Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

US quits Paris climate pact

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 413 posts

Re: US quits Paris climate pact

#81

Post by datamingle »

scarmig wrote: post #51

This is one of those situations where you should be shaking your head, even if you're a climate change denying conservative or a fussil fuel industrial interest. The Paris pact was pretty toothless: it was a step forward, but heavily aspirational. Indeed, one of the stated complaints of conservatives was that it did nothing to enforce compliance. The Trump Administration could have just as well ignored it without for…

US has a long history of upholding its agreements compared to other countries. Germany & France cannot even uphold spending 2% of GDP for NATO: http://money.cnn.com/2017/05/25/news/nato-funding-explained-...

Agreed in 2006 of 2% target, then had to reiterate the target in 2014 since many members did not meet 2% target. "Members that fell short at the time promised to meet their obligations by 2024" .. it is an obligation not some "aspirational goal" as some have mentioned below.

Time: http://time.com/4680885/nato-defense-spending-budget-trump/

Economist: http://time.com/4680885/nato-defense-spending-budget-trump/

WSJ: https://www.wsj.com/articles/nato-calls-for-rise-in-defence-...

Re: US quits Paris climate pact

#82

Post by scarmig »

rayiner wrote: post #76
scarmig wrote: post #51

This is one of those situations where you should be shaking your head, even if you're a climate change denying conservative or a fussil fuel industrial interest. The Paris pact was pretty toothless: it was a step forward, but heavily aspirational. Indeed, one of the stated complaints of conservatives was that it did nothing to enforce compliance. The Trump Administration could have just as well ignored it without for…

Yes, the Paris pact was toothless. It was never going to work, just like Kyoto didn't work. So what's wrong with pulling out of it? Consternation over the Paris accord is, in my opinion, elitist liberal virtue signaling. (Here in the DC/MD/VA area, everyone will complain about this move at Starbucks sipping on lattes while driving one hour each way to work from their McMansion in the exurbs. God forbid we do anything…

Pulling out of it is indication that the USA's politics is primarily driven by virtue signaling among different segments of its governing elite, not by policy or objective reality.

If you believe the USA should be involved at all on the international stage, this creation of new public knowledge is a big detriment to that end.

Re: US quits Paris climate pact

#83

Post by NicoJuicy »

So Trump is basicly quitting the Paris climate pact for the mining industry, which is mostly automated? Leaving the solar space for China that going to be the leader in solar energy.

I've actually never thought i would say this, but my "admiration" for the US has drasticly declined the last few months. I think this also affects "Silicon Valley".

PS. Am i right that your President only had a one hit wonder with Trump Tower, with daddy's money. Then licensed everything ( the few things he did with casino's failed). And ... He is now the president, because he was in a TV-show? Or am i missing something?

Re: US quits Paris climate pact

#84

Post by sergiotapia »

scarmig wrote: post #51

This is one of those situations where you should be shaking your head, even if you're a climate change denying conservative or a fussil fuel industrial interest. The Paris pact was pretty toothless: it was a step forward, but heavily aspirational. Indeed, one of the stated complaints of conservatives was that it did nothing to enforce compliance. The Trump Administration could have just as well ignored it without for…

I don't understand how you think the NATO meeting was bad. Countries should pay their fair (and agreed to!) share towards NATO.

Re: US quits Paris climate pact

#85

Post by aaron-lebo »

dismantlethesun wrote: post #53
pavlov wrote: post #37

The United States of America spent a hundred years building up a global leadership position. President Trump has effectively destroyed it in a mere four months. China is adeptly stepping up to fill the void left by the United States. Last week Trump did his best to alienate America's long-standing European allies, who now feel that they are on their own against Russia's expanding European power plays. So Europe is tu…

Perhaps the US isn't a good global leader. It is, after all, only the aftermath of WW2 that left enough of a power vacuum for two countries at the edges of "proprer civilisation" like the USA and Russia to take the central position as the world superpowers. I wouldn't be sad if the USA returns to a position of only interfering within its sphere of influence in North and South America. Being a global leader isn't mere…

What?

The US is a nation of immigrants. It doesn't see other nations as "other" any more than any other nation, and probably less so because we're very culturally diverse.

But yeah, if you want to go back to the days where benevolent places like the British Empire, Imperial Germany, and the USSR ruled the world, have at it. Because they were benevolent, right?

The US isn't doing a great job, but if American power gets rolled back, are you ready for Russia to come rolling into Eastern Europe? You ready for the Chinese to invade Taiwan? The US is the only thing preventing that.

It's not ideal but it's not all bad, either.

Re: US quits Paris climate pact

#86

Post by Danihan »

kneth wrote: post #63
Danihan wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The deal is unenforceable, very expensive, and most likely will fail. Also, China emits twice as much greenhouse gas as the United States.

Well, China has more than four times as many citizens.

And therein lies the problem.

Re: US quits Paris climate pact

#87

Post by [deleted] »

aaron-lebo wrote: post #69
pavlov wrote: post #37

The United States of America spent a hundred years building up a global leadership position. President Trump has effectively destroyed it in a mere four months. China is adeptly stepping up to fill the void left by the United States. Last week Trump did his best to alienate America's long-standing European allies, who now feel that they are on their own against Russia's expanding European power plays. So Europe is tu…

You're overreacting and falling into what China would love people to believe, that 4 years of bad leadership is equivalent to decades of autocracy. When Trump is gone in 3 years, it's not gonna be so dire. Stupid short-sighted decision, but it's just a road bump. The Germans and Japanese recovered from WW2, pretty sure the US can recover from Trump.

[deleted]

Re: US quits Paris climate pact

#88

Post by scarmig »

datamingle wrote: post #81
scarmig wrote: post #51

This is one of those situations where you should be shaking your head, even if you're a climate change denying conservative or a fussil fuel industrial interest. The Paris pact was pretty toothless: it was a step forward, but heavily aspirational. Indeed, one of the stated complaints of conservatives was that it did nothing to enforce compliance. The Trump Administration could have just as well ignored it without for…

US has a long history of upholding its agreements compared to other countries. Germany & France cannot even uphold spending 2% of GDP for NATO: http://money.cnn.com/2017/05/25/news/nato-funding-explained-... Agreed in 2006 of 2% target, then had to reiterate the target in 2014 since many members did not meet 2% target. "Members that fell short at the time promised to meet their obligations by 2024" .. it is an obliga…

Yeah, that Trumpian factoid has long been debunked. Formally true, but 2% is also an aspirational goal, to be met a decade from now. That parallels, at worst, Trump making it harder to meet the Paris pact's requirements a decade from now.

But of course you know all that already.

Re: US quits Paris climate pact

#89

Post by [deleted] »

fudgie wrote: post #74
mmilano wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I watched the announcement w/o knowing much about it. He justified the decision by saying: - We're paying 100b/year when other developed countries do not have to. - Spending on that is unaccounted for. - The impact will be (only) a 2/10 Celcius reduction in temperature by 2100 - The positive impact by 2030 is the equivalent of what China pollutes in 14 days. Just stating what was said. I don't know which are facts.

According to Michael E. Mann, in 2100 it's +4.5C with no action, +3.5C with just the Paris Accord, and +1.8C with ratcheting up. ( https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DBQpulkWAAE2mrc.jpg )

[deleted]
Post reply on HN