7 ms·

Trump 'poised to quit Paris climate deal'

130 points by 0xbadf00d 9y ago

chollida1 9y ago
> The decision will put the United States in league with Syria and Nicaragua as the world’s only non-participants in the Paris Climate Agreement. So I guess its up to private industry in the US to tackle climate change. And just before people start complaining about Trump.. > A letter from 22 Republican senators urging Mr Trump to withdraw played a major role in the decision, Axios said. This is an American political issue not a Trump issue..... > Canada, the European Union, and China have said they will honor their commitments to the pact even if the United States withdraws. A source told Reuters that India had also indicated it would stick by the deal. This is much happier news
- lostcolony 9y ago
  So not even half of the Republican Senators, let alone all the Democratic ones? Hardly an 'American' issue.
  - leereeves 9y ago
    34 Senators would be required to block ratification. I wonder how that vote would turn out if Trump submitted the treaty to the Senate (as Obama should have).
    - jbooth 9y ago
      40. You need 66 to ratify a treaty, but you can also pass a 'treaty implementation bill' which is basically normal legislation mirroring the language of the treaty, and you only need a majority in the house, and either a majority or a filibuster-proof majority in the senate. That's how NAFTA was passed.
      - leereeves 9y ago
        Obama could have tried that with the Paris climate deal, but now it would require Trump's signature, or enough votes to override a veto (again including 67 Senators). But both sides seem to be playing by a new rulebook here, in which the President makes international agreements without consulting Congress.
  - matthewmcg 9y ago
    More specifically, the issue is with Republican legislators listening to fossil fuel interests and wealthy donors over public opinion. A majority of people in the United States support climate action. Even a majority of self-identified Republicans.
    - mertd 9y ago
      How is it that the secretary of state who was a fossil fuel CEO is against quitting?
      - breatheoften 9y ago
        Many of the same researchers that developed the techniques that Exxon relies on to find oil also developed the arguments about anthropogenic climate change. There are certainly individuals within Exxon who acknowledge climate change. I do not envy their cognitive dissonance.
        matthewmcg 9y ago
        Update: Exxon stockolders too! https://www.reuters.com/article/us-exxonmobil-climate-idUSKBN18R0DC https://www.reuters.com/article/us-exxonmobil-climate-idUSKB...
      - yorwba 9y ago
        I don't follow US politics very closely, so I don't know whom you are referring to; but if they were a fossil fuel CEO, they may no longer have a financial interest in quitting.
  - mikeash 9y ago
    This particular example may not demonstrate it, but it absolutely is an American issue, not a Trump issue. Denial of climate change, its negative consequences, and the merits of fighting it have been a standard part of the Republican platform for a long time.
- cooper12 9y ago
  > So I guess its up to private industry in the US to tackle climate change. While I'm guessing you're referring to those like the solar industry, it doesn't matter if the rest of the manufacturers don't follow along. Fat chance that under capitalism all these industries will say "maybe we should curtail our production rate and consumption of resources for the sake of the environment, even if we make less profit and aren't compelled to by the law". [0] The free market demands that Moloch must continue being fed. [0]: http://i.imgur.com/80Az8Xx.jpg http://i.imgur.com/80Az8Xx.jpg
- mistermann 9y ago
  > Canada, the European Union, and China have said they will honor their commitments to the pact even if the United States withdraws. I'm not sure about other countries, but my understanding is that Canada is "honoring our commitments" to the Paris Climate Agreement in a way similar to how NATO members are honoring (or not, as the case may be) their financial commitments to NATO. https://insideclimatenews.org/news/28032017/justin-trudeau-canada-climate-change-paris-agreement https://insideclimatenews.org/news/28032017/justin-trudeau-c... But I suppose "that's different", right? If the motivating factor behind stopping climate change is saving lives, how come no one ever gets morally outraged at non-American countries not keeping their word when it comes to military funding, which I think could be argued saves lives as well? (Although to be fair, the net number of lives saved by military funding is debatable.)
  - RandomBookmarks 9y ago
    Because other people know that the mutually agreed deadline for the 2% spending target is 2024. Now is 2017. >Although to be fair, the net number of lives saved by military funding is debatable.) That is the 2nd, and maybe more important reason.
    - mistermann 9y ago
      As others have pointed out in this thread, the 2% is merely a target and should therefore be disregarded. Enjoy the fruits of your demeanour.
  - abandonliberty 9y ago
    The NATO agreement reached in 2014 was: >aim to move towards the 2% guideline within a decade with a view to meeting their NATO Capability Targets and filling NATO's capability shortfalls. It's not 2024 yet, and note that the agreement is to 'aim' - not exactly binding. As for the article you yourself linked to: >The report only models policies in place up to last Nov. 1. Since then, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's administration has made a number of significant climate policy changes through the Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change, an agreement between federal, provincial, and territorial governments to reduce emissions published on December 9. >"I think there are a lot of reasons to believe we are actually better off than the report suggests," Flanagan said. >More will be need to be done, however, to meet their targets, said Jake Schmidt, international program director at Natural Resources Defense Council. http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_112964.htm http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_112964.htm
- chrramirez 9y ago
  I'm from Nicaragua and this is new to me. But it does not surprise me. The ruling party have made billions from Venezuelan oil. They control the import, distribution and final sale of gas to customers. It's not in their interest to change the energy sources. Internally there's have been development in renewal energy, but these have been done by investors close to the Government and they mostly sale each watt as it was produced from bunker. This is possible because they own all the energy business in the country.
  - thirdsun 9y ago
    It seems Nicaragua rejected the Paris agreement as it didn't go far enough [1]: > As world leaders gathered in the French capital in November 2015 to reach an agreement on fighting climate change, Nicaragua's lead envoy explained to reporters that the country would not support the agreed-upon plan as it hinged on voluntary pledges and would not punish those who failed to meet them. That was simply not enough, Paul Oquist argued. That leaves Syria, which may actually have other problems these days. The US seems to be pretty much alone in this. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/05/31/why-nicaragua-and-syria-didnt-join-the-paris-climate-accord/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/05/31...
- XJOKOLAT 9y ago
  Of course, it's a Trump issue. If Trump had the balls/leadership to stand up to the 22 Republicans for the right reason, we wouldn't be discussing this. As it stands, I'll reiterate the widely held view that Trump is the second-coming of the massive-orange-penis-wurst (which is often a bad sign)
  - dang 9y ago
    We've banned this account for repeatedly violating the HN guidelines. If you don't want to be banned on HN, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and promise to follow the rules in the future.
    - XJOKOLAT 9y ago
      Nah, it's cool. Cheers, bye. Just don't promise something and don't deliver, that's all I ask. (If you've banned me, why is my login even operating?) P.s. if you bump into Peter Thiel in the Y-Combinator corridors, please tell him to kiss my ass. Thanks. Ahhhhhh ... I see ... shadowbanned. Thanks for letting me know at least. Above still holds though. Bye.
- Gravityloss 9y ago
  Signatories of the letter are here: https://www.yahoo.com/news/gop-senators-urge-trump-make-clean-exit-paris-agreement-163000473.html https://www.yahoo.com/news/gop-senators-urge-trump-make-clea...
radiorental 9y ago
While this is a setback I'm curious what real impact this will have? The markets seem to be driving towards clean energy regardless. Coal is not competitive against Natural gas (and I appreciate gas isn't ideal). And, hopefully the US will regain it's senses in 2018 & 2020 elections.
- celticninja 9y ago
  I would like to see a tariff applied to US goods produced in the US and exported to the rest of the world as means of charging the US for not abiding by the agreement.
  - pvnick 9y ago
    This is an emerging talking point, but tariffs are a shoot-yourself-in-the-foot maneuver; restricting free trade increases the barriers to innovation, and innovation is precisely what renewable energy sources need to become cost effective.
    - celticninja 9y ago
      We aren't talking about a tariff on renewable energy production though are we. A Tariff on goods produced by companies/factories that are powered by coal or natural gas due for export to the rest of the world. Prove you use renewable energy and you dont pay the tariff, this would motivate companies who export to adopt greener energy. It would also make trade freer for companies who do this and more difficult for those who do not, therefore there is incentive to innovate to use renewable energy.
      - pvnick 9y ago
        Doesn't matter - tariffs decrease purchasing power (these things have a tendency to affect unrelated markets because of the economy's interconnectedness), and lower purchasing power means slower economic activity, which includes investment in things like research.
pvnick 9y ago
Good - renewable energy is becoming more efficient and within our lifetimes will become overtake fossil fuels as the most cost-effective forms of energy. Indeed this will happen faster in the absence of taxes and regulations that slow innovation and do relatively little to combat climate change. Edit: Use this website to find your representative and urge them to support this decision: https://callyourrep.co/ https://callyourrep.co/
- celticninja 9y ago
  In the short term companies will use this as a way to continue to pollute because it will be cheaper to pollute than upgrade factories to make them cleaner.
  - rm_-rf_slash 9y ago
    Yes and no. Many companies in industries prone to regulation have accepted that the regular see-saw of political power means that roughly half their time will be spent under more stringent regulations, and so it makes more sense to stick with certain regulations instead of changing processes (which carry their own costs and complexities) every few years to shave a few cents on the dollar. An example: what if a Republican congress repealed legislation banning leaded gasoline? Would gas companies begin putting lead in gasoline again? Doubtful. Not only would it be a terrible PR move - since everybody accepts that lead is a dangerous neurotoxin - but as soon as government switches hands, the lead ban comes back, and all of that time and money switching to lead will have been an unjustifiable waste. Maybe not the best example, but you get the idea.
    - celticninja 9y ago
      Yes but in this situation we aren't talking about rolling back changes they have made but about not implementing new changes, they are easier to ignore or put off until there is a legal requirement to actually make those changes.
- boona 9y ago
  Pvnick your opinion doesn't fall in line with evangelical progressivism, so downvoting rather than engaging you directly is in order. Don't you know that politicians always and everywhere make things better, and that billions of individual actors competing and testing various ideas simultaneously is doomed to fail. Also, make sure to ignore competing voices. Science isn't about skepticism, it's who has more people on their side. To quote Einstein upon finding out that there was a book titled 100 Authors against Einstein "If I were wrong, then one [author] would have been enough!". Clearly he was an idiot. Also, ignore those who disagree with our world view like the ones listed below. They're literally Hitler. > Tom Woods Interview with Patrick Moore: http://tomwoods.com/ep-559-greenpeace-co-founder-repudiates-organization/ http://tomwoods.com/ep-559-greenpeace-co-founder-repudiates-... > The 97% consensus: http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.ca/2014/02/a-climate-falsehood-you-can-check-for.html http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.ca/2014/02/a-climate-falsehoo... > The Non-Expert Problem and Climate Change Science http://blog.dilbert.com/post/154082416051/the-non-expert-problem-and-climate-change-science http://blog.dilbert.com/post/154082416051/the-non-expert-pro...
reacharavindh 9y ago
Wonder if any country would take a stand and sanction the USA for "not doing their fair share to save the world". Like imposing a climate tax on US imports.. That'd be interesting.
- celticninja 9y ago
  Thats what I would like to see done and seems like the most appropriate way to deal with it.
- theBobBob 9y ago
  Yeah. They could say that this is to counter the price advantage that the US exports get by pulling out of environmental obligations. Not sure how this would play with the WTO. Plus it probably won't happen anyways.
  - spiderfarmer 9y ago
    It won't happen. The diplomatic way is to not escalate things and just ignore the elephant in the room until it disappears. 3,5 years is not that long.
    - YSFEJ4SWJUVU6 9y ago
      You misspelled 7.5 years.
      - dang 9y ago
        Would you please stop posting inflammatory comments to HN and getting involved in flamewars? We eventually ban accounts that do that, and you've done a lot of it.
- williamle8300 9y ago
  What authority would tax the US? And why would the US even care about complying to it?
supercall 9y ago
This is insane. That being said, we have options. Please call your representatives, please donate to environmental groups. These actions won't directly force Trump to change his mind but we need to show the government that climate change is important to us Find your reps: https://tryvoices.com/ https://tryvoices.com/ Citizens Climate Lobby: https://citizensclimatelobby.org/donate/ https://citizensclimatelobby.org/donate/ 350.org: https://act.350.org/donate/build/ https://act.350.org/donate/build/
- y0ghur7_xxx 9y ago
  "A letter from 22 Republican senators urging Mr Trump to withdraw played a major role in the decision, Axios said." This is not just Trump.
  - hsod 9y ago
    The buck stops with a letter from 22 Republican senators?
moron4hire 9y ago
Why bother quitting the deal? It's not like it has any teeth. Trump is dumber than I thought. He could have his cake and eat it, too.
- lostcolony 9y ago
  You're looking at it the wrong way. His cake is playing to his base, while helping his investments. Pulling out of the Paris accord does both. The people who care about the climate are not the ones who voted for him.
  - owenversteeg 9y ago
    I mean, S&P 500 index funds are down about a dollar on this news. I'd bet that any minor gain to his investments was wiped out by whatever general market exposure he has, so overall (probably) not a move for him financially.
- badlucklottery 9y ago
  >Why bother quitting the deal? So he can look like he's getting something done. Almost everything Trump campaigned on was a pipe dream or he has managed to quickly derail if it was even remotely possible. So he needs something to parade around in front of his base even if it's entirely symbolic. For another example, look at the weird attempted rebrand of existing border fencing as "bollard walls" a while back because the border wall he campaigned on is never going to happen.
- mac01021 9y ago
  You're suggesting that having his cake and eating it too should mean [1] remaining unbound by onerous treaties(because the Paris deal is not very binding and [2] winning the favour of other nations in the deal as well as voters at home who support the deal. But there is a different cake that he likes to have and eat better: [1] remaining unbound by onerous treaties through the act of withdrawing from them altogether [2] appealing to his base at home by refusing to acknowledge GHG emissions as a problem as well as by appearing to stand up for america by declining to engage in any sort of compromise with other nations. So he won't withdraw because of any teeth that the deal has. If he withdraws it will be to keep up the appearance of sharing the same values and beliefs as his constituency. Whether or not that's dumb, I can't really say.
wmccullough 9y ago
The distressing thing about this goes way beyond whether or not climate change is human caused, or a natural cycle of the earth. I'm distressed that we would leave an agreement that would bring prosperity to future generations. Like it or not, we have to all still live here and keep this planet alive. How the hell did science ever become a political issue?
- celticninja 9y ago
  Trump thinks of the future as next week or next month, he doesnt think on a timeline longer than his own (or even that of his children).
- rco8786 9y ago
  Science has always been a political issue. Generally at odds with religion, which is also a political issue.
  - hackeraccount 9y ago
    Both get used for political ends but I don't think either is inherently political. People enjoy using science and religion as a sort of "Open Sesame" to get political ends. I think it does neither any good.
- coldpie 9y ago
  > How the hell did science ever become a political issue? When it interfered with corporate profits. It's beneficial in the short term for American corporations to pretend climate change doesn't exist, so they do. The Republican party represents big corporate interests, so the Republican party follows suit in pretending it isn't real.
- hackeraccount 9y ago
  It's not the science that's politicized. It's the response to the science. Politics is, in my opinion, all about helping your friends and hurting your enemies. If the response is one that will do the opposite then your oppose it. It might happen that the best opposition is to deny the science but that's a consequence not a cause.
danso 9y ago
reposting from the previously flagged thread: More details from the NYT, in which it was noted that things are not final, as President Trump is set to meet with Secretary of State Rex Tillerson this afternoon. Tillerson has been advocating on behalf of sticking to the deal: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/31/climate/trump-quits-paris.. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/31/climate/trump-quits-paris.... > And Mr. Trump has proved himself willing to shift direction up until the moment of a public announcement. He is set to meet Wednesday afternoon with Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, who has advocated that the United States remain a part of the Paris accords and could continue to lobby the president to change his mind.
monkmartinez 9y ago
Does anyone share my apathy toward politics in general? My logic is that we have no, as in zero, control over the entire apparatus. In a country with two sides, there will be a natural bifurcation that will not allow for constructive... _anything_. Couple that to the beltway insider club AKA lobbying and you have a situation where only those with serious capital have a voice in the capital.
- jackmott 9y ago
  That fact that we elected Trump indicates we have incredible control. What an awful mistake.
  - monkmartinez 9y ago
    The thing is, half or nearly half the country disagrees with you on paper. I bet its not anywhere near that in practice, as in there is a range of political spectrum. If we had more choice we wouldn't have align to the poles of a bipartisan system.
    - Retric 9y ago
      Trump got 46% of the vote. Which is normally rather far from 1/2 in election terms, ~25% of registered voters, and about 19.5% of the total US population. So, yea the guy won, but it's hard to extrapolate that to much popular support. At best you can say this is based on the electoral collage, but Maine and Nebraska split their delegates by district making it an even odder system than generally talked about.
      - Grue3 9y ago
        >but it's hard to extrapolate that to much popular support. Actually, it's pretty easy, given the ridiculously large sample size.
        atomi 9y ago
        You're forgetting it was a volunteer sample size, there were active disenfranchisement campaigns, and his opposition garnered millions of more votes.
williamle8300 9y ago
At the risk of sounding nutty... I'll say it anyway. The Paris climate deal is a cabal for Goldman-Sachs to draw money from governments via the taxes levied for participating countries. If you read the deal itself, the language doesn't have any metrics for success... it's goals and methodologies for combatting climate change is really hoaky.
- mcintyre1994 9y ago
  Can you elaborate? Do you mean taxes voluntarily raised by the countries to meet their goals? Why would Goldman-Sachs make money from those taxes? Or do you mean more like fines for not meeting the goals - but that doesn't make sense because you said there's no metrics for success so how do you fine someone for falling short?
- creaghpatr 9y ago
  It's the new Federal Reserve
- tom_mellior 9y ago
  Run that by us again, please. Participating countries pay taxes... to Goldman-Sachs? That is written in "the deal itself"?
- simias 9y ago
  > the language doesn't have any metrics for success... That would only be useful if the deal imposed sanctions in case of missed objectives. And that was a big no-no because that would never have been ratified by the republican american congress. The deal had no teeth to begin with because of the USA (and in particular the republican party) and now they appear to be pulling out altogether. The USA is such a weird place as seen from abroad. Ahead in so many areas and yet completely backwards in others. It's frustrating really.
- toxican 9y ago
  You'd sound less nutty if you cited actual words from the deal to backup your claims.
- hacker_9 9y ago
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
radiorental 9y ago
For anyone that has 5 minutes, this BBC article is chilling... http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20170418-how-western-civilisation-could-collapse http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20170418-how-western-civilis... The salient point being.. 'Western civilisation is not a lost cause, however. Using reason and science to guide decisions, paired with extraordinary leadership and exceptional goodwill, human society can progress to higher and higher levels of well-being and development' We seem to be at a point in time where all of those points are lacking in US policy & leadership.
- brango 9y ago
  If there's one thing the last year has shown us it's how irrational we are. Perhaps it's time to let HAL do what's best for us from now on...
  - qbrass 9y ago
    Getting humans to hand over the reigns and think it was their idea was HAL's plan all along.
breatheoften 9y ago
I'm having an ongoing facebook feud with a die-hard Trump supporter who has been parroting the 'everything with an anonymous source is fake news' line for the last weeks. I challenged him to argue that it was likely Trump would not pull out of the Paris Accord because of the anonymous sources reporting that he intends to ... He just replied with some fake climate science and 'simple questions' that modern climate science has not answered to his satisfaction ... The blindness is insane -- and the damage really can't be overstated ...
interdrift 9y ago
the amount of ignorance in this action is unbearable.
Mendenhall 9y ago
I wonder how many know the details of what the deal actually is.
clamprecht 9y ago
Is there anything positive, at all, about leaving the Paris climate deal? Or is the president going to do something that helps no one (not even himself), and hurts us all? Who gains from this?
- root_axis 9y ago
  It benefits him because his base is vehemently opposed to it.
marcosdumay 9y ago
I can't help but wonder if doubling down on fossil fuels today isn't blatantly stupid. I mean, except for coal (that has some nasty enough local effects for most countries to quit by themselves) fossil fuels are already getting scarce. Production prices are going up and up, with just a few old fields holding them low enough for current prices. Increasing the reliance on them right now... Well, any smart player would be doing the exact opposite of it, wouldn't them?
pottersbasilisk 9y ago
Im seeing the liberal bubble here. Here is what trump supporters think(not a trump supporter). Its only ever been a bankster fraud pushed by goldman sachs https://quidsapio.wordpress.com/2012/06/06/how-goldman-sachs-invented-cap-and-trade/ https://quidsapio.wordpress.com/2012/06/06/how-goldman-sachs... https://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/12/goldman-sachs-buys-into-carbon-offsets/comment-page-1/ https://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/12/goldman-sachs-buy... https://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2008/10/27/street-cred-goldman-sachs-buys-into-carbon-credit-developer/ https://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2008/10/27/street... http://www.goldmansachs666.com/2009/05/al-gores-carbon-trading-scam-reeks-of.html http://www.goldmansachs666.com/2009/05/al-gores-carbon-tradi... These are the core tenents of the Paris Climate Agreement: (a) Holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels, recognizing that this would significantly reduce the risks and impacts of climate change; (b) Increasing the ability to adapt to the adverse impacts of climate change and foster climate resilience and low greenhouse gas emissions development, in a manner that does not threaten food production; (c) Making finance flows consistent with a pathway towards low greenhouse gas emissions and climate-resilient development. Translation for the gullible: give us money. for vague stuff. and vague goals. and vague methods that cant accomplish goals because we never want the tax gravy train to end. Nor that even have actual metrics for success so we never have to stop taxing everyone. plus trust china when they tell you they will also "do stuff" too. even though they lie their ass off about everything Protip: china pollutes more than DOUBLE the usa. more than usa and europe combined. and while our emissions have declined over the last decade, theirs have exploded
- theseadroid 9y ago
  Protip, look at per capita. Or accumulative. How is it fair that u blame others after u done tons of pollution in the past?

130 points by 0xbadf00d 9y ago

> The decision will put the United States in league with Syria and Nicaragua as the world’s only non-participants in the Paris Climate Agreement. So I guess its up to private industry in the US to tackle climate change. And just before people start complaining about Trump.. > A letter from 22 Republican senators urging Mr Trump to withdraw played a major role in the decision, Axios said. This is an American political issue not a Trump issue..... > Canada, the European Union, and China have said they will honor their commitments to the pact even if the United States withdraws. A source told Reuters that India had also indicated it would stick by the deal. This is much happier news

lostcolony 9y ago
So not even half of the Republican Senators, let alone all the Democratic ones? Hardly an 'American' issue.
- leereeves 9y ago
  34 Senators would be required to block ratification. I wonder how that vote would turn out if Trump submitted the treaty to the Senate (as Obama should have).
  - jbooth 9y ago
    40. You need 66 to ratify a treaty, but you can also pass a 'treaty implementation bill' which is basically normal legislation mirroring the language of the treaty, and you only need a majority in the house, and either a majority or a filibuster-proof majority in the senate. That's how NAFTA was passed.
    - leereeves 9y ago
      Obama could have tried that with the Paris climate deal, but now it would require Trump's signature, or enough votes to override a veto (again including 67 Senators). But both sides seem to be playing by a new rulebook here, in which the President makes international agreements without consulting Congress.
- matthewmcg 9y ago
  More specifically, the issue is with Republican legislators listening to fossil fuel interests and wealthy donors over public opinion. A majority of people in the United States support climate action. Even a majority of self-identified Republicans.
  - mertd 9y ago
    How is it that the secretary of state who was a fossil fuel CEO is against quitting?
    - breatheoften 9y ago
      Many of the same researchers that developed the techniques that Exxon relies on to find oil also developed the arguments about anthropogenic climate change. There are certainly individuals within Exxon who acknowledge climate change. I do not envy their cognitive dissonance.
      - matthewmcg 9y ago
        Update: Exxon stockolders too! https://www.reuters.com/article/us-exxonmobil-climate-idUSKBN18R0DC https://www.reuters.com/article/us-exxonmobil-climate-idUSKB...
    - yorwba 9y ago
      I don't follow US politics very closely, so I don't know whom you are referring to; but if they were a fossil fuel CEO, they may no longer have a financial interest in quitting.
- mikeash 9y ago
  This particular example may not demonstrate it, but it absolutely is an American issue, not a Trump issue. Denial of climate change, its negative consequences, and the merits of fighting it have been a standard part of the Republican platform for a long time.
cooper12 9y ago
> So I guess its up to private industry in the US to tackle climate change. While I'm guessing you're referring to those like the solar industry, it doesn't matter if the rest of the manufacturers don't follow along. Fat chance that under capitalism all these industries will say "maybe we should curtail our production rate and consumption of resources for the sake of the environment, even if we make less profit and aren't compelled to by the law". [0] The free market demands that Moloch must continue being fed. [0]: http://i.imgur.com/80Az8Xx.jpg http://i.imgur.com/80Az8Xx.jpg
mistermann 9y ago
> Canada, the European Union, and China have said they will honor their commitments to the pact even if the United States withdraws. I'm not sure about other countries, but my understanding is that Canada is "honoring our commitments" to the Paris Climate Agreement in a way similar to how NATO members are honoring (or not, as the case may be) their financial commitments to NATO. https://insideclimatenews.org/news/28032017/justin-trudeau-canada-climate-change-paris-agreement https://insideclimatenews.org/news/28032017/justin-trudeau-c... But I suppose "that's different", right? If the motivating factor behind stopping climate change is saving lives, how come no one ever gets morally outraged at non-American countries not keeping their word when it comes to military funding, which I think could be argued saves lives as well? (Although to be fair, the net number of lives saved by military funding is debatable.)
- RandomBookmarks 9y ago
  Because other people know that the mutually agreed deadline for the 2% spending target is 2024. Now is 2017. >Although to be fair, the net number of lives saved by military funding is debatable.) That is the 2nd, and maybe more important reason.
  - mistermann 9y ago
    As others have pointed out in this thread, the 2% is merely a target and should therefore be disregarded. Enjoy the fruits of your demeanour.
- abandonliberty 9y ago
  The NATO agreement reached in 2014 was: >aim to move towards the 2% guideline within a decade with a view to meeting their NATO Capability Targets and filling NATO's capability shortfalls. It's not 2024 yet, and note that the agreement is to 'aim' - not exactly binding. As for the article you yourself linked to: >The report only models policies in place up to last Nov. 1. Since then, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's administration has made a number of significant climate policy changes through the Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change, an agreement between federal, provincial, and territorial governments to reduce emissions published on December 9. >"I think there are a lot of reasons to believe we are actually better off than the report suggests," Flanagan said. >More will be need to be done, however, to meet their targets, said Jake Schmidt, international program director at Natural Resources Defense Council. http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_112964.htm http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_112964.htm
chrramirez 9y ago
I'm from Nicaragua and this is new to me. But it does not surprise me. The ruling party have made billions from Venezuelan oil. They control the import, distribution and final sale of gas to customers. It's not in their interest to change the energy sources. Internally there's have been development in renewal energy, but these have been done by investors close to the Government and they mostly sale each watt as it was produced from bunker. This is possible because they own all the energy business in the country.
- thirdsun 9y ago
  It seems Nicaragua rejected the Paris agreement as it didn't go far enough [1]: > As world leaders gathered in the French capital in November 2015 to reach an agreement on fighting climate change, Nicaragua's lead envoy explained to reporters that the country would not support the agreed-upon plan as it hinged on voluntary pledges and would not punish those who failed to meet them. That was simply not enough, Paul Oquist argued. That leaves Syria, which may actually have other problems these days. The US seems to be pretty much alone in this. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/05/31/why-nicaragua-and-syria-didnt-join-the-paris-climate-accord/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/05/31...
XJOKOLAT 9y ago
Of course, it's a Trump issue. If Trump had the balls/leadership to stand up to the 22 Republicans for the right reason, we wouldn't be discussing this. As it stands, I'll reiterate the widely held view that Trump is the second-coming of the massive-orange-penis-wurst (which is often a bad sign)
- dang 9y ago
  We've banned this account for repeatedly violating the HN guidelines. If you don't want to be banned on HN, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and promise to follow the rules in the future.
  - XJOKOLAT 9y ago
    Nah, it's cool. Cheers, bye. Just don't promise something and don't deliver, that's all I ask. (If you've banned me, why is my login even operating?) P.s. if you bump into Peter Thiel in the Y-Combinator corridors, please tell him to kiss my ass. Thanks. Ahhhhhh ... I see ... shadowbanned. Thanks for letting me know at least. Above still holds though. Bye.
Gravityloss 9y ago
Signatories of the letter are here: https://www.yahoo.com/news/gop-senators-urge-trump-make-clean-exit-paris-agreement-163000473.html https://www.yahoo.com/news/gop-senators-urge-trump-make-clea...

radiorental 9y ago

While this is a setback I'm curious what real impact this will have? The markets seem to be driving towards clean energy regardless. Coal is not competitive against Natural gas (and I appreciate gas isn't ideal). And, hopefully the US will regain it's senses in 2018 & 2020 elections.

celticninja 9y ago
I would like to see a tariff applied to US goods produced in the US and exported to the rest of the world as means of charging the US for not abiding by the agreement.
- pvnick 9y ago
  This is an emerging talking point, but tariffs are a shoot-yourself-in-the-foot maneuver; restricting free trade increases the barriers to innovation, and innovation is precisely what renewable energy sources need to become cost effective.
  - celticninja 9y ago
    We aren't talking about a tariff on renewable energy production though are we. A Tariff on goods produced by companies/factories that are powered by coal or natural gas due for export to the rest of the world. Prove you use renewable energy and you dont pay the tariff, this would motivate companies who export to adopt greener energy. It would also make trade freer for companies who do this and more difficult for those who do not, therefore there is incentive to innovate to use renewable energy.
    - pvnick 9y ago
      Doesn't matter - tariffs decrease purchasing power (these things have a tendency to affect unrelated markets because of the economy's interconnectedness), and lower purchasing power means slower economic activity, which includes investment in things like research.

pvnick 9y ago

Good - renewable energy is becoming more efficient and within our lifetimes will become overtake fossil fuels as the most cost-effective forms of energy. Indeed this will happen faster in the absence of taxes and regulations that slow innovation and do relatively little to combat climate change. Edit: Use this website to find your representative and urge them to support this decision: https://callyourrep.co/ https://callyourrep.co/

celticninja 9y ago
In the short term companies will use this as a way to continue to pollute because it will be cheaper to pollute than upgrade factories to make them cleaner.
- rm_-rf_slash 9y ago
  Yes and no. Many companies in industries prone to regulation have accepted that the regular see-saw of political power means that roughly half their time will be spent under more stringent regulations, and so it makes more sense to stick with certain regulations instead of changing processes (which carry their own costs and complexities) every few years to shave a few cents on the dollar. An example: what if a Republican congress repealed legislation banning leaded gasoline? Would gas companies begin putting lead in gasoline again? Doubtful. Not only would it be a terrible PR move - since everybody accepts that lead is a dangerous neurotoxin - but as soon as government switches hands, the lead ban comes back, and all of that time and money switching to lead will have been an unjustifiable waste. Maybe not the best example, but you get the idea.
  - celticninja 9y ago
    Yes but in this situation we aren't talking about rolling back changes they have made but about not implementing new changes, they are easier to ignore or put off until there is a legal requirement to actually make those changes.
boona 9y ago
Pvnick your opinion doesn't fall in line with evangelical progressivism, so downvoting rather than engaging you directly is in order. Don't you know that politicians always and everywhere make things better, and that billions of individual actors competing and testing various ideas simultaneously is doomed to fail. Also, make sure to ignore competing voices. Science isn't about skepticism, it's who has more people on their side. To quote Einstein upon finding out that there was a book titled 100 Authors against Einstein "If I were wrong, then one [author] would have been enough!". Clearly he was an idiot. Also, ignore those who disagree with our world view like the ones listed below. They're literally Hitler. > Tom Woods Interview with Patrick Moore: http://tomwoods.com/ep-559-greenpeace-co-founder-repudiates-organization/ http://tomwoods.com/ep-559-greenpeace-co-founder-repudiates-... > The 97% consensus: http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.ca/2014/02/a-climate-falsehood-you-can-check-for.html http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.ca/2014/02/a-climate-falsehoo... > The Non-Expert Problem and Climate Change Science http://blog.dilbert.com/post/154082416051/the-non-expert-problem-and-climate-change-science http://blog.dilbert.com/post/154082416051/the-non-expert-pro...

reacharavindh 9y ago

Wonder if any country would take a stand and sanction the USA for "not doing their fair share to save the world". Like imposing a climate tax on US imports.. That'd be interesting.

celticninja 9y ago
Thats what I would like to see done and seems like the most appropriate way to deal with it.
theBobBob 9y ago
Yeah. They could say that this is to counter the price advantage that the US exports get by pulling out of environmental obligations. Not sure how this would play with the WTO. Plus it probably won't happen anyways.
- spiderfarmer 9y ago
  It won't happen. The diplomatic way is to not escalate things and just ignore the elephant in the room until it disappears. 3,5 years is not that long.
  - YSFEJ4SWJUVU6 9y ago
    You misspelled 7.5 years.
    - dang 9y ago
      Would you please stop posting inflammatory comments to HN and getting involved in flamewars? We eventually ban accounts that do that, and you've done a lot of it.
williamle8300 9y ago
What authority would tax the US? And why would the US even care about complying to it?

supercall 9y ago

This is insane. That being said, we have options. Please call your representatives, please donate to environmental groups. These actions won't directly force Trump to change his mind but we need to show the government that climate change is important to us Find your reps: https://tryvoices.com/ https://tryvoices.com/ Citizens Climate Lobby: https://citizensclimatelobby.org/donate/ https://citizensclimatelobby.org/donate/ 350.org: https://act.350.org/donate/build/ https://act.350.org/donate/build/

y0ghur7_xxx 9y ago
"A letter from 22 Republican senators urging Mr Trump to withdraw played a major role in the decision, Axios said." This is not just Trump.
- hsod 9y ago
  The buck stops with a letter from 22 Republican senators?

moron4hire 9y ago

Why bother quitting the deal? It's not like it has any teeth. Trump is dumber than I thought. He could have his cake and eat it, too.

lostcolony 9y ago
You're looking at it the wrong way. His cake is playing to his base, while helping his investments. Pulling out of the Paris accord does both. The people who care about the climate are not the ones who voted for him.
- owenversteeg 9y ago
  I mean, S&P 500 index funds are down about a dollar on this news. I'd bet that any minor gain to his investments was wiped out by whatever general market exposure he has, so overall (probably) not a move for him financially.
badlucklottery 9y ago
>Why bother quitting the deal? So he can look like he's getting something done. Almost everything Trump campaigned on was a pipe dream or he has managed to quickly derail if it was even remotely possible. So he needs something to parade around in front of his base even if it's entirely symbolic. For another example, look at the weird attempted rebrand of existing border fencing as "bollard walls" a while back because the border wall he campaigned on is never going to happen.
mac01021 9y ago
You're suggesting that having his cake and eating it too should mean [1] remaining unbound by onerous treaties(because the Paris deal is not very binding and [2] winning the favour of other nations in the deal as well as voters at home who support the deal. But there is a different cake that he likes to have and eat better: [1] remaining unbound by onerous treaties through the act of withdrawing from them altogether [2] appealing to his base at home by refusing to acknowledge GHG emissions as a problem as well as by appearing to stand up for america by declining to engage in any sort of compromise with other nations. So he won't withdraw because of any teeth that the deal has. If he withdraws it will be to keep up the appearance of sharing the same values and beliefs as his constituency. Whether or not that's dumb, I can't really say.

wmccullough 9y ago

The distressing thing about this goes way beyond whether or not climate change is human caused, or a natural cycle of the earth. I'm distressed that we would leave an agreement that would bring prosperity to future generations. Like it or not, we have to all still live here and keep this planet alive. How the hell did science ever become a political issue?

celticninja 9y ago
Trump thinks of the future as next week or next month, he doesnt think on a timeline longer than his own (or even that of his children).
rco8786 9y ago
Science has always been a political issue. Generally at odds with religion, which is also a political issue.
- hackeraccount 9y ago
  Both get used for political ends but I don't think either is inherently political. People enjoy using science and religion as a sort of "Open Sesame" to get political ends. I think it does neither any good.
coldpie 9y ago
> How the hell did science ever become a political issue? When it interfered with corporate profits. It's beneficial in the short term for American corporations to pretend climate change doesn't exist, so they do. The Republican party represents big corporate interests, so the Republican party follows suit in pretending it isn't real.
hackeraccount 9y ago
It's not the science that's politicized. It's the response to the science. Politics is, in my opinion, all about helping your friends and hurting your enemies. If the response is one that will do the opposite then your oppose it. It might happen that the best opposition is to deny the science but that's a consequence not a cause.

danso 9y ago

reposting from the previously flagged thread: More details from the NYT, in which it was noted that things are not final, as President Trump is set to meet with Secretary of State Rex Tillerson this afternoon. Tillerson has been advocating on behalf of sticking to the deal: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/31/climate/trump-quits-paris.. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/31/climate/trump-quits-paris.... > And Mr. Trump has proved himself willing to shift direction up until the moment of a public announcement. He is set to meet Wednesday afternoon with Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, who has advocated that the United States remain a part of the Paris accords and could continue to lobby the president to change his mind.

monkmartinez 9y ago

Does anyone share my apathy toward politics in general? My logic is that we have no, as in zero, control over the entire apparatus. In a country with two sides, there will be a natural bifurcation that will not allow for constructive... _anything_. Couple that to the beltway insider club AKA lobbying and you have a situation where only those with serious capital have a voice in the capital.

jackmott 9y ago
That fact that we elected Trump indicates we have incredible control. What an awful mistake.
- monkmartinez 9y ago
  The thing is, half or nearly half the country disagrees with you on paper. I bet its not anywhere near that in practice, as in there is a range of political spectrum. If we had more choice we wouldn't have align to the poles of a bipartisan system.
  - Retric 9y ago
    Trump got 46% of the vote. Which is normally rather far from 1/2 in election terms, ~25% of registered voters, and about 19.5% of the total US population. So, yea the guy won, but it's hard to extrapolate that to much popular support. At best you can say this is based on the electoral collage, but Maine and Nebraska split their delegates by district making it an even odder system than generally talked about.
    - Grue3 9y ago
      >but it's hard to extrapolate that to much popular support. Actually, it's pretty easy, given the ridiculously large sample size.
      - atomi 9y ago
        You're forgetting it was a volunteer sample size, there were active disenfranchisement campaigns, and his opposition garnered millions of more votes.

williamle8300 9y ago

At the risk of sounding nutty... I'll say it anyway. The Paris climate deal is a cabal for Goldman-Sachs to draw money from governments via the taxes levied for participating countries. If you read the deal itself, the language doesn't have any metrics for success... it's goals and methodologies for combatting climate change is really hoaky.

mcintyre1994 9y ago
Can you elaborate? Do you mean taxes voluntarily raised by the countries to meet their goals? Why would Goldman-Sachs make money from those taxes? Or do you mean more like fines for not meeting the goals - but that doesn't make sense because you said there's no metrics for success so how do you fine someone for falling short?
creaghpatr 9y ago
It's the new Federal Reserve
tom_mellior 9y ago
Run that by us again, please. Participating countries pay taxes... to Goldman-Sachs? That is written in "the deal itself"?
simias 9y ago
> the language doesn't have any metrics for success... That would only be useful if the deal imposed sanctions in case of missed objectives. And that was a big no-no because that would never have been ratified by the republican american congress. The deal had no teeth to begin with because of the USA (and in particular the republican party) and now they appear to be pulling out altogether. The USA is such a weird place as seen from abroad. Ahead in so many areas and yet completely backwards in others. It's frustrating really.
toxican 9y ago
You'd sound less nutty if you cited actual words from the deal to backup your claims.
hacker_9 9y ago

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

radiorental 9y ago

For anyone that has 5 minutes, this BBC article is chilling... http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20170418-how-western-civilisation-could-collapse http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20170418-how-western-civilis... The salient point being.. 'Western civilisation is not a lost cause, however. Using reason and science to guide decisions, paired with extraordinary leadership and exceptional goodwill, human society can progress to higher and higher levels of well-being and development' We seem to be at a point in time where all of those points are lacking in US policy & leadership.

brango 9y ago
If there's one thing the last year has shown us it's how irrational we are. Perhaps it's time to let HAL do what's best for us from now on...
- qbrass 9y ago
  Getting humans to hand over the reigns and think it was their idea was HAL's plan all along.

breatheoften 9y ago

I'm having an ongoing facebook feud with a die-hard Trump supporter who has been parroting the 'everything with an anonymous source is fake news' line for the last weeks. I challenged him to argue that it was likely Trump would not pull out of the Paris Accord because of the anonymous sources reporting that he intends to ... He just replied with some fake climate science and 'simple questions' that modern climate science has not answered to his satisfaction ... The blindness is insane -- and the damage really can't be overstated ...

interdrift 9y ago

the amount of ignorance in this action is unbearable.

Mendenhall 9y ago

I wonder how many know the details of what the deal actually is.

clamprecht 9y ago

Is there anything positive, at all, about leaving the Paris climate deal? Or is the president going to do something that helps no one (not even himself), and hurts us all? Who gains from this?

root_axis 9y ago
It benefits him because his base is vehemently opposed to it.

marcosdumay 9y ago

I can't help but wonder if doubling down on fossil fuels today isn't blatantly stupid. I mean, except for coal (that has some nasty enough local effects for most countries to quit by themselves) fossil fuels are already getting scarce. Production prices are going up and up, with just a few old fields holding them low enough for current prices. Increasing the reliance on them right now... Well, any smart player would be doing the exact opposite of it, wouldn't them?

pottersbasilisk 9y ago

Im seeing the liberal bubble here. Here is what trump supporters think(not a trump supporter). Its only ever been a bankster fraud pushed by goldman sachs https://quidsapio.wordpress.com/2012/06/06/how-goldman-sachs-invented-cap-and-trade/ https://quidsapio.wordpress.com/2012/06/06/how-goldman-sachs... https://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/12/goldman-sachs-buys-into-carbon-offsets/comment-page-1/ https://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/12/goldman-sachs-buy... https://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2008/10/27/street-cred-goldman-sachs-buys-into-carbon-credit-developer/ https://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2008/10/27/street... http://www.goldmansachs666.com/2009/05/al-gores-carbon-trading-scam-reeks-of.html http://www.goldmansachs666.com/2009/05/al-gores-carbon-tradi... These are the core tenents of the Paris Climate Agreement: (a) Holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels, recognizing that this would significantly reduce the risks and impacts of climate change; (b) Increasing the ability to adapt to the adverse impacts of climate change and foster climate resilience and low greenhouse gas emissions development, in a manner that does not threaten food production; (c) Making finance flows consistent with a pathway towards low greenhouse gas emissions and climate-resilient development. Translation for the gullible: give us money. for vague stuff. and vague goals. and vague methods that cant accomplish goals because we never want the tax gravy train to end. Nor that even have actual metrics for success so we never have to stop taxing everyone. plus trust china when they tell you they will also "do stuff" too. even though they lie their ass off about everything Protip: china pollutes more than DOUBLE the usa. more than usa and europe combined. and while our emissions have declined over the last decade, theirs have exploded

theseadroid 9y ago
Protip, look at per capita. Or accumulative. How is it fair that u blame others after u done tons of pollution in the past?