Yeah so global warming huh...

[Hornsby]

So the dumb asshole went ahead and decided to cancel US participation in the Paris climate agreement, breaking ranks with more than 190 other countries. BUT, this allies us with yup...Syria and Nicaragua. Two other nations in the UN climate group that do not participate in the accords.

Race to the bottom Trump! Make America Shitty...get that on a hat.

[Moonlight J]

Nicaragua doesn't participate because it doesn't go far enough.

We're on the same page as a country we've recently bombed. Yay for us....

[chancellor]

So the dumb asshole went ahead and decided to cancel US participation in the Paris climate agreement, breaking ranks with more than 190 other countries.

This would be the agreement that has no consensus on contributions, requires no specific contributions, has no mechanism to force a country to make a contribution, and no penalties for a country that may commit to a contribution and then doesn't make it.

Even James Hansen - who I disagree with on just about everything vis a vis "climate change" - considered the agreement "bullshit". Link: https://www.theguardian.com/environm...is-talks-fraud

[cardboardbox]

This would be the agreement that has no consensus on contributions, requires no specific contributions, has no mechanism to force a country to make a contribution, and no penalties for a country that may commit to a contribution and then doesn't make it.

I've read this also which makes me wonder, why leave if we werent going to be forced to abide by it anyway?

edit: And I just read on a blog that my question is essentially the democrat position on this.

[In the Corn]

This would be the agreement that has no consensus on contributions, requires no specific contributions, has no mechanism to force a country to make a contribution, and no penalties for a country that may commit to a contribution and then doesn't make it.

Even James Hansen - who I disagree with on just about everything vis a vis "climate change" - considered the agreement "bullshit". Link: https://www.theguardian.com/environm...is-talks-fraud

I'm not well-versed in the Paris Accord, but if this is the case, walking away from it seem even dumber as we thumb our nose at the world.

Sometimes you stay in the sandbox even when you don't want to play with everyone else.

[Sour Masher]

This would be the agreement that has no consensus on contributions, requires no specific contributions, has no mechanism to force a country to make a contribution, and no penalties for a country that may commit to a contribution and then doesn't make it.

Even James Hansen - who I disagree with on just about everything vis a vis "climate change" - considered the agreement "bullshit". Link: https://www.theguardian.com/environm...is-talks-fraud

So, we shouldn't participate, because it is largely a symbolic gesture toward global awareness and cooperation toward more responsible and thoughtful consumption and pollution policies, rather than a rigid, draconian system? Isn't the idea that it is the latter, and will hurt American economic interests the whole reason Trump rejected it? Why not participate if it is so milk toast? Our non-participation puts us at odds with the scientific community and the rest of the world on what is arguably the most important long term issue to face humanity. We are supposed to be a world leader. We certainly are a world leader in terms of the negative impact we have on the global environment.

[cardboardbox]

So, we shouldn't participate, because it is largely a symbolic gesture toward global awareness and cooperation toward more responsible and thoughtful consumption and pollution policies, rather than a rigid, draconian system? Isn't the idea that it is the latter, and will hurt American economic interests the whole reason Trump rejected it? Why not participate if it is so milk toast? Our non-participation puts us at odds with the scientific community and the rest of the world on what is arguably the most important long term issue to face humanity. We are supposed to be a world leader. We certainly are a world leader in terms of the negative impact we have on the global environment.

Well I assume if we stayed and didnt meet the targets that Germany, France, etc would have whined and moaned and stomped their feet.

[Hi.I'm.Mandy]

I'm not well-versed in the Paris Accord, but if this is the case, walking away from it seem even dumber as we thumb our nose at the world.

Sometimes you stay in the sandbox even when you don't want to play with everyone else.

Donald is the kitty in the sandbox, hee hee

[In the Corn]

Donald is the kitty in the sandbox, hee hee

:staringintently: I love you!

[GwynnInTheHall]

Well I assume if we stayed and didnt meet the targets that Germany, France, etc would have whined and moaned and stomped their feet.

Because America keeping it's word means shit now, kind of like your opinions.

[Hornsby]

This would be the agreement that has no consensus on contributions, requires no specific contributions, has no mechanism to force a country to make a contribution, and no penalties for a country that may commit to a contribution and then doesn't make it.

Even James Hansen - who I disagree with on just about everything vis a vis "climate change" - considered the agreement "bullshit". Link: https://www.theguardian.com/environm...is-talks-fraud

And yet 190 countries agree that climate change is real, and a huge threat, enough so that they overlook their differences and agree on this.

We're the outliers, and we look like idiots to the rest of the civilized, and somewhat uncivilized, world.

[revo]

So, we shouldn't participate, because it is largely a symbolic gesture toward global awareness and cooperation toward more responsible and thoughtful consumption and pollution policies, rather than a rigid, draconian system? Isn't the idea that it is the latter, and will hurt American economic interests the whole reason Trump rejected it? Why not participate if it is so milk toast? Our non-participation puts us at odds with the scientific community and the rest of the world on what is arguably the most important long term issue to face humanity. We are supposed to be a world leader. We certainly are a world leader in terms of the negative impact we have on the global environment.

That's it in a nutshell right there. We're now the stupid assholes of the world. Thanks Donald!

[Hornsby]

WaPo did a really nice, concise, fact check about the Paris Accords and Trump's claims:

Glenn Kessler and Michelle Ye Hee Lee June 1 at 7:58 PM

In his speech announcing his decision to withdraw from the Paris Accord on climate change, President Trump frequently relied
on dubious facts and unbalanced claims to make his case that the agreement would hurt the U.S. economy. Notably, he only
looked at one side of the scale – claiming the agreement left the United States at a competitive disadvantage, harming U.S.
industries. But he often ignored the benefits that could come from tackling climate change, including potential green jobs.
Trump also suggested that the United States was treated unfairly under the agreement. But each of the nations signing the
agreement agreed to help lower emissions, based on plans they submitted. So the U.S. target was set by the Obama
administration.

The plans are not legally binding, but developing and developed countries are treated differently because developed countries,
on a per capita basis, often produce more greenhouse gases than developing countries. For instance, on a per capita basis, the
United States in 2015 produced more than double the carbon dioxide emissions of China — and eight times more than India.
Here’s a roundup of various statements made by the president during his Rose Garden address.

“We’re getting out, but we will start to negotiate, and we will see if we can make a deal
that’s fair.”

Each country set its own commitments under the Paris Accord, so Trump’s comment is puzzling. He could unilaterally change
the commitments offered by President Barack Obama, which is technically allowed under the Accord. But there is no appetite
to renegotiate the entire agreement, as made clear by various statements from world leaders after his announcement.

“China will be allowed to build hundreds of additional coal plants. So, we can’t build the
plants, but they can, according to this agreement. India will be allowed to double its coal
production by 2020.”

This is false. The agreement is nonbinding and each nation sets its own targets. There is nothing in the agreement that stops the
United States from building coal plants or gives the permission to China or India to build coal plants. In fact, market forces,
primarily reduced costs for natural gas, have forced the closure of coal plants. China announced this year that it would cancel
plans to build more than 100 coal%fired plants.
Gary Cohn, chairman of Trump’s National Economic Council, recently told reporters that “coal doesn’t even make that much
sense anymore as a feedstock. Natural gas, which we have become an abundant producer, which we’re going to become a major
exporter is, is such a cleaner fuel.”

“Compliance with the terms of the Paris accord and the onerous energy restrictions it has
placed on the United States could cost America as much as 2.7 million lost jobs by 2025,
according to the National Economic Research Associates. This includes 440,000 fewer
manufacturing jobs — not what we need.”

Trump cited a slew of statistics from a study that was funded by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the American Council for
Capital Formation, foes of the Paris Accord. So the figures must be viewed with a jaundiced eye. Moreover, the study assumed
a scenario that no policy analyst expects — that the United States takes drastic steps to meet the Obama pledge of a 26 to 28
percent reduction in emissions by 2025.
Moreover, the study did not consider possible benefits from reducing climate change. A footnote says: The study “does not
take into account potential benefits from avoided emissions….The model does not take into consideration yet to be developed
technologies that might influence the long term cost.”

Trump also cited the impact by 2040, including a “cost to the economy” of nearly $3 trillion in lost gross domestic product. But
in addition to an unrealistic scenario, that number must be viewed in context over more than two decades, so “$3 trillion”
amounts to a reduction of 6 percent. The study concludes coal usage would almost disappear, but innovation in clean energy
sources would slow considerably, which also raises the cost of complying with the commitments.
Environmentalists say greater investment in clean energy will lower costs and spur innovation. That may not be correct either,
but it demonstrates how the outcomes in models of economic activity decades from now depends on the assumptions.

“Even if the Paris Agreement were implemented in full, with total compliance from all
nations it is estimated it would only produce a two tenths of one degree — think of that,
this much — Celsius reduction in global temperature by the year 2100. Tiny, tiny
amount.”

Trump is referring to research by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, in a 2015 report. Researchers found that
proposed emissions cuts in the Paris plan would result in about 0.2 degrees (Celsius) less warming by 2100, if the cuts were not
extended further.
John Reilly, lead author of the report, said he “disagrees completely” with Trump’s characterization that the 0.2 degree cut is a
“tiny, tiny” amount that is not worth pursuing. As a part of the deal, countries re%examine their commitments and can exceed or
extend their pledges beyond 2030. The intent of the research was to say the Paris deal was a small step, and that more
incremental steps need to be taken in the long run.
“The logic that, ‘This isn’t making much progress on a serious problem, therefore we’re going to do nothing,’ just doesn’t make
sense to me. The conclusion should be — and our intended implication for people was — not to overly celebrate Paris, because
you still have a long journey in front of you. So carb up for the rest of the trip,” Reilly said.

“The green fund would likely obligate the United States to commit potentially tens of
billions of dollars of which the United States has already handed over $1 billion. Nobody
else is even close. Most of them haven’t even paid anything — including funds raided out
of America’s budget for the war against terrorism. That’s where they came.”

It is incorrect that other countries have not contributed to the United Nations’ Green Climate Fund. In fact, 43 governments
have pledged money to the fund, including nine developing countries. The countries have pledged to pay $10.13 billion
collectively, and the U.S. share is $3 billion. As of May 2017, the United States contributed $1 billion of the $3 billion it
pledged.
Trump implies that the money was taken out of U.S. defense monies. But the U.S. contributions were paid out of the State
Department’s Economic Support Fund, one of the foreign assistance programs to promote economic or political stability based
on U.S. strategic interests. Republican lawmakers have criticized the use of this fund, saying Congress designated the money to
prioritize security, human rights and other efforts unrelated to climate change.

“China will be able to increase these emissions by a staggering number of years, 13. They
can do whatever they want for 13 years. India makes its participation contingent on
receiving billions and billions and billions of dollars in foreign aid from developed
countries.”

China, in its Paris Accord commitment, said that, compared to 2005 levels, it would seek to cut its carbon emissions by 60 to 65
percent per unit of GDP by 2030. India said it would reduce its emissions per unit of economic output by 33 to 35 percent
below 2005 by 2030; the submission does seek foreign aid in order to meet its goals and mitigate the costs.
Both countries pledge to reach these goals by 2030, meaning they are taking steps now to meet their commitments. India, for
instance, seeks to have renewable power make up 40 percent of its power base by 2030, so it is investing heavily in solar
energy. The country is now on track to become the world’s third%largest solar power market in 2018, after China and the United
States. China is also investing heavily in renewable energy.

“Believe me, we have massive legal liability if we stay in. As president, I have one
obligation, and that obligation is to the American people. The Paris accord would
undermine our economy, hamstring our workers, weaken our sovereignty, impose
unacceptable legal risk, and put us at a permanent disadvantage to the other countries of
the world.”

Trump is referring to concerns raised by White House counsel Don McGahn that staying in the Paris agreement would bolster
legal arguments of climate advocates challenging Trump’s decision to roll back the Clean Power Plan.
The Clean Power Plan is a flagship environmental regulatory rule of the Obama administration, and proposes to cut carbon
emissions from existing power plants 30 percent below 2005 levels by 2030. It is crucial to the United States meeting its
carbon emissions reductions pledge in the Paris agreement. But it has been placed on hold while under litigation.
According to Politico, McGahn raised concerns that the Paris agreement “could be cited in court challenges to Trump’s efforts
to kill Obama’s climate rules. McGahn’s comments shocked State Department lawyers, who strongly reject both of those
contentions, the sources said.”

“Not only does this deal subject our citizens to harsh economic restrictions, it fails to live
up to our environmental ideals. As someone who cares deeply about the environment,
which I do, I cannot in good conscious support a deal that punishes the United States,
which is what it does.”

For years, Trump has touted his strong record on the environment. But the evidence is quite slim. We awarded Four
Pinocchios to his claim that he is a “very big person when it comes to the environment,” who has “received awards on the
environment.”
Environmentalists have criticized many of Trump’s projects, particularly for his plans to build a golf course on protected sand
dunes and chopping down hundreds of trees for a golf course renovation. As a businessman, Trump or his property did win two
environmental awards. In 2007, the Trump National Golf Club in Bedminster, N.J., received an award for “environmental
stewardship through golf course maintenance, construction, education and research.” Three years later, the golf course was
cited for a series of environmental violations.
In 2007, Trump won a “Green Space Award” for donating 435 acres of land to the state of New York. He had purchased the
land to build a golf course, but withdrew plans after opposition from local residents and environmental restrictions. The land
was never developed into a park, and New York closed it after budget cuts in 2010.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/06/01/fact-checking-president-trumps-claims-on-the-paris-climate-change-deal/?utm_term=.d3257a6940f5

[GwynnInTheHall]

WaPo did a really nice, concise, fact check about the Paris Accords and Trump's claims:



https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.d3257a6940f5

Trump lies, his supporters believe those lies or ignore they're lies or deny they're lies and the beat goes on..........

[chancellor]

So, we shouldn't participate, because it is largely a symbolic gesture toward global awareness and cooperation toward more responsible and thoughtful consumption and pollution policies, rather than a rigid, draconian system? Isn't the idea that it is the latter, and will hurt American economic interests the whole reason Trump rejected it? Why not participate if it is so milk toast? Our non-participation puts us at odds with the scientific community and the rest of the world on what is arguably the most important long term issue to face humanity. We are supposed to be a world leader. We certainly are a world leader in terms of the negative impact we have on the global environment.

No, we should not participate in a treaty that has no concrete goals, standards to set them, or enforcement protocols. Sure, it gives the illusion and squishy feeling that we are doing something...when, in reality, such silly agreements impede progress since people actually believe the problem is solved.

I disagree with the whole premise, but on this issue agree with James Hansen. As he's noted, if you're going to legislate global warming reduction, it must have teeth. And worldwide. Otherwise it's useless, a circle jerk at best.