Trump, and the Paris accord
20/9/17 20:55![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
airiefairie posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsWhat On Earth Is Going On With Trump And The Paris Agreement?
Sigh. So many ignorant science denialists in the comments section.
1. The accord allowed each nation to select a target reduction of CO2. The US agreed to 25% below 2005 levels. 195 nations have reduction targets, not just the US.
2. The target date for industrialised nations is 2025; for developing nations it is 2030.
3. That doesn't mean any nation can wait until 2030 to start lowering CO2. If your target is to have $1 million in your retirement by age 65, you cannot wait until you are 65 to start.
4. China is reducing CO2 now. Today. They are moving more rapidly to solar than the rest of us are.
5. No one is being "penalised". The US simply agreed to that 25% reduction.
6, All industrialised nations are paying to help the developing nations, not just the US. All the major EU nations, Canada, Japan, Australia, Sweden, Norway, South Korea, etc. The money goes into a UN climate fund to help developing nations convert to green energy. They have to apply for grants for specific projects. Most people recognise these nations cannot do it by themselves, and the CO2 any nation emits affects our climate. All of us. The list of projects funded is public record.
7. The accord was signed under a treaty the US had already ratified earlier, the UN Framework on Climate Change.
Oh and by the way, a lot of American cities are sticking to the Paris agreement, it is just that poor excuse for a president that doesn't seem to care.
And for those who are prepared to argue that Trump doesn't really want the US out of the Paris agreement, he just wants to re-negotiate better terms for the US because he somehow feels the US is being robbed, here are the actual facts:
Here is what the US had pledged to pay per person compared to other countries. I think the US has got a pretty sweet deal already! Especially given the fact that it is one of the top two contributors to climate change. The other one being China, and like I said, China has already opted to do something about it. You know, the same China that Trump and his supporters are accusing of crafting the whole climate change "hoax".
Ultimately, given the fact that the future is in renewables, and many developed countries are already moving their industries into that direction, how prudent is it to remain stuck in the 20th century, technology- and industry-wise? I thought Trump was a visionary businessman? Does he really believe coal would save the day? Or he is just doing his usual pandering thing for the sake of hoarding what little support he has left among his constituents?
Sigh. So many ignorant science denialists in the comments section.
1. The accord allowed each nation to select a target reduction of CO2. The US agreed to 25% below 2005 levels. 195 nations have reduction targets, not just the US.
2. The target date for industrialised nations is 2025; for developing nations it is 2030.
3. That doesn't mean any nation can wait until 2030 to start lowering CO2. If your target is to have $1 million in your retirement by age 65, you cannot wait until you are 65 to start.
4. China is reducing CO2 now. Today. They are moving more rapidly to solar than the rest of us are.
5. No one is being "penalised". The US simply agreed to that 25% reduction.
6, All industrialised nations are paying to help the developing nations, not just the US. All the major EU nations, Canada, Japan, Australia, Sweden, Norway, South Korea, etc. The money goes into a UN climate fund to help developing nations convert to green energy. They have to apply for grants for specific projects. Most people recognise these nations cannot do it by themselves, and the CO2 any nation emits affects our climate. All of us. The list of projects funded is public record.
7. The accord was signed under a treaty the US had already ratified earlier, the UN Framework on Climate Change.
Oh and by the way, a lot of American cities are sticking to the Paris agreement, it is just that poor excuse for a president that doesn't seem to care.
And for those who are prepared to argue that Trump doesn't really want the US out of the Paris agreement, he just wants to re-negotiate better terms for the US because he somehow feels the US is being robbed, here are the actual facts:
Here is what the US had pledged to pay per person compared to other countries. I think the US has got a pretty sweet deal already! Especially given the fact that it is one of the top two contributors to climate change. The other one being China, and like I said, China has already opted to do something about it. You know, the same China that Trump and his supporters are accusing of crafting the whole climate change "hoax".
Ultimately, given the fact that the future is in renewables, and many developed countries are already moving their industries into that direction, how prudent is it to remain stuck in the 20th century, technology- and industry-wise? I thought Trump was a visionary businessman? Does he really believe coal would save the day? Or he is just doing his usual pandering thing for the sake of hoarding what little support he has left among his constituents?
(no subject)
Date: 20/9/17 22:53 (UTC)We could characterize Trump's actions as trying to bolster his core constituency, but even that gives him too much credit. He's a cretin, a washed-out has-been who was watching national politics with the gut feeling - shared by oh so many - that he could do better, if only he were in charge. And so now he's going around ripping up everything he can get his hands on, without much of a plan for next steps. He can do it better, just you wait! We'll eliminate a diplomatic option for dealing with North Korea by ripping up the Iran agreement! We'll fix Obamacare by destroying Medicaid! Details to come.
All that Trump wants, and all that I think he really understands, is to be surrounded by the glow of unearned sycophancy, the "win" and the "triumph," to hell with long-term consequences and stable management. So every move is motivated by the need for another "hit" of that drug. Rip up Obama's major foreign policy accomplishments. Repeal his significant legislative victories. Upend his executive orders and his regulatory agenda. Whether any of that serves the country's interests in the short- or long-term is completely beside the point. It doesn't even need to cohere into a single policy vision! It doesn't need to make for good politics! The man is fighting with Republican leadership, for crying out loud. He has no idea what he's doing; he just wants to be exalted.
Ironically, I'd say, the long-term view, the eye for the future, is part of what makes American policy so frustrating, as well. Sure, if you care about the environment and carbon emissions, the way to do something about it is to negotiate something like the Paris Accord, and use that as a springboard for further action as we begin to notch achievements. That's a process that spans multiple presidencies and congressional sessions. But that same long view makes legislators and presidents reluctant to introduce major beneficial shifts in domestic policy - e.g., free college tuition for everyone, Medicare for all, etc. - or in foreign policy - e.g., withdrawal from military over-extensions.