California defies Trump and signs climate deal with China

[Dougz]

[QUOTE]With President Donald Trump pulling the U.S. out of the Paris climate accord, China and California signed an agreement Tuesday to work together on reducing emissions, as the state's governor warned that "disaster still looms" without urgent action.

Gov. Jerry Brown told The Associated Press at an international clean energy conference in Beijing that Trump's decision to pull the U.S. out of the Paris agreement will ultimately prove only a temporary setback.

For now, he said, China, European countries and individual U.S. states will fill the gap left by the federal government's move to abdicate leadership on the issue.

"Nobody can stay on the sidelines. We can't afford any dropouts in the tremendous human challenge to make the transition to a sustainable future," Brown said. "Disaster still looms and we've got to make the turn."

Brown later held a closed-door meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping, during which the two pledged to expand trade between California and China with an emphasis on so-called green technologies that could help address climate change, Brown said. Trump's announcement last week that he wants to pull out of the Paris accord did not come up, according to the governor.[/QUOTE]

[url]http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/california-gov-brown-us-stay-climate-fight-47856346[/url]

[Destroyox]

California über alles [sp] don't take this seriously [/sp]

[S31-Syntax]

Can't wait for more states to middle-finger orangeatang

[Jaguar]

[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;52319464]Can't wait for more states to middle-finger orangeatang[/QUOTE]

I'm just waiting for Republicans to begin opposing states' rights because of this

[G-Man]

Watch as Trump and his lackeys accuse California of treason.

[Zero-Point]

[QUOTE=Spetsnaz95;52319573]Watch as Trump and his lackeys accuse California of treason.[/QUOTE]

"California's LIBERAL ELITE are buddy-ing up with CHINA! Aiding and abetting the enemy?!" - Sean Hannity's opening headline

[CP-26]

[QUOTE=Spetsnaz95;52319573]Watch as Trump and his lackeys accuse California of treason.[/QUOTE]

All the better reason to join the New California Republic two hundred years early.

[proboardslol]

Can states make treaties with foreign countries? Isn't that like federalism 101? Not that I'm complaining but could the federal government attempt to stop this somehow?

[HumanAbyss]

This is actually beyond their abilities to do AFAIK.

States cannot make deals with foreign nations. This is a good gesture but it's not something that's going to be possible.

[NoPartyHats]

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52319662]This is actually beyond their abilities to do AFAIK.

States cannot make deals with foreign nations. This is a good gesture but it's not something that's going to be possible.[/QUOTE]

Can't see why, theyre going to follow the terms regardless of how legal it is.

[Sableye]

[QUOTE=proboardslol;52319654]Can states make treaties with foreign countries? Isn't that like federalism 101? Not that I'm complaining but could the federal government attempt to stop this somehow?[/QUOTE]

legally not a treaty. also trump jumped the gun by about 3 years since we cannot issue our formal withdrawal until mid november 2019

[HumanAbyss]

[QUOTE=No Party Hats;52319682]Can't see why, theyre going to follow the terms regardless of how legal it is.[/QUOTE]

I'm just stating a legal fact of how the US works.

Without Congress to agree and sign off on a deal, no state can make a deal with a foreign nation.

[editline]6th June 2017[/editline]

They're more than welcome/able/capable to just abide by it without doing anything binding, but that's different than signing to such an agreement no?

[Snap]

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52319688]I'm just stating a legal fact of how the US works.

Without Congress to agree and sign off on a deal, no state can make a deal with a foreign nation.

[editline]6th June 2017[/editline]

They're more than welcome/able/capable to just abide by it without doing anything binding, but that's different than signing to such an agreement no?[/QUOTE]

The deal that was signed, is non binding. Just like the Paris accord.

[Rocko's]

Very happy to see states rising up against this shit, I hope more governor's follow suit with California. Especially for something as serious as this, something has to be done.

[TheJoey]

i know a lot of people here are in support of the paris agreement but

if the latest emissions report shows an increase in the EU, and china has said they'll increase oil consumption, and india has said they'll increase coal production, PLUS america may need to pay billions in order to make it all work for them, why would we agree to this accord? if all countries did what they were supposed to do it'd work, but clearly nobody wants to do what they signed up for.

i know "but climate change and making the environment better", but how does anyone here, including myself, know that this isn't just a corporate scam with dick waving?

tbh california is just jerking its blue self off, which it has been doing since the beginning of the election. why are so many people fist pumping to this news when california has been nothing but contrarian to trump every time they open their mouths?

[tau]

[QUOTE=TheJoey;52319794]i know a lot of people here are in support of the paris agreement but

if the latest emissions report shows an increase in the EU, and china has said they'll increase oil consumption, and india has said they'll increase coal production, PLUS america may need to pay billions in order to make it all work for them, why would we agree to this accord? if all countries did what they were supposed to do it'd work, but clearly nobody wants to do what they signed up for.

i know "but climate change and making the environment better", but how does anyone here, including myself, know that this isn't just a corporate scam with dick waving?

tbh california is just jerking its blue self off, which it has been doing since the beginning of the election. why are so many people fist pumping to this news when california has been nothing but contrarian to trump every time they open their mouths?[/QUOTE]

China and India are set targets of emissions vs GDP. The idea behind this is that Europe and above all America have benefited the most from the CO2 already emitted so they have the wealth to make quicker transitions to green technology, whilst less developed countries have more lenient targets because they haven't contributed as much and it's far harder for them to afford green technology. IIRC ~33% of current human produced carbon dioxide in the atmosphere came from the USA, and the US has the largest economy in the world, so it's only fair that you lead the way.

[video=youtube;1WKoj-kodBw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1WKoj-kodBw&t=0s[/video]
[video=youtube;Sr2J_1J9w3A]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sr2J_1J9w3A&t=0s[/video]

[Mr. Scorpio]

[QUOTE=TheJoey;52319794]i know a lot of people here are in support of the paris agreement but

if the latest emissions report shows an increase in the EU, and china has said they'll increase oil consumption, and india has said they'll increase coal production, PLUS america may need to pay billions in order to make it all work for them, why would we agree to this accord? if all countries did what they were supposed to do it'd work, but clearly nobody wants to do what they signed up for.

i know "but climate change and making the environment better", but how does anyone here, including myself, know that this isn't just a corporate scam with dick waving?

tbh california is just jerking its blue self off, which it has been doing since the beginning of the election. why are so many people fist pumping to this news when california has been nothing but contrarian to trump every time they open their mouths?[/QUOTE]

Developing countries that are still building up their infrastructure are building more than an already developed nation.

how does this not make sense to you

[HumanAbyss]

[QUOTE=TheJoey;52319794]i know a lot of people here are in support of the paris agreement but

if the latest emissions report shows an increase in the EU, and china has said they'll increase oil consumption, and india has said they'll increase coal production, PLUS america may need to pay billions in order to make it all work for them, why would we agree to this accord? if all countries did what they were supposed to do it'd work, but clearly nobody wants to do what they signed up for.

i know "but climate change and making the environment better", but how does anyone here, including myself, know that this isn't just a corporate scam with dick waving?

tbh california is just jerking its blue self off, which it has been doing since the beginning of the election. why are so many people fist pumping to this news when california has been nothing but contrarian to trump every time they open their mouths?[/QUOTE]

I don't feel like any explanation will actually do at this point. See those two videos above for a great answer, but frankly, with how many people who have espoused this view and how many of those people have refused to educate themselves, it's pretty telling that no matter what, we're hosed.

[Mr. Scorpio]

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52319846]I don't feel like any explanation will actually do at this point. See those two videos above for a great answer, but frankly, with how many people who have espoused this view and how many of those people have refused to educate themselves, it's pretty telling that no matter what, we're hosed.[/QUOTE]

USA = 1 country
China = 1 country
USA = China

so if china gets to make 1 coal power plant, we should be able to make 1 too

intellectual checkmate

[TheJoey]

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;52319828]Developing countries that are still building up their infrastructure are building more than an already developed nation.

how does this not make sense to you[/QUOTE]

thats fantastic but how does that make us staying in the agreement worth it?

we have a president that is not pro-active on climate change. why would the u.s. want to stay in if we're not even going to do what we're supposed to either? and in the long game if pulling out makes other countries step up, this could ultimately be the best decision. staying and not following the rules of the agreement have the potential of being way worse than just pulling out. imo if we're not following the rules and others aren't either, why not make it one less country?

i mean... [url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/05/31/these-experts-say-it-may-actually-be-best-if-the-u-s-left-the-paris-climate-agreement/?utm_term=.7efa788cbfae]this washington post article says it'd be best to pull out.[/url]

this is the current reality we're in with the president we have, and he's not getting impeached anytime soon. if we were to accept this reality and know we're not going to follow the rules, as well as some others, then the agreement just isn't for us.

[tau]

[QUOTE=TheJoey;52319865]thats fantastic but how does that make us staying in the agreement worth it?

we have a president that is not pro-active on climate change. why would the u.s. want to stay in if we're not even going to do what we're supposed to either? and in the long game if pulling out makes other countries step up, this could ultimately be the best decision. staying and not following the rules of the agreement have the potential of being way worse than just pulling out. imo if we're not following the rules and others aren't either, why not make it one less country?

i mean... [url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/05/31/these-experts-say-it-may-actually-be-best-if-the-u-s-left-the-paris-climate-agreement/?utm_term=.7efa788cbfae]this washington post article says it'd be best to pull out.[/url][/QUOTE]

Donald Trump is not going to be in power on a timescale relevant to this treaty. The US can't leave until the end of his first term, and it did risk the rest of the world abandoning the agreement. The US government should be tackling climate change and that is a massive issue, but pulling out of Paris is something which not only affects the US or Trump's presidency; its impacts stretch far wider and last far longer.

[Mr. Scorpio]

[QUOTE=TheJoey;52319865]thats fantastic but how does that make us staying in the agreement worth it?

we have a president that is not pro-active on climate change. why would the u.s. want to stay in if we're not even going to do what we're supposed to either? and in the long game if pulling out makes other countries step up, this could ultimately be the best decision. staying and not following the rules of the agreement have the potential of being way worse than just pulling out. imo if we're not following the rules and others aren't either, why not make it one less country?

i mean... [url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/05/31/these-experts-say-it-may-actually-be-best-if-the-u-s-left-the-paris-climate-agreement/?utm_term=.7efa788cbfae]this washington post article says it'd be best to pull out.[/url][/QUOTE]

it's worth it for us to abide by the agreement [I]because we're trying to avert a global disaster[/I]

I mean yeah, if your argument is that Trump is a fucking incompetent, untrustworthy, brain dead moron, and because of that it'd be better for the rest of the world if the united states' reputation was completely annihilated as soon as possible, I guess I can't argue with you. But if that's your point, then why are you saying all this stupid shit about the agreement not being "worth it"?

[HumanAbyss]

[QUOTE=TheJoey;52319865]thats fantastic but how does that make us staying in the agreement worth it?

we have a president that is not pro-active on climate change. why would the u.s. want to stay in if we're not even going to do what we're supposed to either? and in the long game if pulling out makes other countries step up, this could ultimately be the best decision. staying and not following the rules of the agreement have the potential of being way worse than just pulling out. imo if we're not following the rules and others aren't either, why not make it one less country?

i mean... [url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/05/31/these-experts-say-it-may-actually-be-best-if-the-u-s-left-the-paris-climate-agreement/?utm_term=.7efa788cbfae]this washington post article says it'd be best to pull out.[/url]

this is the current reality we're in with the president we have, and he's not getting impeached anytime soon. if we were to accept this reality and know we're not going to follow the rules, as well as some others, then the agreement just isn't for us.[/QUOTE]

Donald Trump just said "Fuck you" to the rest of the world as a power play.

The rest of the world just said "WHatever you fucking orange fucking idiot, we actually don't need you anymore". Trump, just shot all the bargaining power you guys had right down the drain.

[Menien Goneld]

[QUOTE=TheJoey;52319865]thats fantastic but how does that make us staying in the agreement worth it?

we have a president that is not pro-active on climate change. why would the u.s. want to stay in if we're not even going to do what we're supposed to either? and in the long game if pulling out makes other countries step up, this could ultimately be the best decision. staying and not following the rules of the agreement have the potential of being way worse than just pulling out. imo if we're not following the rules and others aren't either, why not make it one less country?

i mean... [url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/05/31/these-experts-say-it-may-actually-be-best-if-the-u-s-left-the-paris-climate-agreement/?utm_term=.7efa788cbfae]this washington post article says it'd be best to pull out.[/url]

this is the current reality we're in with the president we have, and he's not getting impeached anytime soon. if we were to accept this reality and know we're not going to follow the rules, as well as some others, then the agreement just isn't for us.[/QUOTE]

Not sure if I follow your line of thinking, Trump is 4 years, maybe less, probably not more. The planet is forever, your country shouldn't be making further damage to the environment just to appease Trump because "impeachment isn't coming any time soon".

I also think that making everyone else work harder to pick up the slack is not really a benefit at all. More will be done to offset the US impact but the US could also just work with the rest of the world like literally everybody else.

[elix]

[QUOTE=TheJoey;52319865]and in the long game if pulling out makes other countries step up, this could ultimately be the best decision. staying and not following the rules of the agreement have the potential of being way worse than just pulling out. imo if we're not following the rules and others aren't either, why not make it one less country?[/QUOTE]
The danger is that if the US pulls out it'll cause other countries to see no value in staying in either, and the agreement collapses. All because a spray-tanned manchild is playing baby games with the most powerful elected office in the world.

[Riller]

[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;52319559]I'm just waiting for Republicans to begin opposing states' rights because of this[/QUOTE]

The whole 'civil war wasn't about slavery!!!' argument will come full circle. :v:

[tempcon]

Suddenly american liberals everywhere care about state power

[isak]

[QUOTE=Conscript;52320727]Suddenly american liberals everywhere care about state power[/QUOTE]

Implying American conservatives ever have.

State-level marijuana legalization? Nah, the AG will crack down on it.

Same-sex marriage? LOADS of conservatives supported federal constitutional amendments to ban it.

Abortion rights? The Human Life amendment that would federally overturn Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey to ban abortion nationwide.

Sanctuary cities? Well, Texas just banned non-cooperation with federal authorities in immigration suspect requests.

Dodd-Frank? I mean, it literally prevents state-level consumer protection laws from being preempted by federal law, but Republicans are frothing at the mouth to get rid of it. Why?

I could go on. Neither conservatives nor liberals care about states' rights, it's just a talking point - they care about issues that matter to them. Except Republicans will claim to care about states' rights while trying to federally ban shit, which liberals don't pretend to do.

[Lily]

[QUOTE=Destroyox;52319449]California über alles [sp] don't take this seriously [/sp][/QUOTE]

The best part is that the relevant song was written in '78 and still works.

[tempcon]

[QUOTE=.Isak.;52320783]Implying American conservatives ever have.

State-level marijuana legalization? Nah, the AG will crack down on it.

Same-sex marriage? LOADS of conservatives supported federal constitutional amendments to ban it.

Abortion rights? The Human Life amendment that would federally overturn Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey to ban abortion nationwide.

Sanctuary cities? Well, Texas just banned non-cooperation with federal authorities in immigration suspect requests.

Dodd-Frank? I mean, it literally prevents state-level consumer protection laws from being preempted by federal law, but Republicans are frothing at the mouth to get rid of it. Why?

I could go on. Neither conservatives nor liberals care about states' rights, it's just a talking point - they care about issues that matter to them. Except Republicans will claim to care about states' rights while trying to federally ban shit, which liberals don't pretend to do.[/QUOTE]

I never said to the contrary, I don't even disagree with you. To their credit though, conservatism has typically found its refuge in state power rather than federal, it's because of the city and countryside divide with them mostly stuck with the latter (which is always less relevant). Unlike liberalism, it also has a classic liberal ideological kernel. I don't know of any liberals seriously concerned with bureaucracy or state power. To them, one is always an excuse to hurt (particularly non-white) poor people with cuts, the other tainted as a cover for racism as a legacy of the civil war and civil rights movement.

The authoritarian aspect has intensified with security fears, with liberals leading the charge after the 2016 upset and growing nationalist dissent, which is exploited by russia. It's vengeance driven and misguided, they're still not actually dealing with the things that has produced the far right in the first place and made them disconnected, especially as they refuse to share power with progressives.