Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Earth Republicans United States Politics

Trump's Officials Suggest Re-Negotiating The Paris Climate Accord (msn.com) 244

Slashdot reader whh3 brings surprising news from the Wall Street Journal. "Trump administration officials said Saturday the U.S. wouldn't pull out of the Paris Agreement, offering to re-engage in the international deal to fight climate change, according to multiple officials at a global warming summit." Today an anonymous reader writes: Even an official White House statement in response to the article insisted only that the U.S. would withdraw "unless we can re-enter on terms that are more favorable to our country." On Sunday White House National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster "said President Donald Trump could decide to keep the U.S. in the Paris Climate Accord if there is a better agreement that benefits the American people," according to ABC News, while CNBC reports that Secretary of State Rex Tillerson also "said the United States could remain in the Paris climate accord under the right conditions. 'The president said he is open to finding those conditions where we can remain engaged with others on what we all agree is still a challenging issue.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Trump's Officials Suggest Re-Negotiating The Paris Climate Accord

Comments Filter:
  • How's that NAFTA renegotiation?
    • Re:Remember NAFTA! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ShanghaiBill ( 739463 ) on Sunday September 17, 2017 @01:58PM (#55214617)

      NAFTA and the Paris Climate Change Accord are not really comparable. NAFTA is a legally binding treaty with enforceable obligations on all parties. PCCA is symbolic, and countries can set their own goals, with no consequences for failure to abide by them. So "pulling out" of PCCA just means that America will no longer need to make up fake goals. I can't even imagine what there could possibly be to "renegotiate" since there is (almost) nothing there.

      • Re:Remember NAFTA! (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Lisandro ( 799651 ) on Sunday September 17, 2017 @02:31PM (#55214777)

        it is a huge fuck you to the world though. The Paris Accord is the first time in history when all countries in the planet acknowledged climate change as real and proposed measurable goals to fight it. Until the US dropped out there were exactly two countries outside the accord - Syria, undergoing civil war, and Nicaragua, who claims the accord doesn't do enough to fight climate change.

        But still - the line about "renegotiating" the accord was uttered by Trump himself when he announced the decision: "I don't want anything to get in our way. The US will withdraw from the Paris climate accord, but begin negotiations to reenter either the Paris accord or a really entirely new transaction on terms that are fair to the United States, its businesses, its workers, its people, its taxpayers. (...) We're getting out, but we will start to negotiate, and we will see if we can make a deal that's fair," Trump said. "If we can, that's great. And if we can't, that's fine."

        • Re:Remember NAFTA! (Score:5, Insightful)

          by alvinrod ( 889928 ) on Sunday September 17, 2017 @02:48PM (#55214883)
          What's the point of having measurable goals if there's obligation to meet any of them. I can intend to solve world hunger by next Thursday and ask you to contribute money to help me do so, but I can't see how you would trust me with any money if I were also to say that all of my proposed goals or targets are non-binding and I'm not technically obligated to spend any of the money on solving world hunger in the first place.

          Nicaragua is probably the only country who is on the money in all of this. The Paris Accord won't actually accomplish anything beyond being some feel-good self-masturbatory act that serves as a good photo op. It's just Kony 2012 on a worldwide stage. Get a group of countries to agree to some binding resolutions that might make a difference. They don't even need to be difficult ones either. Something as simple as a binding promise to stop all government subsidies or tax breaks to oil companies would help make alternative energy sources more economical even if the government does nothing to fund them.

          I mean I'm sure that letting the universe know that we as a planet stand united against global warming or some shit like that is sure going to stop climate change in its tracks. Probably get it just shaking in its boots to the point that the temperatures recede a good half degree or so.
          • Admitting there's a problem is always the first step towards a solution.

            • There are already a lot of people who do though and there are plenty of individuals and companies in the U.S. that are already taking more action of their own accord than anything the Paris Accord would do. The Paris Accord does absolutely nothing to move towards a solution.

              Imagine for the sake of argument that we were on some other timeline (whether this one or that one is the darkest is really up to you) where Clinton had won and we aren't even having this conversation because she just goes along for t
          • Re:Remember NAFTA! (Score:4, Interesting)

            by morethanapapercert ( 749527 ) on Sunday September 17, 2017 @04:06PM (#55215257)
            The problem is, ending the subsidies for the entire petroleum industry is FAR from simple or easy. Sure there is the immediate problem of having to go against the powerful Oil and Gas lobbyists which is indeed a big hurdle to try to overcome. But there are several less immediately obvious hurdles as well.

            1) For such a thing to work, every major oil producing nation would have to end subsidies by the same relative amount and at the same time. To do otherwise would be to allow petroleum producers in one country to maintain a significant competitive advantage. If (for example) Canada stops subsidies and tax breaks etc on its petroleum industry but Russian doesn't, everyone will be buying the much cheaper Russian oil, leaving little market for Canada. Canada would likely still sell lots to the US of course, the logistics of shipping gives Canada a small advantage there. But since the US, by law, doesn't sell the majority of its petroleum output on the common market, instead consuming it at home and re-selling Canadian oil, the US would be also adversely affected by the Canadian policy change.

            2) Ending subsidies would mean that many alternative sources (such as oil sands and shale) would simply go out of business. That reduces the worldwide output, in turn driving up the cost per barrel. Research and development of extraction from such sources would likely languish compared to the pace it now has.

            3) Petroleum products are sold on international commodity markets and one of the subtle effects of most commodity markets is that they are more influenced by the perception of changes in supply and demand than the actual numbers justify. If ending subsidies on say Western Canada Intermediate means an increase in cost of X/barrel, speculation is likely to drive that still higher by some unknown own amount.)

            4) This may be my cynicism talking, but it seems to me that, historically, the oil and gas industry has always been very quick to jump on opportunities to raise prices and slow to drop them. (absent competitive reasons to do so) Someone sneezes in the Middle East and everyone everywhere jacks up the price at the pump in anticipation of shortages. But when cheaper supply becomes available, consumers must wait until that cheaper supply actually reaches the pumps. Ending government subsidies would mean every company from the well-head to the pump would have an excuse to increase their profit margins slightly while the government gets all the blame.

            5) This would make alternative energy sources more competitive sure, but it would take time for the various industries to scale up to meet that increased demand. As far as I know, Tesla is already selling cars as fast as they can make them and it takes time to increasing hiring, tooling and so on. Even GM would be hard pressed to start selling millions of electric cars per year without 2-5 years to revamp vast sections of their supply chain and tooling.

            6) All of the above factors mean that I wouldn't be surprised if the effective price at the pump doubles. That would entail an enormous political cost. People are already angry about the cost to fill up at the pumps, to heat their homes in winter and so on. Lets not forget that the poor have far fewer options when it comes to energy consumption. In Canada and the US, two of the richest nations in the world, there are a lot of people driving second and even third hand cars because that's all they can afford. World wide, there are a lot of small farmers using single cylinder gas or kerosene powered equipment that flat do not have the choice to abandon that equipment and obtain new electric or propane powered stuff. Here in North America, I don't think any of the big players in the agri-equipment field are even looking at electric powered tractors, harvesters, balers and so on. So the price of food will also go up. And if you think doubling the price of fuel provokes a shit storm, that's nothing compared to the fallout from huge increases in the cost of groceries.

            • 2) Ending subsidies would mean that many alternative sources (such as oil sands and shale) would simply go out of business. That reduces the worldwide output, in turn driving up the cost per barrel. Research and development of extraction from such sources would likely languish compared to the pace it now has.

              If you reduce fossil fuel consumption, then of course fossil fuel production is going to decrease as well. So I don't think you can count this as a problem: it is an intended consequence.

              7) I don't know what it's like in other countries, but here in North America, federal and state/province level governments get significant revenue from fuel taxes. When have you ever seen a political body voluntarily give up a revenue stream? Moreover, with the increase in cost of living, they will be under enormous pressure to increase aid (in one form or another) to the poor. That is hard to do in the face of reductions in revenue.

              Over here in the Netherlands, there are huge energy taxes on all consumer energy bills, even if you are buying renewable energy. I don't think it makes sense, but that doesn't stop the government from getting their cut.

          • What's the point of having measurable goals if there's obligation to meet any of them.

            ...yet. We're getting there eventually; not everything gets done by putting a gun to someone's head. The main greenhouse emitting countries are doing arguably good: India, for example, became the world's 4th wind power producer, has over 9GW of solar, is cutting 15GW of coal power and is, in fact, posed to exceed their own goals by 2020. China is on track to reduce its greenhouse emissions 70% by 2030.

            It is impossible to understate the harm the US has done in that regard. Do you grasp how hard it is to have

          • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

            The point is that someone will be marking your homework and publicly shaming you in front of the class if you don't do a good job.

            The Paris Agreement puts in place a framework for monitoring progress. More importantly, it says "the whole world thinks this is a problem", which strengthens politician's cases for doing things domestically. For example, it could be used to justify setting up a fund to invest in clean tech, and then you get Tesla and a nice profit out of it.

            • The point is that someone will be marking your homework and publicly shaming you in front of the class if you don't do a good job.

              With a metaphor like that, pardon me if I say you sound like someone who's spent most of their life squirreled away in academia, conditioned to paying tuition, and removed from the actual workforce.
              Significant costs come with the membership to that accord, providing little return on investment since nothing at this point is usefully defined. Without clear guidelines, it has little to no hope of accomplishing anything practical. It's a pony show and a political money pit at this stage, and they're looking a

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by jader3rd ( 2222716 )

            What's the point of having measurable goals if there's obligation to meet any of them.

            You don't improve what you don't measure. So by measuring, and being informed, provides incentive for improvement.

          • it gets embarrassing when you are at the bottom of the league for getting things done
          • What's the point of having measurable goals if there's [no] obligation to meet any of them.

            (I assume you meant no measurable goals?) The point is that it has been very difficult to reach agreement on even the most basic principles until the Paris agreement - now there is agreement globally that climate change is real, that it has alot to do our CO2 emissions, and that something can and must be done. This is hugely important, politically; and as far obligations and binding agreements - who is going to punish those who violate the agreement? When the political agreement is a fragile as this, there

          • by ( 4475953 )

            The world of global politics and diplomacy doesn't work that way.

            You can hardly ever get hundreds of countries with politicians from all imaginable political sides and different obligations towards their voters to decide on a bunch of regulations in one go. Such treaties require patient work, which is a problem in the case of the global warming effect, because the matter has become urgent by now. (In fact, it may be too late already.) Unfortunately, enacting international treaties is and has always been slo

          • by Kiuas ( 1084567 )

            What's the point of having measurable goals if there's obligation to meet any of them.

            You think the US wants obligations in these treaties? You think the US, especially now under this new Trumpian-mercantilist/nationalist approach, would ever agree to any pact that for example allows other countries to place sanctions on the US unilaterally if it fails to meet its goals?

            This whole line of 'the Paris accord is useless because it's not bidning' is BS and a rhetorical red herring when it's quite clear that the

            • Ya know, China is free to clean-up its internal pollution problems without the Paris Accord. I wonder why they haven't taken the initiative on this ...

              Oh wait! Having actually read the Paris Accord [unfccc.int], it is clear that the construct IS carefully crafted to, as you noted earlier, "make the US less competitive" in a global marketplace. Specifically, there's a USD$100 BILLION commitment from the "developed" countries ... PER YEAR [wikipedia.org] ... to be wealth-redistributed to other countries for dubious climate-related
          • The Paris Accord won't actually accomplish anything

            Tell it to the countries currently cutting emissions to meet the "voluntary" obligations.

        • I can't find a single goal in the Paris Accord that I would consider measurable. But maybe, I'm too much of a physicist and not enough of a sociologist.

      • Re:Remember NAFTA! (Score:5, Insightful)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) <mojo AT world3 DOT net> on Sunday September 17, 2017 @02:48PM (#55214877) Homepage Journal

        It's kind of appalling that the US is only willing to do anything if it is forced to with punishments for failure beyond just naming and shaming.

        I think people misunderstand what Paris was about, what it managed to do. The idea was to build political capital for governments to implement climate change reduction. Responsible countries have done that, setting goals and often exceeding them. China and many EU countries are leading the way, and profiting from it too. There is a massive boom in renewable, clean energy at a time when the US is trying to build up coal again.

        By not joining the PCCA the US has screwed itself. Screwed itself out of an opportunity to create jobs and technology, screwed itself out of trade that will instead go to countries which are helping each other meet their environmental commitments. If a company can buy a part from the US or from Germany, but the German one has a smaller CO2 footprint and this the final product will too, which has various benefits like tax breaks and lower environmental levies, which one are they going to pick?

        Of course, in reality many US companies will be forced to adopt things like RoHS 2 regardless of what the US government does, or lose a lot of sales.

        • Re:Remember NAFTA! (Score:5, Interesting)

          by TeknoHog ( 164938 ) on Sunday September 17, 2017 @05:12PM (#55215513) Homepage Journal

          Of course, in reality many US companies will be forced to adopt things like RoHS 2 regardless of what the US government does, or lose a lot of sales.

          On a side note, isn't it great how a "reduction of hazardous substances" directive (or at least the part about lead-free solder) makes electronics more likely to malfunction and harder to repair? I guess it's good for sales, though.

        • By not joining the PCCA the US has screwed itself. Screwed itself out of an opportunity to create jobs and technology,

          Well, you're talking like a politician now. All you have to do is add, "and it will help the children! Please think of the children!" and you'll have the standard political argument.

          Seriously, anytime someone says, "you should do this to create jobs, technology, for the environment, the children, and you'll get a pony [add your own thing here]" you know they are full of bullshit.

        • Fortunately there are plenty of sensible politicians in the US like Mayors etc that are still going to do things towards the Accord in spite of idiots like Trump.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by fahrbot-bot ( 874524 )

        So "pulling out" of PCCA just means that America will no longer need to make up fake goals.

        Then what will Trump and the Republicans do? Fake goals are, apparently, all they're good at.
        You can't, honestly, expect them to actually govern? </politically-biased-rant>

      • by AK Marc ( 707885 )
        If the goals in PCCA are "fake", why bother to pull out? Simply ignore it and move on. Done. But doing the smart thing is something Donnie John has never been accused of.
        • If the goals in PCCA are "fake", why bother to pull out?

          Because it is great symbolism, it makes his supporters think he is "doing something", and it pisses off the greenies because they also care more about symbolism than reality. Pulling out is silly and meaningless in a practical sense, but is a smart move politically.

      • It's genius really.

        Refuse the PCCA, and you come out on top with your base.
        "Re-negotiate", set some made up goals (like most do anyway, and on a time scale outside of your term in office), and you become the "Deal Maker"...

        Basically you get to look tough, then a savvy negotiator, and "get stuff done" which you can totally lie about progress because of the time frame.

        That's like a political trifecta!

    • Re:Remember NAFTA! (Score:5, Interesting)

      by gtall ( 79522 ) on Sunday September 17, 2017 @02:35PM (#55214805)

      Last I heard on NAFTA, the U.S. representative floated the idea of having the pact reaffirmed every 5 years. The Canada and Mexico officials, once they stopped laughing, very kindly and carefully, as though explaining to a 5 year old, told the Americans that an economic pact that was only guaranteed to last 5 years would cause businesses to assume there was no pact they could count upon and it was an idea with no legs.

      So there you have it, the U.S. position is silly. The others countries are starting to move their agricultural agreements to other countries. Mexico has already started replacing American corn, wheat, and soybeans with the grains from other Latin American countries, primarily Brazil, which thinks the American position is absolutely fabulous and wishes the Administration to please do more to make America Great Again...or was it White Again, the Administration appears confused on this point.

      • Here's the thing (Score:4, Interesting)

        by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Sunday September 17, 2017 @05:50PM (#55215689)
        the folks who voted Trump don't care. They're not seeing any of that Soy, wheat & corn money. It mostly goes to big agrabusiness. They really don't give a flying rat's ass if the whole country goes to pot because right now they're pretty much at rock bottom.

        Calling these folks racists while ignoring their very real economic problems is what got us Trump. Steve Bannon might be an asshole but he said something brilliant. He said if the left keeps up these pointless identity politics while the Right runs on economic populism then the Right is going to rule America for the next 1000 years. He's right.

        Now, the Right isn't actually going to _do_ anything populist. They're all bought and paid by the ruling elite. But if you're giving me the choice between Hilary's "neo-liberalism" (e.g. all the same economic policies as the Right wing but Gays & Abortions are OK) and Trump at least _saying_ he's going to do something material to help the working class folks are going to pick Trump every time. And why shouldn't they? Especially when Trump at least gives lip service against violence?

        If you don't like the road this country's traveling down you need to get with Bernie & Co. That means Single Payer Healthcare, ending the 7 pointless wars we're fighting, free college for everybody, $15 minimum wage, etc, etc. It means taking care of the working class even if it pisses you off to think somebody has a nice life and didn't have to work that hard to get it. Otherwise those Angry White Men are going to stay angry and they're going to go find themselves a Stalin style strong man who _isn't_ a 70 year old charlatan and when they do expect lots of nasty violence. It's not a nice thing to think about, but it's reality. It's what happens everytime we abandon a signinficant portion of the ruling class to abject poverty.
        • by DRJlaw ( 946416 )

          They're all bought and paid by the ruling elite. But if you're giving me the choice between Hilary's "neo-liberalism" (e.g. all the same economic policies as the Right wing but Gays & Abortions are OK) and Trump at least _saying_ he's going to do something material to help the working class folks are going to pick Trump every time. And why shouldn't they? Especially when Trump at least gives lip service against violence?

          Yes, because between the people telling you that you must adapt even if it is painfu

          • by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Sunday September 17, 2017 @08:43PM (#55216339)
            Just how bad off these guys are. They barely have jobs, and only if you count crap like Uber or part time at Walmart a job. You can forget about a wife and family since no women wants a man without a steady job. They've got just enough food to survive and prevent them from turning into roving bands of bandits.

            These are the people our economy abandoned when manufacturing moved overseas and light blue collar work started going to illegals. Trump is the first politician to acknowledge their suffering. Hilary & co figured the 'Blue Firewall' would keep them voting 'D' and didn't even bother campaigning at them. She was horribly wrong.

            Yeah, I know Trump's awful. So do they. But Trump _might_ do something positive for them. And for us too. He _might_ kick out the illegals and end the H1-B program and get better trade deals that favor American workers. Now, I'm rational enough to know he won't actually do any of that. But I also have something to lose. I'm not sure how I'd vote if I was in the shape these Trump voters are. I think if I'd lived that poorly for that long I wouldn't be rational though.

            All of this is why we need to reach out and take care of those people. It's the same problem we had in WWII. We abandoned the Germans and look what it got us: Nazis. We've abandoned the American working class and, well, what do you know, we've got Nazis again.
        • This was the most brilliant post I've read in a long time... right up until "Bernie & Co."

          If the Dems kicked their liberal social policies about forcing fringe groups and minorities to the forefront of policy out, and started REALLY helping the middle class with balanced versions of what Bernie Sanders is talking about and enforcing existing regulations (what the hell happened to the Sherman Anti-Trust Act??), they'd win every election for the next 1000 years.

        • Re:Here's the thing (Score:4, Informative)

          by DNS-and-BIND ( 461968 ) on Monday September 18, 2017 @05:14AM (#55217581) Homepage
          Yes, but it's so emotionally satisfying to look down at poor people and insult them for being racist. It makes us look good by contrast: us tolerant people on one side, and the deplorable morons on the other. It turns out that punching down on powerless people feels awesome. No wonder it was banned.
        • It means taking care of the working class even if it pisses you off to think somebody has a nice life and didn't have to work that hard to get it.

          You don't need to give people a nice life. It's enough to give them opportunities, a crappy roof over their heads, and not let them die or become disabled due to basic treatable medical conditions. This argument always gets me. Free healthcare, free college, and some basic social security does not create a "nice life", it creates a bare minimum maintainable life.

      • Not to mention I think many are of the mind that the US is constantly circumventing NAFTA, and what the point of a pact if one of the members only abide by it when they feel like it. Things like the softwood lumber issue when Canada has already won in the courts, and it looks like it is going to happen all over again. The whole "Buy America" policies, etc... However this isn't a Trump thing, these are systemic issues that have been around since the start really.

  • by Ironlenny ( 1181971 ) on Sunday September 17, 2017 @01:53PM (#55214599)
    The Paris Accord is completely voluntary with each nations limits, set by that nation. If we don't link the limits we set for ourselves, then we just don't have to follow them.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 17, 2017 @01:59PM (#55214627)

    You don't negotiate with Trump, unless he's outright giving ground just to spite his own side. Not because he's a 'genius negotiator' - but because his future decisions have almost no relationship with his previous promises.

    Sure, you might make an agreement with him and get lucky, but it's all a roll of the dice - and there's no benefit to playing. The only reliable result would be uncertainty injected between you and the other folks involved in any agreement you're letting Trump into.

    If he wants to make outright concessions on his own, cool - but no negotiating down any terms or disrupting any of what you're doing in the name of cooperating with him.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by WheezyJoe ( 1168567 )

      You don't negotiate with Trump, unless he's outright giving ground just to spite his own side. Not because he's a 'genius negotiator' - but because his future decisions have almost no relationship with his previous promises.

      This, except Trump doesn't have a "side" to spite, except his own. The only thing he cares about, tweets about, speeches about, or discusses with people is how popular he perceives himself. Now that the ride on the Right and the GOP is losing steam, Ryan and that little turtle-head McConnell refusing his calls (Mitch? Mitch? Are you there, Mitch? It's ME! President Trump! The President, you little turd! Goddammit, I can hear you breathing into the phone, you no-neck amphibian!), so maybe it's time to

  • by Alain Williams ( 2972 ) <addw@phcomp.co.uk> on Sunday September 17, 2017 @02:01PM (#55214631) Homepage

    The only way to do that is to cut emissions ... and even then there is a large time lag ... it will take years to reverse what we have done.

    • by mark-t ( 151149 )
      Decades, but who's counting?
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Kohath ( 38547 )

      US Hurricanes stoped on their own from 2006 until 2017, with the lone exception of Sandy which was just barely a Category 1. Does climate change cause hurricanes? Where was it the last 10 years then?

      Does climate change only cause bad weather and never good weather? How does it know which is which? Were there more hurricanes before climate change or fewer?

      Please tell us how many hurricanes will happen at each level of emissions. Because you are stating a specific cause and effect linkage between emissio

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        What? "Stopped on their own"? Hurricanes don't stop because major ones didn't happen to hit the US. There are other parts of the world, you know. Example: hurricane Igor in 2010 [wikipedia.org] did enough damage in Newfoundland, by that point "only" a tropical storm, that the name was retired. As you can see by checking almost any source, even boring old wikipedia, there were plenty of other hurricanes that year [wikipedia.org], in the middle of the period you mention, but most did not strike the US and most that did were comparative

        • by Kohath ( 38547 )

          Most of what I've seen written about hurricanes and climate change suggests there might not be any more hurricanes in number than usual, but that they might become more intense and have more rainfall when they do form, so numbers might not be the best way to judge changes.

          Lots of things might or might not be happening. Climate change might be causing fewer, weaker hurricanes. Or stronger ones. Or more. Or it might not be doing anything to hurricanes. Or it might be doing something that's not significant.

          Numbers are the only scientific way to judge changes.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Gravis Zero ( 934156 )

      Hurricanes aren't new and they'll always be around. However, climate change is making them stronger and more destructive. Don't pretend like it's something it's not because it's just as bad as pretending climate change is a hoax.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Kohath ( 38547 )

        How much more destructive? What was the trend in storm intensity before and after climate change? How does the cause and effect relationship work exactly?

        What specific, quantifiable cause and effect relationship are we acknowledging? And what clear evidence of this specific effect should we be sure not to ignore?

        • How much more destructive? What was the trend in storm intensity before and after climate change? How does the cause and effect relationship work exactly?

          What specific, quantifiable cause and effect relationship are we acknowledging? And what clear evidence of this specific effect should we be sure not to ignore?

          They actually study this stuff: https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/glob... [noaa.gov]

          • by Kohath ( 38547 ) on Sunday September 17, 2017 @07:48PM (#55216167)

            You should read it. The thing you said:

            Climate change is making [hurricanes] stronger

            Is contradicted by their first sentence in their first summary conclusion:

            It is premature to conclude that human activities–and particularly greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming–have already had a detectable impact on Atlantic hurricane or global tropical cyclone activity.

            • by rhazz ( 2853871 )
              You are a complete ass. Did you stop reading after that first bullet? Let's provide the whole quote mmk? There are four bullets, and you quoted only the first.

              It is premature to conclude that human activities–and particularly greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming–have already had a detectable impact on Atlantic hurricane or global tropical cyclone activity. That said, human activities may have already caused changes that are not yet detectable due to the small magnitude of the changes or observational limitations, or are not yet confidently modeled (e.g., aerosol effects on regional climate).

              Anthropogenic warming by the end of the 21st century will likely cause tropical cyclones globally to be more intense on average (by 2 to 11% according to model projections for an IPCC A1B scenario). This change would imply an even larger percentage increase in the destructive potential per storm, assuming no reduction in storm size.

              There are better than even odds that anthropogenic warming over the next century will lead to an increase in the occurrence of very intense tropical cyclone in some basins–an increase that would be substantially larger in percentage terms than the 2-11% increase in the average storm intensity. This increase in intense storm occurrence is projected despite a likely decrease (or little change) in the global numbers of all tropical cyclones.

              Anthropogenic warming by the end of the 21st century will likely cause tropical cyclones to have substantially higher rainfall rates than present-day ones, with a model-projected increase of about 10-15% for rainfall rates averaged within about 100 km of the storm center.

              • by Kohath ( 38547 )

                I'll read it later maybe. The first sentence was enough to establish the original comment was an irresponsible exaggeration. You guys should stop exaggerating if you want Americans to take any action on Climate.

                Many people want the US out of the Paris agreement for spite alone, because they're tired of being bullied by jerks.

    • by tsa ( 15680 )

      I saw a talk about the climate once at a scientific convention, and the guy said that even if we pull all the plugs and do everything we can the planet will get warmer first before it cools down. It will be 50 years from now that the average temperature is what it was before global warming started.

  • by vux984 ( 928602 ) on Sunday September 17, 2017 @02:05PM (#55214647)

    "an official White House statement in response to the article insisted only that the U.S. would withdraw "unless we can re-enter on terms that are more favorable to our country."

    What exactly would be more favorable than: "a voluntary non-binding commitment, where you set your own terms that you can then ignore"?

    Clearly the problem is the name? If we renamed it the 'Trump Climate Accord' that would solve only real issue the current White House has.

    • by gtall ( 79522 )

      Yep, the only problem the alleged Administration has with the current Paris accords is that Trump didn't get to pee in the corners, Obama beat him to it.

    • There'd have to be a clause that states:

      No country, or representative shall call us ninnies, nincompoops, or smelly-pants, either in public or in closed session. Further, no mention shall be made about the current President's hands, size, shape or general nature thereof. Indeed, any mention of the United States progress with respect to the accord shall be suffixed with a statement of "the greatest ever, I'm sure of it, period!".

    • "a voluntary non-binding commitment, where you set your own terms that you can then ignore" I think that pretty much describes all agreements, in particular the environmental kind.

      As individual countries, everything is "voluntary". What kind of "binding commitment" is ever made that can't be broken with little or no repercussions for an individual country. Countries regularly set their own terms and then ignore them for everything. Looking back a previous examples, I don't think any of them are ever met.

      An

  • Hell no! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Plumpaquatsch ( 2701653 ) on Sunday September 17, 2017 @02:31PM (#55214781) Journal
    The treaty has already been watered down just to get the US on board - and now Trump wants a better deal? Fuck you! Time for an embargo on US goods.
    • Well, considering we have been in a trade deficit for the past 10 years to about the tune of $43B a month (hint: that usually tells most that you already ARE restricting US goods from entering your market)....... Okay, I raise your embargo with a 100% tariff on all foreign produced products. And I call.
      • Well, considering we have been in a trade deficit for the past 10 years to about the tune of $43B a month (hint: that usually tells most that you already ARE restricting US goods from entering your market)....... Okay, I raise your embargo with a 100% tariff on all foreign produced products. And I call.

        Good luck with that.

    • by houghi ( 78078 )

      Let's start by banning US OS systems., So no MacOS and Windows anymore.

  • I mean...come on....An agreement that does not require us to actually do anything? horrible. We should have gotten out. /s
  • by XSportSeeker ( 4641865 ) on Sunday September 17, 2017 @03:11PM (#55215023)

    There was absolutely no reason to withdraw from it, and some republicans are only now starting to realize this.

    Paris Climate Agreement needs no renegotiation because it's non-binding, it's been criticized for asking too little too late, it was a political and diplomatic move without any negative consequences - other than being a symbolic gesture that doesn't really change much.

    http://www.latimes.com/opinion... [latimes.com]
    https://www.newscientist.com/a... [newscientist.com]
    http://www.npr.org/sections/13... [npr.org]

    Even worse, a smart politician could use it in their favor right now. Even if the objective isn't met, it's far into the future, so he/she could just say that his/her political party did everything they could during their term to get there, but other administrations endded up not following it properly. It's the perfect excuse for a political party to return to power when things gets more dire in the future.

    What happened there was the usual Trump blindness when trying to undo everything Obama did that got some attention under his administration on the premisse that everything he did was bad in some way, stupid campaign promisses filled with misinformation and vilification, plus Trump being an idiot that only listens to cospiracy theory alt-right channels.

    Worst of all: if Trump just kept quiet and didn't step back from the agreement, the US would probably hit it's target anyways. Governments are not leading the way on this - the global economy is.
    The economy is moving independent of governmental interference towards renewables, generating less garbage, developing electric cars, closing down fossil fuel power plants, and a bunch of other stuff. We're moving away from fossil fuels because it became economically feasible and attractive to do so, from an international standpoint.

    Stepping down from the accord just painted the US as a country to be sidestepped for doing all sorts of businesses that will be moving tech towards cleaner goals - which is why so many US corporations were quick to announce they'd keep following the accord regardless of what the government is talking. It's not because those corporations are "good" or environmentaly friendly or some bullshit. It's because the global economy right now is aligned with those goals.

    Notice how many news we hear these days about China's progressive moves towards clean energy. That's because China is trying to get the worldwide leadership on that particular topic. Trump just made it this much easier for another country to assume the position of global leader in a topic that lots of people are paying close attention to.

    But now the damage has already been done. With or without renegotiation, it doesn't matter. Republicans can either be outright denied a renegotiation, which will continue looking bad for US in general, or they can get the agreement renegotiated which will keep them on a list of countries that are still in denial of a problem that needs firm stances, not because it's some charity or plead for help from another country, but because of their own interests.

    • by JustNiz ( 692889 ) on Sunday September 17, 2017 @06:06PM (#55215751)

      >> Paris Climate Agreement needs no renegotiation because it's non-binding,... too little too late, it was a political and diplomatic move without any negative consequences...

      Seems like exactly a good reason to renegotiate it. It needs to be both effective and binding.

      • A how do you make something "binding". At this scale that's pretty hard to do. Anyone going to tank their own economy by applying economic sanctions on the US or China? Military?

        I mean about the only thing is trying to not look like an asshole on the international stage. I'm not sure Trump cares all so much about that either.

    • Why would we want to be global leader any more? The world made it quite clear that they hate our guts. They did not ask, they demanded that we stop oppressing them. Why can't China have its time in the sun? America needs to attend to America right now, we're hurting bad and we don't have time for this world leader shit any more. We suck at it too, all we did was start war after war. I look forward to a time when the world likes us again.
      • Hey, we do like you guys. You just have to learn to keep the volume down and stop kicking your balls over the fence.

  • It'll be a challenge to negotiate a better deal than: "do whatever you want, make up your own goals with no penalties if you miss them anyway".

"Most people would like to be delivered from temptation but would like it to keep in touch." -- Robert Orben

Working...