US Pulls out of Paris Climate Accords

[Theodarzna]

Considering after some 80 odd years the odds of you and I being alive any more are pretty slim to none?

Yeah, sure.

So you intend to have no children then? You don't care much for who will live here after you?

[Nadiru]

Because they view the transition to low carbon energy as inevitable. And the U.S. being part of the accord gives them, in principle, a seat at the table to determine how that unfolds.

People and corporations tend not to follow black and white characterizations in reality.

Low carbon energy is inevitable in the extreme long-term, sure. We're still 30 or 40 years out from a broad based grid that can use renewables as baseload power. Battery prototypes aren't able to hold enough charge for enough cycles at a cost necessary to entail rollout, though I expect the generation of devices after this upcoming one will be viable for a grid-wide rollout. That said, that sort of long-term thinking doesn't characterize corporations, especially in the energy sector.

[Ghostpanther]

More like what is best for Russia and Russia's oil dependent economy.

Yay, America gets to bailout Russia now! So awesome when your tax dollars will be going to Putin to buy oil we don't need. $500 billion buys a lot of new roads, pipes, and bridges. But who cares right (according to you)?

They have all but declared war on us and you are running around aiding and abetting the enemy like it is some big cynical joke.

Lol. Such ridiculous claims. We are exporting oil here now. And creating more jobs by lifting unnecessary restrictions on our industry will create more jobs here. Ask anyone who has had problems finding a job if that is a bad deal.

[Osmeric]

Low carbon energy is inevitable in the extreme long-term, sure. We're still 30 or 40 years out from a broad based grid that can use renewables as baseload power. Battery prototypes aren't able to hold enough charge for enough cycles at a cost necessary to entail rollout, though I expect the generation of devices after this upcoming one will be viable for a grid-wide rollout. That said, that sort of long-term thinking doesn't characterize corporations, especially in the energy sector.

I think you're overestimating the time by a factor of ~2.

[Rennadrel]

How toothless it is, is a big reason why. Trump could have said literally nothing, and just not contributed the money the USA was expected to by 2020, and it would have caused less international bad press and hostility than backing out loudly and publicly like this has. It does nothing but stroke the ego of his own rabid base, while annoying pretty much everyone else, to gain nothing.

Which is exactly why he did it. Makes him look smart to the dumb people and dumb to the smart people. He got a rise out of people who were in support of such a weak agreement by not agreeing to it in the first place. Makes him look like a genius to all the climate change deniers.

[stomination]

US can't legally pull out for another 4 years apparently. Some EU countries are considering economic sanctions against the US.

That would harm them more so than the United States. We already know when the States economy hurts the world feels it.

[Osmeric]

US can't legally pull out for another 4 years apparently. Some EU countries are considering economic sanctions against the US.

Depends on what you mean by "legally". Under US law, they were never in it, since there was no senate ratification.

[Mittens]

More like what is best for Russia and Russia's oil dependent economy.

Yay, America gets to bailout Russia now! So awesome when your tax dollars will be going to Putin to buy oil we don't need. $500 billion buys a lot of new roads, pipes, and bridges. But who cares right (according to you)?

They have all but declared war on us and you are running around aiding and abetting the enemy like it is some big cynical joke.

Uh? Most of the oil in the US is either imported from Mexico or Canada, plus shale.

On the other hand, the EU is the one that subsidizes Russia's economy. They might want to change that.

[Sharein]

On the other hand, the EU is the one that subsidizes Russia's economy. They might want to change that.

Why?

Why do people keep insisting that Russia is the enemy?

The cold war is over, you know.

[omfgreally]

Is that so? I'm pretty sure that even with 10 times as many terrorist attacks as there have been in central Europe until now, this place would still be a lot safer than like anywhere in the US. Care to look up some actual numbers on deaths by terrorist attacks in Germany? While you're at it, check murder statistics as well. I know them, but go ahead. I literally have zero fear from anything happening to me. If anyone should be afraid of anything, it is you guys with that retard of a president you elected. Hell I wouldn't even put it past him to start a war with north korea over his ego- but sure, talk down to others like that some more. It just adds to the general opinion a lot of people have.

Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one and they all stink. And yes, smart ass I have, but keep up that garbage you are doing it would be long for you and germany. and No American is scared of north korea. Want to talk about retards for leaders, how about that flip-flop Merkel... Talk about morons.

[zenkai]

Why are people upset? Thousands of men have pulled out of Paris before...

[Daelak]

Why are people upset? Thousands of men have pulled out of Paris before...

HAHA you are so politically incorrect!

[guldanlol]

Not to troll, but doesn't Climate change happen regardless of human interaction with the environment? How much worse are we making it?

[Endus]

Not to troll, but doesn't Climate change happen regardless of human interaction with the environment? How much worse are we making it?

I won't repeat the same links, but to give you an idea, during an ice age (we're in one; there are ice caps), there are glacial periods, where glaciers expand (what's incorrectly called an "ice age" in popular media), and interglacials, like the one we're again in.

The difference in global temperatures from the coldest point of the glacial period to the warmest of the interglacial is about 10 degrees Celsius. Here's the last four interglacials;




Now, I want to be clear about a few things; these are four different timelines, not concurrent events. They're overlaid here so you can see that they follow similar warming patterns, and more importantly, warming rates. The most critical for our purposes is the red line, the most recent interglacial. The "normal" line is based on warming since about 1900 (to eliminate yearly variance, it's actually an average of 1881-1910), before anthropogenic warming kicked off. So that's "0C", in that baseline. We'll come back to that.

Now, we can see that the last glacial period bottomed out at about -10C below that point, and spiked up quickly to about -1C, before warming slowly to the modern era (some variance, but generally warming up to 0C). Overall, that took about 6,000 years. This is geologically rapid, and far exceeds the cooling-off of glacial periods, which typically take 60,000-100,000 years to fall back down.

So that's about 9C of warming in 6,000 years. Or about 1 degree every 650 years, give or take.

Now, since 1900, about 120 years, the Earth has warming about 0.8 degrees. That's about 4.3C per 650 years, by comparison. Four times as fast as the most rapid warming due to natural influences.

And the anthropogenic warming is accelerating. Most of that warming was actually since 1950, not 1900. The Paris Accords are an attempt to keep warming by 2100 below the 2C mark. That would be 2 degrees since 1900, or one degree every century, so 6.5 times faster than natural cycles could manage, and that's something we hope to slow the warming down to. Because left alone, it's gonna be faster than that.

It also bears noting that this warming is also at the peak of an interglacial's warm point, and this could easily pull us out of the Quaternary Ice Age completely, which we've been in for millions of years, with massive global climate consequences. Which the natural cycles, by dint of being cycles, don't.

[permp]

I won't repeat the same links, but to give you an idea, during an ice age (we're in one; there are ice caps), there are glacial periods, where glaciers expand (what's incorrectly called an "ice age" in popular media), and interglacials, like the one we're again in.

The difference in global temperatures from the coldest point of the glacial period to the warmest of the interglacial is about 10 degrees Celsius. Here's the last four interglacials;




Now, I want to be clear about a few things; these are four different timelines, not concurrent events. They're overlaid here so you can see that they follow similar warming patterns, and more importantly, warming rates. The most critical for our purposes is the red line, the most recent interglacial. The "normal" line is based on warming since about 1900 (to eliminate yearly variance, it's actually an average of 1881-1910), before anthropogenic warming kicked off. So that's "0C", in that baseline. We'll come back to that.

Now, we can see that the last glacial period bottomed out at about -10C below that point, and spiked up quickly to about -1C, before warming slowly to the modern era (some variance, but generally warming up to 0C). Overall, that took about 6,000 years. This is geologically rapid, and far exceeds the cooling-off of glacial periods, which typically take 60,000-100,000 years to fall back down.

So that's about 9C of warming in 6,000 years. Or about 1 degree every 650 years, give or take.

Now, since 1900, about 120 years, the Earth has warming about 0.8 degrees. That's about 4.3C per 650 years, by comparison. Four times as fast as the most rapid warming due to natural influences.

And the anthropogenic warming is accelerating. Most of that warming was actually since 1950, not 1900. The Paris Accords are an attempt to keep warming by 2100 below the 2C mark. That would be 2 degrees since 1900, or one degree every century, so 6.5 times faster than natural cycles could manage, and that's something we hope to slow the warming down to. Because left alone, it's gonna be faster than that.

It also bears noting that this warming is also at the peak of an interglacial's warm point, and this could easily pull us out of the Quaternary Ice Age completely, which we've been in for millions of years, with massive global climate consequences. Which the natural cycles, by dint of being cycles, don't.

I dont know why people are so mad about this, if the country sigh and do nothing about it what happens? NOTHING.

For exemple Brazil sigh the accord and last week the senete removed a big part of a legal reserve so it can be explored by agriculture, and what the accord will do to brazil? NOTHING. If anyone cares check out the size of the legal reserve.

[stabetha]

studies show the paris accord would reduce U.S. GDP by over $2.5 trillion and eliminate 400,000 jobs, it would have increased the electricity costs of an American family of four by between 13 percent and 20 percent annually and The regulations necessary to implement it would have cost the U.S. industrial sector 1 million jobs. Trump asked if it could be renegotiated, and several European countries said no, if it was really about saving the Earth why wouldn't they renegotiate?

[Halyon]

You know the days of the USA being the superpower of the world are coming to an end when the Chinese government is more ambitious and willing to invest in innovation of new energy technology. I am signing up to Mandarin classes right away.

They may be assholes in many regards, but they're not braindead...

That's not saying all americans are braindead, but they have them for leaders...poor sods...and the rest of the world tbh...because world influence and super-power countries...ugh.

[Endus]

studies show the paris accord would reduce U.S. GDP by over $2.5 trillion and eliminate 400,000 jobs, it would have increased the electricity costs of an American family of four by between 13 percent and 20 percent annually and The regulations necessary to implement it would have cost the U.S. industrial sector 1 million jobs. Trump asked if it could be renegotiated, and several European countries said no, if it was really about saving the Earth why wouldn't they renegotiate?

Not "studies". A bit of garbage that seems to have been invented wholesale by Scott Pruit, known climate change denier.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...o_nothing.html

[Halyon]

studies show the paris accord would reduce U.S. GDP by over $2.5 trillion and eliminate 400,000 jobs, it would have increased the electricity costs of an American family of four by between 13 percent and 20 percent annually and The regulations necessary to implement it would have cost the U.S. industrial sector 1 million jobs. Trump asked if it could be renegotiated, and several European countries said no, if it was really about saving the Earth why wouldn't they renegotiate?

There's no negotiating with a greedy retard like Trump.

[Sky High]

Not "studies". A bit of garbage that seems to have been invented wholesale by Scott Pruit, known climate change denier.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...o_nothing.html

ooooh woah who could have seen that coming from a guy like Pruit.