6 ms·

Fact-checking Donald Trump's statement withdrawing from Paris climate agreement

68 points by mido22 9y ago

mpweiher 9y ago
Hilarity ensues...
oblio 9y ago
> "The United States will withdraw from the Paris climate accord," Trump said June 1, 2017, "but begin negotiations to re-enter either the Paris accord or an entirely new transaction on terms that are fair to the United States." This blows my mind. The US is the most powerful country on Earth, right now. Almost everybody else agrees with the treaty, countries ranging from really rich and uniform ones such as the Netherlands down to poor and divided ones such as Somalia. Direct democracies such as Switzerland or autocracies such as Saudi Arabia. The interests involved are diverse because they basically cover everyone and everything. How could anyone believe that the US is on the receiving end of a bad deal?!? Outside of some nutty conspiracy theory.
- beloch 9y ago
  You have to realize how Trump thinks. Everything is about him. If a deal doesn't make him personally look good, it's a bad deal. The Paris climate accord might be an objectively good thing, but signing it would make Trump look bad because he made an election promise not to sign it. Hence, it's not "fair" to the U.S.. However, if Trump can somehow make it look like he personally renegotiated the accord to get the U.S. a better "deal", then he can sign it because it'll make him look good. The problem with the Paris climate accord is that it's vague and lacks any kind of enforcement. Everybody's signing it because there really is no concrete obligation attached. While some signatories may have signed it in earnest, others likely signed it just to look good. They'll announce a plan to meet the goals of the accord and then leave implementing that plan up to their successors, or just forget about it if they happen to remain in office. Look good now, don't pay later. Given the nature of the Paris accord, there really is no better deal for Trump to negotiate. There are no binding terms to haggle over. I suppose they could change something in the deal just so Trump can say he did it and sign a "good deal". That's probably the best outcome.
  - jahnu 9y ago
    There is in fact a ratchet mechanism in it. It's not a useless accord at all and those who think they can just pretend they will follow it may be in for a shock. Especially once enough signatories give it momentum. https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-the-ratchet-mechanism-within-the-paris-climate-deal https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-the-ratchet-mechanism-...
    - Sunset 9y ago
      Wow, literally five year plans and out-virtue signaling one another who will craft more draconian regulations to warp the market.
      - oblio 9y ago
        Do you think all our problems have been solved by market forces? Especially things which we can't afford to solve in 50-60 years?
    - beloch 9y ago
      The problem with the ratchet mechanism is that it will almost unavoidably lead to goals that are utterly divorced from reality. e.g. A nation will propose an INDC it thinks it can realistically achieve. It will be informed it's INDC is inadequate and that "more ambition is needed". So, they'll be forced to adopt an INDC that is not realistic. They'll fail to implement this, but they still won't be able to create a realistic INDC for their next five year period. Even after submitting an INDC they know they have no hope of implementing the country will likely be informed, once again, that "more ambition is needed". Here's the thing. While the INDC's will steadily climb in their ambition, everything I've read indicates that there is no enforcement mechanism to see that they are implemented. In this sense it's Kyoto all over again. However, if the goals are too far out of reach, will we even try to reach them? If you have information to the contrary, I'd love to see it.
- threeseed 9y ago
  It has nothing to do with whether it was a bad deal or not. The targets set in the Paris accord were all completely voluntary. The US could've stayed in, done absolutely nothing and there would have been no impact to the US economy since there is no enforcement mechanism. So clearly this is purely political. It was about (a) fulfilling a campaign promise and (b) shoring up his base i.e. the 30% who wanted to withdraw.
- Darthy 9y ago
  Sorry to break it to you, but Trump is a nutty conspiracy theorist. Look at who he believes in: Alex Jones for one.
  - JetSpiegel 9y ago
    To be "fair", on his divorce lawsuit, he said InfoWars was a character he plays, just like Colbert. That's because his wife presented his rants as evidence to get full custody of their children.
    - splike 9y ago
      Under cross-examination, he spoke not only about George Soros and overly potent marijuana, but also his taste for zebra meat and canned exotic game hunts, and confirmed that a big bowl of hot Texas chili caused him to forget details about his kids’ lives, which he’d referenced in his deposition. Source: http://www.thedailybeast.com/infowars-alex-jones-loses-custody-case-ex-wife-wins-right-to-decide-where-children-live http://www.thedailybeast.com/infowars-alex-jones-loses-custo...
      - JetSpiegel 9y ago
        > In a series of tweets, he challenged Colbert to debate him in character as Tuck Buckford, adding that Buckford is too chicken emoji poop emoji to face him. Colbert was being a softie, I see. First time I see the expression "poop emoji" being used unironically.
    - Darthy 9y ago
      Well, in that case the most powerful man in the world really believes the words of a fake conspiracy theorist character. Which doesn't make it much better, doesn't it?
EGreg 9y ago
Coal plants? Could have picked a better example, Donald.
dreamthtwasrome 9y ago
Scotland already closed its last coal-fired power plant and Europe will likely go 100% EV around 2040. https://thinkprogress.org/after-115-years-scotland-is-coal-free-f1f6a5f4d190 https://thinkprogress.org/after-115-years-scotland-is-coal-f... https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/what-country-will-become-the-first-to-ban-internal-combustion-cars https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/what-country-wi...
matt4077 9y ago
Being wrong is a feature for Trump arguments, not a bug. It's easy to see if you can, fort only a second, put yourself in the mindset of a sadist. If you're lying, and everyone knows that you're lying, and everyone knows that you know that they know... to then still insist, to continue lying, goes against every social norm practiced among civilised people. For people with conscience, it is torturous to watch. For others, it's high entertainment worth a few island nations and a famine here or there. Nobody believes any of the arguments Trump and his ilk make. They are inflicting this damage on the world, their citizen, and themselves purely because they enjoy the pain it causes the people people they hate: Obama, "the left", scientists, etc. The climate may actually come out of this as a winner: it's adding some emotion to the fight against climate change, where before only the opposition was emotionally attached. What is lost is the idea of the US as a dependable partner for anything. There are no mechanisms of enforcement in international law, which explains why it sometimes seem to move at a snail's pace. Agreements were kept because they served mutual interests. And when some specific agreement was a losing proposition for a country, leaders and their countries felt a moral obligation to stay true to their word. It is also a never-ending repetition of the prisoner's dilemma, and fulfilling your obligations was necessary to prevent a process that could unravel the foundations of international cooperation. The US was the unchallenged winner of the post-WW2 international order. They were and are the dominant military power, and only by actually trying to use the might of that hardware did they ever come close to losing. The true instrument of power was the creation of closely-knit web of international cooperation, from getting the +1 country code, to science, trade, or security, the US was working a winning formula of agreements that were beneficial for both them and their partners. Now, some barely literate psychopath is trying to rule the world with his infantile worldview that life is nakedly a selfish struggle for money and dominance. He may soon realise how reliant the most-connected country in the world is on the goodwill of others. But, sometimes, something breaks and cannot be put back together.
- pizza 9y ago
  It's incredible how much he privileges a very small portion of the US population - fundamentalist neoconservatives - in his decisions. He probably just sees the people who become even more supportive of him in light of his fairly calculated malice as valuable idiots. He wants America to return to outmoded forms of energy production, because of "jahbs", and also wants to reduce taxes while the ultrarich already have what is essentially universal basic income via capital dividends, real estate, etc. For the prisoner's dilemma, this is like having a Grudger in the WH vs tit-for-tat players elsewhere. Very much of his ethical system is predicated upon lying about good faith intent for the persistent preservation of outright disenfranchisement of the electorate. I hope that Americans will really say "I can't stand it any more" and change what they are able to. Maybe eventually decent politicians will be able and willing to prevent this obscene divergence of executive and popular opinion.
tremon 9y ago
Misdirection at its finest... Trump opened his speech saying his team was tracking the terrorist attack in Manila. [That attack] came from a lone man aiming to rob gamblers.
marvy 9y ago
I wanted something like this.
audunw 9y ago
Donald Trump is right that China and India shouldn't be allowed to increase their pollution. Everyone should be cutting, and targeting the same level of per-capita pollution. But that implies that the US (and Australia and some others) would have to invest trillions of dollars in order to reach the per-capita pollution levels of other countries. But that's not on the table, because for some americans, who currently holds power, it's not acceptable to temporarily sacrifice even a little bit of economy or convenience for the planet. One reason why it's not reasonable for China or India to cut more, is because the US and others isn't willing to match them on per-capita pollution. (Well, they are cutting, and will probably match China over time, but not at a reasonable pace). Imagine you're some dude in a district in India, and there's some coal, and you want to start burning it to get some energy. Then the US comes over and says "no, fuck you, you can't burn that, because not only have I been shitting all over the planet for the last several decades, I want to continue shitting over it and not make too much effort of reducing it. You can't burn that in part because we have this cheap power plant over here that we don't want to spend any money replacing". Does that feel fair? If the US actually had to sacrifice something significant, it would perhaps feel fair for people from developing countries to have to halt their economic development by a decade or so in order to skip coal and go directly to solar etc.

68 points by mido22 9y ago

Hilarity ensues...

> "The United States will withdraw from the Paris climate accord," Trump said June 1, 2017, "but begin negotiations to re-enter either the Paris accord or an entirely new transaction on terms that are fair to the United States." This blows my mind. The US is the most powerful country on Earth, right now. Almost everybody else agrees with the treaty, countries ranging from really rich and uniform ones such as the Netherlands down to poor and divided ones such as Somalia. Direct democracies such as Switzerland or autocracies such as Saudi Arabia. The interests involved are diverse because they basically cover everyone and everything. How could anyone believe that the US is on the receiving end of a bad deal?!? Outside of some nutty conspiracy theory.

beloch 9y ago
You have to realize how Trump thinks. Everything is about him. If a deal doesn't make him personally look good, it's a bad deal. The Paris climate accord might be an objectively good thing, but signing it would make Trump look bad because he made an election promise not to sign it. Hence, it's not "fair" to the U.S.. However, if Trump can somehow make it look like he personally renegotiated the accord to get the U.S. a better "deal", then he can sign it because it'll make him look good. The problem with the Paris climate accord is that it's vague and lacks any kind of enforcement. Everybody's signing it because there really is no concrete obligation attached. While some signatories may have signed it in earnest, others likely signed it just to look good. They'll announce a plan to meet the goals of the accord and then leave implementing that plan up to their successors, or just forget about it if they happen to remain in office. Look good now, don't pay later. Given the nature of the Paris accord, there really is no better deal for Trump to negotiate. There are no binding terms to haggle over. I suppose they could change something in the deal just so Trump can say he did it and sign a "good deal". That's probably the best outcome.
- jahnu 9y ago
  There is in fact a ratchet mechanism in it. It's not a useless accord at all and those who think they can just pretend they will follow it may be in for a shock. Especially once enough signatories give it momentum. https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-the-ratchet-mechanism-within-the-paris-climate-deal https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-the-ratchet-mechanism-...
  - Sunset 9y ago
    Wow, literally five year plans and out-virtue signaling one another who will craft more draconian regulations to warp the market.
    - oblio 9y ago
      Do you think all our problems have been solved by market forces? Especially things which we can't afford to solve in 50-60 years?
  - beloch 9y ago
    The problem with the ratchet mechanism is that it will almost unavoidably lead to goals that are utterly divorced from reality. e.g. A nation will propose an INDC it thinks it can realistically achieve. It will be informed it's INDC is inadequate and that "more ambition is needed". So, they'll be forced to adopt an INDC that is not realistic. They'll fail to implement this, but they still won't be able to create a realistic INDC for their next five year period. Even after submitting an INDC they know they have no hope of implementing the country will likely be informed, once again, that "more ambition is needed". Here's the thing. While the INDC's will steadily climb in their ambition, everything I've read indicates that there is no enforcement mechanism to see that they are implemented. In this sense it's Kyoto all over again. However, if the goals are too far out of reach, will we even try to reach them? If you have information to the contrary, I'd love to see it.
threeseed 9y ago
It has nothing to do with whether it was a bad deal or not. The targets set in the Paris accord were all completely voluntary. The US could've stayed in, done absolutely nothing and there would have been no impact to the US economy since there is no enforcement mechanism. So clearly this is purely political. It was about (a) fulfilling a campaign promise and (b) shoring up his base i.e. the 30% who wanted to withdraw.
Darthy 9y ago
Sorry to break it to you, but Trump is a nutty conspiracy theorist. Look at who he believes in: Alex Jones for one.
- JetSpiegel 9y ago
  To be "fair", on his divorce lawsuit, he said InfoWars was a character he plays, just like Colbert. That's because his wife presented his rants as evidence to get full custody of their children.
  - splike 9y ago
    Under cross-examination, he spoke not only about George Soros and overly potent marijuana, but also his taste for zebra meat and canned exotic game hunts, and confirmed that a big bowl of hot Texas chili caused him to forget details about his kids’ lives, which he’d referenced in his deposition. Source: http://www.thedailybeast.com/infowars-alex-jones-loses-custody-case-ex-wife-wins-right-to-decide-where-children-live http://www.thedailybeast.com/infowars-alex-jones-loses-custo...
    - JetSpiegel 9y ago
      > In a series of tweets, he challenged Colbert to debate him in character as Tuck Buckford, adding that Buckford is too chicken emoji poop emoji to face him. Colbert was being a softie, I see. First time I see the expression "poop emoji" being used unironically.
  - Darthy 9y ago
    Well, in that case the most powerful man in the world really believes the words of a fake conspiracy theorist character. Which doesn't make it much better, doesn't it?

EGreg 9y ago

Coal plants? Could have picked a better example, Donald.

dreamthtwasrome 9y ago

Scotland already closed its last coal-fired power plant and Europe will likely go 100% EV around 2040. https://thinkprogress.org/after-115-years-scotland-is-coal-free-f1f6a5f4d190 https://thinkprogress.org/after-115-years-scotland-is-coal-f... https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/what-country-will-become-the-first-to-ban-internal-combustion-cars https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/what-country-wi...

matt4077 9y ago

Being wrong is a feature for Trump arguments, not a bug. It's easy to see if you can, fort only a second, put yourself in the mindset of a sadist. If you're lying, and everyone knows that you're lying, and everyone knows that you know that they know... to then still insist, to continue lying, goes against every social norm practiced among civilised people. For people with conscience, it is torturous to watch. For others, it's high entertainment worth a few island nations and a famine here or there. Nobody believes any of the arguments Trump and his ilk make. They are inflicting this damage on the world, their citizen, and themselves purely because they enjoy the pain it causes the people people they hate: Obama, "the left", scientists, etc. The climate may actually come out of this as a winner: it's adding some emotion to the fight against climate change, where before only the opposition was emotionally attached. What is lost is the idea of the US as a dependable partner for anything. There are no mechanisms of enforcement in international law, which explains why it sometimes seem to move at a snail's pace. Agreements were kept because they served mutual interests. And when some specific agreement was a losing proposition for a country, leaders and their countries felt a moral obligation to stay true to their word. It is also a never-ending repetition of the prisoner's dilemma, and fulfilling your obligations was necessary to prevent a process that could unravel the foundations of international cooperation. The US was the unchallenged winner of the post-WW2 international order. They were and are the dominant military power, and only by actually trying to use the might of that hardware did they ever come close to losing. The true instrument of power was the creation of closely-knit web of international cooperation, from getting the +1 country code, to science, trade, or security, the US was working a winning formula of agreements that were beneficial for both them and their partners. Now, some barely literate psychopath is trying to rule the world with his infantile worldview that life is nakedly a selfish struggle for money and dominance. He may soon realise how reliant the most-connected country in the world is on the goodwill of others. But, sometimes, something breaks and cannot be put back together.

pizza 9y ago
It's incredible how much he privileges a very small portion of the US population - fundamentalist neoconservatives - in his decisions. He probably just sees the people who become even more supportive of him in light of his fairly calculated malice as valuable idiots. He wants America to return to outmoded forms of energy production, because of "jahbs", and also wants to reduce taxes while the ultrarich already have what is essentially universal basic income via capital dividends, real estate, etc. For the prisoner's dilemma, this is like having a Grudger in the WH vs tit-for-tat players elsewhere. Very much of his ethical system is predicated upon lying about good faith intent for the persistent preservation of outright disenfranchisement of the electorate. I hope that Americans will really say "I can't stand it any more" and change what they are able to. Maybe eventually decent politicians will be able and willing to prevent this obscene divergence of executive and popular opinion.

tremon 9y ago

Misdirection at its finest... Trump opened his speech saying his team was tracking the terrorist attack in Manila. [That attack] came from a lone man aiming to rob gamblers.

marvy 9y ago

I wanted something like this.

audunw 9y ago

Donald Trump is right that China and India shouldn't be allowed to increase their pollution. Everyone should be cutting, and targeting the same level of per-capita pollution. But that implies that the US (and Australia and some others) would have to invest trillions of dollars in order to reach the per-capita pollution levels of other countries. But that's not on the table, because for some americans, who currently holds power, it's not acceptable to temporarily sacrifice even a little bit of economy or convenience for the planet. One reason why it's not reasonable for China or India to cut more, is because the US and others isn't willing to match them on per-capita pollution. (Well, they are cutting, and will probably match China over time, but not at a reasonable pace). Imagine you're some dude in a district in India, and there's some coal, and you want to start burning it to get some energy. Then the US comes over and says "no, fuck you, you can't burn that, because not only have I been shitting all over the planet for the last several decades, I want to continue shitting over it and not make too much effort of reducing it. You can't burn that in part because we have this cheap power plant over here that we don't want to spend any money replacing". Does that feel fair? If the US actually had to sacrifice something significant, it would perhaps feel fair for people from developing countries to have to halt their economic development by a decade or so in order to skip coal and go directly to solar etc.