Could we get some more details on this? In all the reporting on this particular treaty, I've not heard that it involves this or is unfair to the US. Trump gave no explicit evidence of this , other than the bizarre assertion that Americans are being laughed at.
He's also saying he's going to renegotiate Obama care in the same way and we've seen what a load of BS that was.
Do you actually believe that It's OK for Trump to pull out of the Paris treaty because he's going to make one of his own that's better ? I'm not sure anything you have said has convinced me that I am the one whose understanding is clouded.
The Paris accord is not a treaty. It's an entirely non binding agreement in which countries set their own reduction goals, can change them at will, and face no penalty if they miss. The US is the only country with ambitious reduction goals - around 28% below 2005 levels.
It is accompanied by obligatory financial contributions to the UN to redistribute to 3rd world nations so they can develop through green energy rather than the much dirtier industrialization process that is cheaper. In reality, those are giant handouts going to corrupt places in the world and we're used to bribe 2/3rds of the world to sign onto a treaty for the sake of having lots of signatures, even though they pledged to do basically nothing. And the US does have rules to pay the lions share.
It is also true that China and India turned in goals that say they'll reduce the rate of emission growth, but end up higher than they are now. Their plan for achieving it would allow them to build new coal plants and continue to operate old ones.
I see that if the goal was to change the reduction standard for the US, he could have done that unilaterally without pulling out of the agreement. SecState says we're not changing our reduction goals despite withdraw. So, changing US targets was not the point.
The point is forcing China & India to adopt a more aggressive target, and for the foreign aid burden to be reduced &/or shared more evenly, while putting in greater safeguards to ensure it gets spent on real projects rather than siphoned off by corrupt officials.
And, because the withdraw timeline makes this an election issue - just as Brexit was at issue again in the latest election - it does force Trump to do something between now and then. I do think you'll see a major climate conf in the next couple years and at least an attempt at a replacement binding treaty.
There is a ted talk I need to look up which presents what I think is becoming the conservative policy position on solving climate change. It was presented to Trump I think days into office and reportedly well received. I'm not sure, but I think it might be the replacement proposal. Let me see if I can find it.
Yeah here you go, you may disagree with the strategy, but you shouldn't believe the conservative alternative is stick head in sand, deny problem, pollute lots. Just give it a watch. Hear it out. You should at least see it's a reasonable policy position.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
