US quits Paris climate pact • Hacker News Board

Re: US quits Paris climate pact

#231

Post by devnonymous » Thu, Jun 01, 2017, 9:43 PM UTC

waqf wrote: post #25

seiferteric wrote: post #5

Does anyone think we might start seeing a brain drain out of the US given the current political climate?

Yes, but bear in mind: * where else will people go? The UK, for example, is also in an anti-immigrant mood. Though Canada may still be good. * the current political climate in the US is ... unstable. It'll be significantly different in a year or two, one way or another.

Fwiw, I've been to the US on business trips a few times and about 5 years ago, I decided to not consider US as a long term possibility. I have since then spent 2.5 years in Singapore[1], 1.5 in Germany and now will be moving to Ireland (hopefully for a longer term). Even though I know deep down somewhere that I'm sacrificing the potential of advancing financially and careerwise, I still don't feel I'm actually welcomed in the US, like I felt in all these other countries.

[1] yes, I know about the rep it has but unless you have lived and experienced it, you would never realise that there really isn't a "one true way" of democracy and everything is a trade-off. That's all I'm saying about that.

Re: US quits Paris climate pact

#232

Post by pvnick » Thu, Jun 01, 2017, 9:43 PM UTC

entee wrote: post #207

pvnick wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is because the previous president decided to unilaterally bind the country to the agreement rather than seek treaty ratification from Congress. It is a risk that ruling by executive decree entails.

I support the Paris Agreement, and I also somewhat agree with this point. I'm sad that the country can't seem to get its act together such that it could actually move this through regular order. Likewise with executive actions. We've gotten to a point where the legislature's navel gazing and strict partisanship makes it impossible to actually get anything done, either conservative or progressive. As a country we need…

The Republican party seems split between the freedom caucus (less government) and the establishment (not sure what they stand for ... Maybe corporate and military interests?). The Democrats are more-or-less unified around the principle of increasing the size and scope of government, particularly at the federal level.

Re: US quits Paris climate pact

#233

Post by walshemj » Thu, Jun 01, 2017, 9:43 PM UTC

aaron-lebo wrote: post #214

walshemj wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

To be fair, it's not that hard to make bad historical analogies. "This is what Dwight Clark's catch in the 1982 championship game must have felt like to Ringo Starr." Yeah?

No its when the decline of the UK as an imperial power became obvious not some rounders player and the least musical beetle.

Re: US quits Paris climate pact

#234

Post by vacri » Thu, Jun 01, 2017, 9:43 PM UTC

ajross wrote: post #112

sergiotapia wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 (ques…

The ironic thing is that a big part of what Made America Great in the first place was military protection of trading partners. Withdraw that protection and the trading partners now have less reason to give sweetheart trade deals.

Re: US quits Paris climate pact

#235

Post by groby_b » Thu, Jun 01, 2017, 9:44 PM UTC

harryh wrote: post #101

mywittyname wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Yes, I agree with "subtle and over the long term" as opposed to "destroyed it in a mere four months."

The effects are subtle and long term. The destruction happened already.

The US has made it very clear that its populace is willing to elect an uneducated populist buffoon, who is happy to break any and all international commitments if it appeals to his base.

Any politician outside the US, from this point onwards, will assume that the US is not a country that can be trusted with any long term plans. (Or, as far as our allies are concerned, with intelligence materials either). It will likely take decades to repair that reputation hit, if it isn't irreparable.

We're not feeling the consequences of it yet, but we will. That's inevitable. You don't suddenly walk into a ballroom, shit on a table, and hope everybody forgets it next week.

Re: US quits Paris climate pact

#236

Post by fvdessen » Thu, Jun 01, 2017, 9:44 PM UTC

pouetpouet wrote: post #60

Danihan wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The deal is unenforceable, very expensive, and most likely will fail. Also, China emits twice as much greenhouse gas as the United States.

The US emit more than double per capita.

USA's emissions/gdp are close to the world's average, and have been improving at the same rate as other nations. It is not doing a bad job at environment and there isn't a valid reason to single it out [1]

[1] http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/...

Re: US quits Paris climate pact

#237

Post by entee » Thu, Jun 01, 2017, 9:44 PM UTC

tomohawk wrote: post #210

guelo wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Paris Agreement was signed under the authorization of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change which was ratified by the senate.

The Paris Agreement is either a treaty all on its own or it's a significant change to an existing treaty. Either way, the US Constitution requires ratification by the Senate. Other countries such as Brazil had the treaty ratified by their senate. Arguing that we now have a treaty that allows us to make other treaties without following the Constitutional process ... well.

I think the agreement itself was drafted to specifically avoid having to be considered a new treaty in a US context. So from a legal standpoint, I think it's incorrect to say "this is a treaty and must be ratified by the Senate". I will heartily agree with you that perhaps that shouldn't be the case, and also agree that we need a functional system of government where these machinations aren't necessary to pass policy, but I'm not sure there's a constitutional requirement here per se.

Re: US quits Paris climate pact

#238

Post by giarc » Thu, Jun 01, 2017, 9:44 PM UTC

creaghpatr wrote: post #111

giarc wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I guess my comment was more about the idea or common thought that governments are under the thumb of the large corporations (those with the resources for large lobbying firms). Therefore, if these corporations are against this decision, who is Trump doing this for? Polls have shown majority of Americans are in favour of staying in the agreement (although I haven't seen the numbers broken down by party lines). So what is his motivation? Ironically this was a campaign promise, and the American public voted him in, so for once a politician is keeping their promise.

Re: US quits Paris climate pact

#239

Post by tanilama » Thu, Jun 01, 2017, 9:45 PM UTC

aaron-lebo wrote: post #69

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…

You're overreacting and falling into what China would love people to believe, that 4 years of bad leadership is equivalent to decades of autocracy. When Trump is gone in 3 years, it's not gonna be so dire. Stupid short-sighted decision, but it's just a road bump. The Germans and Japanese recovered from WW2, pretty sure the US can recover from Trump.

The fact Trump could become president does pose its own problem to other nations. There is serious issue undergoing in this country. What about a Trump V2? Can people still trust America for leadership, if it cannot contain its internal turmoil?

Re: US quits Paris climate pact

#240

Post by blibble » Thu, Jun 01, 2017, 9:45 PM UTC

waqf wrote: post #187

blibble wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the UK could be broadly described as anti-low-skilled immigration most of the UK electorate support increasing the level of highly skilled migration http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/half-of-britis...

That's hardly the same as a guarantee that highly skilled immigrants and their families don't face difficulties and risks in coming to the UK. For example, last time I looked at the UK papers they were full of cases of EU citizens, who should have indefinite leave to reside in the UK, being harrassed by the Home Office and threatened with deportation.

every case I've read about has received the standard automatic rejection letter for not filling in the form correctly (e.g. for not including your passport)

given the Home Office never expected EU migrants to apply for permanent residency, the response was appropriate prior to the referendum result

it no longer is, and the Home Office now have updated guidance on the matter

I'm sure it wasn't nice to receive that letter, but it just a case of the government bureaucratic machine responding at glacial speed to change, as normal