US quits Paris climate pact • Hacker News Board

Re: US quits Paris climate pact

#131

Post by ahakki » Thu, Jun 01, 2017, 9:00 PM UTC

datamingle wrote: post #103

scarmig wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, that Trumpian factoid has long been debunked. Formally true, but 2% is also an aspirational goal, to be met a decade from now. That parallels, at worst, Trump making it harder to meet the Paris pact's requirements a decade from now. But of course you know all that already.

Time magazine: http://time.com/4680885/nato-defense-spending-budget-trump/ Economist: http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2017/02/daily-c... WSJ: https://www.wsj.com/articles/nato-calls-for-rise-in-defence-... All disagree with you, but of course you must know better sources and just did not add them. I'm sure.

The main confusion seems to stem from the fact that the 2% goal (agreed upon in 2014, to be met by 2024) is not "money for NATO", but how much eah member state shall spend on their own armies.

NATO is a military alliance, not a seperate army.

Re: US quits Paris climate pact

#132

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Jun 01, 2017, 9:00 PM UTC

datamingle wrote: post #103

scarmig wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, that Trumpian factoid has long been debunked. Formally true, but 2% is also an aspirational goal, to be met a decade from now. That parallels, at worst, Trump making it harder to meet the Paris pact's requirements a decade from now. But of course you know all that already.

Time magazine: http://time.com/4680885/nato-defense-spending-budget-trump/ Economist: http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2017/02/daily-c... WSJ: https://www.wsj.com/articles/nato-calls-for-rise-in-defence-... All disagree with you, but of course you must know better sources and just did not add them. I'm sure.

[deleted]

Re: US quits Paris climate pact

#133

Post by walshemj » Thu, Jun 01, 2017, 9:01 PM UTC

hencq wrote: post #110

rayiner wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

To me it signifies another nail in the coffin of the American-led rule based world order. In the 20th century the US carefully established an international framework based on the rule of law. In a mere four months that has been thoroughly undermined. Apart from the morally bankrupt policies of pushing down the effect of climate change onto future generations, in the short term it also signals to countries they don't…

I saw one serving senior officer on twitter comment "this must be what suez felt like to the brits"

Re: US quits Paris climate pact

#134

Post by donjoe » Thu, Jun 01, 2017, 9:01 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.

Well, countries agreed to spend 2% of their GDP by 2024. Furthermore it's not (yet) obligatory for member states to spend all budgets on armed forces but e.g. on humanitarian aid as well. Nato is supposed to act as an organization of defence but as an organization of shared values to guarantee piece. http://money.cnn.com/2017/05/25/news/nato-funding-explained-...

Re: US quits Paris climate pact

#135

Post by threeseed » Thu, Jun 01, 2017, 9:01 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.

Countries were already on track to contributing the requisite 2% of GDP to defence. What Trump doesn't get is that you can't just turn around on a dime and do it. It's a medium term process to determine how to spend such a significant amount of money.

What Trump did whilst overseas was though drive a stake of fear into the hearts of Eastern European countries who are genuinely fearful of Russia.

Re: US quits Paris climate pact

#136

Post by BryantD » Thu, Jun 01, 2017, 9:01 PM UTC

datamingle wrote: post #103

scarmig wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, that Trumpian factoid has long been debunked. Formally true, but 2% is also an aspirational goal, to be met a decade from now. That parallels, at worst, Trump making it harder to meet the Paris pact's requirements a decade from now. But of course you know all that already.

Time magazine: http://time.com/4680885/nato-defense-spending-budget-trump/ Economist: http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2017/02/daily-c... WSJ: https://www.wsj.com/articles/nato-calls-for-rise-in-defence-... All disagree with you, but of course you must know better sources and just did not add them. I'm sure.

Those agree with him. The 2% is an aspirational goal. Here is an actual quote from the Economist article you linked to:

"At a summit in 2014, NATO reiterated its commitment to the 2% target. Members that fell short at the time promised to meet their obligations by 2024."

It is not 2024.

Here is the actual NATO statement from the 2014 summit: http://www.nato.int/cps/ic/natohq/official_texts_112964.htm

Here is the actual text of the relevant portion of the statement:

"Allies currently meeting the NATO guideline to spend a minimum of 2% of their Gross Domestic Product (GDP) on defence will aim to continue to do so. Likewise, Allies spending more than 20% of their defence budgets on major equipment, including related Research & Development, will continue to do so. Allies whose current proportion of GDP spent on defence is below this level will:

    halt any decline in defence expenditure;
    aim to increase defence expenditure in real terms as GDP grows;
    aim to move towards the 2% guideline within a decade with a view to meeting their NATO Capability Targets and filling NATO's capability shortfalls."

Whoever told you that NATO countries were failing to meet their commitments was lying to you so that you would support them politically. Consider not trusting them.

Re: US quits Paris climate pact

#137

Post by tomovo » Thu, Jun 01, 2017, 9:02 PM UTC

giarc wrote: post #54

CobrastanJorji wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given that he now has a ground car company, an underground car company, and a space car company, I assume the next one will have to be some sort of atmospheric flying car company.

Boats?

Boat sovereign state. He can be president too.

Re: US quits Paris climate pact

#138

Post by karussell » Thu, Jun 01, 2017, 9:02 PM UTC

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…

> President Trump has effectively destroyed it in a mere four months.

Trust takes years to build, seconds/weeks to break, and forever to repair.

Re: US quits Paris climate pact

#139

Post by throwaway-1209 » Thu, Jun 01, 2017, 9:02 PM UTC

zorpner wrote: post #9

Elon Musk just posted that he will, as promised, be quitting the presidential council: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/870369915894546432

Ballsy move. I strongly suspect this could jeopardize the massive federal subsidies that keep Tesla afloat (and probably Solar City, too). $7.5K per car (which essentially amounts to a 10% per-unit discount out the door) times 84K cars is $630M.

Re: US quits Paris climate pact

#140

Post by neaden » Thu, Jun 01, 2017, 9:02 PM UTC

huhtenberg wrote: post #115

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.

> ... and richest countries That's considering $18 trillion of its debt?

Yes. Countries debt is an asset, it's not like household debt. US Treasury Bonds are a bedrock of the global financial system.