Responding to US withdrawal from climate change accord

[sayak83]

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.

Yes I understand that. I am merely concerned that the movement that elected Trump will eventually elect enough anti science congressmen and senators that such budgets would pass through in the future. You must know that many such people have already been elected. The question is whether or not Trump is an aberration or the beginning of a trend that US will follow.

 

[Mister Emu]

The Paris accord is such that every country is called for increasing its emission reduction targets when it reconvenes every 5 years.

With no mechanism for insuring that targets are reduced, and developing countries specifically rejected any method of calling for individual countries to improve their targets. There is no enforcement for the targets and the targets offered are already lackluster, under-performing expected results.

Who says China is going to get anything?

Is there anything in the accord that says they aren't? Why aren't they going to be one of the ones paying out, like other major economies?

You are reading what you want to read.

And you are looking through rose-colored glasses.

When everyone is willing to come to the table and say "no increase period", good. Until then we'll reduce at our own rate, and everyone can scream "It's not fair" as they pile on more emissions and the world (figuratively) burns. We're all in on saving the planet or we're not.

 

[sayak83]

With no mechanism for insuring that targets are reduced, and developing countries specifically rejected any method of calling for individual countries to improve their targets. There is no enforcement for the targets and the targets offered are already lackluster, under-performing expected results.


Is there anything in the accord that says they aren't? Why aren't they going to be one of the ones paying out, like other major economies?


And you are looking through rose-colored glasses.

When everyone is willing to come to the table and say "no increase period", good. Until then we'll reduce at our own rate, and everyone can scream "It's not fair" as they pile on more emissions and the world (figuratively) burns. We're all in on saving the planet or we're not.

The mechanism is quite simple. Every country sets 5 year targets. Reports how much it has achieved it, them sets a new more stringent 5 year target. It's an excellent way to reduce emissions. Your complains have no logic to it.
China needs to invest all its money in reducing its own GHG which is rising. EU and US have already reached its peak GHG emission as they are post industrial economies and developed nation. They have the money and the opportunity to invest it on places to reduce GHG emissions. Very logical.
Your arguments lack all merit.

 

[Mister Emu]

The mechanism is quite simple. Every country sets 5 year targets.

That isn't a mechanism for ensuring targets are met. That is nothing.

China needs to invest all its money in reducing its own GHG which is rising.

They should probably stop that, increasing green house gas release. I mean, it's going to kill the planet right? A better economy won't do too much if we're all dead in a global climate catastrophe.

They have the money and the opportunity to invest it on places to reduce GHG emissions. Very logical.

We actually don't have any extra money, sorry. Especially not to give to free loaders. Anyone who wants to join in in actually reducing their emissions I could get behind. Phonies crying about climate change while wanting to pump more and more for the next 15 years, and having their hand out from money get nothing.

Your arguments lack all merit.

No, that would be your response.
You provided neither a mechanism for ensuring that targets are met nor one to ensure targets are a sustainable level of emission. You can't point to any enforcement because it doesn't exist and your only cry is "next time we'll be better".

Well then, call us next time.

 

[Stevicus]

Yes I understand that. I am merely concerned that the movement that elected Trump will eventually elect enough anti science congressmen and senators that such budgets would pass through in the future. You must know that many such people have already been elected. The question is whether or not Trump is an aberration or the beginning of a trend that US will follow.

I'm not sure how much of a trend it will be, although one thing to keep in mind is that all of this could have been avoided. I don't think that many people are necessarily "anti-science," not even Trump or any of the people you're referring to. When it comes to the science of blowing things up and making war, then they're very much pro-science.

For those who are merely struggling and trying to survive living from paycheck to paycheck, they don't really have the time or the energy to worry about what the climate will be like 50-100 years from now. In a political and economic culture where the generations living today have already mortgaged the futures of their great-grandchildren, can we really say that very many people are that concerned with the future of the planet? A cornerstone of American popular culture which even liberals have supported is the idea of self-interest: "What's in it for me?" That's the question foremost on everyone's mind - even these supposed "liberals" who claim to care so much. That's the culture that we've fostered - one of greed, pride, and selfishness.

Even the liberals and tree-hugging hippies from back in the day - they sold out decades ago, and now they're complaining about the consequences? Too little, too late. So now they want support for something they care about and not getting it.

Over the long-term, I'm actually optimistic about the future of the planet. I believe that the Earth will recover and life will continue. The worst thing that might happen is humanity may perish, but the Earth is a self-correcting mechanism and life itself may continue to flourish.

 

[sayak83]

That isn't a mechanism for ensuring targets are met. That is nothing.


They should probably stop that, increasing green house gas release. I mean, it's going to kill the planet right? A better economy won't do too much if we're all dead in a global climate catastrophe.


We actually don't have any extra money, sorry. Especially not to give to free loaders. Anyone who wants to join in in actually reducing their emissions I could get behind. Phonies crying about climate change while wanting to pump more and more for the next 15 years, and having their hand out from money get nothing.


No, that would be your response.
You provided neither a mechanism for ensuring that targets are met nor one to ensure targets are a sustainable level of emission. You can't point to any enforcement because it doesn't exist and your only cry is "next time we'll be better".

Well then, call us next time.

As I said, if you do not want to join the cooperative effort that is fine. Other countries will extract the added cost of damage caused by lax US standards by trade tariffs. It's clear who is being irresponsible and irrational and it's time to pay the price.

 

[sayak83]

I'm not sure how much of a trend it will be, although one thing to keep in mind is that all of this could have been avoided. I don't think that many people are necessarily "anti-science," not even Trump or any of the people you're referring to. When it comes to the science of blowing things up and making war, then they're very much pro-science.

For those who are merely struggling and trying to survive living from paycheck to paycheck, they don't really have the time or the energy to worry about what the climate will be like 50-100 years from now. In a political and economic culture where the generations living today have already mortgaged the futures of their great-grandchildren, can we really say that very many people are that concerned with the future of the planet? A cornerstone of American popular culture which even liberals have supported is the idea of self-interest: "What's in it for me?" That's the question foremost on everyone's mind - even these supposed "liberals" who claim to care so much. That's the culture that we've fostered - one of greed, pride, and selfishness.

Even the liberals and tree-hugging hippies from back in the day - they sold out decades ago, and now they're complaining about the consequences? Too little, too late. So now they want support for something they care about and not getting it.

Over the long-term, I'm actually optimistic about the future of the planet. I believe that the Earth will recover and life will continue. The worst thing that might happen is humanity may perish, but the Earth is a self-correcting mechanism and life itself may continue to flourish.

You are being too philosophical now. No, I don't think climate change is an insurmountable problem. It will be managed and human being will survive through it. I am disappointed in the fact the US policies would be seen something that was part of the problem rather than part of the solution. I would prefer that a large and developed democracy takes the lead in solving the big challenges of 21st century than an autocracy. If one looks at the last two and a half decades, US has basically frittered away all its advantages of emerging as victors of the Cold War. And this has happened because of politics, not economics. Whether this is because of inherent idiosyncrasies of US democratic system or because of certain problems in how democracies work, is something I am concerned about.

 

[sayak83]

USA getting isolated as more of the world commits itself to following through Paris accord.

Trump climate deal: Modi vows to go beyond Paris accord - BBC News

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has vowed his country will go "above and beyond" the 2015 Paris accord on combating climate change.

Speaking at a news conference with French President Emmanuel Macron, Mr Modi described the agreement as part of "our duty to protect Mother Earth".

China and the European Union have restated their commitment to the agreement, while Mr Macron called Mr Trump's decision a "mistake both for the US and for our planet"

Myth of non impact of Paris deal debunked
Scientists dispute the 'tiny, tiny' impact of Paris deal - BBC News

A subsequent investigation in 2016 by the same group at MIT suggests that up to one degree of warming could be averted if all the promises made in the Paris agreement were honoured. The authors believe that withdrawing from Paris is the wrong approach.

Their findings on how much difference Paris will make are echoed by the Climate Action Tracker researchers who found that 0.8 of a degree of warming could be avoided if countries stuck to their pledges. This difference could help prevent dangerous levels of warming for the whole planet.

"It is a considerable impact, and it is the first time since 2009 we see a considerable downward trend in temperatures because countries have made proposals for what they are going to do," said Prof Höhne.

"This, for me, is a really strong point of the Paris agreement."
.