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

381–390 of 413 posts

Re: US quits Paris climate pact

#381

Post by noobermin »

sverige wrote: post #371
rhcom2 wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think "hugely popular" is an overstatement if the number is really nearly 70% in favor. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics...

From the article,"An overwhelming majority of Democrats, 86 per cent, are fans of the deal, while only about 51 per cent of Republicans say the US should take part in the accord, the programme reported." So, not 70% of his supporters, especially considering not all Republicans voted for him, and some Democrats did. And the math is funny anyway. I haven't seen recent registration numbers, but last I looked, it was rou…

The gov't of the US should represent its people, not just the side who won.

Re: US quits Paris climate pact

#382

Post by PythonicAlpha »

_ph_ wrote: post #67
PythonicAlpha wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If he did not do it, I would have to find a different car producer for my next car. So, I have to think about it. I am not sure, if I want to support US companies in this "America first" situation. A country that so much indulges in egoism is really difficult to like. The US produces Anti-Americanism itself.

I think it is important to distinguish between the US and Trump and his supporters. Musk and Tesla are one of the big driving forces in fighting climate change - the cars are an important step, but long term their storage business might have an even larger impact on moving to renewable energies. So supporting them sounds like a very good idea, especially if you disagree with Trumps climate politics.

Might be.

I myself have US-citizen relatives and I know, that some great people live there.

But it is very difficult to be fond of people who elected such people and who (in big parts of the voters) greatly admire his "America first" propaganda.

I am sure, that this "America first" will harm not only the world, but many Americans and I am very sad about it. And I am sad, that those, that did most of the harm and made a profit from it, will get a free ride again, as it was 2008.

People just don't learn.

(BTW: I wanted to post this reply yesterday, but was hindered by this stupid regulatory system here)

Re: US quits Paris climate pact

#383

Post by PythonicAlpha »

exclusiv wrote: post #208
PythonicAlpha wrote: post #75

This is a bad day for the US, since by such a behavior ("America first -- ignore international pacts"), the other countries will less and less likely follow this country (with exception of Saudi Arabia, of course). The Europeans are already drawn to China and India and this will grow stronger. And Trump should not think, that European buyers will be more inclined in the future to support US companies by buying US pro…

Can you explain how Europeans are drawn to China and India given their records on human rights? Are they not informed about the Chinese government? I fail to see how that's more alluring than dealing with America and Trump even with all his faults and arrogance. I think this move was bad and miscalculated at several levels, but I don't think it's going to have the impact you suggest.

Just read the news (and not only HN, since here, the world view is harshly filtered to fit into some world-view -- also don't just rely on one parties supporting news channel).

You always can try to explain things away, but reality is harder.

Re: US quits Paris climate pact

#384

Post by sverige »

noobermin wrote: post #381
sverige wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the article,"An overwhelming majority of Democrats, 86 per cent, are fans of the deal, while only about 51 per cent of Republicans say the US should take part in the accord, the programme reported." So, not 70% of his supporters, especially considering not all Republicans voted for him, and some Democrats did. And the math is funny anyway. I haven't seen recent registration numbers, but last I looked, it was rou…

The gov't of the US should represent its people, not just the side who won.

And the people of the U.S. should support their president, even if they didn't vote for him.

Re: US quits Paris climate pact

#386

Post by nthcolumn »

_ph_ wrote: post #377
nthcolumn wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have quite rightly been asked for sources. Do you have any that state on the contrary? Janes perhaps? http://www.janes.com/article/69728/bundeswehr-plans-reorient... Yes they are now but the shift is towards a European army without NATO. Is Der Speigel not also German? And what has that got to do with it?

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 if it is not even a consideration? I am only going by the zeitgeist in Germany and beyond which is clearly passing you by or is it that leaving NATO so unconscionable to you? I am asked for sources which I provide and you have none apart from your own opinion to which you are entitled but you cannot speak for everyone else and say that it is not a consideration when it is.

Re: US quits Paris climate pact

#387

Post by sqeaky »

ra1n85 wrote: post #192
sqeaky wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is hard to implement a technological fix without political will. Politcal can reserve funding, can align businesses and academics, can make that technological windfall we haven't yet invented a little mote likely. What if there is no technological solution, or we fail to find it? Having political agreement and unity to fallback on is a good thing. Even if we do something terrible to the planet, we can mitigate tha…

Trump is the antithesis of unified political will. He's a symptom of a deeply divided society. The focus on finding consensus and political will on climate change is putting the cart before the horse. There's no consensus or deal making to be had with this degree of division and anger.

I agree. Not being able to get it doesn't change the fact that we need it.

Re: US quits Paris climate pact

#388

Post by nthcolumn »

entee wrote: post #340
nthcolumn wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You reject Angela Merkel as a source? How do you interpret her saying the EU must "take its fate into its own hands" and that they can "no longer rely on the United States and UK"? You do read Der Speigel? - ran an article weeks ago saying there would not even be a decision on spending until 2020. From February: "The United States and our international allies, which for so long has been the centerpiece of what is rig…

For rather earth shattering global events such as leaving one of the most stable and powerful military alliances the world has ever seen, I'd like a little more than "writing on the wall" as evidence. Just because they say they need to be more self-reliant doesn't mean they're pulling out of the alliance. Even Trump, with whom I disagree on pretty much everything, isn't leaving the alliance despite his overheated and…

Do you have any sources for any of this? Hoefnells Gazette maybe? :P

I would not overstate Trump's impact - you will only give him an even bigger head. In reality he is insignificant to policy as he will be gone soon enough. I would say Putin and Snowden were more of an impact.

In reality by 2024 the Bundeswehr will no longer be committing troops to NATO missions outside Germany (see above). If it makes you feel better to pretend that they are 'still part of NATO' then fine.

Re: US quits Paris climate pact

#389

Post by norea-armozel »

datamingle wrote: post #81
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…

US has a long history of upholding its agreements compared to other countries. Germany & France cannot even uphold spending 2% of GDP for NATO: http://money.cnn.com/2017/05/25/news/nato-funding-explained-... Agreed in 2006 of 2% target, then had to reiterate the target in 2014 since many members did not meet 2% target. "Members that fell short at the time promised to meet their obligations by 2024" .. it is an obliga…

The harsh reality is the US govt doesn't want a strong NATO. If France and Germany decided tomorrow to spend similarly to the US on defense there would be a collective gum swallowing moment in DC on both wings. It would mean that the EU isn't so toothless and that inevitably in some future that the US would have to go toe to toe with them in a military conflict. Regardless of outcome of such a conflict, it would mean more spending in the US to ensure against not only China and Russia (nominally) in a fashion far more unsustainable than it is today. The last time Europe was a legitimate region in terms of military power was the last world war. And we know that wasn't a pretty sight for all.

Re: US quits Paris climate pact

#390

Post by noobermin »

sverige wrote: post #384
noobermin wrote: post #381

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The gov't of the US should represent its people, not just the side who won.

And the people of the U.S. should support their president, even if they didn't vote for him.

Sorry, I'm not making or am swayed by emotive arguments, and no one should be. Nothing in the constitution or in established interpretation of it require citizens to support the president.
Post reply on HN