
Trump 'poised to quit Paris climate deal' - 0xbadf00d
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-40108659
======
chollida1
> The decision will put the United States in league with Syria and Nicaragua
> as the world’s only non-participants in the Paris Climate Agreement.

So I guess its up to private industry in the US to tackle climate change.

And just before people start complaining about Trump..

> A letter from 22 Republican senators urging Mr Trump to withdraw played a
> major role in the decision, Axios said.

This is an American political issue not a Trump issue.....

> Canada, the European Union, and China have said they will honor their
> commitments to the pact even if the United States withdraws. A source told
> Reuters that India had also indicated it would stick by the deal.

This is much happier news

~~~
lostcolony
So not even half of the Republican Senators, let alone all the Democratic
ones? Hardly an 'American' issue.

~~~
matthewmcg
More specifically, the issue is with Republican legislators listening to
fossil fuel interests and wealthy donors over public opinion.

A majority of people in the United States support climate action. Even a
majority of self-identified Republicans.

~~~
mertd
How is it that the secretary of state who was a fossil fuel CEO is against
quitting?

~~~
breatheoften
Many of the same researchers that developed the techniques that Exxon relies
on to find oil also developed the arguments about anthropogenic climate
change. There are certainly individuals within Exxon who acknowledge climate
change. I do not envy their cognitive dissonance.

~~~
matthewmcg
Update: Exxon stockolders too!

[https://www.reuters.com/article/us-exxonmobil-climate-
idUSKB...](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-exxonmobil-climate-
idUSKBN18R0DC)

------
reacharavindh
Wonder if any country would take a stand and sanction the USA for "not doing
their fair share to save the world". Like imposing a climate tax on US
imports.. That'd be interesting.

~~~
SeanDav
Perhaps we should be taking a stand and boycotting goods from China?

According to this source, China has double the emissions of USA:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions)

If looked at on a per capita basis, Australia and quite a few other countries
are worse than USA.

~~~
frankzinger
> China has double the emissions of USA:

No idea why my sibling commenter deanCommie was killed, but his point seems
good to me: according to your own source USA's _per capita_ emissions are more
than twice as high as China's.

------
supercall
This is insane. That being said, we have options. Please call your
representatives, please donate to environmental groups. These actions won't
directly force Trump to change his mind but we need to show the government
that climate change is important to us

Find your reps: [https://tryvoices.com/](https://tryvoices.com/)

Citizens Climate Lobby:
[https://citizensclimatelobby.org/donate/](https://citizensclimatelobby.org/donate/)

350.org:
[https://act.350.org/donate/build/](https://act.350.org/donate/build/)

~~~
y0ghur7_xxx
"A letter from 22 Republican senators urging Mr Trump to withdraw played a
major role in the decision, Axios said."

This is not just Trump.

~~~
hsod
The buck stops with a letter from 22 Republican senators?

------
williamle8300
At the risk of sounding nutty... I'll say it anyway.

The Paris climate deal is a cabal for Goldman-Sachs to draw money from
governments via the taxes levied for participating countries. If you read the
deal itself, the language doesn't have any metrics for success... it's goals
and methodologies for combatting climate change is really hoaky.

~~~
mcintyre1994
Can you elaborate? Do you mean taxes voluntarily raised by the countries to
meet their goals? Why would Goldman-Sachs make money from those taxes? Or do
you mean more like fines for not meeting the goals - but that doesn't make
sense because you said there's no metrics for success so how do you fine
someone for falling short?

------
radiorental
For anyone that has 5 minutes, this BBC article is chilling...

[http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20170418-how-western-
civilis...](http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20170418-how-western-civilisation-
could-collapse)

The salient point being..

'Western civilisation is not a lost cause, however. Using reason and science
to guide decisions, paired with extraordinary leadership and exceptional
goodwill, human society can progress to higher and higher levels of well-being
and development'

We seem to be at a point in time where all of those points are lacking in US
policy & leadership.

~~~
brango
If there's one thing the last year has shown us it's how irrational we are.
Perhaps it's time to let HAL do what's best for us from now on...

~~~
qbrass
Getting humans to hand over the reigns and think it was their idea was HAL's
plan all along.

------
wmccullough
The distressing thing about this goes way beyond whether or not climate change
is human caused, or a natural cycle of the earth. I'm distressed that we would
leave an agreement that would bring prosperity to future generations. Like it
or not, we have to all still live here and keep this planet alive. How the
hell did science ever become a political issue?

~~~
jcranmer
Science is often far more equivocal than people believe. People on all sides
of the spectrum want to use scientific results to bolster their case, and
ignore the equivocations and stretch the evidence. There is also the tendency
to cherry-pick the evidence that supports your views, and respond to
countervailing studies with accusations of malfeasance.

~~~
polotics
You wrote: "Science is often far more equivocal than people believe." In the
context of the very real climate disruption now ongoing, I call bullshit. Can
you show us your hand?

------
radiorental
While this is a setback I'm curious what real impact this will have?

The markets seem to be driving towards clean energy regardless. Coal is not
competitive against Natural gas (and I appreciate gas isn't ideal). And,
hopefully the US will regain it's senses in 2018 & 2020 elections.

~~~
celticninja
I would like to see a tariff applied to US goods produced in the US and
exported to the rest of the world as means of charging the US for not abiding
by the agreement.

~~~
mistermann
I'll support this if the US applies tariffs to European countries who don't
honor their NATO spending agreements.

~~~
desdiv
Here's the full text of the Paris Agreement[0] and here[1] is Secretary of
State John Kerry signing said agreement on behalf of the United States in New
York on 2016-04-22.

Show me a text of this "NATO spending agreement", when and where it was signed
by a Representative of the United States, and then we'll talk.

Hint: you can't, because no such treaty exists.

[0]
[http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/cop21/eng/l09r01.pdf](http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/cop21/eng/l09r01.pdf)

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Secretary_Kerry_Holds_Gra...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Secretary_Kerry_Holds_Granddaughter_Dobbs-
Higginson_on_Lap_While_Signing_COP21_Climate_Change_Agreement_at_UN_General_Assembly_Hall_in_New_York_\(26512345421\).jpg)

~~~
mistermann
Interesting. I'd think NATO would involve some sort of negotiated terms, it's
hard to believe that funding would be excluded from that, but who knows. I'm
no expert on it, but it seems quite odd that this point of contention is a
complete figment of the imagination of American politicians for several
decades and European politicians never point out that it's completely made up.

I now wonder if my perception of the military blanket of protection the US
provides to Europe also a figment of people's imagination. Do they have
military bases and personnel in the region, or am I imagining that also?

~~~
celticninja
Please see here:

[https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/26/world/europe/nato-
trump-s...](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/26/world/europe/nato-trump-
spending.html)

The gist of it is that no NATO members are in arrears for the contributions
that are required to NATO. There is a NATO goal that member states should
spend 2% of their GDP on their own defence each year. This is where some
countries are not meeting that goal but the money certainly is not owed to the
United States. Further it could be said that given that the US is home to many
companies that make weapons this is a way for the US to get NATO members to
spend money on US goods. (NATO members are unlikely to buy weapons systems
from Russia or China).

So as I said there is a very real difference between the 2 systems and it is
unfair to use them in conjunction with one another because the NATO one is a
goal, a 'nice to have' if you will.

~~~
desdiv
Here is the important part from your article:

>Are NATO nations violating a rule?

>No. The 2 percent standard is just a guideline, not a legally binding
requirement. In 2006, even as the United States was increasing military
spending because of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, European allies were
shrinking their military spending. NATO defense ministers that year adopted a
guideline suggesting that each spend the equivalent of 2 percent of its annual
economic output on its military — but it was a target, not a rule, and not
endorsed by heads of state.

So the NATO 2% spending thing is: "just a guideline", "not a legally binding
requirement", "a target, not a rule, and not endorsed by heads of state".

While the Paris Agreement is a formal treaty, signed in New York by a
Representative of the United States, and then ratified by the US afterwards.

I don't see how you can compare the two side-by-side in any serious
discussion.

~~~
celticninja
I don't think mistermann was after a serious discussion, he seems to have very
little idea about NATO and just parrots Trumps (inaccurate talking points). I
may be wrong and perhaps he is off reading all the linked articles but I don't
hold out much hope of that.

~~~
mistermann
Is it possible to disagree in principle without parroting Trump's talking
points?

I wonder if know it all's on the left will ever clue in that international
relations are extremely nuanced rather than a hard science. Perhaps some
people's relative willingness to cooperate is influenced by the level of
respect and willingness to understand differing points of view.

I would argue this is a very important aspect of human relations and
negotiations, and real world events I think support this theory quite well.

~~~
celticninja
This is not a left or right issue. You said that in return for a climate
change tariff on US goods you wanted EU nations to meet their spending
agreements for NATO. Now multiple sources have been provided to you showing
that the EU NATO members are doing great what they agreed to and that claiming
that they are not paying their way is inaccurate at best and downright
dishonest at worst. You are not responding to those facts and instead have
turned it into a left Vs right issue.

Regardless of my political affiliation I am aware that international politics
is nuanced, unfortunately your president is just learning that himself. And
yes you can disagree in principal but you don't seem to understand the system
so it is difficult to accept that you disagree in principal when your sole
argument (which has been thoroughly debunked for you) is based on claims made
by donald trump. Do you have any other issues with NATO that you disagree
with?

~~~
mistermann
You seem to be under the impression that Donald Trump was the first person to
raise the issue of Europe pulling its financial weight in NATO, which is not
true.

Indeed, there is no hard explicit contract stating a dollar amount that is
owed by European governments to the US, there are only "targets". And
according to the general sentiment on HN, I've now learned that the word
"target" is a code word for literally no compensation, full stop.

There, I can acknowledge objective reality.

In turn I'll ask you this:

Do you think it is plausible that the US military presence in Europe has
contributed in a material way to peace in the region? Yes or no?

Do you think the US bears an uncompensated financial burden for this military
presence in Europe? Yes or no?

~~~
celticninja
No. Yes, however it is a financial burden they have placed on themselves and
they understand the trade off between the cost of the presence and the
influence acquired.

------
monkmartinez
Does anyone share my apathy toward politics in general? My logic is that we
have no, as in zero, control over the entire apparatus. In a country with two
sides, there will be a natural bifurcation that will not allow for
constructive... _anything_. Couple that to the beltway insider club AKA
lobbying and you have a situation where only those with serious capital have a
voice in the capital.

~~~
jackmott
That fact that we elected Trump indicates we have incredible control. What an
awful mistake.

~~~
monkmartinez
The thing is, half or nearly half the country disagrees with you on paper. I
bet its not anywhere near that in practice, as in there is a range of
political spectrum. If we had more choice we wouldn't have align to the poles
of a bipartisan system.

~~~
Retric
Trump got 46% of the vote. Which is normally rather far from 1/2 in election
terms, ~25% of registered voters, and about 19.5% of the total US population.
So, yea the guy won, but it's hard to extrapolate that to much popular
support.

At best you can say this is based on the electoral collage, but Maine and
Nebraska split their delegates by district making it an even odder system than
generally talked about.

~~~
Grue3
>but it's hard to extrapolate that to much popular support.

Actually, it's pretty easy, given the ridiculously large sample size.

~~~
Retric
It's a biased sample, but even then for every 100 people that voted for him
117 voted for someone else.

Most striking the turnout as % of the population was down significantly
presumably because many people could not bring themselves to vote for either
candidate. [http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/11/politics/popular-vote-
turnout-...](http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/11/politics/popular-vote-
turnout-2016/) So, he would have gotten crushed by Bush, McCann, or Romney
adjusting for population size.

------
clamprecht
Is there anything positive, at all, about leaving the Paris climate deal? Or
is the president going to do something that helps no one (not even himself),
and hurts us all? Who gains from this?

~~~
root_axis
It benefits him because his base is vehemently opposed to it.

------
danso
_reposting from the previously flagged thread:_

More details from the NYT, in which it was noted that things are not final, as
President Trump is set to meet with Secretary of State Rex Tillerson this
afternoon. Tillerson has been advocating on behalf of sticking to the deal:
[https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/31/climate/trump-quits-
paris...](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/31/climate/trump-quits-paris..).

> _And Mr. Trump has proved himself willing to shift direction up until the
> moment of a public announcement. He is set to meet Wednesday afternoon with
> Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, who has advocated that the United States
> remain a part of the Paris accords and could continue to lobby the president
> to change his mind._

------
breatheoften
I'm having an ongoing facebook feud with a die-hard Trump supporter who has
been parroting the 'everything with an anonymous source is fake news' line for
the last weeks.

I challenged him to argue that it was likely Trump would not pull out of the
Paris Accord because of the anonymous sources reporting that he intends to ...
He just replied with some fake climate science and 'simple questions' that
modern climate science has not answered to his satisfaction ... The blindness
is insane -- and the damage really can't be overstated ...

------
marcosdumay
I can't help but wonder if doubling down on fossil fuels today isn't blatantly
stupid.

I mean, except for coal (that has some nasty enough local effects for most
countries to quit by themselves) fossil fuels are already getting scarce.
Production prices are going up and up, with just a few old fields holding them
low enough for current prices. Increasing the reliance on them right now...
Well, any smart player would be doing the exact opposite of it, wouldn't them?

------
moron4hire
Why bother quitting the deal? It's not like it has any teeth. Trump is dumber
than I thought. He could have his cake and eat it, too.

~~~
lostcolony
You're looking at it the wrong way. His cake is playing to his base, while
helping his investments. Pulling out of the Paris accord does both. The people
who care about the climate are not the ones who voted for him.

~~~
owenversteeg
I mean, S&P 500 index funds are down about a dollar on this news. I'd bet that
any minor gain to his investments was wiped out by whatever general market
exposure he has, so overall (probably) not a move for him financially.

------
Mendenhall
I wonder how many know the details of what the deal actually is.

------
interdrift
the amount of ignorance in this action is unbearable.

------
pottersbasilisk
Im seeing the liberal bubble here.

Here is what trump supporters think(not a trump supporter).

Its only ever been a bankster fraud pushed by goldman sachs

[https://quidsapio.wordpress.com/2012/06/06/how-goldman-
sachs...](https://quidsapio.wordpress.com/2012/06/06/how-goldman-sachs-
invented-cap-and-trade/)

[https://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/12/goldman-sachs-
buy...](https://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/12/goldman-sachs-buys-into-
carbon-offsets/comment-page-1/)

[https://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2008/10/27/street...](https://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2008/10/27/street-
cred-goldman-sachs-buys-into-carbon-credit-developer/)

[http://www.goldmansachs666.com/2009/05/al-gores-carbon-
tradi...](http://www.goldmansachs666.com/2009/05/al-gores-carbon-trading-scam-
reeks-of.html)

These are the core tenents of the Paris Climate Agreement:

(a) Holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2 °C
above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature
increase to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels, recognizing that this would
significantly reduce the risks and impacts of climate change;

(b) Increasing the ability to adapt to the adverse impacts of climate change
and foster climate resilience and low greenhouse gas emissions development, in
a manner that does not threaten food production;

(c) Making finance flows consistent with a pathway towards low greenhouse gas
emissions and climate-resilient development.

Translation for the gullible: give us money. for vague stuff. and vague goals.
and vague methods that cant accomplish goals because we never want the tax
gravy train to end. Nor that even have actual metrics for success so we never
have to stop taxing everyone.

plus trust china when they tell you they will also "do stuff" too. even though
they lie their ass off about everything

Protip: china pollutes more than DOUBLE the usa. more than usa and europe
combined. and while our emissions have declined over the last decade, theirs
have exploded

~~~
theseadroid
Protip, look at per capita. Or accumulative. How is it fair that u blame
others after u done tons of pollution in the past?

------
pvnick
Good - renewable energy is becoming more efficient and within our lifetimes
will become overtake fossil fuels as the most cost-effective forms of energy.
Indeed this will happen faster in the absence of taxes and regulations that
slow innovation and do relatively little to combat climate change.

Edit: Use this website to find your representative and urge them to support
this decision: [https://callyourrep.co/](https://callyourrep.co/)

~~~
celticninja
In the short term companies will use this as a way to continue to pollute
because it will be cheaper to pollute than upgrade factories to make them
cleaner.

~~~
rm_-rf_slash
Yes and no. Many companies in industries prone to regulation have accepted
that the regular see-saw of political power means that roughly half their time
will be spent under more stringent regulations, and so it makes more sense to
stick with certain regulations instead of changing processes (which carry
their own costs and complexities) every few years to shave a few cents on the
dollar.

An example: what if a Republican congress repealed legislation banning leaded
gasoline? Would gas companies begin putting lead in gasoline again? Doubtful.
Not only would it be a terrible PR move - since everybody accepts that lead is
a dangerous neurotoxin - but as soon as government switches hands, the lead
ban comes back, and all of that time and money switching to lead will have
been an unjustifiable waste.

Maybe not the best example, but you get the idea.

~~~
celticninja
Yes but in this situation we aren't talking about rolling back changes they
have made but about not implementing new changes, they are easier to ignore or
put off until there is a legal requirement to actually​ make those changes.

