If this bothers you, elect senators who will ratify an actual treaty.
Already did. Too bad my senators are canceled out by the senators chosen by the 600,000 inhabitants of Wyoming.
US quits Paris climate pact
241–250 of 413 posts
Re: US quits Paris climate pact
#242This 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…
So you feel like your individual observations in the DC/MD/VA area validate the rejection of a global climate accord?
Unless these elitist liberals choose to sit in the dark and not consume power, walk to work (likely impossible, so maybe just not work since working also probably produces a lot of CO2) then there is no reason to attack the problem at a global or national level?
What happens to the power companies if 50% of people go on a power strike? Shut down coal plants and immediately start investing in renewable before they go bankrupt? What happens to the economy while all these liberals are putting their money where their mouth is?
Why the hell would you not push to transition from one source of energy to another without completely upending the entire system and economy? Individuals are not going to make drastic changes in their own power usage when the biggest consumers (business, industry, etc) are not going to follow and many of their fellow citizens will not follow. It would be a spiteful empty gesture (which it seems that you understand) that would just make our lives harder and damage the economy.
My guess is that your position, like most peoples position comes down to psychology. My guess is that you are a frustrated, spiteful person (at least inwardly) whose opinion on climate change is entirely emotional - people you don't respect are on one side so you are on the other. If they aren't as intelligent as you then how could they be on the right side of this issue? This is the attitude I see from most climate change deniers - initially it will be about economics, or the data (ie citing long-debunked statistics) or this and that, but eventually you get through all that and it comes down to spite.
I get frustrated by people too but I realized long ago there was no point in letting human nature (on a macro-scale) frustrate me - I might as well get mad at a pet for doing something I don't want them to do. I try to take that same mindset with climate change deniers but its hard to be so dispassionate when people are willingly making decisions like this that hurt EVERYBODY, and hurt the weakest the most just because you feel isolated.
Re: US quits Paris climate pact
#243This is The Weather Channel website (https://weather.com/) right now (reportedly, I can't see it due to my location):
Re: US quits Paris climate pact
#244Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 essenti…
The are other contributions beyond simple military spending.
International development and accepting refugees, for example. These both help maintain peace.
Re: US quits Paris climate pact
#245Earlier quoted context omitted.
I support the Paris Agreement, and I also somewhat agree with this point. I'm sad that the country can't seem to get its act together such that it could actually move this through regular order. Likewise with executive actions. We've gotten to a point where the legislature's navel gazing and strict partisanship makes it impossible to actually get anything done, either conservative or progressive. As a country we need…
The Republican party seems split between the freedom caucus (less government) and the establishment (not sure what they stand for ... Maybe corporate and military interests?). The Democrats are more-or-less unified around the principle of increasing the size and scope of government, particularly at the federal level.
> The Democrats are more-or-less unified around the principle of increasing the size and scope of government, particularly at the federal level.
No, pretty much zero Democrats see increasing the scope of government as principle. You might plausibly argue that most Democrats agree with the statement that there is at least one area where government needs to expand it's size, role, or influence (though they often wouldn't agree on where or why.)
Then again, most Republicans, even much of the Freedom Caucus, agree with that too, which is why despite small government rhetoric they often vote for expansions in defense, law enforcement, and security spending, staffing, and/or powers.
Re: US quits Paris climate pact
#246China+EU have grounds to put tariffs on US products.
Problem is, US will put them too. Actually, Trump wants to put them for other reasons, so we would be falling on his trap there.
> US will put them too.
and that will hurt Trump's base supporters more than any other group. The ones that still work in manufacturing that the U.S exports.
Re: US quits Paris climate pact
#247Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
I think the point was the "America First" policy is antithetical to the idea of helping developing nations. For example, giving aid to combat malaria does not put America First, but it does save lives and build good will across the world. A great world leader should have no problem using their wealth and power to perform reasonable acts of charity and kindness to fellow nations without an expectation of reciprocity.
Coming from a (very friendly to America) third world country, lemme just say that nobody likes America for it's aid, or any such stuff. Nearly all the goodwill America has is because of it's private sector (which brings prosperity in their own countries) and culture.
All these countries understand that there is no such thing as free lunch, and what America will get by helping is not going to be worth the aid they receive.
You can hear the same sentiment from Israelis to Indians to Egyptians.
Re: US quits Paris climate pact
#248This 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…
Every child of this top comment has been downvoted into grayness. Some of those comments have substantial points to make. What's going on?
I basically agree with scarmig, but it seems there's not much space for contrary opinions around here right now, which bothers me.
Re: US quits Paris climate pact
#249Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even controlling for the harm to the environment, you have to consider the harm to our foreign policy if we become unable to uphold any agreement for more than 4 years.
I'd hope our counterparts from other nations would be sophisticated enough about our Constitutional system to understand that what one President can agree to without enshrining it in law through Congress, a later President can just as easily disregard.
I agree. And it's true that the Paris agreement should have gone through the treaty ratification process. But I'm not convinced our president understands that difference and I definitely do not believe that his behavior is motivated by a comprehension of those differences rather than the content of the agreement.
Re: US quits Paris climate pact
#250Does anyone think we might start seeing a brain drain out of the US given the current political climate?
Yes. Most of the educated Americans I know are assessing emigration in a more-than-idle-dreams way.
By 2020 I expect that the most risk-accepting and flexible Americans - the creme de la creme for new ideas and new businesses - will be gone.