16 ms·

US quits Paris climate pact

517 points by antouank 9y ago

vowelless 9y ago
Can someone give me pros and cons of this move (serious responses only)? Thanks
- davesque 9y ago
  I think the only way anyone could argue there are any pros is if they could convince me that Trump has a different long-term plan to address climate change. Unfortunately, all of his actions up to this point indicate that he doesn't have any such plan. I really wish people would stop trying to understand and rationalize this man's actions. He has no rational for what he does other than his own short-lived whims and the general selfishness and narcissism that underlies his world view.
  - Danihan 9y ago
    Thanks for clarifying the pros and cons of this policy without inserting any of your personal bias!
    - davesque 9y ago
      You're welcome.
  - samsonradu 9y ago
    Well, not that I am defending him, but in his speech he said the deal is a burdain on the US industry while China and India are polluting as hell. This is something that might be factually right, but still not something to aspire to.
  - maxxxxx 9y ago
    That's a Republican orthodoxy, not just Trump. Climate change either doesn't occur, or if it occurs it's not man made, if it's man made nothing can be done. In any case, doing anything is job killing and anti freedom. I think Trump himself doesn't care.
    - MadSax 9y ago
      I don't think anyone argues that it doesn't occur, not even Republicans. The focus is on the extent of man's impact and what should be done about it. From the Republican point of view the alarmists have lost all credibility since about the 70s or 80s.
    - optimuspaul 9y ago
      Seems to me that doing something would actually create jobs, but maybe not enough to offset those lost? Shortsighted is what it really is. Who cares if it's job killing if the alternative is civilization killing.
  - giarc 9y ago
    Many large corporations have come out against this decision (P&G, Coca Cola, GE, FB, G, 3M, Dow etc). So if he's not doing this because of lobbying from them, why is he doing this? Lobbying from O&G companies? Or is it just pure ignorance?
    - marcell 9y ago
      > Lobbying from O&G companies Exxon Mobil's current and previous CEO were in favor of the Paris Accords. The previous CEO is also Trump's secretary of state. > Or is it just pure ignorance? There are vague claims that this will bring back manufacturing jobs, bring back oil coal jobs, etc. I don't know what the real reasons are, if any.
      - mywittyname 9y ago
        I speculate that Exxon Mobile's executive team is in support of it for selfish reasons. I'm not authority, but I bet it's easier for them to operate in foreign countries when the corporation's country of origin is involved in an international treaty because they can more easily claim to be in compliance of the law.
    - creaghpatr 9y ago
      The vast majority of companies in America are not Fortune 500 companies. The companies you listed would benefit disproportionately from the agreement because smaller businesses would struggle to meet the cost of compliance without the global scale. The number of American voters in those companies probably totals out to 2-3M tops, in a country of 350M.
      - giarc 9y ago
        I guess my comment was more about the idea or common thought that governments are under the thumb of the large corporations (those with the resources for large lobbying firms). Therefore, if these corporations are against this decision, who is Trump doing this for? Polls have shown majority of Americans are in favour of staying in the agreement (although I haven't seen the numbers broken down by party lines). So what is his motivation? Ironically this was a campaign promise, and the American public voted him in, so for once a politician is keeping their promise.
  - okreallywtf 9y ago
    That also assumes that whatever economic gains will be greater than the potential gains we could make by creating exportable renewable technology and the benefits of creating large numbers of sustainable energy jobs. Then you have to account for the fact that as pollution (and therefore, CO2) is reduced, air quality improves, cancer rates decrease and all of the other health benefits related to airborn pollutants. We are looking at an America without those things, or at least with renewables being adopted slower and with more resistance from the federal government than before. I'm ashamed really, I'm especially ashamed by all the poor/middle class people who are actually proud of this just because it makes liberals and europeans unhappy.
  - empath75 9y ago
    Trump's position amounts to hostage taking. Give us lots of money or we'll destroy the planet. It would be more honest if he did it with nukes.
- scrollaway 9y ago
  Decent thread on it: https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/comments/6eey64/what_are_the_pros_and_cons_of_trump_pulling_out/ https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/comments/6eey64/wha... TLDR; the only positive argument you can make about it is that with the current administration, the pact wouldn't have been respected anyway so it opens the avenue for others things.
- chestervonwinch 9y ago
  See: https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/19380/what-are-trumps-incentives-for-withdrawing-from-the-paris-climate-agreement https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/19380/what-are-...
- pseudometa 9y ago
  On the pro side, Trump can say he followed through with a campaign promise. The accord was non-binding self-enforced, so from a day-to-day business impact, not much changes from regular Trump policy setting. On the con side, foreign relations will be stressed and global climate policy will be set without US corporate input (possibly a good thing?).
- microcolonel 9y ago
  Pro: As sergiotapia mentioned, good for business because it is costly to comply. It may also not have ended up having much positive impact on the environment, there are people who can argue that for you. Con: People who support the pact symbolically, not necessarily having any of the expertise or knowledge required to consider it, will go into a blind rage over it; actual climate scientists will be considerably more calm.
- mmilano 9y ago
  I watched the announcement w/o knowing much about it. He justified the decision by saying: - We're paying 100b/year when other developed countries do not have to. - Spending on that is unaccounted for. - The impact will be (only) a 2/10 Celcius reduction in temperature by 2100 - The positive impact by 2030 is the equivalent of what China pollutes in 14 days. Just stating what was said. I don't know which are facts.
  - fudgie 9y ago
    According to Michael E. Mann, in 2100 it's +4.5C with no action, +3.5C with just the Paris Accord, and +1.8C with ratcheting up. (https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DBQpulkWAAE2mrc.jpg https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DBQpulkWAAE2mrc.jpg)
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - sparkzilla 9y ago
      Would that be the 'Nobel prize winner' Dr Mann, who massaged the so-called hockey stick data leading to all this climate change/global warming hysteria in the first place? Hardly a credible source of anything IMHO.
      - glup 9y ago
        cite your sources please
        sparkzilla 9y ago
        https://www.amazon.com/22A-Disgrace-Profession-22-Steyn-editor/dp/0986398330/ref=as_li_ss_tl?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1482417009&sr=1-1&keywords=Steyn+disgrace+to+the+profession&linkCode=sl1&tag=steyn-20&linkId=19e34bc537199fe881f1c2d288a7c5c1 https://www.amazon.com/22A-Disgrace-Profession-22-Steyn-edit...
        deleted 9y ago
- Mikeb85 9y ago
  It's not really about immediate pros and cons. The Paris accords don't actually hold nations to any sort of immediate reduction in CO2 emissions. They call for nations to start reducing their emissions in 2020, and progress to a final target in about half a century. Obama's pledge wasn't to even be realised until 2025. Most nations are implementing various carbon taxes in an attempt to reduce emissions, the obvious is that no carbon tax means no additional tax on businesses and transportation. This could be considered an upside. Downside? Who knows, the US never really implemented anything anyway, so practically nothing will change. Ultimately, potential issues will be global warming on a catastrophic level. Then again, that may happen with or without the US attempting to reduce emissions.
- Danihan 9y ago
  The deal is unenforceable, very expensive, and most likely will fail. Also, China emits twice as much greenhouse gas as the United States.
  - tzs 9y ago
    > Also, China emits twice as much greenhouse gas as the United States. Not per capita, which is what is relevant when it comes to setting a country's policies.
    - Danihan 9y ago
      So as long as your country is overflowing with poverty-stricken people, you're a role model for solidly low carbon emissions per capita? Got it..
      - dguaraglia 9y ago
        Oh, moving the goalposts. The classical right-wing strategy.
        Danihan 9y ago
        How is that moving the goalposts? Any poor, overpopulated country is going to have low per-capita carbon emissions, true or false? They also have a lower quality of life and poor GDP. Not exactly a positive goal to shoot for.
        dguaraglia 9y ago
        You started by saying China emits double the amount of greenhouse gasses the US does. Someone pointed out that it's still lower on a per-capita basis, so you switched tack to "oh, well, yeah, but... WHY DO POOR COUNTRIES GET A PASS!" That, my friend, is moving the goalposts. So you want the US, richest nation in the world, to be held to the same standards as developing countries. Even though, in our economy, pushing for green energy actually generates more jobs than trying to bring back polluting industries. What, exactly, is there to gain from that?
- slededit 9y ago
  You need to separate the details of the deal from the goal its attempting to achieve. The deal itself limits the US more than other countries which pollute more in absolute terms, and results in wealth transfers to those countries (directly). Given the relative wealth of the nation's involved I think the deal was fair. But that is a debatable point. The USA doesn't need this deal in place to limit its own emissions although its unlikely Trump would put much effort into it.
- throwaway-1209 9y ago
  Pros: the US was signing up for a _minimum_ of $100B/yr in foreign aid to help others implement the accords. When you're up to your ears in debt that's kind of stupid. Cons: estimates say that the climate will be warmer by 0.3 degrees Celsius by 2100. Assuming estimates are in fact right (which they historically haven't been) this could have devastating effects elsewhere in the world.
  - surveilmebro 9y ago
    For anyone taking this comment seriously: verify the numbers for yourself. The poster has given the lower bound of the confidence interval in positing that we will see 0.3C warming by 2100. The latest assessment puts warming at 3.7C (6.67F!) under the "Business as Usual" RCP8.5 scenario. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_Concentration_Pathways https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_Concentration_P... Edit -- not to mention that climate models are quite good at reproducing the observed changes: https://www.skepticalscience.com/Climate-Models-Show-Remarkable-Agreement-with-Recent-Surface-Warming.html https://www.skepticalscience.com/Climate-Models-Show-Remarka...
    - throwaway-1209 9y ago
      That's if _everyone_ withdraws. That's not what's happening. 0.3 degrees is if the US withdraws but everyone else proceeds as planned. But we aren't even withdrawing per se. Immediately after announcing his decision, Trump also announced his willingness to re-negotiate the accords on better terms (by which I think he means not spending $100/B a year on something that other countries aren't even legally bound by). And climate models predict things just fine as long as you pick the ones that are somewhat accurate in retrospect. That's not what prediction is. Prediction is when, like Al Gore, you say that in 15 years we'll all be underwater, and it doesn't happen. If you bet your money on the accuracy of the current models you will lose.
      - surveilmebro 9y ago
        Complete nonsense on both counts. First of all, consider that the most visible public debate about this has centered on whether it is even possible to limit warming to 2C. Start by reading the two links I posted. If you would like to learn more, the IPCC reports are genuinely well written and accessible: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/ https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/ I would hope that at least on HN we could all agree on a shared objective reality and the validity of the scientific method. Your claims sound like something straight out of a Heartland brochure.
- dguaraglia 9y ago
  Pros: "it's the opposite of what Obama and Libruls wanted!". That's good enough for some of the Republican base, but that's about it. Most of the economic growth in the US has come from the clean energy industry and from improving current industries to be less polluting. Being able to burn coal and fuel 24/7 just "because we can" isn't going to make the country more productive. It's just a canard. Cons: - US losing leadership position on everything related to climate change - US opening itself to tariffs from other countries that are in the Paris agreement - US looking like a regressive regime that does stupid shit just to get headlines My guess is the third one will have the biggest impact.
- microcolonel 9y ago
  Here's a video which contains an argument that the accord is largely pointless, because China isn't just going to stick its head in the sand and go back to a pre-industrial economy tomorrow: https://youtu.be/QOFhpoDY0As https://youtu.be/QOFhpoDY0As James Hansen, a former NASA climate scientist, previously described the paris accord as "a fraud". He's describing this from the perspective of knowing it's not enough to do anything significant, and incredibly expensive. [0] [0]: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/12/james-hansen-climate-change-paris-talks-fraud https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/12/james-ha...
sergiotapia 9y ago
Response from the market: http://i.imgur.com/CDKVSWq.jpg http://i.imgur.com/CDKVSWq.jpg The Paris Accord according to President Trump would have allowed China to do whatever they want for the next 13 years, while India would receive billions in aid. http://climateactiontracker.org/countries/usa.html http://climateactiontracker.org/countries/usa.html - US Pledges ( 26-28%) VS. http://climateactiontracker.org/countries/china.html http://climateactiontracker.org/countries/china.html - China Pledges (0%)
- dgquintas 9y ago
  that's hardly a response to anything. The market moves in that amount (and larger) every day.
- vxxzy 9y ago
  That's more likely a response to the Jobs Announcement...
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- hinkley 9y ago
  And us not being there is going to prevent this how?
- lukewink 9y ago
  The announcement came after the market closed, didn't it?
  - harryh 9y ago
    Also the announcement wasn't a surprise. To whatever degree this announcement might have an effect on future corporate earnings (a fairly dubious connection imho) it was already priced in.
- epistasis 9y ago
  US is getting off pretty easily here, since we're only making pledges about the future, and not having to pay for what we're already putting out there.
pouetpouet 9y ago
China+EU have grounds to put tariffs on US products.
- davesque 9y ago
  Yes, and, as a citizen of the United States, I honestly think they should. The only thing that makes sense to the current generation of Congressman and beltway insiders is money. The rest of the world can shape US policy quickly and easily by threatening our supply of it.
- gonvaled 9y ago
  Problem is, US will put them too. Actually, Trump wants to put them for other reasons, so we would be falling on his trap there.
  - nirav72 9y ago
    > US will put them too. and that will hurt Trump's base supporters more than any other group. The ones that still work in manufacturing that the U.S exports.
    - gonvaled 9y ago
      I really do not care about Trump or his supporters. This is hurting all of us, specially the coming generations.
      - nirav72 9y ago
        Well I agree with you there. Just pointing out that this they basically cutting their nose to spite the face. They might see some short-term gains, but in the long-run..it will disproportionately impact them more.
        gonvaled 9y ago
        I wrote hastily, and forgot to point the most crucial observation: I do not care about Trump's supporters, but I also suspect that he does not care either. But even that is not the most salient point: it does not matter if my suspicious is right or wrong. The bottom line is that, whether Trump cares or not, if his policies turn out hurting his voter base, he will never be affected by it. It's a terrible situation: the long term policies of a powerful politician have absolutely no way of affecting his political career. He can rejoice in short term benefits: rise in popularity if the economy improves short term or, in the very specific case of Trump, short term financial gain thanks to his very complex network of business interests, while destroying the planet for good. How can we call that democracy?
seiferteric 9y ago
Does anyone think we might start seeing a brain drain out of the US given the current political climate?
- muninn_ 9y ago
  No, not really. If it stays like this for 20+ years, then definitely.
  - devnonymous 9y ago
    Umm, I think people who say things like "20+ years..." haven't been paying attention to the change in rate of large scale social change over the last few decades. Do you really think anyone could have predicted today in 1997 ? (today as in, Brexit, Trump, Nsa/Privacy, Fb...etc)
    - maxerickson 9y ago
      There were people not using cell phones in 1997 because of the privacy implications. I guess they were making some assumptions that they would likely apply to modern tech.
    - waqf 9y ago
      Well, The Simpsons in 2000 predicted President Trump. And I'm not exactly sure what surprises you about the NSA, I think many civil-liberties groups in 1997 would have been happy to talk your ear off about their (reasonable or unreasonable) surveillance concerns.
    - wil421 9y ago
      The things you mentioned are so insignificant I doubt there will be more than a section about them in the history books. In 1997 the EU was only 4 years old! Clinton was using submarines to tap undersea cables. AOL was connecting households around the country. I don't agree that these changes are large scale compared to 20 years ago. Looks like the cycle is repeating itself and only the names have changed.
    - 9y ago
amichail 9y ago
Canadians should be happy with the resulting milder winters.
zorpner 9y ago
Elon Musk just posted that he will, as promised, be quitting the presidential council: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/870369915894546432 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/870369915894546432
- datamingle 9y ago
  Now has more time to start another company
  - CobrastanJorji 9y ago
    Given that he now has a ground car company, an underground car company, and a space car company, I assume the next one will have to be some sort of atmospheric flying car company.
    - giarc 9y ago
      Boats?
      - tomovo 9y ago
        Boat sovereign state. He can be president too.
    - bioapparatus 9y ago
      My money is on a water car.
      - ChuckMcM 9y ago
        ... with rockets.
        bioapparatus 9y ago
        That's the convergence phase, where the rocket car, land car, underground car, and boat car fuse into a glorious transportation chariot for humanity's reach for the stars. Can't remember what page that would be in Musk's master plan. The pictures were awesome.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
harichinnan 9y ago
The liberals should take a page out of the Venezuelan Hunger Bonds movement and identify companies that fund climate change denial. A climate bond movement to target and blacklist company shares/bonds or other offerings would get the message across.
- thewopr 9y ago
  In general, it seems like most larger companies opposed this move.
- macawfish 9y ago
  Could you give more information on how to do this? I'm wondering if it wouldn't be possible to build an app that recognizes brands and tells you if they are connected to the koch brothers... Like you can whip out your phone and scan a barcode at the store. It tells you climate relevant info about the product. Edit: apparently there are several apps like this: https://www.forbes.com/sites/paularmstrongtech/2017/01/11/three-apps-that-will-help-you-find-out-which-brands-have-dirty-secrets/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/paularmstrongtech/2017/01/11/th...
  - harichinnan 9y ago
    https://www.marketplace.org/2017/05/31/world/what-you-need-know-about-venezuela-s-hunger-bonds https://www.marketplace.org/2017/05/31/world/what-you-need-k...
- spaceflunky 9y ago
  Wow, that's great idea. I bet that worked out great for Venezuela. Let's see how their economy is doing...
credo 9y ago
It was a bit disingenuous for Trump to describe India and China as top polluters India (population 1.3 Billion) creates lesser CO2 emissions than the US China's per-capita emissions is just around half of that of the US [Edit: replying to comment about pollution and emissions The Paris agreement is about climate change and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. When Trump talks about polluters and withdrawing from the Paris agreement, it seems illogical to suggest that he wasn't referring to CO2 emissions]
- panzagl 9y ago
  Pollution is not CO2.
  - gonvaled 9y ago
    When talking about global warming, yes. To an overwhelming extent.
    - panzagl 9y ago
      And this is why the US has so much trouble with climate change as an issue- first it was sulfur dioxide, then lead, then CFCs, now it's CO2. The US has been doing this since the 70's. Now Europe and China want to pretend they care with words, and giving the US's money to the third world, yet every picture of a city in China looks like London in the 1890's and it turns out those oh so green Euro car makers were cheating their emissions tests, but that's not important, what's important is that we hold hands and make pleasant noises at each other. I don't see how anyone who calls themselves an engineer can stomach when this feel good ignorance is put forward as a solution- this is rearranging deck chairs to the highest degree.
      - gonvaled 9y ago
        What are you talking about? Lead is bad for your health. CFCs are bad for Ozone. CO2 is bad for global warming. All pretty much universally accepted. European cars, with cheating and all, are miles ahead of US cars. And they have been heavily fined for cheating, as they should. And China has not yet contributed a meager percent of the cumulated US CO2. Not to talk per capita. The planet is not yours.
jokermatt999 9y ago
What are the foreign policy implications of this? Every single other country's reaction that I've seen has been to beg the US to stay in the accord.
upofadown 9y ago
That seems... very not clever... Why deliberately try to piss everyone off? Why not just follow the popular approach of agreeing to some environmental agreement and then entirely ignoring it?
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > Why deliberately try to piss everyone off? The best way to sell authoritarianism is the fear of outside enemies. The best way to build a fear of outside enemies is to have outsiders actually hate you, for things you've already sold as necessary for the good of your own people.
  - gonvaled 9y ago
    And this diverts attention from the last N scandals. Pretty sad to think that humankind was not moved from a dangerous path to cover a pussy grabber.
pavlov 9y ago
The United States of America spent a hundred years building up a global leadership position. President Trump has effectively destroyed it in a mere four months. China is adeptly stepping up to fill the void left by the United States. Last week Trump did his best to alienate America's long-standing European allies, who now feel that they are on their own against Russia's expanding European power plays. So Europe is turning to China as well. Chinese and European leaders have scheduled a meeting tomorrow to state how they intend to expand efforts to fight climate change. Meanwhile, USA is isolating itself with Syria and Nicaragua as the only three countries to stay out of the Paris accord.
- nickserv 9y ago
  It's as if participating in the agreement required adopting the metric system ;-)
- dismantlethesun 9y ago
  Perhaps the US isn't a good global leader. It is, after all, only the aftermath of WW2 that left enough of a power vacuum for two countries at the edges of "proprer civilisation" like the USA and Russia to take the central position as the world superpowers. I wouldn't be sad if the USA returns to a position of only interfering within its sphere of influence in North and South America. Being a global leader isn't merely about the power to do so, but about caring about other countries to the point that you see them as directly intertwined with your own. The USA, for better or worse, has always viewed other nations as 'other'.
  - aaron-lebo 9y ago
    What? The US is a nation of immigrants. It doesn't see other nations as "other" any more than any other nation, and probably less so because we're very culturally diverse. But yeah, if you want to go back to the days where benevolent places like the British Empire, Imperial Germany, and the USSR ruled the world, have at it. Because they were benevolent, right? The US isn't doing a great job, but if American power gets rolled back, are you ready for Russia to come rolling into Eastern Europe? You ready for the Chinese to invade Taiwan? The US is the only thing preventing that. It's not ideal but it's not all bad, either.
rayiner 9y ago
Even as an environmentalist, I'm okay with this. The political reaction to climate change is a farce. The Paris accord isn't going to do anything, just like the Kyoto protocol didn't do anything. It's just a way for people to feel good without making any real lifestyle changes.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > Even as an environmentalist Huh? From your comment history here, you seem like much more of a laissez-faire capitalist than any kind of environmentalist.
  - comicjk 9y ago
    Some environmentalists are anti-technology types or nihilists, who look forward with pleasure at the idea of humanity suffering for its hubris. The only solution they'll consider is people changing their behavior for moral reasons, which is comfortingly unlikely. They're not fans of other environmentalists discussing happier ideas, like setting up incentives for economic and technological growth beyond fossil fuels.
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      This is true, however rayiner appears to be neither the anti-tech/nihilist type of environmentalist nor the "set up incentives" type of environmentalist. (E.g., on the specific issue of climate he explicitly rejects setting up incentives or any other "political fix".) Rather, he seems to believe that the market will provide for all, even when externalities make that irrational for individual actors in the market without some regulatort regime internalizing those externalities. Hence, my description of him as a laissez-faire capitalist rather than any kind of environmentalist.
  - ersii 9y ago
    So what? Neither are mutually exclusive.
  - rayiner 9y ago
scarmig 9y ago
This is one of those situations where you should be shaking your head, even if you're a climate change denying conservative or a fussil fuel industrial interest. The Paris pact was pretty toothless: it was a step forward, but heavily aspirational. Indeed, one of the stated complaints of conservatives was that it did nothing to enforce compliance. The Trump Administration could have just as well ignored it without formally reneging on it and forced the next administration to deal with the egg on the face for failing to meet the USA's commitments. But instead he's seriously undermined people's ability to trust in the United States maintaining its international obligations for anything except the shortest periods of time. To be fair, what he's done already with NATO is far worse. But this underlines the reality that the United States government is so unstable that it's unable to uphold any coherency in policy or meet its stated commitments. If you're a small country who's been trusting the USA as a solid ally against regional competitors, you're looking at this and going, "well, maybe I should be focusing more on ties with the EU/Russia/China/India." It's honestly pretty humiliating for the USA, even aside from the fact that we've just fucked the next generation just to give the finger to elitist liberals and scientists.
- rayiner 9y ago
  Yes, the Paris pact was toothless. It was never going to work, just like Kyoto didn't work. So what's wrong with pulling out of it? Consternation over the Paris accord is, in my opinion, elitist liberal virtue signaling. (Here in the DC/MD/VA area, everyone will complain about this move at Starbucks sipping on lattes while driving one hour each way to work from their McMansion in the exurbs. God forbid we do anything that might require lifestyle changes, i.e. have some real hope of working.)
  - yongjik 9y ago
    But Trump did not pull out of Paris because it's toothless. He pulled out because even a toothless, largely symbolic agreement about climate change is against the core tenets of his supporters, i.e., that climate change is a liberal hoax. I know it, Trump knows it, and we all know it.
  - scarmig 9y ago
_ph_ 9y ago
This is sad news. The direct impact on the carbon reduction might actually be not too large, as renewable energies are actually the cheaper alternative, and as many of the American states are pushing for carbon reductions. The big downside of the US quitting the Paris climate pact is the political signal it is sending. The pact was significant, because it was the first time the world managed to agree on something (except Syria and Nicaragua). Leaving the pact sends the signal, that the US does not want to internationally collaborate on preventing climate change. Most of our todays problems and challenges can only be solved by international collaboration, be they environmental or economical. It would have the better signal, and probably also served the US interests better, if the US would not quit the climate pact.
yogthos 9y ago
A failed state.
diafygi 9y ago
I have a cleantech startup, and in the industry we see this decision as only having a negative impact on deep red states. Most other states will implement mandates in line with Paris on their own, which will grow their local energy economies (the transition means lots of jobs). Deep red states that try to slow the transition will just get left behind. Trump is hurting his own base, while not slowing anyone else down. The economics are simply too good to turn back now. Happy to answer questions. And many companies in cleantech are hiring!
- qbaqbaqba 9y ago
  Would you company be possible without any sort of government support(federal/local/etc), financial or legal?
  - addicted 9y ago
    Would oil companies be possible without the US military defending them in the rogue states they usually extract their oil from? And that's not even considering the direct subsidies they receive.
    - mikeash 9y ago
      Don't forget the massive indirect subsidies of being allowed to pollute without having to pay for the damage this causes to other people's health and property.
    - propman 9y ago
      In California we will be paying 77 cents per gallon just from taxes. So the price at the pumps would be 77cents lower. From every renewable energy we get tax credits. Yes we pay for subsidies of random things like cattle, corn, and oil, but the subsidies like the PTC and the solar energy credit are much more in comparison. This doesn't mean I don't agree with it. The subsidies have dropped the price of wind and solar considerably and we will see a huge economic boom from relatively little tax benefits. The greatest subsidies we could have right now can actually be accomplished through bipartisan support. Funding for transmission lines can be lumped into the infrastructure bill. $7 billion of transmission lines in Texas sponsored by the current trump cabinet pick Rick Perry brought Texas Wind energy production from nowhere to number one in the country and larger than three states below it in just 6 years. Texas is planning to add more win this year then the total amount by the second highest state has in total. He didn't force utilities to build wind farms. Instead he built the infrastructure to make building wind farms extremely cost competitive. There are a dozen possible transmission lines that would create thousands of jobs and connect wind and solar heavy areas to high density cities. If we can get those transmission lines up, we won't have to worry about government for renewable energy because it will be politically and economically in our benefit to use renewables
maaaats 9y ago
Why was this removed from the front page?
PythonicAlpha 9y ago
This is a bad day for the US, since by such a behavior ("America first -- ignore international pacts"), the other countries will less and less likely follow this country (with exception of Saudi Arabia, of course). The Europeans are already drawn to China and India and this will grow stronger. And Trump should not think, that European buyers will be more inclined in the future to support US companies by buying US products.
- exclusiv 9y ago
  Can you explain how Europeans are drawn to China and India given their records on human rights? Are they not informed about the Chinese government? I fail to see how that's more alluring than dealing with America and Trump even with all his faults and arrogance. I think this move was bad and miscalculated at several levels, but I don't think it's going to have the impact you suggest.
  - 0xFFFE 9y ago
    "China and India given their records on human rights?" Are you suggesting there is no country in the world where human rights are not violated? I am not defending the violation, but that sentence sounds naively aloof and disconnected from reality.
    - exclusiv 9y ago
      No I'm not suggesting that at all. I just don't see how Europeans would gravitate towards alignment with those countries after this news given their human rights histories and current governments. The only thing I can think is that Europeans are more environmentalists and will simply turn the other cheek on those violations so long as they get their climate change deals. Either that or the notion that they'll be pushed toward China and India is overblown.
      - 0xFFFE 9y ago
        Thanks for the polite response and my apologies for being a bit of a dick in choosing those words. And yes, I agree with the points you made.
agar 9y ago
Besides the obvious concerns about the impact on the climate, I'm really surprised that Trump doesn't recognize (or prioritize) the economic costs to pulling out of the agreement. A new axis between the EU and China could jeopardize US efforts to become a leader in the research, development, sales, and services of clean tech. As costs of clean technology naturally drop to be equal or less than fossil fuels (as is already happening), this will become a massive market that ultimately shrinks the size of the oil/gas and coal industries. The decision to pull out of the agreement could have a large negative impact on the ability to attract leading researchers and funding, which then affects future jobs and US competitiveness in what will clearly be a massive growth industry. This will lead to job loss in oil and gas, with no commensurate increase in the jobs in replacement fields. Trump seems to take a "public company-esque" view of governing: focus on short-term gains rather than long-term R&D and strategic planning to win the long game.
NicoJuicy 9y ago
So Trump is basicly quitting the Paris climate pact for the mining industry, which is mostly automated? Leaving the solar space for China that going to be the leader in solar energy. I've actually never thought i would say this, but my "admiration" for the US has drasticly declined the last few months. I think this also affects "Silicon Valley". PS. Am i right that your President only had a one hit wonder with Trump Tower, with daddy's money. Then licensed everything ( the few things he did with casino's failed). And ... He is now the president, because he was in a TV-show? Or am i missing something?
- beart 9y ago
  As to why he is now the president, it is far from being that simple. Him winning really had very little to do with his qualifications as a candidate.
  - NicoJuicy 9y ago
    That too, but the difference between the previous president and the current one is really light and day.
  - maxerickson 9y ago
    I would phrase that differently. He was incredibly qualified as a candidate. Huge name recognition, a particular sort of charisma, shameless. It's the office that he isn't qualified for.
    - NicoJuicy 9y ago
      To be honest, when your starting a business. I think to have him as a "business partner" would be a very bad idea also.
- mikeash 9y ago
  You're missing about three decades of right-wing propaganda. President Trump is the logical conclusion of The Rush Limbaugh Show, Fox News, and other assorted media. These people systematically created a tribal political environment where facts don't matter, ridicule is the best argument, and Democrats are the enemy. They've been pounding this into the heads of any American who would listen since the late 1980s or so. Along comes Trump, who is the embodiment of all of these traits, and this extensive groundwork pays off. He's constantly wrong, but his voters have been trained to embrace that. He behaves terribly, but his voters have been trained that this is a good thing as long as the target is the left. And of course denial of climate change, its negative consequences, and the merits of fighting it are one of the core pillars of this propaganda. Add in the electoral college, which gives a substantial advantage to candidates who can win rural voters, and here we are.
wollstonecraft 9y ago
If this bothers you, elect senators who will ratify an actual treaty.
- mikeash 9y ago
  Already did. Too bad my senators are canceled out by the senators chosen by the 600,000 inhabitants of Wyoming.
  - webXL 9y ago
    Pretty flippant solution by the GP, but to your point, there has to be some consensus among the states, just as there needs to be consensus among nations, no matter how varied the size of their populations. I'm in a small state, so I don't want California and New York setting our policy just as much as you don't want China and India setting yours.
    - mikeash 9y ago
      States are pretty arbitrary divisions. If California split into 66 equally populated pieces, nothing about the people or land would change, but they'd suddenly have 132 senators instead of 2, and each chunk would still have more people than Wyoming. Or they could split into 1000 pieces and have 2000 senators and completely dominate Congress. Would that be fair, do you think?
charred_toast 9y ago
If you look at this within the context of the new World Order it makes perfect sense. Trump is just another puppet President being used to incite tensions within the country while stoking unrest to foreign observers. The plan is to let the US become a third world country. Syria, Nicaragua, the United States, 'nuff said. Oh, and I failed to mention how China will become the gold standard in governing procedure, as has always been the plan. When a socialist country becomes the "world leader" you absolutely know the UN is aware and purposefully instigating just that. If China isn't a perfect example of how to run a one world government, I fail to see what else is. Democracy? Oh my god that's hilarious. Anyone with a lick of intelligence, historical knowledge, and context of global politics knows what is actually happening. America is simply being displaced as was intended since the Central Bank cartels infiltrated our economy, our politics, and now, our way of life. Mission accomplished. Edit: Downvoted into oblivion? — I understand. The truth is usually hard to swallow.
gonvaled 9y ago
It has stopped being funny now.
NicoJuicy 9y ago
The american dream is a prime minister : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4rWVOeEI7Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4rWVOeEI7Y . It could be shoved aside. Since the US is now 4 months with Trump, another 44 months to go. I am really wondering what he will do next
NicoJuicy 9y ago
Offtopic, shouldn't this be the #1 post, it's probably blacklisted currently: http://imgur.com/XdEShU0 http://imgur.com/XdEShU0
- an27 9y ago
  Could be manual or because it contains shitpost-attracting keywords, it's a Trump post after all. (Not implying Trump or his followers are shit, just that partisan issues attract shitposts and unfruitful emotional discussions.)
fooker 9y ago
Times have changed. New York Times mocked India two years ago. http://www.indiatimes.com/news/india/new-york-times-mocks-india-yet-again-this-time-with-a-cartoon-on-climate-change-248245.html http://www.indiatimes.com/news/india/new-york-times-mocks-in...
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
rodrigocoelho 9y ago
This is The Weather Channel website (https://weather.com/ https://weather.com/) right now (reportedly, I can't see it due to my location): https://twitter.com/johncheese/status/870372600693895170 https://twitter.com/johncheese/status/870372600693895170
reirob 9y ago
The answer from French president Emmanuel Macron to Trump's announcement (in English, video, 03:17): https://www.pscp.tv/w/1jMKgoodLyqKL https://www.pscp.tv/w/1jMKgoodLyqKL edit: typos, duration of video
- jansho 9y ago
  The silver lining. "All you talented people in the US, allez, France welcomes you with big arms."
clumsysmurf 9y ago
370 upvotes in 2 hours with 268 comments (as I write this), yet this story is at the very bottom of the front page of HN at #28 (6:15 EST). Does HN systematically penalize / shadow censor certain kinds of content?
- greglindahl 9y ago
  You're seeing the effects of a lot of flagging, which is common for things which are either very political, or for which the discussions are overwhelmingly lame. This discussion is both.
vorg 9y ago
I'd say certain countries have gotten together behind the scenes to take turns playing bad cop. Now it's America's turn, a few years ago it was Australia who refused to sign.
defined 9y ago
Oh, this is just Trump sticking it to Macron for humiliating Trump by crushing his knuckles in that infamous handshake. /s
lxcid 9y ago
Remember the old story of The Tortoise and The Hare? U.S. is acting like the Hare now…
thrillgore 9y ago
I just want the hell out of the US.

517 points by antouank 9y ago

vowelless 9y ago

Can someone give me pros and cons of this move (serious responses only)? Thanks

davesque 9y ago
I think the only way anyone could argue there are any pros is if they could convince me that Trump has a different long-term plan to address climate change. Unfortunately, all of his actions up to this point indicate that he doesn't have any such plan. I really wish people would stop trying to understand and rationalize this man's actions. He has no rational for what he does other than his own short-lived whims and the general selfishness and narcissism that underlies his world view.
- Danihan 9y ago
  Thanks for clarifying the pros and cons of this policy without inserting any of your personal bias!
  - davesque 9y ago
    You're welcome.
- samsonradu 9y ago
  Well, not that I am defending him, but in his speech he said the deal is a burdain on the US industry while China and India are polluting as hell. This is something that might be factually right, but still not something to aspire to.
- maxxxxx 9y ago
  That's a Republican orthodoxy, not just Trump. Climate change either doesn't occur, or if it occurs it's not man made, if it's man made nothing can be done. In any case, doing anything is job killing and anti freedom. I think Trump himself doesn't care.
  - MadSax 9y ago
    I don't think anyone argues that it doesn't occur, not even Republicans. The focus is on the extent of man's impact and what should be done about it. From the Republican point of view the alarmists have lost all credibility since about the 70s or 80s.
  - optimuspaul 9y ago
    Seems to me that doing something would actually create jobs, but maybe not enough to offset those lost? Shortsighted is what it really is. Who cares if it's job killing if the alternative is civilization killing.
- giarc 9y ago
  Many large corporations have come out against this decision (P&G, Coca Cola, GE, FB, G, 3M, Dow etc). So if he's not doing this because of lobbying from them, why is he doing this? Lobbying from O&G companies? Or is it just pure ignorance?
  - marcell 9y ago
    > Lobbying from O&G companies Exxon Mobil's current and previous CEO were in favor of the Paris Accords. The previous CEO is also Trump's secretary of state. > Or is it just pure ignorance? There are vague claims that this will bring back manufacturing jobs, bring back oil coal jobs, etc. I don't know what the real reasons are, if any.
    - mywittyname 9y ago
      I speculate that Exxon Mobile's executive team is in support of it for selfish reasons. I'm not authority, but I bet it's easier for them to operate in foreign countries when the corporation's country of origin is involved in an international treaty because they can more easily claim to be in compliance of the law.
  - creaghpatr 9y ago
    The vast majority of companies in America are not Fortune 500 companies. The companies you listed would benefit disproportionately from the agreement because smaller businesses would struggle to meet the cost of compliance without the global scale. The number of American voters in those companies probably totals out to 2-3M tops, in a country of 350M.
    - giarc 9y ago
      I guess my comment was more about the idea or common thought that governments are under the thumb of the large corporations (those with the resources for large lobbying firms). Therefore, if these corporations are against this decision, who is Trump doing this for? Polls have shown majority of Americans are in favour of staying in the agreement (although I haven't seen the numbers broken down by party lines). So what is his motivation? Ironically this was a campaign promise, and the American public voted him in, so for once a politician is keeping their promise.
- okreallywtf 9y ago
  That also assumes that whatever economic gains will be greater than the potential gains we could make by creating exportable renewable technology and the benefits of creating large numbers of sustainable energy jobs. Then you have to account for the fact that as pollution (and therefore, CO2) is reduced, air quality improves, cancer rates decrease and all of the other health benefits related to airborn pollutants. We are looking at an America without those things, or at least with renewables being adopted slower and with more resistance from the federal government than before. I'm ashamed really, I'm especially ashamed by all the poor/middle class people who are actually proud of this just because it makes liberals and europeans unhappy.
- empath75 9y ago
  Trump's position amounts to hostage taking. Give us lots of money or we'll destroy the planet. It would be more honest if he did it with nukes.
scrollaway 9y ago
Decent thread on it: https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/comments/6eey64/what_are_the_pros_and_cons_of_trump_pulling_out/ https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/comments/6eey64/wha... TLDR; the only positive argument you can make about it is that with the current administration, the pact wouldn't have been respected anyway so it opens the avenue for others things.
chestervonwinch 9y ago
See: https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/19380/what-are-trumps-incentives-for-withdrawing-from-the-paris-climate-agreement https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/19380/what-are-...
pseudometa 9y ago
On the pro side, Trump can say he followed through with a campaign promise. The accord was non-binding self-enforced, so from a day-to-day business impact, not much changes from regular Trump policy setting. On the con side, foreign relations will be stressed and global climate policy will be set without US corporate input (possibly a good thing?).
microcolonel 9y ago
Pro: As sergiotapia mentioned, good for business because it is costly to comply. It may also not have ended up having much positive impact on the environment, there are people who can argue that for you. Con: People who support the pact symbolically, not necessarily having any of the expertise or knowledge required to consider it, will go into a blind rage over it; actual climate scientists will be considerably more calm.
mmilano 9y ago
I watched the announcement w/o knowing much about it. He justified the decision by saying: - We're paying 100b/year when other developed countries do not have to. - Spending on that is unaccounted for. - The impact will be (only) a 2/10 Celcius reduction in temperature by 2100 - The positive impact by 2030 is the equivalent of what China pollutes in 14 days. Just stating what was said. I don't know which are facts.
- fudgie 9y ago
  According to Michael E. Mann, in 2100 it's +4.5C with no action, +3.5C with just the Paris Accord, and +1.8C with ratcheting up. (https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DBQpulkWAAE2mrc.jpg https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DBQpulkWAAE2mrc.jpg)
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - sparkzilla 9y ago
    Would that be the 'Nobel prize winner' Dr Mann, who massaged the so-called hockey stick data leading to all this climate change/global warming hysteria in the first place? Hardly a credible source of anything IMHO.
    - glup 9y ago
      cite your sources please
      - sparkzilla 9y ago
        https://www.amazon.com/22A-Disgrace-Profession-22-Steyn-editor/dp/0986398330/ref=as_li_ss_tl?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1482417009&sr=1-1&keywords=Steyn+disgrace+to+the+profession&linkCode=sl1&tag=steyn-20&linkId=19e34bc537199fe881f1c2d288a7c5c1 https://www.amazon.com/22A-Disgrace-Profession-22-Steyn-edit...
        deleted 9y ago
Mikeb85 9y ago
It's not really about immediate pros and cons. The Paris accords don't actually hold nations to any sort of immediate reduction in CO2 emissions. They call for nations to start reducing their emissions in 2020, and progress to a final target in about half a century. Obama's pledge wasn't to even be realised until 2025. Most nations are implementing various carbon taxes in an attempt to reduce emissions, the obvious is that no carbon tax means no additional tax on businesses and transportation. This could be considered an upside. Downside? Who knows, the US never really implemented anything anyway, so practically nothing will change. Ultimately, potential issues will be global warming on a catastrophic level. Then again, that may happen with or without the US attempting to reduce emissions.
Danihan 9y ago
The deal is unenforceable, very expensive, and most likely will fail. Also, China emits twice as much greenhouse gas as the United States.
- tzs 9y ago
  > Also, China emits twice as much greenhouse gas as the United States. Not per capita, which is what is relevant when it comes to setting a country's policies.
  - Danihan 9y ago
    So as long as your country is overflowing with poverty-stricken people, you're a role model for solidly low carbon emissions per capita? Got it..
    - dguaraglia 9y ago
      Oh, moving the goalposts. The classical right-wing strategy.
      - Danihan 9y ago
        How is that moving the goalposts? Any poor, overpopulated country is going to have low per-capita carbon emissions, true or false? They also have a lower quality of life and poor GDP. Not exactly a positive goal to shoot for.
        dguaraglia 9y ago
        You started by saying China emits double the amount of greenhouse gasses the US does. Someone pointed out that it's still lower on a per-capita basis, so you switched tack to "oh, well, yeah, but... WHY DO POOR COUNTRIES GET A PASS!" That, my friend, is moving the goalposts. So you want the US, richest nation in the world, to be held to the same standards as developing countries. Even though, in our economy, pushing for green energy actually generates more jobs than trying to bring back polluting industries. What, exactly, is there to gain from that?
slededit 9y ago
You need to separate the details of the deal from the goal its attempting to achieve. The deal itself limits the US more than other countries which pollute more in absolute terms, and results in wealth transfers to those countries (directly). Given the relative wealth of the nation's involved I think the deal was fair. But that is a debatable point. The USA doesn't need this deal in place to limit its own emissions although its unlikely Trump would put much effort into it.
throwaway-1209 9y ago
Pros: the US was signing up for a _minimum_ of $100B/yr in foreign aid to help others implement the accords. When you're up to your ears in debt that's kind of stupid. Cons: estimates say that the climate will be warmer by 0.3 degrees Celsius by 2100. Assuming estimates are in fact right (which they historically haven't been) this could have devastating effects elsewhere in the world.
- surveilmebro 9y ago
  For anyone taking this comment seriously: verify the numbers for yourself. The poster has given the lower bound of the confidence interval in positing that we will see 0.3C warming by 2100. The latest assessment puts warming at 3.7C (6.67F!) under the "Business as Usual" RCP8.5 scenario. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_Concentration_Pathways https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_Concentration_P... Edit -- not to mention that climate models are quite good at reproducing the observed changes: https://www.skepticalscience.com/Climate-Models-Show-Remarkable-Agreement-with-Recent-Surface-Warming.html https://www.skepticalscience.com/Climate-Models-Show-Remarka...
  - throwaway-1209 9y ago
    That's if _everyone_ withdraws. That's not what's happening. 0.3 degrees is if the US withdraws but everyone else proceeds as planned. But we aren't even withdrawing per se. Immediately after announcing his decision, Trump also announced his willingness to re-negotiate the accords on better terms (by which I think he means not spending $100/B a year on something that other countries aren't even legally bound by). And climate models predict things just fine as long as you pick the ones that are somewhat accurate in retrospect. That's not what prediction is. Prediction is when, like Al Gore, you say that in 15 years we'll all be underwater, and it doesn't happen. If you bet your money on the accuracy of the current models you will lose.
    - surveilmebro 9y ago
      Complete nonsense on both counts. First of all, consider that the most visible public debate about this has centered on whether it is even possible to limit warming to 2C. Start by reading the two links I posted. If you would like to learn more, the IPCC reports are genuinely well written and accessible: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/ https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/ I would hope that at least on HN we could all agree on a shared objective reality and the validity of the scientific method. Your claims sound like something straight out of a Heartland brochure.
dguaraglia 9y ago
Pros: "it's the opposite of what Obama and Libruls wanted!". That's good enough for some of the Republican base, but that's about it. Most of the economic growth in the US has come from the clean energy industry and from improving current industries to be less polluting. Being able to burn coal and fuel 24/7 just "because we can" isn't going to make the country more productive. It's just a canard. Cons: - US losing leadership position on everything related to climate change - US opening itself to tariffs from other countries that are in the Paris agreement - US looking like a regressive regime that does stupid shit just to get headlines My guess is the third one will have the biggest impact.
microcolonel 9y ago
Here's a video which contains an argument that the accord is largely pointless, because China isn't just going to stick its head in the sand and go back to a pre-industrial economy tomorrow: https://youtu.be/QOFhpoDY0As https://youtu.be/QOFhpoDY0As James Hansen, a former NASA climate scientist, previously described the paris accord as "a fraud". He's describing this from the perspective of knowing it's not enough to do anything significant, and incredibly expensive. [0] [0]: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/12/james-hansen-climate-change-paris-talks-fraud https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/12/james-ha...

sergiotapia 9y ago

Response from the market: http://i.imgur.com/CDKVSWq.jpg http://i.imgur.com/CDKVSWq.jpg The Paris Accord according to President Trump would have allowed China to do whatever they want for the next 13 years, while India would receive billions in aid. http://climateactiontracker.org/countries/usa.html http://climateactiontracker.org/countries/usa.html - US Pledges ( 26-28%) VS. http://climateactiontracker.org/countries/china.html http://climateactiontracker.org/countries/china.html - China Pledges (0%)

dgquintas 9y ago
that's hardly a response to anything. The market moves in that amount (and larger) every day.
vxxzy 9y ago
That's more likely a response to the Jobs Announcement...
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
hinkley 9y ago
And us not being there is going to prevent this how?
lukewink 9y ago
The announcement came after the market closed, didn't it?
- harryh 9y ago
  Also the announcement wasn't a surprise. To whatever degree this announcement might have an effect on future corporate earnings (a fairly dubious connection imho) it was already priced in.
epistasis 9y ago
US is getting off pretty easily here, since we're only making pledges about the future, and not having to pay for what we're already putting out there.

pouetpouet 9y ago

China+EU have grounds to put tariffs on US products.

davesque 9y ago
Yes, and, as a citizen of the United States, I honestly think they should. The only thing that makes sense to the current generation of Congressman and beltway insiders is money. The rest of the world can shape US policy quickly and easily by threatening our supply of it.
gonvaled 9y ago
Problem is, US will put them too. Actually, Trump wants to put them for other reasons, so we would be falling on his trap there.
- nirav72 9y ago
  > US will put them too. and that will hurt Trump's base supporters more than any other group. The ones that still work in manufacturing that the U.S exports.
  - gonvaled 9y ago
    I really do not care about Trump or his supporters. This is hurting all of us, specially the coming generations.
    - nirav72 9y ago
      Well I agree with you there. Just pointing out that this they basically cutting their nose to spite the face. They might see some short-term gains, but in the long-run..it will disproportionately impact them more.
      - gonvaled 9y ago
        I wrote hastily, and forgot to point the most crucial observation: I do not care about Trump's supporters, but I also suspect that he does not care either. But even that is not the most salient point: it does not matter if my suspicious is right or wrong. The bottom line is that, whether Trump cares or not, if his policies turn out hurting his voter base, he will never be affected by it. It's a terrible situation: the long term policies of a powerful politician have absolutely no way of affecting his political career. He can rejoice in short term benefits: rise in popularity if the economy improves short term or, in the very specific case of Trump, short term financial gain thanks to his very complex network of business interests, while destroying the planet for good. How can we call that democracy?

seiferteric 9y ago

Does anyone think we might start seeing a brain drain out of the US given the current political climate?

muninn_ 9y ago
No, not really. If it stays like this for 20+ years, then definitely.
- devnonymous 9y ago
  Umm, I think people who say things like "20+ years..." haven't been paying attention to the change in rate of large scale social change over the last few decades. Do you really think anyone could have predicted today in 1997 ? (today as in, Brexit, Trump, Nsa/Privacy, Fb...etc)
  - maxerickson 9y ago
    There were people not using cell phones in 1997 because of the privacy implications. I guess they were making some assumptions that they would likely apply to modern tech.
  - waqf 9y ago
    Well, The Simpsons in 2000 predicted President Trump. And I'm not exactly sure what surprises you about the NSA, I think many civil-liberties groups in 1997 would have been happy to talk your ear off about their (reasonable or unreasonable) surveillance concerns.
  - wil421 9y ago
    The things you mentioned are so insignificant I doubt there will be more than a section about them in the history books. In 1997 the EU was only 4 years old! Clinton was using submarines to tap undersea cables. AOL was connecting households around the country. I don't agree that these changes are large scale compared to 20 years ago. Looks like the cycle is repeating itself and only the names have changed.
  - 9y ago

amichail 9y ago

Canadians should be happy with the resulting milder winters.

zorpner 9y ago

Elon Musk just posted that he will, as promised, be quitting the presidential council: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/870369915894546432 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/870369915894546432

datamingle 9y ago
Now has more time to start another company
- CobrastanJorji 9y ago
  Given that he now has a ground car company, an underground car company, and a space car company, I assume the next one will have to be some sort of atmospheric flying car company.
  - giarc 9y ago
    Boats?
    - tomovo 9y ago
      Boat sovereign state. He can be president too.
  - bioapparatus 9y ago
    My money is on a water car.
    - ChuckMcM 9y ago
      ... with rockets.
      - bioapparatus 9y ago
        That's the convergence phase, where the rocket car, land car, underground car, and boat car fuse into a glorious transportation chariot for humanity's reach for the stars. Can't remember what page that would be in Musk's master plan. The pictures were awesome.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

harichinnan 9y ago

The liberals should take a page out of the Venezuelan Hunger Bonds movement and identify companies that fund climate change denial. A climate bond movement to target and blacklist company shares/bonds or other offerings would get the message across.

thewopr 9y ago
In general, it seems like most larger companies opposed this move.
macawfish 9y ago
Could you give more information on how to do this? I'm wondering if it wouldn't be possible to build an app that recognizes brands and tells you if they are connected to the koch brothers... Like you can whip out your phone and scan a barcode at the store. It tells you climate relevant info about the product. Edit: apparently there are several apps like this: https://www.forbes.com/sites/paularmstrongtech/2017/01/11/three-apps-that-will-help-you-find-out-which-brands-have-dirty-secrets/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/paularmstrongtech/2017/01/11/th...
- harichinnan 9y ago
  https://www.marketplace.org/2017/05/31/world/what-you-need-know-about-venezuela-s-hunger-bonds https://www.marketplace.org/2017/05/31/world/what-you-need-k...
spaceflunky 9y ago
Wow, that's great idea. I bet that worked out great for Venezuela. Let's see how their economy is doing...

credo 9y ago

It was a bit disingenuous for Trump to describe India and China as top polluters India (population 1.3 Billion) creates lesser CO2 emissions than the US China's per-capita emissions is just around half of that of the US [Edit: replying to comment about pollution and emissions The Paris agreement is about climate change and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. When Trump talks about polluters and withdrawing from the Paris agreement, it seems illogical to suggest that he wasn't referring to CO2 emissions]

panzagl 9y ago
Pollution is not CO2.
- gonvaled 9y ago
  When talking about global warming, yes. To an overwhelming extent.
  - panzagl 9y ago
    And this is why the US has so much trouble with climate change as an issue- first it was sulfur dioxide, then lead, then CFCs, now it's CO2. The US has been doing this since the 70's. Now Europe and China want to pretend they care with words, and giving the US's money to the third world, yet every picture of a city in China looks like London in the 1890's and it turns out those oh so green Euro car makers were cheating their emissions tests, but that's not important, what's important is that we hold hands and make pleasant noises at each other. I don't see how anyone who calls themselves an engineer can stomach when this feel good ignorance is put forward as a solution- this is rearranging deck chairs to the highest degree.
    - gonvaled 9y ago
      What are you talking about? Lead is bad for your health. CFCs are bad for Ozone. CO2 is bad for global warming. All pretty much universally accepted. European cars, with cheating and all, are miles ahead of US cars. And they have been heavily fined for cheating, as they should. And China has not yet contributed a meager percent of the cumulated US CO2. Not to talk per capita. The planet is not yours.

jokermatt999 9y ago

What are the foreign policy implications of this? Every single other country's reaction that I've seen has been to beg the US to stay in the accord.

upofadown 9y ago

That seems... very not clever... Why deliberately try to piss everyone off? Why not just follow the popular approach of agreeing to some environmental agreement and then entirely ignoring it?

dragonwriter 9y ago
> Why deliberately try to piss everyone off? The best way to sell authoritarianism is the fear of outside enemies. The best way to build a fear of outside enemies is to have outsiders actually hate you, for things you've already sold as necessary for the good of your own people.
- gonvaled 9y ago
  And this diverts attention from the last N scandals. Pretty sad to think that humankind was not moved from a dangerous path to cover a pussy grabber.

pavlov 9y ago

The United States of America spent a hundred years building up a global leadership position. President Trump has effectively destroyed it in a mere four months. China is adeptly stepping up to fill the void left by the United States. Last week Trump did his best to alienate America's long-standing European allies, who now feel that they are on their own against Russia's expanding European power plays. So Europe is turning to China as well. Chinese and European leaders have scheduled a meeting tomorrow to state how they intend to expand efforts to fight climate change. Meanwhile, USA is isolating itself with Syria and Nicaragua as the only three countries to stay out of the Paris accord.

nickserv 9y ago
It's as if participating in the agreement required adopting the metric system ;-)
dismantlethesun 9y ago
Perhaps the US isn't a good global leader. It is, after all, only the aftermath of WW2 that left enough of a power vacuum for two countries at the edges of "proprer civilisation" like the USA and Russia to take the central position as the world superpowers. I wouldn't be sad if the USA returns to a position of only interfering within its sphere of influence in North and South America. Being a global leader isn't merely about the power to do so, but about caring about other countries to the point that you see them as directly intertwined with your own. The USA, for better or worse, has always viewed other nations as 'other'.
- aaron-lebo 9y ago
  What? The US is a nation of immigrants. It doesn't see other nations as "other" any more than any other nation, and probably less so because we're very culturally diverse. But yeah, if you want to go back to the days where benevolent places like the British Empire, Imperial Germany, and the USSR ruled the world, have at it. Because they were benevolent, right? The US isn't doing a great job, but if American power gets rolled back, are you ready for Russia to come rolling into Eastern Europe? You ready for the Chinese to invade Taiwan? The US is the only thing preventing that. It's not ideal but it's not all bad, either.

rayiner 9y ago

Even as an environmentalist, I'm okay with this. The political reaction to climate change is a farce. The Paris accord isn't going to do anything, just like the Kyoto protocol didn't do anything. It's just a way for people to feel good without making any real lifestyle changes.

dragonwriter 9y ago
> Even as an environmentalist Huh? From your comment history here, you seem like much more of a laissez-faire capitalist than any kind of environmentalist.
- comicjk 9y ago
  Some environmentalists are anti-technology types or nihilists, who look forward with pleasure at the idea of humanity suffering for its hubris. The only solution they'll consider is people changing their behavior for moral reasons, which is comfortingly unlikely. They're not fans of other environmentalists discussing happier ideas, like setting up incentives for economic and technological growth beyond fossil fuels.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    This is true, however rayiner appears to be neither the anti-tech/nihilist type of environmentalist nor the "set up incentives" type of environmentalist. (E.g., on the specific issue of climate he explicitly rejects setting up incentives or any other "political fix".) Rather, he seems to believe that the market will provide for all, even when externalities make that irrational for individual actors in the market without some regulatort regime internalizing those externalities. Hence, my description of him as a laissez-faire capitalist rather than any kind of environmentalist.
- ersii 9y ago
  So what? Neither are mutually exclusive.
- rayiner 9y ago

scarmig 9y ago

This is one of those situations where you should be shaking your head, even if you're a climate change denying conservative or a fussil fuel industrial interest. The Paris pact was pretty toothless: it was a step forward, but heavily aspirational. Indeed, one of the stated complaints of conservatives was that it did nothing to enforce compliance. The Trump Administration could have just as well ignored it without formally reneging on it and forced the next administration to deal with the egg on the face for failing to meet the USA's commitments. But instead he's seriously undermined people's ability to trust in the United States maintaining its international obligations for anything except the shortest periods of time. To be fair, what he's done already with NATO is far worse. But this underlines the reality that the United States government is so unstable that it's unable to uphold any coherency in policy or meet its stated commitments. If you're a small country who's been trusting the USA as a solid ally against regional competitors, you're looking at this and going, "well, maybe I should be focusing more on ties with the EU/Russia/China/India." It's honestly pretty humiliating for the USA, even aside from the fact that we've just fucked the next generation just to give the finger to elitist liberals and scientists.

rayiner 9y ago
Yes, the Paris pact was toothless. It was never going to work, just like Kyoto didn't work. So what's wrong with pulling out of it? Consternation over the Paris accord is, in my opinion, elitist liberal virtue signaling. (Here in the DC/MD/VA area, everyone will complain about this move at Starbucks sipping on lattes while driving one hour each way to work from their McMansion in the exurbs. God forbid we do anything that might require lifestyle changes, i.e. have some real hope of working.)
- yongjik 9y ago
  But Trump did not pull out of Paris because it's toothless. He pulled out because even a toothless, largely symbolic agreement about climate change is against the core tenets of his supporters, i.e., that climate change is a liberal hoax. I know it, Trump knows it, and we all know it.
- scarmig 9y ago

_ph_ 9y ago

This is sad news. The direct impact on the carbon reduction might actually be not too large, as renewable energies are actually the cheaper alternative, and as many of the American states are pushing for carbon reductions. The big downside of the US quitting the Paris climate pact is the political signal it is sending. The pact was significant, because it was the first time the world managed to agree on something (except Syria and Nicaragua). Leaving the pact sends the signal, that the US does not want to internationally collaborate on preventing climate change. Most of our todays problems and challenges can only be solved by international collaboration, be they environmental or economical. It would have the better signal, and probably also served the US interests better, if the US would not quit the climate pact.

yogthos 9y ago

A failed state.

diafygi 9y ago

I have a cleantech startup, and in the industry we see this decision as only having a negative impact on deep red states. Most other states will implement mandates in line with Paris on their own, which will grow their local energy economies (the transition means lots of jobs). Deep red states that try to slow the transition will just get left behind. Trump is hurting his own base, while not slowing anyone else down. The economics are simply too good to turn back now. Happy to answer questions. And many companies in cleantech are hiring!

qbaqbaqba 9y ago
Would you company be possible without any sort of government support(federal/local/etc), financial or legal?
- addicted 9y ago
  Would oil companies be possible without the US military defending them in the rogue states they usually extract their oil from? And that's not even considering the direct subsidies they receive.
  - mikeash 9y ago
    Don't forget the massive indirect subsidies of being allowed to pollute without having to pay for the damage this causes to other people's health and property.
  - propman 9y ago
    In California we will be paying 77 cents per gallon just from taxes. So the price at the pumps would be 77cents lower. From every renewable energy we get tax credits. Yes we pay for subsidies of random things like cattle, corn, and oil, but the subsidies like the PTC and the solar energy credit are much more in comparison. This doesn't mean I don't agree with it. The subsidies have dropped the price of wind and solar considerably and we will see a huge economic boom from relatively little tax benefits. The greatest subsidies we could have right now can actually be accomplished through bipartisan support. Funding for transmission lines can be lumped into the infrastructure bill. $7 billion of transmission lines in Texas sponsored by the current trump cabinet pick Rick Perry brought Texas Wind energy production from nowhere to number one in the country and larger than three states below it in just 6 years. Texas is planning to add more win this year then the total amount by the second highest state has in total. He didn't force utilities to build wind farms. Instead he built the infrastructure to make building wind farms extremely cost competitive. There are a dozen possible transmission lines that would create thousands of jobs and connect wind and solar heavy areas to high density cities. If we can get those transmission lines up, we won't have to worry about government for renewable energy because it will be politically and economically in our benefit to use renewables

maaaats 9y ago

Why was this removed from the front page?

PythonicAlpha 9y ago

This is a bad day for the US, since by such a behavior ("America first -- ignore international pacts"), the other countries will less and less likely follow this country (with exception of Saudi Arabia, of course). The Europeans are already drawn to China and India and this will grow stronger. And Trump should not think, that European buyers will be more inclined in the future to support US companies by buying US products.

exclusiv 9y ago
Can you explain how Europeans are drawn to China and India given their records on human rights? Are they not informed about the Chinese government? I fail to see how that's more alluring than dealing with America and Trump even with all his faults and arrogance. I think this move was bad and miscalculated at several levels, but I don't think it's going to have the impact you suggest.
- 0xFFFE 9y ago
  "China and India given their records on human rights?" Are you suggesting there is no country in the world where human rights are not violated? I am not defending the violation, but that sentence sounds naively aloof and disconnected from reality.
  - exclusiv 9y ago
    No I'm not suggesting that at all. I just don't see how Europeans would gravitate towards alignment with those countries after this news given their human rights histories and current governments. The only thing I can think is that Europeans are more environmentalists and will simply turn the other cheek on those violations so long as they get their climate change deals. Either that or the notion that they'll be pushed toward China and India is overblown.
    - 0xFFFE 9y ago
      Thanks for the polite response and my apologies for being a bit of a dick in choosing those words. And yes, I agree with the points you made.

agar 9y ago

Besides the obvious concerns about the impact on the climate, I'm really surprised that Trump doesn't recognize (or prioritize) the economic costs to pulling out of the agreement. A new axis between the EU and China could jeopardize US efforts to become a leader in the research, development, sales, and services of clean tech. As costs of clean technology naturally drop to be equal or less than fossil fuels (as is already happening), this will become a massive market that ultimately shrinks the size of the oil/gas and coal industries. The decision to pull out of the agreement could have a large negative impact on the ability to attract leading researchers and funding, which then affects future jobs and US competitiveness in what will clearly be a massive growth industry. This will lead to job loss in oil and gas, with no commensurate increase in the jobs in replacement fields. Trump seems to take a "public company-esque" view of governing: focus on short-term gains rather than long-term R&D and strategic planning to win the long game.

NicoJuicy 9y ago

So Trump is basicly quitting the Paris climate pact for the mining industry, which is mostly automated? Leaving the solar space for China that going to be the leader in solar energy. I've actually never thought i would say this, but my "admiration" for the US has drasticly declined the last few months. I think this also affects "Silicon Valley". PS. Am i right that your President only had a one hit wonder with Trump Tower, with daddy's money. Then licensed everything ( the few things he did with casino's failed). And ... He is now the president, because he was in a TV-show? Or am i missing something?

beart 9y ago
As to why he is now the president, it is far from being that simple. Him winning really had very little to do with his qualifications as a candidate.
- NicoJuicy 9y ago
  That too, but the difference between the previous president and the current one is really light and day.
- maxerickson 9y ago
  I would phrase that differently. He was incredibly qualified as a candidate. Huge name recognition, a particular sort of charisma, shameless. It's the office that he isn't qualified for.
  - NicoJuicy 9y ago
    To be honest, when your starting a business. I think to have him as a "business partner" would be a very bad idea also.
mikeash 9y ago
You're missing about three decades of right-wing propaganda. President Trump is the logical conclusion of The Rush Limbaugh Show, Fox News, and other assorted media. These people systematically created a tribal political environment where facts don't matter, ridicule is the best argument, and Democrats are the enemy. They've been pounding this into the heads of any American who would listen since the late 1980s or so. Along comes Trump, who is the embodiment of all of these traits, and this extensive groundwork pays off. He's constantly wrong, but his voters have been trained to embrace that. He behaves terribly, but his voters have been trained that this is a good thing as long as the target is the left. And of course denial of climate change, its negative consequences, and the merits of fighting it are one of the core pillars of this propaganda. Add in the electoral college, which gives a substantial advantage to candidates who can win rural voters, and here we are.

wollstonecraft 9y ago

If this bothers you, elect senators who will ratify an actual treaty.

mikeash 9y ago
Already did. Too bad my senators are canceled out by the senators chosen by the 600,000 inhabitants of Wyoming.
- webXL 9y ago
  Pretty flippant solution by the GP, but to your point, there has to be some consensus among the states, just as there needs to be consensus among nations, no matter how varied the size of their populations. I'm in a small state, so I don't want California and New York setting our policy just as much as you don't want China and India setting yours.
  - mikeash 9y ago
    States are pretty arbitrary divisions. If California split into 66 equally populated pieces, nothing about the people or land would change, but they'd suddenly have 132 senators instead of 2, and each chunk would still have more people than Wyoming. Or they could split into 1000 pieces and have 2000 senators and completely dominate Congress. Would that be fair, do you think?

charred_toast 9y ago

If you look at this within the context of the new World Order it makes perfect sense. Trump is just another puppet President being used to incite tensions within the country while stoking unrest to foreign observers. The plan is to let the US become a third world country. Syria, Nicaragua, the United States, 'nuff said. Oh, and I failed to mention how China will become the gold standard in governing procedure, as has always been the plan. When a socialist country becomes the "world leader" you absolutely know the UN is aware and purposefully instigating just that. If China isn't a perfect example of how to run a one world government, I fail to see what else is. Democracy? Oh my god that's hilarious. Anyone with a lick of intelligence, historical knowledge, and context of global politics knows what is actually happening. America is simply being displaced as was intended since the Central Bank cartels infiltrated our economy, our politics, and now, our way of life. Mission accomplished. Edit: Downvoted into oblivion? — I understand. The truth is usually hard to swallow.

gonvaled 9y ago

It has stopped being funny now.

NicoJuicy 9y ago

The american dream is a prime minister : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4rWVOeEI7Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4rWVOeEI7Y . It could be shoved aside. Since the US is now 4 months with Trump, another 44 months to go. I am really wondering what he will do next

NicoJuicy 9y ago

Offtopic, shouldn't this be the #1 post, it's probably blacklisted currently: http://imgur.com/XdEShU0 http://imgur.com/XdEShU0

an27 9y ago
Could be manual or because it contains shitpost-attracting keywords, it's a Trump post after all. (Not implying Trump or his followers are shit, just that partisan issues attract shitposts and unfruitful emotional discussions.)

fooker 9y ago

Times have changed. New York Times mocked India two years ago. http://www.indiatimes.com/news/india/new-york-times-mocks-india-yet-again-this-time-with-a-cartoon-on-climate-change-248245.html http://www.indiatimes.com/news/india/new-york-times-mocks-in...

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

rodrigocoelho 9y ago

This is The Weather Channel website (https://weather.com/ https://weather.com/) right now (reportedly, I can't see it due to my location): https://twitter.com/johncheese/status/870372600693895170 https://twitter.com/johncheese/status/870372600693895170

reirob 9y ago

The answer from French president Emmanuel Macron to Trump's announcement (in English, video, 03:17): https://www.pscp.tv/w/1jMKgoodLyqKL https://www.pscp.tv/w/1jMKgoodLyqKL edit: typos, duration of video

jansho 9y ago
The silver lining. "All you talented people in the US, allez, France welcomes you with big arms."

clumsysmurf 9y ago

370 upvotes in 2 hours with 268 comments (as I write this), yet this story is at the very bottom of the front page of HN at #28 (6:15 EST). Does HN systematically penalize / shadow censor certain kinds of content?

greglindahl 9y ago
You're seeing the effects of a lot of flagging, which is common for things which are either very political, or for which the discussions are overwhelmingly lame. This discussion is both.

vorg 9y ago

I'd say certain countries have gotten together behind the scenes to take turns playing bad cop. Now it's America's turn, a few years ago it was Australia who refused to sign.

defined 9y ago

Oh, this is just Trump sticking it to Macron for humiliating Trump by crushing his knuckles in that infamous handshake. /s

lxcid 9y ago

Remember the old story of The Tortoise and The Hare? U.S. is acting like the Hare now…

thrillgore 9y ago

I just want the hell out of the US.