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

101–110 of 413 posts

Re: US quits Paris climate pact

#101

Post by harryh »

mywittyname wrote: post #98
harryh wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you overstate the case when you say that the US's leadership position has been destroyed. It has certainly been damaged, but the US is still one of the largest, most populous and richest countries in the world. It will have a big seat at the world negotiating table for quite some time no matter what.

The USA will certainly have a seat at the table, just not at the head of the table. This loss of influence isn't going to be readily apparent, it's precipitation will be subtle and over the long term. It may start as a preference for German or Chinese military equipment, then slowly it preference will begin to shift in areas of finance, agricultural products, energy, etc. If the USA is no longer able to negotiate fav…

Yes, I agree with "subtle and over the long term" as opposed to "destroyed it in a mere four months."

Re: US quits Paris climate pact

#102

Post by rayiner »

scarmig wrote: post #82
rayiner wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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.

The belief that the U.S. needs to be involved in the international stage is based on the fallacious assumption that international cooperation can fix climate change. There is no scenario in which that happens.

Without fundamental technological leaps, we'd have to decrease the standard of living in the developed world to reduce emissions while accommodating increased standard of living in the developing world. The math doesn't add up.

Re: US quits Paris climate pact

#103

Post by datamingle »

scarmig wrote: post #88
datamingle wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

Economist: http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2017/02/daily-c...

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

All disagree with you, but of course you must know better sources and just did not add them. I'm sure.

Re: US quits Paris climate pact

#104

Post by ghughes »

waqf wrote: post #42
davesque wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Possibly. I've seriously begun to consider ways in which I could get set up over seas. I've always wanted to spend some time abroad anyway. It's very hard for me to see a way that the US can get back on track at this point. Most of Congress doesn't seem to really care about the damage that Trump is doing to our reputation. Furthermore, Republicans have successfully neutered (through gerrymandering) the system that wo…

It would be optimistic to count on it, but one of the few ways the US political system could get back on track is through the scale of crisis we may be heading for.

The question is whether one can stomach living here while that crisis is ongoing.

Re: US quits Paris climate pact

#105

Post by gonvaled »

panzagl wrote: post #52
credo wrote: post #20

It was a bit disingenuous for Trump to describe India and China as top polluters India (population 1.3 Billion) creates lesser CO2 emissions than the US China's per-capita emissions is just around half of that of the US [Edit: replying to comment about pollution and emissions The Paris agreement is about climate change and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. When Trump talks about polluters and withdrawing from the Pa…

Pollution is not CO2.

When talking about global warming, yes.

To an overwhelming extent.

Re: US quits Paris climate pact

#106

Post by wil421 »

devnonymous wrote: post #55
muninn_ wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, not really. If it stays like this for 20+ years, then definitely.

Umm, I think people who say things like "20+ years..." haven't been paying attention to the change in rate of large scale social change over the last few decades. Do you really think anyone could have predicted today in 1997 ? (today as in, Brexit, Trump, Nsa/Privacy, Fb...etc)

The things you mentioned are so insignificant I doubt there will be more than a section about them in the history books.

In 1997 the EU was only 4 years old! Clinton was using submarines to tap undersea cables. AOL was connecting households around the country.

I don't agree that these changes are large scale compared to 20 years ago. Looks like the cycle is repeating itself and only the names have changed.

Re: US quits Paris climate pact

#107

Post by marcell »

giarc wrote: post #68
davesque wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the only way anyone could argue there are any pros is if they could convince me that Trump has a different long-term plan to address climate change. Unfortunately, all of his actions up to this point indicate that he doesn't have any such plan. I really wish people would stop trying to understand and rationalize this man's actions. He has no rational for what he does other than his own short-lived whims and t…

Many large corporations have come out against this decision (P&G, Coca Cola, GE, FB, G, 3M, Dow etc). So if he's not doing this because of lobbying from them, why is he doing this? Lobbying from O&G companies? Or is it just pure ignorance?

> Lobbying from O&G companies

Exxon Mobil's current and previous CEO were in favor of the Paris Accords. The previous CEO is also Trump's secretary of state.

> Or is it just pure ignorance?

There are vague claims that this will bring back manufacturing jobs, bring back oil coal jobs, etc. I don't know what the real reasons are, if any.

Re: US quits Paris climate pact

#109

Post by Retric »

aaron-lebo wrote: post #85
dismantlethesun wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 get…

Things change; consider 23.2% of Sweden's population are first or second generation immigrants.

US is ~26% including illegal immigrants now, but was ~35% in 1900 and ~18% in 1970. (First generation immigrants to the US are currently 14%.)

Re: US quits Paris climate pact

#110

Post by hencq »

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…

To me it signifies another nail in the coffin of the American-led rule based world order. In the 20th century the US carefully established an international framework based on the rule of law. In a mere four months that has been thoroughly undermined. Apart from the morally bankrupt policies of pushing down the effect of climate change onto future generations, in the short term it also signals to countries they don't need to play by the rules. Effectively echoing what Russia and China have been saying as well. This might actually hurt the US economy a lot more than it will gain. I hope I'm proven wrong, but it seems the American Century has officially ended.
Post reply on HN