US quits Paris climate pact • Hacker News Board

Re: US quits Paris climate pact

#141

Post by fudgie » Thu, Jun 01, 2017, 9:03 PM UTC

neaden wrote: post #129

ajross wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 (ques…

That is true but every country is supposed to spend 2% of GDP on defense, and only the US and 4 others actually do. How Trump handles this and talks about this is asinine, but there is a basis for it.

All countries in NATO have promised to spend 2% of GDP by 2024, yes.

Re: US quits Paris climate pact

#142

Post by mikeash » Thu, Jun 01, 2017, 9:03 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.

Why not look at the original source?

http://www.nato.int/cps/ic/natohq/official_texts_112964.htm

"Allies whose current proportion of GDP spent on defence is below [two percent] will... aim to move towards the 2% guideline within a decade...." [emphasis mine]

That was 2014, so the goal is 2024.

Re: US quits Paris climate pact

#143

Post by bioapparatus » Thu, Jun 01, 2017, 9:04 PM UTC

ChuckMcM wrote: post #80

bioapparatus wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My money is on a water car.

... with rockets.

That's the convergence phase, where the rocket car, land car, underground car, and boat car fuse into a glorious transportation chariot for humanity's reach for the stars. Can't remember what page that would be in Musk's master plan.

The pictures were awesome.

Re: US quits Paris climate pact

#144

Post by threeseed » Thu, Jun 01, 2017, 9:04 PM UTC

neaden wrote: post #129

ajross wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 (ques…

That is true but every country is supposed to spend 2% of GDP on defense, and only the US and 4 others actually do. How Trump handles this and talks about this is asinine, but there is a basis for it.

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.

Re: US quits Paris climate pact

#145

Post by comicjk » Thu, Jun 01, 2017, 9:04 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #73

rayiner wrote: post #50

Even as an environmentalist, I'm okay with this. The political reaction to climate change is a farce. The Paris accord isn't going to do anything, just like the Kyoto protocol didn't do anything. It's just a way for people to feel good without making any real lifestyle changes.

> Even as an environmentalist Huh? From your comment history here, you seem like much more of a laissez-faire capitalist than any kind of environmentalist.

Some environmentalists are anti-technology types or nihilists, who look forward with pleasure at the idea of humanity suffering for its hubris. The only solution they'll consider is people changing their behavior for moral reasons, which is comfortingly unlikely.

They're not fans of other environmentalists discussing happier ideas, like setting up incentives for economic and technological growth beyond fossil fuels.

Re: US quits Paris climate pact

#146

Post by qbaqbaqba » Thu, Jun 01, 2017, 9:04 PM UTC

diafygi wrote: post #64

I have a cleantech startup, and in the industry we see this decision as only having a negative impact on deep red states. Most other states will implement mandates in line with Paris on their own, which will grow their local energy economies (the transition means lots of jobs). Deep red states that try to slow the transition will just get left behind. Trump is hurting his own base, while not slowing anyone else down.…

Would you company be possible without any sort of government support(federal/local/etc), financial or legal?

Re: US quits Paris climate pact

#147

Post by daxorid » Thu, Jun 01, 2017, 9:04 PM UTC

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.

There are very real physical limits to technological fixes anyway: https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2012/02/the-alternative-energy-ma...

Re: US quits Paris climate pact

#148

Post by NicoJuicy » Thu, Jun 01, 2017, 9:05 PM UTC

beart wrote: post #116

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.

That too, but the difference between the previous president and the current one is really light and day.

Re: US quits Paris climate pact

#149

Post by electic » Thu, Jun 01, 2017, 9:05 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…

Your ignorance is breathtaking. The US and other developed countries have always taken the lead on environmental policy that has resulted in real change. The most famous is the Montreal Protocol which resulted in the banning of CFCs and saved the Ozone Layer[1]. The policy decision drove technological innovation and created entire new classes of appliances and chemicals which resulted in millions of new jobs.

After the Kyoto disaster, and now this, it is going to be hard to anyone to trust The United States. Past Republican and Democratic presidents may not have fully agreed with their predecessor's foreign policy decisions but they always aimed for consistent outward message. All this does it give China and Russia what they wanted, that the United States can't be trusted as a partner.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_Protocol

Re: US quits Paris climate pact

#150

Post by maxerickson » Thu, Jun 01, 2017, 9:05 PM UTC

beart wrote: post #116

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.

I would phrase that differently.

He was incredibly qualified as a candidate. Huge name recognition, a particular sort of charisma, shameless.

It's the office that he isn't qualified for.