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

371–380 of 413 posts

Re: US quits Paris climate pact

#371

Post by sverige »

rhcom2 wrote: post #296
sverige wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Hugely popular" is an overstatement. "Everyone" excluding "Trump and his far conservative base" lost the election. And part of Trump's message was that the U.S. shouldn't be the guarantor of the security of the rest of the world. That was a hugely popular proposition with his supporters.

I don't think "hugely popular" is an overstatement if the number is really nearly 70% in favor. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics...

From the article,"An overwhelming majority of Democrats, 86 per cent, are fans of the deal, while only about 51 per cent of Republicans say the US should take part in the accord, the programme reported."

So, not 70% of his supporters, especially considering not all Republicans voted for him, and some Democrats did.

And the math is funny anyway. I haven't seen recent registration numbers, but last I looked, it was roughly 1/3 Democrat, 1/3 Republican, and 1/3 unaffiliated. It might be 40%, 30%, and 30%, not sure; the point is that I seriously doubt 70% of the people who voted for Trump support the Paris treaty, and certainly this article does not say that, though it tries very hard to imply it.

Re: US quits Paris climate pact

#372

Post by ajross »

fvdessen wrote: post #270
threeseed wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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/dmf201…

Again, though, that's a completely insincere argument. If you are worried that NATO is being weakened and undermined by underfunded member militaries, the corrective course of action is to strengthen those militaries and very much not to announce to the world you might not necessarily honor your treaty obligations if they don't. That weakens it further.

Trump doesn't care what Belgium spends on defense. Trump is crapping on NATO because Trump (or one of his patrons, ahem) wants a weak NATO.

Re: US quits Paris climate pact

#373

Post by wdr1 »

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…

> But instead he's seriously undermined people's ability to trust in the United States maintaining its international obligations for anything except the shortest periods of time.

Possibly.

Although it's worth noting that his international arrangement was never ratified by the legislative branch, as was done in most other countries. This was ratified by Executive Order.

If the morale of the story is for other countries to beware of treaties not ratified by the Senate, honestly, that's not so bad.

Re: US quits Paris climate pact

#374

Post by wdr1 »

xorcist wrote: post #278
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…

> The Paris pact was pretty toothless: it was a step forward, but heavily aspirational. It is important to know that the reason the Paris agreement is aspirational only is that it was necessary in order for the US to sign. And the reason for that is the US political system. Any commitments would have had to be ratified by the US senate, which was deemed unlikely. Actual commitments had to be deferred to later agreeme…

But that doesn't make sense? The Paris agreement was NOT ratified by the Senate.

Re: US quits Paris climate pact

#375

Post by nikdaheratik »

rayiner wrote: post #102
scarmig wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pulling out of it is indication that the USA's politics is primarily driven by virtue signaling among different segments of its governing elite, not by policy or objective reality. 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.

> 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…

That's flat out untrue. The first set of targets from the Paris accords will probably be met without any action by Trump simply due to the fact that we are switching from Coal to Natural Gas and Wind/Solar power. The next set of targets would require either alot more Solar, or a commitment to replacing the rest of the coal plants with Nuclear. None of these are either a huge technological leap or a major reduction in our standard of living.

Re: US quits Paris climate pact

#376

Post by legolas2412 »

Danihan wrote: post #277
oblio wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A fellow HackerNews reader had a great quote, I don't remember the source. You're basically complaining that China has too many people and would presumably want that some of them wouldn't exist. His quote was: "If you think a certain group of people shouldn't exist, how do you select that group of people? And how do you know that you, yourself, shouldn't he a part of that group?". China's population is a fact. In the…

> would presumably want that some of them wouldn't exist. I simply don't want to pay to enable them even more. When the proper social constraints aren't in place, money = energy = more babies. It's poor policy to continually reward countries that are chronically overcrowded and polluted, it just makes the issues worse long-term. >The US is basically eating its own seed corn. It's hilarious to me that you believe this…

> When the proper social constraints aren't in place, money = energy = more babies.

Funny, it is actually money = better healthcare = less infant mortality + higher cost of raising child = less fertility rate = less babies.

Rich countries don't have more babies than poor ones, its the opposite.

Re: US quits Paris climate pact

#377

Post by _ph_ »

nthcolumn wrote: post #316
_ph_ wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

German here - Germany is certainly not exiting the Nato. Quite the contrary. The large part of the German defense forces are deployed on Nato duties. Former Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Turkey (supporting the fight agains the IS).

I have quite rightly been asked for sources. Do you have any that state on the contrary? Janes perhaps? http://www.janes.com/article/69728/bundeswehr-plans-reorient... Yes they are now but the shift is towards a European army without NATO. Is Der Speigel not also German? And what has that got to do with it?

How should I have sources for the contrary if this is not even a consideration here in Germany? The Spiegel is German, but what has it to do with your statement?

Yes, there are discussions about a more integrated European defense. Which is not only logical considering the European Union but also a good way to save a lot of money by reducing overhead and duplication and as a result giving better capabilities for the same budgets. There is also the justified question, how far the Nato is defended by having troups in Afghanistan. But no where, the Nato itself is questioned (except perhaps by the US president), but certainly not by Germany.

Re: US quits Paris climate pact

#378

Post by gajjanag »

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.

> A political fix is a necessary prerequisite to the adoption of any technological fix.

Political "fixes" are by nature temporary in the scheme of things. Regimes come and go, governments rise and fall, etc. They can possibly serve as useful incentives in the short term to drive certain changes, assuming there is sufficient faith in the longer term stability of the political "fix". Such faith has been shaken due to various reasons.

Technology, on the other hand, does not regress so easily IMHO. A technological advance that is sufficiently compelling - say fusion power for the sake of a dramatic illustration, can make previous "dirtier" technologies obsolete, and price them out even in the presence of improperly calculated externalities.

Re: US quits Paris climate pact

#379

Post by spaceflunky »

harichinnan wrote: post #19

The liberals should take a page out of the Venezuelan Hunger Bonds movement and identify companies that fund climate change denial. A climate bond movement to target and blacklist company shares/bonds or other offerings would get the message across.

Wow, that's great idea. I bet that worked out great for Venezuela. Let's see how their economy is doing...

Re: US quits Paris climate pact

#380

Post by 0xFFFE »

exclusiv wrote: post #359
0xFFFE wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"China and India given their records on human rights?" Are you suggesting there is no country in the world where human rights are not violated? I am not defending the violation, but that sentence sounds naively aloof and disconnected from reality.

No I'm not suggesting that at all. I just don't see how Europeans would gravitate towards alignment with those countries after this news given their human rights histories and current governments. The only thing I can think is that Europeans are more environmentalists and will simply turn the other cheek on those violations so long as they get their climate change deals. Either that or the notion that they'll be push…

Thanks for the polite response and my apologies for being a bit of a dick in choosing those words. And yes, I agree with the points you made.
Post reply on HN