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

[BertStevens]

Much of the hysteria is hyperbole. Even if all of the extremely ambitious plan is implemented (an unlikely scenario), global temperatures will only be reduced by .17 of a degree Celsius by 2100. In other words, the agreement does virtually nothing to save the planet.

What the Paris Climate Agreement does do is harm hard working Americans. Not only will the agreement result in higher energy prices, but resulting US policies would also do great damage to the economy.

 

[Georgienne Bradley]

Even if all of the extremely ambitious plan is implemented (an unlikely scenario), global temperatures will only be reduced by .17 of a degree Celsius by 2100. In other words, the agreement does virtually nothing to save the planet.

I am very confused by this point. If the agreement did not do enough, why are we receding? Why not stay engaged and urge the global community to "double down" on the agreement so the results will be more ambitious?

To use a loose metaphor, if a trauma victim is hemorrhaging blood and a first responder applies pressure but it is not enough to stop the bleeding, the next step is to apply more pressure, not to walk away.

 

[drrich2]

If the agreement did not do enough, why are we receding?

If I understand other's input rightly, the logic would be that it had substantial anticipated costs and negligible anticipated benefit. I don't know whether the underlying evidence backs that up, but it would be logical.

Similarly, if you've got a hemorrhaging patient, and you apply pressure somewhere without evident benefit, you don't just press harder, but maybe re-think what you're doing; are you pressing the right point in the right way?

Backing out of this accord is not the same as walking away from the planet (represented by the hemorrhage victim in your scenario).

Richard.

 

[Jared0425]

I find it highly doubtful that developing countries have the ability to cut the percentage of emissions that was outlined in this so called agreement. Do you really expect that China, India, Brazil, and Russia will take lead and invest their capital to this? It is estimated that China alone has a $4-6 Trillion environmental disaster that will need to be addressed within the decade. Do you think that China's teetering economy will be able to afford such action? We may have a billions in damage to clean up from 150 years of industrialization but nothing on the scale of the countries mentioned above. India said it could not begin to cut their emissions unless they got around $3 trillion to their economy, and where do they expect that money to come from? The world expected the United States to foot the bill and the president saw right through it. Elon Musk and other CEO's are complaining because their companies are heavily subsidized by the US government in the so called "green energy" sector.

I love the environment also. I like the clean lakes and untouched forests, but I also like my way of living. It should be the peoples choice if they want to participate, not forced by the government that we elect and should control!

 

[Skeptic14]

Similarly, if you've got a hemorrhaging patient, and you apply pressure somewhere without evident benefit, you don't just press harder, but maybe re-think what you're doing; are you pressing the right point in the right way?

Backing out of this accord is not the same as walking away from the planet (represented by the hemorrhage victim in your scenario).

Richard.

Excellent analogy.

 

[Midwesterndvr]

If the majority of the American people agree with the goals set in the accord maybe they would take personal steps in their own lives to control carbon emissions. I don't think the government should have anymore control then they have been given. In recent memory I can't think of any instances when more government control benefits anyone but government regulators lawyers and donors. If carbon emissions are important to anyone let control start with the individual.

 

[tilikum]

If we leave it to individuals, I have severe doubts any meaningful dent will be made. We are a consumerist society.

 

[NAM001]

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.

There is a joke that applies.

A man goes into a bar and orders a round for all in the bar. Everyone is happy and this guy is a real pal. Then the barkeeper asks for payment and the pal replies. When I drink everyone drinks, and when I pay everyone pays. The accord bought a lot of beer for many nations on the tab of the USA because the USA could afford it ????? In addition the accord was only the first step in the US becoming subject to the one world order. Again UNSAT. Any one that has to borrow a trillion a year can not afford beer for themselves let alone for everyone else.

 

[tilikum]

You lost all credibility with that one world order crap.

 

[NAM001]

I am very confused by this point. If the agreement did not do enough, why are we receding? Why not stay engaged and urge the global community to "double down" on the agreement so the results will be more ambitious?

To use a loose metaphor, if a trauma victim is hemorrhaging blood and a first responder applies pressure but it is not enough to stop the bleeding, the next step is to apply more pressure, not to walk away.

It would also make sense to insure that every one is willing to continue pressure treatment themselves.