Paris Climate Agreement Withdrawal

[Pinkie-Dawn]

I was hoping for someone to make a thread about this news, but since no one did, I'll might as well post it myself. Recently, President Trump made his decision to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris Climate Agreement, which has caused a negative reaction from various countries and social media.

For a brief summary, the Paris agreement was drafted in 2015 with a goal to slowly decrease the speed of climate change. And each country that's part of the agreement must plan to set targets to reduce their contributions to climate change.

Apart from the global warming deniers, there are some people who praised Trump's withdrawal because they believe the Paris agreement will not help slow down climate change and instead make it worse. Here is one example I found from a YouTube comment section in regards to the agreement:

The Paris agreement is just a global scale redistribution of wealth from extremely rich countries to poor, third world countries. The USA would be better spending this money on its own energy infrastructure, rather than spending it on parts of the world that are overpopulated and will just continue to be even more over populated, leading to even greater amounts of pollution. The USA should lead the world by setting an example. The USA is one of the only countries in the world with vast enough natural resources to become the worlds first 100% self sustaining energy economy. We should be pushing real technologies that are shown to work such as nuclear reactor technology, and invest in next generation liquid fluorine thorium reactors. We can use these next generation nuclear reactors to create viable net zero carbon replacements for current fossil fuels and burn the 95% un-used fuel in nuclear waste storage.

The Paris agreement was also entered into unconstitutionally. It wasn't confirmed by the senate, and the house did not approve any spending for it.

The absolute best and only thing the governments of the world can do to slow global warming, is to stop spending borrowed money. The more wealth you borrow from the future to spend in the present, the more pollution you also create in the present from the excessive consumption of resources.

Knowing our community here, there's bound to be some holes from this guy's statement on both the agreement and the use of nuclear energy.

Do you think the U.S should not have withdrawn from the Paris agreement because of the potential of dooming the entire planet, or do you think Trump made the right choice to do what's best to put the U.S. back on track?

 

[Desert Stream~]

Terrible idea. Oh well, I've heard a few states aren't gonna stop, so maybe there's a chance we won't all die?

 

[Somewhere_]

I'm not sure how I feel exactly about the withdrawal- I'm pretty mixed. Im concerned about the US's standing among other nations (we are already seeing these effects) and that the US wont take steps to slow global warming; however, it would also hurt the economy. Feel free to convince me either way, but this is how I currently stand.

https://www.heritage.org/environmen...l-devastating-economic-costs-essentially-zero

 

[Varius]

While I do see why something like this would be nice, this document does not address global warming in any meaningful way and is a drain on the economy. That money would be better used investing into the solar industry or other forms of alternative energy, granted we're talking about Trump here, so that would probably not happen.

All of our money wouldn't be used for all but naught; big economic powers like China and India are not affected by it nor are there any benefits or consequences for following or not following the protocols of this parchment. Besides, it was unconstitutionally ratified by the executed branch; we all know that treaties must be ratified by the Senate.

 

[Somewhere_]

All of our money wouldn't be used for all but naught; big economic powers like China and India are not affected by it nor are there any benefits or consequences for following or not following the protocols of this parchment. Besides, it was unconstitutionally ratified by the executed branch; we all know that treaties must be ratified by the Senate.

I dont believe the treaty would have to ratified by the Senate because its non-binding, although entering into the treaty may violate the spirit.

 

[Varius]

I dont believe the treaty would have to ratified by the Senate because its non-binding, although entering into the treaty may violate the spirit.

The constitution does not specify whether or not the treaty is binding or non-binding, so in my opinion, it still has to be ratified by the Senate. Besides, that money should be going towards alternative energy sources and our decaying infrastructure.

 

[Ivysaur]

While I do see why something like this would be nice, this document does not address global warming in any meaningful way and is a drain on the economy. That money would be better used investing into the solar industry or other forms of alternative energy, granted we're talking about Trump here, so that would probably not happen.

All of our money wouldn't be used for all but naught; big economic powers like China and India are not affected by it nor are there any benefits or consequences for following or not following the protocols of this parchment.

What? Do you mean? Each country sets its own goals, so China and India ARE affected- they are also increasing sharply their use of solar and scrapping over a hundred planned coal plants. The "no consequences" are the eventual destruction of several environments, with catastrophic results on numerous species and on us humans (loss of food, loss of drinkable water, loss of habitable terriroty, etc). The "money" for the Green Climate Fund is barely a few billions- a rounding error in the US Federal Budget. And you know what? The US could have set "investing into the solar industry" as their own Paris goal!!! Like, "why do we need this agreement when we can do X"? Well, since each country sets its own goals, you can say that your goal under the agreement IS (whatever you already wanted to do) so you would have complied with it!

Let's be honest, the only reason to leave this non-binding treaty is because Trump and the US Government want to do absolutely zilch about climate change, because they don't give a shit about the extinction of the human race, because they can't see past 2024, because "if everybody is signing it, then it must be bad! I'm Edge Country and I hate international agreements!", because they think that people with money are immortal or because they expect God-Man to appear flying from the sky to fix everything with his superpowers.

 

[Her]

This was just a foolish and ignorant ploy to appeal to the camps of the science sceptics, the paranoid and the anti-anything-outside-the-borders-of-the-US-of-A. Considering how many cities and states will go ahead with their own plans, it is not as huge a loss as it could be - the push will happen, just not from the White House, as we all knew from the get-go. The agreement was designed in the event of a possible Trump presidency anyway, so it will actually take four years to formally withdraw from the agreement in the first place. A lot can happen in four years! Particularly considering how countries are now more willing to work with other allies or their neighbours than the hysterics of the Trump presidency - a lot can happen in four years of American politics, let alone world politics. Ivysaur has already detailed the goals of India and China, so I won't parrot that information.

Not to mention that this will push us closer to a global renewables market anyway, lol. Even if the US tries its hardest to pull away, their energy market will still be influenced by that matter. So... while it is certainly a disappointing if unsurprising move, it could be far worse.

 

[Varius]

What? Do you mean? Each country sets its own goals, so China and India ARE affected- they are also increasing sharply their use of solar and scrapping over a hundred planned coal plants. The "no consequences" are the eventual destruction of several environments, with catastrophic results on numerous species and on us humans (loss of food, loss of drinkable water, loss of habitable terriroty, etc). The "money" for the Green Climate Fund is barely a few billions- a rounding error in the US Federal Budget. And you know what? The US could have set "investing into the solar industry" as their own Paris goal!!! Like, "why do we need this agreement when we can do X"? Well, since each country sets its own goals, you can say that your goal under the agreement IS (whatever you already wanted to do) so you would have complied with it!

Let's be honest, the only reason to leave this non-binding treaty is because Trump and the US Government want to do absolutely zilch about climate change, because they don't give a muk about the extinction of the human race, because they can't see past 2024, because "if everybody is signing it, then it must be bad! I'm Edge Country and I hate international agreements!", because they think that people with money are immortal or because they expect God-Man to appear flying from the sky to fix everything with his superpowers.

It's quite simple; the actual treaty does not enforce any kind of goals upon those two countries whilst the US is given a goal and pays 3 trillion dollars. And since China is already an industrial powerhouse, I highly doubt they're going to do much to change the CO2 output of their own factories. Plus, knowing China, their whole alternative energy spiel is just a way for them to either get more allies or to profit in some way through imperialistic means (in regards to their philanthropy to other countries, anyways). While the US pledged to lower CO2 output by about 26ish%, both India and China have yet to do any pledge. All this would do is absolutely nothing for climate change and waste money in the process as there are no consequences for any country who intentionally does not make any goals.

Also, while it may be true that we could just allocate money to the solar industry while we're still in this accord, I see no reason to spend more money than we need to. This accord has always been unconstitutional and a waste of money on our part. While three billion isn't much, we need an efficient allocation of funds. There are many more reasons that just "muh god", "muh climate change doesn't exist", or whatever reason you want to put in my mouth for whatever reason. If the agreement will do nothing to combat climate change, why should we be in it in the first place? All it is is a slush fund.

 

[Ivysaur]

It's quite simple; the actual treaty does not enforce any kind of goals upon those two countries whilst the US is given a goal and pays 3 trillion dollars.

Hey, hey, making shit up doesn't count as an argument. That entire line is 1000% false. If you had said "the Paris Agreement forces every American to pay three dogs and burn a piece of Swiss cheese every year", it would have been as close to the truth as what you said.

The treaty doesn't 'enforce' any kind of anything upon anyone- the US doesn't 'have to' meet any goals, nor 'must' China or India either. But China and India have promised to do things! Quoting the Washington Post,

China, in its Paris Accord commitment, said that, compared to 2005 levels, it would seek to cut its carbon emissions by 60 to 65 percent per unit of GDP by 2030. India said it would reduce its emissions per unit of economic output by 33 to 35 percent below 2005 by 2030; the submission does seek foreign aid to meet its goals and mitigate the costs.

Both countries pledge to reach these goals by 2030, meaning they are taking steps now to meet their commitments. India, for instance, seeks to have renewable power make up 40 percent of its power base by 2030, so it is investing heavily in solar energy. The country is now on track to become the world?s third-largest solar power market in 2018, after China and the United States. China is also investing heavily in renewable energy.

There is nothing to 'enforce' those promises, but the whole point of the agreement was encouraging all countries to set voluntary goals they can meet- and China and India have set those and are working to meet them! That's more than what they were doing before the agreement.

In the same way, nobody is going to force the US to meet any goal- other than the US itself! Exactly as the other two countries. There is nothing in the Agreement that says "the goals are voluntary for every country except the US, for them they are mandatory because lol the US sukkkz". Also, the $3 trillion figure you just pulled it out of (insert body part here).

Plus, knowing China, their whole alternative energy spiel is just a way for them to either get more allies or to profit in some way through imperialistic means (in regards to their philanthropy to other countries, anyways).

Boy, if clean power has such tremendous international benefits, why isn't the US at the forefront of it?

While the US pledged to lower CO2 output by about 26ish%, both India and China have yet to do any pledge. All this would do is absolutely nothing for climate change and waste money in the process as there are no consequences for any country who intentionally does not make any goals.

Any gram of CO2 not emmitted is a gram of CO2 less causing warming, so a net profit for the world. And do you know what will cause massive losses? Not doing anything! The US National Flood Insurance Programme is running on a deficit of $25bn due to constant floods in zones of the Southern coast, especially the tip of Florida and Louisiana. Sea levels are rising by 3mm per year (1/8 inches), so floods are going to get worse, not better. And that's only one of the many money sinks caused by global warming- now imagine that, times every country with a maritime front in the world.

...and the whole point of a worldwide agreement on an issue that affects everybody is making sure that that everybody feels compelled to take part. The best way to unravel the system is having important countries -like, say, the US- chickening out and trying to be "free riders". You sure keep talking about China and India, but in the real world -as in, in the world of facts and reality, not the Republican rightwing bubble-, the only country that has decided not to set a goal is... the US! Oh, and Syria, because of that civil war thing.

 

[Varius]

Hey, hey, making muk up doesn't count as an argument. That entire line is 1000% false. If you had said "the Paris Agreement forces every American to pay three dogs and burn a piece of Swiss cheese every year", it would have been as close to the truth as what you said.

The treaty doesn't 'enforce' any kind of anything upon anyone- the US doesn't 'have to' meet any goals, nor 'must' China or India either. But China and India have promised to do things! Quoting the Washington Post,

Ok, but you still have to admit that this provision does not enforce anything onto all three countries involved (which you did). What's going to stop the other two countries from intentionally not meeting their goal? After all, their businesses would have a much easier time just polluting their air with CO2 since they don't have a lot of environmental regulations.

By the way, the I meant to type $3 billion instead of $3 trillion. It was a simple typo. Nothing more, nothing less. Not going to debate those pledges though, I don't really have a counterpoint.

Boy, if clean power has such tremendous international benefits, why isn't the US at the forefront of it?

Gee, it's almost as if we have a moron in power who'd rather spend his money on the dying coal industry. Anyways, I'm basing this off of China's scramble for Africa. Plus, giving a bunch of money to other countries makes them like you; go figure. China has an entire fund for helping developing countries with alternative energy endeavors, and the purpose for that is to try and benefit from them or become allies with those countries.

This whole fund they have created does two things; it gives money for developing countries so said developing countries can buy Chinese solar panels and engineering to help their alternative energy programs using the same money from the fund. China would not be doing this if it wouldn't give them some sort of profit for benefit. It is nothing more but a positive investment for China.

Any gram of CO2 not emmitted is a gram of CO2 less causing warming, so a net profit for the world. And do you know what will cause massive losses? Not doing anything! The US National Flood Insurance Programme is running on a deficit of $25bn due to constant floods in zones of the Southern coast, especially the tip of Florida and Louisiana. Sea levels are rising by 3mm per year (1/8 inches), so floods are going to get worse, not better. And that's only one of the many money sinks caused by global warming- now imagine that, times every country with a maritime front in the world.

...and the whole point of a worldwide agreement on an issue that affects everybody is making sure that that everybody feels compelled to take part. The best way to unravel the system is having important countries -like, say, the US- chickening out and trying to be "free riders". You sure keep talking about China and India, but in the real world -as in, in the world of facts and reality, not the Republican rightwing bubble-, the only country that has decided not to set a goal is... the US! Oh, and Syria, because of that civil war thing.

Ok, and as I've said, I would much rather spend the money going to the Paris Accord on the solar industry, which would help decrease the amount of CO2 going into the air. I already know that this is a big issue, I just see no reason in staying in an international treaty if it's not constitutional (again, needs to be ratified by congress) and has no way of enforcing what it promises.

I see no point in joining a worldwide agreement if it will not enforce what it says; it will do nothing in regards to the environment. By the way, here's China for you. See anything wrong there? That giant smog cloud is totally not a representation of China's lack of environmental laws, right? Clearly I must be insane and that cloud must not exist at all. India rivals it. So I beg this question; if it is much cheaper to pollute at these levels because there are no regulations, what's going to make the private businesses in India and China lessen their CO2 production? At least in the US you still have corporations trying to join the Accord, and if they want to, they shouldn't be held back. In fact, they're not even paying into the Green Climate Fund.

Why not add in the fact that we're currently paying 1/3rd of the entire Green Climate Fund? Sure, we're paying about $10 per capita and other countries are paying much higher per capita, but you'd think that two of the biggest polluters (in general, not just CO2) would also be paying quite a bit into said fund. Is this not one-sided? Plus, aren't you worried about it's lack of transparency?

'Nor is the GCF transparent about its processes, Rodr?guez Osuna adds. ?The fund has no information disclosure policy and no accountability mechanism, yet the board is approving project proposals,? she says.'
Source.

With a lack of accountability, what would stop corrupt politicians in some of these developing countries from pocketing some of the money that should be used on the projects in their country?

By the way, I highly doubt I'd be in a "Republican right-wing bubble"; this is my 8values test. I'm pretty much a national liberal, so instead of trying to make accusatory remarks, how about you put a little bit more clout into your argument instead of ad hominems.

Also, the US did set a goal for the accord here. We only left, and many states are pretty much trying to replicate these goals and uphold them here. A good bit of these states are in the rustbelt and other industrial areas. If they want to go through with plans that would uphold these goals, more power to them.

 

[Esper]

It's pretty upsetting. The US is a hotbed of climate denial so anything, however mediocre, that could get past the obstruction of many of our politicians was good in my eyes. The deal was non-binding, didn't really go that far, and, yes, legally Trump can direct the government to sit on its ass regarding positive changes to our energy usage, but it's a bad idea to leave. It sends a bad message to other countries, which could have ripple effects for other areas of diplomacy as well as serve as a rallying point to climate deniers elsewhere in the world.

Regarding the economic issues there is no reason to think that Paris would have negatively affected America. All the international companies based in America are already moving toward the kind of goals set out in the agreement so they can do business in Europe and elsewhere. A lot of America is already going green. My own home state is also pushing forward a pretty big green energy agenda, has been for years, under both Brown (a democrat) and Schwarzenegger (a republican), and our economy is doing just fine. Not perfect, but then show me one that doesn't have problems. The point is that even with our carbon emissions regulations and so on we're still functioning and growing.

I also think that helping developing countries, regardless of the net cost to developed countries, is the right way to go. Without the incentive of money from the wealthy parts of the world the poorer parts might decide to forgo environmental protections if it could mean they could industrialize faster, make more money in the short run, just like the developed countries did. In a way, it's a debt we owe. We showed the world that you could get rich quick by destroying the long-term viability of the planet. That's a bad lesson to teach, but telling other countries "Do as a I say, not as I do" isn't very effective. The money's got to be there. It can come in tandem with more spending on domestic projects - the roads and other infrastructure, including greening our energy. The cost is worth it.