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

161–170 of 413 posts

Re: US quits Paris climate pact

#161

Post by dragonwriter »

comicjk wrote: post #145
dragonwriter wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Even as an environmentalist Huh? From your comment history here, you seem like much more of a laissez-faire capitalist than any kind of environmentalist.

Some environmentalists are anti-technology types or nihilists, who look forward with pleasure at the idea of humanity suffering for its hubris. The only solution they'll consider is people changing their behavior for moral reasons, which is comfortingly unlikely. They're not fans of other environmentalists discussing happier ideas, like setting up incentives for economic and technological growth beyond fossil fuels.

This is true, however rayiner appears to be neither the anti-tech/nihilist type of environmentalist nor the "set up incentives" type of environmentalist. (E.g., on the specific issue of climate he explicitly rejects setting up incentives or any other "political fix".)

Rather, he seems to believe that the market will provide for all, even when externalities make that irrational for individual actors in the market without some regulatort regime internalizing those externalities.

Hence, my description of him as a laissez-faire capitalist rather than any kind of environmentalist.

Re: US quits Paris climate pact

#162

Post by mywittyname »

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…

It's a guideline and spending money does not magically solve problems. The fact that the USA as a complex, bloated, bureaucratic military industrial complex does not mean that it's the right way to build a military.

All the money the USA spends on its military and after 17 years they've failed to suppress and army comprised of hastily-trained insurgents armed with 70 year old rifles and rudimentary explosives. And this is hardly the first quagmire of this sort the USA has been involved in.

Re: US quits Paris climate pact

#163

Post by ersii »

dragonwriter wrote: post #73
rayiner wrote: post #50

Even as an environmentalist, I'm okay with this. The political reaction to climate change is a farce. The Paris accord isn't going to do anything, just like the Kyoto protocol didn't do anything. It's just a way for people to feel good without making any real lifestyle changes.

> Even as an environmentalist Huh? From your comment history here, you seem like much more of a laissez-faire capitalist than any kind of environmentalist.

So what? Neither are mutually exclusive.

Re: US quits Paris climate pact

#164

Post by LaurensBER »

waqf wrote: post #25
seiferteric wrote: post #5

Does anyone think we might start seeing a brain drain out of the US given the current political climate?

Yes, but bear in mind: * where else will people go? The UK, for example, is also in an anti-immigrant mood. Though Canada may still be good. * the current political climate in the US is ... unstable. It'll be significantly different in a year or two, one way or another.

The rest of Europa still welcomes immigrants. Berlin might not be silicon valley but the're enough exciting opportunities there and you could argue that the quality of living is higher than the bay area.

Besides that Amsterdam, Paris and Barcelona are also great contenders. All have their upsides and downsides but any decent software engineer is going to be able to live an enjoyable life there.

Australia is also a great option, migrating there is a tad more difficult but a young software engineer is very welcome. Capital requirements if you're older are really steep though.

Re: US quits Paris climate pact

#165

Post by pvnick »

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…

That is because the previous president decided to unilaterally bind the country to the agreement rather than seek treaty ratification from Congress. It is a risk that ruling by executive decree entails.

Re: US quits Paris climate pact

#167

Post by Joeri »

rayiner wrote: post #102
scarmig wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 decreas…

The cost of measures to respond to climate change's consequences dwarf the costs to prevent it. Look at the 5.5 billion euro flood barrier that was built in venice. That is just to protect one city. Now multiply that over all cities on all coastlines.

We can't afford to do nothing, it is simply too expensive.

Re: US quits Paris climate pact

#168

Post by empath75 »

davesque wrote: post #10
vowelless wrote: post #2

Can someone give me pros and cons of this move (serious responses only)? Thanks

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…

Trump's position amounts to hostage taking. Give us lots of money or we'll destroy the planet. It would be more honest if he did it with nukes.

Re: US quits Paris climate pact

#169

Post by addicted »

qbaqbaqba wrote: post #146
diafygi wrote: post #64

I have a cleantech startup, and in the industry we see this decision as only having a negative impact on deep red states. Most other states will implement mandates in line with Paris on their own, which will grow their local energy economies (the transition means lots of jobs). Deep red states that try to slow the transition will just get left behind. Trump is hurting his own base, while not slowing anyone else down.…

Would you company be possible without any sort of government support(federal/local/etc), financial or legal?

Would oil companies be possible without the US military defending them in the rogue states they usually extract their oil from?

And that's not even considering the direct subsidies they receive.

Re: US quits Paris climate pact

#170

Post by scarmig »

pvnick wrote: post #165
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…

That is because the previous president decided to unilaterally bind the country to the agreement rather than seek treaty ratification from Congress. It is a risk that ruling by executive decree entails.

Other countries don't care about post-facto rationalizations by partisans to demonize the other side in domestic policies.

The USA cannot be trusted as an ally. That is the takeaway here. Saying that "but Obama's worse than Trump!!!" isn't changing that and is entirely besides the point.

ETA: And, for what its worth, the Senate ratified NATO, and that hasn't stopped Trump and Republicans from doing their utmost to sabotage it. It's laughable for folks to pretend like this is some deep matter of principle.

Post reply on HN