USA pulls out of Paris climate deal | Hacker News Reader

USA pulls out of Paris climate deal

bbc.com

56 pointsNumberwang39 comments

Current post title is: "USA pulls out of Paris climate deal".

Article title is: "Trump 'poised to quit Paris climate deal".

More than likely it's going to happen in the next few hours but until then the title is inaccurate.

Agree. Why even bother changing the title? It's already pretty clear what Trump's intentions are, there's no need to embellish anything.

Not hours. Trump tweeted earlier today he'll make the announcement "over the next few days". https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/86990345951191859...

So the title is purely speculation.

It's not official but many news outlets have sources telling them the decision has been made. Although given how quickly Trump has changed his mind on some issues in the past, it's probably better to wait for the official announcement indeed...

Yes, we must focus on the real issues here

As a non-american that was my main worry about the Trump presidency. Well here we are. I wonder how much more time well waste not actively fighting climate change because of this.

At least I hope that the rest of the world will stay true to its word, but if america gains an unfair economical advantage by not following the rules I can't really imagine how it could work out. Could Europe and China impose sanctions on the USA for pulling out of the deal? Seems very doubtful.

China has limited power over the US because it relies so heavily on US consumption and because the US owes Chins a staggering amount of money.

The craziest part to me is that they've got some of the fastest developing countries on the planet, the ones bringing millions of people out of rural poverty every year committed to this - but a country that's so much further along than that is bailing out of it. It just doesn't add up. If India and China can do it, the USA has no excuses.

Aren't developing countries the ones benefiting directly from the treaty?

...and the USA wouldn't?

The treaty provides a mechanism for taking money from the developed world and giving it to the undeveloped world, in exchange for basically not developing. So it is a direct monetary benefit vs a nebulously defined future one.

to be fair the idea is that everyone benefits when we don't make large parts of the earth uninhabitable for people. In fact developed nations would probably see a better return, if the climate issues get worse they will be felt more in 1st world countries than they will in developing countries because it is the luxuries we have in the developed world that will be lost first (or at least more noticeably).

Is China following the rules? Eastern Europe? Genuinely curious- here's your chance to convince a USian that this is more than trying to drag the US down to everyone else's level.

I genuinely don't know but at least they haven't pulled out of it and I haven't read any news article saying that they're missing their targets so far. I guess it's probably too early to judge at any rate.

1. I don't believe there is a monitoring system. If you sign up you agree to certain things and everybody hopes you stick to your word essentially.

2. Why does it matter what China or 'Eastern Europe' (which specific states are you referring to?) do? Adults shouldn't need to have it explained to them that just because somebody else does something, doesn't mean they should also do that.

Finally regarding "dragging the US down to everyone else's level" - what level is this? I'm not sure the best way to look at the figures but, per capita at least, the US is one of the worst C02 polluters coming in at 8th whereas China is down at 55th.

So China emits twice as much CO2 as the US, but because they have a bunch of subsistence farmers it's ok? Sounds like the US is on the right track by increasing income inequality...

What measure are you suggesting is a fair one that we could get other parties to agree to?

You seem to be arguing that per capita isn't a fair assessment, but it is sort of the reasonable one.

(it also isn't the case that reducing emissions must have negative consequences, which you imply with "drag the US down")

Well off the top of my head there are 4-5 times more people living in China so of course they are going to emit more. Maybe I'm missing your point?

You need to reduce overall emissions to affect the climate, not per capita. Australia is worse per capita, but they could produce 0 CO2 and it wouldn't matter if your goal is to affect climate change.

> You need to reduce overall emissions to affect the climate, not per capita.

What?

If you reduce your emissions, you're also reducing your emissions per capita

With your talk about 'dragging the US down' though surely reducing emissions so that all countries are on an equal level per capita is the fairest solution? Also by reducing per capita emissions you are reducing overall emissions.

China is investing heavily in climate policies and cutting their emissions

https://www.ft.com/content/3f1ba5ba-ddac-11e6-86ac-f253db779...

More details from the NYT, in which it was noted that things are not final, as President Trump is set to meet with Secretary of State Rex Tillerson this afternoon. Tillerson has been advocating on behalf of sticking to the deal:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/31/climate/trump-quits-paris...

> And Mr. Trump has proved himself willing to shift direction up until the moment of a public announcement. He is set to meet Wednesday afternoon with Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, who has advocated that the United States remain a part of the Paris accords and could continue to lobby the president to change his mind.

Regardless of the deal itself, pulling out of this is a huge move as far as foreign policy and the U.S. relation to the rest of the world is concerned.

This most certainly sets the U.S. in a new light/new orientation on the global economic scale, and reiterates the sense of growing detachment Merkel recently espoused.

The actual headline is "Trump 'poised to quit Paris climate deal'"

Do you think the Paris climate deal was/is potentially an effective way to limit emissions?

It was better than nothing. It's better to have less progress than necessary than regression.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politician%27s_syllogism

I don't think that's logically the same thing.

It's not exactly the same, but still similar:

1. This is something

2. Something is better than nothing (is it?)

Im sure its better than nothing. Also when Trump pulls out of it, its effectiveness is not a factor.

Reminder: He thinks climate change is a Chinese hoax.

I believe that although it is not useless, the only real way to fight climate change, as in everything else, is to have educated and conscious people who will protect the environment with a moral cause not a legal, weak one.

America first! Planet Earth second.

Can they actually even pull out ? Deal was signed, US can easily choose not to apply but pull out I'm surprised.

Was it ever ratified by the Senate?

Sure, the US isn't even in the agreement currently, it hasn't been ratified by the Senate.

Independent of which, international treatises are treated by US law as part of regular domestic legislation, meaning any treaty the US enters can be exited by any act of congress that supersedes it, just like any regular domestic US law. This, as an aside, is why it's been constitutional for the US to break all the treatises written with native American tribes.

Treaties and agreements like this one also usually specify an orderly withdrawal procedure.

Telling 199 other countries that you can't commit to something is just generally a bad move on its own.

So this is how America becomes great again... Wow, I'm impressed.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com