President Trump Pulls U.S. Out of the Paris Climate Accord

[Skeptic14]

as there are so many others (approximately 95% of the world's scientists) that are far more scientifically knowledgable that have made the case for the presence of climate change caused in great part by man.

This has (I have) beaten this to death on these boards lately on how this is a vast misrepresentation of reality and of course unscientific to begin with.

If you actually dig back to the orig paper that gets cited ad nausea as making this consensus claim you will find that the wording was highly innocuous and filled with caveats to the effect "it is likely there are some anthropogenic factors". In fact several scientist that are called deniers have publicly stated they are part of that vague 98%. This is nothing close to how this quote is used, to make the claim to the nature that "the science is settled", "we know it's man", etc etc.

It is a lazy (unscientific) argument used to shutdown discussion.

This was purely a bone that Trump threw to the slim majority of his core base that ignores, or choses to disbelieve, the presence of climate change, or think their coal mining and manufacturing jobs are coming back.

That's a pretty absurd claim. As someone that didn't vote for him and isn't part of any partisan base because I like to think for myself and as a few others have already quite well pointed out there are excellent reasons for the US not to sign the accord that have zero to do with being science deniers.

But, this is a pretty common protocol today, if someone disagrees with someone else (particularly politically) there cannot be any good reason, it must be because of the most cartoonish strawman the opposition can conjure.

I also think it's worth noting that despite not signing the Kyoto protocol previously, the US actually met the emission reductions anyway via natural market/economic changes whereas many countries signing the kyoto protocol didn't meat theirs.

Signing a non-binding piece of paper means nothing.

 

[kelemvor]

But, this is a pretty common protocol today, if someone disagrees with someone else (particularly politically) there cannot be any good reason, it must be because of the most cartoonish strawman the opposition can conjure.

True enough. I'm just surprised that the mods haven't moved this topic into the pub. Maybe it's existence has not come to their attention yet.

 

[adurso]

It was not name calling, just an observation formed by watching the man for the past 25+ years. Also, I was not making an argument for climate change/global warming, as there are so many others (approximately 95% of the world's scientists) that are far more scientifically knowledgable that have made the case for the presence of climate change caused in great part by man. I was commenting on the rationality, or lack thereof, for the decision to exit the accord. Let me put it in simple terms:
U.S. (Trump), Nicaragua, and Syria vs rest of the world. Even the majority of U.S. voters did not want us to exit the accord. For me, the decision as to which side is correct was very easy.
This was purely a bone that Trump threw to the slim majority of his core base that ignores, or choses to disbelieve, the presence of climate change, or think their coal mining and manufacturing jobs are coming back. In addition, his decision is not going to be helpful to the economy of the U.S., and that is not my just my opinion but the opinion of a large number of our top CEOs.

Can you cite which particular sections of the accord which our withdrawing from will have a deleterious effect on the world?

 

[David Mayle]

As was stated the Legislative branch writes the laws of America because they represent the people. 100 Senators = 2 votes per state and 435 representatives based on population in each state. For example California has 53 and Kansas has 4. A law has to pass both the house and senate for it to go to the president. The president then can sign the law, not sign the law, or veto the law. Signing says he agrees, not signing says he does not but wont stop it, a veto sends it back to both senate and the house where it is voted on again and if it has 2/3s of the votes then it passes despite the veto.
If the president instead creates a standard using an executive order then it can be overturned by the next president. Nothing a president does is binding.
The last branch is the judiciary branch, supreme court, whose sole job is to determine whether a law is constitutional or not. Unfortunately it has become another political field. Current description is 5 conservative judges and 4 liberal judges. You have judges who believe the constitution is a static document with clear defined rules and others who believe it can evolve because the founding fathers wrote it for their time and could not predict our current capabilities and needs.

This agreement falls under the diplomatic portion of the Executive branch. The President is in charge of all embassies and negotiating treaties, agreements, ECT. BUT it must then be sent to the legislative branch for approval. This was not done and is instead an executive order which is undone by the next president who comes in.
Here is a link that discusses this exact thing: Opinion | The U.S. can’t quit the Paris climate agreement, because it never actually joined

 

[Altamira]

Can you cite which particular sections of the accord which our withdrawing from will have a deleterious effect on the world?

I did not say that our departure would have a deleterious effect on the world. In fact, I think countries like China, Russia, Japan, Germany, Brazil, and India will be more than happy to fill the leadership void presented by the U.S. departure from its key leadership role. I do believe, as do many of our top CEOs including those on Trump's business advisory councils, that our withdrawal from our leadership role in this non-binding worldwide accord is a major mistake. Having a key leadership position at the table is far better than being an outlier like Nicaragua and Syria. If it comes to a choice between people like Elon Musk or Donald Trump as to who I trust to guide us in this matter, that too is an easy choice for me. By the way, I can't stand any of our political parties, so I am as far as you can get from being a partisan voter for either side.

 

[Anthony A.]

For anyone to believe that humans are not the root cause of ruining the earth, its resources and wildlife is quite laughable. Man is driven by wealth and power. To excuse that by saying "science hasnt proven it yet" is just denial. Increased earthquakes, severe changes in weather patterns and natural disasters are more prevalent in the past 100 years than any other time period in history.

To blame science and say "theres no definite proof" is simply being ignorant. Humans have decimated the oceans, wildlife, the meat industry carbon footprint, tapping the earth for oil, carbon dioxide... I can go on for days. Most of these "studies" are BS made by lobbyist supported firms that are paid by the very companies that dont want the truth out because it will destroy their billion dollar industries. I can find you hundreds of "studies" claiming the meat industry is sustainable, it actually helps the environment, and that humans "need" meat to survive. I can also show you "studies" of global cooling.

Trump doesnt care about the truth. His life is motivated by money and making money for his partners and buddies. To believe he wants to help people is laughable and insulting. He also doesnt believe that the ocean is full of plastic. The problem with many of his die-hard loyal followers, is that they've never left America and believe that the center of the universe is America. Every other country is a 3rd world, full of cavemen just discovering black and white televisions. I keep hearing people looking out their windows and saying "the weathers been the same for 20 years, climate change is nonsense.". My advice to these simple people is to take a trip and see the world. Only then will ignorance subside and they can say something intelligent.

Now back to topic

Its troubling to see a country that claims to be the best and most advanced in every facet of every subject and field, to be behind in the future success of humanity and technological advancement. I understand America would be paying more tgan other countries.... but doesnt America already do that with their military? No other country spends more, but that becomes justified. When it comes to global superiority, there is no problem spending 10x more than any other country. But for climate change, suddenly we find fault in the "deal" that was made and how unfair it is. The next generation is going to look back at us and feel disgraced at their forefathers. Every warning sign was there, and yet we chose to make a quick dollar instead of planning for tomorrow. In an age where we claim to be at our highest intelligence and advancement, we're pretty simple minded.

Rant over

Btw, not my intention to offend anyone here... this post is IMO.

 

[Caveeagle]

For anyone to believe that humans are not the root cause of ruining the earth, its resources and wildlife is quite laughable. Man is driven by wealth and power. To excuse that by saying "science hasnt proven it yet" is just denial. Increased earthquakes, severe changes in weather patterns and natural disasters are more prevalent in the past 100 years than any other time period in history.

Wow... Anthony, you are really off the deep end. First of all, I have not heard anyone say that mankind is not responsible for pollution and many impacts to wildlife and things like the decimation of the rain forests. But that's not really all of what we are talking about here.

Can you please show some fact based reference that past 100 years has shown a significantly higher variability in climate based anomalies that the previous 2000 years? I won't even argue that impact of possible or even probable.. But conclusion are being drawn that are far from perfect. We can easily see in the geological evidence that sea levels have risen far above and below current levels in pre-historic times. There was a study from the caves in the Bahamas that showed the sea level variation way back (more than I can recall), and any variation we have witnessed in the last 100 years is insignificant compared to what has actually happened.

And causing earthquakes?? Where did you come up with that?

I want to see improved stewardship of our home planet. I just want to see it done honestly and effectively.

Trying to arm-twist me into driving a Prius, is NOT doing anything to save our planet! This is just one example of where eco-politics has it wrong.

Does hybrid car production waste offset hybrid benefits?

 

[ScubaJill]

I think we should have stayed as a party to the agreement. I don't know if we would have met the original targets or even if meeting those targets would have produced the outcomes anticipated by the agreement. I don't know if the U.S. economic engine would have slowed down enough to allow other countries, with other preferential policies already in place, to gain an unfair economic advantage. I don't know if the transfer of funds to the least developed countries to deal with environment-related issues would have actually gone where it was planned to go, namely to environmental programs and not in a bureaucrat's pocket while program data is doctored.

I think many of the items mentioned in the former administration's Climate Action Plan (https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/image/president27sclimateactionplan.pdf) are good things to strive for, once you get past the noise of congratulatory back-patting. And politician- and bureaucracy-speak.

Still, the former administration failed to make this agreement binding. That's where the true lack of leadership lies. It pursued the path of least resistence, in my opinion, and sallied forth without sufficient appreciation of how tenuous its position was. Maybe it thought the rear guard would be led by Hillary Clinton, as the agreement was signed in September 2016, two months before the election. It was a strategic blunder on the former administration's part.

(I also think the agreement, and the climate action plan, were poorly messaged.)

Ultimately, I think the changes sought in human behaviors must originate in the humans who are contributing to this problem. Governments can support and guide, but citizens must demand changes in how businesses are run; in federal, state, and local environmental policies; and in the availability and use of renewable energy. And they must make changes in their own behaviors.

 

[jerrwhy01]

There's nothing stopping any other nation on the planet from following the Paris accords and going forward. For years I've had to listen from the citizens of other nations rant and whine about American Hegemony and Imperialism. How all too often it's the United States that is standing in the way of world progress. Now that we're getting out of the way and allowing someone else to seize the reins everybody's panties are in a knot.

Tough! You can't have it both ways.

None of this has squat to do with the environment; it had everything to do with money. You'd think that if sea levels were going to rise and flood our costal regions we'd relocate our cities and town. Nope, not doing that.

You'd think that in this day and age of computers and communications employers would be enticed thru tax breaks to allow more workers to work from home so they don't waste gas and further pollute the environment. Nope not doing that.

You'd think that we'd mandate energy efficiency standards for construction of new homes and buildings the same way we do cars. Are we doing that? Nope!

You'd think we'd invest in liquid salt reactors to provide for our energy needs; they can also burn off hazardous nuclear waste. Are we doing that? Nope.

Instead our grand plan to save the environment is to offer an IPO and issue shares of stock in Mother Nature and trade those on wall street. The real problem can usually be found in the solution.

You want to go off and save the planet, go for it, that's great. However, don't look to my wallet to do it. If you're not willing to open your wallet you have no business what so ever opening your mouth.

 

[Storker]

If you're not willing to open your wallet you have no business what so ever opening your mouth.

Two small words: 1st Amendment.

And what about those of us who dedicate their careers to trying to make a difference? Are at least they allowed to have an opinion?