fraction of the per-capita emissions as the west?

China and India are both really worried about Global Warming but like everyone else they have a concept of fair, and while rich nations with huge per-captia emissions are really not doing much to reduce emissions they're not going to be willing to spend a bunch of money to reduce emissions either.

Re:We withdrew from the Paris agreement

[bongey]

No idiot way to draw out a long explanation that is 100% WRONG. A "treaty" has a special meaning the constitution,which has to be confirmed by the senate. Obama specifically got them to call it the Paris Climate AGREEMENT as a way to work around the constitution. There is NO such thing as a "executive treaty".

Re:We withdrew from the Paris agreement

[boundandgaggedwomen]

Treaties have to be confirmed by the Senate. This was not, so it has no actual basis in US law.

Re: We withdrew from the Paris agreement

[Alypius]

It's just the usual projection, probably because of Kennedy. Haven't seen liberals this worked up about SCOTUS since a black guy was put on it.

Re:We withdrew from the Paris agreement

[crimson tsunami]

Because nobody makes enough solar panels and wind turbines yet.

Re:We withdrew from the Paris agreement

[_Sharp'r_]

How very U.S. centric of this article.

According to Carbon Brief, which is tracking all the Paris pledges, the U.S., made a pledge, but unlike most countries, never legally ratified their pledge. Also, unlike the U.S., the vast majority of those countries haven't decreased their carbon output as much as the U.S. in the years since.

So the Paris Accords are useless for anything but virtue signaling and political posturing. Of course, that was predicted at the time they were negotiated, so not a surprise.

Re:We withdrew from the Paris agreement

[crimson tsunami]

No you lie yet again. I explained to you China was replacing old coal plants with new more efficient ones. Now you pretend you thought of it, but still get it wrong. Amount of coal burned and how efficiently it's done is the point, not how many plants. You already know most of those plants will be run at even less capacity than the old ones, because less coal is being used for electricity in China.

Whats the capacity of American and Chinese coal plants again? Thats right both about half, so even replacing them 1 for one with new plants the same size will still allow a doubling of coal. So you idea is just nonsense right from the start.

That you think China isn't into hydro shows your complete ignorance on this whole topic. China has more hydro than every other country has total electricity except for 2 countries (India and America).

Re:We withdrew from the Paris agreement

[LynnwoodRooster]

That's curious, I didn't realize there was a supply shortage of solar panels and wind turbines. Would that be the reason they are so expensive to deploy?

Re:We withdrew from the Paris agreement

[WindBourne]

You continue to lie troll. China's consume more coal each year. I have shown you over and over that only 2 years in the last 30 has coal dropped and that was 2015/2016 when their economy was tanking.

Secondly, china's new coal plants are NOT 2x as efficient. They are less than 1.5x efficient. And the issue is, that they are designed for burning MUCH MORE COAL than what the old plant is. So, quit lying troll.
Nor did I say anything about CHina and Hydro. I spoke about what the successful nations are doing. Troll, you continue to lie about what I say.

Re:We withdrew from the Paris agreement

[WindBourne]

Yeah, we are pretty much agreement.
America has lowered our CO2 mostly due to switching to nat gas and Wind. However, nat gas is NOT 10x cleaner than coal. When it comes to CO2, it is about 50% of the best coal plant (IOW, 2x cleaner WRT CO2). That is true. In addition, all the rest of the pollution is gone. OTOH, if we took coal and converted it into methane using blue gas methodology, AND buried the excess CO2, we would gain a LOT fo elements that we currently have to dig for.
Even now, if we will spend some money on thorium and have cheap higher temp, we can take the old coal ash and pick up HUGE volumes of cheap elements. Fe. Ag. Au. U. Pu. P. Li. Cu. and of course, Pb, as well as Hg. With some of these such as Pb/Hg, we can separate those and put them in different mines and be able to use those when a need comes up.

Re:We withdrew from the Paris agreement

[CaffeinatedBacon]

You are both a bit wrong. (well Windy is completely wrong but that's to be expected) China's coal use decreased from the 2013 highs but coal for electricity has risen a little, but the % of coal used for electricity has decreased. China is installing more solar and wind etc compared to coal, and China is relying less on coal for electricity and much less for other uses. That explains why it is still going down despite a small increase in electricity use. You have never showed credible evidence coal use is increasing as much as you often claim. (more lies by you)

Why do you again lie and claim anyone said new coal is 2x as efficient? A strawman so you can look like you have a clue? Well that backfired didn't it.

As always you miss the point entirely. Capacity isn't use. America and China could both burn about twice as much coal without building any more plants. Just because the new plants have the same capacity, it wouldn't stop them from burning twice the coal anyway. So your idea is pointless stupidity.

You also tried to say China is bad and then contrast that with 'successful nations'. But you are implying China is the most successful nation since they have the most hydro..oops.

No need for anyone to lie about what you say. We can all see for ourselves and your continuing lies are well documented all the time.

Re:We withdrew from the Paris agreement

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit.

Total CO2 production (Gt):
- World 36
1. China 10.6
2. US 5.2
3. EU 3.5
4. India 2.5

Note that of those countries, China and India have more than four times the US's population, and the EU has about 160% of the population of the USA. If you look those same countries* at t/year/person:

USA 16
China 7.7
EU 6.9
India 1.9

Arguing about which country produces the most in total is stupid. The USA produces 14% of the world's CO2 and has 4.5% of the people. How is that "fair to both parties?".

The Paris agreement acknowledges that moving from an agrarian economy to an industrialised one will result in higher rates of CO2 emissions. It also acknowledges that overall CO2 emissions need to be dramatically reduced. It provides a transparent mechanism for market-based economics to limit the increase in CO2 in developing nations whilst actively reducing it in developed ones.

Of course, arguing with facts is pointless when the facts say Americans should be less selfish and greedy, so instead let's sit and enjoy Analogy Time:

At a wedding, the bride's aunt (EU) and uncle (US) left half way through the service and got to the buffet before anyone else. They've already munched their way through half of it, but now the rest of the wedding party has arrived. The Groom has asked everybody to go easy on the remaining food so that everyone can get something and they don't run out. The aunt feels bad, and so has started taking much smaller bites, but she is still a porker so is probably eating a bit more than her fair share. The mother of the bride (China) has turned up, seen what's happened and decided that she's going to get her "fair share" too, and begins competitive eating. She's a lot thinner though, so it's taking a while to catch up, but she's determined. Meanwhile the groom's 20 rake-thin cousins have just walked in and are asking where all the food is; the Uncle is cramming handfuls of pigs in blankets into his giant maw and telling them that he needs the fuel more than they do, because he is so humongously fat. The cousins offer to sell him some of their share of the buffet, but he balks; the buffet is there for everyone to share! How can they sell something they don't own? Gobble, gobble. Between him, the aunt and the mother of the bride the buffet is nearly gone, and he's now eying the wedding cake itself hungrily whilst rooting out some of the harder-to-reach nibbles. The bride is going to be here any minute, and if there's no food left she's going to go totally apeshit and demand that everyone leave.

Re:We withdrew from the Paris agreement

[Wrath0fb0b]

The Paris Accord was a sole-executive treaty. When Obama signed it, he really only promised to do three things:

1. Meet every five years to make new, more aggressive goals on climate change reduction.
2. Meet every five years and publish how we're doing on our climate change reduction goals.
3. Track how we're doing on climate change reduction.

Sure, but that means that the headline and byline are total nonsense. The US cannot be "behind pace to meet its commitments to emissions" if we really only promised to meet and talk about it.

IOW, you are saying that it didn't require ratification because it did not contain any substantive commitments. I accept that, but at the same time that means that it does not contain any substantive commitments.

Re:We withdrew from the Paris agreement

[crimson tsunami]

I'm sure you don't realise a lot of things...

Re:We withdrew from the Paris agreement

[angel'o'sphere]

Perhaps you should provide a link.
I never heard that the Paris treaty had rules/goals to transfer money to developing nations.

Re:We withdrew from the Paris agreement

[LynnwoodRooster]

You should learn to use Google.

Re:We withdrew from the Paris agreement

[LynnwoodRooster]

So what you're saying is that deploying solar and wind is more expensive than deploying coal or natural gas? It's a simple yes or no question...

Re:We withdrew from the Paris agreement

[angel'o'sphere]

The 100 billion are not for the USA, but for all devdloping nations together.
It is peanuts, a new carrier costs 12billion, that does not even include the planes.
About what exactly are you arguing?

I guess I search for the original text, as you privided only american anti Paris *news papers*

Re:We withdrew from the Paris agreement

[crimson tsunami]

In the real world things aren't as simple as you.

Re:We withdrew from the Paris agreement

[LynnwoodRooster]

So why are we giving all that money in the first place? And if you read the articles, you'll find that most consider the $100 billion annually as the starting point, intended to go up from there. Why are we giving all that money?

Re:We withdrew from the Paris agreement

[slack_justyb]

Wow, just wow. There's a whole lot of wrong there. I'm just going to point out some highlights and just point you in a direction for your own research.

The senate only deals with business before them and has no role in pointing out facts regarding the invalidity of treaties or amendments/additions to treaties that were not confirmed

Senate does whatever they like, feel free to work in DC to see that first hand.

BUT going through the motions does absolutely zero to make it a legitimate or binding agreement

Go grab a dictionary and read the definition of legitimate. Let me know how you think the word legitimate equals binding.

There's no clause in the constitution that a treaty or addition to a treaty...

Go read the Tenth amendment. Let me know what you think that says.

In fact, nothing Trump can do will "legitimize" the agreement so that it becomes a binding on our government and future administrations

Again, go pick up a book on the word legitimize and then compare that to the word binding. I cannot underscore the importance of you understanding what the difference in what those two words mean. Because it is clear you think they mean the same thing.

These do NOT require confirmation of the senate, Because they are an exercise of the executive authority within the law

Oh good grief, Geneva Convention, please tell me you recognize it as a binding agreement still in affect. Because if you do, then go read up PL 107-40 and then let me know how you feel those two relate to each other. And that's just touching the surface.

a future administration can simply repudiate and throw the agreement out at will

It's like you almost understand the word legitimize but have it completely wrong.

Look buddy, it's clear. You are arm chairing this. I can't make you understand law, it is what it is. And honestly, understand any of the aspects involved really don't matter to everyday people. I'm not your teacher, I'm not going to school you on law and international agreements, but I will say, you've read a book on civics or at least understand some of the legal system as it is sold in books, but reality is not what is in the books. I think that's what frustrates folks the most. They're told this pretty rigid set of rules their people play by and it is anything but. There's a lot of flaws in pretty much everything you just wrote, but the ones I highlighted are the big ones. I wish you the best, but I'm pretty done with the topic at hand. It's pointless, because no matter how we feel, whatever person in charge decides, that is what is going to happen and when new person comes into power, we'll be doing what that person wants, wash, rinse, and repeat. And you might be wondering why that is, why this keeps happening with the back and forth, or you might not. But if you are wondering why that happens, you're on the right track to understanding why you're not correct.

Re:We withdrew from the Paris agreement

[swillden]

Sure. Essentially the Paris Accord was also a congressional-executive treaty. The president was supposed to work the political process to meet the goals.

Re:We withdrew from the Paris agreement

[swillden]

The US constitution's definition of "treaty" isn't the same as the normal definition. You're right that, under US legal terminology congressional-executive and sole executive agreements aren't treaties. But under the normal definition of the word, and the definition used in international law, as well as in every practical way, they are treaties. So, most people call them treaties. You're welcome to be pedantic and call them agreements if you like, of course.

Re:We withdrew from the Paris agreement

[jwhyche]

I guess I search for the original text, as you privided only american anti Paris *news papers*

Are you insane? Vox.com, while not a legitimate news site, is one of the most anti American sites on the web. Scientific American is widely regarded as one of the best magazines in the field, I don't know about brooking.edu so I'm not going to comment. NPR is about as left leaning, and still be kind of fair, as you can get with out falling over. Dfat,gov,au isn't even an American site. It's Australia . An well Reuters.com is well Reuters, one of the best news organizations in the world.

You didn't even look at the links he provided.

Re:We withdrew from the Paris agreement

[angel'o'sphere]

Because China and India will build new power plants regardless.
By contributing money you can force them to build CO2 neutral plants with your money.
On the other hand: investing e.g. 100billion into CO2 neutral power in the US is not possible.
No one is going to replace a freshly build gas plant or even an old coal plant with thermal solar etc. ... because such a task is much to complex. The developing countries on the other hand have a growing demand for power and build power plant after power plant. There more of them are green the better.

Re:We withdrew from the Paris agreement

[angel'o'sphere]

Vox.com is a news site. And I have no idea if a site is "anti american" nor do I care.

I nevertheless check the original rather than reading biased news. E.g. the news sites made it look like the US was supposed to pay 100billion, by bad wording. While it was obvious that the whole developed world was supposed to support the developing countries, which is a good thing, and would be peanuts for the US to do.

Re:We withdrew from the Paris agreement

[LynnwoodRooster]

Neither China nor India has any pledge to reduce or restrict CO2 output until 2030, per Paris. So we give them $1 trillion+ over the next 12 years, and they may THINK about starting to restrict CO2 output after that. Seems like a bad deal all around...

Re:We withdrew from the Paris agreement

[jwhyche]

Vox.com is a news site.

The vox.com is no more a legitimate news site than the onion is. At least the onion they don't claim to be any thing more than what they are, a satire site.

The vox is the very definition of bad journalism. They go out of their way to twist the truth to be as inflammatory as possible. They will only show one side of the story, usually not the correct side, and write the other side to be as negative as they possibly can. They are what is called in the field "yellow journalist."

Re:We withdrew from the Paris agreement

[angel'o'sphere]

They are not in the position to reduce CO2.
They only can be encouraged to add more non CO2 producing than CO2 producing plants while they are expanding their grids.

On the other hand there are more countries than China and India that could benefit from the fund.

Re:Trump will solve this

[Austerity Empowers]

Believe me, the number of people staying home from work will be big, really yuge.

ftfy

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:This is a surprise?

[Solandri]

The vast majority of countries are missing their Paris agreement targets.

And globally, the increase in energy production by renewables has pretty much been canceled out by the reduction in nuclear power, meaning the percentage of energy produced by fossil fuels has remained about the same. So if you want someone to blame, blame the anti-nuclear activists.

Re:This is a surprise?

[thegarbz]

The vast majority of countries are missing their Paris agreement targets [iflscience.com].

And? America likes to think they are better than most countries, so why not hold them accountable for their opinion.

Re:This is a surprise?

[Anonymous Coward]

The vast majority of countries are missing their Paris agreement targets.

Interesting article. They left out the US. Check out this article from Scientific American:
https://www.scientificamerican...

Especially this:
"Those increases stood in contrast to the United States, which posted the largest year-over-year decline in carbon emissions of any advanced economy. The decline was all the more notable given President Trump’s outspoken opposition to global attempts to curb greenhouse gas emissions and his plans to withdraw from the Paris deal."

Re:This is a surprise?

[DigiShaman]

Ironically, it's the 3rd world that will lead to renewable. Not because they want to, rather because they have no choice!

I know that everyone wants to "blame America" while simultaneously looking to America in solving this issue, and others around the world, but fact is, we're just going to ride this one out in the market place. It's happening. Wind and solar are getting cheaper. The cities will evolve to electric transportation. We're not there yet due to technology and infrastructure, but slowly and surely, we are getting there.

For anyone looking for a savior and a deadline to solve Global Warming / Climate Change, it's not going to happen. But, the current trajectory is that progress is being made regardless of whether or not we want it too. The free market is proving that. What, you didn't thing oil would remain cheap did you??

Re:This is a surprise?

[Applehu Akbar]

Germany, in particular, has almost bankrupted itself paving the environment with wind turbines, as well as those solar panels that collect mostly dead leaves, and has managed to actually increase its carbon emissions as it switches its industrial baseload from nuclear to coal.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/j...

Re:This is a surprise?

[Applehu Akbar]

I am also wondering how much these coal companies contribute to the antinuclear movement. The dark money that nobody wants to follow.

TheZeitgeist

[TheZeitgeist]

Of course USA gets singled out for missing 'targets' because it only reduced CO2 by x amount.

So...which of the enlightened countries in developed world met or exceeded their targets?

Also, when do the 3rd worlders start getting paid their Paris 'mitigation' checks? As I understand, that is increasingly contentious problem at the Paris Carbon-con.

Re: We Pulled Out

[Anonymous Coward]

Good thing the US is proposing a better alternative instead of just ignoring the issue entirely.

Re:Trump will solve this

[ganjadude]

we...arent a part of it... so... no we arent behind in anything

Re: We Pulled Out

[HornWumpus]

The model had the US and Europe as moneybags for the world. Now its left to Europe, that IS a better alternative. When Europe withdraws, better still.

Re:Not a surprise

[ClickOnThis]

Every deal that Trump didn't make himself is a bad deal for Trump, no compromise.

FTFY

China and India

[Zorro]

Doesn't matter.

China and India dwarfs everything else.

Re:China and India

[GameboyRMH]

This. The US is set to become the #1 polluter, environmental whipping boy, and international carbon-credit buyer if things continue on the current course (which luckily for them is very unlikely).

Re:China and India

[higuita]

Both china and india are improving, china is simply the faster grower in renewable energy production... Per capita, the USA is #7, but only because in the top are the middle east petrol producers, where petrol is cheaper than water... but their total emissions are way lower... even russia have lower per capita CO2 emissions and they produce petrol and gas!

All this and the US, the #2 in pollution, is lagging behind...

finally, india is in #4, behind the EU, so the USA really dwarfs everyone except china

Re:China and India

[LynnwoodRooster]

CO2 output from the US is falling. CO2 output from China, India, and the EU is rising. I'm curious about how you reach the conclusion that the "US is set to become the #1 polluter".

Re:China and India

[GameboyRMH]

Because China is working to tighten their emissions and the US is working to loosen them, going as far as to intentionally try to bring back filthy coal power. China's emissions have fallen sharply in recent years. The US is already a much higher per-capita emitter.

Also I'd like to see what source made you think that the EU's emissions are rising.

Re:China and India

[LynnwoodRooster]

Scientific American from March 2018 says the US' CO2 emissions are falling, and the EU CO2 emissions are rising. You can talk about "targets" and "goals" all you want - actual results show the US is cutting CO2 output, and Europe and Asia are increasing CO2 output.

Re:You mean, on paying for everyone else?

[Anonymous Coward]

Quick - throw money at the Chinese to make solar panels for other people for... environment!!

The source, Rhodium group, is a very pro-China, pro-China monopoly on alternative energy think tank.

Don't take my word for it. Look at the Rhodium group staff profiles and see what other paid positions they hold. It's not hard to see that this is a poorly veiled arm of the Chinese state propaganda wing.

hardy har har

[Archfeld]

Why should the US give a fsck about the climate in Paris... I predict severe smug storms, with heavy condescension.

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:We Pulled Out

[ole_timer]

I could not agree more...

Re:You mean, on paying for everyone else?

[higuita]

hey, you can do your own solar panels... and wind generators... and (much more cleaner than coal) gas generators
you can also do cars that uses less petrol, just like all other cars in the world

Re:CO2 is not "climate pollution"

[higuita]

Yes, sure, you know more than NASA: https://climate.nasa.gov/vital...

But we have weather station all over the globe and many of then have public info... just go look and take the numbers, do the math and then come back to us if there isn't a small and persistent global temperature increase

Re: Not a surprise

[dj245]

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.

Funny aid always comes in the form of food and not in tractors and combine harvesters. Maybe John Deere should be giving congressmen more money than the corn lobby.

ok then you're free to be climate criminals

[presidenteloco]

in the eyes of near-future generations of people worldwide, including in the US mid-west desert-sandbasket (formerly breadbasket).

Re:ok then you're free to be climate criminals

[ole_timer]

yawn

Re:ok then you're free to be climate criminals

[Crashmarik]

You need to explain to me how a warmer and wetter world makes everywhere a desert.

Re: ok then you're free to be climate criminals

[triffid_98]

Which has 1000% more to do with unsustainable levels of groundwater extraction than anything to do with the Paris accords. I realise that's an "Inconvenient Truth" but it's still the truth

Industry-apologist shill alert

[presidenteloco]

Re: gradually slowing down (record-high) fossil fuel production and consumption will kill people - to paraphrase.

This is utter bullshit, and a talking-point dreamed up in the back rooms of the Koch brothers shill factory.

 

Re:CO2 is not "climate pollution"

[higuita]

yes, CO2 is good for plans... but that it is not its only effect... how many plants you have in Venus? They have LOTS of CO2 there!
the quantity is very important, too much or too little are bad, just like water (too little: desert, too much... well sea or lake)
The issue with CO2 is that it gets hot and do not release the hot as fast as most other common gases. This make everything a *little* more hot... while the extra CO2 make plans grow faster, it also make water evaporate faster, that in turn form bigger clouds and so stronger storms ...usually far away from the water was taken out... so you get longer or permanent dry seasons in some places and floods and strong cyclones. As some areas are hotter and other cooler, winds also change a little, taking hot air from hot places to places where usually is not that hot, and taking cold air to places where usually is not that cold... the planet will sooner or later get back to a "normal" weather cycle, but may be totally different from what we have now, so killing many animals and plants (species extinction) and destroying lots of land, forcing people to relocate, migrate... current food cultures will have to change, sparking for hunger if not changed correctly or too late.

The fun fact about chain reactions is that after they started, it is hard to predict how they will evolve, small details may make huge differences in the long run... and like most chain reactions, it may not be easy to stop or control then... venus is a great example of a global warming out of control, while mercuryis much closer to the sun, it is colder than venus: https://www.universetoday.com/...

Re:Not a surprise

[tbannist]

You know, that's not the entire truth...

Quite a few of the deals that Trump actually made for himself are also a bad deal for Trump... As evidence by his lifelong history of breaking contracts because he didn't want to honour them.

It's morally binding

[presidenteloco]

In that all of the other 196 countries of the world have agreed to it (178 ratified), and the US looks like a spoiled kid in the corner having a tantrum.

Re:It's morally binding

[Anonymous Coward]

In that all of the other 196 countries of the world have agreed to it (178 ratified), and the US looks like a spoiled kid in the corner having a tantrum.

That's the problem. So many care about appearances but not substance. China pollutes at more than twice the rate and are on track, even with the Paris agreement, to double their pollution. The environment does not care about per-capita pollution or historical pollution. What matters is total. China's pollution is on the rise. The US has leveled off and are taking efforts to decrease. But it's the US's responsibility to pay China to increase at a reduced rate per the Paris agreement? Fuck off.

Re:It's morally binding

[WindBourne]

and the treaty is a FUCKING joke.
It will not solve anything since as fast as America drops our emissions, China is adding 2-3x as much. Unless ALL nations are dropping their emissions, this will never work. EVER. At the very least, it requires that nations quit building new coal plants, if not new fossil fuel plants. Yet, China, Germany, Japan, S. Korea, most of Eastern Europe, continue to build new coal plants.
America has stopped with coal and will likely continue to cut our CO2 by cutting coal (way too expensive).

BTW, the report assumes that our EVs continues to grow slowly. Just this year alone, America will leap into #1 position of buying EVs, or just behind China. Why? Tesla model 3.

Re:It's morally binding

[fish_in_the_c]

Morally. I would agree that God wants us to take care of the planet and His creation and reducing pollution is part of that, the specifics of how to do that are probably something that need a great deal of consideration. I'd be happier if the republicans at least embraced the principle then maybe there would be a better chance of working out specifics. Just because you don't believe climate change is real , doesn't mean burning coal and oil is good for the environment. Reducing smog alone is a good reason to move away from it. Anything in large enough levels is a pollutant and if we can start there maybe there is a place for the middle ground.

Re: It's morally binding

[WindBourne]

and yet, America's CO2 has fallen more than any others over the last 10 years.

Re:It's morally binding

[LynnwoodRooster]

False, 193 countries have agreed. And many of those (particularly the EU) still have increasing emissions - in stark contrast to the US who has falling emissions. Maybe it's more important to see actual results rather than pretty language...

Re:It's morally binding

[Bartles]

The US is actually decreasing.

Re:It's morally binding

[CaffeinatedBacon]

You are the FUCKING joke Windy. America per person is still way out in front on CO2 emissions. Even as you very slowly drop, you are still way way above the world average, and higher than just about all comparable countries. All those countries you mentioned have lower per person emissions than you do, so they are all already cleaner than you. (and could continue to increase and you decrease and it won't change those facts.

Re: It's morally binding

[CaffeinatedBacon]

It's easy to fall by the most when you are so far out in front. You're the morbidly obese man who lost 3kg and is now only 100kg overweight, thinking he is doing better than a healthy person who was never overweight in the first place.

Re: It's morally binding

[triffid_98]

The key phrase is "per person"... why are you discrimating against people who understand how birth control works? If we had a sustainable global population you could all be burning plastic and car tires and still not screw up the environment. We are at over double that figure, the only reason we aren't starving to death is due to petroleum based fertilizers and GMO crops.

Re: It's morally binding

[CaffeinatedBacon]

One can only assume you are attempting to troll. If you really are that clueless, do a search for One Child Policy and tell us what you find...

Re: It's morally binding

[Bing Tsher E]

But those others are building more coal plants to,day as we discuss this.

Re: It's morally binding

[CaffeinatedBacon]

And?

Re:And we laugh at the rest of you.

[higuita]

Without pressure to develop cleaner energy sources, people would not do it, simply because anything new is more expensive than established and already paid... now that we have generated some pressure to change, wind energy is already much cheaper than coal and petrol, and a little more cheaper than gas. Each year solar prices are being cut in a big %. Energy storage, improving electric grid is also a side effect of this pressure to fix a problem.

Simply waiting for the problem to solve itself is a good way to not fix a problem.

and by the way, no economy output is decreased, while you reduce (dirty) established business output, you increase clean business output. Many countries now export clean energy production (like Denmark and Portugal) while they reduced their imported and dirty energy to the minimum and have now most of their energy from local and renewable sources.

Finally, no need to go to third world plastic dumping, EVERY country have that problem... but again without any pressure, people will still get many useless plastic items and dump then after one use and will not change to more alternative and more expensive items

Re: Not a surprise

[Ken_g6]

Why 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.

The first step is a massive build-out of renewable electricity generation, mainly solar and wind. We're not even close to the maximum capacity of renewables across the country, even without grid changes.

The second step is including 12 hours' worth of battery storage to get to 80% renewable electricity, whether next to the power generation - which is already economical - or even better in the batteries of electric vehicles. This can include...electric farm equipment!

Where we want to go from there, such as combined hydrogen generation for ammonia and CO2 collection from seawater or synthesizing oil from CO2 directly from the air, is up in the air right now. But the concrete steps above, if implemented aggressively, could easily meet our Paris 2025 commitment.

Re:Not a surprise

[jeff4747]

Why should the US be expected to pay for everything for the rest of the world?

We aren't.

The agreement involved developed nations, including the US, that had generated an enormous amount of wealth via burning fossil fuels.

We'd like developing nations to not go down that same path, because we fucked up the atmosphere when we did it.

In order to get them to not go down the same path we did, we're going to have to help them skip over the "burn shitloads of fossil fuels" stage in their development.

Compromise is built from negotiating parties looking out for their own self interests, then giving in on some items to get others. You want win-win agreements

They get help building non-polluting energy sources, we get Miami and New Orleans continuing to exist. The deal was is win-win. It was just negotiated by that dark-skinned fellow, so it must be awful.

Iran deal are two prime examples

Oh really?

Let's compare negotiations. Iran stopped enriching uranium, sent what they had enriched to Russia, and submitted to inspections by the UN. Yes, the Iranians are allowed some lead time when the UN wants to inspect a new site, but you can't hide an enrichment plant in 20 days. They leave around detectable levels of radioactivity that take far longer than 20 days to clean up. Iran stopped it's nuclear program, and everyone, including the US has produced zero evidence that Iran violating the agreement now.

And now: North Korea. Trump just negotiated a "deal" with North Korea to stop their nuclear program in return for the US no longer conducting military exercises in South Korea.....with zero enforcement mechanisms. We stopped our exercise, and North Korea is upgrading their nuclear research facilities instead of closing them.

If you are looking for terrible negotiators, I suggest you take a gander at the person who went bankrupt running a casino. Twice.

Was this ratified by congress?

[fish_in_the_c]

Under united states law the we are not bound by a treaty that was not ratified by congress no matter what the president at the time says.
I don't think this was and there is a reason the law is that way. partially to avoid this type of mess. Just because the president thinks it is a good idea, isn't good enough unless the legislative branch also agrees.

Re:The US doesn't give a shit about the Environmen

[fish_in_the_c]

what if you don't have any?

Re: Not a surprise

[jeff4747]

We are completely dependent on mechanized farming to feed the 7B people in this world.

The agreement does not require third world countries to not use modern agricultural machinery, nor does it forbid them from using transportation systems like trucks to haul goods.

What it does is finance the construction of non-CO2-producing facilities in their countries. So instead of building a coal power plant because it's cheap for them to build, we help fund the construction of hydro/solar/wind/storage/etc.

In return, cities like Miami and New Orleans continue to exist instead of being destroyed by the ocean.

So, we pay a few billion over the next 20 years, or we pay a few trillion over 10-40 years from now. That's not a difficult choice....if you do not let ideology blind you.

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: Not a surprise

[dj245]

What good are tractors and combines in the third world with no arable land or people who lack any farming history or knowledge?

And yet, that didn't stop Saudi Arabia. Granted, they had a pile of money, but giving food year after year in perpetuity costs a pile of money too.

Trump and Dominionists DGAF about climate

[Rick Schumann]

Trump and his Dominionist buddies/appointees don't give a flying fuck about the environment; wrecking the Earth faster means Zombie Jesus returns that much sooner so far as these nutjob religious extremists are concerned. In the meantime they want to hoard as much profit as they possibly can and wasting money on trying to combat human-caused global warming is just a non-starter to them. Besides which these rich bastards can afford to live in nice climate-controlled homes with purified air and water while they wait for the Rapture to come take them back to Heaven, why should they give a fuck about what the plebian sinner average citizens have to live like? The rest of us are all going to Hell so far as they're concerned anyway.

Don't you Trump supporters see it? Trump does not give a fuck about YOU any more than he gives a fuck about anyone else. He cares about his own ass first, then maybe his family, then maybe the sycophants he surrounds himself with (if they kissed his ass enough). The rest of us? We're just meat for the grinder to him and his cronies.

Re:Trump and Dominionists DGAF about climate

[Rick Schumann]

You won't see this because you're an AC and likely aren't even paying attention.. but go and do a deep-dive research into Pence and lots of other Trump appointees, cabinet members, his staff, etc. You'll start to see a pattern. I don't think Trump himself is a Dominionist, but he sure as hell wants to drag us backwards socially to the 1940's, and that's not going to be good for anyone.

Re: Not a surprise

[WindBourne]

what does AGW and cutting back on CO2 have to do with mechanized farming? Absolutely NOTHING.

Re:CO2 is not "climate pollution"

[fish_in_the_c]

A better way to not be arrogant. How about this reasoning. There are many many people that study this issue. Most of them know a lot more about the fields involved then I do. ( chemistry, weather, hydraulics etc.) . The majority of them believe there is a real problem with how much plant food we are releasing and how it will effect things over time. That's pretty easy to establish, doesn't take a lot of hard science. Where to rubber meets the road though is , what if anything can and should we do about it. I personally don't think establishing arbitrary targets is a great way to go. It is kind of like deciding to loose weight by only counting calories.

I think we would be much better off if we focused on the environment as a social value, on building houses that fit in to the environment, on building whole communities that did less harm to the animals and plants and produced more natural and less harmful things. Then when we value that ,we can start looking at if there are more specific things to be done. Why power everything with solar and wind if we can? Why not? ( assuming it can be done in a way the increase personal freedom and health).

Re:We were already behind

[Applehu Akbar]

Our switch from coal to gas was putting us ahead of most other countries at the time, but there is a limit to how much carbon we can save that way.

Re: Not a surprise

[jeff4747]

That's 100 billion dollars a year, every year, with no end date being brought up

First, it's not $100B from only the US.

Second, financial predictions so far from now are pretty difficult to be remotely accurate. Since they mostly depend on how well we did in the previous spending. That $100B, spent well means we have a lot less to spend after. Which is why I left it vague in my previous post.

What figure did you have in mind when you said "or we pay a few trillion dollars over 10-40 years from now"?

Well, the real estate that is Miami is worth about $3 trillion. So that would be completely gone. I don't have convenient numbers for every other low-lying coastal city, because there's a lot of them. But because there's a lot of them, we're probably in the double-digit-trillions.

Also difficult to figure is just how much will be destroyed, since we're veering between doing something or doing nothing. For example, Los Angeles isn't cheap, and it's gone if we do nothing. Since we've started doing some, Los Angeles is mostly safe for now but that could be reversed easily.

Then there's sending about half of our agriculture industry to Canada as farms Iowa-ish and south stop being able to produce much food due to warmer climate and drought. And it'll be hitting about when we've drained the Ogallala aquifer and similar aquifers, so irrigation won't be a good solution to that. Agriculture is just under $1T/year to our GDP, so call it another half a trillion there.

Then there's the "minor" detail that people no not peacefully starve to death. So our military is going to get a lot more use, potentially even domestically as the utter financial destruction spreads. We're spending about half a trillion every year on the DoD now. We'd probably cut way back on R&D and "non-war interventions" as things spiraled out of control, so keeping spending about the same is probably a reasonable assumption.

So yeah, even if it actually was $2T from the US, we're still getting a bargain.

It sort of did

[skam240]

It sort of did. Rather than type it all out here's a link that describes the situation well https://www.snopes.com/news/20...

Re: Alcoholic Painter Ex-Presidents

[CanHasDIY]

Yea, apparently some of them want to be Movie stars.

Re: Not a surprise

[jwhyche]

Before I answer with something more thought out first tell me what AGW means. I'm drawing a blank on this one.

Except it did

[skam240]

Except it did. Here's why (since I'm lazy and don't want to type it out)

https://www.snopes.com/news/20...

We're not part of the Paris Accord

[LynnwoodRooster]

And even if we were, we're doing better than the rest of the 1st world.

Re:Not a surprise

[ClickOnThis]

My point was that Trump is hell-bent on undoing everything done by his predecessors, especially Obama. If he didn't do it, it's no good. That doesn't mean he is immune to making bad deals.

Re: Not a surprise

[ClickOnThis]

Before I answer with something more thought out first tell me what AGW means. I'm drawing a blank on this one.

AGW = Anthropogenic Global Warming.

If you are "drawing a blank" on that, then you have no business posting to this discussion.

Re:CO2 is not "climate pollution"

[LynnwoodRooster]

The problem is, the models used to tell us we HAVE TO DO THIS PARIS ACCORD OR DIE! all get the temperature trends wrong. They don't line up with reality. So do we continue going on with actions based on flawed models, or do we just say "screw it" and start over? As Feynman so well stated, if data and your model disagree - the model is wrong.

Re: Not a surprise

[jwhyche]

Considering that I started the discussion then it's safe to assume that I have plenty of business posting in this discussion. I deal with dozens of 3 letter acronyms daily. I think that I can be forgiven if one doesn't ring a bell right off that bat. Just like I would forgive you for not knowing what HD, CHR, or TT means.

An for the record, I looked it up and figured it out before you decided to chime in with your brand of enlightenment.

Re: Not a surprise

[jwhyche]

what does AGW and cutting back on CO2 have to do with mechanized farming? Absolutely NOTHING

I'm going to respectfully disagree with you on this. I believe it has a great deal to do with the issue, if not the lions share.

Granted the tractor in the field as little to do with the issue. But take it out to all the other causes and effects mechanized farming have. Transportation and storage, theses require energy and most of that energy comes from fossil fuels. Then there is CO2 emissions from livestock. Yes, cow farts. Then there is the clear cutting of carbon sinks, forests and the like.

If you add all these up the CO2 contributions from mechanized farming are staggering.

Re: Not a surprise

[sjames]

What people want right now is for the process to actually begin rather than looking in to how we can subsidize coal.

Re:Big countries are big, film at 11

[LynnwoodRooster]

AC is wrong, China has about twice the CO2 output as the US.

Re:you can only be trolling

[LynnwoodRooster]

So it's per-person that matters, not the actual amount of CO2? So if China had 99% of the per-person CO2 output as the US, they would be better than us, from an ecological standpoint, even though they'd have over 4 times the CO2 output? Really - is that what you want to argue?

Re: Not a surprise

[WindBourne]

Yeah, you are right about AGW's meaning, but so far, Jwhyche has been spot on WRT issues on this. It is obvious that he understands it. He is just not used to seeing these abbreviations. Hell, if I did not have friends that are working on this problem, I likely would not have known.

Re: Not a surprise

[WindBourne]

Borrowing from a great movie, I do not think that mechanized farming means what you think it means.
But, I would not call mechanized farming (i.e. the use of tractors and equipment) as being a big producer of CO2.
Now, raising cattle will produce lots of CO2, but that is the case no matter if fed via feedlot or pasture(which is what I assume that you think it means). mechanized farming has not been an issue WRT greenies, while our eating of ANY meat has been .
Yes, some ppl have pushed to convert ppl to vegan, but in general, those ppl have other issues/focus. IOW, they do not care about AGW.

If we kept our farming the way it is today, and killed off 100% of fossil fuel electricity AND 100% of transportation's emissions (disregard aircraft, etc), then our emissions would be below 33% of where it is today. IOW, fossil fuel electricity AND passenger/commercial vehicles emissions account for more than 66% of all of our emissions. At that point, the climate should be in decent shape.

Re:Not a surprise

[iggymanz]

doesn't matter what happened in the past, that's done. there is no notion of atonement for it is pointless.

China dwarfs the USA in carbon emissions...the US emissions don't even matter. So the USA should not harm its economy and people just for feel-good purposes.

Last last chance to save the world.

[will_die]

So what is the status of the last last chance to save the world and prevent the demise of all life on earth, the Kyoto Protocol?
Since the Paris Agreement is the follow one to the Kyoto Protocol we should be able to look back at the previous one and see why it did not save the world as we were told it would. How many countries in that made actual cuts needed to meet what they agreed to? If they cannot reach the cuts required under that agreement they must not have thought that the problem was that much of an actual issue and we can see how they act now.

Obama said fuck you to a lot of people too

[cheekyboy]

like all the cannabis smokers, he didnt legalize it.
He didnt free all people in prison under pointless drug possession charges put there by over zealous career seeking prossecuters who love to ruin peoples lives and get rich.

If that's the law why doesn't it apply

[rsilvergun]

to declarations or war? Or are we just vacationing in Yemen (and the other 5 countries we're dropping bombs on w/o Congressional approval)?

What countries ARE meeting their commitments?

[Kagetsuki]

Are there other countries in the accord that are meeting their commitments? I'd be curious to see who is and isn't, and how they are doing it if they are.

Re:CO2 is not "climate pollution"

[Highdude702]

So you're saying the conditions on this Growing, Breathing, Ball of rock are not static. Got you. So whats bad about climate change then? Seems like that's what the globe wants...

--Highdude702(mods)

Re:CO2 is not "climate pollution"

[Highdude702]

well, sorry to the people I modded that lost them..

You never show anything, only lie.

[crimson tsunami]

No silly little boy, You have been shown over and over how it peaked in 2013. And your lie after lie were pointed out back then too.

Iv'e been pounding it into your head over and over that Chinese coal is more efficient than American coal and the new plants are more efficient than the old ones. Glad you are finally at long last starting to realise.
Though I never said they were twice as efficient, that's just complete stupidity you made up for yourself. Even your made up 1.5x is a complete joke of a number.

All you can ever do is lie and make shit up, don't you get tired of appearing so completely clueless and foolish at every turn?

Still not enough

[CaffeinatedBacon]

You are so far out in front with respect to CO2 emissions per person that even if you dropped by 66%. Cut your emissions down to only 1/3 your current level. You would still be higher than the world average.

Let that sink in for a minute...

All your talk about decreasing by a fraction of a percent, or getting excited about a whole percentage point decrease means nothing in this context. America is "moving in the right direction" but way too slowly to make any difference to anything.

Re:The US doesn't give a shit about the Environmen

[Highdude702]

I like to think I'm helping save the planet by not having children..

Re:Incorrect

[Jane Q. Public]

Not incorrect.

Hahahaha. You use Snopes as your "authoritative" source? That's funny.

Look it up, man. Treaties have to be ratified by the Senate. Paris never was. It doesn't get much simpler than that.

tRump will....

[Stubbyfingers]

....firebomb Paris before he complies with the Paris Agreements

Re:Incorrect

[skam240]

You're not really using any critical thinking here. Back to the question I asked before.

"Why would Trump, who has no problems saying fuck you to anyone or anything, put off leaving the Paris Agreements until the agreed upon date if he didn't have to? I'm pretty sure he's got a few legal experts around him to help with stuff like that."

The fact that he is following the rules for pulling out of the treaty pretty clearly implies we're bound by those rules. Why else would he follow the rules? Realizing this I then searched for why that was and the snopes article was near the top of the search results. You can laugh at it all you want but it sites alright sources and siting snopes is a far sharper move than not actually thinking about what you're saying.

Re:CO2 is not "climate pollution"

[higuita]

The globe is not producing extra CO2, we are...
Also, even if natural (a new ice age or a new warn age), it is a totally global change, that leads to the fall of many countries and regions, creating global instability and so famine, migrations, wars

Uf we can avoid all that by just investing in clean energy, it is a win-win situation

How long is a piece of string?

[CaffeinatedBacon]

It's also a simple question.
Isn't it?

We got this regardless

[ChoosyBeggar]

OTOH, if Rhodium's estimates continue along their current pace of revision, the US will easily fulfill it's Paris climate obligations by 2025.

Re:Not a surprise

[tbannist]

Oh, I agree with you. I just wanted to add the point that Trump basically doesn't know the difference between a good deal and a bad deal. He has only a limited understanding of "good for me" deals.