Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Government United States Science Politics

Trump Is Pulling US Out of Paris Climate Deal: Sources (axios.com) 737

An anonymous reader shares a report: President Trump has made his decision to withdraw from the Paris climate accord, according to two sources with direct knowledge of the decision. Details on how the withdrawal will be executed are being worked out by a small team including EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt. They're deciding on whether to initiate a full, formal withdrawal -- which could take 3 years -- or exit the underlying United Nations climate change treaty, which would be faster but more extreme. Pulling out of Paris is the biggest thing Trump could do to unravel Obama's climate legacy. It sends a combative signal to the rest of the world that America doesn't prioritize climate change and threatens to unravel the ambition of the entire deal. News agency Reuters has corroborated the report with its own source. Further reading on Politico (which has also corroborated the news) and BBC. Update: Trump Announces US Withdrawal From Paris Climate Accord.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Trump Is Pulling US Out of Paris Climate Deal: Sources

Comments Filter:
  • Pulling out (Score:4, Funny)

    by 110010001000 ( 697113 ) on Wednesday May 31, 2017 @10:04AM (#54517277) Homepage Journal
    I always recommend pulling out of Paris.
  • Sanctions (Score:4, Interesting)

    by ChunderDownunder ( 709234 ) on Wednesday May 31, 2017 @10:08AM (#54517313)

    Trump might get that trade war after all as Europe and other like-minded trading blocs impose import tariffs.

    But wherever the Republicans go, Australia's Liberals follow so it's no comfort living here.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by ranton ( 36917 )

      Trump might get that trade war after all as Europe and other like-minded trading blocs impose import tariffs.

      I certainly hope Europe is able to take the mantle of leader of the free world while the US gets its act back together. I am a proud American, but I'm a human first. My country is the second largest polluter in the world, and the largest per capita. I hope more sensible countries around the world band together to show the more ignorant members of my country we cannot get away with it forever. Tariffs or sanctions against the U.S. for its inaction would be a good start.

      • Re:Sanctions (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve ( 949321 ) on Wednesday May 31, 2017 @12:15PM (#54518495)

        I certainly hope Europe is able to take the mantle of leader of the free world while the US gets its act back together. I am a proud American, but I'm a human first. My country is the second largest polluter in the world, and the largest per capita. I hope more sensible countries around the world band together to show the more ignorant members of my country we cannot get away with it forever. Tariffs or sanctions against the U.S. for its inaction would be a good start.

        List of the top 5 polluters by CO2 emissions:
        1) China
        2) USA
        3) European Union
        4) India
        5) Russia
        Here's your real problem. Note that 3 of the so-called BRICS nations are number 1, 4 and 5 on that list. Of those 3 nations on the list, only China really cares any about the environment and even then it's not much. None of them are ever going to really reduce their emissions if there is any chance it could hurt economic development. Even if the US did play along, China, India, Russia and others won't. They'll give lip service to the agreement, but they'll never actually implement enough to make a big difference.

  • Finally! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Weaselmancer ( 533834 ) on Wednesday May 31, 2017 @10:12AM (#54517349)

    Now, finally and at last - we can begin to set our standards as high as Syria and Nicaragua! [wikipedia.org]

    I can't wait for the good 'ol USA to start living the good life like those guys. Makes you proud.

    • by Zocalo ( 252965 )
      You're going to have to wait, and even if Trump starts the process today with an executive order he may not see it run to fruition as POTUS. Apparently there are two ways that Trump can actually do this; he can just withdraw from the Paris Agreement, which is a process that takes four years (a rule introduced immediately after Trump was elected but before he actually became POTUS), or he can take the nuclear option (or should that now be "coal option"?) and withdraw from the UN's climate body, the UNFCCC,
  • by shess ( 31691 ) on Wednesday May 31, 2017 @10:15AM (#54517365) Homepage

    Have you seen some of the research on this? The long-term impacts may be catastrophic, and it's already fairly clear to anyone who cares to pay attention that climate change is already started! I find it really hard to believe anyone thought a treaty to cause climate change was a good idea in the first place.

  • by DontBeAMoran ( 4843879 ) on Wednesday May 31, 2017 @10:16AM (#54517373)

    Imagine all countries imposing pollution tariffs on everything made in the USA.

  • One Man (Score:5, Insightful)

    by watermark ( 913726 ) on Wednesday May 31, 2017 @10:17AM (#54517385)

    Trump has really highlighted how much power/influence we choose to give to a single person. It amazes me that a president can unilaterally enter into or exit from agreements of this magnitude. If he has any positive legacy, I hope it's a legacy where we decided to further limit the power of the presidency.

    If we were to write a book for children of good vs. evil, it would be hard to cast Trump as the "good guy". Even if he were cast as the "bad guy", he makes decisions that seem so clearly wrong that it would be rejected as too cliche.

    • Which POTUS would you cast as the good guy? Who should have the authority to enter the country into such global agreements? Who is safe to wield this sort of power, and what is the accountability they would have that solves the problems you have with Trump?

      • Even in it's dysfunction, I still prefer congress. Gerrymandering and oligarchy arguments aside, they seem to be a better representation of "the people". If "we" are going to make bad decisions, I prefer to make them collectively. It doesn't make them right decisions, but hopefully more people will accept responsibility to fix the mistakes if they feel they helped cause them.

    • Re:One Man (Score:5, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 31, 2017 @10:31AM (#54517511)
      You REALLY don't understand how the US government works do you?

      The President has the power to negotiate treaties and contracts but they're not binding on the US until the legislature ratifies it.

      Obama NEVER sent the treaty to congress for ratification - because it wouldn't pass to begin with and tried some legal chicanery to try to say that it was "deemed" ratified because it fell under existing UN treaty agreements previous congress' already signed off on and besides with world political pressure (that Obama continues to foment) the US would be forced to comply.

      But that's ok - you can continue your fantasy that Obama is the "good guy" and Trump is the "bad guy" because you liked Obama's decisions and methods... except you hate them when they're used against you.

      • Re:One Man (Score:5, Insightful)

        by thegarbz ( 1787294 ) on Wednesday May 31, 2017 @11:38AM (#54518145)

        But that's ok - you can continue your fantasy that Obama is the "good guy" and Trump is the "bad guy" because you liked Obama's decisions and methods... except you hate them when they're used against you.

        That's kind of how presidencies work. A good president uses powers for the people, a bad one against them.

        Mind you good and bad could be taken in many contexts. Such as ability to befriend overseas nations vs insult them. Or just ability to express a coherent thought.

      • The President has the power to negotiate treaties and contracts but they're not binding on the US until the legislature ratifies it.

        That's a specific type of treaty. Known as a Congressional-Executive Agreement, which technically isn't a treaty, is when the President haggles, er negotiates, some sort of "whatever" and then goes and asks nicely for Congress to put it in the books. CEAs are typically used for trade of non-military/weapon stuff, entering in and exiting organizations (like WTO), foreign aids that should last longer than a single President term, and so on. However, according to Article 1 Section 10, States can also enter

  • by creimer ( 824291 ) on Wednesday May 31, 2017 @10:18AM (#54517399) Homepage
    I'm sure the Chinese are thrilled to be leading the rest of the world as the US withdraws into isolation.
  • Under Obama, gas dropped to $2/gallon (thus kicking off another SUV cycle) and he sat on a pipeline that would have taken hundreds of thousands of oil cars off the rails (thus putting more biomes at risk).

    So...what "Obama Climate Legacy" are we proud of again?
  • Can we sue the President for gross negligence or something?
  • Crush the hippie, tree huggers like Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson! If there's one industry dragging the country down with their green crap, it's Big Oil.
  • by lfp98 ( 740073 ) on Wednesday May 31, 2017 @10:23AM (#54517445)
    Just to show how serious this is, they should kick him/us out of the G7.
  • by MightyYar ( 622222 ) on Wednesday May 31, 2017 @10:25AM (#54517463)

    I believe the science behind AGW, but I do not think these global attempts to restrict carbon emissions are realistic.

    With that said, giving up participation in these treaties is a poor choice. I don't mind the US giving up some of our leadership role in the world, but this was low-hanging fruit. It also had the secondary effect of lowering our dependence on foreign oil, which has broader strategic benefits.

    • by Nikkos ( 544004 )

      The US is not really that dependent on foreign oil anymore. In fact, about 70% of our oil needs are met by our own oil production. Of what oil from 'foreign' sources we do get, about half comes from that far-off land called 'Canada'. We're exporting quite a bit now, to be honest, the US could be basically self-sufficient at this point.

      https://www.forbes.com/sites/r... [forbes.com]

  • by Nikkos ( 544004 ) on Wednesday May 31, 2017 @10:27AM (#54517483)

    China has double the US Emissions - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
    India's emissions are gaining.

    The Paris deal lets countries set their own goals ('Nationally Determined Contributions') and isn't legally binding. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

    So really the Paris Agreement is a plan made up by idealogues who want to 'save the planet'. Those ideologues want to set strict goals in the US (and the EU), affecting Western economies, while countries like India, China, and Russia set goals that do little to curb their emissions (and, of course, don't hurt their own economy)

    In short, it's political theater that hurts the west.

    • by dunkelfalke ( 91624 ) on Wednesday May 31, 2017 @10:45AM (#54517653)

      China also has over four times as many citizens.

    • by Ksevio ( 865461 ) on Wednesday May 31, 2017 @11:35AM (#54518123) Homepage
      You're the type that sees a pile of garbage on the street and throws your empty cup there instead of walking 50ft to the empty garbage can aren't you?
    • China has double the US Emissions
      India's emissions are gaining.

      Not bad for being the worlds factory and having 4x US population. Currently China is sitting on about half U.S. emissions on a per-capita basis.

      India is sitting at an eighth on a per-capita basis. Most of the disparity is locked up in extremely poor living standards nobody reading this would themselves appreciate being subjected to.

      If you want to see what climate change really looks like wait until both countries reach per-capita emissions parity with the US.

      This is why even pretending to care about the e

  • by Camembert ( 2891457 ) on Wednesday May 31, 2017 @10:33AM (#54517523)
    Pulling out of the climate agreement unfortunately makes me think of this cartoon: https://climatesanity.files.wo... [wordpress.com]
  • by GlennC ( 96879 ) on Wednesday May 31, 2017 @10:53AM (#54517733)

    The question is; What are you going to do about it? Sitting online and complaining is going to do exactly squat.

    The way I see it, there are two different groups in this nation. The first group sees that there is a major problem, although most don't realize the full extent of the problem. They want to see significant changes, but lack the tools to properly address the situation. Many members of this group lack the willingness to use the needed tools, even if they were provided. The second group has the needed tools and has demonstrated the willingness to use them. However, they don't think that there is a problem, or that change is needed right now.

    I don't know what's going to happen over the next year or so, but somehow I think we'll look back on this as "before everything went completely to hell."

  • By first pointing out the US never actually ratified the agreement so it was stupid of any country to think we were in it. Then he could explain how congress ratifies treaties and then say he'll sign it if it gets passed. (Which it probably won't since the pubs control congress but hey the dems can vote for it knowing full well they won't have to worry about the results if it were to pass. Why yes I am a huge cynic)
  • by evolutionary ( 933064 ) on Wednesday May 31, 2017 @10:56AM (#54517763)
    This is hardly a surprise. Everyone in the business sector was banking on this. Trump basically is doing anything pro-buisness and pro-Russia at the expense of literally everything/everyone else. Any claims he has that security is a primary concern of his is complete whitewash. Germany called him out on lack of environmental concerns and he basically Twittered "the Germans should mind their own business..or else". Thing of it is, it's EVERYBODY'S business. The German Chancellor has said EU has said they cannot rely on the USA to play a leadership role and the EU will have to step up. Trump is alienating all our allies, and getting cozy with historically hostile foreign powers. This should be concerning to all of us.
  • What ever else you want to say about the Paris Agreement, it's temperature goals are laughable. Look at NOAA's temperature trends since 1880 [noaa.gov]. Temperatures have increased by 1.0 C since 1880, already. The Paris agreement suggests setting goals to keep temperatures below 1.5C above pre-industrial levels. From the climate modelling the IPCC has collected, even a complete and absolute global ban on all CO2 emissions tomorrow would NOT reach the 1.5C goal. The existing emissions already out there will ride us over 1.5C before 2100.

  • by foxalopex ( 522681 ) on Wednesday May 31, 2017 @12:21PM (#54518551)

    Some of the worst arguments I see on here are that China causes more carbon emissions. Sure imagine you're stranded on a boat with 10 other people and wearing a red shirt while everyone has a blue shirt. You're eating 5 times the amount of rations but arguing that you shouldn't cut back because "blue" is already eating more. This is why emissions per capita matters. Carbon emissions are directly related to food production and general economic wealth of a nation. As a resident of a well off nation, it stands to hurt us the least to cut back a little. The only way China can cut back is to effectively downgrade their economics so badly that it will probably start killing people.

    So yeah, wealth redistribution it is, but folks forget that we're already doing that. There are far far more poorer folks out there worldwide and when nature inevitably bites back due to climate change it will hit the poor much harder but we share the same planet. Expect more environmental refugees and don't be surprised if folks start fighting more. After all if you're staving to death because you don't have water or food or a way of living, blowing up your neighbour who seems to have everything, deserved or not seems like a good option.

    It's why we should pro-actively try to fix this even if it seems hopeless, letting it go to the latter doesn't sound like fun at all.

The amount of time between slipping on the peel and landing on the pavement is precisely 1 bananosecond.

Working...