U.S. Politics

[mj2sexay]

Because Obama bypassed the Senate to ratify it, or because there are still a number of other countries yet to ratify?

Indeed, this. Todays action is a pretty good example of what happens when that ratification doesn't occur, executive orders can be undone just as easily as they're created.

I'm not debating ANYTHING substantive here, I'm just saying when you don't adhere to the rules in which we've adopted for the acceptance of multinational agreements, they're upheld by pillars of sand.  If we don't have faith in our resolve towards an agreement and they can be undone so easily, how can we expect our partners in that agreement to give it full faith?

[Johnny English]

This sums it up pretty well

As ambitious as this sounds, the agreement contains no binding rules on how to meet this (or any) temperature goal.  1 All greenhouse gas emission targets are voluntary and left to individual countries to determine. This choose-your-own-emissions strategy skirts the political problems that disarmed the Kyoto Protocol, but it may have also rendered the Paris agreement too weak to prevent widespread climate catastrophe. The pledges submitted thus far leave a scary gap between what’s needed and what countries aspire to do.

The numbers show that until nations implement more stringent emission controls, the 1.5 and 2 degree targets are nothing more than wishful thinking. “It’s just bullshit for them to say: ‘We’ll have a 2C warming target and then try to do a little better every five years,’ ” climate scientist James Hansen told the Guardian. “It’s just worthless words. There is no action, just promises. As long as fossil fuels appear to be the cheapest fuels out there, they will be continued to be burned.”

Yes. Lifting sections from an article and quoting them is so much more powerful a tool than just posting the link.

And quoting Hansen is funny. He's about as radical a climate scientist as you can find, the guys who persuaded Trump to withdraw from the Accord are about as far opposed to him as it's possible to be. The argument that "Paris doesn't go far enough so we should drop out of it" is utterly stupid in the context of international diplomacy and negotiation.

[Johnny English]

Indeed, this. Todays action is a pretty good example of what happens when that ratification doesn't occur, executive orders can be undone just as easily as they're created.

I'm not debating ANYTHING substantive here, I'm just saying when you don't adhere to the rules in which we've adopted for the acceptance of multinational agreements, they're upheld by pillars of sand.  If we don't have faith in our resolve towards an agreement and they can be done so easily, how can we expect our partners in that agreement to give it full faith?

That's fair. I think on this particular issue it's a rock and a hard place - the Senate wouldn't have ratifed for utterly egregious reasons, so Obama had the choice of doing the right thing the wrong way, or doing the wrong thing the right way. I agree though that without the support of law it can be very hard to maintain a position regardless of its rectitude, especially when the next guy up is a populist moron with the emotional maturity of a spoiled nine year old.

[dcm1602]

Yes. Lifting sections from an article and quoting them is so much more powerful a tool than just posting the link.

And quoting Hansen is funny. He's about as radical a climate scientist as you can find, the guys who persuaded Trump to withdraw from the Accord are about as far opposed to him as it's possible to be. The argument that "Paris doesn't go far enough so we should drop out of it" is utterly stupid in the context of international diplomacy and negotiation.

Let's simplify this argument drastically, because I know im not  versed in the art of being a climate warrior like some others.

Should any plan to combat climate change outline specifically what metrics countries need to improve upon, and what type of punishments will be dished out if they're not met. As well as specifically how it will be funded, and what will happen when other parties are not paying their part

[Johnny English]

Well for one the United States along with other wealthy countries pledges over 100 billion by 2020 to other nations to combat climate change. You damn well know who would be paying more of that than everybody else

You're looking at this like some kind of global social welfare scam. It isn't.

[Johnny English]

Let's simplify this argument drastically, because I know im not  versed in the art of being a climate warrior like some others.

Should any plan to combat climate change outline specifically what metrics countries need to improve upon, and what type of punishments will be dished out if they're not met. As well as specifically how it will be funded, and what will happen when other parties are not paying their part

That's solid thinking and I agree, but pulling out of the foundational agreement that would enable that to happen is an entirely regressive move. We can talk more on this later but right now I have to make dinner and walk the dogs.

[dcm1602]

That's solid thinking and I agree, but pulling out of the foundational agreement that would enable that to happen is an entirely regressive move. We can talk more on this later but right now I have to make dinner and walk the dogs.

By not pulling out you lose all leverage to improve the process. By the United States arguably the most important country for something like this pulling out it forces everybody to the negotiating table.

And while I'm pessimistic that Trump is sincere he did say he would like to renegotiate it, while the EU countries threw a excrement fit

"So we're getting out," Trump said, "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, and if we can't that's fine."
The governments of Germany, Italy and France — the three largest economies in the European Union — immediately threw out that idea. They released a joint statement Thursday saying they "firmly believe" that the accord can't be renegotiated, Reuters reported.

[mj2sexay]

moron with the emotional maturity of a spoiled nine year old.

No no, Hillary lost. She's back from her stroll in the woods ready to lead The Resistance now (send money) like Princess Leia while simultaneously going on unsolicited rants which outline exactly how the Russians prevented her from making any campaign appearances in Wisconsin or something. On one hand, its a lot of fun seeing the mental gymnastics one has to do to rationalize the fact that they lost the Presidency to the host of The Apprentice, but its also sort of pathetic.

I was going to keep the populist part of the quote up, but she's not a populist and despite disagreeing with the grand majority of Bernie's policy positions, what can I say I genuinely like the guy.

In reference to that quote from the leadership of Germany, Italy and France DCM posted...I mean lets cut the excrement. Whether they firmly believe it can be re-negotiated or not, they're still going to come to the table to try, and they know it.

[Tommy]

This is an absurd argument. Horse and carriages didn't represent a threat to our environment. The production of buggy whips didn't affect the quality of the air we breathe or the rise in sea levels.

Okay you should probably read up on sanitary conditions in the 19th century. Horse excrement all over the streets etc. But that was a tangible issue at the time. Global warming isn't. It doesn't affect our daily lives now, and we don't even know if reducing emissions will even stop the warming trend. It's more of a "meh, better to try something than nothing." I'd rather us spend the money working on ways to adapt to warmer temperatures rather than spend trillions in the hope that it reverses its trend.

[Tommy]

That's solid thinking and I agree, but pulling out of the foundational agreement that would enable that to happen is an entirely regressive move. We can talk more on this later but right now I have to make dinner and walk the dogs.

But it's not a foundation agreement. It gives every country one vote. That's like giving every state one electoral vote in a general election. The less populous and rural states will win every time.

[Andrew Ryan]

Okay you should probably read up on sanitary conditions in the 19th century. Horse excrement all over the streets etc.

It's honestly laughable (and a little sad) that you're comparing the environmental impact of horse manure to that of global warming, but you're the expert in horseshit.

But that was a tangible issue at the time. Global warming isn't.

You should probably read up on the tangible effects of climate change since you're under the impression that there aren't any (here's a link to NASA's climate change website: https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/).

It doesn't affect our daily lives now,

It does affect our daily lives. The most obvious example being the growing frequency of extreme weather activity, including droughts, heat waves, and floods (you can read about that here: http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/highlights/report-findings/extreme-weather).

we don't even know if reducing emissions will even stop the warming trend.

The mainstream scientific community would tell you that this is not accurate. Reducing the amount of greenhouse gas emissions would more than likely slow the trend of rising global temperatures, if not reverse it.

It's more of a "meh, better to try something than nothing."

No, it's more like a "let's be proactive in order to avoid a global catastrophe that would threaten the future of our species" sort of thing.

I'd rather us spend the money working on ways to adapt to warmer temperatures rather than spend trillions in the hope that it reverses its trend.

I'd rather that you take the time to understand a subject before shooting your mouth off about it but we can't all have what we want.

[reuben]

They should have just renamed it The Trump Accords and we wouldn't be having this problem.   

[Johnny English]

But it's not a foundation agreement. It gives every country one vote. That's like giving every state one electoral vote in a general election. The less populous and rural states will win every time.

It's very clear that you don't understand how an international treaty works, and in particular haven't paid really any attention to the intents, aims and tools of the Paris Agreement.

You really are in love with victimhood politics, aren't you? If it's not illegal immigrants taking your jobs then it's poor countries taking your money.

[reuben]

I'd rather us spend the money working on ways to adapt to warmer temperatures rather than spend trillions in the hope that it reverses its trend.

Wut?

Dude, we're looking at what will likely be the most significant extinction event since the Cretaceous Period.  It's not a matter of turning up the AC.

[Johnny English]

Wut?

Dude, we're looking at what will likely be the most significant extinction event since the Cretaceous Period.  It's not a matter of turning up the AC.

LOLOLOLOLOLOL I had completely missed that freaking beauty. Wow.