US quits Paris climate pact • Hacker News Board

Re: US quits Paris climate pact

#301

Post by epistasis » Thu, Jun 01, 2017, 10:29 PM UTC

chadgeidel wrote: post #225

rayiner wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 chang…

"climate change is in comparison a moon shot" This couldn't be more apt. It took a nation-state level of engineering to make it work, but the science (broadly speaking) was pretty well known. I believe that a similar nation-state scale funded engineering project to address climate change. Unfortunately - to torture the analogy even further, we don't currently have a moon base and we've not sent a human outside of LEO…

I respectfully disagree on this. The moon shot was a specific engineering challenge, with a clearly defined goal.

Decarbonizing our economy is vastly different in two ways: 1) a multitude of approaches and engineering solutions rather than a single path, 2) huge amounts of industry across the world (10s of millions of people) rather than a small (thousands) focused team. A nation-state effort like a moon shot is doomed to fail at something like this. We need lots of experimentation, lots of failures, and a few successes.

This is better solved through market approaches. This is what we've been implementing over the past years. We subsidize carbon neutral tech through tax credits (negative tax) rather than placing a positive tax on carbon emission. This is less than ideal, but at least it equalizes things.

Re: US quits Paris climate pact

#302

Post by comex » Thu, Jun 01, 2017, 10:29 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #245

pvnick wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I think there is a difference in principle, but it's not that Democrats have a principle that growing the government is inherently good: it's that they don't have a principle that growing the government is inherently bad, while many Republicans do. Thus, Democrats would consider proposals for spending mostly in terms of their individual benefits and costs, whereas Republicans - at least the consistent ones - would apply those only after starting from a baseline of disfavor. They may still care enough about some spending priorities that they see the good as outweighing the bad: that isn't inherently contradictory, though considering how much we spend on defense, there's certainly room to question whether it's a rational policy overall.

Re: US quits Paris climate pact

#303

Post by glup » Thu, Jun 01, 2017, 10:30 PM UTC

sparkzilla wrote: post #199

fudgie wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to Michael E. Mann, in 2100 it's +4.5C with no action, +3.5C with just the Paris Accord, and +1.8C with ratcheting up. ( https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DBQpulkWAAE2mrc.jpg )

Would that be the 'Nobel prize winner' Dr Mann, who massaged the so-called hockey stick data leading to all this climate change/global warming hysteria in the first place? Hardly a credible source of anything IMHO.

cite your sources please

Re: US quits Paris climate pact

#304

Post by jansho » Thu, Jun 01, 2017, 10:30 PM UTC

reirob wrote: post #256

The answer from French president Emmanuel Macron to Trump's announcement (in English, video, 03:17): https://www.pscp.tv/w/1jMKgoodLyqKL edit: typos, duration of video

The silver lining.

"All you talented people in the US, allez, France welcomes you with big arms."

Re: US quits Paris climate pact

#305

Post by davesque » Thu, Jun 01, 2017, 10:30 PM UTC

davesque wrote: post #22

seiferteric wrote: post #5

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

Possibly. I've seriously begun to consider ways in which I could get set up over seas. I've always wanted to spend some time abroad anyway. It's very hard for me to see a way that the US can get back on track at this point. Most of Congress doesn't seem to really care about the damage that Trump is doing to our reputation. Furthermore, Republicans have successfully neutered (through gerrymandering) the system that wo…

And, to that end, does anyone have any advice?

Re: US quits Paris climate pact

#306

Post by digitalmaster » Thu, Jun 01, 2017, 10:30 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?

Oh it's already happening...Just listen to Emmanuel Macron's english statement that just aired a few seconds ago.. he literally just issued an open invitation to all U.S scientist and innovators to "come to France" where he's basically guaranteeing them support.

Wow.. what a HUGE missed opportunity for the United States to not only lead on this issue but to dictate the economic terms of the creation of an industry that could rival that of the Oil industry at its peak when it's all said and done. China recently scheduled a meeting world leaders in which i'm sure they will take the lead. #shame

Re: US quits Paris climate pact

#307

Post by nthcolumn » Thu, Jun 01, 2017, 10:32 PM UTC

aroberge wrote: post #221

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.

Do you have any reputable source to link to regarding your statement about Germany eixiting NATO?

I have been reading articles in Der Speigel for months now hinting at it. I do not know whether you regard that as reputable or not. Merkel's speech - well she did not say 'we are leaving NATO' true, and she is not Germany but she just said that Europe could no longer rely on the United States and the UK and that Europe would have to make her own defence arrangements in the future. So no. LOL.

Re: US quits Paris climate pact

#308

Post by gonvaled » Thu, Jun 01, 2017, 10:33 PM UTC

panzagl wrote: post #285

gonvaled wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are you talking about? Lead is bad for your health. CFCs are bad for Ozone. CO2 is bad for global warming. All pretty much universally accepted. European cars, with cheating and all, are miles ahead of US cars. And they have been heavily fined for cheating, as they should. And China has not yet contributed a meager percent of the cumulated US CO2. Not to talk per capita. The planet is not yours.

Per capita and cumulated are BS measures to obfuscate that China is a bigger contributor, and likely to grow for a while. The first rule of getting out of a hole is to stop digging- the US has, China hasn't.

Let's leave aside if per-capita and accumulated are important metrics or not.

Let's accept that the Chinese are worse polluters than the US.

Congratulations, you are the second worst polluter.

What, did I hear India? Ok, you are just being difficult. Let's say you are the third worst polluter.

What? Did I hear ...? Stop it!

You are one of the worst polluters. Period.

Why do you withdraw?

And yes, you are the worst per-capita and accumulated polluter. In case you were wondering.

Re: US quits Paris climate pact

#309

Post by dismantlethesun » Thu, Jun 01, 2017, 10:34 PM UTC

aaron-lebo wrote: post #85

dismantlethesun wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps the US isn't a good global leader. It is, after all, only the aftermath of WW2 that left enough of a power vacuum for two countries at the edges of "proprer civilisation" like the USA and Russia to take the central position as the world superpowers. I wouldn't be sad if the USA returns to a position of only interfering within its sphere of influence in North and South America. Being a global leader isn't mere…

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…

Benevolence doesn't make a global leader. Having your fate intertwined with that of others makes a leader. The USA has always had a desire for self-sufficiency, and an economic approach that views any gains made by other countries as a competitive loss.

It is not to say that the USA is a terrible country, or that it is 'evil' or anything so silly. It is simply that the USA does not want a global leadership role, appears uncomfortable with it thrust upon it, and approaches global treaties as something it should either accede to or reject rather than change.

The Paris accords, ought to have heavily influenced by the 'global leader' so the preeminent power would view the treaty as one that benefitted its world view. As it is, the US world view is absent from the Paris treaty---why is that? I'd say it's because the US abdicated its leadership position to the point where European interests and American interests no longer seem to align.

> The US isn't doing a great job, but if American power gets rolled back, are you ready for Russia to come rolling into Eastern Europe?

I think it is a mistake to completely discount the military and economic power of Germany, France, and the United Kingdom. One should remember that historically the German military alone was enough to overrun Russia to the point that the Eastern Front was the site of the most horrific battles and loss of life of the entire war.

> You ready for the Chinese to invade Taiwan? The US is the only thing preventing that.

This is a bit of a tangent. Taiwan is a small island off the coast of the mainland whose government considers itself "Real China" and the far more populous mainland to be the 'rebel forces'. The continued existence of Taiwan is because China finds it useful, not because of any US intervention. If war sparked out, the USA and Europe would likely do the safe and sensible thing by treating it as a civil war within a nuclear power.

All these tangents boil down to "What if World War 3 breaks out?".

I hope for all that is good that WW3 does not break out between nuclear powers, and if it does that the USA will finally stay out of a continental conflict that is nowhere near its borders.

Re: US quits Paris climate pact

#310

Post by fvdessen » Thu, Jun 01, 2017, 10:34 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #119

rayiner wrote: post #102

Earlier 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…

> There is no political fix. Only technological ones. Technological fixes will not be adopted unless climate-related externalities are internalized into transactions, because of the tragedy of the commons. A political fix is a necessary prerequisite to the adoption of any technological fix.

Energy consumption is one of the largest costs of every human activity, there is already incredible incentives for everyone to reduce consumption. Energy efficiency has increased for every country despite the lack of a common political framework. [1]

[1] http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/...