Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

US quits Paris climate pact

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 413 posts

Re: US quits Paris climate pact

#321

Post by dragonwriter »

mywittyname wrote: post #271
mikeash wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're missing about three decades of right-wing propaganda. President Trump is the logical conclusion of The Rush Limbaugh Show, Fox News, and other assorted media. These people systematically created a tribal political environment where facts don't matter, ridicule is the best argument, and Democrats are the enemy. They've been pounding this into the heads of any American who would listen since the late 1980s or so…

> Add in the electoral college, which gives a substantial advantage to candidates who can win rural voters, and here we are. Don't forget our ridiculous Congressional system that greatly over-weights the opinions of rural voters. California has 80 times the number of people as Wyoming, yet they both get two seats in the Senate and 1/53rd the number of representatives in the House.

> Don't forget our ridiculous Congressional system that greatly over-weights the opinions of rural voters.

No, it overweights the opinions of voters in low-population states.

Sure, California voters are underrepresented compared to Wyoming voters, but California has about ten times as many people living in rural areas as Wyoming has people in total; Rhode Island is nearly as overrepresented as Wyoming, but nearly as urban as California.

Re: US quits Paris climate pact

#322

Post by scarmig »

entee wrote: post #196
scarmig wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Note that I think mostly Republicans seem to be on board with NATO, Trump is outside the mainstream of all the parties there.

Re:NATO, it's an unhappy marriage, I agree. But there's plenty Republicans could be doing that'd be appropriate given how out of bounds Trump is regarding NATO--some kind of censure or resolution--but they're not willing to do it, for the sake of partisan comity.

Congressional Republicans don't like it, but given the set of options they have they choose to allow Trump to take the hatchet to NATO. Standing in the way of that would prevent them from focusing on priorities they place higher than the Transatlantic Alliance.

Re: US quits Paris climate pact

#324

Post by hsod »

rayiner wrote: post #76
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…

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…

I'll take virtue signaling over an explicit rejection of virtue ten times out of ten.

Re: US quits Paris climate pact

#325

Post by [deleted] »

rayiner wrote: post #76
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…

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…

[deleted]

Re: US quits Paris climate pact

#326

Post by cirath »

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…

> 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.

That isn't a hypothesis you want to stress-test, though. "My reputation survived the last great gaffe, therefore it will survive the next one" is a very poor long term gamble.

Re: US quits Paris climate pact

#327

Post by mikeash »

ciconia wrote: post #318
mywittyname wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Add in the electoral college, which gives a substantial advantage to candidates who can win rural voters, and here we are. Don't forget our ridiculous Congressional system that greatly over-weights the opinions of rural voters. California has 80 times the number of people as Wyoming, yet they both get two seats in the Senate and 1/53rd the number of representatives in the House.

Giving more political power to rural areas is not necessarily a bad thing. One can argue that it is beneficial in that it compensates for the sparseness of those areas and lets them participate in the game on the national stage. I think the problem with rural areas is not their overly great political influence but rather the fact that they have been abandoned by mainstream politicians.

I don't understand why you need to compensate for the sparseness of those areas. They're people just like I am. Land doesn't and shouldn't get its own say in the system.

Lets them participate in the game? They could still participate if they had an equal voice. Their weight on the national stage wouldn't be huge, since they're only 15% of the population, but getting 15% of the voice for 15% of the population seems fair to me. The rural population is similar in size to the black population. Should we give black people a disproportionate vote so they can better participate on the national stage?

Re: US quits Paris climate pact

#328

Post by dguaraglia »

vowelless wrote: post #2

Can someone give me pros and cons of this move (serious responses only)? Thanks

Pros: "it's the opposite of what Obama and Libruls wanted!". That's good enough for some of the Republican base, but that's about it. Most of the economic growth in the US has come from the clean energy industry and from improving current industries to be less polluting. Being able to burn coal and fuel 24/7 just "because we can" isn't going to make the country more productive. It's just a canard.

Cons: - US losing leadership position on everything related to climate change - US opening itself to tariffs from other countries that are in the Paris agreement - US looking like a regressive regime that does stupid shit just to get headlines

My guess is the third one will have the biggest impact.

Re: US quits Paris climate pact

#329

Post by dguaraglia »

Danihan wrote: post #91
tzs wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Also, China emits twice as much greenhouse gas as the United States. Not per capita, which is what is relevant when it comes to setting a country's policies.

So as long as your country is overflowing with poverty-stricken people, you're a role model for solidly low carbon emissions per capita? Got it..

Oh, moving the goalposts. The classical right-wing strategy.

Re: US quits Paris climate pact

#330

Post by stuartd »

vernie wrote: post #274
guelo wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Complaining about people at Starbucks sipping on lattes is conservative virtue signaling.

Look, I don't know what "virtue signaling" is, but parent seems like a real, red-blooded American, like me. Not some politically-correct, hypersensitive four-eyes. A guy I can just kick back with some cold brews and watch the game with.

You want to have a beer with someone who disparages "elitist liberal virtue signaling"? Enjoy. BTW I have to wear glasses to write this, sorry about being a filthy "four-eyes".
Post reply on HN