Once Trump's plans kick in (mostly around making products nobody wants and digging up coal that nobody will buy, sending money he doesn't have and furiously suing all mockers in between night long sessions rage tweeting about girls who spurned him), we can expect a steep decline from Obama's America. The only thing significant about Trump's America will the unemployment lines and debt.
Who cares whether he convinces anyone? If the second-largest greenhouse gas emitter in the world refuses to comply, the accord is nearly useless.
Most people expect that the US economy will collapse under Trump, because his economic policies, and those of his neocon supporters, are moronic. He's a coal guy, but if nobodies buying, then no coal gets burnt.
If the decision of the US to back out also causes the largest emitter (China) to back out, which is likely because it will erode their competitive advantage, then it's a dead letter since the two countries produce nearly half of the world's emissions.
Nope, China is going to make money hand over fist and lock in the IP on a number of new clean nuclear technologies. Trump's neo-isolationist policies in Asia means that now nothing is stopping China from absolutely dominating both the region and world economy.
In a few years, the US will just do whatever China does or says. Certainly the reverse no longer applies, although Obama stemmed the bleeding for a while.
Who cares? If other countries want to sign away their economies in some sort of suicide pact, that is their right.
You signed your country over to a guy whose only claim to fame is failing at business. Maybe other countries aren't looking to you to tell them how to do things right?
Then their populations have the right to kick their corrupt lying asses out of office just like how we stopped Hillary here.
That sounds like the kind of bullshit that Trump says.
You seem to not quite understand how government works...
I was under the impression that Trump didn't like government. Shouldn't he be getting on with dismantling the government?
Yes, he indeed can pull out of that agreement...
This might come as a terrible shock, so maybe you need to sit down.
President Obama didn't sign on behalf of anybody else: just the US. So, revoking that signing doesn't cancel the accord. All the other 196 signatures are still on there.
This might come as a terrible shock, so maybe you need to sit down.
President Obama didn't sign on behalf of anybody else: just the US. So, revoking that signing doesn't cancel the accord. All the other 196 signatures are still on there.
A corrupt liar thinks another corrupt liar would be good for a job he doesn't understand. Details at 11.
Meanwhile, I wonder Trump thinks he can cancel the Paris Climate Accord? WIll he take take some white out to cover over the names of the other signatories?
Trump has already promised a nuclear strike on Aleppo, and I dare say he'll do his level best to make that happen (regardless of the fact that it is about to be overrun by the Kurds).
... hey, another George Bush, we survived the last one.
Well, most people did, although a million or so people were not so lucky.
But you are right, his policy platform (what we know of it) reads like a reset to the Bush era. Which is ironic, given that it's the children of Trump's supporters who will be coming home in body bags when he and the other neo-neocons move to broaden their business interests overseas.
I keep seeing zealots on this side calling for everything incredibly invasive (in terms of liberties) public policy, to criminal prosecution of "climate change deniers."
So if you are going to intertwine science and politics like that, in ways that will invariably lead to the needless suffering of many millions of people if you are wrong, what happens if you are wrong?
You don't get to just walk away and say "sorry about the shit we did to you, science corrected itself. Don't you Fucking Love Science?" In the realm of politics when you ideologically wreck the lives of a lot of people, justice demands you pay for it. So, are you ready to say the science is settled, we trust it, let's act on it and if scientists firmly disprove it we're ready to face whatever consequences the political system demands of us?
It sounds to me like you've engaged in a bit of a double standard here. If you want to hold the scientists, and those who accept the science liable in the case that they are wrong, then surely the the proponents of the alternate explanation (be they denialists, conspiracists, whatever) are also liable if they are wrong?
Economists calculate that the cost of mitigating against climate change (though undoubtedly expensive) as a fraction of the cost of dealing with the outcomes if we do nothing. So you can imagine that your proposal brings the question of liability to the fore.
That is, those that fund the broad arm of propaganda seeking to throw the science into doubt are liable for the damage caused so far by delaying action.
Those that have in the past adopted a position ("the climate is not changing") and then smoothly, and without explanation transitioned into a contradictory position ("sure, the climate is changing, but nobody really knows why") are liable for both the first and last position.
You would agree that the concept of liability applies to all parties? I'm quite sure, that, if there were a way to arrange it, that the scientists and those that accept the science would happily enter into an arrangement where they are liable in the event they are wrong - so long as the denialists and conspiracists are held to the same standard.
Slashdot Mirror
Probably after he's actually inaugurated?
So he IS going to dismantle the government once inaugurated?
Once Trump's plans kick in (mostly around making products nobody wants and digging up coal that nobody will buy, sending money he doesn't have and furiously suing all mockers in between night long sessions rage tweeting about girls who spurned him), we can expect a steep decline from Obama's America. The only thing significant about Trump's America will the unemployment lines and debt.
See above
Any significant party in the Paris climate accord can effectively cancel the whole thing.
Is Trump's America a significant party?
He actually said he was going to launch a nuclear strike against Raqqa
Which other signatories are you thinking he would need to white out?
All of them. That seems obvious.
No, but I do wonder about the relevance of this question. Trump doesn't need to convince anyone, anywhere, in order to get the US out of it, does he?
Trump says he wants the Accord cancelled. The accord can (and probably will) go on regardless of whether the US is in it.
So what will he do to convince others to withdraw?
Who cares whether he convinces anyone? If the second-largest greenhouse gas emitter in the world refuses to comply, the accord is nearly useless.
Most people expect that the US economy will collapse under Trump, because his economic policies, and those of his neocon supporters, are moronic. He's a coal guy, but if nobodies buying, then no coal gets burnt.
If the decision of the US to back out also causes the largest emitter (China) to back out, which is likely because it will erode their competitive advantage, then it's a dead letter since the two countries produce nearly half of the world's emissions.
Nope, China is going to make money hand over fist and lock in the IP on a number of new clean nuclear technologies. Trump's neo-isolationist policies in Asia means that now nothing is stopping China from absolutely dominating both the region and world economy.
In a few years, the US will just do whatever China does or says. Certainly the reverse no longer applies, although Obama stemmed the bleeding for a while.
But then he is a moron.
Who cares? If other countries want to sign away their economies in some sort of suicide pact, that is their right.
You signed your country over to a guy whose only claim to fame is failing at business. Maybe other countries aren't looking to you to tell them how to do things right?
Then their populations have the right to kick their corrupt lying asses out of office just like how we stopped Hillary here.
That sounds like the kind of bullshit that Trump says.
Correct. There are no penalties and no enforcement mechanisms. Aaand so why is Trump afraid of being signed up to it?
And they can go down that with that suicide pact, thats good for us.
Errr No. The countries that invest early win. You're already behind.
Hopefully we start bringing modern fission reactors online ya know realy fighting climate change.
With what investment? Trump has committed to coal, even though nobodies buying it. No fission reactors for you! For us? Yes.
Why would I need a better one? Seems a waste
That being said, it hardly relates to the topic at hand.
Tell you what: :-)
if we decide we need a view from a failed country on what means jack shit and what doesn't we'll be sure to give you a call
You seem to not quite understand how government works...
I was under the impression that Trump didn't like government. Shouldn't he be getting on with dismantling the government?
Yes, he indeed can pull out of that agreement...
This might come as a terrible shock, so maybe you need to sit down.
President Obama didn't sign on behalf of anybody else: just the US. So, revoking that signing doesn't cancel the accord. All the other 196 signatures are still on there.
President Obama didn't sign on behalf of anybody else: just the US. So, revoking that signing doesn't cancel the accord. All the other 196 signatures are still on there.
Of course Trump can cancel the Paris Climate Accord, at least for the US.
Well Chris, it looks like you missed the point. To quote myself: WIll he take take some white out to cover over the names of the other signatories?
Do you think Trumps charm and impressive intellect will convince others that climate change is "bullshit"?
Meanwhile, I wonder Trump thinks he can cancel the Paris Climate Accord? WIll he take take some white out to cover over the names of the other signatories?
India and China are both signatories to the Paris Climate Accord.
I wonder which news site Trumps supporters were going to to confirm the things Donald was saying were truthful?
Trump has already promised a nuclear strike on Aleppo, and I dare say he'll do his level best to make that happen (regardless of the fact that it is about to be overrun by the Kurds).
... hey, another George Bush, we survived the last one.
Well, most people did, although a million or so people were not so lucky.
But you are right, his policy platform (what we know of it) reads like a reset to the Bush era. Which is ironic, given that it's the children of Trump's supporters who will be coming home in body bags when he and the other neo-neocons move to broaden their business interests overseas.
I keep seeing zealots on this side calling for everything incredibly invasive (in terms of liberties) public policy, to criminal prosecution of "climate change deniers."
So if you are going to intertwine science and politics like that, in ways that will invariably lead to the needless suffering of many millions of people if you are wrong, what happens if you are wrong?
You don't get to just walk away and say "sorry about the shit we did to you, science corrected itself. Don't you Fucking Love Science?" In the realm of politics when you ideologically wreck the lives of a lot of people, justice demands you pay for it. So, are you ready to say the science is settled, we trust it, let's act on it and if scientists firmly disprove it we're ready to face whatever consequences the political system demands of us?
It sounds to me like you've engaged in a bit of a double standard here. If you want to hold the scientists, and those who accept the science liable in the case that they are wrong, then surely the the proponents of the alternate explanation (be they denialists, conspiracists, whatever) are also liable if they are wrong?
Economists calculate that the cost of mitigating against climate change (though undoubtedly expensive) as a fraction of the cost of dealing with the outcomes if we do nothing. So you can imagine that your proposal brings the question of liability to the fore.
That is, those that fund the broad arm of propaganda seeking to throw the science into doubt are liable for the damage caused so far by delaying action.
Those that have in the past adopted a position ("the climate is not changing") and then smoothly, and without explanation transitioned into a contradictory position ("sure, the climate is changing, but nobody really knows why") are liable for both the first and last position.
You would agree that the concept of liability applies to all parties? I'm quite sure, that, if there were a way to arrange it, that the scientists and those that accept the science would happily enter into an arrangement where they are liable in the event they are wrong - so long as the denialists and conspiracists are held to the same standard.
So the reality could be far worse than these predictions?
Dunno why you think I should explain the basis of this conversation to you. If you are confused, that's your problem.