17 ms·
Venture investors blast US decision to withdraw from Paris Climate Accord
- basicplus2 9y ago{{{Indeed, while investors decried the decision, they admitted that their companies were already prepared for it. “Most of the folks working around energy and climate no longer seem to require policy support,” said Shaun Abrahamson, a managing partner at Urban Us.}}} Now I'm confused.. this contradicts the central thrust of the arricle
- buckbova 9y ago> Ultimately the only consequence of the move is optical and political. Exactly. More faux outrage.
- cryoshon 9y agoat what point is outrage not "faux outrage" for you? serious question
- mikeash 9y agoYeah, it's no big deal, just the leadership of this country wants to do things that will make life much worse for my descendants. Obviously I'm not actually outraged about it.
- buckbova 9y agoUh huh. Paris agreement is non-binding. China has no obligation for 20 years. It's not ratified by Congress. Nothing from agreeing to this was going to affect your descendants other than draining American coffers of billions.
- mikeash 9y agoIt's not this single action by itself that's outrageous, but the long pattern of harmful anti-science policy of which this is the latest example.
- elandybarr 9y agoThere are reasons to object to the accord that have nothing to do with a so-called "anti-science policy". The actual wording of the accords has little to do with science and more to do with massive welfare obligations and handicapping the US economy with no requirements from China for decades. *edited autocorrect typo
- mikeash 9y agoClimate change denial has been a Republican position for decades. Trump is on record saying that the whole idea is a hoax. There might be legitimate reasons to pull out of this agreement, but those are not their reasons.
- elandybarr 9y agoMassive welfare to the majority of the world for no US benefit is a great reason to pull out.
- throwaway7312 9y ago
- gfosco 9y agoThat's the problem with the hysterics... If it's the right thing to do, if it's smart business and profitable, you don't need a binding agreement to force people in.
- Gravityloss 9y agoYeah, who needs things like taxes, police, public roads or courts?
- wtf_is_up 9y agoPoorly constructed strawman
- nine_k 9y agoLeave a town without police, stop fixing public roads or just stop collecting garbage. Very soon the people will demand to have police back (or roll their own temporarily), will demand roads fixed, and garbage taken out — or look for a garbage truck company to pay to. The effects of this are very quick and visible. Unlike that, climate change, or e.g. effects of using lead paint and asbestos in building practice, is a slow, hard-to-notice thing. "Too late" happens decades later that the time of a preventive action; very few people have a planning horizon as distant.
- codersbrew 9y agoWell that ignores if that business is part of a duopoly or monopoly then it doesn't matter what is right or smart :)
- femto 9y agoBy my reading, the trust of the article is that Trump's decision will have minimal impact on in progress actions to counter climate change, hence the words you quoted. The major impact of his decison will be on the USA's international standing and ability to influence the world.
- tphan 9y agoNow that the US government has failed to act on climate change, it might be a good idea for US companies and individuals to take up the challenge.
- tannerwj 9y agoExactly. We don't need the government's intervention to innovate and solve the climate problem
- cryptoz 9y agoYes we do need government intervention to innovate and solve this climate problem. The free market does not work here because the actual, real cost of greenhouse gas emissions is not correctly adjusted. The runaway warming effect is going to cost enormous sums of money to solve and will cost us dearly in life, ecosystems, and global stability. Corporations have long shown that they are not interested in truth, or sustainable profits, or people's health, or the environment. In fact, due to lack of government intervention, corporations like Exxon spread harmful propaganda that decreases the public's awareness about critical issues like climate change. Collective action is important because this is otherwise a failure of humanity to recognize a tragedy of the commons. We need to collectively agree to solve the problem, through governments, because otherwise individual actors like states and corporations will increase their own wealth through greed at the expense of others.
- tannerwj 9y agoAgree to disagree I guess. Global warming is something that needs to be addressed, but it is being heavily exaggerated. This does not help anyone except for the alarmists. It causes us to put our resources in areas that aren't useful. That money could be spent much more wisely elsewhere. In addition, the US is already doing fine without government interference, as shown by the decrease in US CO2 emissions over the past 2 decades. Besides all the jobs and other economic factors that would disadvantage the US on a global scale if they agreed to the accord, we just have to look to Germany - a country that is following the standards put in place by the accord - to see what the consequences would be. They pay more than 3x per kWh for electricity than the US. This might be something that the middle class and up could afford, but this would unfairly target the poor and in poorer countries would cause death and suffering. This alone is reason enough to look for better solutions.
- wtf_is_up 9y agoEven if it was a good deal, which it doesn't seem to be, it was essentially a handshake Obama made with other countries. Send it through Congress.
- burkaman 9y agoIt went through Congress in 1992 when the UNFCCC was ratified.
- wtf_is_up 9y agoNot the same thing.
- burkaman 9y agoYes it is. Many of the complaints about the Paris Agreement were explicitly included in the treaty that congress ratified. For example, article 4(7): "The extent to which developing country Parties will effectively implement their commitments under the Convention will depend on the effective implementation by developed country Parties of their commitments under the Convention related to financial resources and transfer of technology and will take fully into account that economic and social development and poverty eradication are the first and overriding priorities of the developing country Parties." Congress has already agreed that developed countries will initially take more of the burden, and might participate in something like the Green Climate Fund.
- technotony 9y agoTrump once again shows he's a political savant. This was the obvious move for someone who cares more about power than doing the right thing: he delivered a campaign promise, he appears strong to his supporters, he gives congressional Republicans something they want and at the same time acquires a bargaining chip with Europe and China that he can cash in later. It takes four years to unwind, so there isn't even much damage and he can announce some new deal right before he's up for election. By dragging the decision out for a week he also distracted from any ongoing talk about Russia etc. Kind of a classic agency problem: this is good for him, bad for the rest of the world.
- ygfvvhygvn 9y agoI agree. Also the covfefe thing was such a blatant distraction and the left took the bait with pride.
- glangdale 9y agoJust, no. It is clear: he's an idiot with the attention span of a 3 year-old. He's not a masterful schemer whose every move is carefully calibrated for strategic success. These narratives about how it's all part of a cunning plan are just ridiculous. Sometimes floundering is just floundering.
- patrickg_zill 9y agoAll treaties must be approved by the Senate. Was this treaty approved?
- cwyers 9y agoNo. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/06/01/the-u-s-cant-quit-the-paris-climate-agreement-because-it-never-actually-joined/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...
- bobmno 9y agoNo, it wasnt a treaty. There is nothing that Trump can't undo with a pen.
- i2amsam 9y agoI don't knows where everyone is picking up this talking point, but it's really bullshit. The agreement was weak and not a treaty because the Republicans in the Senate would not have ratified a treaty, just as they failed to ratify Kyoto. If any Republicans thought this was a swell idea but just wasn't binding enough they could enter into a second, more aggressive binding agreement with whatever parties they like. Nobody thought this was a great agreement, it was too weak and timid, but it was the strongest agreement we could make without the Senate.
- patrickg_zill 9y agoTo my mind, for any government agency to have implemented a rule from the Paris accord, without it being an actual ratified treaty, would be illegal.
- rsynnott 9y agoIn which case, it would likely go to the Supreme Court, who are better equipped to figure out this question than hackernews.
- 9y ago
- codersbrew 9y agoThis guy is a disaster. 2018 needs to come soon, and folks better show up and vote in some democrats to tie this idiot up until the next presidential election.
- ryanx435 9y agoActually I think he's doing a really good job and honestly im looking forward to 7.5 more years of his presidency. I just wish the establishment Republicans would retire already and get the hell out of the way.
- origami777 9y agoWhat exactly do you like about his performance so far? It seems like it's a slow motion train wreck. But I'm curious what his supporters like about his work so far.
- ryanx435 9y agoI like that he has: Withdrawn from the tpp. Is currently renegotiating nafta. Mattis is an excellent choice. Tillerson is an excellent choice. Is supporting Saudi Arabias "Vision 2030" plan, which attacks the root cause of radical islamic terrorism (economics). Is in the process of draining the swamp (Susan rice and the unmasking scandals). I've made and realized a shit ton of money off the stock market since he got elected. Obamacare is gone and is in the process of being replaced. Jobs are coming back. He supports laws and law enforcement over criminals. Edit to add: Gorsach is an excellent supreme court choice. I'm glad that corrupt comey was fired. In the process of reseting nato relations and getting everyone to pay their fair share. Mattis is handling north korea expertly. Oh, he avoided starting ww3 against russia after obama tried to start it in his last few months in office. Also, jury is still out, but there has also been lots of work done on China and their whole basket of problems. And, most importantly, acknowledges and recognizes that us Americans from flyover country are not red neck slaves to the self righteous smug ass coastal cities and their out of touch political elites.
- 9y ago
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- Corristowolf 9y agoHe's withdrawing from the PCA and looking to renegotiate under different terms. To sum it up, the PCA is basically trying to get tax payer money from western countries to fund solar and wind for the third world. The costs will be astronomical compared to free-enterprise and the rest is going to be split among the African warlords. If the aim would really be to save the earth, they should have no problem with the renegotiation and also - the green energy would be built in western countries, also providing jobs.
- nickik 9y agoI have not studied this in great detail so take my point as speculation. My memory is that the US withdrew from Kyoto as well. They withdrew but were still one of the few countries that actually reached the goal outlined there. The reason was not political action but rather market adoption. I don't know much beyond that but it is possible that much the same could happen, if coal is continualy replaced with gas or solar. Cars will be replaced with EV soon enough, even outside of any government action or gloabl agreement. Again if have not studied the magnitude of all these changes and compared them to what exactly the parameters of Paris are so I am not arguing that trump did the right thing. In fact, if you expact the outcome anyway signing might be "free". I just think some people mistake the signing of a international agreement with results. Kyoto did show that that was not really always the case. Not signing some agreement will not automatically mean we are heading for Mad Max. The actual outcome and compliance will be mostly detrmained by internal politics of each country.
- staticelf 9y ago> It is truly tragic that the U.S. has abandoned its leadership and moral authority on one of the critical issues of our time. Leadership in fighting climate change? Cmon' every EU-country is better at fighting climate change than the US. Denmark has at least 50% of their energy coming from their huge wind farms. Norway has a huge network of chargers for electrical cars, tax cuts for electrical cars and Sweden is huge in all sorts of environmental savings. In Sweden you can't even order a fucking burger without seeing how much CO2 that produces and ads for vegetarian burgers that are better for the environment. If you really think US is good at all at fighting climate change, you should really come to the EU and watch us recycle. Even during the recent terror attack in Stockholm there were people recycling. Proof: http://www.cbc.ca/radio-content/archive/undertheinfluence/max_menuboard.jpg http://www.cbc.ca/radio-content/archive/undertheinfluence/ma... http://img.timeinc.net/time/daily/2012/1204/360_intl_healthy_food_0406.jpg http://img.timeinc.net/time/daily/2012/1204/360_intl_healthy... https://www.reddit.com/r/sweden/comments/64199h/two_swedes_recycling_under_full_terrorist_threat/ https://www.reddit.com/r/sweden/comments/64199h/two_swedes_r...
- wslh 9y agoNot arguing in favor of US but how can you compare the size of these small countries with US size in terms of distributing energy?
- anovikov 9y agoIf anything this favors U.S.. In a small country, it is harder to balance out renewable energy sources, i.e. if there is no wind in Tennessee there is likely some in Iowa, but that doesn't work as easily for regions of Poland. And yet, they are doing it.
- ForRealsies 9y agoEnergy distribution, be it from solar/wind/water/natural gas, is a question of logistics.
- rsynnott 9y ago
- throw2bit 9y agoClimate change and immigration are the two topics that Trump can use to his benefit without the fear getting bitten back. Immigrants have no say or voting rights. They can be used as a drum to do the pow wow ing. Earth wont talk back. Two perfect candidates.
- thevardanian 9y ago"Earth wont talk back." Well... Not yet anyways.