Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Earth United States Government Republicans

61 Mayors Commit To Adopt, Honor and Uphold Paris Climate Accord After US Pulls Out (curbed.com) 247

After President Trump announced his intent to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris Climate Accord, 61 mayors across the country have pledged to adopt the historic agreement themselves. The group of mayors, who represent 36 million Americans and some of the largest U.S. cities, outlined a plan to align with the other 194 nations that adopted the accord. From a statement provided by the climate mayors: We will continue to lead. We are increasing investments in renewable energy and energy efficiency. We will buy and create more demand for electric cars and trucks. We will increase our efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions, create a clean energy economy, and stand for environmental justice. And if the President wants to break the promises made to our allies enshrined in the historic Paris Agreement, we'll build and strengthen relationships around the world to protect the planet from devastating climate risks. The world cannot wait -- and neither will we.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

61 Mayors Commit To Adopt, Honor and Uphold Paris Climate Accord After US Pulls Out

Comments Filter:
  • Now how are you guys going to go about that money transfers that the former persident agreed to? $100B a year, if I remember correctly. The world is waiting.

    • Stop paying for welfare in red states. Bam, several trillion dollars.
    • by Tailhook ( 98486 )

      Now how are you guys going to go about that money transfers

      I checked the list for the usual suspects. Sure enough: Mayor Rahm Emanuel, City of Chicago, IL. Meanwhile, we learn today that S&P and Moody's have downgraded Illinois to "Near Junk, Lowest Ever for a U.S. State," [bloomberg.com] because these people have been spending themselves into an epic hole for decades.

      • Climate change disproportionately affects liberals. If you're a corn farmer in fly-over country you have the luxury of being a climate skeptic. Condo owners in Miami on the other hand are shitting their pants right now.
        • I'd like to remind you who droughts affect first.
        • Climate change policy disproportionately affects conservatives. If you live in matchbox apartment and take public transportation, then your carbon footprint is already at the targeted levels; you have nothing to lose. If you have a large house in a rural area, a boat, and a truck to tow the boat, then climate change policy is a direct attack on your quality of life.
          • If you have a large house in a rural area, a boat, and a truck to tow the boat, then climate change policy is a direct attack on your quality of life.
            Unlikely. You don't lose quality if you have a better engine in the boat and truck, or go both electric or in case of the boat hybrid.

            You just prefer to eat more cheap food and get fatter instead of saving some money and upgrade your hardware.

            I'm sailing, my boat engine runs less then 20 minutes a day. 10 to get out of the harbor and 10 to get back in. Well,

        • by bongey ( 974911 )

          So a bunch of liberals on the east and west coast get swallowed by giant flood.For some reason that brings a smile to my face.

    • And also... (Score:3, Interesting)

      Now how are you guys going to go about that money transfers that the former persident agreed to? $100B a year, if I remember correctly. The world is waiting.

      Some questions:

      .) Does pulling out of the Paris agreement prevent us from making as good or better climate decisions?
      .) Is our participation important enough that the other countries are willing to renegotiate?
      .) Does the treaty lay out any penalty for non-compliance, or is it merely a feel-good PR stunt?
      .) Is the Paris agreement actually about climate, or redistribution of wealth?
      .) Did congress ratify our participation, or did the previous president cheat that democratic process?

      That last one - makin

      • Re:And also... (Score:5, Informative)

        by grcumb ( 781340 ) on Friday June 02, 2017 @12:55AM (#54531939) Homepage Journal

        Some questions:
        .) Does pulling out of the Paris agreement prevent us from making as good or better climate decisions?

        Yes it does, because it diminishes the ability of nations to coordinate their actions. It leaves US-based corporations (a large constituency among polluters) free to continue flouting established science and driving their aging, archaic business models along, dragging the American economy with it. This is bad for voters.

        .) Is our participation important enough that the other countries are willing to renegotiate?

        No. China and the EU see a strategic opportunity here to use technological advances to do the the USA in the 21st Century what the USA did to Britain in the 19th Century—use newer industrial technology to out-compete the established corporate interests.

        There is a global cost to this, but China especially is willing to suffer in order to win. Its more interventionist economic policies have already given it a strategic advantage in terms of alternative energy tech (especially solar), and if it has to accept a 1-2% mid-term drop in GDP in order to sideline the USA, it will happily pay that price.

        .) Does the treaty lay out any penalty for non-compliance, or is it merely a feel-good PR stunt?

        Fuck your straw man.

        Just because you can't see the wisdom of a largely voluntary commitment process, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The Obama administration managed a near-miracle in the way this was structured, so that the bulk of the commitments came into the non-binding schedule 2 portion of the agreement. This meant that countries would not be straitjacketed into onerous commitments that they had no hope in honouring. By allowing signatories the right to choose how far they want to go, and when they'll get there, they made it possible for everybody to sign the same document. And the genius of that is because it allows recalcitrant countries to be singled out and cajoled into coming along for the ride without having to deal with corrupt, backward, reactionary legislatures like the American Senate, just to take a random example out of the air. But more on that in a moment....

        .) Is the Paris agreement actually about climate, or redistribution of wealth?

        Redistribution of the ability to survive. Because countries don't survive climate change, species do.

        ... or don't.

        .) Did congress ratify our participation, or did the previous president cheat that democratic process?

        You know what cheating is? Cheating is when simply fucking lying about climate change because you're fat and rich today and "fuck you that's why" becomes your ruling mantra. That is pretty much what the Republican party had done. Nowhere else in the world is the question of climate change a partisan platform issue.

        The only other nations who didn't ratify the Accords are Nicaragua and Syria. Syria didn't attend COP21, because they were kind of distracted. Nicaragua refused to sign on because they didn't think the Accords went far enough. The USA is literally alone in this folly.

        The Senate majority's willingness to put party before country (or species, for that matter) is the cheat. President Obama acted in the national and global interest, doing everything within his legal power to ensure that American came along, even if the Republican party didn't want to.

        • No. China and the EU see a strategic opportunity here to use technological advances to do the the USA in the 21st Century what the USA did to Britain in the 19th Century—use newer industrial technology to out-compete the established corporate interests.

          How exactly does that work? I mean, if the new technological advances make businesses more profitable, wouldn't they adopt them on their own without needing global government agreements to force them to?

          • wouldn't they adopt them on their own without ...
            Obviously not, just look at internet speeds and technology and prices in USA.
            Or the quality of typical throw away american products.
            People by either cheap and throw away, or a brand and pay premium.
            Rational "we shift with the cheaper stuff" and "long term _investments_" into high quality goods etc. is not really the strength of the US capitalism.

            • The claim was that European or Chinese businesses would out compete the US with the advanced green technologies. That's not the same thing as the quality of the product.

              Is the US economy going to be better off without the Paris accord, or worse off?

              • Is the US economy going to be better off without the Paris accord, or worse off?
                Who knows.
                As far as I can see the US economy does not follow the rhythm of the world.
                However every time the US economy has a crash or swing down everyone is fearing it would affect the world economy. Usually it does not. E.g. look at the Dow Jones. Why people believe falling prices for stocks influence the world economy is beyond me. Steel mills have to run ... etc. That is completely unrelated to most stock prices, perhaps rela

      • by rtb61 ( 674572 )

        Yankee treaties, always one way and are only binding as long as it suits the Yankees, for everyone else, Yankees demand they are bound by Yankee treaties under threat of economic and or military attack, Yankee treaties are law as long as Yankees say they are, they second Yankees say they are not, they are not.

        Paris climate accord, yet another glaring globally public demonstration of exactly who the US government really is, two faced liars, deceivers and exploiters and if ever there was a country everyone

    • Re:Cool beans (Score:4, Informative)

      by Barsteward ( 969998 ) on Friday June 02, 2017 @05:25AM (#54532835)
      i think you'll find the $100B is the total for ALL the countries involved
  • I have seen this more and more since Trump took office. Trump dismantles EPA's public protections. Local governments agree to pick up the slack. If this is going to be Trump's trend, then why should we be paying as much FEDERAL tax, when it's the STATE or CITY that is giving us all these services.
    • You need to pay MORE federal taxes because he is going to cut his business taxes in half along with the taxes of all those wealthy people.

      Money don't grow on trees son, it gotta come from somewhere and the best place to get it from is the poor, because hell they got nothing to loose anyways.

      With the rich paying less taxes, they will be able to afford a much bigger yacht and 4 sports cars instead of 2.
      • by gtall ( 79522 )

        Now, now. Remember that el Presidente Tweetie is only a baby Christian. The word in Christian circles is that if G-d wanted the poor to be rich, he'd have given them money. They are clearly just losers who won't work in jobs that don't exist.

        More specifically, giving the rich more dough means they get to invest more. However, that only affects the supply, not demand. Companies won't produce more if the market isn't there and there are not enough rich people to make much of a market for most things. And if y

    • by markdavis ( 642305 ) on Thursday June 01, 2017 @10:42PM (#54531271)

      >"I have seen this more and more since Trump took office. Trump dismantles EPA's public protections. Local governments agree to pick up the slack."

      Actually, this is generally the way the country is supposed to be run. By the design of the country and explained in the Constitution, most of the power and running of the country is SUPPOSED to be at the state and local levels. In this manner, it keeps the Fed under control, gives localities more freedom to meet the specific needs of their citizens, and creates competition/exploration/choice. Of course, that doesn't work with everything, but that is why there are a few SPECIFIC powers granted to the Federal government- they are listed right in the Constitution (coining money, common defense, post office etc). Those rights NOT listed that the Fed has commandeered are numerous- things like healthcare, education, welfare, are good examples.

      We are the United States of America, not the Federal State of America.

      • I like the idea of experimentation, but how often do states find that things work and the rest of the country does them? Usually, idiot states like Alabama [al.com] wallow [newsweek.com] in poverty watching other states do smart things. The conservative Romney Care [quora.com] worked [businessinsurance.com]. So all states should do that right? But if you give states choice they'll reject the same thing by another name like it's going to kill them.
      • Obama enacted a lot of his campaign promises through executive orders, which is a very weak foundation to build policy. What one POTUS can create another can destroy. If Obama wanted to create a lasting legacy then he should have got Congress on board and made it law. That way his legacy would have required an act of Congress to bring down.

        Where the Democrats really screwed up was to weaken the filibuster, the "nuclear option" they enacted to get the bills they wanted into law. The filibuster is to slow

    • All the hard-core liberal mayors are into this alternative Federal policy stuff, where the Feds do (or don't do) X and the mayors and city councils decide to do contrary policy Y. I think the whole sanctuary city movement started a lot of it and Trump's election has certainly accelerated it.

      Some of the time it's sensible, regional policy making the Feds shouldn't have been doing anyway or that cities or states should be doing.

      But an awful lot of it seems like empty grandstanding on areas like diplomacy, fo

    • Welcome to the Libertarian party
  • by Jzanu ( 668651 ) on Thursday June 01, 2017 @10:22PM (#54531153)
    Here is the real story and the eventual history that will be Trump's: Destruction of the US global power and influence, and fanning the flames of the sub-national groups that will replace nations as a whole. The fall of the US leadership will coincide with the fall of the US as a functioning nation, but rather than subsuming into a failed state like Somalia and Yemen, its best cities will rise into global roles. Consider this Greek history in reverse, with city-states becoming the real holders of power.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      most of those cities are going bankrupt, their delirium is a symptom of the last stages of illness, Trump was sent by God to burn the corpses and begin the healing
    • Destruction of the US global power and influence

      I don't want to be a global power. I don't want the US policing the world.

      Do you like imperialist American hegemony? How about America just takes care of America, and the rest of the world can deal with their own problems, in their own way, without being bossed around by America?

      • Cutting down on our military power (which is not what the Republicans and Trump apparently want to do) has its advantages.. Throwing away US leadership in other areas really doesn't.

    • Sounds like Greg Bears excellent novel "Queen of Angels". He is not explicitly describe the decline of the state and the rice of the cities but it gets clear from the context.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 01, 2017 @10:23PM (#54531157)

    Look how he unites the American people.
    What a hero.

  • No funny comments, except maybe a couple of the ones modded insightful. Not even a joke about destroying the planet as a possibly impeachable offense.

    Winners: Russia, Saudi Arabia, and China. Losers: Rest of the world unless China saves the day.

  • Make the responsibility local and hence much more accountable.

    • by PPH ( 736903 )

      Seattle is already over it's annual carbon limit with the fire started by the hobos under the West Seattle freeway bridge.

  • by JWW ( 79176 )

    Where are they going to find the billions of dollars to pay to foreign governments, and will their constituents be ok with that?

    After all, I'm not worrying about the agreements mandates on limiting emissions, since the US didn't join the Kyoto protocols, yet is still meeting the standards due to the switch from coal to natural gas for a large amount of power generation, in addition to adding wind and solar generation too.

    Soooo, the only thing these Mayors really have to do is come up with case to hand to ti

    • by PPH ( 736903 )

      Where are they going to find the billions of dollars to pay to foreign governments

      Simple. They can't count. The number of mayors goes from 61 to 68 and then 83 depending on how far you drill down through the related articles.

  • so there's a president that presides over nothing I guess. What's the point?! Too many chiefs? Not enough indians? Pick a leader to lead, and fire the leader that doesn't. This is just stupid.

    • Come on! Don't be depressive. There are good things about Trump, too!
      I get dozens of Trump jokes and funny comedian movies about Trump every day on FB and other media, e.g. the latest press release from the white house: "Trump states he was disappointed about his meeting with the Pope. He was only met by Gods proxy".

  • The Paris Agreement provided for more than voluntary reductions, but also for developed nations to send $100 billion in aid to developing nations for climate change mitigation--mitigation which is measured against self-established goals. Part of the agreement also provides for additional funds to be sent to address "loss and damage" suffered by various island states and developing nations for environmental damage caused by global warming.

    Is it the intent of these mayors to spend city funds on helping foreign nations negatively impacted by global warming to help address the damage there?

  • ...but abandoning the Paris accord doesn't prohibit any US individual, company, or state from pursuing greener policies. Not one.

    The US federal government doesn't control its citizens behavior, to a large degree. In fact, what it does often is a negative driver of public action.

    After all, the US is "officially" metric as well since the 1970s, see how much that official change made a difference?

  • I checked which cities are part of this.

    The first thing these cities need to understand is that they are committing to distributing a MINIMUM of $100 billion dollars EVERY year to countries like North Korea, Pakistan, Iran, etc. Many of those cities do not even have a $100 billion budget, so I am wondering where they will get the money from. You could rob Bill Gates and pay for part of one year, but there is no sunset clause and there are only so many Bill Gates' that you can steal from.

    Do not get me wrong,

  • You think any large business will put up with that? Oh, what will happen, is the government will "make allowances" (subsidies) to keep the businesses from relocating, and the burden will shift to the taxpayers of each city/state.
  • Obama acted like a child king and just thought he could sign up the US for a treaty without getting a sign off from the Senate.

    Basically Obama was trying to use an international treaty to write law in the US without consulting Congress at all. For some reason Obama and his legal scholars thought they could sign up the US for treaties as long as they didn't call it a "treaty" they didn't need to have the Senate's approval.

    Many on the right including me are only objection to the Paris accords was that Obama w

Remember Darwin; building a better mousetrap merely results in smarter mice.

Working...