Hacker News Reader

Comment by chollida1 | Hacker News Reader

> The decision will put the United States in league with Syria and Nicaragua as the world’s only non-participants in the Paris Climate Agreement.

So I guess its up to private industry in the US to tackle climate change.

And just before people start complaining about Trump..

> A letter from 22 Republican senators urging Mr Trump to withdraw played a major role in the decision, Axios said.

This is an American political issue not a Trump issue.....

> Canada, the European Union, and China have said they will honor their commitments to the pact even if the United States withdraws. A source told Reuters that India had also indicated it would stick by the deal.

This is much happier news

View on HN

So not even half of the Republican Senators, let alone all the Democratic ones? Hardly an 'American' issue.

34 Senators would be required to block ratification.

I wonder how that vote would turn out if Trump submitted the treaty to the Senate (as Obama should have).

40. You need 66 to ratify a treaty, but you can also pass a 'treaty implementation bill' which is basically normal legislation mirroring the language of the treaty, and you only need a majority in the house, and either a majority or a filibuster-proof majority in the senate. That's how NAFTA was passed.

Obama could have tried that with the Paris climate deal, but now it would require Trump's signature, or enough votes to override a veto (again including 67 Senators).

But both sides seem to be playing by a new rulebook here, in which the President makes international agreements without consulting Congress.

More specifically, the issue is with Republican legislators listening to fossil fuel interests and wealthy donors over public opinion.

A majority of people in the United States support climate action. Even a majority of self-identified Republicans.

How is it that the secretary of state who was a fossil fuel CEO is against quitting?

Many of the same researchers that developed the techniques that Exxon relies on to find oil also developed the arguments about anthropogenic climate change. There are certainly individuals within Exxon who acknowledge climate change. I do not envy their cognitive dissonance.

Update: Exxon stockolders too!

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-exxonmobil-climate-idUSKB...

I don't follow US politics very closely, so I don't know whom you are referring to; but if they were a fossil fuel CEO, they may no longer have a financial interest in quitting.

This particular example may not demonstrate it, but it absolutely is an American issue, not a Trump issue. Denial of climate change, its negative consequences, and the merits of fighting it have been a standard part of the Republican platform for a long time.

> So I guess its up to private industry in the US to tackle climate change.

While I'm guessing you're referring to those like the solar industry, it doesn't matter if the rest of the manufacturers don't follow along. Fat chance that under capitalism all these industries will say "maybe we should curtail our production rate and consumption of resources for the sake of the environment, even if we make less profit and aren't compelled to by the law". [0] The free market demands that Moloch must continue being fed.

[0]: http://i.imgur.com/80Az8Xx.jpg

I'm from Nicaragua and this is new to me. But it does not surprise me. The ruling party have made billions from Venezuelan oil. They control the import, distribution and final sale of gas to customers. It's not in their interest to change the energy sources.

Internally there's have been development in renewal energy, but these have been done by investors close to the Government and they mostly sale each watt as it was produced from bunker. This is possible because they own all the energy business in the country.

It seems Nicaragua rejected the Paris agreement as it didn't go far enough [1]:

> As world leaders gathered in the French capital in November 2015 to reach an agreement on fighting climate change, Nicaragua's lead envoy explained to reporters that the country would not support the agreed-upon plan as it hinged on voluntary pledges and would not punish those who failed to meet them. That was simply not enough, Paul Oquist argued.

That leaves Syria, which may actually have other problems these days. The US seems to be pretty much alone in this.

[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/05/31...

Signatories of the letter are here: https://www.yahoo.com/news/gop-senators-urge-trump-make-clea...

> Canada, the European Union, and China have said they will honor their commitments to the pact even if the United States withdraws.

I'm not sure about other countries, but my understanding is that Canada is "honoring our commitments" to the Paris Climate Agreement in a way similar to how NATO members are honoring (or not, as the case may be) their financial commitments to NATO.

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/28032017/justin-trudeau-c...

But I suppose "that's different", right?

If the motivating factor behind stopping climate change is saving lives, how come no one ever gets morally outraged at non-American countries not keeping their word when it comes to military funding, which I think could be argued saves lives as well? (Although to be fair, the net number of lives saved by military funding is debatable.)

Because other people know that the mutually agreed deadline for the 2% spending target is 2024. Now is 2017.

>Although to be fair, the net number of lives saved by military funding is debatable.)

That is the 2nd, and maybe more important reason.

As others have pointed out in this thread, the 2% is merely a target and should therefore be disregarded.

Enjoy the fruits of your demeanour.

The NATO agreement reached in 2014 was:

>aim to move towards the 2% guideline within a decade with a view to meeting their NATO Capability Targets and filling NATO's capability shortfalls.

It's not 2024 yet, and note that the agreement is to 'aim' - not exactly binding.

As for the article you yourself linked to:

>The report only models policies in place up to last Nov. 1. Since then, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's administration has made a number of significant climate policy changes through the Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change, an agreement between federal, provincial, and territorial governments to reduce emissions published on December 9.

>"I think there are a lot of reasons to believe we are actually better off than the report suggests," Flanagan said.

>More will be need to be done, however, to meet their targets, said Jake Schmidt, international program director at Natural Resources Defense Council.

http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_112964.htm

This is an entirely separate issue. Also I don't think that military funding is an efficient way to save lives

It certainly is a separate issue, but it has many similarities such as shared responsibility, and I get the sense that a portion of the moral outrage is based on a matter of principle.

I just find the nature of some of these discussions to be a little bit dishonest/disingenuous, everyone is always eager to get mad at the US, if you ask them to look in the mirror (whether the subject is directly comparable or not), everyone isn't so eager any more. Nothing to be terribly ashamed about as it's pretty common human behavior, I'm just pointing it out in a Devil's Advocate sort of way, but on a serious note, as a voter this behavior this type of behavior certainly influences the way I vote.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com