
Venture investors blast US decision to withdraw from Paris Climate Accord - stonlyb
https://techcrunch.com/2017/06/01/venture-investors-blast-us-decision-to-withdraw-from-paris-climate-accord/
======
staticelf
> It is truly tragic that the U.S. has abandoned its leadership and moral
> authority on one of the critical issues of our time.

Leadership in fighting climate change? Cmon' every EU-country is better at
fighting climate change than the US. Denmark has at least 50% of their energy
coming from their huge wind farms. Norway has a huge network of chargers for
electrical cars, tax cuts for electrical cars and Sweden is huge in all sorts
of environmental savings.

In Sweden you can't even order a fucking burger without seeing how much CO2
that produces and ads for vegetarian burgers that are better for the
environment.

If you really think US is good at all at fighting climate change, you should
really come to the EU and watch us recycle. Even during the recent terror
attack in Stockholm there were people recycling.

Proof:

[http://www.cbc.ca/radio-
content/archive/undertheinfluence/ma...](http://www.cbc.ca/radio-
content/archive/undertheinfluence/max_menuboard.jpg)

[http://img.timeinc.net/time/daily/2012/1204/360_intl_healthy...](http://img.timeinc.net/time/daily/2012/1204/360_intl_healthy_food_0406.jpg)

[https://www.reddit.com/r/sweden/comments/64199h/two_swedes_r...](https://www.reddit.com/r/sweden/comments/64199h/two_swedes_recycling_under_full_terrorist_threat/)

~~~
wslh
Not arguing in favor of US but how can you compare the size of these small
countries with US size in terms of distributing energy?

~~~
anovikov
If anything this favors U.S.. In a small country, it is harder to balance out
renewable energy sources, i.e. if there is no wind in Tennessee there is
likely some in Iowa, but that doesn't work as easily for regions of Poland.
And yet, they are doing it.

~~~
rsynnott
Most EU countries are connected to the grids of other countries to some extent
(even the UK and Ireland have underwater interconnectors, though they're
rather limited).

------
technotony
Trump once again shows he's a political savant. This was the obvious move for
someone who cares more about power than doing the right thing: he delivered a
campaign promise, he appears strong to his supporters, he gives congressional
Republicans something they want and at the same time acquires a bargaining
chip with Europe and China that he can cash in later. It takes four years to
unwind, so there isn't even much damage and he can announce some new deal
right before he's up for election. By dragging the decision out for a week he
also distracted from any ongoing talk about Russia etc. Kind of a classic
agency problem: this is good for him, bad for the rest of the world.

~~~
glenndebacker
"time acquires a bargaining chip with Europe"

Yeah good luck with that. Maybe I'm living in a parallel Europe but that is
not what I'm reading in the European newspapers this morning. Trump is loathed
here and the notion of always cooperating with (our "friend") the US is
sinking extremely fast, politically and also in the mind of the general
people. I can't comment for all EU countries, but the view of the US is rather
negatively here.

And honestly why would we? While a lot of EU leaders are publicly outraged,
the fact that the US is more and more turning back into the dark ages gives a
lot of possibilities for other countries. That void needs and will be filled
in by others.

For me there is a silver lining here.

~~~
candu
This. There's no global bargaining chip to be gained here: if anything, the
rest of the world has now fully realized that American exceptionalism is in
rapid decline. Witness, for instance, the global reaction to Trump's decision,
which has essentially been "that's nice, we'll stick with the agreement". This
looks less like a savvy political move and more like a petulant child lashing
out because Germany stated the US can't be completely trusted anymore.

Maybe this will garner some points with his most fervent backers, but that
set's growing smaller by the day.

The most charitable spin I can think to put on this is that he made an
enormously risky bet on a) the rise of populism in Europe and b) the ability
of America to cash in on its supposed position of leadership. Turns out a)
failed and b) is worth less than we imagined.

~~~
leereeves
> that's nice, we'll stick with the agreement

The developing countries that (collectively) expect to receive $100 billion
per year under the agreement would stick with it under any conditions.

How will that work now? Will Europe be paying that on their own?

------
nickik
I have not studied this in great detail so take my point as speculation.

My memory is that the US withdrew from Kyoto as well. They withdrew but were
still one of the few countries that actually reached the goal outlined there.

The reason was not political action but rather market adoption.

I don't know much beyond that but it is possible that much the same could
happen, if coal is continualy replaced with gas or solar. Cars will be
replaced with EV soon enough, even outside of any government action or gloabl
agreement.

Again if have not studied the magnitude of all these changes and compared them
to what exactly the parameters of Paris are so I am not arguing that trump did
the right thing. In fact, if you expact the outcome anyway signing might be
"free".

I just think some people mistake the signing of a international agreement with
results. Kyoto did show that that was not really always the case. Not signing
some agreement will not automatically mean we are heading for Mad Max.

The actual outcome and compliance will be mostly detrmained by internal
politics of each country.

------
tphan
Now that the US government has failed to act on climate change, it might be a
good idea for US companies and individuals to take up the challenge.

~~~
tannerwj
Exactly. We don't need the government's intervention to innovate and solve the
climate problem

~~~
cryptoz
Yes we do need government intervention to innovate and solve this climate
problem. The free market does not work here because the actual, real cost of
greenhouse gas emissions is not correctly adjusted. The runaway warming effect
is going to cost enormous sums of money to solve and will cost us dearly in
life, ecosystems, and global stability.

Corporations have long shown that they are not interested in truth, or
sustainable profits, or people's health, or the environment. In fact, due to
lack of government intervention, corporations like Exxon spread harmful
propaganda that decreases the public's awareness about critical issues like
climate change.

Collective action is important because this is otherwise a failure of humanity
to recognize a tragedy of the commons. We need to collectively agree to solve
the problem, through governments, because otherwise individual actors like
states and corporations will increase their own wealth through greed at the
expense of others.

~~~
tannerwj
Agree to disagree I guess. Global warming is something that needs to be
addressed, but it is being heavily exaggerated. This does not help anyone
except for the alarmists. It causes us to put our resources in areas that
aren't useful. That money could be spent much more wisely elsewhere. In
addition, the US is already doing fine without government interference, as
shown by the decrease in US CO2 emissions over the past 2 decades.

Besides all the jobs and other economic factors that would disadvantage the US
on a global scale if they agreed to the accord, we just have to look to
Germany - a country that is following the standards put in place by the accord
- to see what the consequences would be. They pay more than 3x per kWh for
electricity than the US. This might be something that the middle class and up
could afford, but this would unfairly target the poor and in poorer countries
would cause death and suffering. This alone is reason enough to look for
better solutions.

~~~
coldpie
> Global warming is something that needs to be addressed, but it is being
> heavily exaggerated.

It isn't. Please read the latest IPCC Summary for Policymakers. It's a
relatively quick and easy summary of the current scientific (yes, scientific,
not opinion) understanding of the state of climate change, where the climate
is heading, and what will be required to prevent or mitigate bad outcomes.
Yes, scientific understanding changes and improves over time, but the best
thing to base your decision making on is the scientific understanding we have
now, not hopeful guesses about the future.

[http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-
report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_SPM_...](http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-
report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf)

~~~
tannerwj
Sheesh, I'm getting downvoted to oblivion here just for having a differing
opinion. Believe me, I've studied the science. I want to study it even more.
I've just gained a different opinion based on that study than the majority on
this chain obviously. I guess my opinion is not welcome.

~~~
coldpie
Your opinion is not only at odds with the majority on this site, but also with
almost every climate scientist on the planet. We tend to respect the
scientific method on HN. If you're going to claim that every climate scientist
is wrong, you'll at least need to speak from a position of authority or
preferably show some evidence to back up your opinion.

~~~
tannerwj
I haven't claimed anything of the sort. I respect the scientific method more
than most. At least read what I've written before you say such things. Climate
change is an issue, but the Paris Accord is a horrible excuse at throwing
money at a problem. And if you read what I said earlier it could have serious
repercussions for people who cannot afford the price increases for energy.

We need to move past the 'climate denying' insults and work together to find
actual feasible solutions. Downvoting/insulting/bashing anyone who doesn't
agree with a solution will get us nowhere. This in itself is a serious problem
and disagrees with the scientific method in every way.

------
patrickg_zill
All treaties must be approved by the Senate. Was this treaty approved?

~~~
i2amsam
I don't knows where everyone is picking up this talking point, but it's really
bullshit.

The agreement was weak and not a treaty because the Republicans in the Senate
would not have ratified a treaty, just as they failed to ratify Kyoto. If any
Republicans thought this was a swell idea but just wasn't binding enough they
could enter into a second, more aggressive binding agreement with whatever
parties they like. Nobody thought this was a great agreement, it was too weak
and timid, but it was the strongest agreement we could make without the
Senate.

~~~
patrickg_zill
To my mind, for any government agency to have implemented a rule from the
Paris accord, without it being an actual ratified treaty, would be illegal.

~~~
rsynnott
In which case, it would likely go to the Supreme Court, who are better
equipped to figure out this question than hackernews.

~~~
patrickg_zill
It never stopped us before :-)

Healthy debate is healthy.

------
throw2bit
Climate change and immigration are the two topics that Trump can use to his
benefit without the fear getting bitten back.

Immigrants have no say or voting rights. They can be used as a drum to do the
pow wow ing. Earth wont talk back. Two perfect candidates.

~~~
thevardanian
"Earth wont talk back."

Well... Not yet anyways.

------
basicplus2
{{{Indeed, while investors decried the decision, they admitted that their
companies were already prepared for it.

“Most of the folks working around energy and climate no longer seem to require
policy support,” said Shaun Abrahamson, a managing partner at Urban Us.}}}

Now I'm confused.. this contradicts the central thrust of the arricle

~~~
gfosco
That's the problem with the hysterics... If it's the right thing to do, if
it's smart business and profitable, you don't need a binding agreement to
force people in.

~~~
Gravityloss
Yeah, who needs things like taxes, police, public roads or courts?

~~~
nine_k
Leave a town without police, stop fixing public roads or just stop collecting
garbage.

Very soon the people will demand to have police back (or roll their own
temporarily), will demand roads fixed, and garbage taken out — or look for a
garbage truck company to pay to.

The effects of this are very quick and visible. Unlike that, climate change,
or e.g. effects of using lead paint and asbestos in building practice, is a
slow, hard-to-notice thing. "Too late" happens decades later that the time of
a preventive action; very few people have a planning horizon as distant.

------
wtf_is_up
Even if it was a good deal, which it doesn't seem to be, it was essentially a
handshake Obama made with other countries. Send it through Congress.

~~~
burkaman
It went through Congress in 1992 when the UNFCCC was ratified.

~~~
wtf_is_up
Not the same thing.

~~~
burkaman
Yes it is. Many of the complaints about the Paris Agreement were explicitly
included in the treaty that congress ratified. For example, article 4(7):

"The extent to which developing country Parties will effectively implement
their commitments under the Convention will depend on the effective
implementation by developed country Parties of their commitments under the
Convention related to financial resources and transfer of technology and will
take fully into account that economic and social development and poverty
eradication are the first and overriding priorities of the developing country
Parties."

Congress has already agreed that developed countries will initially take more
of the burden, and might participate in something like the Green Climate Fund.

