Science was ignored today
marchforscience.com
marchforscience.com
From the agreement:
>Acknowledging that climate change is a common concern of humankind, Parties should, when taking action to address climate change, respect, promote and consider their respective obligations on human rights, the right to health, the rights of indigenous peoples, local communities, migrants, children, persons with disabilities and people in vulnerable situations and the right to development, as well as gender equality, empowerment of women and intergenerational equity,
That doesn't sound like it has a whole lot to do with climate change. It could potentially be used to force the United States to accept migrants, which Trump has opposed.
EDIT:
From the White House's Facebook page,
"The United States will withdraw from the Paris Climate Accord but begin negotiations to re-enter either the Paris Accord, or an entirely new transaction, on terms that are fair to the United States, its businesses, its workers, its people, its taxpayers."
I don't think so. That passage is just acknowledging that countries may have obligations under other agreements, and that these should be respected, promoted, and considered when those countries are trying to address climate change.
I think what they are getting at is that a country should not use climate change and the Paris agreement as a justification for shirking their responsibilities under other agreements.
Consider Saudi Arabia, which is noted for giving women less freedom than men. Saudi Arabia is a party to the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). They are a party to Paris, too. It is not hard to imagine a scenario where increasing the freedom of women in Saudi Arabia in some particular area might in theory raise their carbon footprint.
I think what that passage is getting at is that they should not say, "Hey, we have to meet the Paris goals, so too bad, women! We've got to drop CEDAW to save the planet!". They are supposed to figure out a way to meet Paris goals and meet their CEDAW obligations.
Or to use your example of migrants, what it means to the US is that if we are obligated to accept migrants under some existing agreement, we should not try to say that the migrants have a high carbon footprint and reject them. We should try to meet both obligations.
I guess where I was getting at is that they seemed to have used this agreement to push a westernized social agenda. Considering that every country is sovereign, I'm not sure this is a proper approach.
Mind you, I would love to have gender equality across the world but it would be preferable to offer opt-in approaches.
Unless our science is totally wrong, without environmental engineering, it must be relative to business as usual.
And here is the source of the claim: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1758-5899.12295/f...
So rather than try to rebut this myself, I'll let someone qualified do it:
http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/wp-content/uploads/20...
And also:
https://thinkprogress.org/bjorn-lomborgs-new-paper-appears-t...
Wikipedia isn't very nice to him either: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bjørn_Lomborg#Formal_accusatio...
This is a years old agreement, covered in exhaustive detail. Wikipedia pages are great.
This tactic of calling everyone you disagree with "children" doesn't seem to be working.
The use of "adult" here sounds accurate.
This is why we don't make popular consultations for every policy decision.
This is at best equivocating over definitions. Do more people in the us oppose the PCA than support it? Is Trump only supposed to represent those for votes for him or is he supposed to represent everyone?
Or, conversely, are you trying to say that policy should be made in a vacuum ignoring science?
"Science was ignored today" doesn't even have an implication of scientists making policy.
Take two policy makers that both agree on the science of climate change. One advocates for a particular policy to mitigate the effects. The other decides that policy would be too expensive or cause other harms.
The correctness of the science doesn't automatically mean the policy in question is wise.
In the 90s we thought, that our generation is better and knows it better than any prior generation. Now we see, that humanity has not made much progress from the middle ages.
Today, we are worse: in the middle ages, humans had no science. But today we have it and ignore it, because it does not fit into our live-plans.