US Formally Withdraws From Paris Climate Agreement (theintercept.com) 250
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Intercept: The United States officially withdrew from the Paris Agreement on Wednesday, casting the stakes of the still-undecided presidential election in planetary terms. With the completion of the formal withdrawal process, which Trump began in June 2017, the U.S. became the only country in the world not to participate in the global effort to fight the climate crisis. Trump, who has dismissed climate change as a hoax and rolled back dozens of environmental regulations designed to protect the environment and stave off climate change, decided to exit the international agreement early in his term. But because the accord didn't allow countries to begin the formal withdrawal process until three years after it went into effect, the yearlong process officially began on November 4, 2019.
Joe Biden has promised to reenter the climate accord on the first day of his presidency. The process of rejoining would take just 30 days, enabling the country to be readmitted as a party as soon as February 19, 2021. The agreement, named for the city where the United Nations Conference of Parties struck it in 2015, aims to limit the global temperature rise to "well below" 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. President Barack Obama pushed hard for the agreement, which his administration officially entered in September 2016. That year was the warmest year on record, although 2020 may soon top it. During the past four years, the Earth's temperature has continued to soar and unprecedented wildfires, flooding, droughts, sea level rise, and scorching temperatures have beset the world.
Joe Biden has promised to reenter the climate accord on the first day of his presidency. The process of rejoining would take just 30 days, enabling the country to be readmitted as a party as soon as February 19, 2021. The agreement, named for the city where the United Nations Conference of Parties struck it in 2015, aims to limit the global temperature rise to "well below" 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. President Barack Obama pushed hard for the agreement, which his administration officially entered in September 2016. That year was the warmest year on record, although 2020 may soon top it. During the past four years, the Earth's temperature has continued to soar and unprecedented wildfires, flooding, droughts, sea level rise, and scorching temperatures have beset the world.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Treaties require Senate ratification. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: Treaties require Senate ratification. (Score:2)
Right, it's a voluntary agreement (accord) with voluntary targets and penalties.
Quick question -was the US obligated to give anything to any other country under the non-treaty accord? Is this really something a President can unilaterally commit to?
Re: (Score:2)
Right, it's a voluntary agreement (accord) with voluntary targets and penalties.
So? At least it shows a government accepts that climate change is a real threat.
If any of them don't pull their weight they'll be exposed and ridiculed.
TLDR; It's a start. It's a test of character.
Orange Man pulling out just shows he's spineless/idiot/both.
Re: Treaties require Senate ratification. (Score:4, Insightful)
At least it shows a government accepts that climate change is a real threat.
Too many people think these documents of political posturing are important.
What matters is better solar panels, better wind turbines, better batteries, more electric vehicles, telecommuting software, better smart meters, and smart appliances.
It is us, the nerds, not politicians, who will save the world.
Re: (Score:2)
you mean nerds like Thomas Midgley?
Re: (Score:3)
What matters is better solar panels, better wind turbines, better batteries, more electric vehicles, telecommuting software, better smart meters, and smart appliances.
Those things matter, but...
It is us, the nerds, not politicians, who will save the world.
...politicians decide which of those things will be implemented. So the politicians can easily doom the world while the nerds are trying to save it. Therefore we can't simply ignore politics, which has never been a viable option, and never will be unless there's only one person left. And if there is, they'll probably go bananas, and argue with themself.
Re: Treaties require Senate ratification. (Score:2)
If any of them don't pull their weight they'll be exposed and ridiculed.
What are you, a child? You simultaneously think this is an existential threat to mankind and the planet, and your 'or else' is 'ridicule'?
Incredible.
That actually sounds reasonable to you?
Re: (Score:2)
No, but I'm not a politician.
Re: (Score:2)
Right, it's a voluntary agreement (accord) with voluntary targets and penalties.
Penalties LOL. What penalties kenh?
Why bother to talk about something you are so obviously clueless about?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: Voluntary and non-obligating are lies... (Score:5, Insightful)
Or use the other word for them... People! Climate change is happening, can just look at average temperatures for that. You may chooses to ignore all the evidence that people are causing it, but climate change is happening!
Re: Voluntary and non-obligating are lies... (Score:5, Interesting)
More specifically non-delusional people. There are still groups that believe the Earth is flat or that believe the entire universe revolves around the Earth. Democracy is meant to balance these viewpoints out but the education level is dangerously low in the US.
Re:Voluntary and non-obligating are lies... (Score:5, Interesting)
Everyone with a brain is a climate change believer. There are just some who prefer to make lots of money now before their grandkids have to deal with the fallout.
The standoffs between the cattle ranchers and BLM was not about climate change, it was about some morons who had a long term lease and they mistakenly thought they owned the land instead. Some were wacko enough to believe that the government cannot own land under some sort of cartoonish legal theory.
Under Obama, there was the rule of law, which meant that the government also had to follow the law. Under Trump, he spits on the law and his goal and that of all his entire administration is to dismantle the government.
Re:Voluntary and non-obligating are lies... (Score:4, Informative)
The standoffs between the cattle ranchers and BLM was not about climate change, it was about some morons who had a long term lease and they mistakenly thought they owned the land instead.
As I understand it:
The main standoff between cattle ranchers and BLM was a cattle rancher whose family, for several generations, had had a claim to a property right on the land in question, on which they had been paying taxes. (Note that property rights can be finely divided. Consider, for instance, the easements that a utility company can buy from you to run a line over or under your land - and enter to maintain their equipment on it. Or an easement to drive cattle through your land twice a year going to or from a grazing area. And so on.)
The BLM attempted to assert that the rancher now needed to lease the right he claimed he (and his family for generations) already owned as a property right. To have paid the lease - and downsized the herd to the new lower limit BLM arbitrarily assigned - would have had the side effects of both waiving the property right claim and scuttling the market value of their ranch. To maintain the claim until it could be asserted in court, a rancher had to both not sign or pay the lease and had to continue to graze the cattle on the land. One chose to do so.
Re: (Score:2)
Wild clicky strikes the submit button again... Was correcting the text to point to a single farmer's claim. Switch the "their" to "his" in the last paragraph and strike the last sentence.
As I understand it the BLM pulled this on several ranchers and most knuckled under. But one with a lot to lose stood up to them.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Voluntary and non-obligating are lies... (Score:4, Insightful)
Like *all* pols, laws are for the ruled, not the rulers.
Another black and white view of the world, which seems to be the only thing Americans are capable of.
All politicians are liars is not an excuse for the mindboggling amount of lying Trump does.
All politicians are corrupts is not an excuse for the insane level of corruption in Trump's administration.
Obama droned a guy, is not a counter to the complete disregard of all laws that the current administration has.
To claim that Obama is no better is just a demonstration of either complete deaf and blindness or worse, willful ignorance.
Re: (Score:3)
Under Obama, there was the rule of law
Bullshit. Bush, Obama, Trump.... laws were only followed when there was political benefit to be gained from them. Warrantless wiretaps, drone-strikes killing Americans overseas... all laws were ignored if there was political power to be gained. Take off your fucking political party team jersey, put the pompoms down and open your eyes.
Re: (Score:2)
I actually wonder how much you believe your own bullshit considering you're so scared that you won't even put your pseudonym against it.
Re: (Score:3)
You have it backwards. Government shooting of white people carries few consequences outside of civil court, assuming the family sues for wrongful death. Which doesn't always happen.
Re:Treaties require Senate ratification. (Score:4, Interesting)
How is this a problem? Don't Republicans love their children too?
All over the world, plenty of conservatives support the Paris Agreement as a minimal effort, while the left is more likely to criticise it as too little, and lacking any enforcement.
After all, conservatives do not like change or economic instability. We should be well scared of climate change.
Sure, a few do not believe it, but they can't all be idiots, and it only needs a few to be brave enough to cross the floor. It does not even actually require them to vote on unpopular measures.
Do they really all think every other country is run by left-wing zealots, and climate change is a conspiracy? Or really not care about the consequences?
Most younger Republican voters support increased action on climate change. Why not their parents?
Re: (Score:2)
Because money.
And yes, they CAN be all idiots!
Re:Treaties require Senate ratification. (Score:5, Interesting)
There are many reasons. One is religion. If one believse that the world will end a certain way because that is what your holy books teach, then one will resist any ideas that say otherwise. People have been arguing about what the end times will be like ever since John wrote his of revelations, but in the last 50-100 years many have claimed to have figured it all out, including the order of events, and climate change does not fit into their dogmatic picture. Do not discount this as just being a tiny minority of those thinking that climate change is a hoax.
Money is another of course. Those people who refuse to evacuate when a flood comes and end up dying, it's the same reason. Why abandon your biggest asset in the world if there's a minuscule chance that the predictions are wrong. Combine the two and it's powerful. Just pray more and the house will be saved.
Re: (Score:2)
Money, mostly the money of big corporations that see mitigating climate change as unprofitable so spend a lot of money fighting it, and convincing the victims of climate change to fight it too.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no law for there to be a force behind (Score:2)
The climate accord doesn't require specific actions, it requires everyone to work at their own pace. There's no actions that need a force of law. Not being in the Paris Accords is just making a very public statement that you hate the earth.
Re: Treaties require Senate ratification. (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
It's 'not a treaty' is another way of saying that the most it can do is allow Biden to posture.
Re: (Score:3)
> It's not a treaty. Hence the name.
You are plain wrong. This belies a deep ignorance of how legal processes, all over the world, brand initiatives...but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. You can't be that dumb.
Anyone can google this question to get the same answer over and over again*, which might be useful for someone confused by your trolling.
*https://scholars.org/contribution/understanding-paris-agreement
Re: (Score:2)
It's not a treaty. The Paris Agreement would best be described as an "executive agreement".
While there are some legal processes within the UN framework there is no enforcement for missing targets, or even any requirement to set useful ones, and no monetary commitment. It's all entirely voluntary, with systems in place to monitor and report on countries that decide to participate.
Unlike Kyoto the focus was on building consensus rather than trying to legally enforce anything. Basically all participating state
Re: Treaties require Senate ratification. (Score:3)
Re: Treaties require Senate ratification. (Score:5, Informative)
Treaty is a fucking synonym for accord.
No it isn't.
A treaty obligates the signatories to do stuff.
An accord is just a nebulous statement that maybe they will think about it.
Re: Treaties require Senate ratification. (Score:5, Informative)
If it were a treaty, Trump could NOT have backed out on it on his own and he would have required 2/3rds senate approval. There are other ways to back out of a treaty though that don't seem to be applicable here (a mutual withdrawal by all parties, clauses allowing one to back out of it, a breach of the treaty terms, etc).
Re: (Score:2)
The GP wasn't disputing that, just disputing that treaties and accords are the same thing. This is an accord. It literally is in the name.
"The Paris Agreement" (or in French l'accord de Paris)
Not "The Treaty of Paris"
Re: (Score:3)
If it were a treaty, Trump could NOT have backed out on it on his own and he would have required 2/3rds senate approval.
Not exactly.
You're referring to the treaty process defined by the US constitution, but the US almost never uses it when we enter into treaties -- but they're still treaties.
The US uses three different treaty mechanisms. To the rest of the world they're all treaties, but to US law they're different, with different ways of entering and leaving. They are:
Sole-executive agreements. These are agreements that are entered without the participation of Congress, negotiated and signed entirely by the executiv
Re: Treaties require Senate ratification. (Score:5, Informative)
"Accord" is actually a mis-translation from French. The official English name is the Paris Agreement.
In French it is l'accord de Paris, but the proper translation of "accord" is "agreement". The English word "accord" doesn't mean the same thing as the French word "accord", despite being spelt the same way.
Additionallly, they require enabling legislation.. (Score:2)
The Paris Climate Agreement is a treaty, it has to be ratified by the Senate, ...
Additionally, a treaty, of itself, does not place any legal limitations on the actions of US citizens and residents while not abroad. That requires enabling legislation, passed through the usual lawmaking procedures, or regulatory action under existing legislative authorization.
There is no "international law" outside of lip service. There are just 195 individual countries interacting in an anarchy, sometimes making deals with
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Sounds like the pro-trump conspiracy fantasists have found some new conspiracy theory nonsense to believe in.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, a country setting its own voluntary targets must be an elaborate communist ploy. Good job, critical thinking.
Re:Another four years. (Score:4, Insightful)
"Proven to be false" means it was absolutely true. Trump was helpped by Russia to destroy US interests.
"Stakes in Planetary Terms" - sensationalist (Score:2)
Paris Accord is meaningless and inactionable. Real environmentalists even agree it's pointless.
"Beyond that, itâ(TM)s nearly impossible even to evaluate or compare them. Developing countries actually blocked a requirement that the plans use a common format and metrics, so an INDC need not even mention emissions levels. Or a country can propose to reduce emissions off a self-defined âoebusiness-as-usualâ trajectory, essentially deciding how much it wants to emit and then declaring it an
Re:"Stakes in Planetary Terms" - sensationalist (Score:5, Insightful)
The CO2 emission accords are toothless mostly because of the consistent and extensive efforts US of A to undermine them through the years.
If you complain about agreements being "ineffective", you should start at the role of your country in sabotaging them.
Re: "Stakes in Planetary Terms" - sensationalist (Score:2)
Remember when President Clinton signed the Kyoto Accord and the Senate voted 95-0 against it?
Re: "Stakes in Planetary Terms" - sensationalist (Score:2)
Sorry, link: https://www.climatechangenews.... [climatechangenews.com]
Re: (Score:2)
What does this have to do with the point at hand - which is, US is the party that has deliberately sabotaging every international climate change initiative?
Your internal bickering is your problem, it does not concern the rest of the world.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a start though. If you can't get countries to agree to have real teeth behind the agreements, then is it better to give up and just wait for the end, or try to just get a less comprehensive agreement with some non binding handshakes?
Re: (Score:2)
It was drafted that way because of US obstructionism to binding agreements.
It was hoped that the "leader of the free world" will agree to a framework that was self-paced.
Alas, even this is too much for Murrica.
It is instructive of the level US hypocrisy to observe how the people who most vehemently obstruct anything with commitments in it proceed to reject the result of their opposition as "ineffective".
I know the solution (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
There's also a lot of lobbyists with interests in fossil fuels.
Re: (Score:2)
that has emitted the largest amount of accumulated greenhouse gases; it also has a history of dumping its own pollution to the rest of the world.
Small wonder its ruling elite is trying to steer it away from every responsible action on climate.
Irresponsibility, thy name is United States of Murrica.
China makes America look like a solar farm run by hippies by comparison. I suppose you believe their COVID numbers too, and Epstein killed himself.
Ignorance, thy name you've earned.
Re:US is the party (Score:5, Informative)
No, it doesn't. China's accumulated emissions are less than half of those of the US, and at China and US current rates it will take China 80 full years to catch up.
With a population that is 5 times that of the US, and noting that a lot of their current pollution is because of exported US manufacturing.
No, US is the worst polluter by far, and in addition, the US is the only country that has consistently and aggressively undermined all international efforts to deal with the CO2 crisis for decades.
China has nothing on the US, no matter how you wilfull ignoramuses try to twist the facts.
Re: (Score:3)
No, it doesn't. China's accumulated emissions are less than half of those of the US, and at China and US current rates it will take China 80 full years to catch up.
With a population that is 5 times that of the US, and noting that a lot of their current pollution is because of exported US manufacturing.
No, US is the worst polluter by far, and in addition, the US is the only country that has consistently and aggressively undermined all international efforts to deal with the CO2 crisis for decades.
China has nothing on the US, no matter how you wilfull ignoramuses try to twist the facts.
You have no fucking clue what a Communist dictatorship is doing, or has done within their own borders to their own people. 5 million could be dead due to COVID right now, and you would have no fucking clue (easy to hide or even miss within 1.3 billion humans buried behind a Red wall). There are no facts to twist here, other than the fact that 1.3 billion humans living and working in a largely unregulated industry, creates obvious problems, including massive pollution. Do you think that's just a bad fog pr
Re: (Score:2)
You have no fucking clue what a Communist dictatorship is doing, or has done within their own borders to their own people.
I have no idea why you bring this up in an argument about global emissions. It is utterly irrelevant.
creates obvious problems, including massive pollution.
Producing shit you consume cheaply, you forgot to add. You're the paying customer, you own the problem - the part that you purchase anyways.
If you truly feel differently, better start citing facts.
I already did, but you fail at reading comprehension.
US has output about half a trillion tons of greenhouse gases.
This half a trillion dwarfs the output of everyone else, including China.
If China keeps outputting CO2 at its current rate of 10bt/year, which is double that
Re: (Score:2)
You keep bringing up shit that doesn't matter. Yes, pollution happened. We've recognized the problem and are doing a damn good job of reducing and eliminating pollution. Except any progress the world makes is completely offset by China in their mad dash to catch up with the total pollution of the world for all of history. You are arguing that because bad stuff happened in the past, it's acceptable for China do do these bad things. No it isn't.
Take your fifty cents, go back to your boyfriend Xi the Pooh
Re: (Score:2)
You keep bringing up shit that doesn't matter.
No, you wish it was "shit that doesn't matter", but it is the only shit that matters.
We've recognized the problem and are doing a damn good job of reducing and eliminating pollution.
Sure, Jan.
Except any progress the world makes is completely offset by China in their mad dash
It is not China that has torpedoed every international agreement on climate change in the past 30 years.
Thanks for trying to excuse the reckless US stance on climate change, though.
Re: (Score:2)
They do this in an effort to undercut other producers
[citation needed].
They do what they can at the prices they can get for it. Since they have been a member of the WTO, they by and large abide by their obligations. Guess what, if the US has not sabotaged the WTO dispute resolution courts for a decade, you could have even brought your claims before an independent court and, subject to proving your case, enforce such protective measures as you would win.
Your purely anti-US screed here is the worst kind of trolling, and demanding what basically amounts to generations-old reparations by the current regime and citizenry of the US is utter nonsense
There are no issues of "generations" here. The US is the same legal entity it was 100, 200 and 300 years ago
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, because those massive coal-powered power stations can easily be hidden. LOL.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, because those massive coal-powered power stations can easily be hidden. LOL.
Perhaps these charts can help make my original counterargument.
https://ourworldindata.org/co2... [ourworldindata.org]
Gosh, it's as almost as if we had no fucking clue the trends were that bad...Wait, they're IN the Paris climate accord? Yeah. I can really tell. #sarcasm
Re: (Score:2)
Here. The relevant chart. Accumulated emissions.
https://ourworldindata.org/gra... [ourworldindata.org]
China will need to output at its current rate for 80 more years to even catch up with US today.
Lovely, really.
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you for the source. Now perhaps you can READ it.
https://ourworldindata.org/co2... [ourworldindata.org]
Trends matter, and so does everyone else's point about China being largely unregulated.
Now perhaps you can explain the "80 years" pulled from a dark smelly hole.
Re: (Score:2)
Like I said, everything you say has one goal - to discount your responsibility and pretend the US isn't the largest CO2 polluter.
A total refusal to face the facts.
Sad.
Re: (Score:2)
Also the US does so much for the world
Hahahahahahaahaha.
You serious?
Ahahahahahahahhahahhahaha.
Re: US is the party (Score:2)
No, US is the worst polluter by far
China produced 2x the greenhouse gases in 2017 than the US did, 27.2% vs. 14.6%.
https://www.weforum.org/agenda... [weforum.org]
China is building new coal-fired power generators AS ALLOWED by the Paris Climate Accord.
How do new coal-fired plant help the environment?
Re: (Score:2)
Now with respect to accumulated emissions that is not what the Paris climate accord is about so try to stay focused.
Nice strawman, but my point is the obstructionist stance of US overall, and not this specific piece of a compromise, which, btw, was drafted the way it was precisely to placate that very same obstructionist US. Didn't do much, because even a non-binding, voluntary commitment is too much for the worst CO2 polluter in the world.
A point which you have nothing against except calling me names, because it is just a stubborn fact.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes but the amount of gas released will be greatly diminished once Trump loses the pulpit.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: US is the party (Score:2)
Right, since China only discovered Fire about 50 years ago they have a clean record of no greenhouse gas emissions.
Re: (Score:3)
Sadly, even today with the availability of many online sources and easy ways to search, people prefer to remain ignorant when they don't like the facts.
https://timeforchange.org/cumu... [timeforchange.org]
https://ourworldindata.org/gra... [ourworldindata.org]
https://www.statista.com/stati... [statista.com]
Re: US is the party (Score:2)
Woosh!
(Sorry, I thought my sarcasm was obvious.)
Re: (Score:2)
Your 'sarcasm' was obvious, but it is totally pointed in the wrong direction.
Re: (Score:2)
You being a CCP sock puppet is equally obvious.
At fifty cents a post, you've made enough to buy a sandwhich in this thread.
Re: (Score:2)
Translation: "I got nothing, so let me call you some names".
Masterful strike, really :)
Re:US is the party (Score:4, Insightful)
Most relevant, because what "the planet" cares about isn't current rates, but about the total accumulated amount. It is the accumulated CO2 that is causing the warming.
You may deny the responsibility of your country all you want, but the science is very clear here - you're the reason for the largest portion of the warming effects, and you're the nation that shirks most awesomely from its responsibility towards the well-being of the planet.
Also, a lot of China's output is to produce junk that you consume, so effectively a large part of China's output is still yours anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
You blather about irrelevant things, doesn't matter whether person feels "responsible" or irresponsible. Pointless. The past is done and irreversible. Fact is USA is not the major emitter, only 15% of greenhouse gases and dropping year by year as the rest of the developing world ramps up.
Quit being a cultist trying to promote pointless "guilt", will do nothing. China is the problem here.
Re:US is the party (Score:5, Insightful)
You keep ignoring the facts, and they are simple:
The global warming is a function of the accumulated amounts of greenhouse gases.
The US is the biggest source of those, and even with China producing more today than the US, the amounts are such, that it ain't going to change for another 8 decades at the current rates. This is how bad a polluter US is.
US has no "pointless guilt" here, it has specific responsibilities. It must accept it has financial responsibility to deal with this crisis, and that this is financial responsibility towards the rest of the world proportional to the amount of damage its accumulated pollution is causing.
Pay up and stop undermining the efforts to contain CO2 emissions, you greedy planet killers.
Re: (Score:3)
It's funny how people so readily acknowledge that accumulated amounts of greenhouse gases as the problem, when it gives them an opportunity to bash the U.S. But refuse to acknowledge it when I point out that that's why renewable energy isn't the solution [slashdot.org]. Renewables don't solve the problem. They just prevent it from getting worse (by halting the burning of more fossil fuels to release more CO2). They do nothing to remove al
US is still the global leader, for now (Score:3)
Re:US is the party (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It is lovely how the people who have profited most from CO2 pollution shirk from footing the bill for its ill effects. US "morality" in its cleanest form here.
Re: (Score:2)
Translation of your comment: "I got nothing".
Thanks for playing, though.
Re:US is the party (Score:4, Insightful)
And we import all that crap from China so we are complicit. Get a grip.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The US wants to present itself as being the pinnacle of human development, the standard that everyone should aspire to.
If everyone on the planet produced as much CO2 as the average American we would have zero chance of recovering from this. Therefore it's important that the US finds a more sustainable way to live, that also maintains high standards of living, so that developing economies can follow.
Or rather it's important that the US follows Europe in developing a sustainable, high quality of life. Not all
Re: (Score:2)
Re: US is the party (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
US total emissions dwarf everyone else's, but I'll be surprised if you call for action and cost-bearing proportional on accumulated emissions outside of pointless bickering like the comment above.
Re: US is the party (Score:2)
Per capita or in total?
You really believe the Chinese, who are still building new goal-fired power stations an an amazing rate, emits less greenhouse gas in toto than the US currently does? Really?
China produces 27.2% of the worlds total emissions, the US 14.7%, and India 6.7% as of 2017, the most recent data I could easily lay my hands on.
See: https://www.weforum.org/agenda... [weforum.org]
In one year, China pumps 2x the greenhouse gases into the atmosphere as the US, and India pumps about half of what the US does in th
Re: (Score:2)
Per capita or in total?
In total, and per capita.
You really believe the Chinese, wh
No, I believe measurements.
In one year, China pumps 2x the greenhouse gases into the atmosphere as the US
And even then it will take them 80 years to catch up with what you've output so far.
Let me know how the Paris Climate Accord gets China to roll-back their emissions to 25% below their 2005 levels by 2025...
Why would they do that while the US keeps sabotaging the agreements?
Re: (Score:2)
I wasn't talking about current rates, ignoramus, as someone already pointed out.
But even if current US emissions rates have been surpassed by China, this is only because US corporations are producing a lot of US-consumed crap there. Readjust emissions by final consumer, and get back to us with who's worse.
Re: (Score:2)
Past is unchangeable, but measures and costs of dealing with the damages of past behavior must be in line with it.
Are you going to say "past is unchangeable and pointless to bring up" if one of your children gets raped, and the rapist is brought to court to answer for this "past"?
I don't think so :)
Re: US is the party (Score:2)
Are you saying the climate suffers 'emotional scaring' caused by the industrial revolution?
Does the climate need a therapy dog?
The previous posters comment is valid - you can't change past transgressions against the environment, so what are you talking about. The US can't 'apologize' and the environment will overcome the problem.
Re: (Score:2)
No, the climate is changing due to accumulated amounts of CO2 and that is expensive.
The US can apologize, but it can also do something meaningful - like foot its part of the mitigation measures bill the humanity is facing.
Which the US desperately doesn't want to do, and tries to move the argument into bullshit like you and that other moron do here.
Re: US is the party (Score:2)
Please, tell me all about the previous trade agreements with China that included meaningful, enforceable climate commitments. We opened up trade with China in the 70s, so there shouldn't be too many trade agreements to research.
Re: (Score:2)
Please tell us which climate agreement with or without meaningful, enforceable climate commitments, has not been torpedoed by the US? Climate agreements are a fairly recent thing, so there shouldn't be too many of them to research.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The root of the standard of living is sustainability, because if you eat, shit and move, leaving scorched earth behind you, you'll eventually run out of earth to scorch.
This is what you've done - lived at the expense of other people because you could.
You can refuse to acknowledge the simple truth of your responsibility in tackling the accumulated greenhouse gas pollution all you want, but it will come to bite you too.
Worse for you, your pseudo-arguments today will be used against you in a decade when you're
Re: (Score:2)
Given that China fishing fleets have a long history of using the absolute worse practices that leave ocean deserts inside the territorial waters of other countries, you have a lot of nerve to accuse anyone of "scorched earth".
Re: (Score:2)
Given that the topic is US irresponsible actions on climate change, your mad dash to change the topic to "China" is really cute.
Re: (Score:3)
The root of the standard of living is sustainability
Bollocks to that. I'm not willing to sacrifice my standard of living in the name of sustainability. All those cunts having children can do that.