11 ms·

I would read the full speech from Trump, he makes some good points, although im sure some of it is false and not sure how it compares to other factors. http:/

I would read the full speech from Trump, he makes some good points, although im sure some of it is false and not sure how it compares to other factors. http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/01/politics/trump-paris-agreement-speech/ http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/01/politics/trump-paris-agreement... "For example, under the agreement, China will be able to increase these emissions by a staggering number of years -- 13. They can do whatever they want for 13 years. Not us. India makes its participation contingent on receiving billions and billions and billions of dollars in foreign aid from developed countries." "China will be allowed to build hundreds of additional coal plants. So we can’t build the plants, but they can, according to this agreement. India will be allowed to double its coal production by 2020. Think of it: India can double their coal production. We’re supposed to get rid of ours. Even Europe is allowed to continue construction of coal plants." "In short, the agreement doesn’t eliminate coal jobs, it just transfers those jobs out of America and the United States, and ships them to foreign countries." "This agreement is less about the climate and more about other countries gaining a financial advantage over the United States." "Beyond the severe energy restrictions inflicted by the Paris Accord, it includes yet another scheme to redistribute wealth out of the United States through the so-called Green Climate Fund -- nice name -- which calls for developed countries to send $100 billion to developing countries all on top of America’s existing and massive foreign aid payments. So we’re going to be paying billions and billions and billions of dollars, and we’re already way ahead of anybody else. Many of the other countries haven’t spent anything, and many of them will never pay one dime." "Even if the Paris Agreement were implemented in full, with total compliance from all nations, it is estimated it would only produce a two-tenths of one degree -- think of that; this much -- Celsius reduction in global temperature by the year 2100. Tiny, tiny amount. In fact, 14 days of carbon emissions from China alone would wipe out the gains from America -- and this is an incredible statistic -would totally wipe out the gains from America's expected reductions in the year 2030, after we have had to spend billions and billions of dollars" FYI, I'm not into politics and I'm 100% pro environment, I do try to be open and hear every party's point of view.

anigbrowl 9y ago
FYI, I'm not into politics Not meant as an attack on you, but but choosing not to be into politics basically means you occupy a secure enough position in society not to have to deal with personal anxiety about how political developments might impact you personally. Put more simply, you can afford to ignore politics but others cannot. It's worth trying to imagine yourself yourself in the position of others on a regular basis so as to get a better understanding of why or how political issues might seem more urgent to them, not least people whose outlook you disagree with. I can readily see why economically disadvantaged coal miners in West virginia would support Trump, for example, since they don't see how the shift to carbon-free technology is going to benefit them economically. Of course I also think they're going to be severely disappointed, but I don't regret the effort invested in trying to understand their political alignment.
jjawssd 9y ago
Aside from the environmental effects, Paris accord is an excellent vehicle for guaranteed ROI on third world "green" and "renewable" investments. What better plan than to take taxpayer money involuntarily and forward it to third world renewable investments. If everyone chips in just a little bit in the name of doing something good why would anybody try and stop it? A brilliant plan grinding to a halt all because of Trump.
xienze 9y ago
Yeah that's my biggest beef with the Paris Agreement. If it's about the global environment, why are all countries not compelled to participate equally? Don't let China off the hook and I think a lot of people would be less skeptical of the whole arrangement.
- brianpgordon 9y ago
  Realistically, poorer countries are going to be able to do almost nothing to help the global situation. The understanding is that richer countries (who, to be fair, have done the majority of polluting historically) will have to grant enormous subsidies to effect change in developing countries if we're going to meet international climate goals. I guess that's a difficult pill to swallow if you espouse nationalist economic policies, but this isn't about Us vs. Them; we're talking about preventing massive devastation on a global scale. And the Paris accord was just the first step. We'll need to spend much more than Trump is already unwilling to pay if we want to avert disaster.
  - xienze 9y ago
    We're calling China and India poor countries now? In relation to the US every country is poor. But as you stated, it's a global problem. It needs a global solution. Pollute less! Hold everyone to the same standard.
    - anigbrowl 9y ago
      One-size-fits-all policy proposals rarely succeed because they don't take account of historical and political realities. Your comments remind me of developers to treat user requests/complaints as problematic because they're so in love with their code base that they've forgotten that software is meant to serve the needs of the people who use it.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - sorenjan 9y ago
      What would you call them? Yes, they're poor [0]. United States $57,436 China $8,113 India $1,723 It's easy to say that everyone should be held to the same standard when you're already the richest. The US uses 7032 kg of oil equivalent/capita, China 2029 kg/capita, India 614 kg/capita [1]. If you really want to hold everyone to the same standard you could cut your energy use by an order of magnitude and still use more than India. It's ridiculous to hear an american president try to paint developing countries as energy thirsty when the three most sold vehicles in the US are pickup trucks while most people in China and India can't afford any kind of car [2]. Like you said, it's a global problem. It won't be solved by whining about "unfair" economic terms and bragging about opening more coal mines. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita#List_of_per_capita_nominal_GDP_for_countries_and_dependencies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nomi... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_energy_consumption_per_capita#/media/File:Energy_Use_per_Capita.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_energy_co... [2] http://www.businessinsider.com/best-selling-cars-trucks-vehicle-america-2016-2017-1?r=US&IR=T&IR=T/#4-toyota-camry-388616-95-17 http://www.businessinsider.com/best-selling-cars-trucks-vehi...
babyrainbow 9y ago
Really wish this was at the top, instead of a comment that simply calls the president "shit-the-bed" Trump. It is scary how people, even on HN, go on a hating spree with out actually looking into these details. If you go on reddit, you see the same thing, but multiplied 10x. It is a sickening display of how even "smart" communities, like HIN can harbour stupid behaviors and beliefs as long as the majority shares it....
- jhall1468 9y ago
  Except this is misleading because those points would only be good if they didn't have a very clear reason, which the top reply to this comment lays out very well.
moduspol 9y ago
Like most climate policy, it becomes a lot less appealing the more specific it gets.
pikzen 9y ago
"If I can't have it then noone can" is truly the most unproductive position you can take when it comes to such as important thing as the environment. First off, we're talking about still developing countries. China is on the final parts of it, and started with coal. It's a shame, but they are also the biggest investor when it comes to solar. The US doesn't have this need to grow so fast, and it won't. Secondly, should we compare the total emissions of the US to China's, they could emit for a while before catching up. Thirdly, but I hate this argument, the per capita emissions of the US are over ten times greater than China's. No, fuck you Donald. You're condemning us all because you were elected on a fucking "clean coal" promise. Clean. Fucking. Coal. This agreement is not about you. It's not about us. It's about our children, our grandchildren, and leaving them something that is how we enjoyed it. That is better. Mark my words. He will pull out. He will never renegotiate those terms.
Mendenhall 9y ago
I notice most articles and news coverage dont get too much into the details. Its nice to hear some counterpoints.
s0uthPaw88 9y ago
Here is a fact check for many of these quotes: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/jun/01/fact-checking-donald-trumps-statement-withdrawing-/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/jun/01/...
- xienze 9y ago
  I think you might want to take a look at that, it supports what he's saying but as is typical of these fact checking sites, couches it in lots of "well yes but" or "broadly correct, but 'needs context'". I mean look at his statement on India: > Trump: "India will be allowed to double its coal production by 2020. Think of it. India can double their coal production. We're supposed to get rid of ours." > India does have plans to nearly double its coal production, and the agreement does not prevent that. But the Paris Agreement does not even mention the word coal, nor does it do anything to put a global moratorium on coal. Oh the Paris Agreement doesn't mention coal so what he's saying isn't correct? The point Trump was making is that the Paris Agreement isn't stopping India (and China) from polluting. It stops _us_, but it doesn't stop _them_.
  - paulddraper 9y ago
    Amen. Every "fact-checking" site seems to go out of its way to editorialize the facts with what I should think about them, instead of limiting their purview to, you know, the facts in question. What was Trump supposed to say? "The Paris Agreement doesn't have the word 'coal'"? --- Don't forget: Being technically correct is the best kind of correct.
    - jlebar 9y ago
      They are providing additional facts, which may or may not change your point of view. If the additional facts are not interesting to you, that's cool. But consider, maybe the information they provide is interesting to other people? For example, the top-level poster in this thread asked many questions which are explicitly answered in this article.
  - anigbrowl 9y ago
devindotcom 9y ago
Worth noting that we can't even really leave the Accord until 2020, so there's a lot of political posturing involved here. This was all debated for years, so none of this should come as a surprise to anyone. We went into this eyes WIDE open. China got a good deal, yeah, because it had leverage: it's the manufacturing capitol of the world. It could very easily have walked away with no commitments at all. As for developing countries, of course we are going to ship our coal jobs over there - they can't afford to build renewables right now and must bootstrap with cheaper in-country energy stores like coal. Meanwhile we can afford the latter and should not be using dangerous and dirty methods just to save money. 100 billion over many years spread across dozens of countries really isn't that much. This is just another way for Trump to say we should be spending money on the US. We should, but we also have responsibilities to the rest of the world that predate all this stuff. We're part of a global community and he is trying to back out of it. I seriously suspect his numbers in that last one are off or highly misleading. We should all watch for responses from those in know.
- tropo 9y ago
  We supposedly can't leave until 2020, but who would enforce that? There is also the option of staying, but reporting our carbon emissions with alternative facts. Done to an extreme, that means we get the payments.
  - cmrdporcupine 9y ago
    What you describe is what everyone is doing anyways. My country, Canada, is "in" the agreement but mere weeks after signing approved a controversial liquid natural gas project in B.C. that just by itself would blow away our ability to meet the Paris agreement commitments completely. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/lng-petronas-pacific-northwest-ghg-emissions-1.3607070 http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/lng-petronas-...
jorblumesea 9y ago
Most of that is either incorrect, or completely missing the point. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/jun/01/fact-checking-donald-trumps-statement-withdrawing-/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/jun/01/... China and India need to industrialize and modernize in order for them to transition to cleaner energy sources. Per capita, they produce only a fraction of what we do. It's unrealistic to expect developing nations to shoulder the same burden as developed ones. The deal is weighted to put more on the countries that have modern economies able to make the transition. Idea being that western developed nations can transition into renewables far faster and make up for the developing world's inability to do so, and at least somewhat mitigating temperature rise.
- Mendenhall 9y ago
  Please post what he said is incorrect. I read the article and found he is mostly correct depending on models etc. Perhaps I missed something but there were no blatent lies etc from my reading.
  - jorblumesea 9y ago
    Correct facts based on extreme models. Yay! It's not a lie if you fudge the numbers right?
conception 9y ago
Thanks for posting this. If any of this gets a bit heated, totally not directed at you. There's a lot of false dichotomies in this. I haven't fact checked anything either but just addressing the points: 1) China: China is a developing nation, not on par in the US on any quality of life indicator. They still plow fields by hand or with oxen in a large area of the country. We are the most powerful nation on the planet. Obviously, there should be differences. 2) India: India has ~1B people, with about ~250M making like less than $5-10 dollars a day. They basically had no market economy until the 1980s. Again, comparing them to our responsibilities is laughable. 3) "In short, the agreement doesn’t eliminate coal jobs, it just transfers those jobs out of America and the United States, and ships them to foreign countries." This is an absurd comment. We aren't going to buy coal from China. Coal jobs have been dying in the US for decades and will continue to do so because we don't want to use coal. And "be allowed to" doesn't mean they will. China is also building more solar than anyone else in the world. 4) "In short, the agreement doesn’t eliminate coal jobs, it just transfers those jobs out of America and the United States, and ships them to foreign countries." Ok buddy. 5) "calls for developed countries to send $100 billion to developing countries all on top of America’s existing and massive foreign aid payments" - This is a leadership item. If you think as the richest nation in the world we should help the poorer countries find green, economic ways to grow, then what's the problem? Also, it's not like we don't interact with the other parts of the world and aren't affect if they are polluted. I'd take this more to heart if his words on "fixing stuff at home" had any of that in his actual budget. 200B over 10 years? right. 6) "two-tenths of one degree" - This is because we should have started this shit in the 70s. His fears are correct. This is a first step to more and more restrictions because we are altering the planet in ways that probably already can't be taken back. "14 days of carbon emissions from China alone would wipe out the gains from America" - so we should just not have any of our gains at all? It's just so much "What do I get out of helping? What's in it for me?" rather than, "Hey, let's be leaders and lead by example and show the world that we, the USA, live up to our myths as the 'Good Guys'."
- babyrainbow 9y ago
  > They still plow fields by hand or with oxen in a large area of the country. We are the most powerful nation on the planet. Obviously, there should be differences. What is that specific thing or infrastructure that china and other developing countries are missing, that makes them unable to do this (stop polluting)?
kuschku 9y ago
EDIT: I'll just quote this here: > The fact that the agreement only commits governments to keeping warming below an increase of 2 degrees, rather than a much safer firm target of 1.5 degrees, was lobbied for and won by the United States. > The fact that the agreement left it to individual nations to determine how much they were willing to do to reach that temperature target, allowing them to come to Paris with commitments that collectively put us on a disastrous course towards more than 3 degrees of warming, was lobbied for and won by the United States. > The fact that the agreement treats even these inadequate commitments as non-binding, which means governments apparently do not have anything to fear if they ignore their commitments, is something else that was lobbied for and won by the United States. > The fact that the agreement specifically prohibits poor countries from seeking damages for the costs of climate disasters was lobbied for and won by the United States. > The fact that it is an “agreement” or an “accord” and not a treaty — the very thing that makes it possible for Trump to stage his action-movie slow-mo walk away, world in flames behind him — was lobbied for and won by the United States. This accord already is a massive insult to developing countries, who give up the right to hold those responsible who caused climate effects on their country. India can't sue the West for the costs that climate change, and the refugee crisis in Bangladesh will cost. India can't use any of the quick industrialization concepts that the West used, at massive cost to the environment. All committments are voluntary. The west has spent centuries polluting the planet, and gaining an economic advantage. And now China and India are asking for a few years — not even a decade — in an entirely voluntary agremeent. And yet, it's somehow unfair to the US? This is laughable. And I say that as a German willing to pay my 0.40€/kWh electricity.
- yostrovs 9y ago
  The amount of CO2 produced by China in a year dwarfs the first 100 years of the industrial revolution's output.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - mac01021 9y ago
    And what fraction of those emissions are directly driven by the manufacture of goods produced for us in the developed western world?
swampthing 9y ago
I think what this misses is that the per-capita emissions matter too, not just overall emissions. It's kind of unrealistic to ask a country to lower its emissions when its per-capita emissions are already just a fraction of yours. To give a more concrete analogy - suppose there are two countries, A and B. People in both countries like eating tuna. A has far fewer people than B, but the average person in A eats 10x more tuna than the average person in B. As tuna supplies dwindle, would it be reasonable for A to ask B to reduce their consumption of tuna?
- xienze 9y ago
  Why don't you exclude the half of the Chinese population that's basically living a medieval lifestyle and recalculate those per-capita numbers, hmm?
  - swampthing 9y ago
    What would be the rationale for doing so? Should we also exclude the half of the US population that uses the least carbon emissions? I'm not saying that we shouldn't exclude them - these aren't rhetorical questions. I'm just trying to understand your reasoning.
    - xienze 9y ago
      > I'm just trying to understand your reasoning. They completely drag down the per capita numbers. You're basically lumping people producing near-US levels of emissions with half the population producing basically nothing. > Should we also exclude the half of the US population that uses the least carbon emissions? Not anywhere close in terms of magnitude.
      - swampthing 9y ago
        I don't really understand why the fact that they drag down the per-capita numbers is a rationale for excluding them. Why is it that the people producing no emissions should not be allowed to raise their standard of living to that of people in the US?
azernik 9y ago
1. Poor countries are allowed to increase their carbon emissions because their current emissions are already low per person, and requiring then to lower emissions would basically be telling then they're not allowed to become developed countries. They will not sign on. 2. We're paying poor countries to mitigate these effects, by subsidizing their use of cleaner energy to industrialize. And to compensate them, since the areas most negatively affected by climate change are also poor. 3. The United States is not, in fact, particularly generous about foreign aid. 4. The Paris Agreement is intended to be a start - the reductions are so small in part to win over right-wing Americans, who in turn have the audacity to turn around and blast this agreement for not being effective enough.
- ahh 9y ago
  You are just echoing the politician's syllogism: we must do something, this is something, we must do this. Your point that we could not get anything better is not an excuse for doing something bad.
  - devindotcom 9y ago
    Why is the Paris Accord "bad"? A major economic and ecological policy agreed on by nearly the entire planet is no small task. It took years to create and is a compromise - we can do better and that was the plan, to iterate on it.
    - dkhenry 9y ago
      Its bad because its not a level playing field. Its tips the global economy away from Americans because they are too "Developed". Turns out there are lots of Americans in fly over country who disagree.
      - lelandbatey 9y ago
        It is true that they disagree. It is not true that they're lives are definitely harder. For every person in the US, there are four in China. Even imagining that China had the same wealth distribution as the US, which it does not, that still means there are vastly, vastly (at least 4x) more people with lives that are empirically more painful, with less medicine, less availability of electricity, and less food. This isn't because China is doing a bad job, it's because there are a lot of people.
peteretep 9y ago
I'm sure there are problems with the bill. However, I'm not really interested in after-the-event arguments from a party who've been so anti-science and such deniers for so long. It's a bit like the Muslim ban that "wasn't" a Muslim ban. If you've been calling it a Muslim ban for a year, retroactively coming back and saying "nah, nah, it's a not a Muslim ban" isn't convincing to the courts. In much the same way, the President cherry-picking bits he doesn't like about the bill sounds hollow.
alpha_squared 9y ago
A few counter-points: - US, per capita, has the highest CO2 emissions of any developed country [0] - It's a little unfair (depending on your idea of fairness) for developed countries to have benefitted from industrialization and polluting the environment only to close the gate behind them and blame other countries for trying to do the same and catch up in development. - It's expensive to force nations barely entering industrialization to forego the easy route of using coal/oil/whatever pollutant and jump straight to what can, sometimes, be a more expensive energy source. - Climate change is a global problem that doesn't mesh well with purely isolationist ideologies. This, primarily, is the biggest gripe with the current administration. It doesn't want to lift a single finger without seeing itself as the primary benefactor. This last part is purely opinion. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di...
- sacheendra 9y ago
  Just a nitpick. According to the list you referenced, the developed country with the highest CO2 emissions per capita is Luxembourg. The US comes second. The US is second, the spirit of your point stands though. Another surprising thing I learned from the list, US emissions have decreased significantly from 19.6 to 16.4 (tonnes per capita) during the obama administration.
  - alpha_squared 9y ago
    > the developed country with the highest CO2 emissions per capita is Luxembourg. The US comes second. You're right, that was an oversight on my part. > Another surprising thing I learned from the list, US emissions have decreased significantly from 19.6 to 16.4 (tonnes per capita) during the obama administration. This may actually be, in large part, due to the EPA. It would be interesting to see data for more recent years as well as end of this year (if it's not too soon) to see how it all changes.
    - maxerickson 9y ago
      The decrease in emissions is due to increased emissions requirements on coal plants (lots of smaller ones have been shutting down) and fracking. Fracking makes cheap natural gas which drives electric generation investment towards natural gas which emits about 1/2 as much carbon per unit of energy as coal. Low gas prices means that the investments required to meet coal regulations won't ever pay off. Plants shut down.
m_mueller 9y ago
The one crucial point that IMO is very false: That the US is "already ahead". The US produces around 2-2.5x the CO2 per capita compared to EU and China (which interestingly are similar now after China's economic rise). Coal isn't really relevant. What's most relevant is the way you do housing and living: Poorly isolated homes spread across the countr, far from work and cultural centers, with its inhabitants insiting on having 20C in summer and 23C in winter and driving huge trucks to work alone.
mattmcknight 9y ago
Another key sticking point is the unbounded legal liability under the agreement, for other countries to be able to sue the US for climate change effects if the aggressive targets are not met. It's disappointing that the world sees something as serious as climate change as an opportunity to get money from the US taxpayer, and that India and China are held to such low standards. That said, Trump has a history of not being honest. He campaigned on increasing coal usage. That alone might have been enough for him to spike the deal.
nostrademons 9y ago
If you're a U.S. citizen who doesn't work in coal, why would you ever want more coal plants to be built here? Even besides global warming, there are some very real externalities to coal - acid rain, smog, increased asthma & respiratory illnesses. I live in California and have been to China, and I know which air I'd rather breathe, even despite California's terrain & wind patterns being very conducive to catching air pollution in a bowl. Let them fuck up their own atmosphere...it'd be better if they didn't fuck up ours too, but if somebody's gonna pollute, I'd rather it be them.
- usaar333 9y ago
  You might not want to build more, but you might not want to shutter them pre-end of life to avoid paying higher electricity costs.
addicted 9y ago
If there is any valid criticism of the Paris accords, it's that they aren't stringent or BINDING. Which is the exact opposite of Trump's complaints about them. By the very nature of them being non-binding, they don't impose anything on the US. Just that fact almost entirely undermines whatever Trump said. In addition, however, new coal is already more expensive than renewables, which are getting cheaper at a rapid pace. However, more importantly, it's significantly more expensive than natural gas. The odds that the US would build a coal plant are minuscule (and even if someone did, assuming that somehow coal got cheaper than natural gas, the amount of money saved over building a natural gas plant instead would be meaningless). I would have thought a master dealmaker like Trump would know that giving up something you weren't gonna do anyways in exchange for anything is a good deal. But finally, none of this matters, because Donald Trump could have continued to do whatever he wanted (build coal plants, increase US emissions, etc.) without the Paris accords imposing any sort of mechanism to stop him from doing it. What this shows is that the US cannot be trusted to stick to even a promise as toothless as the Paris accords. Combined with the lack of reaffirmation of Article 5 in NATO, the only real effect this will have is diminish the US's standing among its allies. The Paris Accords were largely symbolism but important nonetheless in bringing everyone to the table, and showing a way forward and showing that climate change is something all countries need to handle and worry about. Donald Trump's act is also symbolism showing that the US doesn't care about agreements and pacts and that Climate change is not something they really believe in. Btw, both Chinese and Indian governments have targets that are much more stringent than what they agreed upon through these accords, and both are well ahead of even those more stringent targets.
- rtx 9y ago
  India already looks like a dump, we need a freeze.
MarkMc 9y ago
Interesting that Trump estimates the cost of the Paris Agreement in terms of the economy - 3.5 trillion in lost GDP by 2040 - but quotes the benefits in Celcius - two-tenths of one degree by 2100. What exactly is Trump's estimate for the economic cost of climate change by 2100 if the Paris Agreement is not implemented?

anigbrowl 9y ago

FYI, I'm not into politics Not meant as an attack on you, but but choosing not to be into politics basically means you occupy a secure enough position in society not to have to deal with personal anxiety about how political developments might impact you personally. Put more simply, you can afford to ignore politics but others cannot. It's worth trying to imagine yourself yourself in the position of others on a regular basis so as to get a better understanding of why or how political issues might seem more urgent to them, not least people whose outlook you disagree with. I can readily see why economically disadvantaged coal miners in West virginia would support Trump, for example, since they don't see how the shift to carbon-free technology is going to benefit them economically. Of course I also think they're going to be severely disappointed, but I don't regret the effort invested in trying to understand their political alignment.

jjawssd 9y ago

Aside from the environmental effects, Paris accord is an excellent vehicle for guaranteed ROI on third world "green" and "renewable" investments. What better plan than to take taxpayer money involuntarily and forward it to third world renewable investments. If everyone chips in just a little bit in the name of doing something good why would anybody try and stop it? A brilliant plan grinding to a halt all because of Trump.

xienze 9y ago

Yeah that's my biggest beef with the Paris Agreement. If it's about the global environment, why are all countries not compelled to participate equally? Don't let China off the hook and I think a lot of people would be less skeptical of the whole arrangement.

brianpgordon 9y ago
Realistically, poorer countries are going to be able to do almost nothing to help the global situation. The understanding is that richer countries (who, to be fair, have done the majority of polluting historically) will have to grant enormous subsidies to effect change in developing countries if we're going to meet international climate goals. I guess that's a difficult pill to swallow if you espouse nationalist economic policies, but this isn't about Us vs. Them; we're talking about preventing massive devastation on a global scale. And the Paris accord was just the first step. We'll need to spend much more than Trump is already unwilling to pay if we want to avert disaster.
- xienze 9y ago
  We're calling China and India poor countries now? In relation to the US every country is poor. But as you stated, it's a global problem. It needs a global solution. Pollute less! Hold everyone to the same standard.
  - anigbrowl 9y ago
    One-size-fits-all policy proposals rarely succeed because they don't take account of historical and political realities. Your comments remind me of developers to treat user requests/complaints as problematic because they're so in love with their code base that they've forgotten that software is meant to serve the needs of the people who use it.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - sorenjan 9y ago
    What would you call them? Yes, they're poor [0]. United States $57,436 China $8,113 India $1,723 It's easy to say that everyone should be held to the same standard when you're already the richest. The US uses 7032 kg of oil equivalent/capita, China 2029 kg/capita, India 614 kg/capita [1]. If you really want to hold everyone to the same standard you could cut your energy use by an order of magnitude and still use more than India. It's ridiculous to hear an american president try to paint developing countries as energy thirsty when the three most sold vehicles in the US are pickup trucks while most people in China and India can't afford any kind of car [2]. Like you said, it's a global problem. It won't be solved by whining about "unfair" economic terms and bragging about opening more coal mines. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita#List_of_per_capita_nominal_GDP_for_countries_and_dependencies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nomi... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_energy_consumption_per_capita#/media/File:Energy_Use_per_Capita.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_energy_co... [2] http://www.businessinsider.com/best-selling-cars-trucks-vehicle-america-2016-2017-1?r=US&IR=T&IR=T/#4-toyota-camry-388616-95-17 http://www.businessinsider.com/best-selling-cars-trucks-vehi...

babyrainbow 9y ago

Really wish this was at the top, instead of a comment that simply calls the president "shit-the-bed" Trump. It is scary how people, even on HN, go on a hating spree with out actually looking into these details. If you go on reddit, you see the same thing, but multiplied 10x. It is a sickening display of how even "smart" communities, like HIN can harbour stupid behaviors and beliefs as long as the majority shares it....

jhall1468 9y ago
Except this is misleading because those points would only be good if they didn't have a very clear reason, which the top reply to this comment lays out very well.

moduspol 9y ago

Like most climate policy, it becomes a lot less appealing the more specific it gets.

pikzen 9y ago

"If I can't have it then noone can" is truly the most unproductive position you can take when it comes to such as important thing as the environment. First off, we're talking about still developing countries. China is on the final parts of it, and started with coal. It's a shame, but they are also the biggest investor when it comes to solar. The US doesn't have this need to grow so fast, and it won't. Secondly, should we compare the total emissions of the US to China's, they could emit for a while before catching up. Thirdly, but I hate this argument, the per capita emissions of the US are over ten times greater than China's. No, fuck you Donald. You're condemning us all because you were elected on a fucking "clean coal" promise. Clean. Fucking. Coal. This agreement is not about you. It's not about us. It's about our children, our grandchildren, and leaving them something that is how we enjoyed it. That is better. Mark my words. He will pull out. He will never renegotiate those terms.

Mendenhall 9y ago

I notice most articles and news coverage dont get too much into the details. Its nice to hear some counterpoints.

s0uthPaw88 9y ago

Here is a fact check for many of these quotes: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/jun/01/fact-checking-donald-trumps-statement-withdrawing-/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/jun/01/...

xienze 9y ago
I think you might want to take a look at that, it supports what he's saying but as is typical of these fact checking sites, couches it in lots of "well yes but" or "broadly correct, but 'needs context'". I mean look at his statement on India: > Trump: "India will be allowed to double its coal production by 2020. Think of it. India can double their coal production. We're supposed to get rid of ours." > India does have plans to nearly double its coal production, and the agreement does not prevent that. But the Paris Agreement does not even mention the word coal, nor does it do anything to put a global moratorium on coal. Oh the Paris Agreement doesn't mention coal so what he's saying isn't correct? The point Trump was making is that the Paris Agreement isn't stopping India (and China) from polluting. It stops _us_, but it doesn't stop _them_.
- paulddraper 9y ago
  Amen. Every "fact-checking" site seems to go out of its way to editorialize the facts with what I should think about them, instead of limiting their purview to, you know, the facts in question. What was Trump supposed to say? "The Paris Agreement doesn't have the word 'coal'"? --- Don't forget: Being technically correct is the best kind of correct.
  - jlebar 9y ago
    They are providing additional facts, which may or may not change your point of view. If the additional facts are not interesting to you, that's cool. But consider, maybe the information they provide is interesting to other people? For example, the top-level poster in this thread asked many questions which are explicitly answered in this article.
- anigbrowl 9y ago

devindotcom 9y ago

Worth noting that we can't even really leave the Accord until 2020, so there's a lot of political posturing involved here. This was all debated for years, so none of this should come as a surprise to anyone. We went into this eyes WIDE open. China got a good deal, yeah, because it had leverage: it's the manufacturing capitol of the world. It could very easily have walked away with no commitments at all. As for developing countries, of course we are going to ship our coal jobs over there - they can't afford to build renewables right now and must bootstrap with cheaper in-country energy stores like coal. Meanwhile we can afford the latter and should not be using dangerous and dirty methods just to save money. 100 billion over many years spread across dozens of countries really isn't that much. This is just another way for Trump to say we should be spending money on the US. We should, but we also have responsibilities to the rest of the world that predate all this stuff. We're part of a global community and he is trying to back out of it. I seriously suspect his numbers in that last one are off or highly misleading. We should all watch for responses from those in know.

tropo 9y ago
We supposedly can't leave until 2020, but who would enforce that? There is also the option of staying, but reporting our carbon emissions with alternative facts. Done to an extreme, that means we get the payments.
- cmrdporcupine 9y ago
  What you describe is what everyone is doing anyways. My country, Canada, is "in" the agreement but mere weeks after signing approved a controversial liquid natural gas project in B.C. that just by itself would blow away our ability to meet the Paris agreement commitments completely. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/lng-petronas-pacific-northwest-ghg-emissions-1.3607070 http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/lng-petronas-...

jorblumesea 9y ago

Most of that is either incorrect, or completely missing the point. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/jun/01/fact-checking-donald-trumps-statement-withdrawing-/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/jun/01/... China and India need to industrialize and modernize in order for them to transition to cleaner energy sources. Per capita, they produce only a fraction of what we do. It's unrealistic to expect developing nations to shoulder the same burden as developed ones. The deal is weighted to put more on the countries that have modern economies able to make the transition. Idea being that western developed nations can transition into renewables far faster and make up for the developing world's inability to do so, and at least somewhat mitigating temperature rise.

Mendenhall 9y ago
Please post what he said is incorrect. I read the article and found he is mostly correct depending on models etc. Perhaps I missed something but there were no blatent lies etc from my reading.
- jorblumesea 9y ago
  Correct facts based on extreme models. Yay! It's not a lie if you fudge the numbers right?

conception 9y ago

Thanks for posting this. If any of this gets a bit heated, totally not directed at you. There's a lot of false dichotomies in this. I haven't fact checked anything either but just addressing the points: 1) China: China is a developing nation, not on par in the US on any quality of life indicator. They still plow fields by hand or with oxen in a large area of the country. We are the most powerful nation on the planet. Obviously, there should be differences. 2) India: India has ~1B people, with about ~250M making like less than $5-10 dollars a day. They basically had no market economy until the 1980s. Again, comparing them to our responsibilities is laughable. 3) "In short, the agreement doesn’t eliminate coal jobs, it just transfers those jobs out of America and the United States, and ships them to foreign countries." This is an absurd comment. We aren't going to buy coal from China. Coal jobs have been dying in the US for decades and will continue to do so because we don't want to use coal. And "be allowed to" doesn't mean they will. China is also building more solar than anyone else in the world. 4) "In short, the agreement doesn’t eliminate coal jobs, it just transfers those jobs out of America and the United States, and ships them to foreign countries." Ok buddy. 5) "calls for developed countries to send $100 billion to developing countries all on top of America’s existing and massive foreign aid payments" - This is a leadership item. If you think as the richest nation in the world we should help the poorer countries find green, economic ways to grow, then what's the problem? Also, it's not like we don't interact with the other parts of the world and aren't affect if they are polluted. I'd take this more to heart if his words on "fixing stuff at home" had any of that in his actual budget. 200B over 10 years? right. 6) "two-tenths of one degree" - This is because we should have started this shit in the 70s. His fears are correct. This is a first step to more and more restrictions because we are altering the planet in ways that probably already can't be taken back. "14 days of carbon emissions from China alone would wipe out the gains from America" - so we should just not have any of our gains at all? It's just so much "What do I get out of helping? What's in it for me?" rather than, "Hey, let's be leaders and lead by example and show the world that we, the USA, live up to our myths as the 'Good Guys'."

babyrainbow 9y ago
> They still plow fields by hand or with oxen in a large area of the country. We are the most powerful nation on the planet. Obviously, there should be differences. What is that specific thing or infrastructure that china and other developing countries are missing, that makes them unable to do this (stop polluting)?

kuschku 9y ago

EDIT: I'll just quote this here: > The fact that the agreement only commits governments to keeping warming below an increase of 2 degrees, rather than a much safer firm target of 1.5 degrees, was lobbied for and won by the United States. > The fact that the agreement left it to individual nations to determine how much they were willing to do to reach that temperature target, allowing them to come to Paris with commitments that collectively put us on a disastrous course towards more than 3 degrees of warming, was lobbied for and won by the United States. > The fact that the agreement treats even these inadequate commitments as non-binding, which means governments apparently do not have anything to fear if they ignore their commitments, is something else that was lobbied for and won by the United States. > The fact that the agreement specifically prohibits poor countries from seeking damages for the costs of climate disasters was lobbied for and won by the United States. > The fact that it is an “agreement” or an “accord” and not a treaty — the very thing that makes it possible for Trump to stage his action-movie slow-mo walk away, world in flames behind him — was lobbied for and won by the United States. This accord already is a massive insult to developing countries, who give up the right to hold those responsible who caused climate effects on their country. India can't sue the West for the costs that climate change, and the refugee crisis in Bangladesh will cost. India can't use any of the quick industrialization concepts that the West used, at massive cost to the environment. All committments are voluntary. The west has spent centuries polluting the planet, and gaining an economic advantage. And now China and India are asking for a few years — not even a decade — in an entirely voluntary agremeent. And yet, it's somehow unfair to the US? This is laughable. And I say that as a German willing to pay my 0.40€/kWh electricity.

yostrovs 9y ago
The amount of CO2 produced by China in a year dwarfs the first 100 years of the industrial revolution's output.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- mac01021 9y ago
  And what fraction of those emissions are directly driven by the manufacture of goods produced for us in the developed western world?

swampthing 9y ago

I think what this misses is that the per-capita emissions matter too, not just overall emissions. It's kind of unrealistic to ask a country to lower its emissions when its per-capita emissions are already just a fraction of yours. To give a more concrete analogy - suppose there are two countries, A and B. People in both countries like eating tuna. A has far fewer people than B, but the average person in A eats 10x more tuna than the average person in B. As tuna supplies dwindle, would it be reasonable for A to ask B to reduce their consumption of tuna?

xienze 9y ago
Why don't you exclude the half of the Chinese population that's basically living a medieval lifestyle and recalculate those per-capita numbers, hmm?
- swampthing 9y ago
  What would be the rationale for doing so? Should we also exclude the half of the US population that uses the least carbon emissions? I'm not saying that we shouldn't exclude them - these aren't rhetorical questions. I'm just trying to understand your reasoning.
  - xienze 9y ago
    > I'm just trying to understand your reasoning. They completely drag down the per capita numbers. You're basically lumping people producing near-US levels of emissions with half the population producing basically nothing. > Should we also exclude the half of the US population that uses the least carbon emissions? Not anywhere close in terms of magnitude.
    - swampthing 9y ago
      I don't really understand why the fact that they drag down the per-capita numbers is a rationale for excluding them. Why is it that the people producing no emissions should not be allowed to raise their standard of living to that of people in the US?

azernik 9y ago

1. Poor countries are allowed to increase their carbon emissions because their current emissions are already low per person, and requiring then to lower emissions would basically be telling then they're not allowed to become developed countries. They will not sign on. 2. We're paying poor countries to mitigate these effects, by subsidizing their use of cleaner energy to industrialize. And to compensate them, since the areas most negatively affected by climate change are also poor. 3. The United States is not, in fact, particularly generous about foreign aid. 4. The Paris Agreement is intended to be a start - the reductions are so small in part to win over right-wing Americans, who in turn have the audacity to turn around and blast this agreement for not being effective enough.

ahh 9y ago
You are just echoing the politician's syllogism: we must do something, this is something, we must do this. Your point that we could not get anything better is not an excuse for doing something bad.
- devindotcom 9y ago
  Why is the Paris Accord "bad"? A major economic and ecological policy agreed on by nearly the entire planet is no small task. It took years to create and is a compromise - we can do better and that was the plan, to iterate on it.
  - dkhenry 9y ago
    Its bad because its not a level playing field. Its tips the global economy away from Americans because they are too "Developed". Turns out there are lots of Americans in fly over country who disagree.
    - lelandbatey 9y ago
      It is true that they disagree. It is not true that they're lives are definitely harder. For every person in the US, there are four in China. Even imagining that China had the same wealth distribution as the US, which it does not, that still means there are vastly, vastly (at least 4x) more people with lives that are empirically more painful, with less medicine, less availability of electricity, and less food. This isn't because China is doing a bad job, it's because there are a lot of people.

peteretep 9y ago

I'm sure there are problems with the bill. However, I'm not really interested in after-the-event arguments from a party who've been so anti-science and such deniers for so long. It's a bit like the Muslim ban that "wasn't" a Muslim ban. If you've been calling it a Muslim ban for a year, retroactively coming back and saying "nah, nah, it's a not a Muslim ban" isn't convincing to the courts. In much the same way, the President cherry-picking bits he doesn't like about the bill sounds hollow.

alpha_squared 9y ago

A few counter-points: - US, per capita, has the highest CO2 emissions of any developed country [0] - It's a little unfair (depending on your idea of fairness) for developed countries to have benefitted from industrialization and polluting the environment only to close the gate behind them and blame other countries for trying to do the same and catch up in development. - It's expensive to force nations barely entering industrialization to forego the easy route of using coal/oil/whatever pollutant and jump straight to what can, sometimes, be a more expensive energy source. - Climate change is a global problem that doesn't mesh well with purely isolationist ideologies. This, primarily, is the biggest gripe with the current administration. It doesn't want to lift a single finger without seeing itself as the primary benefactor. This last part is purely opinion. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di...

sacheendra 9y ago
Just a nitpick. According to the list you referenced, the developed country with the highest CO2 emissions per capita is Luxembourg. The US comes second. The US is second, the spirit of your point stands though. Another surprising thing I learned from the list, US emissions have decreased significantly from 19.6 to 16.4 (tonnes per capita) during the obama administration.
- alpha_squared 9y ago
  > the developed country with the highest CO2 emissions per capita is Luxembourg. The US comes second. You're right, that was an oversight on my part. > Another surprising thing I learned from the list, US emissions have decreased significantly from 19.6 to 16.4 (tonnes per capita) during the obama administration. This may actually be, in large part, due to the EPA. It would be interesting to see data for more recent years as well as end of this year (if it's not too soon) to see how it all changes.
  - maxerickson 9y ago
    The decrease in emissions is due to increased emissions requirements on coal plants (lots of smaller ones have been shutting down) and fracking. Fracking makes cheap natural gas which drives electric generation investment towards natural gas which emits about 1/2 as much carbon per unit of energy as coal. Low gas prices means that the investments required to meet coal regulations won't ever pay off. Plants shut down.

m_mueller 9y ago

The one crucial point that IMO is very false: That the US is "already ahead". The US produces around 2-2.5x the CO2 per capita compared to EU and China (which interestingly are similar now after China's economic rise). Coal isn't really relevant. What's most relevant is the way you do housing and living: Poorly isolated homes spread across the countr, far from work and cultural centers, with its inhabitants insiting on having 20C in summer and 23C in winter and driving huge trucks to work alone.

mattmcknight 9y ago

Another key sticking point is the unbounded legal liability under the agreement, for other countries to be able to sue the US for climate change effects if the aggressive targets are not met. It's disappointing that the world sees something as serious as climate change as an opportunity to get money from the US taxpayer, and that India and China are held to such low standards. That said, Trump has a history of not being honest. He campaigned on increasing coal usage. That alone might have been enough for him to spike the deal.

nostrademons 9y ago

If you're a U.S. citizen who doesn't work in coal, why would you ever want more coal plants to be built here? Even besides global warming, there are some very real externalities to coal - acid rain, smog, increased asthma & respiratory illnesses. I live in California and have been to China, and I know which air I'd rather breathe, even despite California's terrain & wind patterns being very conducive to catching air pollution in a bowl. Let them fuck up their own atmosphere...it'd be better if they didn't fuck up ours too, but if somebody's gonna pollute, I'd rather it be them.

usaar333 9y ago
You might not want to build more, but you might not want to shutter them pre-end of life to avoid paying higher electricity costs.

addicted 9y ago

If there is any valid criticism of the Paris accords, it's that they aren't stringent or BINDING. Which is the exact opposite of Trump's complaints about them. By the very nature of them being non-binding, they don't impose anything on the US. Just that fact almost entirely undermines whatever Trump said. In addition, however, new coal is already more expensive than renewables, which are getting cheaper at a rapid pace. However, more importantly, it's significantly more expensive than natural gas. The odds that the US would build a coal plant are minuscule (and even if someone did, assuming that somehow coal got cheaper than natural gas, the amount of money saved over building a natural gas plant instead would be meaningless). I would have thought a master dealmaker like Trump would know that giving up something you weren't gonna do anyways in exchange for anything is a good deal. But finally, none of this matters, because Donald Trump could have continued to do whatever he wanted (build coal plants, increase US emissions, etc.) without the Paris accords imposing any sort of mechanism to stop him from doing it. What this shows is that the US cannot be trusted to stick to even a promise as toothless as the Paris accords. Combined with the lack of reaffirmation of Article 5 in NATO, the only real effect this will have is diminish the US's standing among its allies. The Paris Accords were largely symbolism but important nonetheless in bringing everyone to the table, and showing a way forward and showing that climate change is something all countries need to handle and worry about. Donald Trump's act is also symbolism showing that the US doesn't care about agreements and pacts and that Climate change is not something they really believe in. Btw, both Chinese and Indian governments have targets that are much more stringent than what they agreed upon through these accords, and both are well ahead of even those more stringent targets.

rtx 9y ago
India already looks like a dump, we need a freeze.

MarkMc 9y ago

Interesting that Trump estimates the cost of the Paris Agreement in terms of the economy - 3.5 trillion in lost GDP by 2040 - but quotes the benefits in Celcius - two-tenths of one degree by 2100. What exactly is Trump's estimate for the economic cost of climate change by 2100 if the Paris Agreement is not implemented?