Trump to Pull U.S. Out of Climate Accord

[GojiMet86]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/01/climate/trump-paris-climate-agreement.html

 

 

Trump Says U.S. Will Start Years-Long Process to Withdraw From Paris Climate Agreement

 

 

WASHINGTON — President Trump announced Thursday that he will withdraw the United States from participation in the Paris climate accord, weakening global efforts to combat climate change and siding with conservatives who argued that the landmark 2015 agreement was harming the economy. But he will stick to the withdrawal process laid out in the Paris agreement, which President Barack Obama joined and most of the world has already ratified. That could take nearly four years to complete, meaning a final decision would be up to the American voters in the next presidential election. Still, Mr. Trump’s decision is a remarkable rebuke to fellow heads-of-state, climate activists, corporate executives and members of the president’s own staff, all of whom failed this week to change Mr. Trump’s mind with an intense, last-minute lobbying blitz. It makes good on a campaign promise to “cancel” an agreement he repeatedly mocked and derided at rallies, saying it would kill American jobs. As president, he has moved rapidly to reverse Obama-era policies designed to allow the United States to meet its pollution-reduction targets as set under the agreement.

 

“In order to fulfill my solemn duty to protect America and its citizens, the United States will withdraw from the Paris climate accord but begin negotiations to reenter either the Paris accord or an entirely new transaction on terms that are fair to the United States,” the president said. “We are getting out. But we will start to negotiate, and we will see if we can make a deal that’s fair. And if we can, that’s great.”

 

Mr. Trump said that the United States will immediately “cease all implementation of the non-binding Paris accord” and what he said were “draconian financial” and other burdens imposed on the country by the accord. In his remarks, Mr. Trump listed sectors of the United States economy that would suffer lost revenues and jobs if the country remained part of the accord, citing a study — disputed vigorously by environmental groups — that claims the agreement would cost 2.7 million jobs by 2015. In recent days, Mr. Trump withstood withering criticism from European counterparts who accused him of shirking America’s role as a global leader and America’s responsibility as the world’s second largst emitter of planet-warming greenhouse gasses. And he shrugged aside pleas from executives of the United States’ largest companies, who said the decision will damage the environment and hamper their efforts to compete around the world.

 

Mr. Trump also found himself at the center of a bruising, monthslong debate inside the White House that pitted senior members of his staff against each other. Some argued to leave the Paris agreement and others insisted that the United States should remain, even as the administration dismantles pollution standards. The president’s decision was a victory for Stephen K. Bannon, his chief strategist, and Scott Pruitt, his Environmental Protection Agency administrator, both of whom had argued forcefully to abandon the global agreement in favor of a clean break that would clear the way for a new environmental approach. Other top aides, including Gary D. Cohn, the director of the National Economic Council; the president’s daughter, Ivanka Trump; and his secretary of state, Rex W. Tillerson, had insisted to Mr. Trump that remaining a part of the agreement would have allowed the United States to eviscerate Obama-era climate rules without as much damage to relations with other countries. After the fierce debate of the past weeks, the White House took on the trappings of a celebration. The Rose Garden was packed with reporters, activists and members of Mr. Trump’s administration, who waited in at the hot sun for the president’s announcement. Scores of staff members lined the sides of the Rose Garden as a military band played soft jazz.

 

Supporters of the Paris agreements reacted with pent-up alarm, condemning the administration for short-sightedness about the planet and a reckless willingness to shatter long-standing diplomatic relationships. “This is disgraceful,” said Annie Leonard, Greenpeace USA’s executive director. “By withdrawing from the Paris Climate Agreement, the Trump administration has turned America from a global climate leader into a global climate deadbeat.” Kierán Suckling, executive director of the Center for Biological Diversity, said, “Trump just confirmed his total contempt for our planet’s future,” condemning “this reckless rejection of international climate cooperation” that was “turning our country into a rogue nation.”

 

Corporate leaders also condemned Mr. Trump’s action. In a statement on its website, I.B.M. reaffirmed its support for the Paris agreement and took issue with the president’s contention that it is a bad deal for American workers and the American economy. “This agreement requires all participating countries to put forward their best efforts on climate change as determined by each country,” the company said in the statement. “IBM believes that it is easier to lead outcomes by being at the table, as a participant in the agreement, rather than from outside it.”

 

 

 

 

I'm listening to his press conference right now. So much bull about the world trying to get a competitive advantage over the US. So many false claims and statistics about the economic burdens the Paris Accord has supposedly imposed on the US...

 

But hey, he does stuff, right?

[BreeddekalbL]

he's a liar plus the fact the germans are already going in on us a news paper headline (tommrrow in their time zone) 

already has, Earth to trump f**k you! 

[Around the Horn]

Oh, god... 

[Missabassie]

All this just to get at Obama.....

As if we're not already the laughing stock of the world. (sigh) [emoji20]

[RTS CNG Command]

I said it many times in other places, and I'll say it here. Global warming is an international crisis factually bigger and more impactful than terrorism and may be directly tied to it due to the crisis drying up resources. Coal's dying. Several states banned fracking for causing earthquakes and polluting our drinking water. After all, how the hell can we actually create long-term, high-quality jobs if we don't have a healthy planet to live on? We don't have a Planet B. Anyone who thinks global warming is a hoax truly doesn't give a shit about our nation's security and should be DISQUALIFIED from ANY level of political office.

 

Like his entire administration, Trump is completely afraid of the truth; he spewed a bunch of lies and used bullshit studies to back himself up. Trump's decision to pull out of the Paris Climate Accord despite over two dozen major corporations and many major cabinet members (e.g., Tillerson) urging Trump to stay in completely shows how he genuinely doesn't give a shit about our nation's and planet's survival.

[DaTransitMan4608]

I think the only good thing out of this regression is the return of the DD50/Allison B400R coming back to transit buses.....

 

No but it all honesty, if you're willing to put your own citizens' health and safety at risk just to get back at your predecessor (for what exactly?) you're not fit to govern. I feel like someone as conservative as Mike Pence would've realized that staying in the accord would've done more good than harm on the global diplomatic stage. Hell Pence probably would've just tried to renegotiate it, and if he couldn't, then he'd pull out. Trump shot first and plans to ask questions later. No good leader (and don't nobody come in here calling me biased because I know damn well I'd sing the same tune if this were a Democrat) makes decisions without doing research and weighing the pros/cons first.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using NYC Transit Forums mobile app

[NY1635]

I don't believe that Trump pulling the US out of the Paris Accord will result the big doomsday predictions that I keep hearing about on the news. Science has become way too politicized and sensationalized for me to buy into global warming. Instead of criticizing the President, we should be questioning scientists to see if their data is even accurate.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

I think Trump has a point.  The U.S. has been doing its part to cut omissions.  He remains committed to taking a stance on that issue, but at the same time, he isn't prepared to do so while destroying the American economy.  For all of the flack he is getting on this, what in the hell is countries like China doing to cut omissions? It's hypocritical to talk about how all of the big economic leaders should cut omissions while China has some of the highest omissions around.  They are a big contributor to what is going on currently, and they don't seem to give a damn about their citizens or the country from an environmental standpoint. You look at places like Shanghai, this very wealthy city where skyscrapers are all over place, yet they don't have proper garbage disposal, so you can see garbage all over the place, polluting the water nearby that residents depend on.  This article says enough about this Treaty... It's BS.  When these other countries become serious about making changes, then maybe I can take this seriously:

 

 

Naturally the BBC and others have been quick to trumpet the news that China and the US yesterday agreed to ratify last December’s Paris agreement on climate change. This “historic landmark”, it is being claimed, will be a major step towards saving the planet, by slashing the world’s emissions of carbon dioxide, thus supposedly preventing global temperatures from rising more than two degrees C above their pre-industrial levels.

But like everything else we have been told about that Paris agreement, it is all smoke and mirrors. We would never guess from all the hype, for instance, that China – already the world’s largest CO2 emitter, contributing 28 per cent to the world’s total – has no intention of halting the rise in its “carbon emissions” at all. On the contrary, while saying it will cut emissions per unit of GDP, it projects that its economic growth will result in a CO2 rise of 50 per cent by 2030. This alone would add up to 30 per cent of the  world’s total.

 

 

Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/03/rising-emissions-show-paris-climate-agreement-is-an-act-of-delus/

[Interested Rider]

What is missing here is something very important and that is it was not up to the president to determine whether the United States should be part of this deal in the first place. What then President Obama did was to bypass the United States Constitution and not submit it to the United  States Senate as a treaty. If this would have been done at that time, it would have enabled the American people and our representatives to hash out all these questions that seem to have appeared here. We as the people living in this country are entitled to know what was in this treaty before President Obama signed this document on behalf of us. The problem here is the same as what happened with the Iran deal which was not submitted as a treaty to the Senate and now we are finding about everything that we gave up in the rush to sign it.

It was the United States Senate and a "fine Republican Senator"(in reality a first class jerk) named Bob Corker who determined that the Iran deal was not a treaty and thus we,  the american people, got stuck with that one. President Trump was just doing what his predecessor did but in but reverse. What we have to do is get back to following the United States Constitution on matters such as this and treat them as treaties(Bob Corker, not withstanding) so that we can have a a discussion of whether the United States should be a signatory to these various "deals which are in reality, treaties'. It should not be up to the President to determine it for us, it should be up to the American people. That is why our founding fathers gave the power to the American people and not to the president because they knew what we are discussing today today would happen sooner or later. 

[GojiMet86]

I think Trump has a point.  The U.S. has been doing its part to cut omissions.  He remains committed to taking a stance on that issue, but at the same time, he isn't prepared to do so while destroying the American economy.  For all of the flack he is getting on this, what in the hell is countries like China doing to cut omissions? It's hypocritical to talk about how all of the big economic leaders should cut omissions while China has some of the highest omissions around.  They are a big contributor to what is going on currently, and they don't seem to give a damn about their citizens or the country from an environmental standpoint. You look at places like Shanghai, this very wealthy city where skyscrapers are all over place, yet they don't have proper garbage disposal, so you can see garbage all over the place, polluting the water nearby that residents depend on.

 

 

Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/03/rising-emissions-show-paris-climate-agreement-is-an-act-of-delus/

 

 

What, do you think Chinese people don't care about pollution? Seems to fit in with what stereotypes you believe in. It's only been after many years that the government is caving in to its citizen's concerns and complaints about that toxic pollution that covers whole cities.

 

 

 

In January of this year, China cancelled plans for new 103 coal mines (18 that already closed in 2016 and 83 more this year), as reported in the New York Times.

 

The last of Beijing's coal-powered mines will close this year.

 

China's coal companies were ordered to cut coal mining capacity by 15%.

 

China is already the number one country in solar capacity, beating long-time leader Germany.

 

China's coal consumption has decreased in the last three years, and is expected to do so in the future. Then it is expected to hit an emissions peak in 2030, after which it will actually decrease, even with its growing population.

 

China has the highest overall emissions in total, but that stat is owed to the fact that China has 1,370,000,000 people and the US has 321,000,000. Its people actually produce far less CO2 emissions per capita that what Americans do.

 

So yes, China is taking this seriously.

 

And all of the information I put in this post can be EASILY be found on Google. Took me 15 minutes of looking up "China coal".

 

 

This article says enough about this Treaty... It's BS.  When these other countries become serious about making changes, then maybe I can take this seriously.

 

 

But hey, why let facts get your way? You literally went fishing for this poor excuse of an article that doesn't mention these facts just so that you can stop the conversation and defend your grandiose delusions.

[RTS CNG Command]

I think Trump has a point.

Actually, no, he doesn't, and you linking a article by a global warming denier with a history of lying kills your point. His statement about China implicates that China will increase emissions. From the HuffPo I linked above:

 

The implication here is that China plans to continue increasing its emissions. But a study last year found that Chinese emission have peaked and were forecast to fall by 1 percent in 2017. The accuracy of official Chinese data is often called into question, with good reason. But a handful of independent studies over the past three years have corroborated the decline in Chinese emissions.

 

Backing this up, China has aggressively moved to invest in renewable energy over the past few years. In January, the country set aside $360 billion for clean energy investment over the next four years and canceled plans for 103 new coal-fired power plants. As a result, China’s own coal mining regions are suffering thousands of job losses.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

What, do you think Chinese people don't care about pollution? Seems to fit in with what stereotypes you believe in. It's only been after many years that the government is caving in to its citizen's concerns and complaints about that toxic pollution that covers whole cities.

 

 

 

In January of this year, China cancelled plans for new 103 coal mines (18 that already closed in 2016 and 83 more this year), as reported in the New York Times.

 

The last of Beijing's coal-powered mines will close this year.

 

China's coal companies were ordered to cut coal mining capacity by 15%.

 

China is already the number one country in solar capacity, beating long-time leader Germany.

 

China's coal consumption has decreased in the last three years, and is expected to do so in the future. Then it is expected to hit an emissions peak in 2030, after which it will actually decrease, even with its growing population.

 

China has the highest overall emissions in total, but that stat is owed to the fact that China has 1,370,000,000 people and the US has 321,000,000. Its people actually produce far less CO2 emissions per capita that what Americans do.

 

So yes, China is taking this seriously.

 

And all of the information I put in this post can be EASILY be found on Google. Took me 15 minutes of looking up "China coal".

 

 

 

But hey, why let facts get your way? You literally went fishing for this poor excuse of an article that doesn't mention these facts just so that you can stop the conversation and defend your grandiose delusions.

Please.  The Chinese government is a joke.  You talk about how the Chinese people have been complaining, and only recently has the government taken action.  They don't care what their people think because if they did, they wouldn't have allowed numerous water supplies to become contaminated by the illegal dumping of waste and garbage everywhere, not to mention that last I checked, they're still a Communist country, so when did the people suddenly have a say in how their country is run? Just thought I'd mention that since you want to talk about "the facts", as if China has become such a changed country.  This from a country that is known to have some of the most relaxed regulations in the world when it comes to food safety and otherwise, but I suppose we should forget about all of the recalls we had not that long ago here from contaminated food from China because they're all for playing by the rules and following regulations. *Sarcasm* I should also throw India into the mix when talking about countries that need to do more.  At the end of the day, if the Chinese aren't playing by the rules then why should the America be making all of these sacrifices?  It's about everyone making economic sacrifices, and until all players in this do, America should step aside and not be bound to such standards that others aren't being held to.

[Around the Horn]

When every other country in the world (including North Korea of all places) except for one country fighting itself (Syria) and one country who refused to join because they felt it wasn't stringent enough (Nicaragua) chose to join an international climate accord and you don't, you deserve to be an international laughing stock.

 

Heck, even the American corporations he said he did this for are angry at him for leaving.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Actually, no, he doesn't, and you linking a article by a global warming denier with a history of lying kills your point. His statement about China implicates that China will increase emissions. From the HuffPo I linked above:

No, he does have a point.  What China is doing is a drop in the bucket.  What about all of the garbage that they are dumping everywhere, polluting the environment?  Even liberal CNN admits what a mess China has created on the pollution front.

 

Source: http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/30/world/asia/china-electronic-waste-e-waste/index.html

 

But residents who did not work in the e-waste business offered a very different take on the pollution in Guiyu.

A group of farmers who had migrated from neighboring Guangxi province to cultivate rice in Guiyu told CNN they did not dare drink the local well water.

They claimed if they tried to wash clothes and linens with the water, it turned fabrics yellow.

The head of the group, who identified himself as Zhou, had another shocking admission.

"It may not sound nice, but we don't dare eat the rice that we farm because it's planted here with all the pollution," Zhou said, pointing at water-logged rice paddy next to him.

Asked who did eat the harvested rice, Zhou answered: "How should I know? A lot of it is sold off ... they don't dare label the rice from here as 'grown in Guiyu.' They'll write that its rice from some other place."

Here's another example:

 

 

 

Hundreds of thousands of tons of household waste are produced each day in China, and waste disposal has turned into its own industry. But with toothless laws and a general lack of oversight, some waste disposal companies have found that they can inflate their profits by selling their trash on to middlemen instead of properly disposing of it themselves. The middlemen, too, pass on the dirty work, and the waste ends up being resold again and again until no further profit can be made — and when this happens, the cheapest, easiest way to deal with it is often to throw it in the nearest body of water. In the absence of the ubiquitous security cameras found in city streets, official supervision of rivers is spotty, making them popular sites for illegal dumping.

Source: http://www.sixthtone.com/news/1942/how-china%20s-garbage-goes-cities-rivers

[GojiMet86]

No, he does have a point.  What China is doing is a drop in the bucket.  What about all of the garbage that they are dumping everywhere, polluting the environment?  Even liberal CNN admits what a mess China has created on the pollution front.

 

Source: http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/30/world/asia/china-electronic-waste-e-waste/index.html

Here's another example:

 

Source: http://www.sixthtone.com/news/1942/how-china%20s-garbage-goes-cities-rivers

 

 

An article from 4 years ago...

 

Another one about a real issue, but nothing to do with the carbon emissions.

 

Literally fishing at this point...

[Via Garibaldi 8]

When every other country in the world (including North Korea of all places) except for one country fighting itself (Syria) and one country who refused to join because they felt it wasn't stringent enough (Nicaragua) chose to join an international climate accord and you don't, you deserve to be an international laughing stock.

 

Heck, even the American corporations he said he did this for are angry at him for leaving.

What's the point of joining when countries aren't doing their part?

An article from 4 years ago...

 

Another one about a real issue, but nothing to do with the carbon emissions.

 

Literally fishing at this point...

So you're saying that pollution is only important if it pertains to carbon emissions, but our waterways don't matter even though they're filled with garbage? That's a great way of thinking. Pollution is pollution, and a country like China has shown time and again that they're not serious about ANY pollution, NOR can they successfully regulate anything.  

[GojiMet86]

What's the point of joining when countries aren't doing their part?

 

You don't think cancelling plans for 100+ new coal mines isn't "doing their part"?

What's the point of joining when countries aren't doing their part?

So you're saying that pollution is only important if it pertains to carbon emissions, but our waterways don't matter even though they're filled with garbage? That's a great way of thinking. Pollution is pollution. 

 

Oh, it matters. But it doesn't negate FACT that China is actually doing something about it.

[Around the Horn]

What's the point of joining when countries aren't doing their part?

 

The whole point of this agreement is that each country that signs must hold its end of the treaty. You don't just sign it and walk away. 

[Via Garibaldi 8]

You don't think cancelling plans for 100+ new coal mines isn't "doing their part"?

 

Oh, it matters. But it doesn't negate FACT that China is actually doing something about it.

Oh sure let's give them a pat on the back for doing something about carbon emissions while they dump all of their garbage and God knows what else into the water supply.  So we'll tackle carbon emissions, but all of our water will be polluted.  Well that's nice. 

 

The whole point of this agreement is that each country that signs must hold its end of the treaty. You don't just sign it and walk away. 

You do when other countries aren't abiding by the treaty. It's laughable to take a country like China seriously when it comes to carbon emissions when they don't even have proper garbage methods in place in 2017, which is a disgrace given how big their population is and the size of their economy.

[Around the Horn]

Oh sure let's give them a pat on the back for doing something about carbon emissions while they dump all of their garbage and God knows what else into the water supply.  So we'll tackle carbon emissions, but all of our water will be polluted.  Well that's nice. 

 

You do when other countries aren't abiding by the treaty.

 

The point is that they are doing something which is better than nothing. Don't be facetious.  And the Paris Accord isn't legally binding yet so at this moment there is nothing to abide by.  

[GojiMet86]

Oh sure let's give them a pat on the back for doing something about carbon emissions while they dump all of their garbage and God knows what else into the water supply.  So we'll tackle carbon emissions, but all of our water will be polluted.  Well that's nice. 

 

You do when other countries aren't abiding by the treaty.

 

I see what you're trying to do here. You're trying to point to another serious, legit problem that China has and hold it up as evidence that China doesn't do anything about anything, when I have just layed out actual facts, statistics, and figures about what China is doing. Again, willful ignorance on your part.

 

 

 

And you have yet to justify to us how keeping coal companies up and running will help coal miners, when the winds of economics are favoring clean, renewable, and non-coal energy sources. What happens 10, 20 years down the road when the coal industry has to start shutting down? What happens to the workers then? All Trump is doing is prolonging an inevitable death.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

The point is that they are doing something which is better than nothing. Don't be facetious.  And the Paris Accord isn't legally binding yet so at this moment there is nothing to abide by.  

And my point is whatever little good they're doing is being wiped out by the amount of pollution they're creating elsewhere.  America doesn't need to be beholden to a treaty to be a leader in the environmental front.  When China can learn how to recycle and dispose of garbage in a safe manner, and have regulations in place that stops companies from putting all sorts of things in food that isn't safe for human consumption, then people can take such treaties seriously, but how in the world can anyone expect them to lower carbon emissions when they can't even tackle these simple tasks?  There's no way that you can sit here with a straight face and tell me you don't find that troubling, nor can such a country with the track record that China has be trusted to take on such a monumental task.

[GojiMet86]

And my point is whatever little good they're doing is being wiped out by the amount of pollution they're creating elsewhere.  America doesn't need to be beholden to a treaty to be a leader in the environmental front.  When China can learn how to recycle and dispose of garbage in a safe manner, and have regulations in place that stops companies from putting all sorts of things in food that isn't safe for human consumption, then people can take such treaties seriously, but how in the world can anyone expect them to lower carbon emissions when they can't even tackle these simple tasks?  There's no way that you can sit here with a straight face and tell me you don't find that troubling, nor can such a country with the track record that China has be trusted to take on such a monumental task.

 

What I find troubling is the United States, with a proven track record but as one of the world's leading pollution contributos, refuses to do its part in helping the world in an area that is (or should be) beyond politics.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

I see what you're trying to do here. You're trying to point to another serious, legit problem that China has and hold it up as evidence that China doesn't do anything about anything, when I have just layed out actual facts, statistics, and figures about what China is doing. Again, willful ignorance on your part.

 

 

 

And you have yet to justify to us how keeping coal companies up and running will help coal miners, when the winds of economics are favoring clean, renewable, and non-coal energy sources. What happens 10, 20 years down the road when the coal industry has to start shutting down? What happens to the workers then? All Trump is doing is prolonging an inevitable death.

That's precisely my point, and you know it's a legitimate point.  I never said anything about coal companies because I don't necessarily support them.  I believe that the U.S. needs to invest in new clean technology, and we're doing that.  We have fantastic companies leading the forefront like Tesla and many others.  We've had tons of eco friendly companies open up, and many consumers like myself support them, and they're manufacturing right here in the U.S., creating safe, eco-friendly products, and helping to preserve our environment.  When we talk about leading the forefront in combating climate change, carbon emissions is only a part of that. We have to do more than just limiting carbon emissions.  I sure as hell do my part. I re-use and recycle as much as possible (limit my use of things like plastic bags and other things that pollute the environment), buy eco-friendly products and so on.  America continues to be one of the leaders in innovation, so I strongly believe that technology will force the hand of certain industries to go one way or another.  There's a part of Trump that has this desire to reminiscence about the old days. I don't necessarily support everything he says and this is an example of it.  We should be re-training these people so that they can still work and have good paying jobs in new tech sectors.  

[Interested Rider]

I am reading the various posts, pro and con, and I have to go back to my original point that this deal should have submitted as a treaty which in reality it is as it binds the United States to do certain things that may be detrimental to our interests. If this had been done in accordance with the United States Constitution, then we could have debated what had to be done and should have been done to implement it if it was passed by the United States Senate. At that time we would have discussed as to the impact upon industry, upon workers, what had to be done to retrain the workers and to allocate the funds necessary for implementation. What happened was the opposite of what should have been done as the former president and the administrative state decided to implement this deal  which many Americans objected to as they feel it interferes with our nation's sovereignty  as it subjects our country to things that we may determine hurt our nation and our economy. Our "uniqueness" as a nation is being undermined by deals as such as this that are pushed upon us by fiat which is what happened here. and is happening all too frequently today. The issue to me is not what President Trump did here, it is the need to roll back the administrative state and to stop these deals that should have been debated by us and voted upon in accordance with the United States Constitution as a treaty. Then and only then we would have a clear picture of whether this bill would have been good for this country.