US quits Paris climate pact • Hacker News Board

Re: US quits Paris climate pact

#171

Post by twoodfin » Thu, Jun 01, 2017, 9:14 PM UTC

scarmig wrote: post #126

datamingle wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

From your own source: "At a summit in 2014, NATO reiterated its commitment to the 2% target. Members that fell short at the time promised to meet their obligations by 2024." But, again, even in the worst light possible, a country not spending enough on military spending to meet some stated target doesn't compare to tossing out treaties based on a whim.

From the perspective of the US Constitution, the Paris Accords are most certainly not a treaty. Treaties require a 2/3 vote of approval in the Senate.

The tradition of significant international agreements made deliberately short of "treaties" goes back to FDR/Churchill and the Atlantic Charter, if not further.

Re: US quits Paris climate pact

#172

Post by SpikeDad » Thu, Jun 01, 2017, 9:14 PM UTC

ElComradio wrote: post #95

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…

This decision has zilch to do with whether it's good environmental policy or will create jobs. All it has to do with is Trump's desire to feel like Alpha Man of Action when he goes to some rally/playdate in Iowa and can present a reason for everyone to tell him how incredible he is. That is the alpha and omega of policy making in this administration.

Actually it has to do with the Republicans desire to be self-sufficient in all maters science. They want all scientific matters to be determined by their own sphere of influence.

This allows them to deny reality for any matter of science whether it's global climate, abortion, education, gun control, economics and any other issue which requires science to produce evidence in order to select the proper course of action.

It all these cases and more the scientific facts are diametrically opposite to the direction of Republican and conservative legislation.

By making science the stuff of the devil it leaves a gigantic opening for them to stuff their nonsense into the heads of the gullible right wing base.

Re: US quits Paris climate pact

#173

Post by blibble » Thu, Jun 01, 2017, 9:14 PM UTC

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 UK could be broadly described as anti-low-skilled immigration

most of the UK electorate support increasing the level of highly skilled migration

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/half-of-britis...

Re: US quits Paris climate pact

#174

Post by exclusiv » Thu, Jun 01, 2017, 9:16 PM UTC

zorpner wrote: post #9

Elon Musk just posted that he will, as promised, be quitting the presidential council: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/870369915894546432

Kind of sad people quit/resign/temper tantrum when they discover opposing views or decisions. I think this was a dumb move by the president but Elon and others originally joined to try and provide insight and influence against opposing viewpoints. Did they expect to get their way all the time?

Re: US quits Paris climate pact

#175

Post by elbasti » Thu, Jun 01, 2017, 9:16 PM UTC

seiferteric wrote: post #5

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

.

Re: US quits Paris climate pact

#176

Post by nthcolumn » Thu, Jun 01, 2017, 9:16 PM UTC

sergiotapia wrote: post #84

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.

Germany is exiting NATO. They have already deferred any spending commitment until after BREXIT (UK leaving the EU). I don't think Trump's weird behaviour prompted Merkel's 'We can't depend on them anymore' speech. But bad? meh. depends if you think the demise of NATO is bad.

Re: US quits Paris climate pact

#177

Post by propman » Thu, Jun 01, 2017, 9:17 PM UTC

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.…

Most of the new renewable energy is coming from red states and it's coming not due to some moral obligation but due to jobs, demand, and price. The Wind corridor may turn Blue for next election. Farmers getting paid 10k a year to lease a wind turbine on their farms is like striking oil that lasts forever. Counties that had been dead due to loss of manufacturing and movement into cities have been revitalized through many new jobs and tax revenues from wind farms. These counties may not have too many votes, but they have a huge representation in the House and we will see environmental friendly Conservatives or even Democrats coming from there.

Re: US quits Paris climate pact

#178

Post by neaden » Thu, Jun 01, 2017, 9:17 PM UTC

fudgie wrote: post #141

neaden wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is true but every country is supposed to spend 2% of GDP on defense, and only the US and 4 others actually do. How Trump handles this and talks about this is asinine, but there is a basis for it.

All countries in NATO have promised to spend 2% of GDP by 2024, yes.

But many NATO countries have had a decrease in military spending since 2006 when this agreement was signed and have shown no real intention to get up to this level. Now it's perfectly reasonable to say that this is fine and the 2006 agreement isn't that big of a deal. It's also very reasonable to say that good relations are more important than everyone meeting their goal and a clear commitment to Article 5 is essential. But sergiotapia's comment that countries should pay their fair share is also reasonable and ajross's response that NATO isn't a pool of money misses that point.

Re: US quits Paris climate pact

#179

Post by ntsplnkv2 » Thu, Jun 01, 2017, 9:17 PM UTC

throwaway-1209 wrote: post #139

zorpner wrote: post #9

Elon Musk just posted that he will, as promised, be quitting the presidential council: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/870369915894546432

Ballsy move. I strongly suspect this could jeopardize the massive federal subsidies that keep Tesla afloat (and probably Solar City, too). $7.5K per car (which essentially amounts to a 10% per-unit discount out the door) times 84K cars is $630M.

Has nothing to do with being ballsy.

I wish our president could sacrifice something for what he believes is right much like Musk is, if what you say is true.

Re: US quits Paris climate pact

#180

Post by sqeaky » Thu, Jun 01, 2017, 9:17 PM UTC

sergiotapia wrote: post #3

Response from the market: http://i.imgur.com/CDKVSWq.jpg The Paris Accord according to President Trump would have allowed China to do whatever they want for the next 13 years, while India would receive billions in aid. http://climateactiontracker.org/countries/usa.html - US Pledges ( 26-28%) VS. http://climateactiontracker.org/countries/china.html - China Pledges (0%)

You make it sound like those "pledges" are binding or even difficult to make happen.

Keeping a 0% change for China while trying to convert from a developing to a fully industrialized nation is very difficult and ambitious, actively reducing our emissions is just going to happen anyway because of the uptake in non-fossil energy sources.