The "other" side of the great climate change debate is 99.44% the result of real fake news generated by immoral corporate lobbies. If the pudgy guy with the cheap Chinese-made neckties pulls the U.S. out of the Paris agreements it will be the single simultaneously stupid and vile thing ever done by any administration. Trumpoleon would absolutely guarantee to move James Buchanan up from last to next to last in presidential quality.There is no excuse in this world to pull out of Paris. In Trumpolean's world, it may make him feel good. And we'll all pay for his ego high.
I thought Warren G Harding was last until now.
Yes, Tom, I wonder if Trump has put off this decision until now to try to deflect attention from Jared and his back channel communication plans with Russia.
Crystal, He has raised expectations of a walk-away so high that if he surprises the sidelines and does the simple, sane thing he will be hailed, in some quarters, as a brilliant deal maker. We can hope for that. But I am afraid that this is a gas pipe issue for his most devoted followers -- if we don't get out, they'll stick their heads in ovens, or stick his head there.
He also raised expectations very high that he would move the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Wrong again, and this is part of the reaction: http://www.timesofisrael.com/trump-risks-ire-of-millions-of-pro-israel-voters-by-keeping-embassy-in-tel-aviv/?utm_source=The+Times+of+Israel+Daily+Edition&utm_campaign=ab51702cd7-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2017_06_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_adb46cec92-ab51702cd7-55661721
According to this article a US withdrawal would be the best outcome for international climate action. Said the article: "There are four key, interconnected risks related to US participation in the Paris Agreement: that the US will miss its emissions target; that it will cut climate finance; that it will cause a “domino" effect among other nations; and that it will impede the UN negotiations."And whether or not the US participates directly in the Paris Accord, if it wants to do business in countries which do participate and do care about the environment, it will still be bound by by directives such as ROHS. This is a European Union initiative, and restricts the use of certain hazardous substances anywhere in the supply chain of manufactured goods sold in nations which are signatory to it. I work for an electronics manufacturer which has plants in Israel, Asia, Europe, and the Americas; and a large part of my job is testing to ensure that we are ROHS compliant in our products. Being environmentally conscious is just good business, which Trump would recognize if he weren't such a moron.
I was on a technical advisory board in the 90s responsible for integrated development of new techniques for manufacturing precision optics. Nonhazardous coolants and chemicals were folded into the processes from the get go. You just DO it.
Katherine and Stanley raise an interesting question: So Trump pulls out of the accord. Does it follow that American enterprises will start cranking up their emissions and polluting hither and yon? Katherine notes that international businesses will still have to comply with regulations in other countries ... and does it make sense to make an American version that emits more pollution here and a cleaner version for other countries? (Well, maybe, if it saves money, which Trump consistently conflates with jobs.) Moreover, some states and cities (California, for example), have said that they will continue imposing stiffer anti-emissions regulations regardless of what Trump does. And some companies (Tillerson's own Exxon) support the Paris Accord and are perhaps likely to be more stringent in their anti-emissions efforts than governmental policy calls for. In other words, there's nothing in pulling out of Paris that would REQUIRE U.S. companies and states/municipalities to maintain their own stricter standards. If Trump rolled back FDA rules to allow dairy producers to put extenders like chalk in milk and sawdust in flour, would companies risk consumer wrath by actually turning back the clock and doing it? I think pulling out of the Paris Accord (I'm not for it, of course) would show whether Americans are really serious about climate change. And that might help us keep the faith with the rest of the world until such time as a competent leader takes up residence in the White House.
The good point here is that even if the U.S. government acts like a spoiled brat with the brains of a pet rock, U.S. businesses are cutting emissions because it is good business. It's good because, as Katherine points out, countries not operating under spoiled brat rules will require it for doing business but also because it saves them money, which increases PROFITS.Nevertheless, if the self-anointed leader of the free world sulks in his tent, he becomes an excuse for back sliding by the weak, and everybody else is distracted by his hissy fit.
And then there is this: http://nbc4i.com/2017/04/06/kentucky-coal-museum-installs-solar-panels-to-save-on-electricity-bills/
I agree with Jean (and Tom) I think this train may have left the station regardless of what Trump says.
Given a choice between people who will mindlessly cheer his assertions of the greatest electoral college victory in the history of the universe and the world, he chose the former,More than three times as many Americans work in this country for German companies than work for coal companies. But you wouldn't expect a malignant narcissist to know that.
https://medium.com/i-climate-scientists/the-jobs-at-risk-if-trump-pulls-the-u-s-out-of-the-paris-agreement-b89f8a4faf55❤ Climate ScientistsBlockedUnblockFollowFollowingWe love the scientists who stand up for our air, our water and our futures. #StandUpForScienceMay 31The jobs at risk (if)when Trump pulls the U.S. out of the Paris Agreement
As usual this is not just Trump's fault, and the Republican's fault, it is also the media's fault.History will not judge 2016’s ratio of email coverage to climate coverage kindly."Indeed, as Media Matters documents, there was less coverage of climate change in the 2016 election than in the 2014, 2012, or 2010 elections""Meanwhile, networks’ flagship news shows devoted more coverage to Clinton’s emails than to every policy issue combined"
I don't think it's the media's fault. You would have to be living in a cave to not know the basics of climate change. I blame the people who voted for Trump, the people who don't mind screwing everyone else in the world as long as they themselves get what they want.
Crystal, You are right. He is living in a cave. The fact that it has gold bathroom fixtures doesn't prevent it from being a cave.
Concern about climate change is very much media driven; see my post Global Warming Concern & Belief on-UpswingBoth politics and the weather news drive the media coverage which drives people's opinions.Evidence for climate change drives up peoples beliefs and concern; skepticism of data lowers them; when politicians argue climate change, people revert to basic political beliefs.The big chance Trump is taking is what the weather will be between now and the next election. A lot of hot summers, and Tornadoes could make climate change a big issue. Florida will make Trump particularly vulnerable. A lot of hurricanes, or a very devastating one could be a big issue in 2020.Climate change is not a settled issue for everyone, especially the uneducated. A lot of them are Trump voters.
But even if the media would write more about climate change, it wouldn't matter to the people who don't *want* to believe in it. Studies have shown that people believe what makes them feel comfortable, even in the very face of facts to the contrary. Trump's supporters will choose to watch news, like Fox, that tells them climate change isn't a problem. And if they accidentally get exposed to the truth anyway, they will discount it. The problem is them, not the news.
Yes, one of our elected officials says God is in charge of global warming, not people. As a Christian and a person, it makes me cringe. Gov. Arnold and Gov. Jerry have both smacked down Trump's notions. They point to biz opportunities in renewable energy as well as the health risks of air and water pollution. What happens to a coal miner in 10 years will happen to all of us in 20 or 30 if we then back the clock on this. Both of them are calling for stares and municipalities to keep going forward.
I saw the mayor of Pittsburgh, Bill Peduto, on a news video last night talking about how clean energy and new high tech industries like robotics and artificial intelligence had saved that city. He said the Paris agreement is the way to go for economic growth ... link
Climate is the statistics of weather but people react to weather evdnts. It would be interesting for a prediction of climate change attitudes to be overlaid on predictions if climate. Climate centers are predicting an active hurricane season. Would be interesting if sociologists tried to predict public climate change attitudes based on this.
This may just be another effort by Trump to draw attention away from his Russia problem. A former UN official called the announcement "vacuous political melodrama". The US can't serve notice of withdrawal until 2019 and can't complete withdrawal until 11/2020 (after the next Presidential election).I think Trump gained nothing, but managed to solidify domestic and global opposition to his proposed withdrawal. And now we have a coalition of the willing right here in the US saying we can meet the US goals even without Federal support.This could end up being a good thing for environmentalists and for the Trump Resistance.