California Responds to Trump Pulling out of the Paris Climate Change Agreement

President Trump made the announcement that most were expecting, that the U.S. will withdraw from the Paris Climate Accord, a move that will weaken efforts to combat global warming and increase the U.S.’ isolation from its allies – and indeed the rest of the world.

The President in his remarks said that the 2015 pacts imposed wildly unfair environmental standards on American businesses and workers.

“I was elected to represent the citizens of Pittsburgh, not Paris,” he said.

California leaders were quick to respond to the news, which will take four years to complete the withdrawal – putting the issue at the forefront of the 2020 election.

Governor Brown has taken leadership on this issue.  He said, “Donald Trump has absolutely chosen the wrong course. He’s wrong on the facts. America’s economy is boosted by following the Paris Agreement. He’s wrong on the science. Totally wrong. California will resist this misguided and insane course of action. Trump is AWOL but California is on the field, ready for battle.”

Building on the global momentum to combat climate change and continuing California’s leading role in broadening collaboration among subnational leaders, Governor Brown will travel to China Friday to strengthen California’s long-standing climate, clean energy and economic ties with the nation. The governor will also attend the 2017 United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP23) in Bonn, Germany, to represent subnational jurisdictions that remain committed to climate action.

Congressman John Garamendi, who represents Davis and much of Yolo County, issued a statement saying he was “sad, very sad.

“In the face of overwhelming scientific evidence, President Trump pulled out of the Paris Climate Accord and turned his back on 195 countries that have committed to do their part to reduce climate altering emissions,” the congressman stated.

“Unfortunately, the President ignores the many costs of climate change, such as the threat to food production and the dangers coastal communities face with rising sea levels. Most importantly, Trump ignores the economic benefits and jobs that are created in the green economy of today and tomorrow. Sad indeed. However, the world and Trump should know that California, the world’s 6th biggest economy, will continue to lead in reducing greenhouse gasses,” he added.

Senator Kamala Harris stated, “We can all agree that all people should be able to breathe clean air and live in a safe and healthy environment. Pulling out of the Paris Agreement is an irrational decision that is a disastrous step backward, threatens the future viability of our planet for future generations, and abdicates our role of leadership.

“The United States has an obligation to combat this global threat to public health and safety here at home, and abroad. As this Administration retreats, I will continue to work to support California’s efforts to lead the fight against global climate change.”

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra released the following statement: “The earth is round, the sky is blue, and climate change is real. Today’s decision by President Trump to withdraw the United States from the Paris Climate Change Agreement sets forth his lasting legacy of endangering our planet’s health and future generations.

“In California, we’re already experiencing the cost of climate change. Severe droughts have cost our farmers billions of dollars in lost output; rising sea levels will threaten our coastal cities in coming decades; and record-high temperatures are increasing harmful ground-level ozone pollution, which can cause respiratory problems. Regardless of Washington’s inaction, California will continue to lead the way on protecting our planet. We will fight the Trump Administration tooth and nail anytime it tries to roll back our progress. The stakes are simply far too high.”

California Senate President pro Tempore Kevin de León (D–Los Angeles)  said,  “Donald Trump’s decision to withdraw the United States from the Paris Agreement confirms that Washington is retreating from being a global leader. Rather than stepping up to the existential challenge before us, Donald Trump is vacating the world stage at a time when American leadership is vital to the future of our planet and our children. He is proving he doesn’t have what it takes.

“California’s leadership is critical now more than ever. We are showing the way forward, and we’re sending a clear message to the rest of the world that no President, no matter how desperately they try to ignore reality, can halt our progress.

“The Senate just approved my measure, Senate Bill 100, which will put California on the path to 100% clean, renewable energy by 2045. It will completely eliminate fracking and fossil fuels from our electricity mix by 2045.

“California already has some of the most ambitious climate targets in the world, and our economy dwarfs all but a handful of nations.  This is our chance not just to lead the world in fighting climate change and cleaning the air we breathe, but to strengthen our middle class for decades to come with quality clean energy jobs that can support families and lift communities across our state.

“This is how we win the future, and – whether Donald Trump, Scott Pruitt, or Rick Perry like it or not – this is how we keep America’s economy growing and thriving.”

In a letter from 27 California Senators, including Bill Dodd (Napa) and Richard Pan (Sacramento), to Governor Brown:

Dear Governor Brown:

We write to urge a call to action following today’s announcement by the Trump Administration that the United States is withdrawing from the Paris Climate Accord. This unilateral and short-sighted decision is a severe blow to efforts across the world to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and ends our nation’s longstanding role as a global leader on climate change.

Given the United States’ abdication of climate leadership, it is now time for California to lead with our technologies and our innovative policies. Towards this end, we encourage you to consider convening a Climate Summit, partner with Mexico and Canada, and invite like-minded states and subnationals from around the world, to ensure that we continue to charge ahead without forfeiting all of our historic progress to date.

At Paris COP 21 in 2015, it was revealed how damaging today’s action will be – the collective failure to address climate change will result in ice sheets melting faster, seas rising higher, and the triggering of more extreme weather events such as flooding and massive wildfires that we have already seen here in California and throughout the world.

The Trump Administration’s rejection of the Paris Climate Accord also places us in the dubious company of being one of only three nations who are non-participants in the historic treaty, the other two being Syria and Nicaragua.

Climatologists tell us the United States’ withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord will significantly worsen global warming, and could lead to our planet surpassing the tipping point for dangerous global temperatures worldwide. Scientists also warn us that the U.S. withdrawal could result in emissions of up to 3 billion tons of additional carbon dioxide into the atmosphere annually.

With your leadership, California has set its own legally enforceable targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, as well as adopted the most ambitious clean energy, transportation electrification, and energy efficiency targets in the world under the Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act of 2015 (SB 350, Ch. 547, Statutes of 2015). This year, we are aggressively working to establish a 100% renewable and zero carbon energy standard through SB 100 (De León), and the Senate recently passed our Preserve California bill package-SB 49 (De León-Stern) to ensure that any federal standards rolled back under the Trump Administration remain enforceable under California law, SB 50 (Allen) the Public Lands Protection Act, and SB 51 (Jackson) the Whistleblower and Public Data Protection Act.

Climate change is the most serious existential threat facing the planet, and it is more important now than ever for nation-states like California to forge ahead. Our state has demonstrated that decoupling its economy from carbon pollution can be accomplished while boosting economic growth and job creation. California is now the sixth largest economy in the world following the enactment of landmark laws to reduce climate pollution. The evidence is clear and unequivocal – we can concurrently grow our economy and phase out harmful pollutants that cause global warming.

We appreciate your consideration of this request, and look forward to our continued partnership on this vital issue. If you would like further discussion, please do not hesitate to contact us directly.



Enter the maximum amount you want to pay each month
$
USD
Sign up for

About The Author

David Greenwald is the founder, editor, and executive director of the Davis Vanguard. He founded the Vanguard in 2006. David Greenwald moved to Davis in 1996 to attend Graduate School at UC Davis in Political Science. He lives in South Davis with his wife Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald and three children.

Related posts

61 Comments

  1. Keith O

    Governor Brown will travel to China Friday to strengthen California’s long-standing climate, clean energy and economic ties with the nation.

    You mean the same high polluting China that doesn’t have to comply with the lopsided Paris Climate Accord until 2030 and then only if they felt like it with no penalties in place for not complying?  Same for high polluting India.  In the meantime the U.S. was going to be flogged for billions of dollars in reparations while we were also hurting our economy as we complied with the one-sided accord.

    Obama gave away the store, Trump took it back.

     

     

    1. darelldd

      How do you feel about the amazingly lop-sided spending for military between the US and all other countries? What protections are worth spending for? Do we wish to be strong leaders in some fields, and followers in others? Somehow, when we buy another aircraft carrier instead of creating jobs to fight pollution… I feel less secure after spending more of our debt.

      We’ve just put ourselves in the same world-leadership position as Syria and Nicaragua. Man, do I feel great again.

      1. Keith O

        The Accord was a one-sided money grab and did nothing but redistribute money from the U.S. to the U.N. and other nations.  Not a fair agreement at all.

      2. Leanna Sweha

        I’m happy to see Governor Brown pushing for more economic ties on clean energy. Hopefully his visit will result in more joint research and investment, particularly investment in clean energy related advanced manufactuing in California.

         

         

    2. David Greenwald

      That’s not quite an accurate reflection.  As part of the Paris agreement, China agreed to peak its carbon emissions and get a fifth of its energy from non-fossil sources by 2030. The US had agreed to reduce theirs to 28% before 2005 by 2025.  That’s really not a huge difference in commitment levels.

      1. Keith O

        Have you seen the polluted air in Chinese cities? They get a free ride and this pact only hurts the west while China gets to do business as usual. We have already greatly reduced our carbon emissions since 1992 with the free market and technological advances like fracking and clean coal.  There’s a much better deal that could’ve been made than Obama giving away the store.  I don’t have any confidence or trust when Obama or for that matter Brown is doing the negotiating.

        1. Don Shor

          We can easily meet the goals we set in the Paris agreement. There was no reason whatsoever for Trump to withdraw from it. It’s amazing that nearly every nation in the world agreed to this, and basically all he is doing is flipping off the rest of the world and abdicating any American leadership role on climate change.
          There is not going to be any renegotiation or “better deal” because nobody in the rest of the world trusts him.

        2. Keith O

          Most of the other nations that agreed to this are not hurting their economy, in fact many of them are getting redistributed money from you and me.  Who wouldn’t agree to that?

        3. darelldd

          We improved emissions with all kinds of economy-building regulations that were fought tooth and nail by the “any environmental regulation will kill our economy” crowd.

          The free market does not work in this case, because we allow free use of our air and water as a toilet.

        4. Kendra Smith

          I seem to recall that part of the reason for the difference in commitment levels is b/c we and the rest of the West had our industrial revolutions about a hundred years ago and we arguably did that on the backs of the nations that we (and England and other European nations) colonized and extracted resources from.

          So, they were delayed in building up their industrial base and now feel like they are entitled to do something.

          But, as David points out, it’s not a huge difference.

          I don’t understand what problem people have in preserving the environment. Even if there is not catastrophic degradation and the “sky doesn’t fall,” we conserve resources and live more frugally. What is the downside to that?

          Oh…I forgot. PROFITS!!!!!!!!  Gotta make those gains, right?

  2. Keith O

    Obviously the stock market thinks pulling out of this Accord was good for the economy.  It’s up over two hundred points the last two days.  So anyone saying getting out of this one-sided pact is bad for our economy is wrong, the Market is always a good indicator.

      1. Keith O

        That might be so, but part of the bogus argument coming from the Democrats is that we’re hurting our economy by pulling out of the Accord, just the opposite is true.

        1. Matt Williams

          Keith, all the commitments in the Accord were 100% self-imposed and voluntary on a country-by-country basis. Under the provisions of the Accord, any country could/can unilaterally change its commitments.

          Trump could have simply said he was changing the commitments the US was imposing on itself to a new lower level.  The other countries in the Accord would have had no alternative other than to accept the new revised/lowered commitments.

          Trump’s decision to leave the Accord was nothing more or less than a big “fork you” to all the countries in the Accord.  It accomplished absolutely nothing other than creating ill will.

    1. darelldd

      For things like this, the market is the worst indicator we have.

      If you wish to save money, throw your garbage over the fence into your neighbor’s yard. Your “market” will benefit.

      If a city wants to save money on sewer treatment, it should just pump the raw sewage into the nearest river. Again, the “market” goes up because of the awesome money savings.

      Money-saving, short-term strategies can give a happy up-tick in the market. And then we all pay for it – with interest – later down the line.

      1. Keith O

        If you wish to save money, throw your garbage over the fence into your neighbor’s yard. Your “market” will benefit.
        If a city wants to save money on sewer treatment, it should just pump the raw sewage into the nearest river. Again, the “market” goes up because of the awesome money savings.

        Not in this country, we already have safe guards against these types of actions.  Now in many other countries what you say is true but are they held to the same restrictions that the Accord was going to hold the U.S. to and are they paying reparations?  The Accord was a bad deal for America.

  3. Leanna Sweha

    California is now the sixth largest economy in the world following the enactment of landmark laws to reduce climate pollution.

    Is this statement from the letter from 27 state senators to Gov Brown claiming correlation or causation? The language is not clear to me.

    1. Keith O

      Citizens of California are already paying 50% more for electricity than most of the rest of the country.  I guess Gov. Brown won’t be happy until we’re paying 100% more. All Brown is doing is driving people and businesses out of California. But at least he feels good.

       

      1. David Greenwald

        Because that’s the most important thing when dealing with climate change – the cost of electricity. I believe my parents typically pay zero in electric bills.

      2. Keith O

        Some people are able to afford their own solar and not have to lease it.  How much was their initial layout?  I’m talking about on average Californians pay 50% more than the rest of the country.  Good job Gov. Brown, drive business elsewhere and CA will use even less electricity.

        1. Keith O

          Matt, you do know that because CA has a milder climate than most other states so our consumption per household is much less.  My ratio of CA paying 50% more was a little high, we actually pay 29% more for residential electricity and 33% more for commercial than the national average.

          The average residential electricity rate of 15.34¢/kWh in CA is 29.12% greater than the national average residential rate of 11.88¢/kWh.
          The average commercial electricity rate of 13.41¢/kWh in CA is 32.9% greater than the national average commercial rate of 10.09¢/kWh.

          cost of electricity per kilowatt by state

          1. David Greenwald

            So perhaps what you’re really showing is higher costs can be mitigated through conservation. That seems like a good thing, not a bad thing.

        2. Keith O

          No, what I’m showing is we in CA pay a much higher rate for electricity than the rest of the country.  Brown’s policies will only cause our rates to go even higher.

          1. David Greenwald

            But effectively California is paying 45th most, so you have chosen to focus your argument on one datapoint but it may not be the bottom line. Higher rates of electricity mean more conservation, which is better for the environment and the point of Brown’s policies.

        3. Keith O

          If I can buy a widget for $1.00 everywhere else but that same widget costs me $1.30 in California because of its regulations and policies I’m getting screwed.

          That’s the bottom line, twist and spin all you want.

          1. Don Shor

            Because of California’s aggressive policy of mandating renewables in development and use of energy, we now have surplus capacity most of the time. Given what we went through in 2000, that seems more than prudent. With excess capacity we could actually work together with other Western states to develop climate-friendly policies whereby they use our excess capacity as they retire their older power plants. Given the Trump policies of pretending climate change isn’t real and actively opposing doing anything about it, it seems likely to me that other states will be looking to develop regional strategies. We’ll be in a very good position to help with that. And I suspect that California voters would happily pay 30 cents more per widget for environmental reasons.

        4. Matt Williams

          That is a much more reasonable statement Keith.

          One of the consequences of lower consumption per household is that the fixed costs associated with running the electrical system have to be spread over that lower consumption amount.

          How much lower would the California electricity rate be if our consumption per capita wasn’t 49th lowest in the nation?

          1. David Greenwald

            “How much lower would the California electricity rate be if our consumption per capita wasn’t 49th lowest in the nation?”

            I’m a bit confused by your wording here

        5. Matt Williams

          Keith, your widget argument would be a good one if the reason we consume electricity had to do with the units of electricity.  However, we don’t consume electricity that way.  The units are secondary to the outcome we desire … a warmer or cooler house for example.  Our personal value statement relates to that outcome.  It isn’t like the consumption of coffee at Starbucks where there is a clear value associated with consumption size.

          David, to help you out of your confusion. Fixed costs are built into the electricity rate based on expected consumption. There is no increase in fixed costs if the expected consumption amount is increased during the rate calculation; however because you are spreading those fixed costs over a larger number of consumption units the amount per unit needed to cover the fixed costs decreases.

          2 dollars of fixed costs spread over 2 units of consumption means each unit has to include 1 dollar to cover the fixed costs. (2 units X $1 per unit = $2 total)

          2 dollars of fixed costs spread over 4 units of consumption means each unit has to include 50 cents to cover the fixed costs. (4 units X $0.50 per unit = $2 total)

          Bottom-line, rates are set by the utilities, and approved by the CPUC, based on expected consumption.

          We saw that play out all across California during the drought. Consumption went down and almost all water districts (but not Davis because we planned ahead) failed to generate enough revenue (revenue = consumption times rate) to cover their fixed costs, and they had to go back to their rate payers with emergency rate increases to cover the fixed costs.

        6. Matt Williams

          Keith, can you tell me the last time you made an electrical consumption decision in which you made the decision based on the volume of electrical current you would consume?

          For example, do you have the thermostat in your house set based on a fixed number of kilowatts consumed?  No you don’t.  You set the thermostat to the end result you want . . . a desired temperature.  Regardless of whether the outside temperature is 110 degrees or 90 degrees, your thermostat setting is still the same (78 in the typical home).  You don’t give a moment’s thought to the fact that you use many more kilowatts reducing the temperature 32 degrees (from 110 to 78) than 12 degrees (from 90 to 78).

          When you turn on the burner on your stove to boil a pot of water, you don’t set the timer and turn off the burner when the timer goes off telling you a certain number of kilowatts has been used (do you even know how many kilowatts your stove burners use per minute).  You turn off the burner when the pot of water starts boiling . . . again the criteria are not the widgets (kilowatts) but the quality of life outcome.

          So, bottom-line, your widget argument is a straw dog.

        7. Keith O

          For example, do you have the thermostat in your house set based on a fixed number of kilowatts consumed?

          No Matt, but when I get my bill I might find myself having to adjust my thermostat in order to afford the higher per kilowatt unit costs of California.

          Same difference.

           

        8. Matt Williams

          Keith, the key word in your statement is “might.”

          What percentage of Californians do you think have adjusted their thermostats because the cost of their electricity is 29% higher than the National average?

          The laws of microeconomics spend a lot of time talking about the price elasticity of demand.  Some products are price elastic and others are price inelastic.  Demand for elastic products is not affected much by price changes.  Demand for inelastic products is strongly affected by price changes.  Residential Use of Electricity has, for the most part, elastic demand.

          The real argument you are making has nothing to do with electricity.  You are arguing for a smaller government, more libertarian society.  That is a philosophical argument, not an argument about specific transactions about electrical widgets (kilowatts).

        9. Keith O

          A lot of people do Matt because they can’t afford to keep their house at a more comfortable setting because of the high CA prices.  If CA didn’t have such high prices due to its policies more people could afford to keep their houses at a comfortable setting.  I can’t believe you don’t understand that.

           

        10. Matt Williams

          Keith, if you did a survey of the 65,000 people living in Davis, how many of them would fit your statement “a lot of people do”?  I doubt that 65 people in Davis check their electrical bill each month and reset their thermostat based on the price per kilowatt for the electricity they consumed.  Actually 65 is probably way too high.  6 people per month is also probably too high.

          When was the last time you reset your thermostat because of the price per kilowatt of the electricity you consume?

          Here’s an even more basic question.  The price per kilowatt of Tier 1 Usage on this month’s PG&E bill was/is $0.19979 and the price per kilowatt of Tier 2 Usage on this month’s PG&E bill was/is $0.27612.  That is a 38.2% price increase when you move from Tier 1 to Tier 2.  How many people in Davis know when their consumption has moved from Tier 1 to Tier 2?  And how many people in Davis modify their electrical usage because they are paying 38% more for the Tier 2 power?

          I reiterate my point.  Usage of residential electricity is price elastic.

        11. Keith O

          I doubt that 65 people in Davis check their electrical bill each month and reset their thermostat based on the price per kilowatt for the electricity they consumed.  Actually 65 is probably way too high.  6 people per month is also probably too high.

          Matt, have you heard of wildhorseca.nextdoor.com?  There was recently a conversation on there about Davis residents doing just that, having to reset their thermostats due to the rising utility costs.  I really think you might be out of touch with a good percentage of the Davis public if you really don’t think many of them adjust their utility useage due to costs.

        12. Matt Williams

          Keith, what you have described is a very different phenomenon.  You may want to copy and paste that NextDoor discussion here, so all can see what is being discussed.  I suspect the topic was not about rising electricity costs, but rather how to put together a personal budget in the face of rising costs in other parts of the budget.

          Why do I believe that?  Well, let’s start by considering the following question, “If the NextDoor discussion was in the last 4 years, what electricity price increases have Davis residents seen during that 4-year period?”  

          It will come as no surprise to you that I have a spreadsheet tracking my personal electricity costs.  From July 2013 through April 2015 my blended Tier 1/Tier 2 cost was 19 cents a kilowatt.  From May 2015 through April 2016 my blended Tier 1/Tier 2 cost was 20 cents a kilowatt.  From May 2016 through August 2016 my blended Tier 1/Tier 2 cost was 21 cents a kilowatt.  From September 2016 through the current May 2017 bill my blended Tier 1/Tier 2 cost was 22 cents a kilowatt.  That is a 4% annual compounded inflation rate over that 47 month period.

          Bottom-line, people are not adjusting their budgets because of a 4% annual increase in their electricity costs.  The NextDoor discussion was almost surely precipitated by changes in other costs in the discussion participants’ budgets.

          I look forward to reading the comments when you copy and paste them here.

        13. Matt Williams

          Keith, there is no last word in an intellectual sharing of ideas and beliefs and data. 

          With that said, the ball is in your court. I would very much enjoy seeing the Wildhorse Next Door discussion you referred to.  It is almost surely going to be rich ground for intellectual engagement.

  4. Keith O

    Unsurprisingly, the sum of many pledges to do nothing is: nothing. When the Massachusetts Institute of Technology compiled the pledges and compared them with its own preexisting projection, it found a temperature reduction by 2100 of only 0.2°C. When the analysts compared the pledges with the projection created by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change back in 2000, they found no improvement at all. Unfortunately, not everyone was in on the joke. Determined to display “leadership,” President Obama made the classic mistake of the kid who hears everyone is going skinny-dipping, strips naked, plunges into the water, and then turns to find his dry and still-modest peers laughing from the shore as they run off with his clothes. While everyone else both literally and figuratively mailed in their commitments, the president pledged a dramatic reduction in U.S. emissions: 26 to 28 percent below their 2005 level by 2025. To further grease the skids of international diplomacy, he committed the United States to lead the transfer of $100 billion in annual “climate finance” from the developed world to the developing countries that are pledging nothing.Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/434412/paris-climate-agreement-americans-foot-bill-no-effect-climate

    1. Don Shor

      it found a temperature reduction by 2100 of only 0.2°C.

      The National Review, not surprisingly, has made the same misrepresentation that Trump made about the MIT research.

      That claim was attributed to research conducted by MIT, according to White House documents seen by Reuters.

      The Cambridge, Massaschusetts-based research university published a study in April 2016 titled “How much of a difference will the Paris Agreement make?” showing that if countries abided by their pledges in the deal, global warming would slow by between 0.6 degree and 1.1 degrees Celsius by 2100.

        1. Matt Williams

          There is no last word Keith.  It is an intellectual sharing of ideas and beliefs and data.  The ball is in your court. I would very much enjoy seeing the Wildhorse Next Door discussion you referred to.  It is almost surely going to be rich ground for intellectual engagement.

  5. Keith O

    A study in the peer-reviewed journal Global Policysaid that even if every country lived up to its CO2 emission reduction promises through 2030, the Paris deal would “likely reduce global temperature rise about 0.17°C in 2100.”
    “Current climate policy promises will do little to stabilize the climate and their impact will be undetectable for many decades,” the study concluded.
    Kevin Anderson, a climate-change professor at the University of Manchestertold the London Independentthat the Paris deal was “worse than inept” and that it “risks locking in failure.”
    Friends of the Earth Internationallabeled it “a sham of a deal” that will “fail to deliver.”
    “Politicians say it is a fair and ambitious deal,” the group’s Dipti Bhatnagar said, “yet it is the complete opposite. People are being deceived.”
    New Internationalistmagazine said it was “a disaster for the world’s most vulnerable people. ”
    Physicist Mark Buchanan, writing inBloomberg View, called the Paris agreement an “abject failure.”
    Nick Fillmore, in a piece for the left-wing Huffington Post, said that politicians had “convinced themselves and the compliant mainstream media that the accord all 195 countries signed was an amazing breakthrough document.”
    Despite the “lofty language and idealistic goals,” it is, Fillmore said, “totally lacking in legally binding mechanisms that will hold governments to emission limits that will stop global warming from reaching devastatingly high levels.”
    We could go on, but you get the picture. If the climate-change threat is real, the Paris deal really was a sham, for all the reasons these critics cited.
    As such, the people who should be ashamed of themselves are those who continue to peddle myths about what the Paris deal would have achieved, not the guy who proved how flimsy the agreement actually was.

    http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/the-paris-climate-deal-was-a-fraud-and-a-sham-until-trump-decided-to-ditch-it/?src=A00220&yptr=yahoo

     

    1. Don Shor

      Yes, Keith. More extreme climate activists are not happy with the Paris accords. It’s a moderate agreement, based on what each country thinks is achievable for them, and has no specific enforcement mechanism. For that reason, the extreme rhetoric leveled at it by conservatives is unfounded.
      Why you are citing these folks on behalf of your argument against the Paris accord is beyond me. They want more, not less, regulation and restriction. I guess you’re just throwing whatever you can find at it at this point.
      Wikipedia has a good overview. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Agreement

      1. Keith O

        No, you obviously missed the point.  The point was this Accord is deceptive and a joke with no mechinisms for enforcement and will do very little if anything for the climate.  And for that the U.S. will incur huge costs.

        You should put aside your politics and be thanking Trump for getting us out of this bad deal.

        1. Don Shor

          No, you missed the point. It is the culmination of a moderate diplomatic approach which actually managed to achieve something remarkable: nearly every nation in the world agreed that climate change is a problem and that they will all do what they possibly can to help mitigate it. It also provided a funding mechanism whereby the richer countries that have benefited from cheap energy in the past can help pay for the costly adaptation strategies that are going to be necessary.

          Trump has no idea what he is doing. He won’t even say if he thinks climate change is happening. It is not a “bad deal” in any sense of that phrase. And it isn’t going to be renegotiated.

          He is isolating the United States from the rest of the world and has shown disdain for a consensus process and a moderate consensus accord.

        2. Keith O

          I guessed you missed this, we had the wrong guy doing the deal, he was in over his head.

          Unfortunately, not everyone was in on the joke. Determined to display “leadership,” President Obama made the classic mistake of the kid who hears everyone is going skinny-dipping, strips naked, plunges into the water, and then turns to find his dry and still-modest peers laughing from the shore as they run off with his clothes. While everyone else both literally and figuratively mailed in their commitments, the president pledged a dramatic reduction in U.S. emissions: 26 to 28 percent below their 2005 level by 2025. To further grease the skids of international diplomacy, he committed the United States to lead the transfer of $100 billion in annual “climate finance” from the developed world to the developing countries that are pledging nothing

          Obama was in over his head as evidenced by by this bad deal.

          1. Don Shor

            Yes, I read that facile analysis. It’s written by someone who doesn’t believe that climate change is an issue, therefore who doesn’t believe anything at all needs to be done about it.

            It’s not a “deal” Keith. This isn’t business. It’s a diplomatic agreement, a process of achieving consensus toward mutually agreed-upon goals. Donald Trump doesn’t know the difference because he has no experience with diplomacy and he doesn’t listen to anyone. His business background, such as it is, is not suited to this kind of thing. He was a bully in business and he is not temperamentally suited to any process of collaboration or cooperation. It’s not how he did things. His isolationism is going to be very detrimental to our alliances, to our long-term interests, and to the world environment.

  6. Tia Will

    Kieth

    If I can buy a widget for $1.00 everywhere else but that same widget costs me $1.30 in California because of its regulations and policies I’m getting screwed.

    That’s the bottom line, twist and spin all you want.”

    That is far from the bottom line. Widget’s, as an isolated item, do not affect the environment directly . Sources of power including electricity do. Widget’s do not affect air and water quality. They do not affect related health care costs. You are, in your posts, citing the filthy air in China, which is a clear health hazard, and then trying to claim nothing matters but the direct “widget cost”. Overall, clean power sources ( and by the way, there is no such thing as “clean coal”) will be beneficial if one considers all costs not simply one time unit cost.

    As for “getting screwed” by increased costs from regulations and policies, you are also getting the protections that those policies provide. If you are living in a better environment, then it is actually the inhabitants of other states that are “getting screwed”.

    The “bottom line” depends upon which you value more, money, or a healthy environment. I’ll opt for the latter.

  7. Leanna Sweha

     

    Yes, our leadership on the world stage is likely diminished by pulling out from the Paris accord. But remember, Paris is an “amendment” (which many argue should have been ratified by the Senate) to the 1992 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, which the US ratified (ie. Senate approval).  The UNFCCC includes general greenhouse gas reduction goals and a finance mechanism for mitigation in developing countries/countries vulnerable to climate change.  The US is still a signatory to the UNFCCC and thus will continue to participate in the conference of the parties, although it will likely be a bit awkward participation.

  8. Leanna Sweha

    Here’s a very interesting article on the Paris accord.

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-skips-climate-church-1496431295

    And here is what I think the key paragraph from the article:

    Agreements like Paris arguably aim at the wrong target anyway. Only when technology can meet mankind’s energy demand at competitive cost will low-carbon energy prevail. Governments would be wise to invest in basic energy research rather than throwing money at energy technologies that are viable only as long as the subsidies keep flowing. But the latter is what brings in the political bacon.

Leave a Reply

X Close

Newsletter Sign-Up

X Close

Monthly Subscriber Sign-Up

Enter the maximum amount you want to pay each month
$ USD
Sign up for