6 ms·

When Bjørn Lomborg and James Hansen agree that something (the Paris agreement) is a bad idea, I am willing to put aside the various world leader's enthusiasm an

When Bjørn Lomborg and James Hansen agree that something (the Paris agreement) is a bad idea, I am willing to put aside the various world leader's enthusiasm and apply a bit of skepticism. Is capping the CO2 output of developed nations really the best and fairest approach here? I don't have the answers, but I'm not sure Paris does either.

usaphp 9y ago
I think the problem in USA right now is that a very vocal part of the country is very much against the president and his every decision will be judged without listening to his reasoning, that's a very bad situation, and I can't imagine how any president can be productive in this environment... Edit: I was not implying that what he did with Paris Agreement is right/wrong, I was just trying to tell that it's hard to work in an environment where every decision you make is judged with negativity right away.
- archgoon 9y ago
  Oh, please provide a link to the presidents reasoning.
  - usaphp 9y ago
    You see, that's a classic example of that. No matter what information I provide you now - you are already looking at it with negativity and it will be near impossible to change.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - stinos 9y ago
      you are already looking at it with negativity and it will be near impossible to change. Well, same can be said of you: I actually wanted to see reasoning and am willing to change my mind on the subject (well, actually not even change, as i don't have a single fixed stance on it because I know I lack the insight), but you're not providing information, instead responding with more negativity :]
      - usaphp 9y ago
        I was not talking about this particular climate change action that he did, I was trying to say "in general" it's hard to change person's mind when he is already negatively looking at the subject.
    - stouset 9y ago
      Okay, but that's basic table stakes for any discussion in which you want to change entrenched parties' minds. In the meantime, you didn't bother to actually provide anything outlining his reasoning. Which is fine, because having listened to his speech announcing the decision, I can state that virtually none of his stated reasons appear to have any sort of relationship with reality. Which is seemingly par for the course for his administration — is it any wonder people are so skeptical of virtually anything he says? For starters, he argues that it allows China and India to build coal plants, while allowing the US to build none. Besides the agreement not even having the word coal in it, the entire thing allows countries to come up with their own standards, that they self-enforce. If the US decided our standard was "a coal plant in every home", it wouldn't actually violate any term of the agreement.
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
- clumsysmurf 9y ago
  The GOP and Trump are doing what the Koch brothers paid them to do. Many GOP lawmakers signed the “No Climate Tax” pledge, drafted by "Americans for Prosperity" that was funded by the Koch brothers. If a GOP lawmaker shows support for green energy, they would see their campaign money dry up, or a primary challenger arise(1). (1) https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/03/us/politics/republican-leaders-climate-change.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/03/us/politics/republican-le... Jane Meyer (author of Dark Money) also talks about this recently http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/in-the-withdrawal-from-the-paris-climate-agreement-the-koch-brothers-campaign-becomes-overt http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/in-the-withdrawal-fr...
philosopherlawr 9y ago
Then he should have provided that reasoning and implored other nations to add those reforms to the agreement. Just backing out is cowardly and shows he doesn't actually care.
- indlebe 9y ago
  The wording used by the EU was that the Paris agreement on climate change is "irreversible and non-negotiable"
ZeroGravitas 9y ago
Can you name anything that doesn't have two people with opposite opinions on either side of it? e.g. minimum wage to be higher/lower, to have more/less nuclear weapons, higher/lower taxes edit: I just looked up Lomberg's opinion, and it turns out his response to Paris is almost exactly the opposite of Hansen's. Hansen wants to increase the price of carbon, Lomberg says "Instead of trying to make fossil fuels so expensive that no one wants them – which will never work – we should make green energy so cheap everybody will shift to it."
- indlebe 9y ago
  Hansen wants to increase the price of carbon across the board. One of the possible main issues is that a country like China is still not classified as a developed country and isn't bound to Article 9, a significant component of the Paris agreements.
ocschwar 9y ago
That is not Trump's reason for pulling out. And modifying the agreement can only be done from within.
- indlebe 9y ago
  The EU was firm that there would be no modifications to the agreement whatsoever, "irreversible and non-negotiable"

usaphp 9y ago

I think the problem in USA right now is that a very vocal part of the country is very much against the president and his every decision will be judged without listening to his reasoning, that's a very bad situation, and I can't imagine how any president can be productive in this environment... Edit: I was not implying that what he did with Paris Agreement is right/wrong, I was just trying to tell that it's hard to work in an environment where every decision you make is judged with negativity right away.

archgoon 9y ago
Oh, please provide a link to the presidents reasoning.
- usaphp 9y ago
  You see, that's a classic example of that. No matter what information I provide you now - you are already looking at it with negativity and it will be near impossible to change.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - stinos 9y ago
    you are already looking at it with negativity and it will be near impossible to change. Well, same can be said of you: I actually wanted to see reasoning and am willing to change my mind on the subject (well, actually not even change, as i don't have a single fixed stance on it because I know I lack the insight), but you're not providing information, instead responding with more negativity :]
    - usaphp 9y ago
      I was not talking about this particular climate change action that he did, I was trying to say "in general" it's hard to change person's mind when he is already negatively looking at the subject.
  - stouset 9y ago
    Okay, but that's basic table stakes for any discussion in which you want to change entrenched parties' minds. In the meantime, you didn't bother to actually provide anything outlining his reasoning. Which is fine, because having listened to his speech announcing the decision, I can state that virtually none of his stated reasons appear to have any sort of relationship with reality. Which is seemingly par for the course for his administration — is it any wonder people are so skeptical of virtually anything he says? For starters, he argues that it allows China and India to build coal plants, while allowing the US to build none. Besides the agreement not even having the word coal in it, the entire thing allows countries to come up with their own standards, that they self-enforce. If the US decided our standard was "a coal plant in every home", it wouldn't actually violate any term of the agreement.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
clumsysmurf 9y ago
The GOP and Trump are doing what the Koch brothers paid them to do. Many GOP lawmakers signed the “No Climate Tax” pledge, drafted by "Americans for Prosperity" that was funded by the Koch brothers. If a GOP lawmaker shows support for green energy, they would see their campaign money dry up, or a primary challenger arise(1). (1) https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/03/us/politics/republican-leaders-climate-change.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/03/us/politics/republican-le... Jane Meyer (author of Dark Money) also talks about this recently http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/in-the-withdrawal-from-the-paris-climate-agreement-the-koch-brothers-campaign-becomes-overt http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/in-the-withdrawal-fr...

philosopherlawr 9y ago

Then he should have provided that reasoning and implored other nations to add those reforms to the agreement. Just backing out is cowardly and shows he doesn't actually care.

indlebe 9y ago
The wording used by the EU was that the Paris agreement on climate change is "irreversible and non-negotiable"

ZeroGravitas 9y ago

Can you name anything that doesn't have two people with opposite opinions on either side of it? e.g. minimum wage to be higher/lower, to have more/less nuclear weapons, higher/lower taxes edit: I just looked up Lomberg's opinion, and it turns out his response to Paris is almost exactly the opposite of Hansen's. Hansen wants to increase the price of carbon, Lomberg says "Instead of trying to make fossil fuels so expensive that no one wants them – which will never work – we should make green energy so cheap everybody will shift to it."

indlebe 9y ago
Hansen wants to increase the price of carbon across the board. One of the possible main issues is that a country like China is still not classified as a developed country and isn't bound to Article 9, a significant component of the Paris agreements.

ocschwar 9y ago

That is not Trump's reason for pulling out. And modifying the agreement can only be done from within.

indlebe 9y ago
The EU was firm that there would be no modifications to the agreement whatsoever, "irreversible and non-negotiable"