By Luke Kemp
Continued US membership in the Paris Agreement on climate would be symbolic and have no effect onUS emissions. Instead, it would reveal the weaknesses of the agreement, prevent new opportunities from emerging, and gift greater leverage to a recalcitrant administration.
After the election of President Trump and a two-house Republican majority, many fear for the future of US climate policy. The new administration has indicated that they will abolish Obama’s climate legacy through executive orders.
The repeal of domestic measures will likely result in the US missing its first nationally determined contribution (NDC) under the Paris Agreement, which is an inadequate target of reducing emissions by 26–28% compared to 2005 levels by 2025. If other countries adopted comparable targets, global warming would likely exceed 2°C (ref. 2). The US would need to implement the Clean Power Plan and additional measures to reach its NDC.
Preliminary research suggests that the policies of the Trump administration would instead lead to emissions increasing through to 2025.
Now the predominant concern for much of the international community is that the US will withdraw either from the Paris Agreement, or the overarching United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The former would take four years and the latter only one. Both are legally possible and within the presidential mandate.
The conventional wisdom is that a US withdrawal would be a worst-case scenario for international climate policy.
However, a sober analysis of the political, legal, and financial impacts suggests otherwise. The modified matrix of risks posed by a recalcitrant US administration summarized in Table1, and explored in detail below, highlights the paradox of US participation: a rogue US can cause more damage inside rather than outside of the agreement.
Full essay here
Well they’re certainly right about the worthlessness of to stupid agreement.
The grapes are always greener or more sour. Seriously though, they have to say that. Better morale for the remaining troops. So they too don’t get ideas about deserting the Climate Cause.
when politician say he is here to help you
when pope say it too
when big business is in it
when Hollywood is promoting it
you can be 100% sure it is not true and hold your pockets they are going to Pickpocket you
and you do not need to be “scientist” to know it.
http://variety.com/2017/biz/news/celebrities-react-to-paris-accord-withdraw-1202450934/
Why I voted for him. Everything else secondary, except for the fact that HRC makes me sick to my stomach.
I’m with you! In the same exact camp. We must end Eco-Fascism even at the cost of having a POTUS who thinks he should keep “tweeting.”
Let me recap the horrors according to Nature:
1. US misses its domestic targets (targets for poverty)
2. US withdrawal encourages others to withdraw
3. US obstructs the Paris rulebook (from the outside?)
4. The cancellation of climate financing
What a horror! Que miseria! 1 and 2 are definitely positive, 3 is a pure speculation, 4 is the main point: US will no longer finance its own destruction.
This is a nice start, but now for the real political hardball – UNFCCC recognized “Palestine” as a member “state”, thus triggering a US law that states the US will withdraw support from any organization that does so before the Israelis and Palestinians have concluded negotiations. Thus BY US LAW, Trump should withdraw the US and all US support (ie money) from the UNFCCC and all subordinate agreements! That would really cause heads to explode in the climate industrial complex (ie trough feeders).
EPA Administrator Scott Ptuitt said today that the U.S. seat at the UNFCCC was “secure”
It doesn’t sound like Scott is thinking about withdrawing from the UNFCCC, going by that remark.
Nice!
Agreed! And he should do so even if US law didn’t require it.
But the reality is that the climate change we are experiencing today is caused by the sun and the oceans over which Mankind has no control. There is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate and plenty of scientific rational to support the idea that the climate sensivity of CO2 is zero.. Hence the Paris Climate Agreement will have no effect on climate whether we abide by it or not. What is most important now is our nation’s economic well being. Our federal government needs to pay off its huge debts and other debts that have been caused by our huge annual trade deficits. We need to start developing trade surpluses and we cannot do that wasting money on climate change. Let tne newley rich countries like China, waste money on it. We have not been able to change one weather event let alone change global climate. Even if we could stop our climate from changing, extreme weather events and sea level rise are part of the current climate so they would continue ao there is no real benefit in trying to change climate.
Agreed 100%. “Climate Science” has for the most part stooped to “hypothetical BS.” All the squandering of our precious resources isn’t going to do a thing to the climate, because CO2 isn’t driving it.
The author says US emissions would increase through 2025 implying they are increasing today. They are not. US emissions have generally been in decline since 2007. Economic growth might result in some increase but emissions per dollar of GDP are still likely to continue falling.
re·cal·ci·trant
[rəˈkalsətrənt]
ADJECTIVE
having an obstinately uncooperative attitude toward authority or discipline:
“a class of recalcitrant fifteen-year-olds”
synonyms: uncooperative · intractable · obstreperous · truculent · [more]
NOUN
a person with an obstinately uncooperative attitude.
———————————-
That describes the past of Obama to a tee. Children were running the country.
America Will Be Great Again !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This Nature article is just one big dud — lots of name calling aimed at a country that never officially entered the damn agreement to begin with.
… dream talk about a dream commitment that never really was from the get go
How can anybody, therefore, take an editorial about a non-existent membership seriously?
It’s a delusional, pedantic rant.
Trump is well aware that the trillion dollar ‘green revolution’, stuck of the back of the false CAGW conjecture, is simply a huge international Ponzi scheme and he is bailing the USA out before the inevitable crash. The failure of the Paris Climate Accord to have any sanctions if targets were missed was the trigger for many countries to recognise it was time to jump ship.
This is evidenced by only 147 countries out of the 195 present having ratified the Accord as at today. Watch other developed countries follow the USA lead over the coming months, including the UK, which has discovered a huge coal deposit off the coast of NE England. Japan and China are also likely to bail out early as they have both successfully tested pilot production systems for the extraction of the vast deposits of methane clathrate from the sea bed. The next few years are going to be very turbulent as the countries left in the scheme become bankrupt and start looking for redress,
The basic climate green cronyism scheme was untouched by the DJT approach. It might be the start of a corrective road but the equity market is clearly betting against no serious impact on the subside players. Go look at today’s stock charts.
The junk science authority system untouched and the long-term climate narrative will remain largely government funded. Not what should have happened in my view but perhaps it’s the DJT 4-d chess thing again, he has a knack for making apparent classic blunders (sparing enemies who hate you in this case) turned into great victories largely due to the absurdity of his opponents. Maybe it’s more helpful the Greenshirt fringe is around and funded for a time longer. I, like many Americans despise these people. If he crushed the fraud consensus, cut off funding to the leftist operative centers commonly call “universities” and “science” labels, cut down the IPCC and UN Climate Framework in a single stroke for their partisan sins maybe that backlash would be worse could be argued. They’re going to play the wounded victim card for the “cause” in any case but under the DJT plan they keep their paychecks and rent seeking profits. I don’t get it but perhaps slow marginalization is the best political approach for 2020 for example.
“The Paris agreement is a derivative of the Humpty Dumpty tragedy”. – Classic, I’m going to quote that.!!
This reminds me strongly of the oft-repeated declaration that a run of cold winters is evidence of global warming…
I thought that “the children weren’t going to know what snow was” (THAT was when we were having winters with relatively little snowfall)…oh wait – then we heard that “winters with more snow are “consistent with” global warming (THAT was when, following the previous violins about what the “children” wouldn’t experience, we started to get winters that were BURYING us in snow). So the narrative simply adapts to the current weather headlines. When EVERYTHING including, in particular, things DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED to one another, is said to be “evidence of” supposed human-caused “climate change,” you know that it’s all BS.
A win is a win is the argument but the cancer of junk science and all the peddlers, IPCC/UN/EU/Academia/climate “science” consensus/Public Education/MSM remain untouched and to a degree enabled by the discussion of the Presidents “renegotiation” offer. If it is fraud and it is, how do you offer a forward deal opportunity to the perps?
The leftist, globalist, central planning NWO hobby horse is still in the corner of the play room. Massive partisan government funding tools for decades more. Worse 10x then public radio in impacts.
After the euphoria winds down the mistake of not launching an all out reform to include purging the junk science supports of climate fraud will be clear. Regardless of economic gains and results the Greenshirts essentially won the long game of the 1980’s in the very same way. Reagan was twice the President any recent office holder could hope to be but he allowed the academic activists to incubate the global warming agenda and permitted the UN hatchet science a safe place.
So the carrier called “Paris” is sunk but the manufacturing plant remains to create the next statist invention and it will be even worse then before. The gun left loaded on the table. DJT just isn’t that interested in anything other then the headline economic argument. I’m doubtful NASA/NOAA will be fully cleansed or many of the idiot subsidies impacted. Tesla up near the record high again today, nothing changed for the individual scammers by this approach. Climate fraud will only shape-shift under DJT as they plan the next wave to put them in power and they never make these types of mistakes. They’ll be working on enemy lists, re-education camps (beyond the current academic establishment), nationalizing key industry and making climate skepticism a formal thought crime.
The stupid Party and the stupid skeptic base has done it again. Give the leftists credit they play the long game better then the aging dissent. They always understood the need to capture youth, brainwash them and wait for the results.
It would be a great day indeed if Trump would remove all tax credits from intermittent “renewable” grid energy and EV’s and hybrids and …
“recalcitrant”??? what authority and control exists to which the administration ought to submit? This was an Obama thing not a U.S. thing. The U.S. never committed to that agreement, just that twit occupying the White House in 2016. We are “withdrawing” from a non-commitment.
Go figure! From the point of view of favoring the Paris Accord, whether it is better for the USA to be IN or OUT is not settled science.
Sounds like “win win” to me.