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

391–400 of 413 posts

Re: US quits Paris climate pact

#391

Post by webXL »

mikeash wrote: post #241
wollstonecraft wrote: post #92

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.

Pretty flippant solution by the GP, but to your point, there has to be some consensus among the states, just as there needs to be consensus among nations, no matter how varied the size of their populations. I'm in a small state, so I don't want California and New York setting our policy just as much as you don't want China and India setting yours.

Re: US quits Paris climate pact

#392

Post by mikeash »

webXL wrote: post #391
mikeash wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Already did. Too bad my senators are canceled out by the senators chosen by the 600,000 inhabitants of Wyoming.

Pretty flippant solution by the GP, but to your point, there has to be some consensus among the states, just as there needs to be consensus among nations, no matter how varied the size of their populations. I'm in a small state, so I don't want California and New York setting our policy just as much as you don't want China and India setting yours.

States are pretty arbitrary divisions. If California split into 66 equally populated pieces, nothing about the people or land would change, but they'd suddenly have 132 senators instead of 2, and each chunk would still have more people than Wyoming. Or they could split into 1000 pieces and have 2000 senators and completely dominate Congress. Would that be fair, do you think?

Re: US quits Paris climate pact

#393

Post by Danihan »

legolas2412 wrote: post #376
Danihan wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

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

Rich countries are market democracies. They have the proper social constraints.

In a market democracy it's more like you described, but not entirely, there are plenty of people who abuse the welfare systems to have as many children as possible for the tax credits and other benefits.

Re: US quits Paris climate pact

#394

Post by Danihan »

oblio wrote: post #370
Danihan wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Go read about the "1 child policy" and get back to me when you have a clue what you're talking about. "Enabling", sheesh. You're enabling them through buying iPhones made in China, not through this agreement. You're so way off in this discussion that I don't think it's worth continuing it. Have a nice day!

The "1 child policy" is what you get when you have an authoritarian government instead of democracy.

China doesn't have a properly functioning government, therefore they have to resort to crazy policies like that.

And I don't think we should be enabling through trade either, ideally we would jack up tariffs massively on countries with poor human rights, excessive pollution, etc.

Re: US quits Paris climate pact

#395

Post by Danihan »

dguaraglia wrote: post #329
Danihan wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

How is that moving the goalposts? Any poor, overpopulated country is going to have low per-capita carbon emissions, true or false?

They also have a lower quality of life and poor GDP. Not exactly a positive goal to shoot for.

Re: US quits Paris climate pact

#396

Post by _ph_ »

nthcolumn wrote: post #386
_ph_ wrote: post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 s…

What it has to do with my statement is that you declared that you are German as if that made some difference to the weight of your argument - you did not present an argument, just an opinion, but never mind - Der Speigel is also German and has a very different opinion to you. How do you account for Der Speigels statement that NATO is unraveling then if it is not even a consideration? What do you make of Muttis speech…

The paper is called the "Spiegel". I can only comment on statements I can read, so if you think the Spiegel made a statement that the Nato is unraveling, please provide a link to that statement. The fact that I am a German adds quite some weight to my argument, as I am very closely following politics in my country and I can follow the news sources directly in my native language. So I can understand what Angela Merkel said correctly. And I am not aware of anyone (except the extreme left "Die Linke" asking for leaving the NATO, or doubting the NATO itself. What Angela Merkel expressed was only, that she got doubts whether there is still a 100% commitment by the US to the NATO. As a consequence, the remaining NATO states need to organize themselves accordingly. One option for that would be a stronger emphasis on a united European defense. But that would mean in no way or form "leaving" the NATO.

Re: US quits Paris climate pact

#397

Post by pnathan »

BananaPelican wrote: post #356
pnathan wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If I didn't own property and were single, I'm 100% confident that I would have already packed my things and left. I was heartbroken on election night, and I am heartbroken now. As much as I understand the argument that I should stay and fight for what I believe, every instinct in my body is telling me to flee, before things get really awful.

I would suggest selling and finding a role in the EU.

Re: US quits Paris climate pact

#398

Post by agumonkey »

mywittyname wrote: post #98
harryh wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you overstate the case when you say that the US's leadership position has been destroyed. It has certainly been damaged, but the US is still one of the largest, most populous and richest countries in the world. It will have a big seat at the world negotiating table for quite some time no matter what.

The USA will certainly have a seat at the table, just not at the head of the table. This loss of influence isn't going to be readily apparent, it's precipitation will be subtle and over the long term. It may start as a preference for German or Chinese military equipment, then slowly it preference will begin to shift in areas of finance, agricultural products, energy, etc. If the USA is no longer able to negotiate fav…

isn't it ironic that the power balance is shifting pretty much like climate change ?

Re: US quits Paris climate pact

#399

Post by agumonkey »

gph wrote: post #218
pavlov wrote: post #37

The United States of America spent a hundred years building up a global leadership position. President Trump has effectively destroyed it in a mere four months. China is adeptly stepping up to fill the void left by the United States. Last week Trump did his best to alienate America's long-standing European allies, who now feel that they are on their own against Russia's expanding European power plays. So Europe is tu…

>The United States of America spent a hundred years building up a global leadership position. President Trump has effectively destroyed it in a mere four months. I'm no Trump fan, but the slide in American global leadership has been underway since well before Trump. Probably the first big blow was our unilateral invasion of Iraq under Bush. But even under Obama we didn't exactly right the ship. And while Clinton woul…

How is Obama received as a public figure ? he showed immense human qualities over his terms, and tried to be honest in his speech regarding other countries. That's a nice part.

Re: US quits Paris climate pact

#400

Post by nthcolumn »

_ph_ wrote: post #396
nthcolumn wrote: post #386

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What it has to do with my statement is that you declared that you are German as if that made some difference to the weight of your argument - you did not present an argument, just an opinion, but never mind - Der Speigel is also German and has a very different opinion to you. How do you account for Der Speigels statement that NATO is unraveling then if it is not even a consideration? What do you make of Muttis speech…

The paper is called the "Spiegel". I can only comment on statements I can read, so if you think the Spiegel made a statement that the Nato is unraveling, please provide a link to that statement. The fact that I am a German adds quite some weight to my argument, as I am very closely following politics in my country and I can follow the news sources directly in my native language. So I can understand what Angela Merkel…

You do not have a monopoly on understanding. And it is rather arrogant of you to assume your understanding is superior. Your own lack of interpretation of what she said is highly disingenuous especially when taken in context with the plans to concentrate on an EU armed forces, the plan to withdraw Bundeswehr from all foreign NATO missions by 2024, the declaration not to meet the 70bn euros spending by 2024 because according to Sigmar Gabriel, it is "neither reachable nor desirable". These are not the views of extremists, they are the views of government officials.

Europa muss sein Schicksal selbst in die Hand nehmen.

or exactly what she said was in English :

"The times in which we can fully count on others are somewhat over as I have experienced in the past few days and that is why I can only say: We Europeans must take our fate in our own hands..."

FWIW and as you must already know being German https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Der_Spiegel is called 'The Mirror' not 'Mirror'! as that makes no sense in German nor English.

Post reply on HN