US Begins Formal Withdrawal From Paris Climate Accord (cnn.com) 245
The Trump administration is formally withdrawing the U.S. from the Paris climate accord, "the first step in a year-long process to leave the landmark agreement to reduce emissions of planet-warming gases," reports CNN. President Trump first announced the intent to officially withdraw from the agreement in June 2017. From the report: "Today the United States began the process to withdraw from the Paris Agreement," Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said in a statement. "Per the terms of the Agreement, the United States submitted formal notification of its withdrawal to the United Nations. The withdrawal will take effect one year from delivery of the notification."
Under the framework of the agreement, Monday is the earliest date that the administration can notify the United Nations that the U.S. plans to leave. But the process cannot be completed until exactly one year later on November 4, 2020, which happens to be one day after the 2020 presidential election. Should Trump lose the 2020 election, a new president could rejoin the agreement, but would have to put forth new climate commitments to the UN.
Under the framework of the agreement, Monday is the earliest date that the administration can notify the United Nations that the U.S. plans to leave. But the process cannot be completed until exactly one year later on November 4, 2020, which happens to be one day after the 2020 presidential election. Should Trump lose the 2020 election, a new president could rejoin the agreement, but would have to put forth new climate commitments to the UN.
Wrong. (Score:4, Informative)
Should Trump lose the 2020 election, a new president could rejoin the agreement, but would have to put forth new climate commitments to the UN.
Presidents are not inaugurated until January 20th (usually), so they'd have no power to enact any kind of policy.
Re:Wrong. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
You obviously have no idea how the US political system works. The power lies with the US Congress and Senate, they can choose to turn the President into an empty figurehead, should they choose to craft the legislation to do so.
How can you ignore the irony though, the country that stands to lose the most due to climate change, is the country that is leading the charge to climate change. The USA will have no one to blame but themselves with the pretty much the entire east coast of the USA becomes underwaterfr
Re:Wrong. (Score:5, Informative)
The power lies with the US Congress and Senate
Legislative power does only. Executive power lies totally within the Office of the President, just like Judicial Power lies totally within the Supreme Court.
Re:Wrong. (Score:4, Interesting)
The power to ratify a treaty lies SOLELY with the US Senate and it requires a 2/3 vote..
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The power to break a treaty is the executive's own.
Things will probably change after Trump is booted out-- so many arguments for a powerful presidency have been couched in giving a wise president freedom of action, it'll be nice when politicians can curb the institutional powers of the imperial presidency by framing their arguments thusly:
"But what if the president is a fucking moron!"
This, I hope, will be Bill Barr's legacy to the nation,.
Re: (Score:3)
"The power to break a treaty is the executive's own."
The Constitution does not say either way and the Supreme Court has never spoken on such a case besides declining to.
You can either be wrong OR be an asshole (Score:5, Informative)
I learned a few years ago that it's okay to be wrong, and you can get away with being an asshole; being an asshole while you're completely wrong is a very bad look. You need to choose between being an asshole about it or saying something stupid.
The Congress decides what the proper policies (laws) are.
The executive puts those laws into effect, does things.
The judiciary takes particular cases and figures out which laws apply to that particular case, and how.
The judiciary handles CASES, it does NOT decide what the proper proposals are, what the law should be.
Where confusion might come from is a particular type of figuring out which of two or more laws apply to a particular case:
Suppose you printed up some flyers supporting Bernie Sanders and handed them out. Congress passed a law saying you aren't allowed to print up flyers in late October telling your neighbors why they should vote for a particular candidate. (Because printing flyers costs money, therefore it is a "campaign contribution" according to this law). So that's one law. There is also another relevant law. The Constitution is, by its terms, the supreme law of the land. The Constitution says the government may not infringe on your freedom of speech or freedom of the press. So there are two laws and the court has to apply "the law" to your case. The judiciary would have to decide which of the two laws takes precedence. In January 2010 the Court ruled that given that case, where the two laws conflict, the Constitution would apply more strongly than the campaign finance law.
The court didn't decide what the best or proper campaign finance law should be. It decided which of two laws needed to be applied in a particular case. That's what the court does - take cases and figure out which pre-existing laws apply to that case.
As applied in a particular case (const law nerd) (Score:5, Interesting)
Slashdot had many types of nerds. Space nerds, physics nerds, comics nerds, video game nerds, etc. I just happen to be a Constitutional law nerd - by the time I was 14 I'd read pretty much every Constitutional law case ever decided by the Court.
The Court decides the cases by looking at the law *as applied to the particular case*. A ruling (opinion) will say something like "under these particular facts, the actions of the Colorado board under the state statute in question as applied here violated the 14th defendant's amendment rights in this case".
Because the Supreme Court can't hear every case, they need the lower courts to make rulings consistent with the prior rulings of SCOTUS. For that purpose, they'll write about under what circumstances each law would take precedence. They provide a guideline for what factual circumstances allow the statute to be statutory law to be applied vs what types of facts would mean the Constitutional law bars enforcing the statutory law in a certain way. For example, one meta-guideline for conflicts between Constitution and statute is that in case of conflict, the statute should be applied only in a manner and in cases such that the particular manner of application is the least-intrusive way of protecting a public interest. That's a long sentence, so an example might help. Consider the government is doing strip searches for weapons. Someone could challenge that by saying metal detectors would accomplish the same purpose. The metal detector might be infringing on your right to some degree, but in infringes to the least degree, so metal detectors would be allowed and strip searches not allowed. The court would rule "this strip search law applies only in cases where metal detectors couldn't be used instead". It violates the Constitutional law to use a strip search *in cases where the government could have instead brought a metal detector*.
With some laws, virtually ANY application of the statute would be overruled by the Constitutional law. That is, in almost every case the Constitutional law supersedes a given statute or regulation. When that happens, we colloquially say "the court struck down the law". In fact the law is still on the books. It just can't be enforced in circumstances that are likely to occur.
Re: (Score:2)
The Constitution does not say how or who has the power to break a treaty after it has been properly ratified. Both the executive and legislative branches have dissolved treaties, both by themselves and together. I'm not sure why you're so angry, is it an act?
https://www.usconstitution.net... [usconstitution.net]
Re:Wrong. (Score:5, Informative)
Therefore it was never an agreement the U.S. was actually party to. Trump doesn't have to "break" it. It never existed, as far as the U.S. is concerned.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The power to break a treaty is the executive's own.
It's actually not quite that simple.
Ratified treaties become law, with basically the force of a constitutional amendment.
The President is in fact bound by them. When a President withdraws from a treaty, they use the provisions in the treaty to withdraw from it.
Willful breaking of a treaty is quite possibly an impeachable offense.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The Paris Accord was not ratified, Obama acted unilaterally, and anything Obama could enact unilaterally, Trump can cancel unilaterally.
Like DACA.
Re: (Score:3)
the entire Dem party pulled a Willie Horton so short of to steal an old bit they find him in bed with a dead girl or a live boy?
I understood every word in that sentence.
Re:Wrong. (Score:5, Informative)
The power to ratify a treaty lies SOLELY with the US Senate and it requires a 2/3 vote..
This is very rarely true.
Although only one is called out in the Constitution, the US actually uses three different processes for treaties, and the constitutionally-defined one is the least-used. This doesn't mean the other ones are unconstitutional; they just use constitutional processes defined for laws and executive authority, rather than the one defined for treaties.
Specifically, the two others are:
Sole executive treaties. These are used in cases where the president doesn't need any congressional participation because the treaty is about things that fall entirely within the president's power. The best example is military Status of Forces Agreements (SOFAs) that the US signs with countries which host its military bases. Because the president is commander-in-chief, he can simply order the military to abide by the terms.
Congressional-executive treaties. These are used in cases where the president does not have power to enact the treaty terms, but does not want to use the Congressional process because the 2/3 vote requirement is onerous. Instead, the president proposes the terms to Congress in the form of a normal legislative bill, which is then passed by a simple majority of both houses and then signed by the president.
In the case of the Paris Accord, Obama couldn't commit the country on his own authority, so he needed to use either the constitutional treaty process or the congressional-executive process. Had he done one of those, Trump couldn't leave the Accord without congressional approval (well, maybe he could have, but it might be illegal; SCOTUS has never said).
Re: (Score:3)
A President does not have the power to unilaterally bind future Presidents to anything.
You apparently didn't actually read my post. I suspect you've also never served abroad in the US military and therefore never had to abide by the terms of a SOFA.
Here, maybe try reading this instead: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
A treaty doesn't go to the Senate for ratification in the first place without a President's approval so that's a moot point.
Re:Wrong. (Score:5, Interesting)
The point is that the climate treaty didn't get ratified by the senate while Obama was president. Even before Trump the Republicans were in the pocket of the fossil fuel industries.
Of course its worse now because Trump is also pwned by foreign energy interests (Russia, Saudi Arabia)
Re:Wrong. (Score:5, Informative)
He assumed that it would be opposed and fail to get the 2/3 margin needed so, as he did with a few of his other foreign policy failures he never submitted it to the Senate for ratification. He tried insisting that it wasn't a treaty but an agreement, and therefore didn't need ratification. But the fact stands he never submitted it. Thus it was not ratified, it was not debated or voted on at all by the Senate.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
> Trump is also pwned by foreign energy interests (Russia, Saudi Arabia)
USA is a net oil exporter for the first time in 75 years, and you still believe this bullshit. Check your TDS, cuck.
I thought this too (Score:3)
GP is wrong to imply that Russian and Saudi Arabia's energy is what holds Trump to them. It's far more likely to be simple graft combined with their interests aligning (both want Trump reelected).
My theory is that Trump is actually broke (he did start his candidacy to get more money from his reality TV show) and that this is why he fights tooth and nail to keep his tax returns under wraps. This would also explain why $300k/yr in bribes from Saudi Arabia are enough to make him take
Re: (Score:2)
Article II Section 2 of the US Constitution isn't a law.
"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"
So, 2/3 of the Senate must agree with a treaty that the President brings before them in order for it to be ratified. Why would the President refuse to sign a treaty that he brought to the Senate and which 2/3 of them approved?
Re:Wrong. (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't take my word for it, here's what the US Senate's web site has to say:
"The Constitution gives to the Senate the sole power to approve, by a two-thirds vote, treaties negotiated by the executive branch."
https://www.senate.gov/general... [senate.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
And I shouldn't have said "ratify" in my earlier posts. A treaty isn't "ratified" until the President signs it. After 2/3 of the Senate approves.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It isn't a "treaty" if it doesn't have the approval of 2/3 of the Senate. I'm not sure how you can keep arguing this. It's not subjective, this is black and white stuff in the Constitution and is not controversial in any way. You are the first person I've ever seen even challenge the notion and the relevant text has been provided for you.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't take my word for it, here's what the US Senate's web site has to say:
"The Constitution gives to the Senate the sole power to approve, by a two-thirds vote, treaties negotiated by the executive branch."
https://www.senate.gov/general... [senate.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
This was referring to federal trade agreement negotiation (which was a big problem in the Confederate States), not diplomatic alliances. We immediately enacted a department of State for that, and have been using it by tradition for the entire history of the Republic, until numbnuts started pulling the "l'etat c'est moi" game.
No one, not anybody in the history of this country including the framers, has thought this was a good way to enact foreign policy.
Re: (Score:2)
You obviously have no idea how the US political system works.
The way it works is that people like Donald Trump save things like this for a rainy day.
The news is full of stories about how your policies are going to ruin the country. Go on TV and tell the French that you don't want their stinkin' climate treaty.
Everybody cheers: Hurrah! More Bald Eagles and Freedom Fries for us!
Re: (Score:3)
The reason China is making less noise about it is for a few reasons.
- Encouraging the US to take action just creates more competition in the rapidly growing clean energy market.
- No point making diplomatic ties any more strained than they already are due to the trade war.
- As you say, it will hurt the US the most.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Wrong. (Score:4, Interesting)
Trump and the right wing have done far more harm to the US than either Pearl Harbor or the 9/11 attacks. A large part of that harm is in promoting the idiotic notion that global warming is a fantasy.
Really? I'd like to see how you came to that conclusion. Here's what anti-nuclear power thinking has brought us, more dead people.
http://world-nuclear-news.org/... [world-nuclear-news.org]
Far more people died from evacuation after the Fukushima accident than were caused by the accident directly. How many more? Well there's been one cancer death by a worker at Fukushima so far, the cause may or may not have been exposure to radiation from the damaged reactor. The insurance company chose not to contest this and considered this a death by radiation but in truth we cannot know. There are estimates of many hundreds dead from traffic accidents, overexertion, illness, and medical accidents from patients that should not have been moved.
What we are getting from the global warming alarmists is that we need to explore all options for energy. Well, all options except nuclear power.
How many people died from this unfounded fear of nuclear power? In Japan this estimate is measured in the thousands from the unnecessary nuclear power plant shutdowns after the Fukushima meltdown. We are being bombarded with the fear of people dying from another Fukushima but hear nothing of the people that could have been saved from the lower energy costs. We also don't hear of the deaths from air pollution from burning coal, natural gas, or biomass fuel instead of using nuclear power. What do people think solar PV cells and windmills are made of? This is made of raw material that is dug out of the ground. This mining causes air pollution, water pollution, and industrial accidents. Is there mining from nuclear power? Of course. There's a lot less mining from nuclear power than from wind or solar for the same energy.
Look at Figure 2 on this web page to get some scale on how much less raw material is needed for nuclear power compared to wind and solar power:
http://cmo-ripu.blogspot.com/2... [blogspot.com]
Figure 3 on that page shows the numbers of deaths from each energy source.
You want to blame the "right wing" for deaths from denying the effects of global warming? What of the deaths from denying the nation access to safe, inexpensive, and reliable nuclear power? Nuclear power is what the "left wing" has been denying us for the last 40 years.
The Jurassic Media doesn't want to talk about it but we are finally getting movement to seeing new nuclear power plants getting built because of the "right wing" and Trump. This is newer, safer, and lower cost nuclear power, a fourth generation of nuclear power that is an improvement from the already exceedingly safe third generation nuclear power that dominates the nuclear power we have now. Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima were all second generation designs.
Trump and the "right wing" is ready for safe and low CO2 nuclear power. Why is the "left wing" letting people die instead of supporting more new nuclear power?
Re: (Score:2)
So, my guess is a lot of "lefties" talk about Solar, Wind, and Storage because you have more opportunities to refine the manufacturing and installation process, reducing the failure rate. They are also easier to install, which means you can qu
Re: (Score:2)
So yes, based on the chart you provided, solar and wind aren't as efficient as nuclear, especially when you add in the storage we'd need. They are still significantly better than fossil fuels and are something we can do today while we figure out who we can trust to install nuclear correctly.
You just can't bring yourself to understand that we already have nuclear power that is safe. There is nothing more to figure out. There is nothing more to do but build more new nuclear power. If we do as you propose it is still more dead people while we piss around with batteries and solar panels. That doesn't mean we get all of our energy from nuclear fission, but it does mean we get far more than we do now.
I don't know what you are on but you need to put it down, sober up, and read what you wrote. Yo
Re:Wrong. (Score:4, Informative)
Take a look at this: Percent change in territorial carbon dioxide emissions per capita between 1990 and 2017, by select country: https://www.statista.com/stati... [statista.com]
Re:Wrong. (Score:4, Informative)
Untrue.
https://www.eea.europa.eu/data... [europa.eu]
Emissions have reduced in the EU since 1992 (Kyoto) levels.
Re:Wrong. (Score:4, Insightful)
Obama agreed to the Paris Climate Accord without the approval of the Senate - which means it wasn't actually a treaty, and since it wasn't a treaty, Trump could just as easily pull out of it. The actual agreement has zero enforcement written into it, so it was never going to accomplish anything.
Meanwhile, out of all of the countries that "agreed," only one major industrial power is reaching the goals in that agreement. Sure, there are plenty with "plans" to reach the goals of the Agreement, but only one seems to be hitting the actual numbers instead of releasing happy-feely press releases.
Guess which country that is?
Now, guess what most of the others are doing. If you guessed "increasing emissions dramatically because they don't have to comply for another decade or so," you'd be right.
Re:Wrong. (Score:4, Informative)
There are two countries meeting their goals sufficiently to maintain temperature rise below 1.5 degC by 2100, Morocco and Gambia. The US rates as critically insufficient, with a trend that will give >4 deg C rise by 2100, along with Saudi Arabia, Russia, Turkey and the Ukraine. Trump's actions since he took office are projected to add the equivalent of another California worth of greenhouse gas emissions to the US output by 2030.
Re: Surprised it took this long (Score:2, Informative)
Re: if you want to disappear people (Score:4, Insightful)
Being insanely consumeristic is not a good excuse for creating too much CO2 per person.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Being insanely consumeristic is not a good excuse for creating too much CO2 per person.
How is this for an "excuse"? The USA provides for the world some of the best science and engineering, which shows in products and services that provide the best in education, medical care, space exploration, communication, navigation, and entertainment. From this CO2 emissions also comes a military that is the most effective and deadly ever seen in human history, from which flows a level of freedom in trade and wealth also not ever seen in human history. A few such examples of this might in military and
Re:Wrong. (Score:5, Interesting)
The US is much more an oligarchy than a democracy, and speaking as a non-American in a much more democratic country, I find it hilarious that the US tries to pretend to be the world's paragon of democracy when the majority of US citizens don't even have a meaningful vote for president.
I don't understand how the country that hosted the Boston Tea Party can accept a $5,000 fee for a 10 minute ambulance ride, $50,000 for a 2-day hospital stay, and $150,000 in debt to get a liberal arts degree that is required for a minimum wage job.
The president unilaterally dropping out of a climate agreement to make $$Billions more for his buddies is the least of your problems, your entire government is owned by corporate interests and exists to maximize their profits. This is true of both parties and your election is a reality TV designed to distract you from that truth.
And how the hell do Americans think it's a good idea to elect judges. Of all things, Justice should not be political.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
and $150,000 in debt to get a liberal arts degree that is required for a minimum wage job.
I don't know about the rest, but if you did this, you fucked up.
Re: (Score:2)
Well in many European countries, you can get a useless liberal arts degree for free...
Re: (Score:2)
speaking as a non-American in a much more democratic country
The USA is "less democratic" by design. Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what's for supper. A republic is a well armed lamb.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
speaking as a non-American in a much more democratic country
The USA is "less democratic" by design. Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what's for supper. A republic is a well armed lamb.
-- I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
And then the wolves ate the lamb while he was sleeping. Their belly was full and they had new weapons.
It is your community, with the people, the laws, the institutions, that can assure, or not, your freedom. Not your weapons.
Those who can remove your freedom always have better weapons...
Re: (Score:2)
And then the wolves ate the lamb while he was sleeping. Their belly was full and they had new weapons.
No analogy is perfect, and you are just being stupid.
It is your community, with the people, the laws, the institutions, that can assure, or not, your freedom. Not your weapons.
Says the person that does not understand how it is that these people maintain the laws and institutions.
Those who can remove your freedom always have better weapons...
Have you not read of Afghanistan? Lots of people with "better weapons" went there only to lose to people with lesser weapons.
Also, you have just made an excellent argument against any kind of government control on weapons.
Re: (Score:2)
It is your community,
And that's where our problems all rise from. I wish I had points because you pretty much nailed the number one cause of where we are. Corporations destroyed most of our "community" for expedience. That was the original safety net that has been destroyed since the turn of the last century to keep workers compliant. Always the American exceptionalism and puritanical work ethic that got taken advantage. "Work hard" they say. Pull yourself up by your bootstraps! I did, they say. Yeah, most of them had at least some kind of community behind them even if it was only their parents with a couple of dollars.
Re: (Score:2)
We are a representative democratic republic, as were almost all who came before us.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. I say this more often than I should - but ban the bribing (sorry, lobbying) of politicians and you'll solve lots of the USA's political problems with minimal effort. The pols will actually have to represent the people for a change.
Re:Wrong. (Score:5, Insightful)
What's a president to do when the do-nothing Republicans controlling the Senate won't let anything past?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
What's a president to do when the do-nothing Republicans controlling the Senate won't let anything past?
Saying no is as much of the job of our senators as it is to say yes. The US government was by design very inefficient. A monarchy is a very efficient form of government, and those that created this nation were quite wise to do away with such "efficiency".
I'm ok with him pulling out (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Wrong. (Score:5, Informative)
What it boils down to is this: by definition, the Paris Agreement is an international treaty.
Treaties, in the U.S., must be ratified by the Senate. Obama's representative signed the agreement unilaterally, without asking anyone's permission.
It was Obama who acted like a king.
Here's the rub: our Senate never ratified it. So it's a non-agreement. So the U.S. was never party to the Paris Agreement.
Trump can "back out" of any agreement we were never IN, in the first place, any time he wants. It's a meaningless gesture, but he seems determined to make it.
Re: (Score:2)
The legislature explicitly granted the President the powers necessary to fulfill obligations under the Paris agreement. If Congress has a problem with it, they're welcome to withdraw them.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would that be wrong? The new president could on January 20th of 2021 rejoin the agreement and put forth new climate commitments to the UN.
Re: (Score:2)
Should Trump lose the 2020 election, a new president could rejoin the agreement, but would have to put forth new climate commitments to the UN.
Presidents are not inaugurated until January 20th (usually), so they'd have no power to enact any kind of policy.
According to the NPR segment I heard today, a country can (re)join the Paris Accord at any time, but there's a 30-day waiting/processing period, so the new President can initiate a rejoin in January 2021 after being sworn-in and have it take effect a month later.
Wait what? (Score:2)
Signed, but never Ratified. (Score:5, Insightful)
Obama signed it, but never submitted it to Congress for ratification. So we signed it, but the government was never actually bound by it.
Re: Signed, but never Ratified. (Score:2)
It was always voluntary anyway. It was toothless.
Re: (Score:2)
Obama signed it, but never submitted it to Congress for ratification. So we signed it, but the government was never actually bound by it.
There was nothing binding in the agreement in the first place. Had it been ratified there would have been nothing to enforce it.
Obama signed a check that he knew he would not have to cash. It cost him nothing to sign, but set up a nice little time bomb for Trump to deal with.
Re:Signed, but never Ratified. (Score:5, Insightful)
It cost him nothing to sign, but set up a nice little time bomb for Trump to deal with.
It was an absolutely harmless thing to leave it be (since as has been mentioned numerous times already, there was no means to force compliance), but Trump couldn't help himself - he just had to own them libs.
It does prove that Trump is rather lousy at playing the politician game (or he doesn't understand the Paris Climate Accord, either), since do-nothing gestures such as these are typically touted as an show of bipartisanship. It wins over voters from the opposition and costs you nothing.
Re: (Score:2)
Trump couldn't help himself - he just had to own them libs.
Not to mention them furriners, too.
Re: (Score:2)
It does prove that Trump is rather lousy at playing the politician game (or he doesn't understand the Paris Climate Accord, either), since do-nothing gestures such as these are typically touted as an show of bipartisanship. It wins over voters from the opposition and costs you nothing.
In the normal case, that's true. In Trump's case, nothing is going to win over the opposition, and gestures like this do a lot to fire up his base. It's actually a winning political move for him. Note that I don't think he's really smart enough to understand this. It's just Trump being Trump, and Trump's base likes Trump to be Trump.
I don't really think it's fair to say (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Until then:
What one gov can virtue signal about another can walk away from.
Re: (Score:2)
Congress has already held a vote in support of remaining in the Paris Accord. Maybe you mean the do-nothing Republican Senate, who have refused to bring to the floor almost every piece of legislation they were asked to approve for the past 11 years.
SCOTUS 2014? (Score:2)
Here's a surprising little fact. SCOTUS ordered the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases under the clean air act. Paris isn't needed for the US.
The rule of law is.
Re: (Score:3)
Is that the same EPA which Trump pledged to abolish during his 2016 campaign?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's not true at all. I live in Dallas and know lots of people that work at the EPA here. Basically, nothing has really changed except their website.
Good (Score:3)
I know it's impolitic to point out that the Emperor has no clothes, but someone has to.
The environment will improve when consumers and businesses find it in their interest to pursue this, it will not be mandated by intensely political, biased back-slapping and posturing by countries who have (at least as measured by previous promises) very little actual intent of fulfilling their promises.
Re: Good (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Except in the real world, these sorts of "for the good of everyone" restrictions tend to never apply to the people implementing them and their friends.*
*except in Norway, and maybe much of Scandinavia. Not sure how or why, but they are a remarkably pragmatic and selfless bunch of people, generally. cf Norway's Government Pension Fund Global (where they dump their oil revenues)
He shouldn't bother (Score:2)
If the USA hurts the planet ... (Score:3, Interesting)
then the rest of the peoples on the planet should hurt the USA.
Pollution is a global problem, CO2 and other wastes do not stay within national borders so a country that does not curb its emissions is exporting problems caused by its lack of responsibility. This is selfish. If a country will not listen, then one way of sending a message is to avoid buying goods & services from that country. Not necessarily what you want to do but please suggest other ways ?
Some will say that other countries pollute as well. True but you don't let your lawn grow long just because your neighbour has not cut theirs.
The problem is complicated but that should not be used as an excuse for inaction.
I know that some will down vote this post because I criticise their country - before you do think: what do you love more: planet or country ?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Vilifying an entire population because of the behavior of a small portion of that population - yes that sounds like a good way to make friends in the international stage.
Instead of vilifying people, causing them to entrench, why not encourage, cooperate, or provide the things they want in a "green" manner?
Re: (Score:2)
For people that actually read it. It was a horrible deal for the U.S. Counties like China and India which produce most of the CO2 "Pollution" they pay little, while the U.S. gets raped.
This... like most of the Climate action, is about global redistribution of wealth and power, under the guise of saving the planet.
What else do you expect from an organization that puts Saudi Arabia on the human rights council?
Re: (Score:2)
What else do you expect from an organization that puts Saudi Arabia on the human rights council?
Who do you think is Saudi Arabia's best buddy?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You got modded 'insightful'? What kind of trash infests slashdot?
Re: (Score:2)
India does not produce most of the CO2 by any measure. China does if you ignore the fact that it has 4 times the population of the US.
Re: (Score:2)
like most of the Climate action, is about global redistribution of wealth and power, under the guise of saving the planet.
Even if it was true, a little of that wouldn't hurt quite frankly. Global inequalities have reached shocking and shameful levels.
Re:Horrible Deal for the U.S. (Score:5, Insightful)
China produces nearly twices as much CO2 as the US and increasing rapidly, while the U.S. is reducing
The US is China's largest customer. They're producing much of that CO2 for shit we're buying. It's a joint effort.
Re: (Score:2)
The US is China's largest customer. They're producing much of that CO2 for shit we're buying. It's a joint effort.
Sounds like a good reason to stop buying so much stuff from China and instead produce those items domestically.
There's lots of reasons already to stop doing business with China, it's not like we need another.
Re: Horrible Deal for the U.S. (Score:4, Insightful)
God dam reading your posts is actually painful.
"Trade" is fine. Fixing the climate problem requires actual changes in consumption patterns. Moving polluting activity to other places is like allowing the guy on the other side of the hottub to shit in the water and thinking it won't bother you.
Things that are needed to make substantive changes to environmentally damaging activity include steps like:
1. Reducing the use of single use plastic items.
2. Reducing energy consumption through efficient devices.
3. Healthier food lifestyles.
4. Ditching the religion of consumption as a foundational economic principle.
5. Ditching the religion of financial growth as a foundational commercial principle.
Re: Horrible Deal for the U.S. (Score:3, Insightful)
And just in case you missed it because I implied it rather than stated it clearly:
There is no way to consume at current levels in a sustainable way. At the end of the day the planet is a closed loop. We cannot consume more than the loop produces. Doing so borrows from stored resources in the system (such as fossil fuels, forest and jungle reserves, etc) which WILL run out. Nobody quite knows what the running out event will look like, how long it will take, and how far away it is, bit it WILL happen, notwith
Re: (Score:2)
We buy cheap shit from China. We do not tell them to make it with coal power plants.
So if you tie someone to the train tracks and they get hit by a train, that's not your fault, right? After all, you're not driving the train.
Re:Horrible Deal for the U.S. (Score:5, Informative)
But America is responsible [ourworldindata.org] For fully a quarter of the extra CO2 in the atmosphere. Even China and India added together are still way less than that. (and they are far far bigger too)
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, per capita is what counts.
If there was one guy on an Island producing 25% of the world's CO2 you'd probably want a word with him.
If China was split into two they'd magically go down your hit list of "bad people" even though the amount CO2 they produced would be the same.
Re: (Score:2)
If that one guy represented more than 25% of the worlds GDP then yes I'd want a word.
Problem is: America does it by driving oversized cars, heating/cooling inefficient houses and not turning off the lights when they leave a room. They're not producing anything.
Re: Horrible Deal for the U.S. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wind and solar have a lot of cost and inefficiencies.
Re: (Score:2)
Many people want to throw out Nuclear energy because it's not their perfect vision. But they're wasting the opportunity to have something currently good until their perfect solution is viable.
Seems to me that it's only the Democrats that would throw out better because it's not perfect.
Wind and solar have a lot of cost and inefficiencies.
This will become apparent to them at some point. Getting to 10%, 20%, or maybe 30% wind and solar isn't terribly difficult for many places because of the large amount of existing natural gas and hydro. These same people think batteries will allow them to go with wind and solar exclusively. It will not. What batteries can do is improve the efficiency of coal, natural gas, and nuclear by allowing for load followi
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The Democrats got real quiet about global warmi (Score:2)
Well than just find us a Republican who will both admit there's global warming and nuclear power is part of a fix and I'll vote for him (not likely a her).
That's not the choice you are likely to get in the next election. Here's a more likely choice you will have to make, vote for the Republican that doesn't believe global warming to be any kind of threat but has policies that are doing the most to stop it, or vote for the Democrat that believes global warming to be a threat but has policies that will likely make global warming worse.
If you vote for the Democrat in this case then you are a moron.
Of the candidates running it's real hard to figure out who would
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The Republicans are doing worse than nothing though.
Are they? I see that the CO2 emissions from the last 5 years has been relatively unchanged. It went up or down 2% to 3% each year but it's been lower than the peak in 2014, I saw this on a federal government report.
They're rolling back emission and other pollution laws making things far worse than the Democrats just not doing enough.
What are the Democrats doing? They are holding up nuclear power projects, that's what they are doing. They have been doing this for over 40 years. They complain about the problem of radioactive waste while it is them that are holding up the building of new facilities to process and contain t
The Democrats got real quiet about global warming (Score:2)
Did anyone else notice this? There was a lot of discussion among the Democrats on what to do about global warming and then... they got real quiet. Why is that? Why aren't Democrats still talking about global warming like they were before?
I have a few ideas on why this is.
One big reason is it doesn't poll well. People just don't much care any more. Well, at least not voters. There might be a lot of children that like to get on TV and lecture adults and asking, "How dare you?" This is followed by a passionate and practiced speech on how their childhood was "stolen".
Another big reason is if people look too closely on this they will find that the USA has been doing well in reducing its CO2 output. Often better than many other nations, nations that made pledges to reduce their CO2 as well.
Perhaps the biggest reason that the Democrats don't want to talk about global warming any more is that people like Andrew Yang are talking about nuclear power. When there's people screeching like banshees about how the world will end any day now unless something is done about global warming then people will start to consider options they would not dare think of before. Options like nuclear power. I can tell someone just wants to reply about how nuclear power brings more radioactive waste that we don't know what to do with. First, we do know what to do with it. Second, nobody cares. But what about the risk of weapons proliferation? We know how to deal with that and nobody cares even if we didn't. But what about... Nobody cares. No, really, we can't have nuclear power because... NOBODY CARES!
I'm thinking that the screaming about global warming died down because this has brought people to the thought of building more nuclear power plants. Once we get used to the idea of building new nuclear power plants again the next time someone brings up global warming the answer will be more nuclear power plants.
What we have now are two groups in the Democrat Party. On one hand is the people that stopped caring about CO2 emissions, they are more concerned about immigration, wages/jobs/unemployment, health care, guns/crime/violence, abortion, and education. On the other hand are people that seem to prefer global warming to nuclear power.
Now we see the withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accords making the news for some reason? It seems to me that there aren't that many people that care. Those that do care, again, fear nuclear power more than global warming. If nuclear power is so scary that we can't have that to reduce global warming then global warming must not be something to be concerned with. If you disagree then there are many things we can do about that, and nuclear power will be something that will be brought up as part of the solution. If you don't want nuclear power brought up then you need to keep quiet about global warming.
So, will the Democrats say anything about this withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accords? Or, leave this alone because it can bring up how during the Trump administration CO2 emissions per year have been flat or falling?
https://electrek.co/2019/07/15... [electrek.co]
Re:The Democrats got real quiet about global warmi (Score:3)
These typically aren't the type of folks who are going to be thrilled at the prospect of a higher power bill or rising fuel costs.
Which explains why they got quiet about global warming, they don't have a solution that doesn't involve making energy more expensive.
We know how to get energy that doesn't raise costs while lowering CO2 emissions. This is from onshore wind, hydro, nuclear fission, and maybe geothermal. They can't bring this up because the Republicans are already on board with these, meaning that voting for Democrats gives no real gain on reducing CO2 emissions. The Democrats have opposed nuclear power for so long now tha