Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Earth United States Government Science

The US Is Now the Only Country In the World To Reject the Paris Climate Deal 719

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: Today, Syria announced that it would sign the Paris climate agreement -- a landmark deal that commits almost 200 countries to reducing greenhouse gas emissions to fight global warming. With Nicaragua also joining the deal last month, the United States is now the only country in the world that opposes it. In June, President Donald Trump announced that the U.S. will withdraw from the Paris climate accord, unless it is renegotiated to be "fair" to the United States. But other countries in the deal, such as France, Germany, and Italy, said that's not possible. The Trump administration is also taking steps to roll back regulations passed under former President Barack Obama to achieve the emissions reduction goals set under the Paris deal. The U.S. is the second largest emitter of heat-trapping greenhouse gases in the world after China. "With Syria's decision, the relentless commitment of the global community to deliver on Paris is more evident than ever," Paula Caballero, director of the climate change program at the World Resources Institute, told the Times. "The U.S.'s stark isolation should give Trump reason to reconsider his ill-advised announcement and join the rest of the world in tackling climate change."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The US Is Now the Only Country In the World To Reject the Paris Climate Deal

Comments Filter:
  • by cogeek ( 2425448 ) on Tuesday November 07, 2017 @05:14PM (#55509477)
    This is the problem with a President going out and creating legislation through Executive Orders. The next President that comes along can just as easily undo them with the swipe of a pen. This isn't something new to Obama or Trump, it's been done by multiple Presidents. If you want a law to stay a law, have it ratified by the LEGISLATIVE branch, not the EXECUTIVE branch.

    I know the majority of voters in America can't even name the 3 branches much less describe their function, but a simple civics test at the polling booth could easily weed out those that should be allowed a vote in our Democracy versus those that should be sent to an American Idol polling booth and would never know the difference.
    • by wiggles ( 30088 )

      Sure, because poll tests [wikipedia.org] have worked out so well in the past.

      • by MightyYar ( 622222 ) on Tuesday November 07, 2017 @05:45PM (#55509865)

        Well, the pendulum sure has swung the other way, hasn't it? Voters are now so low-information that we need to include the party of affiliation right there next to the candidate's name, and a single button to vote all one party. Because knowing even the slightest thing - even the most basic information - about the candidates before you step into the voting booth is too hard. But, you know, get out there and vote! Because for some reason!

      • There is a vast gulf of difference between literacy, and comprehension of what you're doing at the polls and the consequences thereof. If you don't know what you're doing, you shouldn't be doing it.
    • by 93 Escort Wagon ( 326346 ) on Tuesday November 07, 2017 @05:21PM (#55509539)

      I know the majority of voters in America can't even name the 3 branches

      1) Executive
      2) Legislative
      3) Facebook

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by sit1963nz ( 934837 )
      Yeah if you did that, the only people able to vote would be immigrants.
      • by cogeek ( 2425448 )
        Someone that wants to vote should have to take the same civics test that someone who wants to be a citizen has to take. Most would fail and then we wouldn't wind up with another "Clinton/Trump - Who do I hate the least?" election.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by argStyopa ( 232550 )

      The Democrats have ardently opposed any sort of testing or requirements for any voters, asserting that any such test is inherently biased against minorities and the poor.

      Hell, you have to show a DL to cash a check or buy a beer in the US, but Democrats insist it's not necessary to vote.

      Personally, I'd be fine with making it the US citizenship test: there are 100 questions, you get asked random 10 of the 100. You only need to answer 6 of the 10 correctly to pass.
      https://www.uscis.gov/sites/de... [uscis.gov]

      Seems fair.

      C

      • >The Democrats have ardently opposed any sort of testing or requirements for any voters, asserting that any such test is inherently biased against minorities and the poor.

        First, remove the unnecessary first two words and replace them with 'Politicians'. It doesn't matter whether or not you're right, it's simply unnecessary in this discussion to draw partisan lines that will make people choose sides regardless of the underlying argument.

        Now, let's go with the last bit - "any such test is inherently biase

    • by hey! ( 33014 )

      That's not the way executive orders work. Executive orders pertain to enforcement of laws that Congress has passed. The thing is in 230 years of legislating there are a lot of laws on the books, which in effect gives the president considerable leeway just by choosing which laws to focus on and why.

  • by RightwingNutjob ( 1302813 ) on Tuesday November 07, 2017 @05:17PM (#55509507)
    then we should follow their example, as they're clearly our moral superiors.
    • by ffkom ( 3519199 )
      I wonder what the climate effects of chemical weapons are. Maybe more Sarin in the air helps cooling the atmosphere? Only the Syrians seem to be willing to explore this possibility at the moment.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      then we should follow their example, as they're clearly our moral superiors.

      The US should be setting the example for Syria to follow, but we are not. Our current behavior is making Syria our moral superior, on at least this issue. We should all be embarrassed that EVERYONE including Syria, Yemen, Somalia, North Korea, and China, are doing the right thing, and the US is not.

  • Also (Score:4, Insightful)

    by DaMattster ( 977781 ) on Tuesday November 07, 2017 @05:19PM (#55509519)
    We are the only country to have a reality TV star with neither any political experience nor any experience in international relations as our president . We are the laughing stock of the civilized world.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by tsa ( 15680 )

      You would be if he wasn't a dangerous fucking moron who talks but doesn't think. The rest of the world now just braces itself and hopes it doesn't turn out as bad as we think it will.

      • You would be if he wasn't a dangerous fucking moron who talks but doesn't think. The rest of the world now just braces itself and hopes it doesn't turn out as bad as we think it will.

        We are in 100% agreement. I am one of the more learned of voters and did not vote for the buffoon that Trump is.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 07, 2017 @05:22PM (#55509545)

    If it's a binding deal, it's a treaty and needed Senate ratification.

    If it's not a binding deal, it's a useless turd.

    • by whoever57 ( 658626 ) on Tuesday November 07, 2017 @06:39PM (#55510323) Journal

      Which make pulling out of it a move that the rest of the world will see as a giant "Fuck You!"

      If it's not binding, then it cannot possibly harm the USA.

      The only reason for this is to mug for a few coal miners and an even smaller number of mine owners.

    • by slack_justyb ( 862874 ) on Wednesday November 08, 2017 @11:11AM (#55513695)

      If it's not a binding deal, it's a useless turd.

      It is non-binding. However, that doesn't make it useless. It is not unusual to first pass a non-binding resolution, wait to see the effects and problems that arise, and then from the weaknesses pass a binding resolution that's learned from the previous mistakes. Now that said, the resolution was always meant to be non-binding but it was indeed changed quite a bit to allow the US to pass it without Senate approval.

      So this isn't unusual in the steps that the nations are taking, but the truth being is that a multitude of nations were having difficulty with getting the respective governments on-board and so there were changes to the original plan, US especially. Did that ultimately change the underlying outcome? Well, we won't really know until after we're a few more years into it. But truth be told, yes it was changed to make it easier to subvert the Senate, however, it being non-binding was kind of the entire goal, the degree and legal basis had to be carefully selected to ensure passage in not only the US but in other countries that were hostile to the plan.

      So if you need a sound bite: The Paris agreement was going to be non-binding to start with since that's a normal thing, but because of the level of hostility many nations different legal wording was required to ensure that nations who objected wouldn't have any clear path to objection, especially the US.

      I can't stand folks that take such binary viewpoints of insanely complex international agreements. Non-binding agreements do have a point to them. I'm so sorry that human beings cannot in one sitting create a 100% perfect plan for how to change a broad cross section of global industry on massive scales on the first go.

  • by sit1963nz ( 934837 ) on Tuesday November 07, 2017 @05:34PM (#55509709)
    However the 96% of the worlds population outside the USA may decide buying US made goods is a bad thing for the environment.

    Feel free to quit all the trade agreements you have, build as many walls as you like, there rest of the world will learn to carry on without you.

    Its 100% your choice to leave.... HOWEVER its 100% OUR choice to let you back in and it will be on OUR terms, not yours.
  • Chomsky is right (Score:4, Insightful)

    by mapkinase ( 958129 ) on Tuesday November 07, 2017 @05:34PM (#55509719) Homepage Journal

    US is rogue state.

  • by WillAffleckUW ( 858324 ) on Tuesday November 07, 2017 @05:50PM (#55509925) Homepage Journal

    Look, the actual economic powerhouse cities and states that drive more than half of the US GDP are already meeting and exceeding the Paris Accords.

    It's just the inefficient tax-subsidized states that aren't, which is why they aren't growing their GDP.

    Renewables and efficient buildings and plants allow us to outcompete you buggy whip manufacturing denialists.

    Cheaper, faster, better.

  • Political filth not only on the inside, but now on the outside.. How grand.
  • No (Score:5, Insightful)

    by sexconker ( 1179573 ) on Tuesday November 07, 2017 @06:01PM (#55510035)

    I don't see how you get "relentless commitment" out of "non-binding" "agreements".

  • by kenh ( 9056 ) on Tuesday November 07, 2017 @08:22PM (#55510937) Homepage Journal

    "The U.S.'s stark isolation should give Trump reason to reconsider his ill-advised announcement and join the rest of the world in tackling climate change."

    Yeah, President Trump will change his position because of peer pressure...

    We, as a country, can increase or decrease our nation's carbon footprint without signing the Paris Climate Accord.

The price one pays for pursuing any profession, or calling, is an intimate knowledge of its ugly side. -- James Baldwin

Working...