The World without the US on Climate Change

[rareboy]

Before Pittsburgh was the poster child for a midsized, postindustrial city, it was a symbol of the ills of pollution. The soot from the steel mills hung so thick in the air the streetlights had to be on during the day. In 1948, 25 miles south of the city, the town of Donora was enveloped in a thick yellow smog that killed 20 people and sickened half the town. It was the worst air pollution disaster in U.S. history and led to the passage of the Clean Air Act.

Trump chose the wrong city as an example for his motivation.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox...ittsburgh_over_paris_he_knows_nothing_of.html

- - - Updated - - -

Ha! I didn't realize Jerry Brown and California already had a plan and intend to stand with Paris and the agreement..along with New York and Washington State...so Kentucky and the rest of Trump's faithfuls can go fuck themselves...

It is worth noting that together, New York and California represent the 4th largest economies in the world.

 

[Vitamin]

Ha! I didn't realize Jerry Brown and California already had a plan and intend to stand with Paris and the agreement..along with New York and Washington State...so Kentucky and the rest of Trump's faithfuls can go fuck themselves...

Something tells me Trump is going to decide to declare Paris a treaty to (try) nip that in the bud real quick.

 

[Ben1]

 

[rareboy]

Something tells me Trump is going to decide to declare Paris a treaty to (try) nip that in the bud real quick.

I don't think he can at this point. The international law around this would still define it as an agreement. It would also spark states' rights blowback that would end up in the Supreme Court.

 

[Kulindahr]

These "large number of churches" use LOGIC and did not use religion to solve problems.
Therefore religion still poisons everything.

That's your fantasy. In reality, it's their religion that drives them to do good.

 

[Kulindahr]

I don't think he can at this point. The international law around this would still define it as an agreement. It would also spark states' rights blowback that would end up in the Supreme Court.

Yes. Participation in the underlying organization would count as a treaty, but agreements as part of that organization are no more treaties than an agreement within NATO on how to locate defensive radar.

 

[gsdx]

Well, since Trump can't even withdraw from the agreement until a day after the next election (if he even lasts long enough to run again), there doesn't seem much to worry about.

 

[ballcaphair]

Well, since Trump can't even withdraw from the agreement until a day after the next election (if he even lasts long enough to run again), there doesn't seem much to worry about.

So true. We will probably continue on the green path. There may be a brain-drain if innovators head for France because their funding "evaporates." It is his high drama, look at me execution that is a bitter icing on a toxic cake. I am angry.

 

[Telstra]

Pacific leader likens Donald Trump to a 'classroom bully' after climate deal backdown
The pacific leader looks better than Trump ...

 

[Telstra]

That's your fantasy. In reality, it's their religion that drives them to do good.

Maybe "the sheeps" try to do good.
BUT the leaders drives by self interest.

 

[tobymerwin]

It is almost official.

The United States will be in the same league with Syria and Nicaragua as the world's only non-participants in the Paris Climate Agreement.

There's something so unbelievably tragic about this. The US will never again be viewed as a leader in the development of any kind of treaty or future agreement because it just simply can't be trusted. This will also have a pretty profound impact on trade deals as well.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-climatechange-trump-idUSKBN18R1J4?il=0

Even doing a turnabout when Trump and the GOP are out of power won't ever restore the US to a position of leadership.

When did the U.S. Senate approve the Paris Climate Treaty? Oh, that's right, they didn't. The U.S. never ratified it. We were never in it, so why all the fuss?

 

[tobymerwin]

Pacific leader likens Donald Trump to a 'classroom bully' after climate deal backdown
The pacific leader looks better than Trump ...

...until he needs our help.

 

[tobymerwin]

Yes. Participation in the underlying organization would count as a treaty, but agreements as part of that organization are no more treaties than an agreement within NATO on how to locate defensive radar.

An agreement between multiple countries is a treaty. In the U.S., treaties have to be ratified by the senate. The Paris bullshit was never ratified, therefore, it was never approved by the U.S. Trump didn't withdraw from anything.

 

[rareboy]

Nonsense.

An agreement between countries is not automatically a treaty. It is telling that TrumpCo. didn't try to use this as a reason, because it would have failed the legal test.

You are talking out of your ass.

 

[rareboy]

And perhaps things aren't so dire. Some Americans are stepping up to the plate. With New York and California representing the fourth largest economies in the world, and pledging continued support, and with the leadership of people like Michael Bloomberg, there may be hope.

“Americans are not walking away from the Paris climate agreement,” Mr Bloomberg said on Thursday, according to the Washington Examiner.

“Just the opposite - we are forging ahead. Mayors, governors, and business leaders from both political parties are signing on to a statement of support that we will submit to the UN and together, we will reach the emission reduction goals the United States made in Paris in 2015."

The billionaire philanthropist added: “Americans will honour and fulfil the Paris agreement by leading from the bottom up — and there isn't anything Washington can do to stop us."

And he's putting money behind his words, pledging to make up the 15 million that the UN loses by Trump's withdrawal of the US.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/b...ally-make-up-the-15m-in-funding-a7769416.html

 

[Vitamin]

An agreement between multiple countries is a treaty.

Not if said agreement is non-binding, which Paris was. Hell, even the monetary contributions were optional. Trump could've signed it, and gone on completely ignoring climate change as usual.

 

[rareboy]

...And he didn't...because his gesture needed to be about a big 'Fuck You' to Obama, to liberalism, to internationalism and to science.

It had to be about pandering to a small slice of Americans who want to wall themselves in and recreate a world where uneducated white males were Gods and everyone else knew their place.

 

[gsdx]

Trump said this:

TRUMP: "The cost to the economy at this time would be close to $3 trillion in lost GDP and 6.5 million industrial jobs, while households would have 7,000 less income, and in many cases, much worse than that." — Rose Garden ceremony Thursday announcing U.S. withdrawal from the worldwide agreement to curb emissions responsible for global warming. GDP is the gross domestic product, the broadest gauge of the economy.

The facts say this

THE FACTS: His claim is based on a study paid for by two groups that have long opposed environmental regulation, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the American Council for Capital Formation. It makes worst-case assumptions that may inflate the cost of meeting U.S. targets under the Paris accord while largely ignoring the economic benefits to U.S. businesses from building and operating renewable energy projects.

Both groups behind the study get financial backing from those who profit from the continued burning of fossil fuels. The latter group has received money from foundations controlled by the Koch brothers, whose company owns refineries and more than 4,000 miles of oil and gas pipelines.

For more 'facts', click the link: https://ca.news.yahoo.com/ap-fact-check-blast-hot-144905427.html

 

[Benvolio]

The would be dictator, Obama committed the U S to reducing emissions 28% by 2025, without submitting it to the Senate. For that reason, if no other, Trump was correct to trash it. It would take draconian authoritarian dictates to attempt the accomplishment of the goal, and for democrats, the authoritarian control of the country is more important than the emissions. Emissions are just the ideology. [Text: Removed]

 

[gsdx]

^ Back for 5 minutes and already attacking Obama and derailing the topic.