|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
Why US leaving the Paris agreement is good for the world:
It might cause Paris to collapse. The dominant effect of Paris on climate reduction efforts in the next decade is to require India and China to build their CO2 emissions by 2030 to the level they think they'd need for the next 70 years of growth. All other factors are secondary - the United States and Europe could cut all CO2 emissions and Paris would still cause overall emissions increases.
The United States' energy sector is free to innovate; these innovations will be copied by the rest of the world.
Why US leaving the Paris agreement is good for the US:
The US portion of the Paris agreement wasn't cost effective. A good way to assess climate proposals is in dollars per degree of warming, assuming everything works as planned. As a rule of thumb, if it's more than all the world's money per degree, it's not worthwhile. The cost per degree for the US portion of the Paris accord is at least $300 trillion*, and that's taking the 'worst case' model at face value; the average model is more like $500 trillion. People in the US still care very much about global warming, and we should let them innovate without throwing all their money at policies that don't give enough bang for the buck.
The US is fully capable of arriving at its own climate policy. We should lead by example, not by blindly following UNFCCC demands while they treat us as a cash dispenser.
Why it doesn't matter:
The United States never ratified the agreement in the first place, nor did Congress fund the direct payments it would require. So "withdrawing" doesn't do anything substantial.
*Source for effect size: (link). I couldn't find my source for the $2.5 trillion/year for 40 years cost, though.
|
On June 02 2017 12:20 Buckyman wrote:Why US leaving the Paris agreement is good for the world: It might cause Paris to collapse. The dominant effect of Paris on climate reduction efforts in the next decade is to require India and China to build their CO2 emissions by 2030 to the level they think they'd need for the next 70 years of growth. All other factors are secondary - the United States and Europe could cut all CO2 emissions and Paris would still cause overall emissions increases. The United States' energy sector is free to innovate; these innovations will be copied by the rest of the world. Why US leaving the Paris agreement is good for the US: The US portion of the Paris agreement wasn't cost effective. A good way to assess climate proposals is in dollars per degree of warming, assuming everything works as planned. As a rule of thumb, if it's more than all the world's money per degree, it's not worthwhile. The cost per degree for the US portion of the Paris accord is at least $300 trillion*, and that's taking the 'worst case' model at face value; the average model is more like $500 trillion. People in the US still care very much about global warming, and we should let them innovate without throwing all their money at policies that don't give enough bang for the buck. Why it doesn't matter: The United States never ratified the agreement in the first place, nor did Congress fund the direct payments it would require. So "withdrawing" doesn't do anything substantial. *Source for effect size: ( link). I couldn't find my source for the $2.5 trillion/year for 40 years cost, though.
Denying an developing nation the ability to develop industrially de facto enforces a world order between the rich and the poor nations. Its dumb to dress that up as anything other then pre WW1 colonialism. The united states and Europe are industrialized and economically developed.
The point of the Paris accord is to get everyone on the same page about global warming. There isn't anything before it to build off of so you need to start somewhere. The rest of the world has signaled strongly that they'll stay in the paris accord and ignore and isolate the US economically because of us leaving. That will end our innovation in the next generation of energy development and end our global leadership position in energy policy for the next generation. Our empire is built on the back of people buying oil and when they no longer need the oil then all the fruits of our empire will wither and die overnight. Global finance will restructure itself in ways no one can plan for but can be rest assured will not involve anything good for the US.
All your post boils down to is simplistic arguments that don't hold water once you give any thought to it at all.
|
Macron already sending out a message to US engineers, scientists, and entrepreneurs to come to France if they want to work on green energy lul.
|
Of all the places you could try to convince Americans to migrate to, France is probably far from their top choice. Macron tries too hard to try to look cool and hip.
|
On June 02 2017 12:34 LegalLord wrote:
Of all the places you could try to convince Americans to migrate to, France is probably far from their top choice. Macron tries too hard to try to look cool and hip.
And I would still take it in a heartbeat, if we keep going down this path.
|
On June 02 2017 12:27 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 12:20 Buckyman wrote:Why US leaving the Paris agreement is good for the world: It might cause Paris to collapse. The dominant effect of Paris on climate reduction efforts in the next decade is to require India and China to build their CO2 emissions by 2030 to the level they think they'd need for the next 70 years of growth. All other factors are secondary - the United States and Europe could cut all CO2 emissions and Paris would still cause overall emissions increases. The United States' energy sector is free to innovate; these innovations will be copied by the rest of the world. Why US leaving the Paris agreement is good for the US: The US portion of the Paris agreement wasn't cost effective. A good way to assess climate proposals is in dollars per degree of warming, assuming everything works as planned. As a rule of thumb, if it's more than all the world's money per degree, it's not worthwhile. The cost per degree for the US portion of the Paris accord is at least $300 trillion*, and that's taking the 'worst case' model at face value; the average model is more like $500 trillion. People in the US still care very much about global warming, and we should let them innovate without throwing all their money at policies that don't give enough bang for the buck. Why it doesn't matter: The United States never ratified the agreement in the first place, nor did Congress fund the direct payments it would require. So "withdrawing" doesn't do anything substantial. *Source for effect size: ( link). I couldn't find my source for the $2.5 trillion/year for 40 years cost, though. Denying an developing nation the ability to develop industrially de facto enforces a world order between the rich and the poor nations. Its dumb to dress that up as anything other then pre WW1 colonialism. The united states and Europe are industrialized and economically developed. The point of the Paris accord is to get everyone on the same page about global warming. There isn't anything before it to build off of so you need to start somewhere. The rest of the world has signaled strongly that they'll stay in the paris accord and ignore and isolate the US economically because of us leaving. That will end our innovation in the next generation of energy development and end our global leadership position in energy policy for the next generation. Our empire is built on the back of people buying oil and when they no longer need the oil then all the fruits of our empire will wither and die overnight. Global finance will restructure itself in ways no one can plan for but can be rest assured will not involve anything good for the US. All your post boils down to is simplistic arguments that don't hold water once you give any thought to it at all.
This is absurd. US abandonment of the Paris Accord doesn't mean that green energy development and investment will stop in the US. All it means is that we'll be free to do it on our own terms and without the additional, unnecessary burdens imposed by some shitty international agreement.
|
On June 02 2017 12:34 LegalLord wrote:
Of all the places you could try to convince Americans to migrate to, France is probably far from their top choice. Macron tries too hard to try to look cool and hip.
Thought he was good in this one, and I'm not a fan.
I don't really understand why us french speaking people in general can't get better at english though. I mean yeah "th-" is really not intuitive at all for a french speaker but after I fucked it up for a while I got to somewhere at least half decent, his were just embarrassing.
|
|
|
Guaranteed the US will still dominate the energy race. This is a symbolic failure, really. We aren't "united" in the fight against climate change. It was a chance for nearly the whole planet to come together to solve a problem, but without the US it is really missing a key player. I understand the sentiment behind the agreement, but it's really NOT a big deal.
|
United States43543 Posts
France has always been at the vanguard of nuclear energy engineering and research. The idea of brain drain to France isn't so crazy, especially given Department of Energy budget cuts.
|
I work at a newspaper, we also published it as probably terrorist (about 7-8 hours ago when the article was edited). It's not just Trump making shit up it was originally misreported by the AP, iirc there was some chatter on isis websites that said this was them.
|
On June 02 2017 12:43 biology]major wrote:
Guaranteed the US will still dominate the energy race. This is a symbolic failure, really. We aren't "united" in the fight against climate change. It was a chance for nearly the whole planet to come together to solve a problem, but without the US it is really missing a key player. I understand the sentiment behind the agreement, but it's really NOT a big deal.
It is just yet another global agreement/treaty/convention that the US is not a part of because it sees itself as exceptional. There's a long and ever-increasing list of these things.
|
Yeah, by America standards this isn't out of the ordinary and I think the damage will be more political than economic. Any statements of "America is about to be left behind" are hyperbolic.
But it's still really fucking stupid.
|
So more leaders are leaving Trump's advisory council(so far, Elon Musk and Bob Iger(Disney)).
Disney later issued a longer statement from Iger. “Protecting our planet and driving economic growth are critical to our future, and they aren’t mutually exclusive. I deeply disagree with the decision to withdraw from the Paris Agreement and, as a matter of principle, I’ve resigned from the President’s advisory council.”
But I think out of all the people in the white house, the person with by far the largest ego is Trump, so there's no brakes on the Trump-train. Hop on or get run over.
|
On June 02 2017 12:55 LegalLord wrote:
Yeah, by America standards this isn't out of the ordinary and I think the damage will be more political than economic. Any statements of "America is about to be left behind" are hyperbolic.
But it's still really fucking stupid.
It's possible to be left behind politically, too. Whoever succeeds Trump has the enormous task of reestablishing successful diplomacy with basically the rest of the world, since Trump's M.O. so far seems to be giving everybody else a big fuck you.
|
|
|
On June 02 2017 12:59 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 12:55 LegalLord wrote:
Yeah, by America standards this isn't out of the ordinary and I think the damage will be more political than economic. Any statements of "America is about to be left behind" are hyperbolic.
But it's still really fucking stupid. It's possible to be left behind politically, too. Whoever succeeds Trump has the enormous task of reestablishing successful diplomacy with basically the rest of the world, since Trump's M.O. so far seems to be giving everybody else a big fuck you.
That isn't all on Trump though, to be fair. The major alliances of the US were already starting to see important cracks as the relative strength of the US starts to recede, and alliances started to fray under that reality. But the US's allies have almost no backbone so they will come crawling back as soon as they can save face in doing so.
|
The Paris thing hits along several axes.
(1) Substantive greenhouse gas production reduction in USA
(2) USA credibility in making multilateral deals
(3) TransAtlantic partnership
The Paris deal was not going to make much of a difference on (1). Greenhouse trends are good overall in the USA and more efficient carbon using devices are continuously entering the market. But (2) and (3) just took some nasty hits. Our Merkel/Macron/Euro partnership (3) just got whacked by Trump's dis of Article V at the NATO summit, now Trump walks on a deal that even Putin/Russia signed. Further, who would ever make a multilateral deal (2) with the USA ever again? Trump walked on TPP right as everyone agreed on it. Trump walked on Paris as the last holdout. There will be no further negotiations no matter what Trump says. No one will meet us at the table again until Trump is out of office.
|
On June 02 2017 13:03 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 12:59 NewSunshine wrote:On June 02 2017 12:55 LegalLord wrote:
Yeah, by America standards this isn't out of the ordinary and I think the damage will be more political than economic. Any statements of "America is about to be left behind" are hyperbolic.
But it's still really fucking stupid. It's possible to be left behind politically, too. Whoever succeeds Trump has the enormous task of reestablishing successful diplomacy with basically the rest of the world, since Trump's M.O. so far seems to be giving everybody else a big fuck you. That isn't all on Trump though, to be fair. The major alliances of the US were already starting to see important cracks as the relative strength of the US starts to recede, and alliances started to fray under that reality. But the US's allies have almost no backbone so they will come crawling back as soon as they can save face in doing so.
Yeah Frum wrote a bit on how Germany relations were already pretty bad. From what I've read and followed on what pulling out means this is definitely more of a terrible look politically than anything else. I doubt the administration will invest in clean energy but even if they had stayed they probably wouldn't have been too different policy wise. I'd say the larger signals of this as being anti working with other countries and the idea of environmental and focus on clean energy killing jobs is much more of a problem than the act in itself. There was definitely a better way to have pulled this off.
so pulling out isn't problem. Administration open hostility to clean energy and environmental protection in general going to be more of a problem. just my thoughts though.
pulling out and rambling about getting a better deal and seemingly having no idea what the accord actually does is also a major problem.
|
also in terms of 2020 candidates I like Steve Bullock. He seems sufficiently out of party mainstream and rural enough.
Really like Bob Casey jr. a lot but he seems too conservative to actually win a Dem primary. would seem a solid vp pick if the winner was somebody pretty progressive though (assuming he wins reelection in 2018 obviously).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
