{{{Indeed, while investors decried the decision, they admitted that their companies were already prepared for it.
“Most of the folks working around energy and climate no longer seem to require policy support,” said Shaun Abrahamson, a managing partner at Urban Us.}}}
Now I'm confused.. this contradicts the central thrust of the arricle
Yeah, it's no big deal, just the leadership of this country wants to do things that will make life much worse for my descendants. Obviously I'm not actually outraged about it.
There are reasons to object to the accord that have nothing to do with a so-called "anti-science policy".
The actual wording of the accords has little to do with science and more to do with massive welfare obligations and handicapping the US economy with no requirements from China for decades.
Climate change denial has been a Republican position for decades. Trump is on record saying that the whole idea is a hoax. There might be legitimate reasons to pull out of this agreement, but those are not their reasons.
I think you missed what I said. That may be a great reason, but Trump and friends are pulling out because they don't think climate change is even real.
Science is anything that follows the scientific method.
One important step of the scientific method is "make testable predictions." Another step is "refine, alter, expand, or reject" hypotheses. Science rests on the possibility of falsifiability. If it can be tested, and found false, it is science. If there is no way to falsify it, it is not science.
For instance, evolution is falsifiable. We can expect that if we put certain organisms with rapid life cycles in a harsher environment, over a certain number of generations the population in the harsher environment will evolve to better suit that environment. If, say, 10,000 generations pass and the organisms in that environment are no better suited to it than a control population, we might conclude evolution has been falsified. Fortunately, we've done lots of tests like this, and evolution does indeed occur.
So I may better understand how this is science, can you tell me how the theory of manmade global warming can be disproved?
One way to disprove it would have been if global temperatures had stayed at their 19th century levels. Starting from where we are now, it would be disproven if global temperatures returned to their 19th century levels.
Have you read the IPCC Summary for Policymakers? It's a really good summary of the current state of the science. It's a very complicated topic and you're not going to get a complete answer in a HN reply. I'm serious, give it a read.
Who cares? What matters is if it's working or not. Of course it's hard to untangle if it's due to accords, scientific/engineering breakthroughs, government investment, etc. but India and China are far ahead of their Paris targets: https://insideclimatenews.org/news/15052017/china-india-pari...
China has no obligation for 20 years.
This statement is wrong in multiple ways. As you noted above, Paris is non-binding, so there are no "obligations" beyond developing a plan and reporting on progress. Next, China's goals begin in 2030, which is 13 years away, not 20. Finally, according to the link above, China is on pace to meet its goals almost a decade (!) in advance, i.e. early in the 2020s. So even a charitable interpretation of your statement looks to be wrong by about 4x.
It's not ratified by Congress.
This is as far as I can tell, just a negative thrown in that has nothing to do with the thesis. Is agreeing to the accords bad for the U.S. (cost billions!) or does it not matter, because it's not ratified. Which is it?
Nothing from agreeing to this was going to affect your descendants other than draining American coffers of billions.
So basically every other country is willing to drain their coffers. Why is that?
That's the problem with the hysterics... If it's the right thing to do, if it's smart business and profitable, you don't need a binding agreement to force people in.
Leave a town without police, stop fixing public roads or just stop collecting garbage.
Very soon the people will demand to have police back (or roll their own temporarily), will demand roads fixed, and garbage taken out — or look for a garbage truck company to pay to.
The effects of this are very quick and visible. Unlike that, climate change, or e.g. effects of using lead paint and asbestos in building practice, is a slow, hard-to-notice thing. "Too late" happens decades later that the time of a preventive action; very few people have a planning horizon as distant.
By my reading, the trust of the article is that Trump's decision will have minimal impact on in progress actions to counter climate change, hence the words you quoted. The major impact of his decison will be on the USA's international standing and ability to influence the world.
Yes we do need government intervention to innovate and solve this climate problem. The free market does not work here because the actual, real cost of greenhouse gas emissions is not correctly adjusted. The runaway warming effect is going to cost enormous sums of money to solve and will cost us dearly in life, ecosystems, and global stability.
Corporations have long shown that they are not interested in truth, or sustainable profits, or people's health, or the environment. In fact, due to lack of government intervention, corporations like Exxon spread harmful propaganda that decreases the public's awareness about critical issues like climate change.
Collective action is important because this is otherwise a failure of humanity to recognize a tragedy of the commons. We need to collectively agree to solve the problem, through governments, because otherwise individual actors like states and corporations will increase their own wealth through greed at the expense of others.
Agree to disagree I guess. Global warming is something that needs to be addressed, but it is being heavily exaggerated. This does not help anyone except for the alarmists. It causes us to put our resources in areas that aren't useful. That money could be spent much more wisely elsewhere. In addition, the US is already doing fine without government interference, as shown by the decrease in US CO2 emissions over the past 2 decades.
Besides all the jobs and other economic factors that would disadvantage the US on a global scale if they agreed to the accord, we just have to look to Germany - a country that is following the standards put in place by the accord - to see what the consequences would be. They pay more than 3x per kWh for electricity than the US. This might be something that the middle class and up could afford, but this would unfairly target the poor and in poorer countries would cause death and suffering. This alone is reason enough to look for better solutions.
> Global warming is something that needs to be addressed, but it is being heavily exaggerated.
It isn't. Please read the latest IPCC Summary for Policymakers. It's a relatively quick and easy summary of the current scientific (yes, scientific, not opinion) understanding of the state of climate change, where the climate is heading, and what will be required to prevent or mitigate bad outcomes. Yes, scientific understanding changes and improves over time, but the best thing to base your decision making on is the scientific understanding we have now, not hopeful guesses about the future.
Sheesh, I'm getting downvoted to oblivion here just for having a differing opinion. Believe me, I've studied the science. I want to study it even more. I've just gained a different opinion based on that study than the majority on this chain obviously. I guess my opinion is not welcome.
Your opinion is not only at odds with the majority on this site, but also with almost every climate scientist on the planet. We tend to respect the scientific method on HN. If you're going to claim that every climate scientist is wrong, you'll at least need to speak from a position of authority or preferably show some evidence to back up your opinion.
I haven't claimed anything of the sort. I respect the scientific method more than most. At least read what I've written before you say such things. Climate change is an issue, but the Paris Accord is a horrible excuse at throwing money at a problem. And if you read what I said earlier it could have serious repercussions for people who cannot afford the price increases for energy.
We need to move past the 'climate denying' insults and work together to find actual feasible solutions. Downvoting/insulting/bashing anyone who doesn't agree with a solution will get us nowhere. This in itself is a serious problem and disagrees with the scientific method in every way.
I'd love to see more companies and private businesses help solve the climate problems.
However (and this is all just my experience and opinion so YMMV), on an economic level private corporations and businesses are focused on maximizing profit and minimizing costs, whereas public and government projects focus on maximizing benefit and minimizing costs. Not saying corporations are unethical but there could be times when solutions and research interests could conflict with profits or income generation. A public research institute is supposed to provide a "disconnect" between the need for income generation and research so that your results are really focusing on maximizing public benefit.
US companies and individuals were already taking up the challenge, mostly by arguing for this agreement. The agreement's purpose is to set common standards, so as to defuse the race-to-the-bottom/prisoner's dilemma mechanisms of markets.
Companies often invite regulation when they want to do something for moral reasons that would out them at a disadvantage in the market. It's a common mistake to assume that industries object to all regulation: think of the small construction business where the owner still works himself, or cares for his people: he'll be among those profiting most from increased safety requirements.
I don't see the point of the whole thing other than it was a gigantic wealth transfer scheme. If global warming is real (and I refuse to use the ridiculous "climate change" label--honestly, wtf is climate change other than bs marketing), then the only thing that will save the human race is technology. Carbon credits or world communism are not going to get the job done.
Arguing is all that's been done. Arguing, and demonstrations, and actions, and earth hour, and presumably some puppies were left home with the air conditioning set down one notch.
Oh no ! US withdraws from the climate accords. What impact will it have ? Well here's what happened when the US and the world agreed to "binding" climate accords:
Can you see it ? Me neither ... There are no words ...
Binding climate accords were signed in 1992, 2005 (sort of) and 2012. Look at those points on the graph ... Let's face facts here: climate accords make NO difference, no matter how binding.
Can everybody who makes claims that worldwide accords, climate action, earth hour, ... everything that's been done in the last 40 years makes one iota of difference please explain why anybody would put in any amount of effort here ?
The problem with CO_2 concentration is that it's a lagging indicator, and that any attempts to lower emissions has to fight against the increased use of energy as economies in Asia and Africa are catching up.
Politics is slow, and there are few mechanisms in international law to enforce treaties. But an international agreement can work, for example by giving politicians arguments ("We're required to do it, because we promised it", "We're not going to lose competitiveness, because everyone is doing it").
Thanks to subsidies, solar and wind power have become cheaper by several orders of magnitude and are now getting close to being competitive with fossil fuels, at least in some regions. Crossing that threshold would obviously be an inflection point.
> Thanks to subsidies, solar and wind power have become cheaper by several orders of magnitude
Subsidies have helped some to create more demand but the idea that they become better by orders of magnitude because of subsidies is absurd and totally against all economic logic.
Those things that had the best development are those things that are already useful anyway.
There are tons of things that got subsidies that never went anywhere.
> Companies often invite regulation when they want to do something for moral reasons
More often they invite regulation when they can get some gain for themselves. Its very common to pull in the state to enforce oligopolies because they would be stable for example, history of US railroads is basically that.
Government working against climate is basically bushiness competing to capture the rain of subsidies that will be flowing down the pipe. The businesses that are part of the status quo, work against this because they don't want their privileges and subsidies eroded.
Venture capitalist of course love climate subsidies because that means lots of startups and new tech. They don't make a dime on coal.
Yes it is. Many of the complaints about the Paris Agreement were explicitly included in the treaty that congress ratified. For example, article 4(7):
"The extent to which developing country Parties will effectively implement their commitments under the Convention will depend on the effective implementation by developed country Parties of their commitments under the Convention related to financial resources and transfer of technology and will take fully into account that economic and social development and poverty eradication are the first and overriding priorities of the developing country Parties."
Congress has already agreed that developed countries will initially take more of the burden, and might participate in something like the Green Climate Fund.
Trump once again shows he's a political savant. This was the obvious move for someone who cares more about power than doing the right thing: he delivered a campaign promise, he appears strong to his supporters, he gives congressional Republicans something they want and at the same time acquires a bargaining chip with Europe and China that he can cash in later. It takes four years to unwind, so there isn't even much damage and he can announce some new deal right before he's up for election. By dragging the decision out for a week he also distracted from any ongoing talk about Russia etc. Kind of a classic agency problem: this is good for him, bad for the rest of the world.
Just, no. It is clear: he's an idiot with the attention span of a 3 year-old. He's not a masterful schemer whose every move is carefully calibrated for strategic success. These narratives about how it's all part of a cunning plan are just ridiculous. Sometimes floundering is just floundering.
Reasonableness, rationality, diplomacy, civilization — these are fragile and require the good faith cooperation of intelligent people to have any effect on the world and to overcome our natural tendencies for selfish blinkered tribalism.
An angry and selfish man with power can easily destroy the careful work of decades (or centuries). That doesn't make him smart or right.
Ah yes, "my side is too nice to get anything done." It comes up in politics all the time. I've heard the claim since Reagan was in office.
I've never believed it.
---
The biggest problem in the US is that currently neither party has a convincing majority. During the Depression, Democrats held something like 75% of the Senate. When FDR tried to pack the Supreme Court, the Republicans had no ability to stop it and had to rely on Democratic senators to decide it looked bad.
Today all politicians know that government control can change drastically in the next election, which gives a lot of hope to the guys out of power that if they slow things down just a little longer they'll achieve their wildest dreams, and a lot of fear for the guys in power that if they don't get what they want today they may not get another chance tomorrow.
There are brutish, stupid, and venal wreckers at both ends of the political spectrum. There are intelligent, careful, and thoughtful conservatives and socialists. Donald Trump and his followers are not among them. It's only the deeply fucked up political situation in the US that lead to conservatives (those interested in conserving the good that has been achieved) to support a person like Trump.
Political effectiveness divorced from thoughtfulness and respect is not desirable.
Did you not see the front page of reddit? The Russia scandal was completely gone and there was nothing but confeve memes as far as the eye could see. Don't let your irrational hatred of a man cloud your judgement. The fact that you are so easily duped by such a simple juke... literally 7 jabs of his thumb, should warn you that you need to spend some time in self reflection
The front page itself though? I don't know how others use it, but my frontpage is populated by my favourite subreddits, which are luckily mostly free of politics.
TBH I have no idea how the majority use Reddit, but don't confuse the front page with all of Reddit.
(As a side note, yesterday I went on /r/The_Donald out of morbid curiosity. I'm not sure what I expected, but it was rather shocking).
You are confusing what I've said. Just because he's an idiot doesn't mean that he's not effective. Apparently reality is awarding an idiot right now. However, this doesn't make it a cunning plan.
The main point here is that an effort to combat an idiot with sleazy advisors and good instincts looks quite different to the effort that you'd go to if you were trying to counter a secret mastermind who is just playing dumb. I'm amazed at the number of Random Know-it-all Lefty Bros out there who seem to think that overestimating Trump's intelligence and painting everything as a sophisticated plot marks them as somehow more sophisticated and right-on. I suspect you are one of them, with your raving about how I'm "easily duped" by Trump's typo. Jeez.
The Trump bashing on HN is idiotic. He's not a genius, but he's not stupid, either. I'd put him dead average intelligence-wise. Like all of us, he has his good points and bad. He's human. What I like about him is that he's not a slick, polished, lying politician and you can tell and it matters. He reminds me a lot of Reagan.
That's a best case scenario way to look at this. I agree with you on how this looks to his base, and what it gives other Republicans. We all know his base will support him on anything so that isn't saying much. And the Republican party is going to ride this train to get as much as they can until it crashes.
I'm not so sure how it helps him with Europe and China. What are your thoughts there?
IMO his foreign relations have been a disaster. I think the only country he has good relations with is Russia. Everyone else is laughing at him.
This also continues the polarization of the nation, which, I guess can be good for him but that's still TBD. And only someone with a gold fish's memory would let this distract them from the Russian thing.
I tend to cringe whenever intelligence is assigned to the man, but I know that's wrong and I should be more open minded.
this is super backward; 30% of people approved of pulling out. It doesnt win him any support at all. Shocks me people think these things mean he can read a room.
I bet it's brought to you by the same polling place that gave Hillary a 96% chance of winning...
What percentage of people have a clue of WTF the Paris Agreement is? What effects it will HONESTLY have? The difference between this "Accord" and an actual Treaty?
Right now, 99% of what's on the news is My Team vs Your Team. Republicans Defending. Democrats Attacking. No knowledge of what's actually going on.
Trump could hire Hillary to replace Comey, create peace in the middle east and give everyone a new car... and the Left would demonize him for all of it.
Yep. I am in some tech and business world Slack groups where people were similarly ecstatic about the news. Getting out of your own filter bubbles from time-to-time is healthy.
Why? I'm here and in other places with views counter to mine. There are a lot of tech for Trump folks that just keep their heads down at their jobs because they don't want the drama.
There are a lot of anti-Trump folks who, too, keep their heads down because they don't want the drama. Or are you suggesting that pro-Trump people are some kind of a silent majority?
A lot of people don't know, or at least, don't instinctively feel this. They make all kinds of jokes and don't realize it might not feel good to someone who can't say anything.
sigh national polling wasn't wrong, and hillary won the national vote to match the polls. it was the state polling that was off; and national polls don't poll the electoral college.
Anyway, what you're saying is wrong - my parents are extremely conservative, voted trump, and are very upset about this.
Why? They live in a sinking state where you can actually see climate change(LA).
Many things have become factionalized - but climate and healthcare are much less than people think.
I think the real problem right now is the right is engaging in identity politics and victimhood - ironically the same things they accuse others of. "Trump can never do anything right in the eyes of others" and "I like this ebcause the other side doesn't" reak of it.
What does the Paris Accord do? Nothing. What lawful enforcement is there to it? None. What forces countries to be accurate and honest? Nadda. How much will it actually affect "Climate Change"? Marginally.
Climate and Healthcare haven't become factionalized and politicized? No offense, but what reality are you in? It sure as shit ain't the one I live in...
The same Healthcare that was changed by a party line vote via the ACA? Pushed through with no bipartisan work or support?
Climate change isn't either? When more than a few studies can be pinged as affected by money from one side or the other? When denying "Climate Change" gets you branded a Heretic at the same level as denying Mother Church?
Name one thing the Democrats have done to work Trump since he got elected?
BOTH sides are engaging in "identity politics". Neither side is willing to work together for the common good. Both sides have victimization - although I would argue that the parts on the Right are much less pronounced and "Central" to their message and platform...
Really? The same can be said of the reverse... Picking apart the Paris Accord. Picking apart various Scientific Studies - and the politics behind them. Picking apart both sides of the isle for caring more about Party than about anything else.
Just because 70% did not want to pull out does not mean they don't buy the idea that the US should renegotiate to get a better deal.
With these sort of one dimensional political questions its mostly about how you ask.
If it had said "Do you support the presidents effort to renegotiate the Paris treaty to get a better deal for the US?" you would have gotten 70% in the other direction.
Most of these sort of 'studies' are just marketing.
> Just because 70% did not want to pull out does not mean they don't buy the idea that the US should renegotiate to get a better deal.
What "better deal"? The Paris climate agreement is entirely voluntary; each country determines its own contribution to reducing global warming and there is no enforcement mechanism. It's aspirational and America gains nothing by pulling out of it.
How is that relevant? That's not the point. My point is that you can not go by some public survey of what people want. Most people have no idea how the Paris Agreement works anyways, so it all depends on how you phrase or sell the question.
We know that generally the majority people support some action in flavor of climate. So any question that is phrases in that light will reflect that and have almost nothing to do with Paris specifically.
> It's aspirational and America gains nothing by pulling out of it.
Who cares about America? How is that relevant to politicians? Some climat change that might happen at some point in the future when they will not be in office anymore. What even is America? The people now living in America? The future people in America that don't vote? The country itself?
Non binding international agreements are about signalling and internal politics.
If Trump actually believed that 70% of the people would vote against him if he pulled out of Paris he would never have done it, but that is not relevant because they want, so he doesn't care.
My point here is that the "idea that the US should renegotiate to get a better deal" is inherently nonsensical. You won't ask this question, because it doesn't make any sense.
A primary goal of the Paris Agreement was signaling; the benefit of it was that they got all countries aboard, except Syria (which was in the middle of a civil war) and Nicaragua (which wanted more and voluntarily is doing more).
Trump's decision (assuming it's a rational one and not fed by ignorance) is signaling the reverse: he's telling his supporters that climate change is a myth. And this is why he's getting pushback from other countries.
I don't see it that way. I see Trump as a true populist and for the first time in my life I feel like regular people have a voice. Maybe it's all fake, but that's how I see it. Laugh all you want to. Trump has been remarkably consistent in his application of policy so far, despite being called a flip-flopper and all the ridiculous and petty non-scandals that the media and leftist operatives have dreamed up. I'm rooting for the guy. People need to start seeing past their own ideological lens and realize there is more going on than the simplistic narratives and identity politics that the media manipulates the masses with.
"Trump is so bad he's good" is a tired take at this point.
Polling shows that the Russian story is basically resonating with Democrats, but not doing much on the other side of the aisle (granted, Republicans stayed with Nixon up until almost-impeachment...)
Paris has broad bi-partisan support. "Let's distract from the Russia issue by something that people actually care about" is not the best strategy is it?
Think about the absolutely massive bad press AHCA has generated, combine that with the fact that Paris is only symbolism, and you have a political move with bad optics and no effect on reality. A global minimum if I've seen one (if you have enough cognitive dissonance to think AHCA isn't a massive mess).
The problem with "Trump is a political savant" is that it's indistinguishable from the "Trump has severe ADD and just does whatever comes up" narrative.
EDIT: check weather.com (at least the US site). When your political move make a meteorological site go full-monty on you, maybe you've generated a couple problems.
> Polling shows that the Russian story is basically resonating with Democrats, but not doing much on the other side of the aisle (granted, Republicans stayed with Nixon up until almost-impeachment...)
what does it matter who is resonates with if there so far is no real evidence of wrongdoing?
> The problem with "Trump is a political savant" is that it's indistinguishable from the "Trump has severe ADD and just does whatever comes up" narrative.
My guess is that you, like many others, didn't watch his entire speech today nor dissect the reasons he is leaving the non-binding accord. I'd love to hear actual rebuttals on his reasoning rather than tireless critiques of his character. It's old, it's boring, it's why he will win in 2020.
He is a bold leader that is making good on his campaign promises, all of them, something I can't remember a single politician doing in my lifetime.
> Polling shows that the Russian story is basically resonating with Democrats, but not doing much on the other side of the aisle (granted, Republicans stayed with Nixon up until almost-impeachment...)
What does it matter who is resonates with if there so far is no real evidence of wrongdoing?
> The problem with "Trump is a political savant" is that it's indistinguishable from the "Trump has severe ADD and just does whatever comes up" narrative.
My guess is that you, like many others, didn't watch his entire speech today nor dissect the reasons he is leaving the non-binding accord. I'd love to hear actual rebuttals on his reasoning rather than tireless critiques of his character. It's old, it's boring, it's why he will win in 2020.
He is a bold leader that is making good on his campaign promises, all of them, something I can't remember a single politician doing in my lifetime. Whether or not his policies will manifest in the way he envisions, it's still refreshing.
He didn't acquire a single bargaining chip. If anything, he handed Europe, China, India bargaining chips.
Trump is in for a rough time next time he tries to negotiate anything internationally, now when he has shown that he backs out of what many regard as a very important international agreement just 2 years after it was reached.
And on yet another issue, Trump shows the world that America is no longer taking the lead. Positioning yourself with Syria and Nicaragua is not taking the lead. He has put America last.
And I doubt it will be without repercussions from other nations. In the coming weeks we will see how there will be calls in Europe for blocking America in all kind of other international cooperation, including trade deals.
> Yeah because China, India and everybody else are totally willing to sacrifices other deals because they are unhappy about this climate deal.
It's not a case of unhappiness over this deal. It's a matter of trust. The US pushes for this deal for years, then abruptly abandons it. So, next time the US pushes for a deal, who's going to believe it?
This will absolutely increase the caution with which countries reach deals with the US. As it should.
>>Its international politics. Its well understood that democracy have a very hard time making long term promises.
Very few countries in the world are a direct democracy where this would be a concern.
In contrast, representative democracies like the US are very resistant to sudden shifts in populist sentiment. Specifically for the US, the entire government is structured to prevent drastic changes in policy based on the whims and daily desires of the populace. For example, it is part of the reason why Congress is split into two houses.
In contrast, a dictatorship is unreliable, because all decisions are made by one person, whose mood swings can result in lots of unpredictability.
> In contrast, representative democracies like the US are very resistant to sudden shifts in populist sentiment.
Representative democracies are notoriously prone to populist shifts; the US, though, has a system with many different and conceptually independent levers of power checking each other which is generally thought to make it resistant to populist shifts, and this was probably quite true in practice before the era of modern mass communication and nationalization of most politics and political movements when those levers really were largely independent in practice as well as in theory. But it's not the late 18th Century any more.
You are correct for the most part, but I think you are drawing the wrong implications.
Yes, they are resistant to swings based on mood changes in the population. However, this does not hold for changes of mind or strategy by elected people themselves. They might promise something at some point and then not do it. US history is full of broken promises.
A counterpoint is that Trump and Obama are elected directly and specially on foreign relations they have a huge power to do whatever they like. Obama promised some stuff, Trump retracted it.
> In contrast, a dictatorship is unreliable, because all decisions are made by one person, whose mood swings can result in lots of unpredictability.
That is true in theory but in practice many dictatorships are remarkably stable. A dictator has to please his cronies, he can't do whatever he likes. He can do what he likes as long as it does not touch the interest of the cronies.
The US is leading noone if nobody follows. Who do you think will follow?
Thousands of treaties, conventions, agreements, and other arrangements are negotiated all the time. The Paris accord is just one, but a major one. The belief that the American government can be trusted to stick to a good cause, let alone stick to deals it has made before, has been eroded. American diplomats will find it harder to persuade other governments to do anything. They will also find that they have fewer favours to call.
Democracies change their mind. Big update! You should write a international relations paper on this.
Everybody understand that a treaty like Paris is just a big PR thing. Its is unenforced and the waste majority of people working on it will not be around when the results of it are in.
This is all about signalling. Trump wants to signal that he doesn't give a fuck and he is tough (or something).
If they wanted to know that American diplomacy is not consistent they could have looked at literally any point in US history. The could call Cuba what happened with the Platt Amendment.
> at the same time acquires a bargaining chip with Europe and China that he can cash in later
Bargain with your credibility? I don't think that will work, though. One of Trump's strategy is put something that has been agreed upon on the table again, in the name of renegotiation. For other countries, it might be same thing as, blackmailing. How do you know Trump or his successor will play the same trick again and again?
Credibility is simply something you cannot game. This will cast a long term shadow on US's reputation if a contract can last no longer than 4 years.
Trump's America will still, be treated seriously, not as revered leader, but a unpredictable danger.
Yeah good luck with that. Maybe I'm living in a parallel Europe but that is not what I'm reading in the European newspapers this morning. Trump is loathed here and the notion of always cooperating with (our "friend") the US is sinking extremely fast, politically and also in the mind of the general people. I can't comment for all EU countries, but the view of the US is rather negatively here.
And honestly why would we? While a lot of EU leaders are publicly outraged, the fact that the US is more and more turning back into the dark ages gives a lot of possibilities for other countries. That void needs and will be filled in by others.
This. There's no global bargaining chip to be gained here: if anything, the rest of the world has now fully realized that American exceptionalism is in rapid decline. Witness, for instance, the global reaction to Trump's decision, which has essentially been "that's nice, we'll stick with the agreement". This looks less like a savvy political move and more like a petulant child lashing out because Germany stated the US can't be completely trusted anymore.
Maybe this will garner some points with his most fervent backers, but that set's growing smaller by the day.
The most charitable spin I can think to put on this is that he made an enormously risky bet on a) the rise of populism in Europe and b) the ability of America to cash in on its supposed position of leadership. Turns out a) failed and b) is worth less than we imagined.
>There are several big reasons why Europe's politicians, and career bureaucrats from all over the developed world, love to focus on climate change. First and foremost, it's one of those problems that's hard to define. They even changed the name of the problem from "global warming" to "climate change" to further muddy those waters.
In other words, any politician claiming that he's made a dent in the climate change problem is pretty hard to refute while any politician claiming her opponent has failed to make real climate change progress is similarly hard to debunk.
Meanwhile, a growing number of career bureaucrats get to keep on "working" for environmental improvements with almost no accountability. Compared to the war on terror, which does demand more tangible results, this is a much more politically pliable issue. For the political class, this is a win/win in perpetuity.
Oh, bullshit. We've been hearing about how Trump is playing n-dimensional chess since before the election, but I think it has to be crystal clear by now that he's just a confused old racist with the attention span of a wolverine on speed who is going to do the absolute stupidest thing at every possible opportunity. Yes, he did this to fire up the most rabid corner of his base, but he did so without having any real understanding of the consequences, probably at the behest of Bannon and the Kochs.
> acquires a bargaining chip with Europe and China that he can cash in later.
Not really. There's nothing that he acquires by leaving a non-binding, aspirational agreement other than burning goodwill in effigy. What this means to the rest of the world is that the US cannot even be assumed to abide by voluntary agreements where it can unilaterally declare how much it actually wishes to contribute.
The message that the EU/China are getting is either that they're being given the middle finger for purposes of jingoistic posturing or that Trump doesn't actually understand how the Paris agreement works.
I don't knows where everyone is picking up this talking point, but it's really bullshit.
The agreement was weak and not a treaty because the Republicans in the Senate would not have ratified a treaty, just as they failed to ratify Kyoto. If any Republicans thought this was a swell idea but just wasn't binding enough they could enter into a second, more aggressive binding agreement with whatever parties they like. Nobody thought this was a great agreement, it was too weak and timid, but it was the strongest agreement we could make without the Senate.
This guy is a disaster. 2018 needs to come soon, and folks better show up and vote in some democrats to tie this idiot up until the next presidential election.
What exactly do you like about his performance so far? It seems like it's a slow motion train wreck. But I'm curious what his supporters like about his work so far.
Withdrawn from the tpp.
Is currently renegotiating nafta.
Mattis is an excellent choice.
Tillerson is an excellent choice.
Is supporting Saudi Arabias "Vision 2030" plan, which attacks the root cause of radical islamic terrorism (economics).
Is in the process of draining the swamp (Susan rice and the unmasking scandals).
I've made and realized a shit ton of money off the stock market since he got elected.
Obamacare is gone and is in the process of being replaced.
Jobs are coming back.
He supports laws and law enforcement over criminals.
Edit to add: Gorsach is an excellent supreme court choice. I'm glad that corrupt comey was fired. In the process of reseting nato relations and getting everyone to pay their fair share. Mattis is handling north korea expertly. Oh, he avoided starting ww3 against russia after obama tried to start it in his last few months in office. Also, jury is still out, but there has also been lots of work done on China and their whole basket of problems.
And, most importantly, acknowledges and recognizes that us Americans from flyover country are not red neck slaves to the self righteous smug ass coastal cities and their out of touch political elites.
Some comments on your points. I know you didn't ask but couldn't help myself.
Withdrawn from the tpp / Agreed. Seemed like an overall bad deal for the US. TBD on what overall impact will be. This was going to make the US have better economic ties to other Asian countries. Now they're turning to China even more. Seems like if we don't put something like this in place then we will lose more in the long run.
Renegotiating nafta / We'll have to wait and see what happens. He hasn't been able to get anything through that requires collaboration with other parts of government.
Mattis is an excellent choice / Sure, why not.
Tillerson is an excellent choice / Seems like a massive conflict of interest considering the massive web that surrounds him and Russia. He's inexperienced and looks like he's getting pushed around out there. And is it not apparent that his sole job is to help that oil deal with Russia sealed!
Is supporting Saudi Arabias "Vision 2030" plan / Seriously? Saudi basically created muslim extremists. They've been building schools that export extremist views for decades (google saudi arabia exporting wahhabism). They're also on a war path. How the hell are they going to create peace in the region? I guess they could kill everyone that opposes them, that'd probably be their best shot.
Draining the swamp / What? How? You mean firing government employees and replacing them with inexperienced yes men? He's refilling the swamp with something just as bad. All the lobbyists are there. All the career politicians are there. All the money flowing in is still happening. I fail to see the benefit with his version of draining the swamp.
I've made and realized a shit ton of money off the stock market / You could've made more money on the stock market under Obama's first 100 days (2nd term; not his first term he saved the country from one of its worst recessions): http://www.marketwatch.com/story/how-trumps-stock-market-ran...
Obamacare is gone / Not quite. Remember he hasn't been able to get agreement on anything. Healthcare was harder than anyone thought!
Jobs are coming back / Where is your evidence that they are coming back because of Trump? I know a few corps announced their "plans" to bring jobs back. Many of those are shady. Job growth seems like a continuation of what was happening under Obama (yes, Obama had tremendous job growth numbers).
He supports laws and law enforcement / Everyone supports this. Cops are still getting killed under Trump. There is still civil unrest, perhaps more now that he has empowered white supremacists. I fail to see what's changed.
He's withdrawing from the PCA and looking to renegotiate under different terms. To sum it up, the PCA is basically trying to get tax payer money from western countries to fund solar and wind for the third world. The costs will be astronomical compared to free-enterprise and the rest is going to be split among the African warlords. If the aim would really be to save the earth, they should have no problem with the renegotiation and also - the green energy would be built in western countries, also providing jobs.
I have not studied this in great detail so take my point as speculation.
My memory is that the US withdrew from Kyoto as well. They withdrew but were still one of the few countries that actually reached the goal outlined there.
The reason was not political action but rather market adoption.
I don't know much beyond that but it is possible that much the same could happen, if coal is continualy replaced with gas or solar. Cars will be replaced with EV soon enough, even outside of any government action or gloabl agreement.
Again if have not studied the magnitude of all these changes and compared them to what exactly the parameters of Paris are so I am not arguing that trump did the right thing. In fact, if you expact the outcome anyway signing might be "free".
I just think some people mistake the signing of a international agreement with results. Kyoto did show that that was not really always the case. Not signing some agreement will not automatically mean we are heading for Mad Max.
The actual outcome and compliance will be mostly detrmained by internal politics of each country.
> It is truly tragic that the U.S. has abandoned its leadership and moral authority on one of the critical issues of our time.
Leadership in fighting climate change? Cmon' every EU-country is better at fighting climate change than the US. Denmark has at least 50% of their energy coming from their huge wind farms. Norway has a huge network of chargers for electrical cars, tax cuts for electrical cars and Sweden is huge in all sorts of environmental savings.
In Sweden you can't even order a fucking burger without seeing how much CO2 that produces and ads for vegetarian burgers that are better for the environment.
If you really think US is good at all at fighting climate change, you should really come to the EU and watch us recycle. Even during the recent terror attack in Stockholm there were people recycling.
If anything this favors U.S.. In a small country, it is harder to balance out renewable energy sources, i.e. if there is no wind in Tennessee there is likely some in Iowa, but that doesn't work as easily for regions of Poland. And yet, they are doing it.
Most EU countries are connected to the grids of other countries to some extent (even the UK and Ireland have underwater interconnectors, though they're rather limited).
You might as well argue that it's impossible to distribute beer to a country of 320M people, yet inhabitants of large countries don't go thirsty.
Whether we talk about a union of 320M as the US or a union of 510M as the EU, or whether we talk about a state like Michigan with 9M inhabitants or a nation like Sweden with 10M hardly matters. There are roads, electrical grids and similar infrastructure everywhere in the modern world.
It's not the distribution that's the problem. It's political will.
Leadership involves taking the initiative and having others follow. With the former, many European countries are undoubtedly king. It's with the latter that we run into problems. Europe, charitably, is a loose collection of semi-aligned states. It isn't (yet) set up to project stature or influence.
EU combined is ~510 million people. More than the US and while there are differnt amounts of variation when it comes to how much countries spend to fight climate change there is practially no different in the agreement that it is real and we must all work together to fight it.
Your president and a lot of US citizens don't even acknowledge that there is a climate change. You are far from any kind of leadership in that regard.
I think EU takes the initiative and is king in making the world follow. Either because they want to or simply because they have to.
> EU combined is ~510 million people. More than the US and while there are differnt amounts of variation when it comes to how much countries spend to fight climate change there is practially no different in the agreement that it is real and we must all work together to fight it.
Southeast Asia contains most of the world's people and a huge fraction of the world's GDP. Apart from China, however, it's uncoördinated. A small action by the United States means more than many large actions by smaller European states. This makes sense from game theoretic as well as simple sociopolitical perspectives. This is part of the package one takes when choosing the confederated structure the EU has opted for.
People can claim a lot about other countries and there is a lot of things we do shittier than others. But in fighting climate change, there is no better country than Sweden.
Since we can, you can as well. Taking leadership is possible as a little country. We can show you all that it is possible and that you can gain economical benefits from it. In Sweden, fighting climate change is a cultural thing like it should be in the entire world.
The Paris Agreement, though, was to a large extent pushed by the Obama administration (and later China). While the EU is doing fairly well on renewable energy and general efficiency improvement (though even within the EU there's a lot of variation), it has not been particularly good at getting other countries to follow.
149 comments
[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 212 ms ] thread“Most of the folks working around energy and climate no longer seem to require policy support,” said Shaun Abrahamson, a managing partner at Urban Us.}}}
Now I'm confused.. this contradicts the central thrust of the arricle
Exactly. More faux outrage.
Paris agreement is non-binding.
China has no obligation for 20 years.
It's not ratified by Congress.
Nothing from agreeing to this was going to affect your descendants other than draining American coffers of billions.
The actual wording of the accords has little to do with science and more to do with massive welfare obligations and handicapping the US economy with no requirements from China for decades.
*edited autocorrect typo
Science is anything that follows the scientific method.
One important step of the scientific method is "make testable predictions." Another step is "refine, alter, expand, or reject" hypotheses. Science rests on the possibility of falsifiability. If it can be tested, and found false, it is science. If there is no way to falsify it, it is not science.
For instance, evolution is falsifiable. We can expect that if we put certain organisms with rapid life cycles in a harsher environment, over a certain number of generations the population in the harsher environment will evolve to better suit that environment. If, say, 10,000 generations pass and the organisms in that environment are no better suited to it than a control population, we might conclude evolution has been falsified. Fortunately, we've done lots of tests like this, and evolution does indeed occur.
So I may better understand how this is science, can you tell me how the theory of manmade global warming can be disproved?
Lab tests that show CO2 is not a greenhouse gas?
Isotope concentrations that show increasing CO2 is not coming from anthropomorphic causes?
Evidence that the glaciers are melting because of some other reason than it's hot?
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_SPM_...
Who cares? What matters is if it's working or not. Of course it's hard to untangle if it's due to accords, scientific/engineering breakthroughs, government investment, etc. but India and China are far ahead of their Paris targets: https://insideclimatenews.org/news/15052017/china-india-pari...
China has no obligation for 20 years.
This statement is wrong in multiple ways. As you noted above, Paris is non-binding, so there are no "obligations" beyond developing a plan and reporting on progress. Next, China's goals begin in 2030, which is 13 years away, not 20. Finally, according to the link above, China is on pace to meet its goals almost a decade (!) in advance, i.e. early in the 2020s. So even a charitable interpretation of your statement looks to be wrong by about 4x.
It's not ratified by Congress.
This is as far as I can tell, just a negative thrown in that has nothing to do with the thesis. Is agreeing to the accords bad for the U.S. (cost billions!) or does it not matter, because it's not ratified. Which is it?
Nothing from agreeing to this was going to affect your descendants other than draining American coffers of billions.
So basically every other country is willing to drain their coffers. Why is that?
Which was essentially the result of lobbying by the US. Most other countries wanted a real, binding treaty.
https://theintercept.com/2017/06/01/will-trumps-slow-mo-walk...
Very soon the people will demand to have police back (or roll their own temporarily), will demand roads fixed, and garbage taken out — or look for a garbage truck company to pay to.
The effects of this are very quick and visible. Unlike that, climate change, or e.g. effects of using lead paint and asbestos in building practice, is a slow, hard-to-notice thing. "Too late" happens decades later that the time of a preventive action; very few people have a planning horizon as distant.
Corporations have long shown that they are not interested in truth, or sustainable profits, or people's health, or the environment. In fact, due to lack of government intervention, corporations like Exxon spread harmful propaganda that decreases the public's awareness about critical issues like climate change.
Collective action is important because this is otherwise a failure of humanity to recognize a tragedy of the commons. We need to collectively agree to solve the problem, through governments, because otherwise individual actors like states and corporations will increase their own wealth through greed at the expense of others.
Besides all the jobs and other economic factors that would disadvantage the US on a global scale if they agreed to the accord, we just have to look to Germany - a country that is following the standards put in place by the accord - to see what the consequences would be. They pay more than 3x per kWh for electricity than the US. This might be something that the middle class and up could afford, but this would unfairly target the poor and in poorer countries would cause death and suffering. This alone is reason enough to look for better solutions.
It isn't. Please read the latest IPCC Summary for Policymakers. It's a relatively quick and easy summary of the current scientific (yes, scientific, not opinion) understanding of the state of climate change, where the climate is heading, and what will be required to prevent or mitigate bad outcomes. Yes, scientific understanding changes and improves over time, but the best thing to base your decision making on is the scientific understanding we have now, not hopeful guesses about the future.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_SPM_...
We need to move past the 'climate denying' insults and work together to find actual feasible solutions. Downvoting/insulting/bashing anyone who doesn't agree with a solution will get us nowhere. This in itself is a serious problem and disagrees with the scientific method in every way.
I'd love to see more companies and private businesses help solve the climate problems.
However (and this is all just my experience and opinion so YMMV), on an economic level private corporations and businesses are focused on maximizing profit and minimizing costs, whereas public and government projects focus on maximizing benefit and minimizing costs. Not saying corporations are unethical but there could be times when solutions and research interests could conflict with profits or income generation. A public research institute is supposed to provide a "disconnect" between the need for income generation and research so that your results are really focusing on maximizing public benefit.
Someone I respect pointed out that greenhouse gas alarmism started on March 29th, 1979.
Companies often invite regulation when they want to do something for moral reasons that would out them at a disadvantage in the market. It's a common mistake to assume that industries object to all regulation: think of the small construction business where the owner still works himself, or cares for his people: he'll be among those profiting most from increased safety requirements.
Oh no ! US withdraws from the climate accords. What impact will it have ? Well here's what happened when the US and the world agreed to "binding" climate accords:
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/images/g...
Can you see it ? Me neither ... There are no words ...
Binding climate accords were signed in 1992, 2005 (sort of) and 2012. Look at those points on the graph ... Let's face facts here: climate accords make NO difference, no matter how binding.
Can everybody who makes claims that worldwide accords, climate action, earth hour, ... everything that's been done in the last 40 years makes one iota of difference please explain why anybody would put in any amount of effort here ?
The problem with CO_2 concentration is that it's a lagging indicator, and that any attempts to lower emissions has to fight against the increased use of energy as economies in Asia and Africa are catching up.
Politics is slow, and there are few mechanisms in international law to enforce treaties. But an international agreement can work, for example by giving politicians arguments ("We're required to do it, because we promised it", "We're not going to lose competitiveness, because everyone is doing it").
Thanks to subsidies, solar and wind power have become cheaper by several orders of magnitude and are now getting close to being competitive with fossil fuels, at least in some regions. Crossing that threshold would obviously be an inflection point.
And the only slight drop on that graph "just happens", I'm sure, to coincide near-perfectly with the 2008-2009 crisis.
Subsidies have helped some to create more demand but the idea that they become better by orders of magnitude because of subsidies is absurd and totally against all economic logic.
Those things that had the best development are those things that are already useful anyway.
There are tons of things that got subsidies that never went anywhere.
More often they invite regulation when they can get some gain for themselves. Its very common to pull in the state to enforce oligopolies because they would be stable for example, history of US railroads is basically that.
Government working against climate is basically bushiness competing to capture the rain of subsidies that will be flowing down the pipe. The businesses that are part of the status quo, work against this because they don't want their privileges and subsidies eroded.
Venture capitalist of course love climate subsidies because that means lots of startups and new tech. They don't make a dime on coal.
"The extent to which developing country Parties will effectively implement their commitments under the Convention will depend on the effective implementation by developed country Parties of their commitments under the Convention related to financial resources and transfer of technology and will take fully into account that economic and social development and poverty eradication are the first and overriding priorities of the developing country Parties."
Congress has already agreed that developed countries will initially take more of the burden, and might participate in something like the Green Climate Fund.
An angry and selfish man with power can easily destroy the careful work of decades (or centuries). That doesn't make him smart or right.
I've never believed it.
---
The biggest problem in the US is that currently neither party has a convincing majority. During the Depression, Democrats held something like 75% of the Senate. When FDR tried to pack the Supreme Court, the Republicans had no ability to stop it and had to rely on Democratic senators to decide it looked bad.
Today all politicians know that government control can change drastically in the next election, which gives a lot of hope to the guys out of power that if they slow things down just a little longer they'll achieve their wildest dreams, and a lot of fear for the guys in power that if they don't get what they want today they may not get another chance tomorrow.
There are brutish, stupid, and venal wreckers at both ends of the political spectrum. There are intelligent, careful, and thoughtful conservatives and socialists. Donald Trump and his followers are not among them. It's only the deeply fucked up political situation in the US that lead to conservatives (those interested in conserving the good that has been achieved) to support a person like Trump.
Political effectiveness divorced from thoughtfulness and respect is not desirable.
[0] http://www.electproject.org/home/voter-turnout/demographics
The front page itself though? I don't know how others use it, but my frontpage is populated by my favourite subreddits, which are luckily mostly free of politics.
TBH I have no idea how the majority use Reddit, but don't confuse the front page with all of Reddit.
(As a side note, yesterday I went on /r/The_Donald out of morbid curiosity. I'm not sure what I expected, but it was rather shocking).
The main point here is that an effort to combat an idiot with sleazy advisors and good instincts looks quite different to the effort that you'd go to if you were trying to counter a secret mastermind who is just playing dumb. I'm amazed at the number of Random Know-it-all Lefty Bros out there who seem to think that overestimating Trump's intelligence and painting everything as a sophisticated plot marks them as somehow more sophisticated and right-on. I suspect you are one of them, with your raving about how I'm "easily duped" by Trump's typo. Jeez.
I'm not so sure how it helps him with Europe and China. What are your thoughts there?
IMO his foreign relations have been a disaster. I think the only country he has good relations with is Russia. Everyone else is laughing at him.
This also continues the polarization of the nation, which, I guess can be good for him but that's still TBD. And only someone with a gold fish's memory would let this distract them from the Russian thing.
I tend to cringe whenever intelligence is assigned to the man, but I know that's wrong and I should be more open minded.
What percentage of people have a clue of WTF the Paris Agreement is? What effects it will HONESTLY have? The difference between this "Accord" and an actual Treaty?
Right now, 99% of what's on the news is My Team vs Your Team. Republicans Defending. Democrats Attacking. No knowledge of what's actually going on.
Trump could hire Hillary to replace Comey, create peace in the middle east and give everyone a new car... and the Left would demonize him for all of it.
Maybe not here on this forum, but throughout the country, then absolutely yes.
Can you offer one piece of evidence to support your claim?
That is not an anecdote.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/10/ho...
Anyway, what you're saying is wrong - my parents are extremely conservative, voted trump, and are very upset about this.
Why? They live in a sinking state where you can actually see climate change(LA).
Many things have become factionalized - but climate and healthcare are much less than people think.
I think the real problem right now is the right is engaging in identity politics and victimhood - ironically the same things they accuse others of. "Trump can never do anything right in the eyes of others" and "I like this ebcause the other side doesn't" reak of it.
What does the Paris Accord do? Nothing. What lawful enforcement is there to it? None. What forces countries to be accurate and honest? Nadda. How much will it actually affect "Climate Change"? Marginally.
Climate and Healthcare haven't become factionalized and politicized? No offense, but what reality are you in? It sure as shit ain't the one I live in...
The same Healthcare that was changed by a party line vote via the ACA? Pushed through with no bipartisan work or support?
Climate change isn't either? When more than a few studies can be pinged as affected by money from one side or the other? When denying "Climate Change" gets you branded a Heretic at the same level as denying Mother Church?
Name one thing the Democrats have done to work Trump since he got elected?
BOTH sides are engaging in "identity politics". Neither side is willing to work together for the common good. Both sides have victimization - although I would argue that the parts on the Right are much less pronounced and "Central" to their message and platform...
With these sort of one dimensional political questions its mostly about how you ask.
If it had said "Do you support the presidents effort to renegotiate the Paris treaty to get a better deal for the US?" you would have gotten 70% in the other direction.
Most of these sort of 'studies' are just marketing.
What "better deal"? The Paris climate agreement is entirely voluntary; each country determines its own contribution to reducing global warming and there is no enforcement mechanism. It's aspirational and America gains nothing by pulling out of it.
We know that generally the majority people support some action in flavor of climate. So any question that is phrases in that light will reflect that and have almost nothing to do with Paris specifically.
> It's aspirational and America gains nothing by pulling out of it.
Who cares about America? How is that relevant to politicians? Some climat change that might happen at some point in the future when they will not be in office anymore. What even is America? The people now living in America? The future people in America that don't vote? The country itself?
Non binding international agreements are about signalling and internal politics.
If Trump actually believed that 70% of the people would vote against him if he pulled out of Paris he would never have done it, but that is not relevant because they want, so he doesn't care.
Trump's decision (assuming it's a rational one and not fed by ignorance) is signaling the reverse: he's telling his supporters that climate change is a myth. And this is why he's getting pushback from other countries.
Polling shows that the Russian story is basically resonating with Democrats, but not doing much on the other side of the aisle (granted, Republicans stayed with Nixon up until almost-impeachment...)
Paris has broad bi-partisan support. "Let's distract from the Russia issue by something that people actually care about" is not the best strategy is it?
Think about the absolutely massive bad press AHCA has generated, combine that with the fact that Paris is only symbolism, and you have a political move with bad optics and no effect on reality. A global minimum if I've seen one (if you have enough cognitive dissonance to think AHCA isn't a massive mess).
The problem with "Trump is a political savant" is that it's indistinguishable from the "Trump has severe ADD and just does whatever comes up" narrative.
EDIT: check weather.com (at least the US site). When your political move make a meteorological site go full-monty on you, maybe you've generated a couple problems.
what does it matter who is resonates with if there so far is no real evidence of wrongdoing?
> The problem with "Trump is a political savant" is that it's indistinguishable from the "Trump has severe ADD and just does whatever comes up" narrative.
My guess is that you, like many others, didn't watch his entire speech today nor dissect the reasons he is leaving the non-binding accord. I'd love to hear actual rebuttals on his reasoning rather than tireless critiques of his character. It's old, it's boring, it's why he will win in 2020.
He is a bold leader that is making good on his campaign promises, all of them, something I can't remember a single politician doing in my lifetime.
What does it matter who is resonates with if there so far is no real evidence of wrongdoing?
> The problem with "Trump is a political savant" is that it's indistinguishable from the "Trump has severe ADD and just does whatever comes up" narrative.
My guess is that you, like many others, didn't watch his entire speech today nor dissect the reasons he is leaving the non-binding accord. I'd love to hear actual rebuttals on his reasoning rather than tireless critiques of his character. It's old, it's boring, it's why he will win in 2020.
He is a bold leader that is making good on his campaign promises, all of them, something I can't remember a single politician doing in my lifetime. Whether or not his policies will manifest in the way he envisions, it's still refreshing.
Trump is in for a rough time next time he tries to negotiate anything internationally, now when he has shown that he backs out of what many regard as a very important international agreement just 2 years after it was reached.
And on yet another issue, Trump shows the world that America is no longer taking the lead. Positioning yourself with Syria and Nicaragua is not taking the lead. He has put America last.
And I doubt it will be without repercussions from other nations. In the coming weeks we will see how there will be calls in Europe for blocking America in all kind of other international cooperation, including trade deals.
Yeah because China, India and everybody else are totally willing to sacrifices other deals because they are unhappy about this climate deal.
I think you vastly overestimate the importance of this deal to the governments around the world.
> And on yet another issue, Trump shows the world that America is no longer taking the lead.
He was the first to leave. So he is taking the lead at something.
It's not a case of unhappiness over this deal. It's a matter of trust. The US pushes for this deal for years, then abruptly abandons it. So, next time the US pushes for a deal, who's going to believe it?
This will absolutely increase the caution with which countries reach deals with the US. As it should.
Politicians understand that internal politics dominates (at least for big strong countries).
If they wanted to figure out that US goes back on its deal they did need Paris. They could ask Cuba about the Platt Amendment.
Very few countries in the world are a direct democracy where this would be a concern.
In contrast, representative democracies like the US are very resistant to sudden shifts in populist sentiment. Specifically for the US, the entire government is structured to prevent drastic changes in policy based on the whims and daily desires of the populace. For example, it is part of the reason why Congress is split into two houses.
In contrast, a dictatorship is unreliable, because all decisions are made by one person, whose mood swings can result in lots of unpredictability.
Representative democracies are notoriously prone to populist shifts; the US, though, has a system with many different and conceptually independent levers of power checking each other which is generally thought to make it resistant to populist shifts, and this was probably quite true in practice before the era of modern mass communication and nationalization of most politics and political movements when those levers really were largely independent in practice as well as in theory. But it's not the late 18th Century any more.
Yes, they are resistant to swings based on mood changes in the population. However, this does not hold for changes of mind or strategy by elected people themselves. They might promise something at some point and then not do it. US history is full of broken promises.
A counterpoint is that Trump and Obama are elected directly and specially on foreign relations they have a huge power to do whatever they like. Obama promised some stuff, Trump retracted it.
> In contrast, a dictatorship is unreliable, because all decisions are made by one person, whose mood swings can result in lots of unpredictability.
That is true in theory but in practice many dictatorships are remarkably stable. A dictator has to please his cronies, he can't do whatever he likes. He can do what he likes as long as it does not touch the interest of the cronies.
Check "Selectorate theory" in political science. Or this nice little video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs
Thousands of treaties, conventions, agreements, and other arrangements are negotiated all the time. The Paris accord is just one, but a major one. The belief that the American government can be trusted to stick to a good cause, let alone stick to deals it has made before, has been eroded. American diplomats will find it harder to persuade other governments to do anything. They will also find that they have fewer favours to call.
Everybody understand that a treaty like Paris is just a big PR thing. Its is unenforced and the waste majority of people working on it will not be around when the results of it are in.
This is all about signalling. Trump wants to signal that he doesn't give a fuck and he is tough (or something).
If they wanted to know that American diplomacy is not consistent they could have looked at literally any point in US history. The could call Cuba what happened with the Platt Amendment.
To Europe and China the US looks like it can't be argued with. For many the US has become a pariah state.
Bargain with your credibility? I don't think that will work, though. One of Trump's strategy is put something that has been agreed upon on the table again, in the name of renegotiation. For other countries, it might be same thing as, blackmailing. How do you know Trump or his successor will play the same trick again and again?
Credibility is simply something you cannot game. This will cast a long term shadow on US's reputation if a contract can last no longer than 4 years.
Trump's America will still, be treated seriously, not as revered leader, but a unpredictable danger.
Yeah good luck with that. Maybe I'm living in a parallel Europe but that is not what I'm reading in the European newspapers this morning. Trump is loathed here and the notion of always cooperating with (our "friend") the US is sinking extremely fast, politically and also in the mind of the general people. I can't comment for all EU countries, but the view of the US is rather negatively here.
And honestly why would we? While a lot of EU leaders are publicly outraged, the fact that the US is more and more turning back into the dark ages gives a lot of possibilities for other countries. That void needs and will be filled in by others.
For me there is a silver lining here.
Maybe this will garner some points with his most fervent backers, but that set's growing smaller by the day.
The most charitable spin I can think to put on this is that he made an enormously risky bet on a) the rise of populism in Europe and b) the ability of America to cash in on its supposed position of leadership. Turns out a) failed and b) is worth less than we imagined.
The developing countries that (collectively) expect to receive $100 billion per year under the agreement would stick with it under any conditions.
How will that work now? Will Europe be paying that on their own?
In other words, any politician claiming that he's made a dent in the climate change problem is pretty hard to refute while any politician claiming her opponent has failed to make real climate change progress is similarly hard to debunk.
Meanwhile, a growing number of career bureaucrats get to keep on "working" for environmental improvements with almost no accountability. Compared to the war on terror, which does demand more tangible results, this is a much more politically pliable issue. For the political class, this is a win/win in perpetuity.
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/30/trump-threatens-the-failing-e...
Yawn
Not really. There's nothing that he acquires by leaving a non-binding, aspirational agreement other than burning goodwill in effigy. What this means to the rest of the world is that the US cannot even be assumed to abide by voluntary agreements where it can unilaterally declare how much it actually wishes to contribute.
The message that the EU/China are getting is either that they're being given the middle finger for purposes of jingoistic posturing or that Trump doesn't actually understand how the Paris agreement works.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...
The agreement was weak and not a treaty because the Republicans in the Senate would not have ratified a treaty, just as they failed to ratify Kyoto. If any Republicans thought this was a swell idea but just wasn't binding enough they could enter into a second, more aggressive binding agreement with whatever parties they like. Nobody thought this was a great agreement, it was too weak and timid, but it was the strongest agreement we could make without the Senate.
Healthy debate is healthy.
I just wish the establishment Republicans would retire already and get the hell out of the way.
Withdrawn from the tpp. Is currently renegotiating nafta. Mattis is an excellent choice. Tillerson is an excellent choice. Is supporting Saudi Arabias "Vision 2030" plan, which attacks the root cause of radical islamic terrorism (economics). Is in the process of draining the swamp (Susan rice and the unmasking scandals). I've made and realized a shit ton of money off the stock market since he got elected. Obamacare is gone and is in the process of being replaced. Jobs are coming back. He supports laws and law enforcement over criminals.
Edit to add: Gorsach is an excellent supreme court choice. I'm glad that corrupt comey was fired. In the process of reseting nato relations and getting everyone to pay their fair share. Mattis is handling north korea expertly. Oh, he avoided starting ww3 against russia after obama tried to start it in his last few months in office. Also, jury is still out, but there has also been lots of work done on China and their whole basket of problems.
And, most importantly, acknowledges and recognizes that us Americans from flyover country are not red neck slaves to the self righteous smug ass coastal cities and their out of touch political elites.
Withdrawn from the tpp / Agreed. Seemed like an overall bad deal for the US. TBD on what overall impact will be. This was going to make the US have better economic ties to other Asian countries. Now they're turning to China even more. Seems like if we don't put something like this in place then we will lose more in the long run.
Renegotiating nafta / We'll have to wait and see what happens. He hasn't been able to get anything through that requires collaboration with other parts of government.
Mattis is an excellent choice / Sure, why not.
Tillerson is an excellent choice / Seems like a massive conflict of interest considering the massive web that surrounds him and Russia. He's inexperienced and looks like he's getting pushed around out there. And is it not apparent that his sole job is to help that oil deal with Russia sealed!
Is supporting Saudi Arabias "Vision 2030" plan / Seriously? Saudi basically created muslim extremists. They've been building schools that export extremist views for decades (google saudi arabia exporting wahhabism). They're also on a war path. How the hell are they going to create peace in the region? I guess they could kill everyone that opposes them, that'd probably be their best shot.
Draining the swamp / What? How? You mean firing government employees and replacing them with inexperienced yes men? He's refilling the swamp with something just as bad. All the lobbyists are there. All the career politicians are there. All the money flowing in is still happening. I fail to see the benefit with his version of draining the swamp.
I've made and realized a shit ton of money off the stock market / You could've made more money on the stock market under Obama's first 100 days (2nd term; not his first term he saved the country from one of its worst recessions): http://www.marketwatch.com/story/how-trumps-stock-market-ran...
Obamacare is gone / Not quite. Remember he hasn't been able to get agreement on anything. Healthcare was harder than anyone thought!
Jobs are coming back / Where is your evidence that they are coming back because of Trump? I know a few corps announced their "plans" to bring jobs back. Many of those are shady. Job growth seems like a continuation of what was happening under Obama (yes, Obama had tremendous job growth numbers).
He supports laws and law enforcement / Everyone supports this. Cops are still getting killed under Trump. There is still civil unrest, perhaps more now that he has empowered white supremacists. I fail to see what's changed.
My memory is that the US withdrew from Kyoto as well. They withdrew but were still one of the few countries that actually reached the goal outlined there.
The reason was not political action but rather market adoption.
I don't know much beyond that but it is possible that much the same could happen, if coal is continualy replaced with gas or solar. Cars will be replaced with EV soon enough, even outside of any government action or gloabl agreement.
Again if have not studied the magnitude of all these changes and compared them to what exactly the parameters of Paris are so I am not arguing that trump did the right thing. In fact, if you expact the outcome anyway signing might be "free".
I just think some people mistake the signing of a international agreement with results. Kyoto did show that that was not really always the case. Not signing some agreement will not automatically mean we are heading for Mad Max.
The actual outcome and compliance will be mostly detrmained by internal politics of each country.
Leadership in fighting climate change? Cmon' every EU-country is better at fighting climate change than the US. Denmark has at least 50% of their energy coming from their huge wind farms. Norway has a huge network of chargers for electrical cars, tax cuts for electrical cars and Sweden is huge in all sorts of environmental savings.
In Sweden you can't even order a fucking burger without seeing how much CO2 that produces and ads for vegetarian burgers that are better for the environment.
If you really think US is good at all at fighting climate change, you should really come to the EU and watch us recycle. Even during the recent terror attack in Stockholm there were people recycling.
Proof:
http://www.cbc.ca/radio-content/archive/undertheinfluence/ma...
http://img.timeinc.net/time/daily/2012/1204/360_intl_healthy...
https://www.reddit.com/r/sweden/comments/64199h/two_swedes_r...
Whether we talk about a union of 320M as the US or a union of 510M as the EU, or whether we talk about a state like Michigan with 9M inhabitants or a nation like Sweden with 10M hardly matters. There are roads, electrical grids and similar infrastructure everywhere in the modern world.
It's not the distribution that's the problem. It's political will.
Your president and a lot of US citizens don't even acknowledge that there is a climate change. You are far from any kind of leadership in that regard.
I think EU takes the initiative and is king in making the world follow. Either because they want to or simply because they have to.
Southeast Asia contains most of the world's people and a huge fraction of the world's GDP. Apart from China, however, it's uncoördinated. A small action by the United States means more than many large actions by smaller European states. This makes sense from game theoretic as well as simple sociopolitical perspectives. This is part of the package one takes when choosing the confederated structure the EU has opted for.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/mar/28/only-swe...
People can claim a lot about other countries and there is a lot of things we do shittier than others. But in fighting climate change, there is no better country than Sweden.
Since we can, you can as well. Taking leadership is possible as a little country. We can show you all that it is possible and that you can gain economical benefits from it. In Sweden, fighting climate change is a cultural thing like it should be in the entire world.
Even if we're fewer, I think we're actually pushing really hard.
Immigrants have no say or voting rights. They can be used as a drum to do the pow wow ing. Earth wont talk back. Two perfect candidates.
Well... Not yet anyways.