President pulled the US out of the Paris Climate Agreement.

[E B]

This is the kind of stupidity standing firmly in the way of progress. The worst, most stubborn kind.

 

[siamese3]

I was out all day yesterday, and missed watching the "big reveal" live yesterday, so I am just catching up on this daily shit show this morning. Ugh! How about the crazy jazz trio??? Watching him speak is like watching a bad movie, about a former reality tv star being elected president, and the ensuing calamity that follows. Listening to Republicans defend him is even nuttier. I love that Anderson Cooper lost it and said something to the effect that if Trump took a dump on the Oval office desk they would defend him. Priceless. They would say, "learning curve" or "he's a different kind of president." I will end with my usual. SAD!

 

[Mrs2Ouch]

I buy jeans, silverware and flatware, everything I can find made in the US and it may cost more but not even twice as much.
On top of that most of the cheap junk people buy are throwaway items that further pile up in landfills.

 

[Karl_K]

The processes needed to make that happen (if indeed it CAN happen -- I don't know enough about manufacturing to speak to that point) would take a LONG time to put in place. The price increases on goods will be much more immediate. In those intervening years the majority of people aren't going to care that "America is being made great again," they will care that their previously 69 cent gizmo now costs five times that. Try explaining the larger macro long term impact to a family of four scraping by in a way that will matter to them when their two hard earned paychecks no longer stretch far enough to house, clothe and feed their children.

It will take time but it is already happening.
Take batteries which is a high pollution industry in China.
The 2 largest battery factories are being built and will be very green.... In the the US and Germany. Both countries with high labor costs.
To force it with a law to happen quickly yea would create a problem for people.
However creating an environment where investment in the US over offshore just makes sense over the long term will help everyone in the US.

 

[Karl_K]

Karl, the reason why it's so much less expensive products elsewhere a lot is labor costs. So you automate or semi automate to bring down costs. Fine it brings down costs. But it's not going to create new "American" jobs, unless you consider robots as Americans.

50 US higher paying jobs in an automated factory are better than 0 jobs.
The argument that the jobs will be all done by robots as an excuse not to do it is very short sighted.

 

[Calliecake]

I was out all day yesterday, and missed watching the "big reveal" live yesterday, so I am just catching up on this daily shit show this morning. Ugh! How about the crazy jazz trio??? Watching him speak is like watching a bad movie, about a former reality tv star being elected president, and the ensuing calamity that follows. Listening to Republicans defend him is even nuttier. I love that Anderson Cooper lost it and said something to the effect that if Trump took a dump on the Oval office desk they would defend him. Priceless. They would say, "learning curve" or "he's a different kind of president." I will end with my usual. SAD!

Siamese, Did you see Pence's introduction before Trump came out to give his speech? That was enough to make you lose your lunch. This administration is damn good at patting each other on the back as they wreck havoc on everything thing they touch. SAD!

 

[telephone89]

I'd agree with you Kenny.
I think Trump can bring jobs back to the U.S. but will americans willing to pay 3X more for American made products?

One thing I've noticed; of the Americans that I am close with, the ones who really support local businesses are more likely to be the liberal far lefters. One of my [hippy] friends will not support any chain business, and only buys from their farmers market or local owned grocery stores, local book stores, no chain coffee shops, etc. I'm not saying its a 'liberal' thing to do, but its just something that I've noticed. Whereas conservatives look at the trickle down, these people don't seem to see that value, and thus avoid walmart, even if they provide 100 jobs per store.

 

[Calliecake]

The processes needed to make that happen (if indeed it CAN happen -- I don't know enough about manufacturing to speak to that point) would take a LONG time to put in place. The price increases on goods will be much more immediate. In those intervening years the majority of people aren't going to care that "America is being made great again," they will care that their previously 69 cent gizmo now costs five times that. Try explaining the larger macro long term impact to a family of four scraping by in a way that will matter to them when their two hard earned paychecks no longer stretch far enough to house, clothe and feed their children.

The company I worked for moved all their manufacturing Jobs to Mexico in the late 80's. I remember listening to the older men at work saying exactly what you are saying back then DeeJay. Fast forward 30 years and I can't see this happening at all. If Trump believed he could make profits and sell product both his and Ivanka would have already moved their factories back here. All you hear is crickets on that subject and you know if he was planning on moving his factories back he would singing it from the rooftops. It would be mentioned repeatedly in all Sean Spicers briefings.

 

[redwood66]

Article from 2015
http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2015/11/why-the-paris-climate-deal-is-meaningless-000326

The actual agreement filled with "aim" and "should" except for "shall" being used when it comes to payment to "developing" countries and the developed nations meeting standards they have set for themselves while the developing ones can just sit and do nothing or backtrack as indicated in the article above.
https://unfccc.int/files/essential_background/convention/application/pdf/english_paris_agreement.pdf

 

[siamese3]

Siamese, Did you see Pence's introduction before Trump came out to give his speech? That was enough to make you lose your lunch. This administration is damn good at patting each other on the back as they wreck havoc on everything thing they touch. SAD!

It's a total freak show. ENJOY!

 

[partgypsy]

Karl, what Trump is doing is very short-sighted, and the business leaders of the US disagree with his approach.
https://citizensclimatelobby.org/laser-talks/jobs-fossil-fuels-vs-renewables/

 

[E B]

Anyone watching this briefing with Pruitt? He's been asked three times in the past 10 minutes if Trump believes climate change is a hoax, and he won't answer. No one will. Because the answer is yes, we have crazy scream-at-the-clouds in between Fox News and Infowars binges man as president. But the optics of actually saying this aren't great, no matter how apparent.

 

[Karl_K]

Karl, what Trump is doing is very short-sighted, and the business leaders of the US disagree with his approach.
https://citizensclimatelobby.org/laser-talks/jobs-fossil-fuels-vs-renewables/

Those numbers only work if you consider the short term.
All those conversion jobs are not permanent.
Talk about short sighted.

I haven't read enough to cut through the noise to see what he is actually proposing.

My thoughts are let technology lead, and punish China for dumping would be a good start.
You can not force technology by law.
You incentivize R&D to push technology.
The tax code and the all for this quarter stock market hurt r&d in the US.

 

[Karl_K]

You incentivize R&D to push technology.

By incentivize I do not mean direct government funding, that money is always wasted.

 

[katharath]

Well, we all knew his legacy was going to be one giant pile of s*** anyway.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-apos-decision-pull-paris-234538174.html

 

[Dancing Fire]

I buy jeans, silverware and flatware, everything I can find made in the US and it may cost more but not even twice as much.
On top of that most of the cheap junk people buy are throwaway items that further pile up in landfills.

I too would pay more for "made in the U.S.A." products before I buy cheap poorly made Chinese products. i.e...I paid 2X the money for an American made water pump and its been running 24/7 for the past 9 yrs and still going strong, had I chosen a cheap Chinese made junk I would be on my 3rd pump by now, so in the long run I saved $$$ buying a well made product from the get-go.

 

[Dancing Fire]

China is the biggest polluter on earth. They don't give a shit about the environment. Don't believe me? go to any industrialized city in China and look up in the sky to see if you can spot the sun. The layers of smog in those cities is 10X worse than L.A.

 

[Karl_K]

China is the biggest polluter on earth. They don't give a shit about the environment. Don't believe me? go to any industrialized city in China and look up in the sky to see if you can spot the sun. The layers of smog in those cities is 10X worse than L.A.

Foxconn the maker of almost all the Apple products is one of the worst but who cares right?
Gotta have that iphone.

 

[Snowdrop13]

China is the biggest polluter on earth. They don't give a shit about the environment. Don't believe me? go to any industrialized city in China and look up in the sky to see if you can spot the sun. The layers of smog in those cities is 10X worse than L.A.

The US is responsible for 15% of the world's carbon emissions, which is second in the world after China. Stop blaming everyone else.

I heard an interview on BBC radio yesterday, featuring two Americans who had worked all over the world as policy advisors- the comment that struck me was "this is the first time that America has chosen to be on the wrong side of history".

 

[Rhea]

From my perspective it looks like this:

Sign up to Paris Agreement. Meet goals. Yes, spend money to help developing nations now going through what the US went through during the Industrial Revolution. That sucks but being able to skip from pre-IR to clean energy = big win for entire world. Yes, spend money to invest in new and cleaner tech, but make money selling those skills and goods back to the nations in need of them as they develop.

Leave Paris Agreement. Meet goals or not, no one is keeping tabs on US any longer, plus it was only watered down to please the US to begin with anyhow. When the tech and appliances are manufactured hope that US residents want them because other other countries won't want or will place a higher tax on US's "dirty" tech and goods. Let China take charge. They're currently a large polluter, but it's starting to change. Let's not forget US is a very close 2nd place and China recently cancelled several plants to head toward green energy (source - www.nytimes.com/2017/01/18/world/asia/china-coal-power-plants-pollution.html) US ends up behind the curve (to China!) for a huge and developing industry which already employs more people in the US than coal many times over.

Verdict. I get putting yourself and your country first. No one is saying don't do that. I just think doing it, while lending a hand to the rest of the currently developing world, benefiting the entire population's future, and profiting yourself in the long term is a win-win for everybody.

 

[House Cat]

http://www.businessinsider.com/china-green-energy-plan-2017-5

China's efforts to eliminate coal.

 

[Karl_K]

This is the kind of stupidity standing firmly in the way of progress. The worst, most stubborn kind.

It is also the truth today.
The technology is not there to go entirely solar or wind and likely never will be.
The only answer today is oil or natural gas generators to supplement the nuke and coal which are not instant start when solar and wind are low and are not that green.
That is expensive because you are basically paying twice for generating capacity.

Both have environmental problems of their own.
Solar and wind power both have local and very likely global climate impacts that may or may not create more problems than they solve.

When electric cars become more popular there is going to be a huge surge in demand that will have to be met.
Solar will not help at all when everyone comes home and plugs there car into the wall in the winter months.

 

[AnnaH]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-skips-climate-church-1496431295
Short article. Few here will agree, but just because someone is unpopular doesn't make him wrong.

 

[lovedogs]

Can't read the article because not subscribed to WSJ, but the first sentence already misses the point. To argue that the Paris Agreement has "nothing to do with climate change" is flat out wrong.

 

[AnnaH]

You should be able to read it if you google.

 

[Calliecake]

Are you serious Anna? The first sentence is false Do you really think the Paris agreement has nothing to do with climate change? I am also unable to read the whole article. Most of the world believe in science. Everything Trump does sets us back as a nation. It's as if he wants to wipe out any progress we have made in the world the past 50 years. That is why so many people are emotional and upset. I'm sorry you don't agree. I would like the children today to grow up in a better world with clean air, clean water and not the destruction global warming can cause. Isn't that what we all should want? If Hillary were president and did what Trump just did, I would just as upset. This has nothing to do with what side you are on politically. It's about what is best for the world.

And just so we are clear no one is being a mean girl. I would never accuse you of this and am not happy that you said this about me. I am far from perfect but I am not a mean person.

 

[redwood66]

The mean girl comment was on another thread and not about you.

If you click read the full article from here you should be able to read it.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/2017/06/03/president_trump_skips_climate_church_412018.html

Or here it is for those that do not want to click.

By
Holman W. Jenkins, Jr.
Updated June 2, 2017 6:47 p.m. ET
572 COMMENTS
The business case for the Paris agreement has nothing to do with climate change. It goes like this: It is better to be part of any confab than outside of it. Like saluting the flag or bowing your head in church, there is no cost to being insincere, but there is a cost to not going along.

Let us understand something: 195 countries will not be dragged kicking and screaming to sign any agreement that imposes a cost on them. Such deals exist only because they provide an international imprimatur to what politicians were going to do anyway.

The oil countries like Saudi Arabia and Norway signed. They plan to keep producing oil. India and China plan to grow energy consumption until it is similar to the per capita consumption of the developed countries, at which point it will level off.


The U.S. and Europe intend to keep subsidizing green energy as long as domestic voters give them permission to do so, because the whole point of being in office is to redirect resources to interest groups best able to reward politicians for doling out the goodies.

The Paris countries agreed to meet certain emissions targets, and claimed an intent to hold a planetary temperature increase to less than 2 degrees Celsius.

Not only are the emission targets unenforceable, they have no intelligible relation to the temperature goal according to the very iffy science. By the shot-in-the-dark estimates of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, it’s even possible the rest of the century will bring little warming anyway.

And that’s good. Because the unenforceable cuts agreed to in Paris would be a rounding error even if carried out.

In the 30 years since global warming became a daily concern of the newspapers, one lesson has been reliably demonstrated for policy participants: There is no appetite in the body politic for the kinds of energy taxes and prohibitions needed to make a meaningful change in atmospheric CO 2 .

We won’t dwell on the media hysteria since the Trump decision, or why many of you, dear readers, in defiance of your own reason, will participate in the hysteria even when you know better. Human beings are social animals. When a mob is forming, we experience high anxiety if we’re not part of it.

Agreements like Paris arguably aim at the wrong target anyway. Only when technology can meet mankind’s energy demand at competitive cost will low-carbon energy prevail. Governments would be wise to invest in basic energy research rather than throwing money at energy technologies that are viable only as long as the subsidies keep flowing. But the latter is what brings in the political bacon.

Oh well. Hypocrisy is the universal solvent of social relations. This also explains the other big climate story of the day, which reporters have given themselves hypoxia trying to inflate the significance of. We’re referring to the vote by 62% of Exxon shareholders, led by giant funds Vanguard, Fidelity and BlackRock, to ask the company to explain how the Paris temperature target would affect its business.

For 30 years there has been push-and-pull in politics over climate change. During every nanosecond of that time, at least while markets were open, investors were repricing energy shares in light of the possibility of climate change legislation.


Exxon has nothing new or useful to tell investors in this regard. Would a carbon tax be good for bad for the company? It would accelerate the displacement of coal by natural gas, which Exxon produces. Is an electric-car battery in the offing that would go 300 miles and be rechargeable in a five-minute stop at a charging station? Probably not. In which case, even a sizable carbon tax would be unlikely to make much dent in the 8% of global emissions caused by passenger cars. Americans bought 143 billion gallons of gas last year when the price was $2.25; they bought 133 billion gallons in 2012 when the price was $3.64.

“Our patience is not infinite,” huffed a statement by BlackRock, the $5.4 trillion Wall Street fund, as it voted for Exxon’s climate penance.

This gesture, of surpassing meaninglessness, is a case of one prominent institution trying to buff up its reputation for church attendance at the expense of another.

And yet, regardless of Mr. Trump’s Paris decision, only one large national economy has been reporting sizable emissions declines, thanks to fracking. The same economy may soon also be able to take credit for slowing China’s prodigious emissions growth thanks to natural gas exports to displace Chinese coal. That country is the U.S. under the unthinkable monster Donald Trump. Whatever evolution toward a lower-carbon energy system takes place in the future, it will also certainly be driven overwhelmingly by technology and markets, not policy.

Appeared in the June 3, 2017, print edition.

 

[AnnaH]

Thanks, Red.

 

[Karl_K]

Why should the US taxpayers pay for things in other countries?
That money is better spent on upgraded and yes more efficient infrastructure here.
There are thousands(maybe millions) of roads and bridges and dams that need to be repaired or replaced right here in the US.

 

[Dancing Fire]

Why should the US taxpayers pay for things in other countries?
That money is better spent on upgraded and yes more efficient infrastructure here.
There are thousands(maybe millions) of roads and bridges and dams that need to be repaired or replaced right here in the US.

Yes!!..