
US quits Paris climate pact - antouank
http://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-us-canada-40123293
======
scarmig
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 formally reneging on it and forced the next
administration to deal with the egg on the face for failing to meet the USA's
commitments.

But instead he's seriously undermined people's ability to trust in the United
States maintaining its international obligations for anything except the
shortest periods of time. To be fair, what he's done already with NATO is far
worse. But this underlines the reality that the United States government is so
unstable that it's unable to uphold any coherency in policy or meet its stated
commitments.

If you're a small country who's been trusting the USA as a solid ally against
regional competitors, you're looking at this and going, "well, maybe I should
be focusing more on ties with the EU/Russia/China/India."

It's honestly pretty humiliating for the USA, even aside from the fact that
we've just fucked the next generation just to give the finger to elitist
liberals and scientists.

~~~
rayiner
Yes, the Paris pact was toothless. It was never going to work, just like Kyoto
didn't work. So what's wrong with pulling out of it?

Consternation over the Paris accord is, in my opinion, elitist liberal virtue
signaling. (Here in the DC/MD/VA area, everyone will complain about this move
at Starbucks sipping on lattes while driving one hour each way to work from
their McMansion in the exurbs. God forbid we do anything that might require
lifestyle changes, _i.e._ have some real hope of working.)

~~~
guelo
Complaining about people at Starbucks sipping on lattes is conservative virtue
signaling.

~~~
scarmig
Complaining about virtue signaling is conservative virtue signaling.

------
pavlov
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 turning to China as well.

Chinese and European leaders have scheduled a meeting tomorrow to state how
they intend to expand efforts to fight climate change. Meanwhile, USA is
isolating itself with Syria and Nicaragua as the only three countries to stay
out of the Paris accord.

~~~
harryh
I think you overstate the case when you say that the US's leadership position
has been destroyed. It has certainly been damaged, but the US is still one of
the largest, most populous and richest countries in the world. It will have a
big seat at the world negotiating table for quite some time no matter what.

~~~
mywittyname
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 favorable trade deals, because of
their mercurial nature, then we'll probably see corporations move to foreign
countries of influence.

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

~~~
groby_b
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.

------
diafygi
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. The
economics are simply too good to turn back now.

Happy to answer questions. And many companies in cleantech are hiring!

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

~~~
addicted
Would oil companies be possible without the US military defending them in the
rogue states they usually extract their oil from?

And that's not even considering the direct subsidies they receive.

~~~
propman
In California we will be paying 77 cents per gallon just from taxes. So the
price at the pumps would be 77cents lower. From every renewable energy we get
tax credits. Yes we pay for subsidies of random things like cattle, corn, and
oil, but the subsidies like the PTC and the solar energy credit are much more
in comparison. This doesn't mean I don't agree with it. The subsidies have
dropped the price of wind and solar considerably and we will see a huge
economic boom from relatively little tax benefits. The greatest subsidies we
could have right now can actually be accomplished through bipartisan support.
Funding for transmission lines can be lumped into the infrastructure bill. $7
billion of transmission lines in Texas sponsored by the current trump cabinet
pick Rick Perry brought Texas Wind energy production from nowhere to number
one in the country and larger than three states below it in just 6 years.
Texas is planning to add more win this year then the total amount by the
second highest state has in total. He didn't force utilities to build wind
farms. Instead he built the infrastructure to make building wind farms
extremely cost competitive. There are a dozen possible transmission lines that
would create thousands of jobs and connect wind and solar heavy areas to high
density cities. If we can get those transmission lines up, we won't have to
worry about government for renewable energy because it will be politically and
economically in our benefit to use renewables

------
zorpner
Elon Musk just posted that he will, as promised, be quitting the presidential
council:
[https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/870369915894546432](https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/870369915894546432)

~~~
throwaway-1209
Ballsy move. I strongly suspect this could jeopardize the massive federal
subsidies that keep Tesla afloat (and probably Solar City, too). $7.5K per car
(which essentially amounts to a 10% per-unit discount out the door) times 84K
cars is $630M.

~~~
mikeash
Unless the tax credits are extended (and the likelihood of that was
essentially zero already), Tesla is set to hit the phaseout point next year
regardless, and will have them go to zero one year later. It's likely that if
you reserve a Model 3 today, you won't get a tax credit when you take
delivery. So that wouldn't change a whole lot. And assuming the subsidy is
eliminated for everyone and not just Tesla, it'll make them _more_
competitive.

I'd say the big danger for his stuff is SpaceX and NASA, and I don't think
there's much risk there.

------
credo
It was a bit disingenuous for Trump to describe India and China as top
polluters

India (population 1.3 Billion) creates lesser CO2 emissions than the US

China's per-capita emissions is just around half of that of the US

 _[Edit: replying to comment about pollution and emissions

The Paris agreement is about climate change and reducing greenhouse gas
emissions.

When Trump talks about polluters and withdrawing from the Paris agreement, it
seems illogical to suggest that he wasn't referring to CO2 emissions] _

~~~
panzagl
Pollution is not CO2.

~~~
gonvaled
When talking about global warming, yes.

To an overwhelming extent.

~~~
panzagl
And this is why the US has so much trouble with climate change as an issue-
first it was sulfur dioxide, then lead, then CFCs, now it's CO2. The US has
been doing this since the 70's. Now Europe and China want to pretend they care
with words, and giving the US's money to the third world, yet every picture of
a city in China looks like London in the 1890's and it turns out those oh so
green Euro car makers were cheating their emissions tests, but that's not
important, what's important is that we hold hands and make pleasant noises at
each other.

I don't see how anyone who calls themselves an engineer can stomach when this
feel good ignorance is put forward as a solution- this is rearranging deck
chairs to the highest degree.

~~~
gonvaled
What are you talking about?

Lead is bad for your health.

CFCs are bad for Ozone.

CO2 is bad for global warming.

All pretty much universally accepted.

European cars, with cheating and all, are miles ahead of US cars. And they
have been heavily fined for cheating, as they should.

And China has not yet contributed a meager percent of the cumulated US CO2.
Not to talk per capita.

The planet is not yours.

~~~
panzagl
Per capita and cumulated are BS measures to obfuscate that China is a bigger
contributor, and likely to grow for a while. The first rule of getting out of
a hole is to stop digging- the US has, China hasn't.

~~~
gonvaled
Let's leave aside if per-capita and accumulated are important metrics or not.

Let's accept that the Chinese are worse polluters than the US.

Congratulations, you are the second worst polluter.

What, did I hear India? Ok, you are just being difficult. Let's say you are
the third worst polluter.

What? Did I hear ...? Stop it!

You are one of the worst polluters. Period.

Why do you withdraw?

And yes, you are the worst per-capita and accumulated polluter. In case you
were wondering.

~~~
panzagl
Actually not the worst per-capita, but I'm sure you have some way to explain
Qatar, Australia, or any other country inconveniently higher on the list.

And this is pollution: [https://qz.com/794542/air-pollution-map-by-country-
fine-part...](https://qz.com/794542/air-pollution-map-by-country-fine-
particulate-matter/)

Which makes CO2 seem particularly cherry picked.

------
_ph_
This is sad news. The direct impact on the carbon reduction might actually be
not too large, as renewable energies are actually the cheaper alternative, and
as many of the American states are pushing for carbon reductions.

The big downside of the US quitting the Paris climate pact is the political
signal it is sending. The pact was significant, because it was the first time
the world managed to agree on something (except Syria and Nicaragua). Leaving
the pact sends the signal, that the US does not want to internationally
collaborate on preventing climate change. Most of our todays problems and
challenges can only be solved by international collaboration, be they
environmental or economical. It would have the better signal, and probably
also served the US interests better, if the US would not quit the climate
pact.

------
NicoJuicy
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 Tower,
with daddy's money. Then licensed everything ( the few things he did with
casino's failed). And ... He is now the president, because he was in a TV-
show? Or am i missing something?

~~~
beart
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.

~~~
maxerickson
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.

~~~
NicoJuicy
To be honest, when your starting a business. I think to have him as a
"business partner" would be a very bad idea also.

------
rayiner
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.

~~~
dragonwriter
> 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.

~~~
comicjk
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.

~~~
dragonwriter
This is true, however rayiner appears to be neither the anti-tech/nihilist
type of environmentalist _nor_ the "set up incentives" type of
environmentalist. (E.g., on the specific issue of climate he explicitly
rejects setting up incentives or any other "political fix".)

Rather, he seems to believe that the market will provide for all, even when
externalities make that irrational for individual actors in the market without
some regulatort regime internalizing those externalities.

Hence, my description of him as a _laissez-faire_ capitalist rather than any
kind of environmentalist.

------
pouetpouet
China+EU have grounds to put tariffs on US products.

~~~
gonvaled
Problem is, US will put them too.

Actually, Trump wants to put them for other reasons, so we would be falling on
his trap there.

~~~
nirav72
> US will put them too.

and that will hurt Trump's base supporters more than any other group. The ones
that still work in manufacturing that the U.S exports.

~~~
gonvaled
I really do not care about Trump or his supporters. This is hurting all of us,
specially the coming generations.

~~~
nirav72
Well I agree with you there. Just pointing out that this they basically
cutting their nose to spite the face. They might see some short-term gains,
but in the long-run..it will disproportionately impact them more.

~~~
gonvaled
I wrote hastily, and forgot to point the most crucial observation: I do not
care about Trump's supporters, but I also suspect that _he does not care
either_.

But even that is not the most salient point: it does not matter if my
suspicious is right or wrong. The bottom line is that, whether Trump cares or
not, if his policies turn out hurting his voter base, he will never be
affected by it.

It's a terrible situation: the long term policies of a powerful politician
have absolutely no way of affecting his political career.

He can rejoice in short term benefits: rise in popularity if the economy
improves short term or, in the very specific case of Trump, short term
financial gain thanks to his very complex network of business interests, while
destroying the planet for good.

How can we call that democracy?

------
rodrigocoelho
This is The Weather Channel website
([https://weather.com/](https://weather.com/)) right now (reportedly, I can't
see it due to my location):

[https://twitter.com/johncheese/status/870372600693895170](https://twitter.com/johncheese/status/870372600693895170)

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

~~~
waqf
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.

~~~
blibble
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...](http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/half-of-british-
public-support-more-immigration-of-highly-skilled-workers-poll-
suggests-a7687086.html)

~~~
waqf
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.

~~~
blibble
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

------
vowelless
Can someone give me pros and cons of this move (serious responses only)?

Thanks

~~~
davesque
I think the only way anyone could argue there are any pros is if they could
convince me that Trump has a different long-term plan to address climate
change. Unfortunately, all of his actions up to this point indicate that he
doesn't have any such plan. I really wish people would stop trying to
understand and rationalize this man's actions. He has no rational for what he
does other than his own short-lived whims and the general selfishness and
narcissism that underlies his world view.

~~~
maxxxxx
That's a Republican orthodoxy, not just Trump. Climate change either doesn't
occur, or if it occurs it's not man made, if it's man made nothing can be
done. In any case, doing anything is job killing and anti freedom.

I think Trump himself doesn't care.

~~~
optimuspaul
Seems to me that doing something would actually create jobs, but maybe not
enough to offset those lost? Shortsighted is what it really is. Who cares if
it's job killing if the alternative is civilization killing.

------
reirob
The answer from French president Emmanuel Macron to Trump's announcement (in
English, video, 03:17):

[https://www.pscp.tv/w/1jMKgoodLyqKL](https://www.pscp.tv/w/1jMKgoodLyqKL)

edit: typos, duration of video

~~~
jansho
The silver lining.

 _" All you talented people in the US, allez, France welcomes you with big
arms."_

------
fooker
Times have changed. New York Times mocked India two years ago.

[http://www.indiatimes.com/news/india/new-york-times-mocks-
in...](http://www.indiatimes.com/news/india/new-york-times-mocks-india-yet-
again-this-time-with-a-cartoon-on-climate-change-248245.html)

------
maaaats
Why was this removed from the front page?

------
sergiotapia
Response from the market:
[http://i.imgur.com/CDKVSWq.jpg](http://i.imgur.com/CDKVSWq.jpg)

The Paris Accord according to President Trump would have allowed China to do
whatever they want for the next 13 years, while India would receive billions
in aid.

[http://climateactiontracker.org/countries/usa.html](http://climateactiontracker.org/countries/usa.html)
\- US Pledges ( 26-28%)

VS.

[http://climateactiontracker.org/countries/china.html](http://climateactiontracker.org/countries/china.html)
\- China Pledges (0%)

~~~
lukewink
The announcement came after the market closed, didn't it?

~~~
harryh
Also the announcement wasn't a surprise. To whatever degree this announcement
might have an effect on future corporate earnings (a fairly dubious connection
imho) it was already priced in.

------
clumsysmurf
370 upvotes in 2 hours with 268 comments (as I write this), yet this story is
at the very bottom of the front page of HN at #28 (6:15 EST).

Does HN systematically penalize / shadow censor certain kinds of content?

~~~
greglindahl
You're seeing the effects of a lot of flagging, which is common for things
which are either very political, or for which the discussions are
overwhelmingly lame. This discussion is both.

------
jokermatt999
What are the foreign policy implications of this? Every single other country's
reaction that I've seen has been to beg the US to stay in the accord.

------
gonvaled
It has stopped being funny now.

------
NicoJuicy
The american dream is a prime minister :
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4rWVOeEI7Y](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4rWVOeEI7Y)
. It could be shoved aside. Since the US is now 4 months with Trump, another
44 months to go. I am really wondering what he will do next

------
NicoJuicy
Offtopic, shouldn't this be the #1 post, it's probably blacklisted currently:
[http://imgur.com/XdEShU0](http://imgur.com/XdEShU0)

~~~
an27
Could be manual or because it contains shitpost-attracting keywords, it's a
Trump post after all.

(Not implying Trump or his followers are shit, just that partisan issues
attract shitposts and unfruitful emotional discussions.)

------
vorg
I'd say certain countries have gotten together behind the scenes to take turns
playing bad cop. Now it's America's turn, a few years ago it was Australia who
refused to sign.

------
amichail
Canadians should be happy with the resulting milder winters.

------
defined
Oh, this is just Trump sticking it to Macron for humiliating Trump by crushing
his knuckles in that infamous handshake. /s

------
lxcid
Remember the old story of The Tortoise and The Hare? U.S. is acting like the
Hare now…

------
wollstonecraft
If this bothers you, elect senators who will ratify an actual treaty.

~~~
mikeash
Already did. Too bad my senators are canceled out by the senators chosen by
the 600,000 inhabitants of Wyoming.

~~~
webXL
Pretty flippant solution by the GP, but to your point, there has to be some
consensus among the states, just as there needs to be consensus among nations,
no matter how varied the size of their populations. I'm in a small state, so I
don't want California and New York setting our policy just as much as you
don't want China and India setting yours.

~~~
mikeash
States are pretty arbitrary divisions. If California split into 66 equally
populated pieces, nothing about the people or land would change, but they'd
suddenly have 132 senators instead of 2, and each chunk would still have more
people than Wyoming. Or they could split into 1000 pieces and have 2000
senators and completely dominate Congress. Would that be fair, do you think?

------
thrillgore
I just want the hell out of the US.

------
yogthos
A failed state.

------
PythonicAlpha
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 products.

~~~
exclusiv
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.

~~~
0xFFFE
"China and India given their records on human rights?" Are you suggesting
there is no country in the world where human rights are not violated? I am not
defending the violation, but that sentence sounds naively aloof and
disconnected from reality.

~~~
exclusiv
No I'm not suggesting that at all. I just don't see how Europeans would
gravitate towards alignment with those countries after this news given their
human rights histories and current governments.

The only thing I can think is that Europeans are more environmentalists and
will simply turn the other cheek on those violations so long as they get their
climate change deals. Either that or the notion that they'll be pushed toward
China and India is overblown.

~~~
0xFFFE
Thanks for the polite response and my apologies for being a bit of a dick in
choosing those words. And yes, I agree with the points you made.

