President Trump Makes a Statement Regarding the Paris Accord
511 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Jake Nukem;52303039]So I've been reading and not sure if it's posted in this thread yet(11 pages I don't want to go through). But why is the Paris agreements good? I read it requires nations to submit plans to cut down on emissions but there's no legal binding as far as I can see that would 'require' the nations to enact these plans. It's entirely an 'Opt in as you please' deal. Which would explain why every country opted in, looking good without all the effort. Same deal for the 100 billion raised by developed countries for the poor ones. What legal obligations do they ave to spend that money on green energy and not just dump it all into coal energy?
I'm not trying to trash the agreements, I'm just curious.[/QUOTE]
Well, for one, the whole world agreed to it. You probably couldn't get every nation in the world to agree on the sky being blue in the UN. You'd have Saudi Arabia claiming it's green because that's the colour of God, and China insisting it's brown because that's how it's like in China, and Argentina constantly saying the sky rightfully belongs to them and not the UK. But climate change, the world agreed upon taking action against. As with any UN action, it's not really that binding and not really that enforceable, but the fact that they actually did agree is pretty major.
[QUOTE=Jake Nukem;52303039]So I've been reading and not sure if it's posted in this thread yet(11 pages I don't want to go through). But why is the Paris agreements good? I read it requires nations to submit plans to cut down on emissions but there's no legal binding as far as I can see that would 'require' the nations to enact these plans. It's entirely an 'Opt in as you please' deal. Which would explain why every country opted in, looking good without all the effort. Same deal for the 100 billion raised by developed countries for the poor ones. What legal obligations do they have to spend that money on green energy and not just dump it all into coal energy?
I'm not trying to trash the agreements, I'm just curious.[/QUOTE]
Goodwill of humanity?
[QUOTE=Riller;52303048]Well, for one, the whole world agreed to it. You probably couldn't get every nation in the world to agree on the sky being blue in the UN. You'd have Saudi Arabia claiming it's green because that's the colour of God, and China insisting it's brown because that's how it's like in China, and Argentina constantly saying the sky rightfully belongs to them and not the UK. But climate change, the world agreed upon taking action against. As with any UN action, it's not really that binding and not really that enforceable, but the fact that they actually did agree is pretty major.[/QUOTE]
Agreeing that it's a thing doesn't mean they're going to do anything about it or care. Seems it's just symbolism and doesn't really mean much more beyond that.
[QUOTE=Jake Nukem;52303067]Agreeing that it's a thing doesn't mean they're going to do anything about it or care. Seems it's just symbolism and doesn't really mean much more beyond that.[/QUOTE]
It's not a legal obligation, it's a [I]moral[/I] obligation.
We got two options: either we work together to clean up this mess, and ensure that our children are able to enjoy a decent world...or millions are going to be killed, misplaced, or both.
Think about that for a second. We [B][I]know[/I][/B] how to prevent [I]millions[/I] from dying and suffering due to worsening climate conditions. We [I][B]know[/B][/I] what are we supposed to do to fix our fragile ecosystem. It [B][I]really[/I][/B] should be a crime against humanity to [B]NOT[/B] take action
[QUOTE=Sega Saturn;52302880]The Kyoto Protocol. The major countries of the world got together and worked out an agreement to reduce per-capita pollution to a less harmful baseline as a first-step towards true emissions reduction. The US, despite being in a relatively good position to reach that baseline, refused to ratify the agreement because it didn't hold China and other developing countries to the same standards. Despite China being a heavy polluter, when viewed from a per-capita angle they pollute far less than Americans did at the time, and moreover, most countries agreed that the onus to fight climate change rested with the most economically-developed countries, including the US. Democrats supported Kyoto, but lost control of Congress in the mid-1990s to Republicans who were promising to cut taxes and spending. Republicans called Kyoto a major threat to the US economy and have maintained an anti-climate stance ever since (because it apparently gets them votes.)[/QUOTE]
It's also worth noting that the Kyoto Protocol included some conditions concerning chlorine-containing refrigerants and propellants, which contributed to the destruction of the Ozone Layer (which is now slowly repairing itself due to us no longer releasing mass quantities of the stuff),
[QUOTE=Mister Sandman;52302903]The thing is, even if it did cost American Jobs, [I]the planet is more valuable than American Jobs[/I]
I don't know why our sense of national identity is so fucking extremist that a lot of us can't recognize, yes, some things are equally as or [I]more[/I] important than us. People are so unwilling to make any sacrifice for the greater good in this country, it's pathetic and selfish. People in this country will still insist on having a perfectly maintained, watered lawn even through droughts or a borderline unlivable planet, I swear.[/QUOTE]
Oh for fuck- Don't even get me started on the wealthy and drought-stricken regions.
When you hear a dairy baron brag about how people want to buy his water rights because he has the biggest claim to our ground water in the area in a region that's prone to drought, it's enough to make your blood boil.
Honestly, why anyone thought the best thing for such an arid region would be fucking agriculture is beyond me. Oh wait, it's because the land was cheap because nobody wants it because [B]we're a dry, dusty shit hole[/B].
*edited* Turns out we actually average 18-20", though granted that's typically dumped on us all-at-once during monsoon season.
[QUOTE=T553412;52303077]It's not a legal obligation, it's a [I]moral[/I] obligation.
We got two options: either we work together to clean up this mess, and ensure that our children are able to enjoy a decent world...or millions are going to be killed, misplaced, or both.
Think about that for a second. We [B][I]know[/I][/B] how to prevent [I]millions[/I] from dying and suffering due to worsening climate conditions. We [I][B]know[/B][/I] what are we supposed to do to fix our fragile ecosystem. It [B][I]really[/I][/B] should be a crime against humanity to [B]NOT[/B] take action[/QUOTE]
Ok? But nations tend not to operate on morals. It's all well and good but if it's not in the immediate best interests of the nation then morals are almost always pushed to the side.
Also would rather spend the $100 billion more usefully than a 'Maybe could you kindly not use this money inappropriately, please?" Would've have been infinitely more useful if the Agreement put that money towards funding, subsidizing and pushing for green energy research and infrastructure directly.
[QUOTE=Jake Nukem;52303122]Ok? But nations tend not to operate on morals. It's all well and good but if it's not in the immediate best interests of the nation then morals are almost always pushed to the side.
Also would rather spend the $100 billion more usefully than a 'Maybe could you kindly not use this money inappropriately, please?" Would've have been infinitely more useful if the Agreement put that money towards funding, subsidizing and pushing for green energy research and infrastructure directly.[/QUOTE]
Money committed to a purpose is money more directly put towards such efforts than 'we'll come up with something better - or not - meh either way'. What is in the best interests of our nation as regards climate change is to invest significant cash into doing what we can to prevent as much as we can. Shrugging our shoulders in a non-commital fashion and walking away from this deal is tantamount to stating that it's not a priority and that we don't really care.
To that effect: If Trump really did care or think this was a priority he would've come up to the podium in the Rose Garden with his own plan that he felt better served our nation's interests. Instead he came up with nothing but attacks on the plan without any plan of attack of his own other than some extremely vague noncommital semipromises. That tells us pretty clearly that Trump doesn't even want to 'lead by example' on climate change and that he doesn't have a 'better deal'. In fact, he'd rather there be no deal at all.
[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52303131]Money committed to a purpose is money more directly put towards such efforts than 'we'll come up with something better - or not - meh either way'. What is in the best interests of our nation as regards climate change is to invest significant cash into doing what we can to prevent as much as we can. Shrugging our shoulders in a non-commital fashion and walking away from this deal is tantamount to stating that it's not a priority.[/QUOTE]
But that's what this Agreement is? It's basically saying "Yeah we'll fix it, probably I guess". There's no incentive to do it, it's pure symbolism. In fact at this point I'd argue that it's worse if this deal weren't to get shredded because of it. People will see this deal and think "We're working on it, we're safe" Yet most countries agreeing to this don't care. Most haven't submitted their plans for reducing emissions, let alone started acting on them, if they're not bound legally to do so why should they get the money? As I said it'd be a lot more useful if we pushed directly for green energy, driving the costs down, pushing it into the market. That will do a lot more for us than this agreement.
[QUOTE=Jake Nukem;52303141]But that's what this Agreement is? It's basically saying "Yeah we'll fix it, probably I guess". There's no incentive to do it, it's pure symbolism. In fact at this point I'd argue that it's worse if this deal weren't to get shredded because of it. People will see this deal and think "We're working on it, we're safe" Yet most countries agreeing to this don't care. Most haven't submitted their plans for reducing emissions, let alone started acting on them, if they're not bound legally to do so why should they get the money? As I said it'd be a lot more useful if we pushed directly for green energy, driving the costs down, pushing it into the market. That will do a lot more for us than this agreement.[/QUOTE]
Allow me to put it this way. Which would you rather have? A government that has signed an 'I promise to do something useful and have set money aside to that effect' agreement - or a government that says 'I'll maybe do something useful if I feel like it I guess someday but I'm not promising anything and I don't really feel like doing anything about it now'. Which is more accountable for their deeds and money as goes climate change?
If your nation isn't willing to sign off on this most non-hard of agreements, it's a pretty sure bet that they're not going to care to do anything about it unless, in not signing off on it, they presented a plan they felt was superior and more commited.
[QUOTE=Jake Nukem;52303122]Ok? But nations tend not to operate on morals. It's all well and good but if it's not in the immediate best interests of the nation then morals are almost always pushed to the side.[/QUOTE]
A [B]lot[/B] of nations [B][I]ARE[/I][/B] already experiencing the effects of climate change. Crops are being lost. Water reservoirs are not filling fast enough. On the other side of the coin, floods are becoming stronger. Wildfires are going above the capability of many firefighting units. The list goes on and on and on and [I]on[/I]
You are simply [B]deluded[/B] if you think that the interests of [I]any[/I] nation do NOT include "Stopping climate change so we are not hit by an ecological disaster and/or a refugee crisis"
This goes far beyond national interests. In fact, take your beloved national interests and toss them into the trash. The interests of the nation can be accomplished in decades or centuries, and they won't do your country any good when everything's gone to hell. Healing some of the damage inflicted to the planet is in [B][I]humanity[/I][/B]'s common interest.
[QUOTE=Alice3173;52301066]Unfortunately sanctioning the US is probably going to hurt them more than it does us. (Not to say that it [I]won't[/I] hurt us too though.) [B]Other nations being so dependent on us is one of the main reasons we're so influential.[/B][/QUOTE]
It's about time that changed. Ever since Trump's inauguration, the US have proved time and again that they're unreliable, untrustworthy, backstabbing fuckers. We need to become less dependant on their whims sooner rather than later, and that starts with dishing out the appropriate sanctions when they don't fulfill deals they agreed to. If we can sanction Russia in retaliation for fucking with Ukraine, we can sanction the US in retaliation for fucking with the entire world.
I also really doubt sanctioning the US would hurt them less than it would the rest of the world. This is reminiscent of Brexiters claiming the EU won't give them a bad exit deal because it will hurt the EU more than it does the UK. That's not how it works. The financial impact is concentrated on one country, the US, on one end, and distributed among the rest of the world on the other.
[QUOTE=T553412;52303148]A [B]lot[/B] of nations [B][I]ARE[/I][/B] already experiencing the effects of climate change. Crops are being lost. Water reservoirs are not filling fast enough. On the other side of the coin, floods are becoming stronger. Wildfires are going above the capability of many firefighting units. The list goes on and on and on and [I]on[/I]
You are simply [B]deluded[/B] if you think that the interests of [I]any[/I] nation do NOT include "Stopping climate change so we are not hit by an ecological disaster and/or a refugee crisis"
This goes far beyond national interests. In fact, take your beloved national interests and toss them into the trash. The interests of the nation can be accomplished in decades or centuries, and they won't do your country any good when everything's gone to hell. Healing some of the damage inflicted to the planet is in [B][I]humanity[/I][/B]'s common interest.[/QUOTE]
Bold your words some more maybe it'll make you feel better. Climate change is on the fringes sure but they're having a negligible economic impact currently, certainly a lot less than forcefully implementing change would cause right now(If that isn't the case you're welcome to link me some studies and the like so I may educate myself)
[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52303147]Allow me to put it this way. Which would you rather have? A government that has signed an 'I promise to do something useful and have set money aside to that effect' agreement - or a government that says 'I'll maybe do something useful if I feel like it I guess someday but I'm not promising anything and I don't really feel like doing anything about it now'. Which is more accountable for their deeds and money as goes climate change?
If your nation isn't willing to sign off on this most non-hard of agreements, it's a pretty sure bet that they're not going to care to do anything about it unless, in not signing off on it, they presented a plan they felt was superior and more commited.[/QUOTE]
I'd rather a nation that actually does something about it, and what they have set money aside for is arguebly not useful, it might be, possibly and I hope it is. But the agreement makes no provinsions for it to be useful.
My whole argument against this agreement is it doesn't force any change that's required, it says 'If you feel like it you can if you want but you don't have to'. Which is exactly what we don't need right now, we need forceful measures.
[quote]certainly a lot less than forcefully implementing change would cause right now(If that isn't the case you're welcome to link me some studies and the like so I may educate myself)[/quote]
It doesn't sound like you have more than your own supposition here that you're relying on to begin with. It sounds like you want it to cause damage because you don't believe in its harm.
Here's going to be the big problem: The economic impact we're suffering from [I]now[/I] isn't what we're capable of reversing [I]now[/I]. What we're trying to prevent is the exponentially increasing suffering that would be caused by ignoring the impact that we're under now. It's like trying to stop a car that's got no traction; the moment you hit the brakes isn't the moment the car stops - you're fighting the momentum you've built up and right now our foot is still on the gas.
If you wait until it's a real problem by the time we might start fixing things it won't just be a 'real problem' it'll be a global catastrophe. This isn't a 'wait until it's a big deal and then we can just fix it all at once' sort of thing. This is a 'plug the hole or you better be prepared for entire sections of this ship to drown' sort of thing.
[quote]My whole argument against this agreement is it doesn't force any change that's required[/quote]
And my whole argument is that if a nation refuses to agree to [I]this[/I] agreement, I doubt they're interested [I]in forcing[/I] any change that may be required. In essence, this agreement is the equivalent of asking someone to press F5 on a keyboard in exchange for money. What makes you think if they're unwilling to do even that that they're secretly wanting to type an entire doctoral thesis when they're under no pressure at all to do so?
[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52303181]
And my whole argument is that if a nation refuses to agree to [I]this[/I] agreement, I doubt they're interested [I]in forcing[/I] any change that may be required. In essence, this agreement is the equivalent of asking someone to press F5 on a keyboard in exchange for money. What makes you think if they're unwilling to do even that that they're secretly wanting to type an entire doctoral thesis when they're under no pressure at all to do so?[/QUOTE]
Let me expand here, if they sign this agreement, what pressure is there for them to push through the policies? They've already 'done their part' in signing the agreement. Even North Korea has at this point. It's a joke, it doesn't mean anything beyond symbolism. Your argument being something of a thin end of the wedge, got this, now we can get more. But countries can argue against it saying 'We've already signed this, why should we sign more?'
[quote]what pressure is there for them to push through the policies?[/quote]
Their own word. Which is a lot more than refusing to commit to even that.
If they refuse to even vow to do anything, they're telling you straight up that they're not going to care to do anything at all. This is a stepping stone - a way to build on this foundation and ask for further intervention and oversight because once they have the money people will want to know what, exactly, they're doing with it.
[quote]But countries can argue against it saying 'We've already signed this, why should we sign more?'[/quote]
That depends on whether there's a measurable difference being made. If they signed it and nothing is being done about it still, then you at least have the ability to say 'you said you'd do this thing and now you're doing nothing. Obviously, we need to do more.'
[QUOTE=Jake Nukem;52303141]But that's what this Agreement is? It's basically saying "Yeah we'll fix it, probably I guess". There's no incentive to do it, it's pure symbolism. In fact at this point I'd argue that it's worse if this deal weren't to get shredded because of it. People will see this deal and think "We're working on it, we're safe" Yet most countries agreeing to this don't care. Most haven't submitted their plans for reducing emissions, let alone started acting on them, if they're not bound legally to do so why should they get the money? As I said it'd be a lot more useful if we pushed directly for green energy, driving the costs down, pushing it into the market. That will do a lot more for us than this agreement.[/QUOTE]
What incentive do you suggest?
[editline]2nd June 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=Jake Nukem;52303197]Let me expand here, if they sign this agreement, what pressure is there for them to push through the policies? They've already 'done their part' in signing the agreement. Even North Korea has at this point. It's a joke, it doesn't mean anything beyond symbolism. Your argument being something of a thin end of the wedge, got this, now we can get more. But countries can argue against it saying 'We've already signed this, why should we sign more?'[/QUOTE]
North Korea having signed it means it's a joke...? What the fuck? No.
What this is, is a mutual agreement among countries to not expand upon oil demand. If it's mutually agreed upon, it's a competitive agreement meaning those nations(the world) stay competitive as their demands won't raise out of proportion due to unseen growth.
[quote]Even North Korea has at this point. It's a joke[/quote]
The real joke is that the US didn't sign it while North Korea did.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52303202]What incentive do you suggest?[/QUOTE]
Difficult, every option has its problems. Most the major nations have already been trying to implement their own policies, U.S. under Obama(until trump) was doing fairly well, so generally it's on the bigger nations to pressure the developing nations. Trade sanctions could be useful but cause animosity. I'd think incentive would be the best. The Paris agreements has 100 billion going into these nations but currently there's nothing binding them to use that money productively to fight Climate change. Just add "By accepting this money you'll be legally obligated to use it in pursuing green energy infrastructure" and this whole agreement would be so much better
[quote] Just add "By accepting this money you'll be legally obligated to use it in perusing green energy infrastructure" and this whole agreement would be so much better.[/quote]
Given the spirit of the documentation itself I'd say it's pretty damn explicit that even if they're not legally obligated their people will be greatly annoyed if they see that money going to things that aren't what this whole thing is for.
Maybe not North Korea (or Kazakhstan) - but that's fine - if literally the whole world is onboard that's worth the price of paying NK to do nothing useful with that money because then it ceases to be an individual nationstate thing and instead becomes a 'humanity, collectively' thing.
Ok so besides 'Being angry' what's stopping them? Is their money flow going to be cut off? Are they going to get sanctioned?
If it's become an issue of global health, I could very easily see that being a political bargaining chip, yes. It already is, as demonstrated by the rest of the world hurling shade at the US for not agreeing to this thing - we're already being hit politically over it.
Well I hope you're right, I do. I just, personally, don't see this as all it could be without actual legal responsibilities.
There won't be legal responsibilities at all if your nation can't agree to something that [I]has[/I] no legal responsibilities. First we must agree as a planet that this is a problem that affects every part of the planet and can't be left to an individual nation's discretion. Once that's established and everyone's agreed at that point it stops being an agreement and starts being not just a political issue but a matter of national responsibility.
Thankfully, your nation did sign. Unfortunately, mine did not. That puts a big wrench in the works of making it a planetary problem and not a national problem.
[QUOTE=_Axel;52303170]It's about time that changed. Ever since Trump's inauguration, the US have proved time and again that they're unreliable, untrustworthy, backstabbing fuckers. We need to become less dependant on their whims sooner rather than later, and that starts with dishing out the appropriate sanctions when they don't fulfill deals they agreed to. If we can sanction Russia in retaliation for fucking with Ukraine, we can sanction the US in retaliation for fucking with the entire world.[/QUOTE]
I don't really disagree. It'd be best for everyone if the US' influence weakened. It'd force us to get off our asses and actually start addressing our issues and it'd force the EU and other nations who are too reliant on us to become more self sufficient, thus strengthening them as well.
[QUOTE]I also really doubt sanctioning the US would hurt them less than it would the rest of the world. This is reminiscent of Brexiters claiming the EU won't give them a bad exit deal because it will hurt the EU more than it does the UK. That's not how it works. The financial impact is concentrated on one country, the US, on one end, and distributed among the rest of the world on the other.[/QUOTE]
The part you're overlooking is that for a lot of economies a very significant portion of their economy is directly reliant on the US. The US is reliant on a lot of different countries and sanctions would harm us short term but in the long run it'd actually be more likely to benefit Trump since we can be a lot more self-sufficient than most nations.
What baffles me is how blatantly bad of a deal this is for the US.
If the damage to the ecosystem isn't enough to move you, "America First" types, here it is: it sends a message that the US is unreliable, not willing to live up to deals, so why should everybody else live up to deals with the US? Trump bitches about NATO funding, but is hypocritically pulling out of an even more important deal. Even if you deny climate change (which is literally retarded at this point), practically every country in the world have agreed to not expand on fossil fuel and expand on green tech, so Trump won't even make that much money, (which is also inedible) and the market will continue to shrink. The shift is well underway, and it'll continue to grow regardless.
It is a literal hissyfit, and a pointless/damaging one at that. Given the mentality of Trump and his supporters, they'll probably burn off and increase consumption of as much oil and fossils as possible out of petty spite that the world isn't taking to their bullshit, which won't exactly improve relations. Also, the deal is non-negotiable, so they'll get a worse deal if they decide to re-enter, like Britain with the EU. It has already weakened the US' diplomatic strength and integrity. As previously stated, even if the next president is anti-Trump to an extreme degree, there's always the danger of the idiots electing Trump 2.0 four years later. Which pretty much every competing country [I]will[/I] take advantage of, and every ally will have to keep in mind. Shit, given how much the US worships its military, maybe they should listen when said military calls [URL="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/military-leaders-urge-trump-to-see-climate-as-a-security-threat/"]climate change the greatest danger facing the nation/species[/URL].
This and other legislative actions will most likely lead to a massive brain-drain from the US if the administration stays the course, (see; Macrons "come here, US scientists") and it'll be reduced to a backwater cesspool faster than any superpower before it. Given some states reception to pulling out of the Paris-agreement, it might actually weaken the US union as a whole. I would genuinely not be surprised to see attempts at state secession from the union if Trump and co. don't start looking out for other interests than their own.
GG, America.
Any international agreement done with the US is basically non-binding, because no one could ever force the US to do something. Having a signed agreement is a powerful political tool, though, because you can use to exert pressure. The US declining to sign (or really, breaking) a non-binding agreement shows a total lack of even the intention of doing something about climate change. It's a big deal, because it's the US saying out loud that it really doesn't fucking care.
[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52302415]Assuming they ever found out about it. Clinton runs an extremely tight ship and secrecy and discretion are paramount in her circles. She's not afraid to personally spin stuff either.[/QUOTE]
She wouldn't be able to keep something like that a secret if she wanted to.
[QUOTE=Jake Nukem;52303141]But that's what this Agreement is? It's basically saying "Yeah we'll fix it, probably I guess". There's no incentive to do it, it's pure symbolism. In fact at this point I'd argue that it's worse if this deal weren't to get shredded because of it. People will see this deal and think "We're working on it, we're safe" Yet most countries agreeing to this don't care. Most haven't submitted their plans for reducing emissions, let alone started acting on them, if they're not bound legally to do so why should they get the money? As I said it'd be a lot more useful if we pushed directly for green energy, driving the costs down, pushing it into the market. That will do a lot more for us than this agreement.[/QUOTE]
A good portion of the funds from the agreement actually go to private sector green energy companies. On top of that nations that do not submit a plan wont receive funding. Simple as that. To clarify a comitee reviews each plan and distributes funding based on the perceived legitimacy of said plans.
Id like to also address your statement about driving down green energy costs through investment. This I assume could be achieved in the same way that the US keeps gas prices low, and that would be through government subsides. If we have a white house who does not believe in climate change these subsides will simply never come. Without a global moral frame work, lobiests in the US will be able to keep funding in non-renewable energy.
fuck me trump speaks like a dumb fuck, how did he get elected
"making many other countries make big contributions to the war on terror. big big contributes are being made by countries that weren't doing much in the form of... contributions"
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.