President Trump Pulls U.S. Out of the Paris Climate Accord

[Aviyes]

The biggest concern I see, is that we are trying to continue to affect change to the minor % of polluters. While the big 2 now, China and India are not playing part in the Accords. This goes against so many process improvement concepts that businesses have been utilizing for decades. You don't trim those things that will have a few % effect, but those that will have a large effect on the problem. Without the involvement of reducing the rampant pollution in China and India. What the other countries do is meaningless and will destroy their economies.

 

[Anthony A.]

Everything takes time to change but change starts off small and slow and eventually overcomes the most powerful forces. If all the nations collectively do a small part, then its possible that eventually the big 2 will have no choice to get on board. But if we keep the mentality that our effort is too small to make any meaningful contribution, then change will never come.

Its unfortunate that at the end of the day, the decisions world leaders make are ALWAYS based on money. Everything else is secondary.

 

[Anthony A.]

Yes, more water but a lot less coral. I may have to take up cave diving again!

I guess the upside to global warming is that the rising water levels will allow us to dive the same sites, but deeper

 

[NAM001]

I support it. We are like all nations sovereign . tings like this blur the lines in the best case situation. Also IMO the agreement was made for many other purposes. Purposes that we can not afford. I see blasio is going to continue to function in accordance with the agreement. He can do that because he is governing in a way that meets or exceeds the federal standards. Unlike the way he is treating immigration issues.

 

[NAM001]

Don't know the answer. I have some understanding of how your political system works and what is in your constitution, but am not clear on what can be decided by POTUS and what requires congressional approval.

The constitution requires congress to approve the president entering into a treaty with other nations. What bummer did was rename this from an treaty to an AGREEMENT which the constitution does not consider. In all reality it is a treaty entered into with out authority. On the non american side an agreement is an agreement just like a treaty is a treaty and thus a treaty is an agreement to nations other than America. Other nations expect the US to honor agreements/treatys. The US sees no Paris treaty authorized by congress and so called agreements are not binding any further than an executive order which ends with the elected term. Underhanded ? yes . but the hope of Obama was that Hillary would be POTUS and would keep the agreement going till it's web had consumed the US and we would be unable to get out. Very much like health care. It has to last long enough to get everyone off their INS companies and switched to federal care and it becomes all consuming monster that can not be killed.

 

[Caveeagle]

I guess the upside to global warming is that the rising water levels will allow us to dive the same sites, but deeper

I wish the water level would rise a bit here in cave country. The Santa Fe river is at its lowest point in the last 2 years. Tried to go out on my kayak last wknd and did as much walking as paddling.

 

[Skeptic14]

The biggest concern I see, is that we are trying to continue to affect change to the minor % of polluters. While the big 2 now, China and India are not playing part in the Accords. This goes against so many process improvement concepts that businesses have been utilizing for decades. You don't trim those things that will have a few % effect, but those that will have a large effect on the problem. Without the involvement of reducing the rampant pollution in China and India. What the other countries do is meaningless and will destroy their economies.

Exactly, when you actually examine these accords/pacts vs simply taking a superficial look through an ideological lens it becomes clear that they will be ineffective and either the bureaucracies coming up with these ideas are oblivious or there are other more important agendas aside from science.

 

[NAM001]

Exactly, when you actually examine these accords/pacts vs simply taking a superficial look through an ideological lens it becomes clear that they will be ineffective and either the bureaucracies coming up with these ideas are oblivious or there are other more important agendas aside from science.

WELL PUT

 

[Georgienne Bradley]

Through Sea Save Foundation, I have been a participant in other International CoPs (CITES or the Conference of International Trade of Endangered Species) is one. Through tough work and deliberation, we have successfully gotten hammerheads, mantas, oceanic white tips and many other marine species listed on the Appendices.
The Paris Accord was an agreement that came out of one of these international conferences. According to the agreement, the United States has committed to giving a three-year notice if we want to withdrawal. Trump gave notice in the rose garden a few days ago.
My question is, why would we pull out? We walked away from a discussion. Being part of that discussion did not mandate anything. Leaving the international group and saying we will see if we can negotiate a better agreement in the future does not make sense. We were already at the negotiating table. While personally, I think that we should double down on our commitment, our involvement in the accord did not mean that we would. It just meant that we realized that we need to work together with other sovereign nations if we are going to discuss environmental issues because these challenges do not recognize political boundaries.

 

[Skeptic14]

By not signing the paris accord the US and its industries are in no way precluded from making advancements in clean energy; just as we didn't sign the kyoto protocol and yet still met the emission reductions while countries that did sign didn't all meet them.