Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
United States Government Politics Science

Trump Announces US Withdrawal From Paris Climate Accord (reuters.com) 1109

It's official. President Donald Trump announced today that the United States will withdraw from the Paris climate agreement, following through on a pledge he made during the presidential campaign. Trump said the Paris agreement "front loads costs on American people. 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," the president said. "We are getting out. But we will start to negotiate, and we will see if we can make a deal that's fair. And if we can, that's great." Trump said that the United States will immediately "cease all implementation of the non-binding Paris accord" and what he said were "draconian financial" and other burdens imposed on the country by the accord.

This means that Elon Musk will leave Trump's Business Advisory Council. On Wednesday, Musk said he did "all he could to advise directly to Trump." (Update: Elon Musk is staying true to his words. Following the announcement, Musk tweeted, "Am departing presidential councils. Climate change is real. Leaving Paris is not good for America or the world.)

Twenty-five companies, including Adobe, Apple, Facebook, Google, HP, Microsoft, Salesforce, Morgan Stanley, Intel signed on to a letter which was published on the New York Times and Wall Street Journal today arguing in favor of climate pact.

Update: Former president Barack Obama said the U.S. "joins a small handful of nations that reject the future."

Also, the New York Times points out that despite Trump's public statements, the U.S. can't officially leave the Paris climate agreement until 2020.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Trump Announces US Withdrawal From Paris Climate Accord

Comments Filter:
  • Joy.... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Kierthos ( 225954 ) on Thursday June 01, 2017 @03:11PM (#54527911) Homepage

    We get to join Nicaragua and Syria in not being part of the Paris Climate Accord. And Nicaragua didn't sign it because they think it doesn't go far enough.

  • Does this matter? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MAXOMENOS ( 9802 ) <maxomaiNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Thursday June 01, 2017 @03:11PM (#54527921) Homepage
    Between California regulations, consumer-driven conservation, the increasing market for electric cars, and the price drop in renewable energy, aren't Americans on track to seriously cut CO2 emissions anyway?
    • by ranton ( 36917 ) on Thursday June 01, 2017 @03:28PM (#54528113)

      Between California regulations, consumer-driven conservation, the increasing market for electric cars, and the price drop in renewable energy, aren't Americans on track to seriously cut CO2 emissions anyway?

      It is impossible to know the foreign relations implications of this long term, except to know it can't be good. All but two nations signed this agreement, with one rejecting it because it didn't go far enough (Nicaragua) and one not even being invited to the table because of its government's legitimacy problems (Syria). The United States is now the only country on the planet who is not part of this agreement because it doesn't find the problem important enough.

      It now becomes harder to get countries to work with us on just about anything if we aren't even willing to be part of a goodwill gesture that had no real consequences to us if we stayed in it. It shows the world grown ups are not in control of the executive branch.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by lgw ( 121541 )

        s impossible to know the foreign relations implications of this long term, except to know it can't be good.

        It's great! Fuck globalism. This is just another reclamation of American sovereignty.

        As others have said, we're going to reduce CO2 emissions anyway, through consumer choice and technology. This isn't about CO2, it's about global government vs national government.

        And that's swiftly replacing the old "left vs right" as the axis of political division. It's all about "globalist vs populist" now, with a still-rising tide of anti-globalist sentiment. Anti-globablist moves like Brexit and Trump are just the

        • by ranton ( 36917 ) on Thursday June 01, 2017 @04:15PM (#54528637)

          Fuck globalism. This is just another reclamation of American sovereignty.

          You can spout off about globalist vs nationalist policies all you want, but even the hermit nation of North Korea understood this issue was important enough to show solidarity with the rest of the world on. When Kim Jong-un can work with other nations better than your President, that is a problem.

          • Re:Does this matter? (Score:4, Informative)

            by TemporalBeing ( 803363 ) <bm_witness@@@yahoo...com> on Thursday June 01, 2017 @05:35PM (#54529413) Homepage Journal

            Fuck globalism. This is just another reclamation of American sovereignty.

            You can spout off about globalist vs nationalist policies all you want, but even the hermit nation of North Korea understood this issue was important enough to show solidarity with the rest of the world on. When Kim Jong-un can work with other nations better than your President, that is a problem.

            Has nothing to do with that. Kim Jong-un signed it because North Korea would *receive* money, not pay it out. He'd be a fool to turn down free money.

            Honestly, whether a nation signs or not has very little to do with recognition of the issue as being important and more to do with where money is going. IIRC, if the US had joined it then like with the UN the US would have been paying out more money than any other country - which makes zero sense for the benefit. UN at least had some controls that gave the US significant power in its operations (Security Council, etc). The Paris Accord does not do that - money comes from rich countries and goes to the corrupt, poor countries and dictators like Kim Jong-un - many of whom will probably turn around and use it for weapons instead of its real purpose, or at least siphon off a lot of it via bribes and do that even if they show a facade of implementing what the money was for - it'll cost a lot more as a result too.

            No, this isn't about solidarity. It's about money.

          • Re:Does this matter? (Score:5, Interesting)

            by Nikkos ( 544004 ) on Thursday June 01, 2017 @05:36PM (#54529423)

            This just in, belligerent nations also understand the value of global virtue-signalling.

            China and India are the ONLY ones that matter in terms of global emissions. They still have 2 billion people between them that are dirt-poor and have yet to take part in their national economy in any meaningful way. Right now, with only 1/4 of their populations economically active, they account for over 37% of TOTAL GLOBAL EMISSIONS.

            The US, with 350m people and 99% economic engagement accounts for 16% and decreasing. China and India will continue growing, and their overall percentage will increase dramatically in just 5 years.

            Per-capita use isn't an argument either, sure the US has higher per-capita use, but if you look at the actual number of economically engaged people in India and China, their per-capita use is actually higher than the US, it's just averaged out across the other 2 billion people that aren't responsible for anything more than cookfire smoke - no cars, no consumer goods, no roads, no airplane travel, because they can't afford any of those luxuries.

            The US was committed to 25%+ reduction in just 7 years. China and India's pledges were next to nothing - no percentages of reductions, just vague promises to spend more on renewables and the (non-binding) promise to do 'something' by 2030. That's a pretty one-sided agreement, and the 25%+ reduction in the US would do absolutely nothing in the long-term for the world, but would hurt the US economy.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Obfuscant ( 592200 )

        The United States is now the only country on the planet who is not part of this agreement because it doesn't find the problem important enough.

        Some people keep saying that this agreement doesn't cost anything because it doesn't require anything, but then complain because we are no longer a signatory to an agreement that doesn't require anything and can thus not accomplish anything.

        And you are quick to assign motives that weren't actually expressed. "Didn't find the problem important enough" is your opinion. It could also be that "this agreement does nothing to accomplish the alleged goal but will cost money complying with, even if it is just 'goo

        • by ranton ( 36917 ) on Thursday June 01, 2017 @04:35PM (#54528835)

          If your argument is Trump is the only leader wise enough to see that the agreement's problems are worse than its benefits, then there is no reason to discourse with you. If this was a case of only 60% of world leaders being part of the agreement then you would have at least some argument. But there is no sanity in a man who thinks Trump's opinions about this agreement are far more insightful than every other executive leader in the world.

          • by Straif ( 172656 ) on Thursday June 01, 2017 @05:09PM (#54529149) Homepage

            The Paris accords are 100% voluntary with no enforcement procedure. Honestly, what's their point? They do call for hundreds of millions of dollars in transfers to developing countries but with no penalties if those payments aren't made. It is simple PR fodder for politicians.

            Trumps cancelation of US involvement will have less than zero impact on climate change as the US is already one of the world leaders in CO2 reduction just through simple normal advancements in business practices and technology.

            If you truly need a piece of paper to make you feel safe then feel free to go print up a copy of the accords and place it under your pillow at night; it will have about the same affect as all those other politicians signing it.

            • Re:Does this matter? (Score:4, Interesting)

              by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) <mojo&world3,net> on Friday June 02, 2017 @04:51AM (#54532719) Homepage Journal

              The Paris accords are 100% voluntary with no enforcement procedure. Honestly, what's their point?

              China, the world's biggest emitter, has exceeded the goals it agreed to. India has too. Much of Europe has or is at least trying hard to.

              Renewables are where the jobs and money are. The agreement really helps by giving governments political capital to reduce subsidies for other forms of energy and redirect them. It also helped develop the huge market for renewable technologies, which the US is now turning away from.

        • by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Thursday June 01, 2017 @05:22PM (#54529281)
          that's what we're worried about. Yes, it has no force of law or actual requirements. It's a feel good treaty all around. That's what makes pulling out so bad. There's only one reason to pull out, and it's to say: Fuck You World. By pulling out we send a message that we're not willing to even consider working with the rest of the world.

          CNN has an article describing how this could lead to a trade war. TLDR: Frustrated nations slap carbon taxes on imported goods because they're building with clean energy while we shamelessly pollute (which is much cheaper) and then Trump responds with his own tarriffs. Then it escalates from there and badda bing badda boom, recession/depression.
        • IMO, any environmental agreements are incompatible with free trade, unless both countries have the same laws. Otherwise you just hurt your own businesses.

          Let's say you open a factory in your country - the laws say that you cannot dump toxic waste into a nearby river, so you have to pay for proper disposal, the cost of that is passed to the consumer by way of increased price. That's OK. What's not OK, is that I can then open a similar factory in China (or wherever), dump the toxic waste into a river (either

        • Or perhaps it is a lesson to other leaders of state that assumed that the US President had unilateral power to commit the US to treaties

          I just want to add that this is not a treaty. Treaties require 2/3rd Senate approval. This was sought under a sole-executive agreement by the US and is why the agreement is ultimately non-binding, additionally, it is also why it is called an agreement, since agreements do not require anything from Congress except that the President give notice that the US has entered one within 20-days.

          Side notes for anyone interested. There's also Congressional-Executive agreements (CEAs) which is basically the same as

    • Re:Does this matter? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by iMadeGhostzilla ( 1851560 ) on Thursday June 01, 2017 @03:49PM (#54528335)

      Agreed. Paris is a top down thing. Letting companies develop green energy sources and consumers adopt them is a bottom up. Top down rarely works unless there is a consensus in society, which for climate change there isn't. That said I'd like that the government stimulates research in green energy sources.

  • Blue Consortium (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Tablizer ( 95088 ) on Thursday June 01, 2017 @03:13PM (#54527935) Journal

    Blue states should get together and promise internationally to try to keep the spirit of the agreement alive in their respective states. While it may not be constitutional to make formal agreements, at least token pledges can be given.

    Time to leave the troglodytes in the dust; they will drag us backward if we let them set the agenda. And they are an embarrassment to the USA.

    • by MAXOMENOS ( 9802 ) <maxomaiNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Thursday June 01, 2017 @03:18PM (#54527987) Homepage
      I've heard rumblings about states like California and New York entering a multi-state compact towards meeting the Paris climate goals. IANAL but AFAIK this sort of agreement is perfectly constitutional.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        Yes, it's called federalism. A concept that liberals have been trying to muscle out of existence for a long time now. This is hilarious.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 01, 2017 @03:14PM (#54527943)

    There's some analysis suggesting that the US being out of any agreements like this will allow the other 194 countries that "believe" in science to be more aggressive on emission targets, and that on net might be a positive result. The US could then get its act together if and when we stop electing Republican idiots, which could happen as early as 2020.

    God, to think DT makes GWB look intelligent and wise....

  • I'm not suprised... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by bobbied ( 2522392 ) on Thursday June 01, 2017 @03:16PM (#54527969)

    Trump ran on this position.. I'm not surprised he's doing this... Like him or not, you have to admit that he generally tries to do what he promises...

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      you have to admit that he generally tries to do what he promises...

      Not ... particularly. I voted for neither Trump nor Clinton. But I would hardly call Trump one who "does what he promises." Or even "tries."

      How many times did he say he was going to drain the swamp, again?

      Then again, he promises so much that I suppose almost anything he does is "trying" to fulfill a promise. :)

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by meta-monkey ( 321000 )

        "Draining the swamp" means 5 specific promises related to lobbying, and he's enacted them for the executive branch (no lobbying after executive branch service for 5 years, no lobbying for a foreign power ever). The rest require the legislature, and they're working on that.

        You can't just make up whatever you want "Draining the swamp" to mean and then say he's not doing it. "Trump didn't appoint only lesbian eskimo transmidgets to the Supreme Court! So much for 'Draining the Swamp,' huh?!?!"

  • by heretic108 ( 454817 ) on Thursday June 01, 2017 @03:20PM (#54528013)
    Every country that remains a signatory under the Paris Accord, and upholds its respective commitments, has the right to impose unilateral tariffs on the USA to cover the economic and social impacts resulting from the USA's impacts on the climate.
    • by Kjella ( 173770 )

      Every country that remains a signatory under the Paris Accord, and upholds its respective commitments, has the right to impose unilateral tariffs on the USA to cover the economic and social impacts resulting from the USA's impacts on the climate.

      Every country can impose tariffs for any reason they like, I really doubt any treaty they've withdrawn from prevents the US from returning the favor. If there are, Trump can always withdraw from those too. And if he really wants to mess with the international community he can declare them null and void on the spot. The US is a sovereign nation, the worst anyone can do is pass a UN resolution but they can't even rattle a two bit dictator in North Korea. If the US really wants out, it's out. And as I understa

  • by Freischutz ( 4776131 ) on Thursday June 01, 2017 @03:24PM (#54528053)

    Trump Will Announce US Withdrawal From Paris Climate Accord

    I'm not surprised, It's the one big thing he can do quickly to fulfil a campaign promise and stick it to the 'libruls' where he does not have to deal with congress, the constitution or the judicial system. He can just pull out of the Paris Accord and declare a glorious victory, temporary balm for a bruised ego. Meanwhile China stands by on the sidelines with plans for a $900 billion fund to invest in overseas energy and infrastructure projects and watches approvingly as the US shoots it self in the foot by abandoning any leading role it may have in the development of clean energy tech. Same for Germany which is in the middle of doing the exact opposite of what Trump plans to do and will along with China probably be a world leader in renewable energy tech if by the time Trump is done takign a machete to the US clean energy tech sector. So, folks! It's amateur hour at the White House for the 132nd day in a row!

  • Not a big deal (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Nidi62 ( 1525137 ) on Thursday June 01, 2017 @03:26PM (#54528081)
    Let's be honest: the next time a Democrat is president they will probably either join the Paris accords, or adopt policies that align with the accords anyway. This is what American has turned into: our politics are so partisan that pretty much the first thing a new party administration does when they take office is to overrule or counteract policies of the previous administration (except of course for policies that erode away our rights in the name of "national security"). America is running around in circles (and wasting trillions of dollars in the process) while the rest of the world passes us by. And the sad thing is a lot of Americans are cheering as it happens.
    • Let's be honest: the next time a Democrat is president they will probably either join the Paris accords, or adopt policies that align with the accords anyway. This is what American has turned into: our politics are so partisan that pretty much the first thing a new party administration does when they take office is to overrule or counteract policies of the previous administration (except of course for policies that erode away our rights in the name of "national security"). America is running around in circles (and wasting trillions of dollars in the process) while the rest of the world passes us by. And the sad thing is a lot of Americans are cheering as it happens.

      I feel roughly the same way. I am of the opinion that we should withdraw from all of these idiotic inconsequential agreements, but should continue to strive to eliminate the environmental damage we're causing. I think NASA climate programs should be defunded... In favor of funding NOAA appropriately. Etc, Etc... As someone that voted for Johnson, Trump is doing exactly half of what I wanted, and it makes me look bad because I 'coincidentally' agree with ~50% of his actions (Gut the EPA, Gut the FDA, Fi

    • That may be true for what Trump is doing now but it definitely was not true when Obama took office, which is actually one of the big reasons I was disappointed with him as a president. The ACLU had this elaborate document made up between the election and inauguration day cheerfully outlining all of the good things the new President could do to reverse the damage GWB had done within days, weeks, months, etc, of taking office, a nice timeline of how quickly the damage could be undone. Pretty much none of it h

  • by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Thursday June 01, 2017 @03:37PM (#54528211)
    Trump desperately needs to hand the nationalists that put him in the White House a victory. Any victory. This is it.
  • Dang... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Freischutz ( 4776131 ) on Thursday June 01, 2017 @03:46PM (#54528295)
    Trump just got Democrats and (some) Republicans to agree about an issue to do with environmentalism: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/... [huffingtonpost.com] It must be freezing in hell.
  • by purple_cobra ( 848685 ) on Thursday June 01, 2017 @03:48PM (#54528329)
    It's not the first time an unwelcome trump has polluted the air.
  • Hopefully, instead, we will implement a tax on ALL CONSUMED GOODS/SERVICES based on what state/nations the worst CO2 comes from. All that needs to happen is that we need OCO3 to have precise (not necessarily accurate; just precise is what is needed) measurements between states/nations, along with normalizing based on emissions / $ GDP. With this, America raises the tax on the emissions/$GDP. This will force all nations to drop their emission over time, or lose their export market. In addition, it will benefit those nations that have low emission / $ GDP.
  • by ColaMan ( 37550 ) on Thursday June 01, 2017 @04:59PM (#54529077) Homepage Journal

    "Two things only the people anxiously desire - Bread and Circuses."

  • by Midnight Thunder ( 17205 ) on Thursday June 01, 2017 @05:48PM (#54529547) Homepage Journal

    Sometimes I wonder whether some of Trump's actions are doing things that are what he believes are good for the country or whether he has just has a hard-on for destroying anything Obama enacted?

    I can almost imagine Trump in a mental asylum scrawling 'I hate you Obama' on the walls, like a crazy man.

Measure twice, cut once.

Working...