US quits Paris climate pact • Hacker News Board

Re: US quits Paris climate pact

#111

Post by creaghpatr » Thu, Jun 01, 2017, 8:53 PM UTC

giarc wrote: post #68

davesque wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the only way anyone could argue there are any pros is if they could convince me that Trump has a different long-term plan to address climate change. Unfortunately, all of his actions up to this point indicate that he doesn't have any such plan. I really wish people would stop trying to understand and rationalize this man's actions. He has no rational for what he does other than his own short-lived whims and t…

Many large corporations have come out against this decision (P&G, Coca Cola, GE, FB, G, 3M, Dow etc). So if he's not doing this because of lobbying from them, why is he doing this? Lobbying from O&G companies? Or is it just pure ignorance?

The vast majority of companies in America are not Fortune 500 companies. The companies you listed would benefit disproportionately from the agreement because smaller businesses would struggle to meet the cost of compliance without the global scale.

The number of American voters in those companies probably totals out to 2-3M tops, in a country of 350M.

Re: US quits Paris climate pact

#112

Post by ajross » Thu, Jun 01, 2017, 8:53 PM UTC

sergiotapia wrote: post #84

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…

I don't understand how you think the NATO meeting was bad. Countries should pay their fair (and agreed to!) share towards NATO.

NATO isn't a pool of money, no one "pays" anything for it. It's a mutual self defense treaty (and a command structure for executing such an operation). Trump did nothing to squeeze money out of anyone at that meeting, nor would it have made any sense for him to have done so.

By very conspicuously refusing to endorse Article V in his speech, however, he called the US commitment to NATO self-defense into question (question!) for the first time in the 68 year history of the pact.

If you happened to be a east european power thinking about invading a small NATO member (in the baltics, say), this is a huge gift.

Re: US quits Paris climate pact

#113

Post by gonvaled » Thu, Jun 01, 2017, 8:54 PM UTC

pouetpouet wrote: post #4

China+EU have grounds to put tariffs on US products.

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.

Re: US quits Paris climate pact

#114

Post by ajross » Thu, Jun 01, 2017, 8:55 PM UTC

harryh wrote: post #57

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…

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 point is that if we elected Trump once, we might do it again. No one is going to trust us on this stuff in the future. China has a "big seat" at the negotiating table too because of their size, but they're not a leader because we don't trust them.

Re: US quits Paris climate pact

#115

Post by huhtenberg » Thu, Jun 01, 2017, 8:55 PM UTC

harryh wrote: post #57

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…

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.

> ... and richest countries

That's considering $18 trillion of its debt?

Re: US quits Paris climate pact

#116

Post by beart » Thu, Jun 01, 2017, 8:56 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…

As to why he is now the president, it is far from being that simple. Him winning really had very little to do with his qualifications as a candidate.

Re: US quits Paris climate pact

#117

Post by wonderwonder » Thu, Jun 01, 2017, 8:56 PM UTC

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…

The primary impact of pulling out is it creates a situation in which the United States is not a leader and allows for a power vacuum. A vacuum that China is already happily taking advantage of in order to become a prominent world leader.

It isolates the US and allows opportunities for Russia and China to gain clout at our expense.

Re: US quits Paris climate pact

#118

Post by scarmig » Thu, Jun 01, 2017, 8:56 PM UTC

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…

> The U.S. doesn't need to be involved on the international stage.

I disagree in large part, though I do think the world would be stabler if the USA took much less military action and was a bit more respectful of zones of influence of other countries.

But even if I strongly agreed, I'd think the USA should make an orderly retreat from its existing obligations. Instead it's creating vacuums of power and chaos based on fits of pique by a literal maniac.

> The fallacy here is assuming that international cooperation is going to solve climate change.

It's worked on other issues. And political environments drive technological change.

But, yes, I agree it's a particularly thorny issue, and I wouldn't say I'm too optimistic of its probability of success compared to other international collaborations. But that's something to bemoan, not something to celebrate.

Re: US quits Paris climate pact

#119

Post by dragonwriter » Thu, Jun 01, 2017, 8:56 PM UTC

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…

> 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.

Re: US quits Paris climate pact

#120

Post by mywittyname » Thu, Jun 01, 2017, 8:57 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…

I think the point was the "America First" policy is antithetical to the idea of helping developing nations. For example, giving aid to combat malaria does not put America First, but it does save lives and build good will across the world.

A great world leader should have no problem using their wealth and power to perform reasonable acts of charity and kindness to fellow nations without an expectation of reciprocity.