WA, NY and CA Governors Announce Formation of United States Climate Alliance

http://www.governor.wa.gov/news-media/inslee-new-york-governor-cuomo-and-california-governor-brown-announce-formation-united

by rbanffy • 9 years ago

538 377 9 years ago

governor.wa.gov

abalashov2• 9 years ago

If they could just somehow recruit Texas to the cause, they'd pretty much have the leverage, as anchors of economics and policy for much of the rest of the country.

jansanchez• 9 years ago

Impossible with the current Texas governor.

foota2• 9 years ago

I wouldn't be so sure, if Rex Tillerson was in favor of staying in Paris, why wouldn't the governor of Texas?

IChangedCareers2• 9 years ago

Texas runs its own power grid. Not the same interest as NY and CA in particular. They are probably actually cleaner than both combined?

kibwen2• 9 years ago

I'm not sure why Texas would be particularly clean, it has abundant quantities of coal and natural gas. It also has an abundance of wind, but I'd be surprised if its wind power production is even a tenth of its combined fossil fuel power production.

saosebastiao4• 9 years ago

From a pure electricity standpoint, they're doing pretty good. It's almost all zero carbon or low carbon (NG) generation.

https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=TX#tabs-4

Of course the real problem is their oil industry. They export a shit ton of oil, and they are extremely well connected to every aspect of state politics.

digitalmaster2• 9 years ago

Probably.. but at this point it's really not just about the emissions... it's now also about economics. Renewable energy is set to be a massive industry -- worth trillions and create millions of jobs globally. No state should want to be left behind.

Bud3• 9 years ago

Why would you just plain guess at TX being cleaner than CA, the clear leader among all US states on climate issues, without bothering to look it up? Careless and lazy.

Spooky233• 9 years ago

New York generation is almost entirely gas, nuclear and hydro.

It's one of the cleaner states.

fireismyflag• 9 years ago

You are right, these 3 states currently represent 24.7% of the US GDP, with TX they would get to 33.5%

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_Gross_S...

abalashov2• 9 years ago

Yeah, but it's more than just % of GDP. Think about the outsized influence Texas has on school textbooks nationwide. Same idea with CA/NY/WA/TX in other areas.

stevenwoo2• 9 years ago

The primary issue in the Texas legislature the last session was who could go to the bathroom. They couldn't figure it out so now they are going to have a special session to iron out the details. So Texas is not going to lead the country anywhere. http://www.texasmonthly.com/burka-blog/order-timeline-bathro...

aaron-lebo• 9 years ago

In 2008, Californians voted through referendum to make gay marriage illegal, overruling their own supreme court.

If that incident had no great impact on Cali's overall ability to lead, why does this event say anything about TX's?

jacquesm3• 9 years ago

Now that's a thing to be happy about. Funny how every time Trump feels that he's about to grab the brass ring it is snatched away from him one way or another. Governing without consensus building is harder than it seems apparently.

yongjik• 9 years ago

I wonder if Trump is secretly happy with the development. In addition to all the European liberals, he now gets to point his fingers at treasonous liberal states. Great for energizing your support base.

prawn4• 9 years ago

Beyond that, puts the burden of cost on some areas rather than his base.

When the political right in Australia cut climate research funding, and private industry and the community stepped up to try to fund it instead, those politicians pointed to this as an ideal response.

vyrotek• 9 years ago

Maybe we can get Phoenix in on this too?

http://www.azfamily.com/story/35561955/phoenix-mayor-vows-to...

seanmcdirmid3• 9 years ago

Global warming might be a bad deal for Arizona.

But most big city governments are going to be run by liberal Democrats because...they are big cities. Not that they are wrong, just pointing that out.

jjawssd4• 9 years ago

The fact that many larger cities are controlled by Democrats is a very interesting phenomenon that I do not fully understand.

glitcher2• 9 years ago

Global warming might be a bad deal for Arizona.

Global warming might be a bad deal for the globe.

But most big city governments are going to be run by liberal Democrats because...they are big cities. Not that they are wrong, just pointing that out.

You are pointing this out why? Obviously the lead in to "just pointing that out" was circular logic that means nothing, and I feel there is a deeper message you wanted to convey but then it's just so easy to type dot dot dot... instead.

kibwen2• 9 years ago

Are they open to more states joining, I hope? I'd like to petition my own state government to get on board. If the federal government's going to keep shitting the bed, this is the last hope I have left.

warent• 9 years ago

Your wording for what the federal government is doing gave me a very good and much needed laugh, thank you. The answer is presumably yes; Governor Jay Inslee has expressed confidence that "States have been and will continue to step up."

ellius• 9 years ago

I contacted Kasich in an effort to add Ohio.

djschnei• 9 years ago

Originally, this is much more in the purview of state government than it would be in federal government, anyway. It's easier for us to affect change, as well as easier for us to shield ourselves from shitty governance, when decisions like this are made closer to home. If this buffoon is accomplishing one thing, it's illustrating the importance of state supremacy - Broken glass half full... while it's plummeting off a cliff... kinda deal.

IChangedCareers2• 9 years ago

Noting that all three are (D). Statement of fact, and not opinion attempt. The actionable items on renewables are also huge with deregulation of energy sectors in these three states which is huge impact. Also noting, the lobbyst are all renewable folks - et al Tesla. :) SolarCity ... wonder who was pushing this? ya. Again .... not a political statement. Just pointing out the obvious.

burkaman5• 9 years ago

What lobbyists are you talking about? Are you claiming there aren't any companies outside the renewable energy space lobbying in favor of the Paris Agreement? Have you heard of Exxon?

awalton• 9 years ago

Damn that Green energy lobby. Trying to save their constituents from the damages of climate change. Those miserable bastards.

dreamthtwasrome2• 9 years ago

There is only one party, Capitalism, and they have two departments: Democrats and Republicans. The others whom stand against them are the DINOs and RINOs like JusticeDemocrats, BrandNewCongress and Sanders whom are currently at the margins attempting reform. (Third parties are mere delusions without an overwheling majority of power players that can jump ship together.) If the grassroots has any hope, it will be a grassroots-demanded trend to clean money politics and push out establishment decay these insurgents bring to the table.

alexbeloi2• 9 years ago

ExxonMobil, Chevron, Royal Dutch Shell and BP are all in favor of America staying in the Paris climate agreement, and if you look at those company's websites, they all accept the prevailing scientific consensus on climate change.

The coal industry is the last holdout of the climate change skeptics. Everyone in oil and gas has seen the future and have started to push research and investments into renewables to limit their risk exposure.

artpop• 9 years ago

This is starting to sound like the “Rim States” from the science fiction novel Black Man (Thirteen) by Richard K. Morgan. Basically the blue and red states separate in the future because they couldn’t resolve their differences. The blue states go on to prosper and the red states languish.

It struck me how plausible it sounded when I read it. Now with the commander in shit-the-bed Donald Trump and the rising tide self-destructive behaviour, it’s looking like a good option to me.

Edmond• 9 years ago

could work out that way...I can see a similar alliance on things like healthcare, education..etc...of course civil rights could be a complicating factor.

aanm19882• 9 years ago

I doubt it gets that far, but it really does seem like something needs to change. The country doesn't necessarily need to shift as far left as california, but right not a set of old laws working with the modern shift towards cities is really reducing the power of a vote in CA/NY. That's a pretty big problem.

oh_sigh• 9 years ago

Your comment was reasonable until you called him "commander in shit-the-bed". I'd suggest holding back on that kind of rhetoric if you want people to consider your opinion.

epistasis• 9 years ago

It's unfortunate that you're downvoted. Civility is of the utmost importance, especially when the command in chief has so little of it, publicly.

It's a way to build bridges, and when we're talking about states separating, that's especially important.

noonespecial• 9 years ago

Don't think you should be dv'd either. We need to remember to respect the office even when we don't respect the person.

Eventually "our person" will once again hold the office of POTUS and we'll need it to be a respectable position of power.

Karrot_Kream• 9 years ago

While I'm happy that the states are picking up the slack, are you really insinuating that the Red states are leading to their own self-destruction, going on to "languish"? I'm saddened that people have this viewpoint over such a large swath of the country.

zaksoup2• 9 years ago

Red states have lower GDP, higher poverty, lower education, and are largely subsidized by blue states through federal grants.

I am not implying causation and there are other interesting facts (lower cost of living relative to wages in red states) but as it stands now if blue and red split it doesn't seem like it's all that controversial to imply red would suffer.

A little bit of googling turns up many interesting articles and interpretations of this: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/timworstal...

michaelchisari6• 9 years ago

Except that there is overwhelming truth to it. There are now, effectively, two economic models for states to follow, and they're very partisan models. There is the California model (high taxes, high minimum wage, strong environmental standards, strong labor protections, etc) and the Kansas model (cut taxes, privatization, gutting protections). California's growth rate compared to Kansas' growth rate is a matter of night and day.

California is by no means a utopia, but if you're using the standard metrics of a healthy economy, blue states like it are doing things right, and red states like Kansas simply are not.

tmh795• 9 years ago

Background: I am a [former] republican, grew up in flyover country, from a family full of trump supporters, now I live in California.

I believe that the red states are going to languish for the following reasons:

1) Brain drain as young ambitious people leave

2) Public services (education, roads, etc) decrease in quality, increase in expense

3) Older folks increasingly capture all of the economic gains allowed in small towns through consolidation of local political power

It was once possible to be young and ambitious and moderately wealthy in middle America by starting and expanding a small business like a franchise or a car dealership, but if you try to do that now, you'll get crushed in city hall pretty much every step of the way.

I am very open to discussion/debate on this topic if anyone has differing views or questions.

Pyxl101• 9 years ago

There was an interesting analysis a while back that showed US states and presented which ones contributed the most federal taxes, and which received the most federal aid -- and then showed that breakdown according to political affiliation.

From what I recall, many of the "red" (majority Republican) states receive significantly more federal aid than they contribute in taxes, and many "blue" (majority Democrat) states contribute much more than they receive. I can't find the exact analysis I'm thinking of, but here are some articles with similar data:

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/05/which-s...

The reddest states on that map at the top—Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, New Mexico, Maine—have exceptionally high poverty rates and thus receive disproportionately large shares of federal dollars. Through a variety of social programs, the federal government disburses hundreds of billions of dollars each year [...]

http://www.businessinsider.com/red-states-are-welfare-queens...

As it turns out, it is red states that are overwhelmingly the Welfare Queen States. Yes, that's right. Red States — the ones governed by folks who think government is too big and spending needs to be cut — are a net drain on the economy, taking in more federal spending than they pay out in federal taxes.
Take a look at the difference between federal spending on any given state and the federal taxes received from that state. We measure the difference as a dollar amount: Federal Spending per Dollar of Federal Taxes. [...] Of the twenty worst states, 16 are either Republican dominated or conservative states.

https://taxfoundation.org/states-rely-most-federal-aid/

davesque• 9 years ago

I'm from Louisiana and I'm not saddened to see this at all. It's the god damned truth. Just try taking a road trip down there some time.

jacquesm3• 9 years ago

It's not really their 'own self-destruction' in so much as that the world over coastal regions tend to be a lot richer than inland areas. If you took a 300 Km swath of all the land bordering the oceans world wide you'd have captured a very large portion of the wealth.

Of course there are some exception (Switzerland comes to mind) and large inland cities tend to be at least a lot wealthier than the surrounding country side but as a rule it is a pretty good one.

Yes, it is sad. But people in the developed countries are relatively free to move around and it can be a conscious choice to live in a place that is a bit slower paced and has a different landscape.

colechristensen• 9 years ago

Well if you sort the states by per-capita income and compare electoral votes in the last election:

* Top 25 states 213 D / 52 R

* Bottom 25 states 11 D / 252 R

so it might seem like there's believable evidence that red states are behind and it correlates with political affinity.

jensenbox• 9 years ago

I know it sounds nuts, but why not merge into Canada? Just get Oregon on board and you are golden.

larsiusprime4• 9 years ago

It's unconstitutional and would trigger a second civil war? The federal position on the secession question has been pretty affirmatively settled: "no."

erik-g2• 9 years ago

Because states can't leave the Union.

thesmallestcat4• 9 years ago

Mostly because no cost would be seen as too high for maintaining access to the Pacific. Also, the Pacific Coast and Sierra Nevada range are crucial elements of US defense strategy. The US also has some substantial military bases and accompanying sympathetic populations in CA, especially in the San Diego area.

devrandomguy• 9 years ago

We'll trade you Alberta for the West Coast. I know, you're probably telling yourself "This is a terrible deal! Cali has a bigger population and economy than all of Canada!" But just remember, we helped you score Alaska for dirt cheap, so you owe us one.

saosebastiao4• 9 years ago

I'm not sure why it hasn't happened before. We've built this patriotism about our specific borders as if that's the thing that holds us together...when in reality our borders are the result of a crazy delusional idea called Manifest Destiny from the 1800s. Californians have about as much in common with Alabamians as they do with Australians.

From a purely pragmatic perspective we should probably break up the US anyway. Our political divisions have gridlocked progress basically to the point of no return. We're basically legislating and repealing the same damn things every couple of years.

laretluval2• 9 years ago

I'm not sure why it hasn't happened before.

It has been tried before, but the results weren't great.

Dobbs• 9 years ago

The difference between Californians and Alabamians is more in line with the difference between Urban vs Rural. You will find similar differences within the UK, Australia, Germany and basically every other advanced country.

thesmallestcat4• 9 years ago

Californians have about as much in common with Alabamians as they do with Australians.

Californians in Redding have about as much in common with Californians in San Francisco as Californians in Crescent City have in common with Californians in San Diego as... oh wait. I suggest you spend a little more time traveling around CA before you form such an absurd opinion about these mythical "Californians."

prawn4• 9 years ago

Patriotism is barely related to any borders, but the culture of a group of people snapshotted in time. Unfortunately, so much tension in the world comes from reality and cultural fluidity outpacing any snapshot.

ajmurmann• 9 years ago

It's unfortunately more about rural vs urban as others have pointed out. Ian Buruma's "Occidentalism" which is my favorite nonfiction book does an amazing job analyzing that situation in very terse and well researched form.

mudil• 9 years ago

S&P, Moody's Downgrade Illinois to Near Junk, Lowest Ever for U.S. State https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-01/illinois-...

spamizbad• 9 years ago

At the state-level, Illinois has the fewest government employees per 1000 citizens. Source: http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sdut-ap-data-states-shed...

Our medicaid costs are below the national average. Per-capita education costs are also some of the lowest (at the state level - IL depends heavily on local property taxes)

Our Republican governor has been unable to cut any state-level waste for that very reason: The entire state government is already runs lean.

We're in a budget mess because of pension obligations, not because we're a bunch of hippie spendthrifts.

kafkaesq• 9 years ago

The blue states go on to prosper and the red states languish.

The inverse of Atlas Shrugged, as it were.

Crontab• 9 years ago

I predict that Florida Governor, and part-time Spider-Man villain "The Vulture", will not being joining the group - even as Miami slowly floods.

scarmig• 9 years ago

Throw in all the solidly blue states and all the solidly blue cities, and you'd have a majority of the US's population and GDP.

jjawssd4• 9 years ago

Why do these non-democrats hold the USA hostage to their policies? Why can't the democrats appeal to them?

almostApatriot1• 9 years ago

Maybe this will motivate Cuomo not to shut down all the nuclear plants in NY. I'm not sure how he plans to achieve any sort of reduction if you have to replace nuclear as well (which provides NY with 30% of its electricity).

idibidiartists2• 9 years ago

Replace Nuclear with Renewables. Not with coal.

legostormtroopr• 9 years ago

Why replace nuclear at all? Renewables are great but the nuclear energy industry has a great capacity for cleaning generating energy.

Spooky233• 9 years ago

New York can buy from Canada. Quebec has a vast ability to generate hydropower.

rtx7• 9 years ago

Hydropower is bad for the eco system.

laretluval2• 9 years ago

Looking forward to a future where the seceded states are ruled by the institutional descendant of the Climate Alliance Executive Committee.

jjawssd4• 9 years ago

"Instead of trying to make fossil fuels so expensive that no one wants them – which will never work – we should make green energy so cheap everybody will shift to it." [1]

Bjorn Lomborg explains that The Paris Climate Agreement will cost at least $1 trillion per year, and climate activists say it will save the planet. The truth? It won't do anything for the planet, but it will make everyone poorer - except politicians and environmentalists.

What is the solution? Copenhagen Consensus has consistently argued for a R&D-driven approach. Fortunately, more people are recognizing that this approach is cheaper and much more likely to succeed –including the Global Apollo Program which includes Sir David King, Lord Nicholas Stern, Lord Adair Turner and Lord John Browne. [1]

NOTE: Please do not down-vote if you disagree with my post. If you disagree, please explain yourself in a relevant comment. Thank you.

[1] http://www.lomborg.com/press-release-research-reveals-neglig...

dreamthtwasrome2• 9 years ago

And so it begins. Gore Vidal and many others predicted an autocrat near the end.

tanilama• 9 years ago

Trump?

throwaway-12096• 9 years ago

As a taxpayer in one of those states, I'm more worried about whether they plan to pony up the $100B/yr that the US was obliged to under the agreement. If they do, I'd like to know where it'll come from. And if they don't, then what exactly will this alliance do?

zachwood2• 9 years ago

The US was not obligated to pay $100B/yr in the agreement.

Obama pledged $3B by 2020.

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/why-trump-seeing...

throwaway-12096• 9 years ago

You guys need to pick which figure to quote. Here's a number from 2015, from NPR: http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/12/12/459502597/....

Quote: "To help developing countries switch from fossil fuels to greener sources of energy and adapt to the effects of climate change, the developed world will provide $100 billion a year". And further: "Developed countries won inclusion of language that would up the ante in subsequent years," Chris explains, "so that financial aid will keep ramping up over time."

Or straight from the agreement: "Agreement shall set a new collective quantified goal from a floor of USD 100 billion per year, taking into account the needs and priorities of developing countries"

While that's $100B/yr from the "developed world" as a whole, we all know by the example of NATO what that _really_ means.

mac010212• 9 years ago

At only $1200 per citizen, that's actually within the realm of physical possibility.

throwaway-12096• 9 years ago

If by "citizen" you mean a "silicon valley yuppie", then sure. But then it's also considerably more than that. I hate to break it to you, but the vast majority of people in this country are struggling as it is. You don't see them or hear from them, but they do vote. This is the direct result.

toisanji• 9 years ago

I would read the full speech from Trump, he makes some good points, although im sure some of it is false and not sure how it compares to other factors.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/01/politics/trump-paris-agreement...

"For example, under the agreement, China will be able to increase these emissions by a staggering number of years -- 13. They can do whatever they want for 13 years. Not us. India makes its participation contingent on receiving billions and billions and billions of dollars in foreign aid from developed countries."

"China will be allowed to build hundreds of additional coal plants. So we can’t build the plants, but they can, according to this agreement. India will be allowed to double its coal production by 2020. Think of it: India can double their coal production. We’re supposed to get rid of ours. Even Europe is allowed to continue construction of coal plants."

"In short, the agreement doesn’t eliminate coal jobs, it just transfers those jobs out of America and the United States, and ships them to foreign countries."

"This agreement is less about the climate and more about other countries gaining a financial advantage over the United States."

"Beyond the severe energy restrictions inflicted by the Paris Accord, it includes yet another scheme to redistribute wealth out of the United States through the so-called Green Climate Fund -- nice name -- which calls for developed countries to send $100 billion to developing countries all on top of America’s existing and massive foreign aid payments. So we’re going to be paying billions and billions and billions of dollars, and we’re already way ahead of anybody else. Many of the other countries haven’t spent anything, and many of them will never pay one dime."

"Even if the Paris Agreement were implemented in full, with total compliance from all nations, it is estimated it would only produce a two-tenths of one degree -- think of that; this much -- Celsius reduction in global temperature by the year 2100. Tiny, tiny amount. In fact, 14 days of carbon emissions from China alone would wipe out the gains from America -- and this is an incredible statistic -would totally wipe out the gains from America's expected reductions in the year 2030, after we have had to spend billions and billions of dollars"

FYI, I'm not into politics and I'm 100% pro environment, I do try to be open and hear every party's point of view.

jjawssd4• 9 years ago

Aside from the environmental effects, Paris accord is an excellent vehicle for guaranteed ROI on third world "green" and "renewable" investments. What better plan than to take taxpayer money involuntarily and forward it to third world renewable investments. If everyone chips in just a little bit in the name of doing something good why would anybody try and stop it? A brilliant plan grinding to a halt all because of Trump.

xienze15• 9 years ago

Yeah that's my biggest beef with the Paris Agreement. If it's about the global environment, why are all countries not compelled to participate equally? Don't let China off the hook and I think a lot of people would be less skeptical of the whole arrangement.

brianpgordon2• 9 years ago

Realistically, poorer countries are going to be able to do almost nothing to help the global situation. The understanding is that richer countries (who, to be fair, have done the majority of polluting historically) will have to grant enormous subsidies to effect change in developing countries if we're going to meet international climate goals.

I guess that's a difficult pill to swallow if you espouse nationalist economic policies, but this isn't about Us vs. Them; we're talking about preventing massive devastation on a global scale. And the Paris accord was just the first step. We'll need to spend much more than Trump is already unwilling to pay if we want to avert disaster.

joshualross2• 9 years ago

A couple thoughts - what is equally? The US is the historically the largest contributor of greenhouse gases by a wide margin[1]. And last I checked, a vast majority of people support the agreement[2], including half of trump supporters.

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/apr/21/countrie... [2] http://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/paris_agre...

babyrainbow4• 9 years ago

Really wish this was at the top, instead of a comment that simply calls the president "shit-the-bed" Trump.

It is scary how people, even on HN, go on a hating spree with out actually looking into these details. If you go on reddit, you see the same thing, but multiplied 10x.

It is a sickening display of how even "smart" communities, like HIN can harbour stupid behaviors and beliefs as long as the majority shares it....

jhall1468• 9 years ago

Except this is misleading because those points would only be good if they didn't have a very clear reason, which the top reply to this comment lays out very well.

moduspol• 9 years ago

Like most climate policy, it becomes a lot less appealing the more specific it gets.

Mendenhall3• 9 years ago

I notice most articles and news coverage dont get too much into the details. Its nice to hear some counterpoints.

s0uthPaw882• 9 years ago

Here is a fact check for many of these quotes: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/jun/01/...

xienze15• 9 years ago

I think you might want to take a look at that, it supports what he's saying but as is typical of these fact checking sites, couches it in lots of "well yes but" or "broadly correct, but 'needs context'". I mean look at his statement on India:

Trump: "India will be allowed to double its coal production by 2020. Think of it. India can double their coal production. We're supposed to get rid of ours."
India does have plans to nearly double its coal production, and the agreement does not prevent that. But the Paris Agreement does not even mention the word coal, nor does it do anything to put a global moratorium on coal.

Oh the Paris Agreement doesn't mention coal so what he's saying isn't correct? The point Trump was making is that the Paris Agreement isn't stopping India (and China) from polluting. It stops _us_, but it doesn't stop _them_.

devindotcom3• 9 years ago

Worth noting that we can't even really leave the Accord until 2020, so there's a lot of political posturing involved here.

This was all debated for years, so none of this should come as a surprise to anyone. We went into this eyes WIDE open.

China got a good deal, yeah, because it had leverage: it's the manufacturing capitol of the world. It could very easily have walked away with no commitments at all.

As for developing countries, of course we are going to ship our coal jobs over there - they can't afford to build renewables right now and must bootstrap with cheaper in-country energy stores like coal. Meanwhile we can afford the latter and should not be using dangerous and dirty methods just to save money.

100 billion over many years spread across dozens of countries really isn't that much. This is just another way for Trump to say we should be spending money on the US. We should, but we also have responsibilities to the rest of the world that predate all this stuff. We're part of a global community and he is trying to back out of it.

I seriously suspect his numbers in that last one are off or highly misleading. We should all watch for responses from those in know.

tropo5• 9 years ago

We supposedly can't leave until 2020, but who would enforce that?

There is also the option of staying, but reporting our carbon emissions with alternative facts. Done to an extreme, that means we get the payments.

jorblumesea6• 9 years ago

Most of that is either incorrect, or completely missing the point.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/jun/01/...

China and India need to industrialize and modernize in order for them to transition to cleaner energy sources. Per capita, they produce only a fraction of what we do.

It's unrealistic to expect developing nations to shoulder the same burden as developed ones. The deal is weighted to put more on the countries that have modern economies able to make the transition. Idea being that western developed nations can transition into renewables far faster and make up for the developing world's inability to do so, and at least somewhat mitigating temperature rise.

Mendenhall3• 9 years ago

Please post what he said is incorrect. I read the article and found he is mostly correct depending on models etc. Perhaps I missed something but there were no blatent lies etc from my reading.

conception2• 9 years ago

Thanks for posting this. If any of this gets a bit heated, totally not directed at you.

There's a lot of false dichotomies in this. I haven't fact checked anything either but just addressing the points:

1) China: China is a developing nation, not on par in the US on any quality of life indicator. They still plow fields by hand or with oxen in a large area of the country. We are the most powerful nation on the planet. Obviously, there should be differences.

2) India: India has ~1B people, with about ~250M making like less than $5-10 dollars a day. They basically had no market economy until the 1980s. Again, comparing them to our responsibilities is laughable.

3) "In short, the agreement doesn’t eliminate coal jobs, it just transfers those jobs out of America and the United States, and ships them to foreign countries." This is an absurd comment. We aren't going to buy coal from China. Coal jobs have been dying in the US for decades and will continue to do so because we don't want to use coal. And "be allowed to" doesn't mean they will. China is also building more solar than anyone else in the world.

4) "In short, the agreement doesn’t eliminate coal jobs, it just transfers those jobs out of America and the United States, and ships them to foreign countries." Ok buddy.

5) "calls for developed countries to send $100 billion to developing countries all on top of America’s existing and massive foreign aid payments" - This is a leadership item. If you think as the richest nation in the world we should help the poorer countries find green, economic ways to grow, then what's the problem? Also, it's not like we don't interact with the other parts of the world and aren't affect if they are polluted. I'd take this more to heart if his words on "fixing stuff at home" had any of that in his actual budget. 200B over 10 years? right.

6) "two-tenths of one degree" - This is because we should have started this shit in the 70s. His fears are correct. This is a first step to more and more restrictions because we are altering the planet in ways that probably already can't be taken back. "14 days of carbon emissions from China alone would wipe out the gains from America" - so we should just not have any of our gains at all?

It's just so much "What do I get out of helping? What's in it for me?" rather than, "Hey, let's be leaders and lead by example and show the world that we, the USA, live up to our myths as the 'Good Guys'."

babyrainbow4• 9 years ago

They still plow fields by hand or with oxen in a large area of the country. We are the most powerful nation on the planet. Obviously, there should be differences.

What is that specific thing or infrastructure that china and other developing countries are missing, that makes them unable to do this (stop polluting)?

kuschku3• 9 years ago

EDIT: I'll just quote this here:

The fact that the agreement only commits governments to keeping warming below an increase of 2 degrees, rather than a much safer firm target of 1.5 degrees, was lobbied for and won by the United States.
The fact that the agreement left it to individual nations to determine how much they were willing to do to reach that temperature target, allowing them to come to Paris with commitments that collectively put us on a disastrous course towards more than 3 degrees of warming, was lobbied for and won by the United States.
The fact that the agreement treats even these inadequate commitments as non-binding, which means governments apparently do not have anything to fear if they ignore their commitments, is something else that was lobbied for and won by the United States.
The fact that the agreement specifically prohibits poor countries from seeking damages for the costs of climate disasters was lobbied for and won by the United States.
The fact that it is an “agreement” or an “accord” and not a treaty — the very thing that makes it possible for Trump to stage his action-movie slow-mo walk away, world in flames behind him — was lobbied for and won by the United States.

This accord already is a massive insult to developing countries, who give up the right to hold those responsible who caused climate effects on their country. India can't sue the West for the costs that climate change, and the refugee crisis in Bangladesh will cost. India can't use any of the quick industrialization concepts that the West used, at massive cost to the environment. All committments are voluntary.

The west has spent centuries polluting the planet, and gaining an economic advantage. And now China and India are asking for a few years — not even a decade — in an entirely voluntary agremeent.

And yet, it's somehow unfair to the US? This is laughable. And I say that as a German willing to pay my 0.40€/kWh electricity.

yostrovs• 9 years ago

The amount of CO2 produced by China in a year dwarfs the first 100 years of the industrial revolution's output.

xienze15• 9 years ago

Their talking point is that the west gained its position of power through dirty tactics

What, generating pollution when its effects on the planet weren't understood? Now we know better, right?

swampthing6• 9 years ago

I think what this misses is that the per-capita emissions matter too, not just overall emissions. It's kind of unrealistic to ask a country to lower its emissions when its per-capita emissions are already just a fraction of yours.

To give a more concrete analogy - suppose there are two countries, A and B. People in both countries like eating tuna. A has far fewer people than B, but the average person in A eats 10x more tuna than the average person in B. As tuna supplies dwindle, would it be reasonable for A to ask B to reduce their consumption of tuna?

xienze15• 9 years ago

Why don't you exclude the half of the Chinese population that's basically living a medieval lifestyle and recalculate those per-capita numbers, hmm?

azernik7• 9 years ago

1. Poor countries are allowed to increase their carbon emissions because their current emissions are already low per person, and requiring then to lower emissions would basically be telling then they're not allowed to become developed countries. They will not sign on.

2. We're paying poor countries to mitigate these effects, by subsidizing their use of cleaner energy to industrialize. And to compensate them, since the areas most negatively affected by climate change are also poor.

3. The United States is not, in fact, particularly generous about foreign aid.

4. The Paris Agreement is intended to be a start - the reductions are so small in part to win over right-wing Americans, who in turn have the audacity to turn around and blast this agreement for not being effective enough.

ahh2• 9 years ago

You are just echoing the politician's syllogism: we must do something, this is something, we must do this.

Your point that we could not get anything better is not an excuse for doing something bad.

lazzlazzlazz3• 9 years ago

If these are the best replies to Trump's remarks, I very sadly must agree with Trump. Extremely disappointing.

dkhenry7• 9 years ago

1. I don't think global warming cares who emits the carbon. If climate change is really as big and life changing an issue as everyone knows it is they will sign on, there is no reason to sign away the livelihoods of Americans to benefit China, what happens when you do that is those people whose jobs you have just ended do in fact have opinions and votes.

2. We are subsidizing them with no benefit to us at all, and in turn we are also giving them the ability to outperform us in manufacturing the capability to create clean energy, if you want to help them use clean energy mandate that it comes from local companies. No one will like someone else showing up with bags full of sovereign wealth and tipping the scales. These countries per capita might be poorer, but from a global markets level they are right on par with their American counterparts.

3. Debate? We are by far the largest foreign aid donor.

4. The Paris Agreement was signed by the President without the consent of congress, partially because it didn't win over right-wing Americans.

At some point we need to be adults about this and do something, the country is not supposed to be run as a Dictatorship by either party, all its doing is slowly killing everyone

hyperdunc3• 9 years ago

China and India each have over four times the population of the United States. They have to take some collective responsibility for that so their emissions per person should be lower.

koolba• 9 years ago

What country gives more foreign aid, either in total or per capita, than the USA?

desdiv• 9 years ago

1. Poor countries are allowed to increase their carbon emissions because their current emissions are already low per person, and requiring then to lower emissions would basically be telling then they're not allowed to become developed countries. They will not sign on.

China's current emissions is at 7.7 T/capita. India's current emissions is at 1.9 T/capita. A fair and equitable solution would be to impose a hard limit at, let's say, 8 or 10 T/capita for everyone, no exceptions. This way everyone plays by the same rules.

If you offered these terms to China and India, I'm pretty sure their leaders will take it, despite the harshness of it.

yellowapple2• 9 years ago

"requiring then to lower emissions would basically be telling then they're not allowed to become developed countries"

It sounds to me like the effort needs to be in making green energy more affordable than non-green energy. This would benefit all nations.

Money talks. If it's cheaper to go green, even the most die-hard conservative will go green (anecdotal case in point: my die-hard conservative grandfather, who drives a Prius).

peteretep• 9 years ago

I'm sure there are problems with the bill. However, I'm not really interested in after-the-event arguments from a party who've been so anti-science and such deniers for so long.

It's a bit like the Muslim ban that "wasn't" a Muslim ban. If you've been calling it a Muslim ban for a year, retroactively coming back and saying "nah, nah, it's a not a Muslim ban" isn't convincing to the courts. In much the same way, the President cherry-picking bits he doesn't like about the bill sounds hollow.

alpha_squared7• 9 years ago

A few counter-points:

- US, per capita, has the highest CO2 emissions of any developed country [0]

- It's a little unfair (depending on your idea of fairness) for developed countries to have benefitted from industrialization and polluting the environment only to close the gate behind them and blame other countries for trying to do the same and catch up in development.

- It's expensive to force nations barely entering industrialization to forego the easy route of using coal/oil/whatever pollutant and jump straight to what can, sometimes, be a more expensive energy source.

- Climate change is a global problem that doesn't mesh well with purely isolationist ideologies. This, primarily, is the biggest gripe with the current administration. It doesn't want to lift a single finger without seeing itself as the primary benefactor. This last part is purely opinion.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di...

sacheendra• 9 years ago

Just a nitpick. According to the list you referenced, the developed country with the highest CO2 emissions per capita is Luxembourg. The US comes second.

The US is second, the spirit of your point stands though.

Another surprising thing I learned from the list, US emissions have decreased significantly from 19.6 to 16.4 (tonnes per capita) during the obama administration.

refurb2• 9 years ago

- US, per capita, has the highest CO2 emissions of any developed country

It also has one of the highest GDP (output) per capita. Output requires energy input.

zanny• 9 years ago

It's a little unfair

In this context, unfairness is required. It is unfair to tell the entire planet to stop burning carbon. We have been doing it for the better part of 200 years, why do we have to stop now? It is unfair.

But faced with reality, the realities of the universe, of our planet, fairness isn't on the table, the long term survival of billions of people is.

I disagree with flat out withdrawing from the climate accords, but saying its unfair so the two most populous countries in the world can continue to build up fossil fuel infrastructure for the next decade + is absurd. It should be an international stop, with developed nations subsidizing the cost of development of not-yet-first-world-countries by providing them access to cheaper clean energy, not giving them cart blanche to keep burning carbon.

vivekd3• 9 years ago

See it's stuff like this that makes me suspect that the climate change debate is more about virtue signaling than any actual threat. Because really if we honestly believed that the earth was warming because of carbon and that this presented a serious threat to the planet, we wouldn't be like "oh well fairness dictates that we let some countries keep emitting high levels of carbon." That consideration wouldn't even come up in a situation where we were faced with a serious planetary threat.

The only reason that this is even coming up is because climate change proponents, deep inside, believe that there will be no serious adverse consequences from climate change.

m_mueller• 9 years ago

The one crucial point that IMO is very false: That the US is "already ahead". The US produces around 2-2.5x the CO2 per capita compared to EU and China (which interestingly are similar now after China's economic rise).

Coal isn't really relevant. What's most relevant is the way you do housing and living: Poorly isolated homes spread across the countr, far from work and cultural centers, with its inhabitants insiting on having 20C in summer and 23C in winter and driving huge trucks to work alone.

anigbrowl8• 9 years ago

FYI, I'm not into politics

Not meant as an attack on you, but but choosing not to be into politics basically means you occupy a secure enough position in society not to have to deal with personal anxiety about how political developments might impact you personally. Put more simply, you can afford to ignore politics but others cannot.

It's worth trying to imagine yourself yourself in the position of others on a regular basis so as to get a better understanding of why or how political issues might seem more urgent to them, not least people whose outlook you disagree with. I can readily see why economically disadvantaged coal miners in West virginia would support Trump, for example, since they don't see how the shift to carbon-free technology is going to benefit them economically. Of course I also think they're going to be severely disappointed, but I don't regret the effort invested in trying to understand their political alignment.

mattmcknight2• 9 years ago

Another key sticking point is the unbounded legal liability under the agreement, for other countries to be able to sue the US for climate change effects if the aggressive targets are not met. It's disappointing that the world sees something as serious as climate change as an opportunity to get money from the US taxpayer, and that India and China are held to such low standards.

That said, Trump has a history of not being honest. He campaigned on increasing coal usage. That alone might have been enough for him to spike the deal.

nostrademons• 9 years ago

If you're a U.S. citizen who doesn't work in coal, why would you ever want more coal plants to be built here? Even besides global warming, there are some very real externalities to coal - acid rain, smog, increased asthma & respiratory illnesses.

I live in California and have been to China, and I know which air I'd rather breathe, even despite California's terrain & wind patterns being very conducive to catching air pollution in a bowl. Let them fuck up their own atmosphere...it'd be better if they didn't fuck up ours too, but if somebody's gonna pollute, I'd rather it be them.

usaar3336• 9 years ago

You might not want to build more, but you might not want to shutter them pre-end of life to avoid paying higher electricity costs.

addicted• 9 years ago

If there is any valid criticism of the Paris accords, it's that they aren't stringent or BINDING. Which is the exact opposite of Trump's complaints about them. By the very nature of them being non-binding, they don't impose anything on the US.

Just that fact almost entirely undermines whatever Trump said.

In addition, however, new coal is already more expensive than renewables, which are getting cheaper at a rapid pace. However, more importantly, it's significantly more expensive than natural gas. The odds that the US would build a coal plant are minuscule (and even if someone did, assuming that somehow coal got cheaper than natural gas, the amount of money saved over building a natural gas plant instead would be meaningless).

I would have thought a master dealmaker like Trump would know that giving up something you weren't gonna do anyways in exchange for anything is a good deal.

But finally, none of this matters, because Donald Trump could have continued to do whatever he wanted (build coal plants, increase US emissions, etc.) without the Paris accords imposing any sort of mechanism to stop him from doing it.

What this shows is that the US cannot be trusted to stick to even a promise as toothless as the Paris accords. Combined with the lack of reaffirmation of Article 5 in NATO, the only real effect this will have is diminish the US's standing among its allies.

The Paris Accords were largely symbolism but important nonetheless in bringing everyone to the table, and showing a way forward and showing that climate change is something all countries need to handle and worry about. Donald Trump's act is also symbolism showing that the US doesn't care about agreements and pacts and that Climate change is not something they really believe in.

Btw, both Chinese and Indian governments have targets that are much more stringent than what they agreed upon through these accords, and both are well ahead of even those more stringent targets.

rtx7• 9 years ago

India already looks like a dump, we need a freeze.

MarkMc• 9 years ago

Interesting that Trump estimates the cost of the Paris Agreement in terms of the economy - 3.5 trillion in lost GDP by 2040 - but quotes the benefits in Celcius - two-tenths of one degree by 2100.

What exactly is Trump's estimate for the economic cost of climate change by 2100 if the Paris Agreement is not implemented?

xienze15• 9 years ago

One thing I never see addressed with all the talk about climate change:

Let's say we managed to cease our CO2 production, even reverse the current man-made warming trend (save me the "impossible hypothetical scenario" talk, substitute in whatever values of "cease" we would have accomplished with the Paris Agreement, whatever).

Eventually, the earth is going to warm significantly without the aid of mankind. What are we supposed to do about that? Global warming is an eventuality, and no amount of carbon taxes that apply to a certain set of countries and not to others is going to change that. So someone enlighten me, what's the long, long-term view plan for global warming?

yks2• 9 years ago

Postpone immediate danger until we're sufficiently technologically advanced to deal with other issues? Or, in other words, build MVP first instead of starting the heavy project which ultimately cannot be finished by the deadline.

xienze15• 9 years ago

Well I mean give me a taste here, what technology are we talking about that will keep the earth's climate stable in the face of natural warming and cooling periods that have occurred throughout its existence?

angrydev• 9 years ago

Your strawman is showing

xienze15• 9 years ago

Which would be what? The fact that the earth goes through natural warming and cooling periods?

stevenleeg2• 9 years ago

Eventually, the earth is going to warm significantly without the aid of mankind

What exactly are you referring to here? The sun expanding and becoming hotter as it ages? If so we're talking about the timeline of a few billion years. Climate change is something that has already begun to affect us and will continue to worsen over the course of the next few decades, which makes this issue far more pressing than whatever "natural warming" you're referring to.

xienze15• 9 years ago

No, the fact that the earth goes in and out of ice ages. That is not something that occurs on the order of billions of years.

cderwin3• 9 years ago

No, he or she was just observing that natural warming/cooling moves pretty randomly, and even if we can null out the human effect on it, we need to be able to withstand a dramatic change in global temperature.

umanwizard• 9 years ago

Our species will go extinct someday no matter what we do. I'd prefer it doesn't happen in mine or my children's lifetimes.

brianpgordon2• 9 years ago

Eventually, maybe. But the Earth's temperature doesn't fluctuate that much naturally:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Vari...

By the time global warming is unstoppable hopefully we'll have the technology to mitigate its effects on humans.

jmts• 9 years ago

This is a reasonable question, though tangential to the original article so you're going to find some criticism among those who miss the nuance. I assume you're not making an argument against climate change being an issue, but asking a related question.

By my understanding the natural cycles in climate that you refer to occur in hundreds of thousands of years time scales, and we know a reasonable amount about them with regards to Milankovitch cycles, but there are other factors like solar cycles that can influence climate that still add some uncertainty. How we might go about cooling the earth or whether we even need to in response to a natural warming cycle may be entirely different to our response now, because of this difference in time scales.

Over hundreds of thousands of years, populated areas that would be affected by rising sea levels are likely to be rebuilt many times. Any increase in sea levels is likely to be accounted for in this naturally, and such issues may never arise in large enough cities. Other places that cannot be built up will likely be abandoned and eroded by the sea over time, with abandonment not unusual for localities that are deemed no longer habitable or economically feasible.

As far as cooling the earth if it is necessary, I expect that we will be looking toward space exploration to help us here. Any science toward terraforming other planets will help, so colonizing Mars may be a useful near-term goal. I assume technologies to control the heat retained by the planet would be important, either by reflecting solar radiation before it reaches our atmosphere, or by controlling the levels of greenhouse gases. If we had the technology now, we could essentially do the same thing, however we don't, and won't.

The difference in time scale involved here is the main point. Man-made climate change is occuring on a time scale that our current technology has no ability to counter directly, and this has huge ramifications on short time scales economically, and for the quality of life for coming generations. Natural climate change occurs on a much longer time scale, so any economic impacts are likely to be amortized across the duration of the change and will probably end up in the noise, with technology likely to be able to keep up if we are intelligent about managing our own contributions.

tshadley• 9 years ago

Eventually, the earth is going to warm significantly without the aid of mankind. What are we supposed to do about that?

Are you talking about Milankovitch cycles? We're about 10,000 years past the warmest point of the last cycle so, absent anthropogenic warming, we should be cooling for a few more thousand years. Then an ice age would last for around 80-90 thousand years, followed by another 10-20 thousand year warm period.

http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/...

So you're basically asking about the next warming period expected roughly 100,000 years from now? What are we supposed to do about that?

sndean• 9 years ago

I mean, there are some predictions like this [0], but I don't know how credible they are. It is true though, that a transient spike or dip in temperature could cause famine, and the like. The Little Ice Age and other similar natural oddities are evidence of that.

Not sure how well we'll deal with that.

[0] http://www.wired.co.uk/article/mini-ice-age-earth-sunspots

InclinedPlane• 9 years ago

These are different categories of problems.

The problem with climate change is that it might overwhelm our ability to solve it in the "short term" where "short term" is defined as on the scale of a few generations to a century.

In the long term humanity will, if trends continue, be so incredibly wealthy and technologically advanced that we'll be able to tackle problems like CO2 in the atmosphere a lot easier. We'll be able to seriously consider remediation efforts (deciding what the ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere we want is and then making that happen). We'll be more able to respond to climate change by moving our cities, changing our food production strategies, and so forth. That's pretty much guaranteed as long as humanity continues advancing technologically.

But we're not there yet. Much of the world is still impoverished and developing. And there's a great potential for vast human misery. The point of these efforts is to give ourselves enough time to not get completely screwed by climate change before we have the power to deal with it more easily.

enknamel6• 9 years ago

There is a massive difference between caring about the environment and following the Paris Climate Agreement. We as a country can do a ton to reduce our damage to the environment. However it is going to be a drop in the bucket to what some third world and massively developing countries will contribute. Follow Amdahl's Law. The biggest emitters should get the biggest spanking.

This is why Paris Agreement is almost completely worthless. China is the largest contributor of green house gasses in the world and emits about a third of all the green house gasses. (if not drastically more given the shady reporting). And they want to give China a free pass to keep polluting the world for another 13 years while every other country gets their emissions under control?

I'm very pro environment and any serious agreement must have China curbing their emissions now. They emit twice the green house gasses as the US (which is the number 2 contributor). That cannot be allowed to continue.

adrr• 9 years ago

On per capita basis, we're more than double china. Getting US to china levels on per capita basis would make a huge difference in preventing climate change.

Source: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC

enknamel6• 9 years ago

Well no it wouldn't. Per capita doesn't matter as much as total emissions. Amdahl's Law. China contributes more than double the next country in terms of green house gasses, and they are contributing more per capita year over year. This is why China curbing their emissions would have a bigger effect than anyone. If they cut their per capita emissions in half, global emissions will be reduced by 1/6th. If US cuts their per capita emissions in half, global emissions will be reduce by 1/12th.

Which one of these alternatives is better for the environment?

chc3• 9 years ago

What you're talking about here is an artifact of your sampling method, not an actual problem. China emits roughly double the amount that the US does, but they have four times the population. That is actually a much better number than ours.

enknamel6• 9 years ago

Yes but if you care about the environment it doesn't matter. Reducing the overall emissions is all that matters. And giving the biggest polluter a free pass to keep polluting is insanity.

burkaman5• 9 years ago

How does leaving the agreement help to pressure China?

enknamel6• 9 years ago

I never suggested it does or doesn't. It's just a bad agreement for the world compared to one that gets China to actually curb their emissions.

pvnick• 9 years ago

1) Good - states' actions are how the constitution was framed

2) Weird - the governors appear to be taking action unilaterally by executive decree, which is how the Paris accord was originally agreed to (Obama) and reversed (Trump)

This might be the best of all worlds. Blue states can join the alliance, and red states can stay out. Everyone's happy and the economic effects can play out as they will.

arkis22• 9 years ago

Under the auspices of the Paris agreement, the Obama administration pledged to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by between 26% and 28% below the 2005 level by 2025. Much of that change already is well under way, though, as a result of factors outside of any president’s control: slower economic growth following the financial crisis, the shale gas revolution that has replaced a third of coal use and shifting driving habits.
The Rhodium Group calculates that the U.S. still will come close to a 17% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions as soon as 2020, though it predicts no more significant progress in the remaining five years. The U.S. Energy Information Administration projected shortly before Mr. Obama took office that greenhouse gas emissions would rise by about 1% a year in the next several years, but they fell sharply. Very little of that had to do with Mr. Obama’s decisions.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-paris-matters-less-than-it-...

Progress is and will continue to be made regardless of backing out.

It will be interesting to see if the other countries back out. If people are attaching a lot of importance to this agreement, and other countries back out since the US did, the other countries will look awfully hypocritical.

jorblumesea6• 9 years ago

In some ways, it doesn't really matter. Regardless of how hard people try to fight against alternative energies, the market forces will seek out inefficiencies. Consumers are driving demand for electric cars, cheaper energy and states are turning away from coal more and more every year. States that adopt alternative energies will see long term advantages and those that don't will eventually be forced to confront it. Some states have already adopted measures far beyond what the US has ratified or even proposed.

Trump can posture as much as he wants, he's against a huge tidal wave of change and on the wrong side of history.

usaar3336• 9 years ago

The agreement doesn't per say matter all that much (Trump wasn't going to obey it anyway).

But it's hard for me to see how failing to tax externalities of fossil fuels are not making it that much harder for renewables and nuclear to win. I actually find you a bit optimistic; natural gas is extremely cheap these days (in part because the externalities aren't taxed); while it is much better than coal (in many dimensions), switching all fossil fuels to a "less bad" fossil fuel aren't enough to hit necessary emissions targets.

jorblumesea6• 9 years ago

Taxing fossil fuels would speed up the process, but the writing is on the wall when it comes to fossil fuels as a whole. You know when Exxon Mobil and other big players are starting to get into the alternative energy business the tide is turning.

pmurT• 9 years ago

Wow, can I choose not to have my tax dollars go to this?

I think the future of government is voting through selective funding of programs by each individual.

S3curityPlu5• 9 years ago

Waste of money in my opinion.

Stingray73• 9 years ago

America doesn't need an agreement with another country to positively affect climate change. Do you??? No you don't! Everyone just needs to do their part! Bravo Zulu Trump!

Stingray73• 9 years ago

Most of those countries that would grandstand in front of the public and say they would sign a climate change agreement are full of it!!! If they won't step up and pay their fair share in NATO obligations to defend their own people, how are you going to trust them to abide by some little climate change agreement??? It's a bad deal! Trump was right. It's just another way to get America to pay for most of it! Bravo Zulu Trump!

Stingray73• 9 years ago

America doesn't need an agreement with another country to positively affect climate change. Do you??? No you don't! Everyone just needs to do their part! Bravo Zulu Trump!

WA, NY and CA Governors Announce Formation of United States Climate Alliance

Related Stories