Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Paris Agreement / Climate Change & the environment


  • Please log in to reply
19 replies to this topic

#1 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 8,807 posts

Posted 01 June 2017 - 06:39 PM

This is the second time the U.S. signed an agreement to fight CO2 emissions, and have not been ratified.
Both signed by Presidents who were democrats, but senators who were largely republican would not ratify.
First was the Kyoto Protocol signed in the 90s.

Even major oil companies were against withdrawing from the Paris Agreement. As were some of Trump's senior staff. It seems the main advocates for withdrawing were Bannon and the new EPA head Scott Pruit (EPA=Environment Protection Agency, in case anyone was unknowledgeable or forgetful of that fact). Ex-ExxonMobil head, and now Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson was for staying in the agreement, as was, purportedly, Trump's daughter and son-in-law.

I am fairly certain that this largely has to do with a peevish desire to destroy Obama's legacy, and keep a strong/dominant image, on Trump's part. Matches the desires of the ideological Trump supporters that don't care if their house gets burnt down as long as the houses of liberals get burned too.

Some quotes from #45 today from WaPo:

Quote

...reassertion of America's sovereignty...

...permanent disadvantage [vis a vis India, China, other rising powers] ...

…[tantamount to putting U.S. vast energy resources basically put] under lock and key...
...
In order to fulfill my solemn duty to protect America and its citizens, the United States will withdraw from the Paris climate accord but begin negotiations to reenter either the Paris accord or an entirely new transaction on terms that are fair to the United States, its businesses, its workers, its people, its taxpayers.
...
The rest of the world applauded when we signed … for the simple reason that it put our country … at a very, very big economic disadvantage.
...
At what point does America get demeaned? At what point do they start laughing at us as a country? We want fair treatment for its citizens and we want fair treatment for its taxpayers. We don't want other leaders and other countries laughing at us anymore - and they won't be.

I don't even know where to start with it.

The U.S. is 5% of the world's population, but responsible for at least 15% of the emissions. So 3x more than what their population would indicate. The Paris Agreement would had 21% of the total worldwide emissions reduced be in American. To America, this would have meant a 26-28% reduction by 2025, based in 2005 levels. So, they'd still have twice the emissions per capita than the average person in the world.

And if you want to talk resources, instead of emissions, the U.S. uses 33% of the world's paper, 25% of the world's oil, 23% of the coal, 27% of aluminum, 19% of the cooper, and produce 50% of the world's solid waste.

It might be the hill some may fight to die on, but it is certainly not the moral high ground.

Who exactly is this unfair to? The U.S. already has an advantage, if they follow through it will be a slightly less advantageous than currently, but still more advantageous than most countries. And you aren't gambling the ability of our planet to support life as we know it.

Well, not gambling as hard, most scientists say while the Paris agreement is a good start, but not enough, to prevent some of the effects of climate change.

To act like something is being unfairly taken away from the U.S., 1st of all requires pretending American people are an island unto themselves, 2nd requires to imagine a world with infinite resources, 3rd requires to ignore most 1st world wealth is from ill-gotten gains as a result of the history of colonization.

So this leaves it, in the U.S., to private organizations (both for-profit and non-profit), and individuals, to leave the fight against climate change and for environmental protection.


As aside, I heard an interesting piece of history recently, the history of  corporation personhood in the U.S. and they included a case. My computer is acting up so I will not be able to find a link. Basically, post civil war, there were some butchers immediately upriver of New Orleans. They polluted the waters, and New Orleans said "Maybe the reason why we are getting so much cholera is those butchers. Let's make a law that they have to operate down river". So they did. The butchers fought it in court, arguing that their corporations, like people, have the right to do whatever they want with their property, while on their property. I don't know how it wound its way through the courts, but the cholera outbreaks did stop when the butchers moved. But the U.S. is basically those butchers. The rest of the world New Orleans.


People talk about how Trump's longest lasting legacy will be his USSC Justice Gorsuch. This will be longer, especially if US states, localities, business, organizations, and people, follow Trump's lead.

Edited by sierraleone, 01 June 2017 - 07:02 PM.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

#2 yadda yadda

yadda yadda
  • Islander
  • 1,447 posts

Posted 01 June 2017 - 06:58 PM

At this point the best we can do is punt and look to fix things once this idiot is out, one way or the other. I believe our allies in the global community view 45 as an aberration, an unpleasantness to be allowed to expire before a more conventional policy course is restored. I agree that this move on his part was a slap at Obama and a bone tossed trying to consolidate and keep his base content. It will backfire, galvanizing even more strident opposition to his presidency and fuel the urgency to remove and replace him. I'm hoping that the thinking electorate will look back on this current period and understand the peril to our country of putting these spineless, brainless, GOP corporate stooges in charge ever again.

#3 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 8,807 posts

Posted 01 June 2017 - 07:10 PM

View Postyadda yadda, on 01 June 2017 - 06:58 PM, said:

At this point the best we can do is punt and look to fix things once this idiot is out, one way or the other.

The thing is the government has been doing this for years. Didn't we say the same thing about when Bush was President? He had no interest in trying to get the Kyoto Protocol ratified. And, frankly, my country is not much better, they withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol in 2012.

Trump thinks withdrawing is a sign of strength. But that is because staying in would require fortitude and strength of character, and he doesn't even know what that means.
Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

#4 yadda yadda

yadda yadda
  • Islander
  • 1,447 posts

Posted 01 June 2017 - 08:09 PM

I'm not talking about punting on climate accords. I'm talking about punting on all things 45, for the hopefully brief time we have to hold our noses due to his petulance and metaphorical policy flatulence. 45 thinks his words are as a god's, and that support for climate initiatives, research, investment, and even energy company interest will wither and wane. The almost instantaneous rejection of his action was widespread among American governors and mayors. California, where I live, is deeply committed to an agenda for addressing climate issues. 45 can't just turn that off with a few lying sour words and his abject and stubborn proclamation of stupidity.

There's money to be made in renewable energy. So the corporate interests are going to follow that carrot to the future, regardless of 45's bloviation and ignorance. He may obstruct and slow it down somewhat, at the behest of Republican Senators beholden to the hydrocarbon industry lobby, but he's not going to be able to put the kibosh on global concern and awareness of the serious threat of man-made climate degradation. 45 is an angry red pimple on the a$$ of intelligent civilized democracy. In time he will pass or be squeezed out.

#5 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 8,807 posts

Posted 01 June 2017 - 08:22 PM

The WTFJHT had two changes to their list today related to this news.
(either that or I was incredible inobservant when I read it before ;) ).

Reuters: A rare joint statement from the leaders of France, Italy, and Germany, in which they defend the Paris agreement. And claim they are willing to step up more in the agreement in helping developing countries meet their goals.  

Poll: A majority of Americans in each of the 50 states say that the U.S. should participate int he Paris Climate Agreement. 69% of ALL voters says the U.S. should. 47% of Trump voters want the U.S. to do so.
Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

#6 Lord of the Sword

Lord of the Sword
  • Islander
  • 15,624 posts

Posted 01 June 2017 - 08:29 PM

I'll be the first to admit that I don't know all the particulars of this deal. What I understand, so far, about this deal is that while it requires a substancial investment by America: 3 billion, and drastic reducing of emissions (Which WILL hurt businesses), it allows China to do whatever it wants. China has to like 2030 to THINK about reducing emissions, yet China would also be one of the countries getting some of America's 3 Billion. China, who very soon, will probably wind up passing the U.S economy wise.

So here are just a few of my questions: Why should the US enter into an agreement that is unfair, and by unfair I mean it allows countries like China to not have to do anything, while requiring a great deal from the US?

Why not just have the US decide, on it's own, how to deal with their own emissions?

From what I understand this deal is non binding: Meaning it really can't be enforced, so if it can't be enforced the why enter the deal? What would be the consequences for breaking, or not meeting, our part of the deal?

As I understand it, President Trump was willing to renegotiate the deal, but France and Germany said No. And from what I'm seeing, I understand them not wanting to, since at least from what I'm seeing, this deal places most of the burden on the US and the UK.
"Sometimes you get the point of the sword, sometimes the edge, sometimes the flat of the blade (even if you're the Lord of the Sword) and sometimes you're the guy wielding it. But any day without the Sword or its Lord is one that could've been better  " ~Orpheus.

The Left is inclusive, and tolerant, unless you happen to think and believe different than they do~ Lord of the Sword

The last republican leaning independent on this message board. All others have been silenced and driven off, or outright banned. Only ONE remains. I guess HighLander had it right all along....In the end, there can be only ONE.

#7 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 8,807 posts

Posted 01 June 2017 - 09:19 PM

View PostLord of the Sword, on 01 June 2017 - 08:29 PM, said:

I'll be the first to admit that I don't know all the particulars of this deal.

Good questions LOTS. I don't know all the particulars either.
I was just expecting you'd find a sentence or three to attack in my post and go off topic ;) (or further off topic, depending on which sentences you focused on).
Thank you for the thoughtful and thought-through post.

I just know that the U.S. is responsible for a dis-portionate amount of the pollution and the resource extraction/use/waste on this planet. Largely due to their structurally capitalistic consumeristic society. While all humans have a responsibility, subsistent farmers with nothing have less responsibility in this than do Americans, particularly middle and upper class Americans (and other developed countries).

Quote

What I understand, so far, about this deal is that while it requires a substancial investment by America: 3 billion, and drastic reducing of emissions (Which WILL hurt businesses), it allows China to do whatever it wants. China has to like 2030 to THINK about reducing emissions, yet China would also be one of the countries getting some of America's 3 Billion. China, who very soon, will probably wind up passing the U.S economy wise.

So here are just a few of my questions: Why should the US enter into an agreement that is unfair, and by unfair I mean it allows countries like China to not have to do anything, while requiring a great deal from the US?

I am assuming the 3 billion investment is in *other* countries, not including the money they will be using to figure out and implement their plans to reduce their own emissions.

A couple of things about China…

The world is very interconnected, and China manufactures things for other countries. So, while China is partly responsible for greening of its manufacturing process, it is responding to demand from other countries for cheap goods. It isn't just cheap labour that makes overseas manufacturing attractive, it is also the lack of workplace or environmental safety regulations. The main point here though, is that one could argue that some of China emissions (and those of other manufacturing hotspots, or oil-producing places), does not accurately reflect the emissions that actual Chinese people emit in service of their own lives. So, to try to have a flat emission reduction across the board could hurt developing countries that are places of growing interesting for manufacturing, or have under-utilized oil fields. Of course your problem isn't that they have to reduce less than the U.S. but they apparently don't need to reduce at all.

Another thing about China is it already working on greening their economy. In fact, the U.S. leaving the agreement means leaving the negotiating table, which gives other countries, including China much more leverage to make the agreement benefit them further. If all the rest of the world is moving to green energy, you don't think China will benefit by manufacturing some of the goods people need to green their homes/business/etc? And the U.S. will lag behind even further being out of this agreement.

Quote

Why not just have the US decide, on it's own, how to deal with their own emissions?

I don't think you mean that the U.S. has no responsibility here, but my first though reading this was, does that mean/include include ignoring emissions? *laughs*

Does the agreement prescribe specific ways one must deal with their emissions, or it is just generic reduction targets?

Quote

From what I understand this deal is non binding: Meaning it really can't be enforced, so if it can't be enforced the why enter the deal? What would be the consequences for breaking, or not meeting, our part of the deal?

It may just be symbolic, but symbols are important in human culture. Heck, culture is almost entirely about symbols and their meaning. It is a show of good faith, and good will, things essential for trust. And trust is the bedrock of every healthy relationship. So their will be consequences for the U.S. for withdrawing from this, even if they have to deal with the consequences of meeting (or not meeting) the targets. They have strained their relationship with every country that signed on to this. That is, every country, except two: Nicaragua, and Syria.

(Correction: I included North Korea above, wrongly. They did sign. And apparently Nicaragua didn't sign because they didn't think it went far enough. Which, scientist agree with. Syria, I can't imagine why they'd let little things like a civil war and travel sanctions prevent them from participating in the negotiations for the agreement).

Quote

As I understand it, President Trump was willing to renegotiate the deal, but France and Germany said No. And from what I'm seeing, I understand them not wanting to, since at least from what I'm seeing, this deal places most of the burden on the US and the UK.

I am not as sure about France (though I think they get a lot of their energy from nuclear power plants), but I've read Germany has been moving towards greening their country a good deal already. It could be a way of saying put your money where your mouth is, we already have. More kindly put, those who have already made progress greening their economies also have less room for improvement, whereas countries that haven't have more room for improvement.

If other countries end up picking up parts the 3 billion that the U.S. was supposed to put in (to help other countries adapt to climate change and switch to renewables), would it be fair that those that are NATO allies say they are only increasing the NATO/defence funding by the difference between the increase to get up to 2%, and the extra money they are putting forward for the Paris Agreement, because the U.S. pulled out?

Edited by sierraleone, 02 June 2017 - 05:15 PM.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

#8 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 8,807 posts

Posted 02 June 2017 - 06:06 AM

A WaPo headline:  Inside Trump's decision: How efforts to dissaude him actually backfired.

I haven't even read the article (though the blurb under the headline makes it clear this is about the climate deal).
Though the article basically matches a known part of the human condition we've talked on here about before, people who cling to their false beliefs even more so in the face of facts. As far as I've read only two people in his inner circle/senior advisors were for withdrawing, Bannon, and EPA(!) head Scott Pruitt.
Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

#9 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 8,807 posts

Posted 02 June 2017 - 04:23 PM

From the main POTUS thread:

View Postsierraleone, on 02 June 2017 - 04:22 PM, said:

WFTJHT: Day 134 - Showdown supreme.

- Climate change: Cities, states, and companies are banding together to form the United States Climate Alliance. Involved currently are the states/governors of NY, CA, & WA (~1/5 of the U.S. economy), 83 mayors (representing 40 million Americans), 80 university presidents, and over 100 companies. They are preparing to submit a plan to the UN pledging to meet the US's Paris Agreement target despite POTUS withdrawing the US from the agreement. :freakingout: :clap:  

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

#10 gsmonks

gsmonks

    Tree Psychiatrist

  • Islander
  • 4,829 posts

Posted 02 June 2017 - 04:46 PM

Cutting down emissions is bad for technology, not the economy. When your technology is obsolete, pollution becomes a problem.

You can view this either as a problem or an opportunity to develop new technologies.

Losers stick their heads back in the oven. Winners develop new technologies and solutions.
Capitalism is a pyramid scheme run by the 1%.

#11 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 8,807 posts

Posted 02 June 2017 - 05:00 PM

View Postsierraleone, on 01 June 2017 - 09:19 PM, said:

View PostLord of the Sword, on 01 June 2017 - 08:29 PM, said:

What I understand, so far, about this deal is that while it requires a substancial investment by America: 3 billion, and drastic reducing of emissions (Which WILL hurt businesses).

So here are just a few of my questions: Why should the US enter into an agreement that is unfair, and by unfair I mean it allows countries like China to not have to do anything, while requiring a great deal from the US?

I am assuming the 3 billion investment is in *other* countries, not including the money they will be using to figure out and implement their plans to reduce their own emissions.

3 billion sounds like a lot. And it is. But even being a lot it is still a drop in the bucket. Like Earth's largest lake to any Earth ocean.

US 2015 GDP: $17.95 Trillion … 3 Billion is ~0.017% of that. Less than 1/5,000.

US 2015 Federal Budget: $3.8 T ... $3 B is ~0.079% of that. Less than 1/1,000.

Former US Defence Budget: $587 B … $3 B is ~0.51% of that. About 1/200.

US 2014 Foreign Aid Budget: $35 B … $3 B is ~8.6% of that. Less than 1/11.

It looks like US could easily take it out of the 52 B Trump proposed increase in defence. Or even out of the current defence budget. Next biggest military spender is China at $145.8 B, spending about 1/4 of what the U.S. does. No concern about China eclipsing the U.S. in military spending…

Edited because of wrong place values :D I swear I can do maths ;) I *think* I got the calculations correct now.

Edited by sierraleone, 02 June 2017 - 09:43 PM.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

#12 yadda yadda

yadda yadda
  • Islander
  • 1,447 posts

Posted 02 June 2017 - 06:37 PM

View Postsierraleone, on 02 June 2017 - 04:23 PM, said:

From the main POTUS thread:

View Postsierraleone, on 02 June 2017 - 04:22 PM, said:

WFTJHT: Day 134 - Showdown supreme.

- Climate change: Cities, states, and companies are banding together to form the United States Climate Alliance. Involved currently are the states/governors of NY, CA, & WA (~1/5 of the U.S. economy), 83 mayors (representing 40 million Americans), 80 university presidents, and over 100 companies. They are preparing to submit a plan to the UN pledging to meet the US's Paris Agreement target despite POTUS withdrawing the US from the agreement. :freakingout: :clap:  

Kinda, sorta told ya so...   ;)

#13 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 8,807 posts

Posted 02 June 2017 - 06:52 PM

^ Maybe Trump's whole plan is reverse psychology! :D


I have no problem with you being right in this instance :) Though, technically, it is *not* being punted. Or if it is being punted it is only by the Federal government, and many state governments (I am looking at you Texas!).
Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

#14 Lord of the Sword

Lord of the Sword
  • Islander
  • 15,624 posts

Posted 02 June 2017 - 09:12 PM

View Postsierraleone, on 01 June 2017 - 09:19 PM, said:


Another thing about China is it already working on greening their economy. In fact, the U.S. leaving the agreement means leaving the negotiating table, which gives other countries, including China much more leverage to make the agreement benefit them further. If all the rest of the world is moving to green energy, you don't think China will benefit by manufacturing some of the goods people need to green their homes/business/etc? And the U.S. will lag behind even further being out of this agreement.

I do agree that being completely out of the agreement does mean the USA doesn't have a say in the agreement anymore. However, apparently the Agreement is final and can't be renegotiated, so not really sure what discussions there are left to be had in the agreement?

Quote


It may just be symbolic, but symbols are important in human culture. Heck, culture is almost entirely about symbols and their meaning. It is a show of good faith, and good will, things essential for trust. And trust is the bedrock of every healthy relationship. So their will be consequences for the U.S. for withdrawing from this, even if they have to deal with the consequences of meeting (or not meeting) the targets. They have strained their relationship with every country that signed on to this. That is, every country, except two: Nicaragua, and Syria.

If other countries end up picking up parts the 3 billion that the U.S. was supposed to put in (to help other countries adapt to climate change and switch to renewables), would it be fair that those that are NATO allies say they are only increasing the NATO/defence funding by the difference between the increase to get up to 2%, and the extra money they are putting forward for the Paris Agreement, because the U.S. pulled out?

Good question about the NATO countries and defense spending. I don't know the answer to that. Are NATO and the Paris Climate Agreement connected directly? I mean connected aside from the same countries being in both?
"Sometimes you get the point of the sword, sometimes the edge, sometimes the flat of the blade (even if you're the Lord of the Sword) and sometimes you're the guy wielding it. But any day without the Sword or its Lord is one that could've been better  " ~Orpheus.

The Left is inclusive, and tolerant, unless you happen to think and believe different than they do~ Lord of the Sword

The last republican leaning independent on this message board. All others have been silenced and driven off, or outright banned. Only ONE remains. I guess HighLander had it right all along....In the end, there can be only ONE.

#15 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 8,807 posts

Posted 02 June 2017 - 09:35 PM

^ No, NATO and Paris Agreement are no connected in any official way, that I am aware of.

(Though I have read arguments that climate change is destabilizing, leading to securities issues, so fighting climate change to somewhat mitigate the damages it will cause is good for international security. There is an argument o be made the climate change contributed to the Syria civil war.)

I was just postulating an angle to recoup their losses from having t pick up the US's slack of 3 billion dollars. I would certainly be considering it were I a NATO head of state who had be chided by this man for not honouring NATO's non-binding target/goal for defence spending, if I decided to chip in to make up for the short-fall due to Trump not honouring targets of another international agreement. Heck, out of spite, I might spent the whole different between what I spent on defence below the target, and the actual target, on furthering the Paris agreement.

Edited by sierraleone, 02 June 2017 - 09:37 PM.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

#16 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 8,807 posts

Posted 03 June 2017 - 02:13 PM

View PostLord of the Sword, on 01 June 2017 - 08:29 PM, said:

Why not just have the US decide, on it's own, how to deal with their own emissions?

I didn't think I understood this question before, because as far as I understand the agreement did allow the U.S. to do that. Besides being voluntary, each country was to determine their own targets, and how they would reach those targets. So it seems each country did decide on their own.

Is your question about why they (world countries) felt they had to make an international agreement about something with no enforcement mechanism?

They are just doing so in a way that shows international co-operation, collaboration, and solidarity, in this critical matter, that requires all of us to contribute to mitigate the problem.

This is what so clearly shows Trump was doing this as a big middle finger to the world. He could have chosen for America to loose prestige, influence, credibility, and trust, slowly over time, by just not working on it. That requires too much working and thinking though, and I am sure it was not on the EPA's head Scott Pruitt's list of desirable things to do while running the EPA. It might distract him from eviscerating the EPA and he can't have that.
Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

#17 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 8,807 posts

Posted 03 June 2017 - 02:39 PM

So I thought I'd read some more and figure out more about the Paris Agreement. Found a short Vox article. Apparently the agreement is only 31 pages, so I assume it could be read in half an hour to an hour. But I'll stick with the 4 points the Vox article explains.

1) The overall global target of the Paris Agreement is to cut greenhouse gas emissions to try to keep the Earth's yearly average temperatures from rising more than 2°C. Because if we don't, we face serious problems.

2) Its voluntary. It basically states each country should strive to reach peak emissions as soon as possible. It does not detail how, though it does provide a frame work for getting momentum going, and some oversight and accountability. The oversight, IIUC, is very minimal, such as delegates giving a report/update on their progress and perhaps pledge new goals. There is no defined punishment for breaking it, the idea of this agreement is to create a culture of accountability (and maybe some peer pressure) to get countries to step up their climate game.

Each country comes up with its own target. In fact, I searched the Paris Agreement and could only find one mention of the United States is only mentioned once, only as the location for which signatories can sign it over a year period. So the Paris Agreement document must be very generic.

3) It asks richer countries, which have and use more resources, to help out poorer countries, so that fighting climate change does not damage poorer countries abilities to grow their economies. Also voluntary, not mandated. They do have a figure here in the documents, the world wide goal is to raise $100 billion in USD a year effective 2020.

They don't mentioned it here, but I've read elsewhere that countries you may not expect to contribute have plans to contribute, Mexico has it as part of their countries' climate plan.

4) It is largely symbolic, but the Paris Agreement matters because we absolutely need momentum on this matter.

So, Trump's withdrawal is symbolic and meaningful, in a negative manner, in that it shows rejection of the world community, world-wide co-operation and collaboration. This will break the trust, credibility, and confidence long-held in the U.S., affecting their stature and influence, and ability to lead, on international matters going forward.

Edited by sierraleone, 03 June 2017 - 02:51 PM.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

#18 Lord of the Sword

Lord of the Sword
  • Islander
  • 15,624 posts

Posted 04 June 2017 - 09:18 AM

View Postsierraleone, on 03 June 2017 - 02:39 PM, said:


2) Its voluntary. It basically states each country should strive to reach peak emissions as soon as possible. It does not detail how, though it does provide a frame work for getting momentum going, and some oversight and accountability. The oversight, IIUC, is very minimal, such as delegates giving a report/update on their progress and perhaps pledge new goals. There is no defined punishment for breaking it, the idea of this agreement is to create a culture of accountability (and maybe some peer pressure) to get countries to step up their climate game.

On the news, and I'll see if I can find a article on it, they did mention that while it is voluntary, at least in the USA it can be enforced through the courts. A company could be sued for not meeting their emissions standards. And in this country, with it's sue everyone mentality, that IS a very real possibility.

Quote

So, Trump's withdrawal is symbolic and meaningful, in a negative manner, in that it shows rejection of the world community, world-wide co-operation and collaboration. This will break the trust, credibility, and confidence long-held in the U.S., affecting their stature and influence, and ability to lead, on international matters going forward.

On the news they've mentioned how several cities and states are planning on honoring the Paris Accord. How they'll manage that if the Federal Government is adding more polution, by means of coal, is beyond me. I know this is actually going to shock some on this board, but if the individual cities and states want to do this on their own, then more power to them. In fact, if they manage to raise the 3 billion, I personally wouldn't mind seeing President Trump rejoin the Accords...if that's even possible now.

Although Trump did say the accords would cost jobs. I'm assuming he's talking about coal miners jobs. In fact, I actually hate when politicians say crap like that: "Oh it's going to cost jobs." or "We saved jobs." I wish they would say exactly WHAT jobs would be lost or saved.
"Sometimes you get the point of the sword, sometimes the edge, sometimes the flat of the blade (even if you're the Lord of the Sword) and sometimes you're the guy wielding it. But any day without the Sword or its Lord is one that could've been better  " ~Orpheus.

The Left is inclusive, and tolerant, unless you happen to think and believe different than they do~ Lord of the Sword

The last republican leaning independent on this message board. All others have been silenced and driven off, or outright banned. Only ONE remains. I guess HighLander had it right all along....In the end, there can be only ONE.

#19 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 8,807 posts

Posted 04 June 2017 - 10:25 AM

View PostLord of the Sword, on 04 June 2017 - 09:18 AM, said:

View Postsierraleone, on 03 June 2017 - 02:39 PM, said:

2) Its voluntary. It basically states each country should strive to reach peak emissions as soon as possible. It does not detail how, though it does provide a frame work for getting momentum going, and some oversight and accountability. The oversight, IIUC, is very minimal, such as delegates giving a report/update on their progress and perhaps pledge new goals. There is no defined punishment for breaking it, the idea of this agreement is to create a culture of accountability (and maybe some peer pressure) to get countries to step up their climate game.

On the news, and I'll see if I can find a article on it, they did mention that while it is voluntary, at least in the USA it can be enforced through the courts. A company could be sued for not meeting their emissions standards. And in this country, with it's sue everyone mentality, that IS a very real possibility.

I would appreciate that, thank you. It *sounds* to me that this refers to rules that the US has made itself, as part of their own plan to meet their own goals they themselves made, in their desire to honour and commit to the principals of the Paris Agreement.

If it was via executive order or some agency policy/procedure, Trump & his administration can just reverse it.
If it was via congress then it is probably federal law.

What would be a problem with people or corporations being taken to court for breaking the rules?
Did you have a problem with BP being taken to court and held accountable after the BP oil spill?
Or an individual or corporation that illegal dumps pollution because it is cheaper?
Or causes, through action or inaction, superfund sites?

Quote

I know this is actually going to shock some on this board, but if the individual cities and states want to do this on their own, then more power to them. In fact, if they manage to raise the 3 billion, I personally wouldn't mind seeing President Trump rejoin the Accords...if that's even possible now.

Not surprised at all, many conservatives are often big on local governance, local solutions. It is a failing of liberals to loose focus on local progress.

And no, it technically takes 3-4 years to leave the accords, so if Trump keeps his word on withdrawing, the USA will be official withdrawn in time for the next vote for POTUS.

Quote

Although Trump did say the accords would cost jobs. I'm assuming he's talking about coal miners jobs. In fact, I actually hate when politicians say crap like that: "Oh it's going to cost jobs." or "We saved jobs." I wish they would say exactly WHAT jobs would be lost or saved.

US jobs in renewables already far outstrips coal jobs. IIRC, jobs in renewal number about 800 000 people, where as jobs in coal number 80 000. So it is not as easy to say only staying in will cost jobs. Leaving cost jobs too. It also should keep in mind, there is no economy on a dead planet.
Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

#20 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 8,807 posts

Posted 07 June 2017 - 05:01 PM

I came across a TYT politics segment that was covering a rally that Virginia Republicans put together called "Pittsburg not Paris" that was at(near?) the White House. Some of the comments where just regular ignorance, but some of them are kind of mind-blowing. Some of these people obviously have little idea what words mean….

Reporter:  "A lot of people who advocate on the other side of this issue are concerned about their children grandchildren and great-grandchildren because of the way that the climate might change and make it less hospitable to human life, is that a concern you share?"

Demonstrator: "Well of course it's a concern but we're talking about like you know 2080. I mean who will be alive in 2080 by that time…" Then the person got interrupted.

Um, how about more than half of the people you know under the age of 20? And an even greater majority of the people born between now and 2080?

God some dunces.
Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html


0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users