|
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. |
On June 03 2017 03:05 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2017 02:40 Danglars wrote:On June 03 2017 02:31 Nyxisto wrote:On June 03 2017 02:24 Danglars wrote:On June 03 2017 02:16 Nyxisto wrote:On June 03 2017 02:11 Danglars wrote:On June 03 2017 01:59 Nyxisto wrote:
International agreements aren't toothless or symbolic just because there is no sovereign to enforce them. They function by holding nations to their word, nobody wants to be a pariah within the international community because they constantly violate international agreements. The US should know the effectiveness of this because it has more or less justified every single one of their military adventures in recent years, and it is what enabled Trump to take action against Assad, because the international consensus on chemical weapons is another such agreement. No way of enforcing an agreement is the absolute gold standard of describing an agreement as toothless or symbolic. See how much "holding nations to their word" because "nobody wants to be a pariah" affected Trump in his decision today. See North Korea, or the former Soviet Union, or Israel, or Palestine. North Korea is isolated, the Soviet Union doesn't exist any more and Palestine is in a miserable state too, constantly having damaged their position on the world stage by ruining their reputation within the international community. Those are not great examples. Sure the US are a big and powerful country but they're losing their international position with this. No global leader has ever isolated themselves and come out better at the other end, it usually signifies a period of decline. No nation is special, the US isn't immune to bad decisions even if some subset of the voters apparently thinks that this is true. So instead of arguing that they function by "holding nations to their word" and "nobody wants to be a pariah," you're now arguing that nobody violates international agreements without somehow experiencing bad results decades along the line? You're dipping into some deep waters of correlation versus causation. The nations that get some kind of international proclamation against them happen to be great targets of actually effective actions that have teeth, but internationalists want to pat themselves on the back. So you're hoping the US declines because of international disapprobation, but have no argument in favor of international agreements lacking enforcement mechanisms to be more than toothless and symbolic. Gotcha. The last point isn't really worth arguing about of course there's no international sovereign with a big hammer who punishes you, that was already clear when the agreement was signed and nobody expects anything else. You were the one who brought a number of failed states up, apparently as an argument for.. what again? This isn't a correlation versus causation issue, it's about the idea that a country that claims to lead the world needs to be reliable. And when everybody else notices that that country cannot be relied upon its importance will diminish. I'm not hoping for it by the way, the US is a more natural partner to the West than China or India, but nobody else will wait for the US to stop behaving like this. Now you're on about it not mattering if agreements don't have teeth, after previously stating that "international agreements aren't toothless or symbolic just because there is no sovereign to enforce them." I'm having some trouble keeping up with your shifting argument, so try not to defend your original by shifting it again. I never mentioned that the US has to support its claim to "lead the world," so I'm wondering why you feel the need to examine the ways this might stop. That's all not to mention that signing on to symbolic fluffy deals with lots of signatures is not a measure of reliability any more than a used car salesman's assurances matter. This is just facetious. Of course international relations have more bite than a used car salesman's scam. Do you think the world right now looks just as it did before we had frameworks like the UN and multilateral agreements? Human rights for example are routinely broken but they're also, to a surprising degree, respected. As I said before, international rules on war are respected and have given the US immense leverage on foreign policy. (this is a clear example where the US actually profits from shaping international law). If you're not defending the idea that the US should lead on any issues and are basically okay with a diminishing role then there's not much to argue about. But I assumed that you'd not be okay with that because I don't see how it's rational to voluntarily cede that position. I'm shifting arguments because it's not clear what you are defending. Let's assume you are correct and the agreement is toothless, what's the downside of staying in? If it doesn't work, no problem you've not lost anything anyway. If it works, you can force countries like China or India to compete on fairer grounds.
Agreements that enforce nothing and rely on mere goodwill that it advances a chain of events are just as useless as a car saleman's assurances that we're on the up-and-up. If you want to talk about human rights and the role of America in the world, go have fun with somebody that was discussing it. If you'll just admit you were wrong to defend the agreement as not toothless, and prior examples that they have teeth to be worthless assertions of something being the case, then I've gained my point and we can be done here. Instead, you have more dissimulation like there being no international sovereign (guess what the whole point of having enforcement mechanisms is ... there's no international sovereign). You additionally disprove arguments I never made in service of points that don't support your original argument. So if I can't hear why you really think it has teeth, "holds nations to their word" because "nobody wants to be a pariah," the "US should know the effectiveness of it," then I must conclude you never intended to back up your original claim in the first place.
|
On June 03 2017 03:39 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2017 03:33 xDaunt wrote:On June 03 2017 03:30 KwarK wrote:On June 03 2017 03:27 xDaunt wrote:Just so that everyone is on the same page, here's what the Heritage Foundation posted in its summary regarding the costs: Policies adapted from domestic regulations emphasized in the Paris agreement will affect a variety of aspects of the American economy. As a result of the plan, one can expect that by 2035, there will be:
An overall average shortfall of nearly 400,000 jobs;
An average manufacturing shortfall of over 200,000 jobs;
A total income loss of more than $20,000 for a family of four;
An aggregate gross domestic product (GDP) loss of over $2.5 trillion; and
Increases in household electricity expenditures between 13 percent and 20 percent. If you have some other estimate that you want to point for what the cost of the Paris Accord would have been, go ahead and post it. That makes this even better. It's not even an expense. It's an income loss of $20,000 per family of four. He's been presenting it this entire time as if the direct costs in higher energy expenses, higher product costs, increased logistical overhead costs on food etc, carbon taxes on produce and so forth sum up to $20,000. Turns out they didn't even say that. There's higher energy costs, too: ![[image loading]](http://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/~/media/infographics/2016/04/bg3080/bg-paris-consequences-charts-4-825.jpg) Go read the report for yourself. I don't have the time to regurgitate the whole thing for you. EDIT: And from my perspective, a cost is a cost -- whether you take it as an actual expense or a reduction in income. Both equate to money out of Americans' pockets and are thus real costs of the Paris Accord. xDaunt, nobody is as stupid as you're pretending to be right now. You are literally making the argument reduced income = less money in your pocket increased expenses = less money in your pocket therefore reduced income of $20,000 = increased expenses of $20,000 IT DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY! You can't just say that from your perspective it does. There aren't perspectives on this. If you present $20,000 in reduced income as $20,000 in increased expenses then you are wrong. Just wrong.
I'm not interested getting into another shitty argument over semantics with you. Reduced income is clearly a cost of a program. Stop being a bean counter and look up what opportunity cost means. Larger economic concepts apply here, not accounting.
|
On June 03 2017 03:27 xDaunt wrote:Just so that everyone is on the same page, here's what the Heritage Foundation posted in its summary regarding the costs: Show nested quote +Policies adapted from domestic regulations emphasized in the Paris agreement will affect a variety of aspects of the American economy. As a result of the plan, one can expect that by 2035, there will be:
An overall average shortfall of nearly 400,000 jobs;
An average manufacturing shortfall of over 200,000 jobs;
A total income loss of more than $20,000 for a family of four;
An aggregate gross domestic product (GDP) loss of over $2.5 trillion; and
Increases in household electricity expenditures between 13 percent and 20 percent. If you have some other estimate that you want to point for what the cost of the Paris Accord would have been, go ahead and post it.
The problem with "overall job loss" is examples like when cars started being a thing. Cars destroyed a lot of jobs. Same with trains. There was an enormous shift, but it didn't mean cars or trains were job killers. It meant that other shitty stuff was getting replaced. How many jobs exist because of cars today? Not a perfect comparison, but the mechanism is sound. Pointing out the ways that aggressive technological advancement kills jobs is only telling half the story.
|
United States42024 Posts
On June 03 2017 03:41 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2017 03:39 KwarK wrote:On June 03 2017 03:33 xDaunt wrote:On June 03 2017 03:30 KwarK wrote:On June 03 2017 03:27 xDaunt wrote:Just so that everyone is on the same page, here's what the Heritage Foundation posted in its summary regarding the costs: Policies adapted from domestic regulations emphasized in the Paris agreement will affect a variety of aspects of the American economy. As a result of the plan, one can expect that by 2035, there will be:
An overall average shortfall of nearly 400,000 jobs;
An average manufacturing shortfall of over 200,000 jobs;
A total income loss of more than $20,000 for a family of four;
An aggregate gross domestic product (GDP) loss of over $2.5 trillion; and
Increases in household electricity expenditures between 13 percent and 20 percent. If you have some other estimate that you want to point for what the cost of the Paris Accord would have been, go ahead and post it. That makes this even better. It's not even an expense. It's an income loss of $20,000 per family of four. He's been presenting it this entire time as if the direct costs in higher energy expenses, higher product costs, increased logistical overhead costs on food etc, carbon taxes on produce and so forth sum up to $20,000. Turns out they didn't even say that. There's higher energy costs, too: Go read the report for yourself. I don't have the time to regurgitate the whole thing for you. EDIT: And from my perspective, a cost is a cost -- whether you take it as an actual expense or a reduction in income. Both equate to money out of Americans' pockets and are thus real costs of the Paris Accord. xDaunt, nobody is as stupid as you're pretending to be right now. You are literally making the argument reduced income = less money in your pocket increased expenses = less money in your pocket therefore reduced income of $20,000 = increased expenses of $20,000 IT DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY! You can't just say that from your perspective it does. There aren't perspectives on this. If you present $20,000 in reduced income as $20,000 in increased expenses then you are wrong. Just wrong. I'm not interested getting into another shitty argument over semantics with you. Reduced income is clearly a cost of a program. Stop being a bean counter and look up what opportunity cost means. Larger economic concepts apply here, not accounting.
There isn't a 1:1 translation between the two. If you attempt to present $20,000 in reduced income as $20,000 in increased expenses then you are lying. It's that simple.
The fact that both are less money in your pocket does not mean that there is a 1:1 ratio between the two. A five year old could explain this to you.
|
On June 03 2017 03:42 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2017 03:27 xDaunt wrote:Just so that everyone is on the same page, here's what the Heritage Foundation posted in its summary regarding the costs: Policies adapted from domestic regulations emphasized in the Paris agreement will affect a variety of aspects of the American economy. As a result of the plan, one can expect that by 2035, there will be:
An overall average shortfall of nearly 400,000 jobs;
An average manufacturing shortfall of over 200,000 jobs;
A total income loss of more than $20,000 for a family of four;
An aggregate gross domestic product (GDP) loss of over $2.5 trillion; and
Increases in household electricity expenditures between 13 percent and 20 percent. If you have some other estimate that you want to point for what the cost of the Paris Accord would have been, go ahead and post it. The problem with "overall job loss" is examples like when cars started being a thing. Cars destroyed a lot of jobs. Same with trains. There was an enormous shift, but it didn't mean cars or trains were job killers. It meant that other shitty stuff was getting replaced. How many jobs exist because of cars today? Not a perfect comparison, but the mechanism is sound. Pointing out the ways that aggressive technological advancement kills jobs is only telling half the story.
Look, here's the point. Stuff like the Paris Accord very clearly bears certain economic costs. No one reasonable is going to deny that. If you don't like how the Heritage Foundation has illustrated it, I'm all ears for alternative studies.
|
On June 03 2017 03:50 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2017 03:42 Mohdoo wrote:On June 03 2017 03:27 xDaunt wrote:Just so that everyone is on the same page, here's what the Heritage Foundation posted in its summary regarding the costs: Policies adapted from domestic regulations emphasized in the Paris agreement will affect a variety of aspects of the American economy. As a result of the plan, one can expect that by 2035, there will be:
An overall average shortfall of nearly 400,000 jobs;
An average manufacturing shortfall of over 200,000 jobs;
A total income loss of more than $20,000 for a family of four;
An aggregate gross domestic product (GDP) loss of over $2.5 trillion; and
Increases in household electricity expenditures between 13 percent and 20 percent. If you have some other estimate that you want to point for what the cost of the Paris Accord would have been, go ahead and post it. The problem with "overall job loss" is examples like when cars started being a thing. Cars destroyed a lot of jobs. Same with trains. There was an enormous shift, but it didn't mean cars or trains were job killers. It meant that other shitty stuff was getting replaced. How many jobs exist because of cars today? Not a perfect comparison, but the mechanism is sound. Pointing out the ways that aggressive technological advancement kills jobs is only telling half the story. Look, here's the point. Stuff like the Paris Accord very clearly bears certain economic costs. No one reasonable is going to deny that. If you don't like how the Heritage Foundation has illustrated it, I'm all ears for alternative studies.
My point is that the heritage foundation is not doing a good job at being a placeholder. If I make a proposition to you, but I only include the cons, you probably won't agree to it. If I say, "yo, daunty-fresh, I've got a thing for you to buy. It is $100. You in?", you'll ask me what it is. If I said it was a MAGA hat, you'd say no. If I told you it was a beachfront property with a built in pizza hut, you'd even include a $10 tip along with the purchase.
How about our huge thrust to build our interstate highways? Railroads? People could have easily said "The way I see it, we are doing just fine transporting material across our great nation and I can't justify telling my customers they need to pay another dollar because of some new fancy technology", and it would be very similar.
|
On June 03 2017 03:55 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2017 03:50 xDaunt wrote:On June 03 2017 03:42 Mohdoo wrote:On June 03 2017 03:27 xDaunt wrote:Just so that everyone is on the same page, here's what the Heritage Foundation posted in its summary regarding the costs: Policies adapted from domestic regulations emphasized in the Paris agreement will affect a variety of aspects of the American economy. As a result of the plan, one can expect that by 2035, there will be:
An overall average shortfall of nearly 400,000 jobs;
An average manufacturing shortfall of over 200,000 jobs;
A total income loss of more than $20,000 for a family of four;
An aggregate gross domestic product (GDP) loss of over $2.5 trillion; and
Increases in household electricity expenditures between 13 percent and 20 percent. If you have some other estimate that you want to point for what the cost of the Paris Accord would have been, go ahead and post it. The problem with "overall job loss" is examples like when cars started being a thing. Cars destroyed a lot of jobs. Same with trains. There was an enormous shift, but it didn't mean cars or trains were job killers. It meant that other shitty stuff was getting replaced. How many jobs exist because of cars today? Not a perfect comparison, but the mechanism is sound. Pointing out the ways that aggressive technological advancement kills jobs is only telling half the story. Look, here's the point. Stuff like the Paris Accord very clearly bears certain economic costs. No one reasonable is going to deny that. If you don't like how the Heritage Foundation has illustrated it, I'm all ears for alternative studies. My point is that the heritage foundation is not doing a good job at being a placeholder. If I make a proposition to you, but I only include the cons, you probably won't agree to it. If I say, "yo, daunty-fresh, I've got a thing for you to buy. It is $100. You in?", you'll ask me what it is. If I said it was a MAGA hat, you'd say no. If I told you it was a beachfront property with a built in pizza hut, you'd even include a $10 tip along with the purchase. How about our huge thrust to build our interstate highways? Railroads? People could have easily said "The way I see it, we are doing just fine transporting material across our great nation and I can't justify telling my customers they need to pay another dollar because of some new fancy technology", and it would be very similar.
They didn't just look at the cons. They looked at the positive impact of the Paris Accord and found it wanting in light of the cost. Outside of industry special interests, no one objects to the green energy and green policy just for the same of objecting to them. Every intelligent criticism of this stuff includes a cost-benefit analysis.
|
Canada13379 Posts
On June 03 2017 01:48 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2017 01:30 ZeromuS wrote:
But the frustration with Trump's decisions isn't just about his actual impact on the environment.
It is about the symbolic abdication of power and the fact that his position shows that he doesn't even care symbolically about climate change.
Its a signal that the federal US government, while he is in charge, doesn't really support climate action on any level. Thats a bad message to send globally and to the market. Even if the real actual policies aren't very strong behind the treaty, it shows that the US just doesn't care.
That has real political ramifications that go beyond the actual climate accord. Thats the REAL issue.
That whole QTIIPS thing is a deflection of deeper issues.
So it's about all about feeling good about ourselves, huh? Shocking. And even if you disagree with him, you need to give Trump the credit of at least explaining why he's canning the Paris Accords. Trump laid out its shortcomings pretty clearly. This wasn't some arbitrary and capricious decision that Trump made on a whim.
Thanks for completely ignoring the part of my post that says that even if you don't agree with it you dont GAIN anything by leaving.
All leaving does is abdicate your position on the world stage with regard to the thing every other country negotiated as a group and was a symbol of international unity.
And trump's reason was "its a bad deal for america"
This boils down to the fact that the President of the USA believes that his country is the one that should set the international agenda in such a way that all countries should bow down to him and his piece of land.
If you don't think there will be zero political ramifications on the global stage because of this for the USA, I honestly don't know what to tell you.
And the only reason I call it symbolic is because there is no punishment for not following it based on any mechanism in the agreement itself.
There is a lot of skin in the game for any country that actively pursues innovation in the space of green energy and green policy and if this agreement is the thing that people point to as a political justification for federal funding in those countries - thats the real power of the damn thing in terms of actionable public policy and public/private partnerships.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
In the field of climate science, further/alternative study has rightfully gotten a bad rap for being a stall tactic. Climate change itself is of course no longer controversial, scientifically.
How to deal with it is of course a different matter. The world could do with a few less solar roadways or Musk-style pyramid schemes. Those should very much be criticized and allowed to fail. Don't throw out the baby with the scummy bathwater though. The same stall tactic is being used for climate implementation.
|
|
|
On June 03 2017 03:37 Plansix wrote:
Can we all just take a moment and appreciate what a fucking lier Ryan is? Deregulating banks is the last thing we need.
Make the Depression the US will inevitably go into Great again?
|
Climate change is absolutely controversial, scientifically. Rational discussion has not been able to take place in the "absolutist vs denier" environment, so controversies remain unsettled behind the scenes.
I hope that, if nothing else, Trump will lead to having the hard scientific discussions now that we should have had in the '90s.
|
On June 03 2017 04:00 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2017 03:55 Mohdoo wrote:On June 03 2017 03:50 xDaunt wrote:On June 03 2017 03:42 Mohdoo wrote:On June 03 2017 03:27 xDaunt wrote:Just so that everyone is on the same page, here's what the Heritage Foundation posted in its summary regarding the costs: Policies adapted from domestic regulations emphasized in the Paris agreement will affect a variety of aspects of the American economy. As a result of the plan, one can expect that by 2035, there will be:
An overall average shortfall of nearly 400,000 jobs;
An average manufacturing shortfall of over 200,000 jobs;
A total income loss of more than $20,000 for a family of four;
An aggregate gross domestic product (GDP) loss of over $2.5 trillion; and
Increases in household electricity expenditures between 13 percent and 20 percent. If you have some other estimate that you want to point for what the cost of the Paris Accord would have been, go ahead and post it. The problem with "overall job loss" is examples like when cars started being a thing. Cars destroyed a lot of jobs. Same with trains. There was an enormous shift, but it didn't mean cars or trains were job killers. It meant that other shitty stuff was getting replaced. How many jobs exist because of cars today? Not a perfect comparison, but the mechanism is sound. Pointing out the ways that aggressive technological advancement kills jobs is only telling half the story. Look, here's the point. Stuff like the Paris Accord very clearly bears certain economic costs. No one reasonable is going to deny that. If you don't like how the Heritage Foundation has illustrated it, I'm all ears for alternative studies. My point is that the heritage foundation is not doing a good job at being a placeholder. If I make a proposition to you, but I only include the cons, you probably won't agree to it. If I say, "yo, daunty-fresh, I've got a thing for you to buy. It is $100. You in?", you'll ask me what it is. If I said it was a MAGA hat, you'd say no. If I told you it was a beachfront property with a built in pizza hut, you'd even include a $10 tip along with the purchase. How about our huge thrust to build our interstate highways? Railroads? People could have easily said "The way I see it, we are doing just fine transporting material across our great nation and I can't justify telling my customers they need to pay another dollar because of some new fancy technology", and it would be very similar. They didn't just look at the cons. They looked at the positive impact of the Paris Accord and found it wanting in light of the cost. Outside of industry special interests, no one objects to the green energy and green policy just for the same of objecting to them. Every intelligent criticism of this stuff includes a cost-benefit analysis.
The cons are that these standards are going to be set by other countries anyway. We don’t just sell cars to the US, we sell them overseas too. By leaving the agreement, we gave up our place at the table and won’t have a say in any future standards.
|
United States42024 Posts
The scientific debate over climate change today is comparable to the one over whether smoking causes cancer forty years ago.
|
On June 03 2017 04:12 Buckyman wrote:
Climate change is absolutely controversial, scientifically. Rational discussion has not been able to take place in the "absolutist vs denier" environment, so controversies remain unsettled behind the scenes.
I hope that, if nothing else, Trump will lead to having the hard scientific discussions now that we should have had in the '90s.
As someone who grew up on the 90s, we had this discussion already. Climate change is real and not tal all controversial. Unless you make a living off fossil fuels. Also, the world had a similar opinion of us back then too. We are the special snowflake of the climate change world.
|
On June 03 2017 03:41 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2017 03:05 Nyxisto wrote:On June 03 2017 02:40 Danglars wrote:On June 03 2017 02:31 Nyxisto wrote:On June 03 2017 02:24 Danglars wrote:On June 03 2017 02:16 Nyxisto wrote:On June 03 2017 02:11 Danglars wrote:On June 03 2017 01:59 Nyxisto wrote:
International agreements aren't toothless or symbolic just because there is no sovereign to enforce them. They function by holding nations to their word, nobody wants to be a pariah within the international community because they constantly violate international agreements. The US should know the effectiveness of this because it has more or less justified every single one of their military adventures in recent years, and it is what enabled Trump to take action against Assad, because the international consensus on chemical weapons is another such agreement. No way of enforcing an agreement is the absolute gold standard of describing an agreement as toothless or symbolic. See how much "holding nations to their word" because "nobody wants to be a pariah" affected Trump in his decision today. See North Korea, or the former Soviet Union, or Israel, or Palestine. North Korea is isolated, the Soviet Union doesn't exist any more and Palestine is in a miserable state too, constantly having damaged their position on the world stage by ruining their reputation within the international community. Those are not great examples. Sure the US are a big and powerful country but they're losing their international position with this. No global leader has ever isolated themselves and come out better at the other end, it usually signifies a period of decline. No nation is special, the US isn't immune to bad decisions even if some subset of the voters apparently thinks that this is true. So instead of arguing that they function by "holding nations to their word" and "nobody wants to be a pariah," you're now arguing that nobody violates international agreements without somehow experiencing bad results decades along the line? You're dipping into some deep waters of correlation versus causation. The nations that get some kind of international proclamation against them happen to be great targets of actually effective actions that have teeth, but internationalists want to pat themselves on the back. So you're hoping the US declines because of international disapprobation, but have no argument in favor of international agreements lacking enforcement mechanisms to be more than toothless and symbolic. Gotcha. The last point isn't really worth arguing about of course there's no international sovereign with a big hammer who punishes you, that was already clear when the agreement was signed and nobody expects anything else. You were the one who brought a number of failed states up, apparently as an argument for.. what again? This isn't a correlation versus causation issue, it's about the idea that a country that claims to lead the world needs to be reliable. And when everybody else notices that that country cannot be relied upon its importance will diminish. I'm not hoping for it by the way, the US is a more natural partner to the West than China or India, but nobody else will wait for the US to stop behaving like this. Now you're on about it not mattering if agreements don't have teeth, after previously stating that "international agreements aren't toothless or symbolic just because there is no sovereign to enforce them." I'm having some trouble keeping up with your shifting argument, so try not to defend your original by shifting it again. I never mentioned that the US has to support its claim to "lead the world," so I'm wondering why you feel the need to examine the ways this might stop. That's all not to mention that signing on to symbolic fluffy deals with lots of signatures is not a measure of reliability any more than a used car salesman's assurances matter. This is just facetious. Of course international relations have more bite than a used car salesman's scam. Do you think the world right now looks just as it did before we had frameworks like the UN and multilateral agreements? Human rights for example are routinely broken but they're also, to a surprising degree, respected. As I said before, international rules on war are respected and have given the US immense leverage on foreign policy. (this is a clear example where the US actually profits from shaping international law). If you're not defending the idea that the US should lead on any issues and are basically okay with a diminishing role then there's not much to argue about. But I assumed that you'd not be okay with that because I don't see how it's rational to voluntarily cede that position. I'm shifting arguments because it's not clear what you are defending. Let's assume you are correct and the agreement is toothless, what's the downside of staying in? If it doesn't work, no problem you've not lost anything anyway. If it works, you can force countries like China or India to compete on fairer grounds. Agreements that enforce nothing and rely on mere goodwill that it advances a chain of events are just as useless as a car saleman's assurances that we're on the up-and-up. If you want to talk about human rights and the role of America in the world, go have fun with somebody that was discussing it. If you'll just admit you were wrong to defend the agreement as not toothless, and prior examples that they have teeth to be worthless assertions of something being the case, then I've gained my point and we can be done here. Instead, you have more dissimulation like there being no international sovereign (guess what the whole point of having enforcement mechanisms is ... there's no international sovereign). You additionally disprove arguments I never made in service of points that don't support your original argument. So if I can't hear why you really think it has teeth, "holds nations to their word" because "nobody wants to be a pariah," the "US should know the effectiveness of it," then I must conclude you never intended to back up your original claim in the first place.
if you have such disdain for a used car salesman's assurances, why do you seem to give some sort of credence to trump's? or do you not give any credence to trump's, but simply happen to agree with them? /snark
|
On June 03 2017 04:05 ZeromuS wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2017 01:48 xDaunt wrote:On June 03 2017 01:30 ZeromuS wrote:
But the frustration with Trump's decisions isn't just about his actual impact on the environment.
It is about the symbolic abdication of power and the fact that his position shows that he doesn't even care symbolically about climate change.
Its a signal that the federal US government, while he is in charge, doesn't really support climate action on any level. Thats a bad message to send globally and to the market. Even if the real actual policies aren't very strong behind the treaty, it shows that the US just doesn't care.
That has real political ramifications that go beyond the actual climate accord. Thats the REAL issue.
That whole QTIIPS thing is a deflection of deeper issues.
So it's about all about feeling good about ourselves, huh? Shocking. And even if you disagree with him, you need to give Trump the credit of at least explaining why he's canning the Paris Accords. Trump laid out its shortcomings pretty clearly. This wasn't some arbitrary and capricious decision that Trump made on a whim. Thanks for completely ignoring the part of my post that says that even if you don't agree with it you dont GAIN anything by leaving.
What are you talking about? The whole point of leaving was not to avoid the costs that are attendant to adherence to the Paris Accord. Are you saying that you would rather the US and every other country nominally remain participants in the Paris Accord and simply blow off all of the standards?
|
On June 03 2017 04:00 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2017 03:55 Mohdoo wrote:On June 03 2017 03:50 xDaunt wrote:On June 03 2017 03:42 Mohdoo wrote:On June 03 2017 03:27 xDaunt wrote:Just so that everyone is on the same page, here's what the Heritage Foundation posted in its summary regarding the costs: Policies adapted from domestic regulations emphasized in the Paris agreement will affect a variety of aspects of the American economy. As a result of the plan, one can expect that by 2035, there will be:
An overall average shortfall of nearly 400,000 jobs;
An average manufacturing shortfall of over 200,000 jobs;
A total income loss of more than $20,000 for a family of four;
An aggregate gross domestic product (GDP) loss of over $2.5 trillion; and
Increases in household electricity expenditures between 13 percent and 20 percent. If you have some other estimate that you want to point for what the cost of the Paris Accord would have been, go ahead and post it. The problem with "overall job loss" is examples like when cars started being a thing. Cars destroyed a lot of jobs. Same with trains. There was an enormous shift, but it didn't mean cars or trains were job killers. It meant that other shitty stuff was getting replaced. How many jobs exist because of cars today? Not a perfect comparison, but the mechanism is sound. Pointing out the ways that aggressive technological advancement kills jobs is only telling half the story. Look, here's the point. Stuff like the Paris Accord very clearly bears certain economic costs. No one reasonable is going to deny that. If you don't like how the Heritage Foundation has illustrated it, I'm all ears for alternative studies. My point is that the heritage foundation is not doing a good job at being a placeholder. If I make a proposition to you, but I only include the cons, you probably won't agree to it. If I say, "yo, daunty-fresh, I've got a thing for you to buy. It is $100. You in?", you'll ask me what it is. If I said it was a MAGA hat, you'd say no. If I told you it was a beachfront property with a built in pizza hut, you'd even include a $10 tip along with the purchase. How about our huge thrust to build our interstate highways? Railroads? People could have easily said "The way I see it, we are doing just fine transporting material across our great nation and I can't justify telling my customers they need to pay another dollar because of some new fancy technology", and it would be very similar. They didn't just look at the cons. They looked at the positive impact of the Paris Accord and found it wanting in light of the cost. Outside of industry special interests, no one objects to the green energy and green policy just for the same of objecting to them. Every intelligent criticism of this stuff includes a cost-benefit analysis.
One thing that I haven't seen you address is that because the goals of the agreement were individually set by each country for itself, Trump could have, without withdrawing from the agreement, changed every single one of the US targets. So why pull out of the agreement all together? The only person he would have had to negotiate with was himself...
|
On June 03 2017 04:13 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2017 04:00 xDaunt wrote:On June 03 2017 03:55 Mohdoo wrote:On June 03 2017 03:50 xDaunt wrote:On June 03 2017 03:42 Mohdoo wrote:On June 03 2017 03:27 xDaunt wrote:Just so that everyone is on the same page, here's what the Heritage Foundation posted in its summary regarding the costs: Policies adapted from domestic regulations emphasized in the Paris agreement will affect a variety of aspects of the American economy. As a result of the plan, one can expect that by 2035, there will be:
An overall average shortfall of nearly 400,000 jobs;
An average manufacturing shortfall of over 200,000 jobs;
A total income loss of more than $20,000 for a family of four;
An aggregate gross domestic product (GDP) loss of over $2.5 trillion; and
Increases in household electricity expenditures between 13 percent and 20 percent. If you have some other estimate that you want to point for what the cost of the Paris Accord would have been, go ahead and post it. The problem with "overall job loss" is examples like when cars started being a thing. Cars destroyed a lot of jobs. Same with trains. There was an enormous shift, but it didn't mean cars or trains were job killers. It meant that other shitty stuff was getting replaced. How many jobs exist because of cars today? Not a perfect comparison, but the mechanism is sound. Pointing out the ways that aggressive technological advancement kills jobs is only telling half the story. Look, here's the point. Stuff like the Paris Accord very clearly bears certain economic costs. No one reasonable is going to deny that. If you don't like how the Heritage Foundation has illustrated it, I'm all ears for alternative studies. My point is that the heritage foundation is not doing a good job at being a placeholder. If I make a proposition to you, but I only include the cons, you probably won't agree to it. If I say, "yo, daunty-fresh, I've got a thing for you to buy. It is $100. You in?", you'll ask me what it is. If I said it was a MAGA hat, you'd say no. If I told you it was a beachfront property with a built in pizza hut, you'd even include a $10 tip along with the purchase. How about our huge thrust to build our interstate highways? Railroads? People could have easily said "The way I see it, we are doing just fine transporting material across our great nation and I can't justify telling my customers they need to pay another dollar because of some new fancy technology", and it would be very similar. They didn't just look at the cons. They looked at the positive impact of the Paris Accord and found it wanting in light of the cost. Outside of industry special interests, no one objects to the green energy and green policy just for the same of objecting to them. Every intelligent criticism of this stuff includes a cost-benefit analysis. The cons are that these standards are going to be set by other countries anyway. We don’t just sell cars to the US, we sell them overseas too. By leaving the agreement, we gave up our place at the table and won’t have a say in any future standards.
Of course we will have a say in the standards. Our auto market is fucking gigantic -- bigger than Europe's. All of those European manufacturers aren't going to want to cede their market shares here.
|
On June 03 2017 04:12 Buckyman wrote:
Climate change is absolutely controversial, scientifically. Rational discussion has not been able to take place in the "absolutist vs denier" environment, so controversies remain unsettled behind the scenes.
I hope that, if nothing else, Trump will lead to having the hard scientific discussions now that we should have had in the '90s.
Completely false. Scientists have been yelling at us for decades now to do something proactive about climate change. It's been long accepted via scientific consensus. The experts have known for a very long time that humans are heavily influencing the changing climate, how it's happening, and that we need to do something about it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
