US quits Paris climate pact • Hacker News Board

Re: US quits Paris climate pact

#261

Post by ElComradio » Thu, Jun 01, 2017, 9:58 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #193

ElComradio wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> But as far as Trump himself goes, he's not really a Republican. Yes, he is. He may not have a particular devotion to an ideology you'd like to pretend defines the Republican Party, but the US electoral system structurally produces duopoly between parties too broad to have coherent ideology.

Generally speaking Republicans tilt fiscally and socially conservative. I'd be fascinated (no sarcasm) to hear an argument on how party platform and most members are social liberals.

To put another way, if you averaged out the beliefs of all who consider themselves Republicans, Trump himself doesn't believe most of it, certainly not dogmatically.

Re: US quits Paris climate pact

#262

Post by chadgeidel » Thu, Jun 01, 2017, 9:58 PM UTC

panzagl wrote: post #202

gonvaled wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When talking about global warming, yes. To an overwhelming extent.

And this is why the US has so much trouble with climate change as an issue- first it was sulfur dioxide, then lead, then CFCs, now it's CO2. The US has been doing this since the 70's. Now Europe and China want to pretend they care with words, and giving the US's money to the third world, yet every picture of a city in China looks like London in the 1890's and it turns out those oh so green Euro car makers were cheati…

I fail to see how the very real reduction in sulfur dioxide, lead, and CFCs is "rearranging the deck chairs". We had a problem, and fixed it. We now have another problem.

Re: US quits Paris climate pact

#263

Post by gonvaled » Thu, Jun 01, 2017, 9:58 PM UTC

nirav72 wrote: post #246

gonvaled wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I really do not care about Trump or his supporters. This is hurting all of us, specially the coming generations.

Re: US quits Paris climate pact

#264

Post by throwaway-1209 » Thu, Jun 01, 2017, 9:59 PM UTC

surveilmebro wrote: post #197

throwaway-1209 wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pros: the US was signing up for a _minimum_ of $100B/yr in foreign aid to help others implement the accords. When you're up to your ears in debt that's kind of stupid. Cons: estimates say that the climate will be warmer by 0.3 degrees Celsius by 2100. Assuming estimates are in fact right (which they historically haven't been) this could have devastating effects elsewhere in the world.

For anyone taking this comment seriously: verify the numbers for yourself. The poster has given the lower bound of the confidence interval in positing that we will see 0.3C warming by 2100. The latest assessment puts warming at 3.7C (6.67F!) under the "Business as Usual" RCP8.5 scenario. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_Concentration_P... Edit -- not to mention that climate models are quite good at reprod…

That's if _everyone_ withdraws. That's not what's happening. 0.3 degrees is if the US withdraws but everyone else proceeds as planned. But we aren't even withdrawing per se. Immediately after announcing his decision, Trump also announced his willingness to re-negotiate the accords on better terms (by which I think he means not spending $100/B a year on something that other countries aren't even legally bound by).

And climate models predict things just fine as long as you pick the ones that are somewhat accurate in retrospect. That's not what prediction is. Prediction is when, like Al Gore, you say that in 15 years we'll all be underwater, and it doesn't happen. If you bet your money on the accuracy of the current models you will lose.

Re: US quits Paris climate pact

#265

Post by david-cako » Thu, Jun 01, 2017, 9:59 PM UTC

NicoJuicy wrote: post #83

So Trump is basicly quitting the Paris climate pact for the mining industry, which is mostly automated? Leaving the solar space for China that going to be the leader in solar energy. I've actually never thought i would say this, but my "admiration" for the US has drasticly declined the last few months. I think this also affects "Silicon Valley". PS. Am i right that your President only had a one hit wonder with Trump…

mikeash's comment pretty much sums it up, however I'd recommend reading Scott Adams's (dilbert creator) rhetoric on Trump.

Scott Adams definitely is more right leaning than myself, but he writes top notch political analysis. He saw the Trump victory coming a mile away.

Trump is the epitome of "speak to be heard, not listened to", and this resonates incredibly well with the large bulk of the republican party whose party platform is "the blacks", "the muslims", or "jesus (when convenient)". He also resonates well with the republicans who are not stupid, however wealthy and self-interested, because much of republican rhetoric centers on "the rich are going to starve/move to mars if we start charging them taxes!".

Republicans with a libertarian or intellectual bent think he's 100% retarded. Reactionary democrats think he's going to make the world explode. The rest of us left-leaning folks think he's retarded but realize that this is the single best thing that could have happened to ward off any notion younger people might have that the republican party isn't one great big 3 ring circus. Hillary Clinton getting elected would have just been more ammunition for the clowns that think she's corrupt and a literal communist despite being corrupt and center-right by all measures.

It is very unlikely that something like this will happen again in the near future, seeing as all of the old people voting for trump will be dead, and younger people are either blindly liberal, or spooked out of any notion that the republican party isn't a joke.

Re: US quits Paris climate pact

#266

Post by walshemj » Thu, Jun 01, 2017, 9:59 PM UTC

aaron-lebo wrote: post #252

walshemj wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No its when the decline of the UK as an imperial power became obvious not some rounders player and the least musical beetle.

Why is this Suez? How do you know it's not the British losing a battle in 1761 or something? I mean, there were probably prognosticators at that time saying, "Charlie, did you hear about that British defeat by the French by the old Ohio River. By God they're finished as an empire. Done!" We won't know the impact this has on anything for a long time. In a decade it probably isn't going to matter. Just seems like a hug…

No offence you don't seem to have much knowledge of post ww2 history.

Re: US quits Paris climate pact

#267

Post by nthcolumn » Thu, Jun 01, 2017, 10:00 PM UTC

entee wrote: post #215

nthcolumn wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Any sources for that claim on Germany exiting NATO? Also strange how they didn't seem to make those speeches during the last administration. And the one before that. And the one before that. And the one before that... Remember, Article V has been invoked just once: Afghanistan after 9/11. We can debate if that was a good or bad action, but strictly speaking, it's only ever been invoked in defense of the USA.

You reject Angela Merkel as a source? How do you interpret her saying the EU must "take its fate into its own hands" and that they can "no longer rely on the United States and UK"?

You do read Der Speigel? - ran an article weeks ago saying there would not even be a decision on spending until 2020.

From February: "The United States and our international allies, which for so long has been the centerpiece of what is rightly called "The Free World," are facing the greatest threat to global stability since the end of World War II. Security arrangements, like the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which for more than seven decades have kept us safe from yet another global conflict, are quickly coming unraveled."

Granted it has not been stated as clearly as the UK's exit of Europe but the writing is on the wall.

Re: US quits Paris climate pact

#268

Post by api » Thu, Jun 01, 2017, 10:00 PM UTC

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…

> he's seriously undermined people's ability to trust in the United States maintaining its international obligations

What if that is in fact the goal? Many people in Trump's administration are openly anti-globalists and many of his voters and supporters have the explicit goal of "exiting" globalism.

Re: US quits Paris climate pact

#269

Post by maxander » Thu, Jun 01, 2017, 10:02 PM UTC

RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #258

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…

If the US was able to survive the loss of the Vietnam war and the Bay of Pigs where many people who bet their lives on the US died after being abandoned by them, the US will survive this as well and American credibility will be just fine in the long term. Basically, the rest of the world will have to learn that getting the US to agree to something that is opposed by a significant group of Americans is a losing propos…

Uh, the Paris accords are hugely popular in the U.S. [1]. The word is that even most corporations, oil companies among them, supported staying in the pact. Everyone was on board with this, except Trump and his far conservative base. And as long as power gets passed between groups with fundamentally different interests (or even basic notions of reality), no one will trust U.S. for basic security if they have half a choice.

[1] https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/2017-06-...

Re: US quits Paris climate pact

#270

Post by fvdessen » Thu, Jun 01, 2017, 10:02 PM UTC

threeseed wrote: post #144

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.

And that's fine. Obama was making that case as well. But this is international diplomacy here. You don't publicly berate and embarrass your allies especially when those countries were already on track to meeting the target.

European countries have no intentions to ever pay the 2%. For example the Belgian Government reiterated right after the G7 that it had no intention to meet that target and plans instead for 1.3% towards 2030. [1] I work in Brussels and I very often heard members of the European Commission / Parliament tell me how nice it was that the USA was paying for everything defence related.

[1] http://www.lavenir.net/cnt/dmf20170526_01010744/otan-on-ne-d...