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."
The U.S.A. is not a monarchy (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, because poll tests [wikipedia.org] have worked out so well in the past.
Re:The U.S.A. is not a monarchy (Score:4, Insightful)
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!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The U.S.A. is not a monarchy (Score:5, Funny)
I know the majority of voters in America can't even name the 3 branches
1) Executive
2) Legislative
3) Facebook
Re: (Score:2)
Do Svidanya, Komrade!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
When you can vote for whom ever you like, but the corporations end up with all the say,
When did the corporations vote? Which election? How is being able to pay for ads having "all the say"?
Trump proves that with enough money even a sexual predator can be president.
I think Bill Clinton beat him to that title.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:3)
>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
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, well, if the Syrians are doing it (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
So why didn't Obama submit it to the Senate? (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re:So why didn't Obama submit it to the Senate? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:So why didn't Obama submit it to the Senate? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
The US does not need to do anything (Score:5, Interesting)
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)
US is rogue state.
Re: (Score:2)
fraud (Score:2)
More than 50 percent of US GDP complies (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Corrosive Politics (Score:2)
No (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't see how you get "relentless commitment" out of "non-binding" "agreements".
The Cheese Stands Alone (Score:3)
"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.
Re:"Not possible to be fair" (Score:5, Insightful)
Because we should. Noblesse Oblige.
If you don't "get" Noblesse Oblige, it's because you're a selfish, spoiled, cretin. If you have it good, it's probably because of the people around you. You owe them something back.
Re: "Not possible to be fair" (Score:4, Insightful)
Itâ(TM)s not symmetric. The obligations of the US are very different than those of Syria or any other country. Insulting individuals who take issue with that is just cruel marketing.
Re: "Not possible to be fair" (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not even sure it's marketing. At best, it's just ignorance of what the deal entailed for us, and what it committed us to. At worst, which seems to be the trend, it's just glossing over the facts deliberately to fit an agenda.
It's not possible (Score:5, Insightful)
because it's already fair. The U.S. gets to pick and choose whatever they like and do under their own regulation to reduce emission. That's the Paris agreement. If they wish, they can do nothing.
There's nothing to renegotiate or even negotiate when it's already a buffet to pick whatever they like.
Re: (Score:3)
You are literally the most stupid person you know.
Re: "Not possible to be fair" (Score:5, Insightful)
The obligations of the US are very different than those of Syria or any other country.
The average American produces 17 tonnes of CO2 annually. The average Syrian produces less than two. Insisting that we should all make the same reduction is idiotic.
Re: "Not possible to be fair" (Score:5, Informative)
Unless you can buy me a new planet, still the US.
Re: "Not possible to be fair" (Score:4, Interesting)
Itâ(TM)s not symmetric. The obligations of the US are very different than those of Syria or any other country. Insulting individuals who take issue with that is just cruel marketing.
The United States was the only country to make concrete promises. There was no way to verify that other countries kept their vague promises. The US should reduce its pollution, but never enter into such a lop-sided "agreement".
Re: "Not possible to be fair" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
We are reducing emissions more than any other country by the increasing use of natural gas, and replacing coal-fired generating stations as the go obsolete (and NOT by gov't edict that causes a good generating station with a lot of service life to be wasted - Waste, that's what gov't does, always.) We're building wind and solar out the wazoo, although those efforts amount to still a tiny fraction of the more reliable sources of power of coal, oil, natural gas, hydro, and nuclear.
Getting out of the damned a
Re: "Not possible to be fair" (Score:4, Insightful)
The United States was the only country to make concrete promises. There was no way to verify that other countries kept their vague promises.
Of course you have a citation for this? Because without one it's sounding an awful lot like Trumpbabble.
The US should reduce its pollution, but never enter into such a lop-sided "agreement".
The US produces a lop-sided amount of pollution right now, so any agreement will have lop-sided measures. The world is naturally lop-sided, so calling for absolute perfection or nothing is pretty lame.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"The obligations of the US are very different than those of Syria or any other country. "
It is not that the US hasn't been a major contributor in the past which lead to the level of CO2 we're at now and to the problem we're facing now. You want fair, the US would have to do way more than is in the Paris climate deal.
Bert
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You owe them something back.
You don't owe anyone anything you haven't agreed to owe.
If you don't "get" Noblesse Oblige, it's because you're a selfish, spoiled, cretin.
Not nearly (not even by a long shot) as much as if you are demanding Noblesse Oblige from others. Those demanding it are the true bona fide villains.
guys, you used to be cool... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
What he is saying is 100% true and hence he should not be marked as a troll.
I think what people dislike is the part of his comment about fact fracking is benefiting us. It is. That's undeniable. However fracking causes other side effects, some of which are undeniably bad.
Re:"Not possible to be fair" (Score:5, Insightful)
This is why I left slashdot. (Score:2, Insightful)
Yup. Decided to come back to slashdot to see if it really was as ignorant and stupid as I feared it had become.
Congratulations, you completely verified it.
Indeed, why should you sign on to an agreement that will save the planet? What has the planet ever done for YOU?
I'll be back in a year to check on you all again.
Re:This is why I left slashdot. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:This is why I left slashdot. (Score:4, Informative)
Except a) POTUS has no power to commit the US to any monetary payments (not even Obama), b) any targets and/or monetary contributions are determined entirely by the country itself (i.e. Congress again), and c) there's no enforcement, so no legal commitment in any form. Your whole post is a straw man.
Re: (Score:3)
No, I'm firmly grounded in reality. But I do have a fantasy that I like to trot out and walk around. That fantasy is to see HIllary Clinton, Loretta Lynch, and Eric Holder being fitted for orange jump suits that say Federal Department of Corrections on the back. But that is just a fantasy and I know its is one. I know that none of them will do any time for any crimes they have done. But I can dream.
An trotting out the race card only cheapens your argument. I don't hate Obama because he is a democ
Re: (Score:3)
dont let the door hit you on the way out
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
So a single person says something negative about the paris climate deal and it's indictative of the site becoming "ignorant and stupid"? I certainly think not being in the climate deal is stupid but you branding the entire slashdot base as ignorant and stupid over a single comment you dont like is itself ignorant and stupid.
We're better off without you, please dont come back
Re:This is why I left slashdot. (Score:5, Insightful)
The OP has a point, it's gotten worse over the years. There used to be a lot more sane, scientifically literate and overall reasonable US conservatives on Slashdot. Despite being a European genuine liberal - not what is called "liberal" in the US, I'm way more liberal and conservative-democratic than that -, I used to very much enjoy the input of people who had different, more conservative and more US-centered viewpoints. Now we mostly get trash, it's as if the majority of reasonable and educated people had been deafened, because a radical minority is shouting so loud.
Maybe some guys have just become defiant/spiteful/sulky because of hidden regret, though, and don't really mean it. That's my favorite theory.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Because the data suggests that if Donald Trump is against it, there is very nearly a 100% chance that it's the right thing to do.
Re:"Not possible to be fair" (Score:4, Insightful)
That's bogus logic. If Trump was that bad the US would be nosediving.
Maybe the politicians and the religious aspect of politics sets others off, sometimes radically (now moreso than in the past), but it doesn't justify saying that pissing off the establishment and their supporters is a bad thing.
Frankly, aside from pissing off the establishment and their supporters I don't see him doing much wrong. He's not presidential? So be it. He pisses off his party and the democrats? So be it. The American people hired him to drain the swamp. That's going to piss a lot of people off.
Don't give me that shit about racism or treason or whatever. I've followed this from before the primaries. Trump wasn't a racist nor was he treasonous before the election and he isn't now. It is clear that the establishment (including the media) is attempting to run the presidency through extortion (ala, play ball or we'll impeach you).
Re: (Score:3)
The ABC's Chris Uhlmann did the Trump G20 "tear down" a few months ago. He then toured the US blowing h
Re:"Not possible to be fair" (Score:5, Insightful)
That's bogus logic. If Trump was that bad the US would be nosediving.
Let's give it a couple more years before declaring success ok?
The American people hired him to drain the swamp.
Yeah, yeah draining in the swamp. Good one. We hate the wealthy so let's elect a bunch of rich white guys with a life long track record of fucking over poor people to save us. How is that working out?
It is clear that the establishment...
The Establishment? What exactly is that? Because from here it looks like Trump is the Establishment. I mean it's rough playing victim when you know, you actually run the country. How long does Trump keep blaming others fro everything before he actually takes responsibility for something?
Re:"Not possible to be fair" (Score:5, Insightful)
It is not a prediction. The candidates that Donald Trump endorsed lost tonight by much bigger than expected margins. The elections are over and the votes have been counted. Even the Virginia House flipped from Republican to Democratic.
He hasn't been able to get a single bit of his landmark legislative agenda passed. The greatest deal-maker to have ever lived can't seem to cut a deal.
All of the polls...all of them, including the right-leaning ones, show Trump at his lowest approval ratings since he was elected. Here's a conservative website that has the news for you:
https://www.realclearpolitics.... [realclearpolitics.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Well when you start off with a 98% approval rating it is hard to go up.
Re:"Not possible to be fair" (Score:4)
Yeah, don't start partying yet. From what I see all that is happening is democrats are ether getting reelected or more democrats are just replacing democrats. Not really a big win for democrats as the status quo doesn't change.
Re: (Score:3)
Don't knock yourselves out patting yourselves on the back. You won several minor elections in the grand scheme of things. After that spanking democrats took in 2016 it is expected that you would get some of your shit together a year later.
I mean lets be real. Virginia and Washington state where already blue in theory if not practice. Now that its official it just makes you a bigger target in 2018.
But 2018 is where it will matter. If Trump can convince voters to remove both republican and democrat
Re: (Score:3)
Yup, your TDS is in full swing. I bet you think that Trump is going to get impeached too. You should remove those blinders, take a step back, and take a good look around.
First fact. Hillary is never going to be president.
Second fact, Trump isn't going to get impeached.
Third fact. Despite the nonsense you just spouted Trump is doing a good job as president. He has some personally short comings that should be worked on but one you look past those you see he seems to have things well at hand.
An t
Re: (Score:3)
Well since the obama legacy for the most part has been scrapped, the truth is we are not running on the obama legacy. Almost all of the economic upturns happened after Trump was elected, with a great deal of them taking place before he was sworn in. Hopefully, soon the obama nightmare will be a few notes in the history book.
Make no mistake about the ACA, its is almost done. Any real incentives to keep it have been done away with. It's only a matter of time before it is replaced with a better healthc
Re: (Score:3)
Some changes to the economy did happen during obama term. They happened at the ass end of it after we found out that Hilary lost. So they happened despite Obama, not because of him.
You should really stop trying to put your spin on what I said. Opting out isn't the same as losing insurance. Weather you or obama like it or not, there are some people that don't want to pay for health insurance. It is not the governments job to force them to do so. Once that burden has been lift, I think it already has,
Re: (Score:2)
So why should we sign on to something that does not benefit us, or is even "fair"?
That relies on the false premise that the deal isn't "fair" to the US.
Re:"Not possible to be fair" (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:"Not possible to be fair" (Score:5, Insightful)
Because transitioning the USA's energy sources to renewables does benefit the USA?
Coal is dying, not because of "regulations", but because it is being out-competed by solar and wind. Why promote a dirty, polluting energy source that is dangerous to human life on earth over cheaper, non-polluting sources?
Re: "Not possible to be fair" (Score:5, Informative)
It's always fun to be called out by ignorant fuckwits who want to push an agenda, but the facts are not on their side:
https://www.technologyreview.c... [technologyreview.com]
"The inflection point has already been reached in the West, and by 2021 solar will be cheaper than coal in China."
Yes, fracking has historically been the reason coal is going away, but renewable sources are now adding to that.
"Those milestones will surely lead to greater adoption of clean energy. And the report predicts that of the $10.2 trillion expected to be invested into power generation between now and 2040, 72 percent will be channeled into renewables."
So crawl back under your bridge and STFU.
Re:"Not possible to be fair" (Score:5, Insightful)
So why should we sign on to something that does not benefit us, or is even "fair"?
I'm not going to climb into a rabbit hole full of BS trying to argue that it's fair and/or to the US's benefit.
It's the exact same tactic denialists use, to obscure the obvious by getting lost in the details.
You should believe Climate Change is a threat because an overwhelming majority of scientists with relevant expertise believe it's a threat.
And if the Paris Climate deal wasn't a good idea then literally every other country on the planet wouldn't have signed on.
Before you start arguing the nuances of "benefits" and "fair" you need to explain why everyone else is getting it so wrong.
Re: (Score:3)
Fallacy. Appeal to popularity.
And if the Paris Climate deal wasn't a good idea then literally every other country on the planet wouldn't have signed on.
It benefits them, but the deal does not benefit the US. You know that and are being an asshole, which is why you wrote:
I've been ignoring the ACs but this isn't the first comment to say something like this and the ignorant theme is starting to get annoying.
There seems to be a delusion that the Paris Climate deal is some sort of conspiracy aimed at the US and all the rest of the planet is out to screw you over.
Well it's not all about you, other countries are making sacrifices too.
You know where I'm from? Alberta. Our economy is based on oil, not just any oil, the oilsands which are really hard (ie expensive) to extract and p
Re: (Score:3)
So why should we sign on to something that does not benefit us, or is even "fair"?
I would argue that it does benefit you. The USA doesn't exist in a dome, it is subject to the same climate change the rest of the planet is along with all the downsides that come with that. If things continue as they are you can expect worse winters in northern US States, far more hurricanes and tornados in the south/east, more wild fires in California as well as flooding throughout the entire country along with the loss of property and life that comes with that.
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Trump is rejecting not because of what the Paris Climate deal is, he's rejecting it because it was his predecessor's doing.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Good (Score:5, Interesting)
Does anyone believe that a single policy will stop global climate change?
The Paris Climate Accord was a step in the right direction. If Trump wants to say he's taking a different step in that direction, fantastic. On the other hand, if he's saying that climate change is a Chinese conspiracy (or a normal fluctuation, or due to solar flares, etc.), that's another matter.
Ob XKCD: https://xkcd.com/1732/ [xkcd.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Does anyone believe that a single policy will stop global climate change?
Does anyone believe that the colloquial English phrase "a solution to" always means "a complete and final, irrevocable, perfect solution to ..."? When something solves nothing, it is quite sufficient to dismiss it by saying that it is not a solution to whatever.
Re:Good (Score:4, Interesting)
No process was required, because no commitment was made.
A commitment to abide by the "accord" was made.
The most common way is when the president signs a treaty which he has the authority to carry out, without involvement of Congress. This is called a "Sole Executive Treaty".
US Constitution, Article II, Section 2, paragraph 2:
2: He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;
Treaties require the consent of the Senate with a two-thirds approval. This "Sole Executive Treaty" you speak of is not constitutional.
He didn't have to go to Congress because the accord doesn't have any binding commitments.
Then the broohaahaa over the US "backing out" of this accord is moot, since there were no binding commitments to begin with. We didn't have to do nothing, so saying we ain't gonna do nothing is ... well, seems like a rational statement to me. And all the states who are saying "we're going to abide by an agreement that doesn't require us to do anything" is pretty meaningless. I think the term is "virtue signaling."
Re: (Score:2)
Because congress won't pass a bill that can get through the senate, and then to his desk.
Re: (Score:2)
Because Trump wasn't running for congress, and for now he hasn't become a dictator.
Re: (Score:2)
I do not want to spoil the party but president can only ask parliament to repeal an act of law.
What is "parliament"? Why would whatever that is listen to the US President?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:real headline (for better or worse) (Score:5, Informative)
China is doing incredibly well, vastly exceeding its already aggressive targets: http://climateactiontracker.or... [climateactiontracker.org]
"Chinaâ(TM)s CO2 emissions appear to have peaked more than a decade ahead of its Paris Agreement NDC commitment to peak its CO2 emissions before 2030. The latest analysis from the Climate Action Tracker indicates that CO2 emissions may, in fact, already have stopped increasing and reached peak levels.
The on-going reduction in coal use for the third year in a row has had a major impact... China has already surpassed solar PV deployment target for 2020, and has now doubled its PV target for 2020 in response..."
Their main criticism is that the NDC target is too low (50-70% below 2005 levels) and should be further reduced to meet the maximum 2C global temperature rise goal, which is likely to happen in the next 5 year plan.
Here's the US assessment, by the way: http://climateactiontracker.or... [climateactiontracker.org]
Re: (Score:3)
The US is the only country that would actually have to do anything under the Paris Climate Deal.
Please cite your evidence where this is true.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Try reading it. It's kind of its own source.
In short, countries like China and India don't have to do a damn thing about their pollution for 10+ years, whereas the US and some other western nations have to cut all pollution massively and immediately, thus screwing their industries.
Further to that, if the western nations were able to do that, the TOTAL reduction in global pollution over those 13 years would be offset by the amount of pollution China and India emit in just one year or so. In other words, Ch
Re:real headline (for better or worse) (Score:5, Insightful)
In other words, China and India, who produce 10 times the pollution, would be free to keep doing it while the rest of the world surrenders economically.
Dunno where you're getting your figures. I know 2015 was 2 years ago, but a quick google shows that in 2015 India and China combined had roughly 2.5 times the co2 output of the USA, not 10 times. Given that they have about 8 times the USA population betwee them, the average person from those 2 countries cause less than 1/3rd the amount of co2 an American does.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I'll byte. Here's the answer:
Why should WE convince YOU? Well, because you're polluting MY air and, hence, YOU MUST be punished; or we WILL HAVE TO stop buying ANYTHING FROM YOU because it will DESTROY the world my people will inherit.
Ain't that clear enough?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Ah, and if some supervulcano erupts, it migh
Re:Bringing up an old argument from the mother's s (Score:5, Insightful)
The better analogy would be "If everyone is hitting the brakes to avoid driving off a cliff, shouldn't you do the same?"
Re: (Score:2)
Quite obviously, once you bring humans to Mars, you bring trillions of microbes along with them. And chances are that those microbes have a better chance of adapting to and pro-creating in their new environment than their hosts.
To me, it would seem much more reasonable to _first_ bring microbes to Mars, help them to get settled, and
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
When we look back at people from the medieval period pissing and shitting in the street right outside their house we laugh at how dumb they could have been, in the future (if anyone's left alive) they will look back at us and laugh at how dumb we are for polluting and destroying the environment we live in.
Either that, or, depending on what happenes between now and then, those humans living kind of of crowded in a small band around the equator may praise us as the ones who kept them from dying all out on a snowball earth [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Don't be like Trump - if you don't know what the hell you're talking about, stay quiet until you do.
Re: (Score:3)
Don't be like Trump - if you don't know what the hell you're talking about, stay quiet until you do.
Ditto.
Re:so? (Score:5, Informative)
I never heard the reason for its rejection being that AGW is false. No one advocating its rejection said so.
Well apart from the guy who runs the country, who was responsible it's rejection, who said so himself with his own words: https://twitter.com/realdonald... [twitter.com]
Or is this fake news?
Re:The headline belies the true issue. (Score:5, Insightful)
Trump didn't deny climate change as these media outlets would have you believe, not as it relates to the climate accord. He simply reversed the Obama era commitment to pay billions of US tax dollars unless the powers that be agreed to a renegotiation. They rejected it.
Obama ran an end run around congress and committed the US to billions every year.
And where in the Paris Climate deal was the US required to pay into the Green Climate Fund?
In the end, China (a country that pollutes twice as much as the US) is allowed to continue to 2050 and will receive money from the fund. India, which is also heavily polluting will also be allowed to continue and even increase their pollution while still receiving payment from the fund.
As it should be, countries who are modernizing and have far lower per-capita emissions are given more slack than countries who have grown rich using up the planet's budget for carbon emissions.
The US is responsible for only a few percentage points more in pollution than the EU, yet the US would have to carry the largest burden. According to numerous sources the US has already met the goals set forth in the accord through renewable energies.
If you don't want to play catchup then don't slack, besides, if the fall of coal is giving you the reduction for free then what are you whining about?
Nothing is keeping the other countries from stepping up their commitment in order to meet the shortfall cause by the US pulling out.
Ah yes, the good ol' "I can exploit the system as much as I want because someone else will pick up the slack."
Comments like that make me hope that in 20 years the US finds itself on the receiving end of punitive sanctions for its inaction in response to global warming.
Re:The headline belies the true issue. (Score:5, Informative)
Trump didn't deny climate change as these media outlets would have you believe
Ok stop with the fake news/evil media thing. This is straight from the clown himself: https://twitter.com/realdonald... [twitter.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Why have you singled out the UK?
France spends more on defence than the UK [wikipedia.org], both in absolute terms and as percentage of GDP.
France is also higher than the UK on the Military Strength Index [wikipedia.org].