US pulls out of Paris Accord

[surajmal]

When India,China signed on to Paris accord, both agreed to deleting the clause assigning historical responsibility to the goras (and every non gungadeen was seething). So, right now, it is matter of technology transfer. THAT IS IT. Goras won't even agree to that. 

 

Edited June 3, 2017 by surajmal

[chewy]

6 hours ago, ravishingravi said:

I tell you. If I was a professor in this country ruled by a Jaahil, I would have moved out years back. 

+1

Probably shows lack of balls from these so called experts in USA, happy to pollute 1000 times more than someone in Africa or India to maintain their lifestyle but sermonise to the rest and pay lip service criticism to Trump

 

A-whole hypocrites

[mishra]

4 hours ago, someone said:

BS. India doesn't have any leverage... Modi is trying hard but it's very difficult

Am i missing something. Cos i see Modi doing exactly what you say.

btw unlike eu, rest of G7 didnt went all out against US pullout

[wanted_desi]

It is a horrible deal to tell you truth:

 

1) It will cost 100 trillion dollars, and it will only delay global warming by 7 years if all countries in the deal do whatever they are assigned to do in next 100 years. 

 

I don't know why people are just hating anything that trump has been doing without even looking deep into it. 

Edited June 4, 2017 by wanted_desi

[kira]

Paris accord was not binding in the first place, there was no accountability mechanism, all the hype created around this accord but it is one of the most spineless accords on climate change in the first place. The kyoto protocol before this was a much better binding agreement with a proper clean development mechanism and structures to help developing countries with technology to deal with climate change. And US didn't even join the kyoto protocol under George bush which was the entire reason for its failure, whether you join the paris accord or not, it hardly matters because it is a voluntary mechanism and even if you don't meet the targets, there is no accountability system in place. Having said that, trump is an idiot, can't believe the dumb americans elected him as prez

Edited June 4, 2017 by kira

[kira]

18 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

So when the goras r@ped the planet, where was our knowledge of global warming ? 

Whether you like it or not, its the goras that have taken the initiative regarding global warming, while Indians are too busy recreating the 19th century industrial cr@phole that China is in currently. 

 

Goras? Do you even know the history of climate change process? Read about common but differentiated responsibilities before sucking up to goras, the goras created this mess in the first place

Edited June 4, 2017 by kira

[kira]

Edit: Double post

Edited June 4, 2017 by kira

[rkt.india]

23 hours ago, mishra said:

Its is all bullshit. Thats why i dont go into global warming discussion. Access to cleaner air is not global warming or climate control. People confuse with issue of pollution around them to that of climate change.

If informed, A chewtiya can know that if suns temperature is rising, earths will rise too. Dealing with co2 emission doesnt allways mean cutting it at source only. You can deal with CO2 even after its produced

totally agree. 

[kira]

On 6/2/2017 at 4:06 PM, mishra said:

Iron is hot. India should threat a pullout if it doesnt gets NSG membership. After all nuclear fuel is way to the future of cleaner energy

And what will India get out of pulling out? India is a tropical country and we guys will be the most affected by climate change, the accord doesn't even put any binding restrictions on any country, India is already seen as a developing country with lesser responsibility than western nation, pulling out will only mean bad publicity for India, also renewable energy is better for India because we have huge amounts of unused solar energy to tap into unlike the temperate latitude nations

Edited June 4, 2017 by kira

[kubrickian]

1 hour ago, kira said:

Paris accord was not binding in the first place, there was no accountability mechanism, all the hype created around this accord but it is one of the most spineless accords on climate change in the first place. The kyoto protocol before this was a much better binding agreement with a proper clean development mechanism and structures to help developing countries with technology to deal with climate change. And US didn't even join the kyoto protocol under George bush which was the entire reason for its failure, whether you join the paris accord or not, it hardly matters because it is a voluntary mechanism and even if you don't meet the targets, there is no accountability system in place. Having said that, trump is an idiot, can't believe the dumb americans elected him as prez

Paris accord is sort of like the first step towards bringing all the countries together to take the issue of climate change seriously. Getting all countries on board is itself a major achievement. But with US which is the top most polluter in the world not being a part of it, its just a big step back.

 

More than technology transfer, bigger issue for US is the loss of jobs and effect on economy which will come as a result of scaling down on production of paper, cement and other industries which are seen as the biggest polluters and using renewable sources will result in loss of jobs in coal mining and that would not go down well with Trump's voters. Also, using fossil fuels is lot cheaper whereas nuclear energy requires more time to produce and need necessary infrastructure to be built which will cost money and time.

 

Because this problem affects the whole planet, the developed economies have to take the lead in cutting down emissions because they are in a position to do so whereas they need to give some freedom to developing economies as there is still lot more poverty in those countries and the infrastructure and technology to use renewable energy is inadequate. Over time, the idea is to reduce carbon emissions in developing countries as well. This has to be thought as a global problem than through the prism of nationalism like what Trump is advocating. US will lose their diplomatic clout over many countries because of policies like these and will allow China and Russia to take lead.

[kira]

25 minutes ago, kubrickian said:

Paris accord is sort of like the first step towards bringing all the countries together to take the issue of climate change seriously. Getting all countries on board is itself a major achievement. But with US which is the top most polluter in the world not being a part of it, its just a big step back.

 

Not really the first step, this process has been going on since 1992 (actually even before that if you count various other climate related conferences), the kyoto protocol was a much more meaningful step towards mitigation but the US didn't join that, even obama didn't sign it, so this isn't something new. Paris accord is just a glorified version of Copenhagen accord  of 2009, it was still a good step but it wasn't binding, so trump could've stayed in the paris accord and not meet the targets and nothing would've happened, except global criticism, which is happening even now

Quote

More than technology transfer, bigger issue for US is the loss of jobs and effect on economy which will come as a result of scaling down on production of paper, cement and other industries which are seen as the biggest polluters and using renewable sources will result in loss of jobs in coal mining and that would not go down well with Trump's voters. Also, using fossil fuels is lot cheaper whereas nuclear energy requires more time to produce and need necessary infrastructure to be built which will cost money and time.

 

US has always been like that, the most shameless and selfish nation in the world, they have never taken responsibility for their actions, one has to be really really dumb to elect retards like bush and trump as presidents of their nation.

Quote

Because this problem affects the whole planet, the developed economies have to take the lead in cutting down emissions because they are in a position to do so whereas they need to give some freedom to developing economies as there is still lot more poverty in those countries and the infrastructure and technology to use renewable energy is inadequate. Over time, the idea is to reduce carbon emissions in developing countries as well. This has to be thought as a global problem than through the prism of nationalism like what Trump is advocating. US will lose their diplomatic clout over many countries because of policies like these and will allow China and Russia to take lead.

Obviously, Climate change is a big problem, and the developed nations have a much bigger responsibility, all I am saying is that the Paris accord wasn't some major breakthrough as it was being made out to be in the media, the only reason it got the publicity was because the US was part of it. The US didn't lose any clout when it didn't sign the kyoto protocol, so pulling out of paris deal won't effect its clout much either imo, although this pull out is getting way more media coverage, so it might create more international pressure on the US, who knows, can't really say for sure at this point, will have to wait and watch

Edited June 4, 2017 by kira

[mishra]

4 hours ago, kira said:

And what will India get out of pulling out? India is a tropical country and we guys will be the most affected by climate change, the accord doesn't even put any binding restrictions on any country, India is already seen as a developing country with lesser responsibility than western nation, pulling out will only mean bad publicity for India, also renewable energy is better for India because we have huge amounts of unused solar energy to tap into unlike the temperate latitude nations

Right or Wrong  doesnt matter.  It is about negotiations.Bezing has ambitions where by they wants to fill void left by Americans. Berlin want to be London.

 

If Chin,Germany want to show US, Uk and specially rest of world that they can get job done and become world leaders they can be negotiated by India for  options like membership to NSG as source of clean fuel. Mind you, tommorrow if India and UK back down ( I believe Trump has allready taken UKout, its just matter of announcement). This accord will be as good as dead, which will mean, No one absolutely No one but US is only one who can lead the world. Rest of nations are simply no better than poodles.

Edited June 4, 2017 by mishra

[Brainfade]

3 hours ago, kubrickian said:

Paris accord is sort of like the first step towards bringing all the countries together to take the issue of climate change seriously. Getting all countries on board is itself a major achievement. But with US which is the top most polluter in the world not being a part of it, its just a big step back.

 

More than technology transfer, bigger issue for US is the loss of jobs and effect on economy which will come as a result of scaling down on production of paper, cement and other industries which are seen as the biggest polluters and using renewable sources will result in loss of jobs in coal mining and that would not go down well with Trump's voters. Also, using fossil fuels is lot cheaper whereas nuclear energy requires more time to produce and need necessary infrastructure to be built which will cost money and time.

 

Because this problem affects the whole planet, the developed economies have to take the lead in cutting down emissions because they are in a position to do so whereas they need to give some freedom to developing economies as there is still lot more poverty in those countries and the infrastructure and technology to use renewable energy is inadequate. Over time, the idea is to reduce carbon emissions in developing countries as well. This has to be thought as a global problem than through the prism of nationalism like what Trump is advocating. US will lose their diplomatic clout over many countries because of policies like these and will allow China and Russia to take lead.

Is signing on to the Paris accord the only way to ensure cutting GHG emissions?  False equivalence.

 

In the year just prior to the beginning of Paris talks, the US had brought its emissions down 3% whereas Europe's increased 0.5%.  The US has shown already that they can do better. 

 

By investing in natural gas, nuclear power (if the greens would let them) as well as renewables, but under its own terms, the US can lead in cutting GHG emissions, no?  Why Paris?

[Muloghonto]

12 hours ago, kira said:

Goras? Do you even know the history of climate change process? Read about common but differentiated responsibilities before sucking up to goras, the goras created this mess in the first place

I am still trying to figure out what the 'responsibility' of Goras are, considering that nobody even knew of climate change till 30-40 years ago. Not to mention, saying that goras now have some moral obligation for a mess created by long-dead goras, is as asinine as going around blaming every Indian out there for 'creating the mess' of sati next time some woman burns herself alive.

 

[kira]

Just now, Muloghonto said:

I am still trying to figure out what the 'responsibility' of Goras are, considering that nobody even knew of climate change till 30-40 years ago. Not to mention, saying that goras now have some moral obligation for a mess created by long-dead goras, is as asinine as going around blaming every Indian out there for 'creating the mess' of sati next time some woman burns herself alive.

 

This just shows your ignorance about this topic, that's why I specifically asked you to read about "common but differentiated responsibility"  You are completely ignorant about climate change if you think no one knew about climate change 30-40 years ago, I have been reading on climate change and the various conferences related to it since last 2 years because it is part of my course. Blaming around? lol It is an internationally accepted concept that the developed nation are more responsible for climate change and they have more responsibility in mitigating this. At least read a little bit about the topic you are arguing about, I know like to blindly brown nose goras and get your ethical and moral code from goras but it doesn't hurt to pick a book once in a while

 

Quote

In the Earth Summit, states acknowledged disparity of economic development between developed and developing countries. Industrialization proceeded in developed countries much earlier than it did in developing countries. CBDR is based on relationship between industrialization and climate change.^[4] The more industrialized a country is, more likely that it has contributed to climate change. States came to an agreement that developed countries contributed more to environmental degradation and should have greater responsibility than developing countries. CBDR principle could therefore be said to be based on polluter-pays principle where historical contribution to climate change and respective ability become measures of responsibility for environmental protection.^[5]

 

[Muloghonto]

2 minutes ago, kira said:

This just shows your ignorance about this topic, that's why I specifically asked you to read about "common but differentiated responsibility"  You are completely ignorant about climate change if you think no one knew about climate change 30-40 years ago, I have been reading on climate change and the various conferences related to it since last 2 years because it is part of my course. Blaming around? lol It is an internationally accepted concept that the developed nation are more responsible for climate change and they have more responsibility in mitigating this. At least read a little bit about the topic you are arguing about, I know like to blindly brown nose goras and get your ethical and moral code from goras but it doesn't hurt to pick a book once in a while

 

 

it definitely wasn't mainstream knowledge till 20-25 years ago. And more than 30-40 years ago, aka, back in the 50s and 60s, Climate change *WAS* unknown practically outside of what was then-thought of as 'a weird scientists weird theory' of a handful of people. 

The fact that developed nations are more responsible, is irrelevant, because 90% of global warming (through its whole manmade trajectory) is caused pre WWII, with zero knowledge of it. Not to mention, you cannot transfer culpability of dead people to people who have nothing to do with it themselves.

 

[kira]

1 minute ago, Muloghonto said:

it definitely wasn't mainstream knowledge till 20-25 years ago. And more than 30-40 years ago, aka, back in the 50s and 60s, Climate change *WAS* unknown practically outside of what was then-thought of as 'a weird scientists weird theory' of a handful of people. 

The fact that developed nations are more responsible, is irrelevant, because 90% of global warming (through its whole manmade trajectory) is caused pre WWII, with zero knowledge of it. Not to mention, you cannot transfer culpability of dead people to people who have nothing to do with it themselves.

 

30-40 years ago was 50s and 60s  lol kudos your mathematical skill, the first conference regarding climate change dates back to 1972, The first summit on climate change officially was held in 1992 at rio de jinero and 172 countries attended that summit, lol talk about mainstream, the paris accord which is so talked about these days is a result of 20+ years of negotiation which started in 1992, you don't even know 1% about this topic and yet you say things like this is irrelevant and that is irrelevant How many books have you read on this topic? How many articles have you read on this topic to form such a strong opinion? US is still the second largest emitter of GHGs, and the EU is the third, India's developmental future depends on this, you don't even understand how important it is for developed countries to take bigger responsibility because developing countries simply can't afford to  contribute at the same level. There have been multiple reports, multiple conferences on this topic, you only got to know about this after paris accord was signed, I have been reading up on it even before the meeting on paris accord was held, it is not as simple as your simplistic mind wants you to make it.

[Muloghonto]

31 minutes ago, kira said:

30-40 years ago was 50s and 60s  lol kudos your mathematical skill, the first conference regarding climate change dates back to 1972, The first summit on climate change officially was held in 1992 at rio de jinero and 172 countries attended that summit, lol talk about mainstream, the paris accord which is so talked about these days is a result of 20+ years of negotiation which started in 1992, you don't even know 1% about this topic and yet you say things like this is irrelevant and that is irrelevant How many books have you read on this topic? How many articles have you read on this topic to form such a strong opinion? US is still the second largest emitter of GHGs, and the EU is the third, India's developmental future depends on this, you don't even understand how important it is for developed countries to take bigger responsibility because developing countries simply can't afford to  contribute at the same level. There have been multiple reports, multiple conferences on this topic, you only got to know about this after paris accord was signed, I have been reading up on it even before the meeting on paris accord was held, it is not as simple as your simplistic mind wants you to make it.

2017-30 = ??

2017-40 = ???

 

You say it was '1950s/60s' and then question *MY* math skills ?!

 

As for developed countries taking the initiative- I 100% agree they need to do more than developing countries. Because developed countries have the $$ and resources to do more. Not because 'they carry a historical responsibility'. Your reason on WHY developed countries carry more responsibility is BS.

 

[kira]

6 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

2017-30 = ??

2017-40 = ???

 

You say it was '1950s/60s' and then question *MY* math skills ?!

 

I was referring to your freaking comment genius, you need to work on both your mathematical and comprehension skills

 

Quote

And more than 30-40 years ago, aka, back in the 50s and 60s, Climate change *WAS* unknown practically outside of what was then-thought of as 'a weird scientists weird theory' of a handful of people. 

Quote

As for developed countries taking the initiative- I 100% agree they need to do more than developing countries. Because developed countries have the $$ and resources to do more. Not because 'they carry a historical responsibility'. Your reason on WHY developed countries carry more responsibility is BS.

 

And that's where you are wrong, they do carry historical responsibility, this isn't my reason, idiot, it is widely accepted concept in international arena, pick up a damn book 

Edited June 4, 2017 by kira

[Muloghonto]

1 minute ago, kira said:

 

I was referring to your freaking comment genius, you need to work on both your mathematical and comprehension skills

 

And that's where you are wrong, they do carry historical responsibility, this isn't my reason, idiot, it is widely accepted concept in international arena, pick up a damn book 

So more than 30-40 years ago, from 2017, is not 1950s/60s ??

Seems like your comprehension skills need a better brush-up than anything else at the moment.

 

Quote

And that's where you are wrong, they do carry historical responsibility, this isn't my reason, idiot, it is widely accepted concept in international arena, pick up a damn book 

1. It is not widely accepted

2. It is still an opinion. They carry as much historical responsibility for global warming as you carry a historical responsibility for untouchability or sati. 

Ie, stupid opinion. One does not carry responsibility for anything one did not contribute to. Basics of law and ethics. Which is why none of these 'so-called accepted notions' have a leg to stand on in any legal forum. This is also why no country has been able to force another to pay 'historic reparations'. Pick up a damn book on law and ethics first.