13 ms·
{{{Indeed, while investors decried the decision, they admitted that their companies were already prepared for it. “Most of the folks working around energy and
by 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 agoMinor correction. Science is anything that follows the scientific method. One important step of the scientific method is "make testable predictions." Another step is "refine, alter, expand, or reject" hypotheses. Science rests on the possibility of falsifiability. If it can be tested, and found false, it is science. If there is no way to falsify it, it is not science. For instance, evolution is falsifiable. We can expect that if we put certain organisms with rapid life cycles in a harsher environment, over a certain number of generations the population in the harsher environment will evolve to better suit that environment. If, say, 10,000 generations pass and the organisms in that environment are no better suited to it than a control population, we might conclude evolution has been falsified. Fortunately, we've done lots of tests like this, and evolution does indeed occur. So I may better understand how this is science, can you tell me how the theory of manmade global warming can be disproved?
- thecage411 9y agoParis agreement is non-binding. Who cares? What matters is if it's working or not. Of course it's hard to untangle if it's due to accords, scientific/engineering breakthroughs, government investment, etc. but India and China are far ahead of their Paris targets: https://insideclimatenews.org/news/15052017/china-india-paris-climate-goals-emissions-coal-renewable-energy https://insideclimatenews.org/news/15052017/china-india-pari... China has no obligation for 20 years. This statement is wrong in multiple ways. As you noted above, Paris is non-binding, so there are no "obligations" beyond developing a plan and reporting on progress. Next, China's goals begin in 2030, which is 13 years away, not 20. Finally, according to the link above, China is on pace to meet its goals almost a decade (!) in advance, i.e. early in the 2020s. So even a charitable interpretation of your statement looks to be wrong by about 4x. It's not ratified by Congress. This is as far as I can tell, just a negative thrown in that has nothing to do with the thesis. Is agreeing to the accords bad for the U.S. (cost billions!) or does it not matter, because it's not ratified. Which is it? Nothing from agreeing to this was going to affect your descendants other than draining American coffers of billions. So basically every other country is willing to drain their coffers. Why is that?
- bildung 9y ago> Uh huh. Paris agreement is non-binding. Which was essentially the result of lobbying by the US. Most other countries wanted a real, binding treaty. https://theintercept.com/2017/06/01/will-trumps-slow-mo-walkaway-world-in-flames-behind-him-finally-provoke-consequences-for-planetary-arson/ https://theintercept.com/2017/06/01/will-trumps-slow-mo-walk...
- 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.