Responding to US withdrawal from climate change accord

[Jeremiahcp]

The unilateral withdrawal of US from the Paris climate accord cannot be condemned enough. However given what Mr. Trump was elected upon, it is not surprising. The question here is, how should other nations respond to yet another irresponsible decision by the USA, this time with very damaging consequences for everyone in the world?

I consider that, at the very least, all the national blocks should impose trade tariffs on any and all US goods manufactured without the regulations proposed in the climate accord. Additional trade penalties and sanctions should also be imposed to offset the extra cost of added emissions the US industries will emit by being free from the accords targets.

It's high time for the US to be held accountable for the irresponsible and dictatorial manner it goes about its business.

Thoughts?

The steps towards isolating US has already begun. Strongly approve
As U.S. retreats, EU and China seek climate leadership at summit

"decision by the USA,"

Not everyone in the US thinks like Trump and his flock.

"61 US cities and three states vow to uphold Paris climate agreement"

Shortly after Donald Trump told the world that the US would withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement, American cities and states vowed they would abide by the international compact anyway. At least 61 mayors followed through on a previous pledge to ignore Trump's decision and released a statement vowing to uphold the Paris accords. Meanwhile, the governors of California, New York and Washington announced they would form the "United States Climate Alliance" to do the same as a multi-state coalition.

61 US cities and three states vow to uphold Paris climate agreement

"Top CEOs tell the CEO president: You're wrong on Paris"

Dozens of top executives urged Trump not to pull the U.S. out of the Paris climate agreement. Now that he's decided to do it, many are voicing their displeasure.

"Disappointed with today's decision on the Paris Agreement," Immelt said Thursday on Twitter shortly after Trump's announcement.

"Climate change is real," he wrote. "Industry must now lead and not depend on government."

Top CEOs tell the CEO president: You're wrong on Paris

 

[sayak83]

"decision by the USA,"

Not everyone in the US thinks like Trump and his flock.

"61 US cities and three states vow to uphold Paris climate agreement"



61 US cities and three states vow to uphold Paris climate agreement

"Top CEOs tell the CEO president: You're wrong on Paris"



Top CEOs tell the CEO president: You're wrong on Paris

Still there is a limit to what individual states can do. Since Trump is stacking up all federal science organizations with his political stooges, it's quite likely Trump will stop both funding of energy saving research and monitoring of climate change done by NOAA, NASA and other federal agencies. If one doesn't measure it, it isn't happening. Right? Consider what happens to climate science if federal agencies are instructed to stop or drastically reduce all funding on climate research in universities and research labs.

At the end of the day Trump is elected by a coalition of groups who are against science. So Trump is and will continue to eliminate all such institutions that use expertise to generate evidence based policy to promote his gut based alternative.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/03/nih-doe-office-science-face-deep-cuts-trumps-first-budget

President Donald Trump's first budget request to Congress, to be released at 7 a.m. Thursday, will call for cutting the 2018 budget of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) by $6 billion, or nearly 20%, according to sources familiar with the proposal. The Department of Energy's (DOE's) Office of Science would lose $900 million, or nearly 20% of its $5 billion budget. The proposal also calls for deep cuts to the research programs at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and a 5% cut to NASA's earth science budget. And it would eliminate DOE's roughly $300 million Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy.

I expect astrology, palmistry and Biblical prophesies to guide US policies in the future. Maybe China should export its Oracle bone prophecy technology as well.


Meanwhile
China is catching up to the US on science and engineering spending, report finds

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Demonstrate your case.

This is an economic agreement passed off as an environmental agreement. There are no mechanisms of enforcement, nor any specific metrics or guidance of how any climate change would be mitigated, or what data/methods would be used to determine how any goals would be met - even if such information was known. It's a "throw money at the problem" agreement. Of course, most of the money is being thrown from richer nations to poorer nations. We already have enough aid flowing to third-world countries. We don't need another avenue for such aid, disguised as some type of vague, unenforceable environmental agreement. As an environmental agreement, this is pretty much a complete joke, with no historical indications that it would result in anything substantive, other than a lot of money changing hands, and end up who knows where.

 

[sayak83]

This is an economic agreement passed off as an environmental agreement. There are no mechanisms of enforcement, nor any specific metrics or guidance of how any climate change would be mitigated, or what data/methods would be used to determine how any goals would be met - even if such information was known. It's a "throw money at the problem" agreement. Of course, most of the money is being thrown from richer nations to poorer nations. We already have enough aid flowing to third-world countries. We don't need another avenue for such aid, disguised as some type of vague, unenforceable environmental agreement. As an environmental agreement, this is pretty much a complete joke, with no historical indications that it would result in anything substantive, other than a lot of money changing hands, and end up who knows where.

Provide studies that show this is more tan your opinion.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Still there is a limit to what individual states can do. Since Trump is stacking up all federal science organizations with his political stooges, it's quite likely Trump will stop both funding of energy saving research and monitoring of climate change done by NOAA, NASA and other federal agencies. If one doesn't measure it, it isn't happening. Right? Consider what happens to climate science if federal agencies are instructed to stop or drastically reduce all funding on climate research in universities and research labs.

Trump does not set the budget, and his budget proposal was laughed out of Congress by both the Right and Left. Also 2018 mid term elections are just around the corner. I just think you are being to wide sweeping by blaming all of the US, remember Trump lost the popular vote by 3 million votes. Just because the Republicans are in power now, that does not mean it will remain that way, or that everyone in the US supports them.

 

[YmirGF]

Trump does not set the budget, and his budget proposal was laughed out of Congress by both the Right and Left. Also 2018 mid term elections are just around the corner. I just think you are being to wide sweeping by blaming all of the US, remember Trump lost the popular vote by 3 million votes. Just because the Republicans are in power now, that does not mean it will remain that way, or that everyone in the US supports them.

And if the Dems do not sweep the Pubs out of power... what then? Take to the streets to protest the democratic desire of your fellow citizens?

 

[columbus]

If you refer to CO2, your numbers are way off.
Americastan is much less gassy than China.
Even per capita, your claim is wrong.
Ref.....
List of countries by carbon dioxide emissions - Wikipedia

You are wrong in so many ways it's hard to tell where to start.

By comparing one year's emissions and leaving out the fact that China has about five times the population?
Or ignoring the fact that China is playing catch-up?
Or that China is an industrial powerhouse supplying zillions of dollars worth of basic commodities to and goods to other people?

Given that greenhouse gases are a cumulative problem, the second chart from your link is much more cromulent than the annual estimate from 2013, which is the first chart. On the second chart, the USA per capita is pushing 10 times the cumulative emissions. And it doesn't account for things like methane, or USA manufacturing moving to China while still supplying USA consumers.

But even more to the point is this. Co2 emissions estimates don't take into account what is being done that results in the emissions. Releasing a ton of Co2 can mean very different things. If a ton is released building simple housing a family can move out of a dirt floor shack. They get a place with indoor plumbing and electricity for the first time. That is hugely different from a ton released by someone who moves to Phoenix AZ, builds a 4500sq/ft house and cranks up the air-conditioning.

People in developing nations are unlikely to see all of us as equals who need to share the burden of reducing global climate change equally.

I stand by the premise of my post.
Western peoples, especially the USA, created the problem and their wasteful cultures are still the biggest problem.
Tom

 

[Jeremiahcp]

And if the Dems do not sweep the Pubs out of power... what then? Take to the streets to protest the democratic desire of your fellow citizens?

You have a very poor understanding of American politics.

 

[YmirGF]

You have a very poor understanding of American politics.

Oddly, no one has accused me of that prior to now. Thanks for the head's up.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Provide studies that show this is more tan your opinion.

I will when they provide studies showing that what the accord actually states will result in any meaningful reduction in climate change. Do you actually understand what the accord entails?

 

[Revoltingest]

You are wrong in so many ways it's hard to tell where to start.

Find an error in my assumptions or arithmetic?
No, you didn't....just a knee jerk objection.

By comparing one year's emissions and leaving out the fact that China has about five times the population?

Did you even read my posts?
I specifically dealt separately with overall and per capita CO2 emissions.
And the table in the provided link shows this.

Are you becoming a liberal?
If so, there is conversion therapy available....& it's more effetive than gay-to-straight conversion therapy.
I ask because you normally read with more insight.

 

[columbus]

Also 2018 mid term elections are just around the corner.

Nevertheless, Democrats are notoriously unwilling to bother with midterm elections. That's why the Tea party took control of Capitol Hill in 2010 and proceeded to undermine Obama for the rest of his tenure. I see no reason to think 2018 will be that different, and the Republicans have a lot less to defend.
Tom

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I stand by the premise of my post.
Western peoples, especially the USA, created the problem and their wasteful cultures are still the biggest problem.

And a plan to reduce ours while they increase theirs will result in no meaningful impact on climate change.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Oddly, no one has accused me of that prior to now. Thanks for the head's up.

No one has ever told me I have poor understanding of astrophysics, so I guess by your standards that means I have a great understanding of astrophysics even though I have never studied it.

Protesting is a normal part of American politics and is a protected right.

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

During the Obama administration I had to listen to the non-stop complaining of the Right. American politics involves the people of America and it does not simply end just because an election was concluded.

 

[Revoltingest]

No one has ever told me I have poor understanding of astrophysics, so I guess by your standards that means I have a great understanding of astrophysics even though I have never studied it.

Protesting is a normal part of American politics and is a protected right.



During the Obama administration I had to listen to the non-stop complaining of the Right. American politics involves the people of America and it does not simply end just because an election was concluded.

You have a poor understanding of astrophysics.
And also of rheology.

There....I said it.
Someone had to.

 

[columbus]

And a plan to reduce ours while they increase theirs will result in no meaningful impact on climate change.

A plan to reduce ours will have an impact, regardless of what anyone else does.
But I don't think it will happen, because everyone can justify their own behavior to themselves. "The tragedy of the commons" is going to be played out until we die like the yeast in a champagne bottle. From ocean fisheries to forests to the atmosphere, gaming the system will always have enough advantage to keep humans doing it.

Even when the Cold Equations are wreaking havoc.
Tom

 

[Kilgore Trout]

A plan to reduce ours will have an impact, regardless of what anyone else does.

I differentiate between "an impact" and "a meaningful impact." If I stay home tomorrow and don't drive my car, it will have an impact - just not a meaningful one.

But I don't think it will happen, because everyone can justify their own behavior to themselves. "The tragedy of the commons" is going to be played out until we die like the yeast in a champagne bottle. From ocean fisheries to forests to the atmosphere, gaming the system will always have enough advantage to keep humans doing it.

I find the "stick your head in the sand" view of conservatives and the "let's feel good about doing something that won't really accomplish anything" view of liberals, both, to be variations on this concept.

 

[Nous]

This is silly. Paris accords does not stipulate that only solar and wind is the way to go. US can build as many nuclear power plants as it wants as part of its emission free energy growth within any climate agreement.

This is silly. I didn't suggest any such thing as that the Paris Agreement stipulates “that only solar and wind is the way to go.”

I noted the facts demonstrating that good clean safe nuclear power is currently the only known way to meet the world's energy needs without wrecking the environment (including climate).

Those facts are unaffected by either staying in or pulling out of the Paris Agreement.

 

[Nous]

According to a WaPo article on a Greenblatt and Wei study last year, using scenarios under the Clean Power Plan, the US was on track to probably fail to meet our emissions reduction goals of the Paris Agreement, in which by 2025 we would reduce CO2e emissions by 26-28% of our 2005 level. That is partly due to the fact that we really don't know what our methane emissions were in 2005 or are currently. It also critically depends on what factor one uses in calculating the Global Warming Potential of methane. There has definitely been a tendency to use the lowest GWP for methane.

 

[columbus]

I differentiate between "an impact" and "a meaningful impact." If I stay home tomorrow and don't drive my car, it will have an impact - just not a meaningful one.

As long as everyone justifies their contribution to the problem with "my change won't be meaningful", nothing will change. I fully expect that to continue.

I find the "stick your head in the sand" view of conservatives and the "let's feel good about doing something that won't really accomplish anything" view of liberals, both, to be variations on this concept.

And as long as the issue remains a partisan issue we won't do anything to avert the incoming Cold Equations.

I don't expect anything " meaningful" to change. I'm just glad I am old and childless, because I believe that the world you parents are leaving your children is going to involve a lot more suffering.
Tom

 

[sayak83]

I will when they provide studies showing that what the accord actually states will result in any meaningful reduction in climate change. Do you actually understand what the accord entails?

Yes I do. I will create a thread shortly.
The accord is a mechanism by which all the countries set 5 year goals of increasingly stringent emission reduction with full disclosure of successes and failures over the past 5 years until emissions are cut such that 2 degree warming cap is not breached. It also promises funding to less developed countries from 2020 on so that they could install and develop suitable technologies.

So obviously the accord, when followed through, will cause immensely significant global warming reduction, by definition.