Hacker News Reader

Comment by davesque | Hacker News Reader

I think the only way anyone could argue there are any pros is if they could convince me that Trump has a different long-term plan to address climate change. Unfortunately, all of his actions up to this point indicate that he doesn't have any such plan. I really wish people would stop trying to understand and rationalize this man's actions. He has no rational for what he does other than his own short-lived whims and the general selfishness and narcissism that underlies his world view.

View on HN

That's a Republican orthodoxy, not just Trump. Climate change either doesn't occur, or if it occurs it's not man made, if it's man made nothing can be done. In any case, doing anything is job killing and anti freedom.

I think Trump himself doesn't care.

Seems to me that doing something would actually create jobs, but maybe not enough to offset those lost? Shortsighted is what it really is. Who cares if it's job killing if the alternative is civilization killing.

I don't think anyone argues that it doesn't occur, not even Republicans. The focus is on the extent of man's impact and what should be done about it. From the Republican point of view the alarmists have lost all credibility since about the 70s or 80s.

Many large corporations have come out against this decision (P&G, Coca Cola, GE, FB, G, 3M, Dow etc). So if he's not doing this because of lobbying from them, why is he doing this? Lobbying from O&G companies? Or is it just pure ignorance?

The vast majority of companies in America are not Fortune 500 companies. The companies you listed would benefit disproportionately from the agreement because smaller businesses would struggle to meet the cost of compliance without the global scale.

The number of American voters in those companies probably totals out to 2-3M tops, in a country of 350M.

I guess my comment was more about the idea or common thought that governments are under the thumb of the large corporations (those with the resources for large lobbying firms). Therefore, if these corporations are against this decision, who is Trump doing this for? Polls have shown majority of Americans are in favour of staying in the agreement (although I haven't seen the numbers broken down by party lines). So what is his motivation? Ironically this was a campaign promise, and the American public voted him in, so for once a politician is keeping their promise.

> Lobbying from O&G companies

Exxon Mobil's current and previous CEO were in favor of the Paris Accords. The previous CEO is also Trump's secretary of state.

> Or is it just pure ignorance?

There are vague claims that this will bring back manufacturing jobs, bring back oil coal jobs, etc. I don't know what the real reasons are, if any.

I speculate that Exxon Mobile's executive team is in support of it for selfish reasons. I'm not authority, but I bet it's easier for them to operate in foreign countries when the corporation's country of origin is involved in an international treaty because they can more easily claim to be in compliance of the law.

That also assumes that whatever economic gains will be greater than the potential gains we could make by creating exportable renewable technology and the benefits of creating large numbers of sustainable energy jobs.

Then you have to account for the fact that as pollution (and therefore, CO2) is reduced, air quality improves, cancer rates decrease and all of the other health benefits related to airborn pollutants.

We are looking at an America without those things, or at least with renewables being adopted slower and with more resistance from the federal government than before.

I'm ashamed really, I'm especially ashamed by all the poor/middle class people who are actually proud of this just because it makes liberals and europeans unhappy.

Trump's position amounts to hostage taking. Give us lots of money or we'll destroy the planet. It would be more honest if he did it with nukes.

Thanks for clarifying the pros and cons of this policy without inserting any of your personal bias!

You're welcome.

Well, not that I am defending him, but in his speech he said the deal is a burdain on the US industry while China and India are polluting as hell. This is something that might be factually right, but still not something to aspire to.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com