Offtopic, shouldn't this be the #1 post, it's probably blacklisted currently: http://imgur.com/XdEShU0
US quits Paris climate pact
181–190 of 413 posts
Re: US quits Paris climate pact
#182Elon 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.
Unless the tax credits are extended (and the likelihood of that was essentially zero already), Tesla is set to hit the phaseout point next year regardless, and will have them go to zero one year later. It's likely that if you reserve a Model 3 today, you won't get a tax credit when you take delivery. So that wouldn't change a whole lot. And assuming the subsidy is eliminated for everyone and not just Tesla, it'll make them more competitive.
I'd say the big danger for his stuff is SpaceX and NASA, and I don't think there's much risk there.
Re: US quits Paris climate pact
#183Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 sa…
I do not wish my statement to be taken as a partisan one (although I do admit to being conservative), but rather as a general observation about the dangers of executive decree.
Re: US quits Paris climate pact
#184Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
I agree that the dynamics you describe account for some of the reason Trump's base is primed to latch onto him.
But as far as Trump himself goes, he's not really a Republican. He is solely concerned with receiving praise and feeling tough. There is no master plan; that is really all there is to it.
Re: US quits Paris climate pact
#185Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
Your ignorance is breathtaking. The US and other developed countries have always taken the lead on environmental policy that has resulted in real change. The most famous is the Montreal Protocol which resulted in the banning of CFCs and saved the Ozone Layer[1]. The policy decision drove technological innovation and created entire new classes of appliances and chemicals which resulted in millions of new jobs. After t…
The CFC problem was a narrow one, and the Montreal protocol was implemented a decade after development started on CFC alternatives. At the time Montreal was implemented, there was a clear picture of how to get from point A to point B. Climate change is in comparison a moon shot. We don't know what will work and how it'll work. There's not some single thing we can ban and fix the problem. It calls for structural change and changes in peoples' way of life and the political system can't achieve that.
Re: US quits Paris climate pact
#186Even 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.
Is this an endorsement of treaties with actual teeth then? Or are you saying that there needs to be rules that directly change peoples' lifestyles because they won't do it themselves?
I'm trying to understand where you're coming from, usually when people say, "I don't like X because it's ineffectual", they follow it up with a recommendation that they do think will be effective.
Re: US quits Paris climate pact
#187Earlier quoted context omitted.
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...
That's hardly the same as a guarantee that highly skilled immigrants and their families don't face difficulties and risks in coming to the UK.
For example, last time I looked at the UK papers they were full of cases of EU citizens, who should have indefinite leave to reside in the UK, being harrassed by the Home Office and threatened with deportation.
Re: US quits Paris climate pact
#188This 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.
The Paris Agreement was signed under the authorization of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change which was ratified by the senate.
Re: US quits Paris climate pact
#189Re: US quits Paris climate pact
#190Elon 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?
What is the point of giving advice to someone who will not take it? At some point, anyone in Trump's orbit becomes complicit rather than just being in an advisory role. If Trump is not going to listen to people like Musk on the largest of issues (Paris) then why would Musk stay on the (low) chance that Trump listens to him on other, minor issues?