shape
carat
color
clarity

President pulled the US out of the Paris Climate Agreement.

Matata

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Sep 10, 2003
Messages
9,045
Why Trump Actually Pulled Out Of Paris
It wasn’t because of the climate, or to help American business. He needed to troll the world—and this was his best shot so far.
By MICHAEL GRUNWALD

June 01, 2017

Donald Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Paris climate agreement was not really about the climate. And despite his overheated rhetoric about the “tremendous” and “draconian” burdens the deal would impose on the U.S. economy, Trump’s decision wasn’t really about that, either. America’s commitments under the Paris deal, like those of the other 194 cooperating nations, were voluntary. So those burdens were imaginary.

No, Trump’s abrupt withdrawal from this carefully crafted multilateral compromise was a diplomatic and political slap: It was about extending a middle finger to the world, while reminding his base that he shares its resentments of fancy-pants elites and smarty-pants scientists and tree-hugging squishes who look down on real Americans who drill for oil and dig for coal. He was thrusting the United States into the role of global renegade, rejecting not only the scientific consensus about climate but the international consensus for action, joining only Syria and Nicaragua (which wanted an even greener deal) in refusing to help the community of nations address a planetary problem. Congress doesn’t seem willing to pay for Trump’s border wall—and Mexico certainly isn’t—so rejecting the Paris deal was an easier way to express his Fortress America themes without having to pass legislation.

Trump was keeping a campaign promise, and his Rose Garden announcement was essentially a campaign speech; it was not by accident that he name-dropped the cities of Youngstown, Ohio, Detroit, Michigan, and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, factory towns in the three Rust Belt states that carried him to victory. Trump’s move won’t have much impact on emissions in the short term, and probably not even in the long term. His claims that the Paris agreement would force businesses to lay off workers and consumers to pay higher energy prices were transparently bogus, because a nonbinding agreement wouldn’t force anything. But Trump’s move to abandon it will have a huge impact on the global community’s view of America, and of a president who would rather troll the free world than lead it.

Of course, trolling the world is the essence of Trump’s America First political brand, and Thursday’s announcement reinforced his persona as an unapologetic rebel who won’t let foreigners try to tell America what to do, even when major corporations, his secretary of state, and his daughter Ivanka want him to do it. He was also leaning into his political identity as Barack Obama’s photographic negative, dismantling Obama’s progressive legacy, kicking sand in the wimpy cosmopolitan faces of Obama’s froufrou citizen-of-the-world pals.

But it’s important to recall what Obama did and didn’t do when he led the community of nations to a deal in Paris. He didn’t let the world dictate U.S. energy policy, because Paris is only a mechanism for announcing national commitments to cut emissions, not for enforcing those commitments. He didn’t commit America to unrealistically ambitious emissions goals, either, just a 27 percent reduction from 2005 levels by 2025, not that drastic considering that the U.S. led the world in emissions before Obama and led the world in emissions reductions under Obama. Our electricity sector has already achieved that 27 percent goal, thanks to the continuing decline of coal power, and while our transportation sector has a long way to go, Obama’s strict fuel-efficiency standards and the expansion of electric vehicles has it heading in the right direction. The real triumph of Paris wasn’t America’s promises; it was the serious commitments from China, India and other developing nations that had previously insisted on their right to burn unlimited carbon until their economies caught up to the developed world.

Similarly, it’s important not to exaggerate the substantive impact of Trump’s decision to bail on Paris, which will officially remove the United States from the agreement in late 2020 at the earliest. It’s a signal that the U.S. government no longer cares about the climate, but that’s been abundantly clear ever since Trump won the election and appointed an energetic fossil-fuel advocate named Scott Pruitt to run the Environmental Protection Agency. Leaving Paris won’t reverse the rapid decline of coal or the boom of cleaner energy in America, because the economics of coal have fallen apart while the cost of wind and solar have plummeted, and it won’t stop that same trend in China, India and the rest of the world. By the same token, if Trump had announced he was staying in the Paris deal, that wouldn’t have meant that Trump was abandoning his efforts to gut Obama’s climate regulations (like the Clean Power Plan for the electricity sector) and other climate policies (like those fuel efficiency standards for cars and trucks). Really, it would have been pretty weird for Trump to remain in the deal while trying to undermine everything the U.S. was doing to live up to its commitments.

Meanwhile, the earth is still warming, the polar ice caps are still melting, and the seas are still rising, heedless of the inspiring words committed to paper in Paris, and just as heedless of a noisy American politician’s decision to reject them. Trump may believe climate change is a hoax manufactured in China, and congressional Republicans may continue to oppose any action to address it, but that won’t make the physical realities of climate-driven droughts, floods, pandemics and refugee migrations any less brutal. It’s reminiscent of the old riddle: If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a horse have? Four, because a tail is not a leg. Trump can call global warming a hoax, but 2014 was nevertheless the hottest year on record, until it was displaced by 2015, which was overtaken by 2016. That tail is not a leg.

Still, it matters that the president of the United States seems to think it is, and no matter what he thinks, it matters more that he’s announcing to the nations of the world that he intends to ignore an issue they consider vital to the planet. He is creating an intentional leadership vacuum, dispensing with the long-standing notion of the United States as the indispensable nation—just as he did when he withdrew from the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal in Asia, with his tepid commitments to NATO on his trip to Europe, and with his proposal for drastic budget cuts in foreign aid and international diplomacy. He is making it clear that America First means the problems of the world are not America’s problems. He’s opening the door for China and Europe to take over the role of global leaders on climate change, and maybe the world’s other major problems.

The thing is, climate change is absolutely America’s problem, not just in the long run but now; scientists believe it has already exacerbated the human and economic losses from California’s drought, Superstorm Sandy, and the Zika virus. At the same time, the battle against climate change is an American opportunity; the U.S. solar industry already employs twice as many workers as the U.S. coal industry, and climate solutions in general—not just renewables but energy-efficient products and materials, batteries and other storage, sustainable forestry, carbon capture, and much more—will be one of the biggest growth sectors of the 21st century. Trump is basically telling clean-energy innovators they should go create jobs somewhere else.

The entire debate over Paris has twisted Republicans in knots. They used to argue against climate action in the U.S. by pointing out that it wouldn’t bind China and other developing-world emitters; then they argued that Paris wouldn’t really bind the developing world, either, but somehow would bind the United States. In fact, China is doing its part, dramatically winding down a coal boom that could have doomed the planet, frenetically investing in zero-carbon energy. And it will probably continue to do its part even though the president of the United States is volunteering for the role of climate pariah. It’s quite likely that the United States will continue to do its part as well, because no matter what climate policies he thinks will make America great again, Trump can’t make renewables expensive again or coal economical again or electric vehicles nonexistent again. California just set a target of 100 percent renewable energy by 2045, and many U.S. cities and corporations have set even more ambitious goals for shrinking their carbon footprints. Trump can’t do much about that, either.

What Trump can do is remind his supporters—and everyone else on the planet—which side he’s on, and, more to the point, which side he’s fighting. He’s taking a shirts-and-skins stand against liberals, against goo-goos, against condescending scolds in Birkenstocks who don’t like Styrofoam or hulking SUVs or real Americans, against naive globalists who want the U.S. to suck up to the French and the Chinese and the United Nations. Climate change will affect the entire earth, from drought-ravaged farm villages in Africa to flood-prone condo towers in Miami, but for Trump it’s just a symbol of the stuff that people who don’t like Trump care about. Paris is just an Obama legacy that he can kill, when he doesn’t have the votes to kill Obama’s health reforms or Wall Street regulations or tax hikes on the wealthy. Whatever damage Trump’s climate policies cause to the planet will be collateral damage, shrapnel from his political war on elites and the left and Obama.

But that won’t make the damage any less real. The United States happens to be located on that planet, and it’s the only known planet with pizza, whether the president wants to protect it or not. The United States is also part of the community of nations, and it’s a community with many common interests, whether the president wants to lead it or not.
 

Karl_K

Super_Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Aug 4, 2008
Messages
14,706

"For three-quarters of a century, the U.S. led and protected Europe."
It is well past time for them to stand on their own feet.
Why should we spend money to defend them when they wont spend there own money to defend themselves? Why should one more once of American blood be shed when they wont step up themselves?
The US don't owe Europe anything.
We have paid time and time again with the blood of our youth for Europe and trillions of dollars is cash.
We owe nothing.
 

Matata

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Sep 10, 2003
Messages
9,045
Karl,
Let's talk later when the weapons twitler is selling to the Saudis makes it into ISIS's hands and they're used against us and no one comes to help.
 

Karl_K

Super_Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Aug 4, 2008
Messages
14,706
"At that point, it was clear to the rest of those seated around the table that they had lost him. Resigned, Macron admitted defeat. "Now China leads," he said."
If Europe decides to turn to China for leadership. Well good luck with that.
I feel sorry for them but not enough to shed one once of blood nor trillions of dollars more when it explodes in their face.
 

Karl_K

Super_Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Aug 4, 2008
Messages
14,706
Karl,
Let's talk later when the weapons twitler is selling to the Saudis makes it into ISIS's hands and they're used against us and no one comes to help.
What would Europe do to help with that that we can not do ourselves?
They admit they cant even defend themselves.
 
Last edited:

Karl_K

Super_Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Aug 4, 2008
Messages
14,706
The US has reached energy independence any agreement that threatens that is bad for the USA. Why should we pay out money to other countries? History has proven time and time again that it will be all lost to corruption anyway. That is my bottom line and why we should never have agreed to it.
 

Karl_K

Super_Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Aug 4, 2008
Messages
14,706
As far as 3rd world infrastructure goes there is no need to follow the path that other countries have taken during their industrial revolutions.
They would be dumb to do so.
It is both cheaper, faster and also more environmentally friendly to use modern technology.
For example. Phones. Any country running new phone lines is dumb.
Wireless backed by fiber optics is much cheaper and much faster to put in place.
It is also the environmentally friendlier choice.
 

Matata

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Sep 10, 2003
Messages
9,045
The US has reached energy independence any agreement that threatens that is bad for the USA.
We have not. We are still overly dependent on fossil fuels and still the 2nd in gaseous emissions. You must have missed while reading the Paris Accord that there are no threats to US participation.
History has proven time and time again that it will be all lost to corruption anyway.
What has been lost to corruption? The money? If you're speaking of corruption in corporate America. I agree.
 

Matata

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Sep 10, 2003
Messages
9,045
s far as 3rd world infrastructure goes there is no need to follow the path that other countries have taken during their industrial revolutions.
They would be dumb to do so.
Those 3rd world countries you refer to are developing their economies based on renewable resources.

And perhaps you missed it in Der Spiegel article, but Europeans are embracing the idea of becoming independent of the US. There is a power shift occurring that threatens to make the US a 2nd world nation. It is to be determined whether the new leader of the free world, and hence the most powerful nation, will be comprised of a European coalition or whether China will dominate.

The important consequence of our withdrawal is the gap left in leadership. If you are content to see the US become less than it is, fine. I am not.
 

Karl_K

Super_Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Aug 4, 2008
Messages
14,706
What has been lost to corruption? The money? If you're speaking of corruption in corporate America. I agree.
Corruption is 3rd world countries. Even in second world nations for that matter.
How much of US aid is lost to corruption?
In some cases 100%.

Since this is a diamond forum. Look into where the diamond money goes in 3rd world diamond producing countries.

btw I will agree there is a lot of corruption in corporate America even more in government, banking and unions.
 

Matata

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Sep 10, 2003
Messages
9,045
How much of US aid is lost to corruption?
In some cases 100%.
Show me the data, not because I doubt you, but because I'm curious.
Look into where the diamond money goes in 3rd world diamond producing countries.
Tell me please. To rich diamond mine owners?
 

Karl_K

Super_Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Aug 4, 2008
Messages
14,706
We have not. We are still overly dependent on fossil fuels and still the 2nd in gaseous emissions.
Fossil fuels from the US, and more than a bit from Canada since the gas I burn in my car comes from Canadian oil.
We are already on a path as alternatives become technologically feasible and economically viable they are being added to the mix.
You know what is the largest thing holding back wind power in the US?
Liberals not in my backyard syndrome.
For a variety of technical reasons wind power is best generated and used fairly locally.
That means they are best placed just outside large concentrations of people.
woops that is where the wealthy liberals(and a few conservatives in some areas) live and "no no not in my back yard!"
 

Karl_K

Super_Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Aug 4, 2008
Messages
14,706

Matata

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Sep 10, 2003
Messages
9,045
You know what is the largest thing holding back wind power in the US?
Did a quick Google search https://www.google.com/search?q=win.....69i57j0l5.2395j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

All articles say we are the #1 producer in the world and the industry continues to grow exponentially here. Doesn't appear to me that liberals are holding back the wind.

The #1 con to wind energy, for me at least and I'm sure a few environmentalists, is the vast amount of space required for wind farms. It means counting down trees -- which is counterproductive to a healthy environment or using valuable farm land and open space. And then there's the 50-60 decibel sound they produce which might have an adverse effect on those who have them in their backyard.
 

Karl_K

Super_Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Aug 4, 2008
Messages
14,706
The #1 con to wind energy, for me at least and I'm sure a few environmentalists, is the vast amount of space required for wind farms. It means counting down trees -- which is counterproductive to a healthy environment or using valuable farm land and open space. And then there's the 50-60 decibel sound they produce which might have an adverse effect on those who have them in their backyard.

I can not resist saying it.....
That sounds an awful lot like "not in my back yard"

Here is an example:
http://www.politico.com/states/new-...ymies-community-initiated-wind-project-108515

We had one project that got killed by mainly liberals within 10 miles of me.
It was an interesting coalition of liberals and conservatives that were pushing it.
But the very strongly liberal county passed laws by voter referendum that killed it.

night night
 

redwood66

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Aug 22, 2012
Messages
7,329
We live on a windy prairie and a neighbor of mine has a wind turbine for additional power. He is connected to the grid as well. It is extremely expensive to set up. Many in the surrounding more rural areas have hydro and solar power and are not grid tied. We have checked into cost for a setup on a rural property and it is feasible but likely $30k for the solar package we would need. You can do it cheaper for a smaller setup. I would like it if for no other reason than self sufficiency.
 

Arkteia

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Nov 3, 2009
Messages
7,589
"For three-quarters of a century, the U.S. led and protected Europe."
It is well past time for them to stand on their own feet.
Why should we spend money to defend them when they wont spend there own money to defend themselves? Why should one more once of American blood be shed when they wont step up themselves?
The US don't owe Europe anything.
We have paid time and time again with the blood of our youth for Europe and trillions of dollars is cash.
We owe nothing.
Well, military industry gives jobs. And someone buys our aeroplanes and other armaments. So it is not free.

I am coming from the country for whom America did not spill its blood. However, it did another, very important, thing. I am speaking about lend-lease that helped the Soviet Union to reverse the course of war and ultimately to prevail upon Nazi Germany.

The US lend-lease program was helping many Allies countries, and the one who returned it back was GB, but the war in the SU was so harsh that maybe there was nothing to return.

It is a big mistake, however, to assume that the US was the only country involved in lend-lease. For example, the first country to supply the SU (with Hurricanes) was Great Britain. In June of 1941, and US lend-lease officially started in December of 1941.

Also, not to forget that Canada, a much smaller country, had own lend-lease program and later, too, sent its soldiers.

To feel unique protector in the face of real threat to world peace may lead us far, and it is not the right way to look.at things...

Because "us" was very split. Simple statistic of Roosevelt's time:

"69 percent of Democrats were unequivocally in favor of Lend-Lease, whereas only 38 percent of Republicans favored the bill without qualification".

Here is how the lend-lease bill passed the Congress: 79% Democrats voted "Aye", 21% "Nay". Among Republicans, 37% voted "Aye", and 63%'- "Nay"...

America was never united, it was never us. But thank god at the time of brown threat to the world it had Roosevelt the Democrat as the President.

Some food for thought about leading and protecting Europe. You are right, Karl, but in theory. In practice, it still comes up to collaboration.
 

Karl_K

Super_Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Aug 4, 2008
Messages
14,706
Some food for thought about leading and protecting Europe. You are right, Karl, but in theory. In practice, it still comes up to collaboration.
Yes it is a bit more complex than one quick post can cover, even if the basics are right.

Thousands of Americans voluntarily donated guns to be sent to Britain, Australia and others, if I remember right that was started before lend-lease was official.

Talking about Britain and Canada.
Canada's military spending these days and for many many years is basically a joke.
They have fine and outstanding service people. I know a few and my Wifey4vr knows more.
She grew up a mile from a large Canadian Air force base which has been mostly empty compared to its size except when the US Air Force visits for exercises.
Search and rescue is most of the planes there.
They provide many things to their people that the US does not and a big reason they can afford to do so is they get a near free ride from the US on defense.

I do have a soft spot for Britain this century they have been the our partners many times.
But they to have also let their military slide because they rely on the US.
Going to war without Britain would be sad.

One of the things I respect most about Israel is they are willing to stand on their feet militarily.
I also respect S. Korea, they walk the walk even with the US right there with them.
It would be easy to let the US carry the load but they don't sit back and do what they can.

To me the bottom line is the US can no longer carry the world and it is time to deal with the internal stuff that has been let slide while we sent money off overseas.
 

Arkteia

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Nov 3, 2009
Messages
7,589
Karl, you say "going to.war without Britain would be sad". I think, "going to was would be sad", period. It is the long chain of events starting with USSR invasion of Afghanistan and ending with US invasion of Iraq that brings us ISIS now. To say nothing about the "lost generation" during the Vietnam war. Why would we need another war? Anywhere? Who is attacking us?

Israel...do you know how much money we send to Israel? Our taxpayers' money? Surely Israel will stand with us, no doubt.

If Trump said, we can not bear the cost of the arms race because we want to have nice things for Americans like universal health care or education like in Finland... But he did not put it in such a way. And he is not thinking of healthcare or education. Rather, the opposite.
 
Be a part of the community Get 3 HCA Results
Top