r/science Stands with the Paris Climate Agreement

Hello everyone, Earlier today <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-to-announce-us-will-exit-paris-climate-deal/2017/06/01/fbcb0196-46da-11e7-bcde-624ad94170ab_story.html?">President Trump announced his intention to exit the Paris Climate Agreement</a>. While <a href="/r/science">r/science</a> <del>does not take a stance on political issues</del> generally strives not to take a political stance, this issue is so exceptional and is heavily science-related that we made an exception. We feel the need to reaffirm our commitment to solid science, and in that regard we strongly disagree with these actions. <a href="https://climate.nasa.gov/">Climate change is real</a> and it's happening right now. <a href="https://www.nature.org/ourinitiatives/urgentissues/global-warming-climate-change/index.htm">There is still time left to do something about it</a>, but this requires the actions of all people of the world. We decided to create this thread to welcome discussion and questions from the users about climate change and the Paris Agreement. We will be moderating this thread <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules">less heavily than we normally do</a>, but we still ask that you be civil and respectful in the comments. Comments that go against established science must include peer-reviewed citations, and egregious dismissals may result in bans. EDIT: Please note the edits above in italics. <a href="/r/askscience">r/askscience</a> is <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/6ertms/askscience_megathread_climate_change/">also holding a megathread</a> on this issue. Feel free to ask questions there as well. <hr/>**评论：** 0110010001100010: <pre>Dumb question - but realistically what does this mean? How much of an impact is Trumps decision really going to make? Is this actually going to have a meaningful (negative) impact on climate change? I've read through a number of articles and while everyone is bashing Trump for the withdraw it's been hard to get any real info on the actual scope of the impact. Like I said - stupid question I'm sure.</pre>DrunkandIrrational: <pre>Don't think that's a stupid question, in fact if everyone knew the answer to your question there wouldn't be any need for threads like this.</pre>tiltedlens: <pre><a href="https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/6/1/15725510/trump-pulls-us-out-of-paris-climate-deal">https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/6/1/15725510/trump-pulls-us-out-of-paris-climate-deal</a> TL;DR: The Paris agreement, signed in 2015 by 195 countries, does four simple things. <ol> <li>It sets a global goal of keeping global average temperatures from rising 2°C, or rising 3.6°F (thanks <a href="/u/that_guy_next_to_you">/u/that_guy_next_to_you</a>) (compared to temperatures pre-Industrial Revolution) by the end of the century.</li> <li>It sets a non-binding agreement for countries to reach peak greenhouse gas emissions “as soon as possible."</li> <li>It adds a framework for countries to become more aggressive in reaching those goals over time. In 2020, delegates are supposed to reconvene and provide updates about their emission pledges, and report on how they’re becoming more aggressive on accomplishing the 2 degree goal.</li> <li>It asks richer countries to help out poorer countries: to give them capital to invest in green technologies, but also to help them brace for a changing world.</li> </ol> edit: 2nd source <a href="https://www.nature.org/ourinitiatives/urgentissues/global-warming-climate-change/the-paris-agreement-what-does-it-mean.xml">https://www.nature.org/ourinitiatives/urgentissues/global-warming-climate-change/the-paris-agreement-what-does-it-mean.xml</a> <ol> <li>The world as a whole agreed on a path forward. 196 nations signed the Paris Agreement, the first time — since climate change rocketed to the top of the list of global issues — that the world has agreed on a path forward.</li> <li>The Paris Agreement is a turning point. The agreement “signals the turning point in the road to a low-carbon economy, a road paved by continued innovation in the technology, energy, finance, and conservation sectors,” said Andrew Deutz, the Conservancy's director of international government relations.</li> <li>The deal asks any nation signing it, of which there were 196, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to regularly increase their ambitions. The agreement requires that ratifying nations “peak” their greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible and pursue the highest possible ambition that each country can achieve.</li> <li>Countries will aim to keep warming well below 2 degrees Celsius, and for the first time to pursue efforts to limit temperature increases to 1.5 degrees C. The nations involved in COP 21 agreed upon and required that they would all work towards making sure the Earth’s temperature doesn’t rise above 2 degrees Celsius; this degree change is usually agreed upon as being the tipping point to preventing massive effects of climate change. (However, it should be noted that more recent science indicates a change of even 1 degree Celsius could cause major threats and impacts to coastal communities and developing nations.)</li> <li>The Paris Agreement has aspects that are binding, and aspects that are not. Some elements of the agreement — such as requirements to report on progress towards lowering emissions — are binding. However, some elements are non-binding, such as the setting of emission-reduction targets.</li> </ol> edit: important thing to note, <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2015/12/the_paris_agreement_won_t_punish_countries_that_fall_short_but_it_s_still.html">http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2015/12/the_paris_agreement_won_t_punish_countries_that_fall_short_but_it_s_still.html</a> "The big criticism of the landmark Paris climate deal is its lack of enforcement mechanisms. If India keeps burning coal like crazy, it won’t face fines or sanctions. Nobody is going to invade Nigeria if it fails to lower emissions. [...] But that doesn’t mean that the Paris Agreement, announced Saturday, is worthless. Because the process it lays out—in which individual countries make emissions commitments and then reconvene every five years to measure progress and rich countries pledge $100 billion in aid to poorer countries—taps into a few forces that can be almost as powerful as the threat of punishment. These include: peer pressure, the desire to save face, the profit motive, and the dynamics of capitalism. And they should leave us feeling very optimistic about Paris’ chances of helping nations—and perhaps more importantly, companies—make serious progress on cutting emissions."</pre>that_guy_next_to_you: <pre>Small correction: for your first point, you're converting an absolute Celsius temperature to an absolute Fahrenheit temperature. In reality, you want to convert the rate of increase from one to the other. A 2C rise in temperature is equal to 3.6F.</pre>tiltedlens: <pre>ah, thank you. fixed the comment.</pre>Meior: <pre>As someone with next to no experience in temperature conversion, can you ELI5 this? </pre>yetanothercfcgrunt: <pre>2 °C, as an individual temperature, is 35.6 °F. However a change in temperature of 2 °C (e.g. from 0 °C to 2 °C) is a change in temperature of 3.6 °F (same example, 32 °F to 35.6 °F; 35.6 - 32 = 3.6). </pre>Waftmaster: <pre>I still can't believe Americans still use Fahrenheit, it just seems so confusing</pre>Meior: <pre>Oh! Now I gotcha! Makes perfect sense, thanks. </pre>shiruken: <pre>And if you don't trust Vox, read Article 2 of the <a href="http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/cop21/eng/l09r01.pdf">actual text of the Paris Agreement</a>: <blockquote> This Agreement, in enhancing the implementation of the Convention, including its objective, aims to strengthen the global response to the threat of climate change, in the context of sustainable development and efforts to eradicate poverty, including by: (a) Holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels, recognizing that this would significantly reduce the risks and impacts of climate change; (b) Increasing the ability to adapt to the adverse impacts of climate change and foster climate resilience and low greenhouse gas emissions development, in a manner that does not threaten food production; (c) Making finance flows consistent with a pathway towards low greenhouse gas emissions and climate-resilient development. </blockquote></pre>bigmobydick: <pre>Is there any source what the agreement considers developed vs developing countries? Big big difference in accountability and fiscal responsibility </pre>shiruken: <pre>I assume it's based upon the UN's definitions</pre>MyTrumpAcct: <pre>China is considered a developing country. They are also exempt from pollution standards set forth by the articles until 2030</pre>OneBigBug: <pre><blockquote> from rising 2°C, or 35°F (compared to temperatures pre-Industrial Revolution) by the end of the century. </blockquote> Can't use a temperature converter to convert a relative temperature. Something which is 2°C is very slightly above freezing, as is 35°F, but a 2°C increase is very small (in terms of human perception), wherein a 35°F increase is quite substantial. You want "2°C or 3.6°F" because an increase of 1 degree Celsius is equivalent to an increase of 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit.</pre>stillnoturday: <pre><blockquote> <pre><code>It asks richer countries to help out poorer countries: to give them capital to invest in green technologies, but also to help them brace for a changing world. </code></pre> </blockquote> <pre><code>It asks richer countries to help out poorer countries: to give them capital to invest in green technologies, but also to help them brace for a changing world. </code></pre> How about we talk about this, this is why the U.S pulled out I think?</pre>Kirk_Kerman: <pre>This is actually a very sound geopolitical strategy. By investing in the stability of developing nations, the US can: <ol> <li>Keep entire regions stable and prevent extremist threats from taking root</li> <li>Gain preferential access to booming markets in expanding economies</li> <li>Gain valuable diplomatic points as a world leader in human rights, along with capturing the favor of countries that might otherwise lean towards the US's rivals</li> </ol> One of the best ways the US can defend itself is by making friends and keeping things from heating up, and investing in the development of poor nations is a very effective way to do it. On the other side, the US stands to fall behind China, India, and Europe as they forge ahead with green technology. Job markets with lasting power are being created, and the USA has the skilled workforce, financial systems, and manufacturing capacity to lead the world into a climate-friendly future. By leaving the Paris agreement they're giving all that up to other countries, and stand to suffer in the long term.</pre>LongGoneAndForgotten: <pre>Could you elaborate on what the penalties are for breaking binding reporting requirements? I can't find it and I feel like it is important.</pre>tiltedlens: <pre><a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2015/12/the_paris_agreement_won_t_punish_countries_that_fall_short_but_it_s_still.html">http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2015/12/the_paris_agreement_won_t_punish_countries_that_fall_short_but_it_s_still.html</a> Don't have time to paraphrase this but this is what's important: No, it won’t punish countries that shirk their climate commitments. But it will incentivize action in some surprising ways. The big criticism of the landmark Paris climate deal is its lack of enforcement mechanisms. If India keeps burning coal like crazy, it won’t face fines or sanctions. Nobody is going to invade Nigeria if it fails to lower emissions. What the critics don’t understand, however, is that this is a feature, not a bug. How else would you get 195 countries to sign off on it? But that doesn’t mean that the Paris Agreement, announced Saturday, is worthless. Because the process it lays out—in which individual countries make emissions commitments and then reconvene every five years to measure progress and rich countries pledge $100 billion in aid to poorer countries—taps into a few forces that can be almost as powerful as the threat of punishment. These include: peer pressure, the desire to save face, the profit motive, and the dynamics of capitalism. And they should leave us feeling very optimistic about Paris’ chances of helping nations—and perhaps more importantly, companies—make serious progress on cutting emissions.</pre>: <pre>[removed]</pre>: <pre>[removed]</pre>: <pre>[removed]</pre>SummerInPhilly: <pre>Not a stupid question at all. While Trump announced his desire to withdraw, many other groups and individuals in the US, such as states like California, individual cities and businesses can still adhere to more stringent emissions goals, for example. Individual states do have environmental laws that are more stringent than federal regulations, so even if they were rolled back nationally, states such as CA and NY are still adhering to these climate targets. Individual companies as well are moving towards clean energy, even energy companies like Exxon Mobil (In fact, Trump's Secretary of State, for Exxon Mobil CEO Rex Tillerson, acknowledged the effects of man-made climate change and how Exxon Mobil postured itself accordingly...so he quite literally is opposing Trump on this issue) The cost of solar power has dropped substantially over the past several years so economically there is a stronger case against coal, and the solar power industry even employs more Americans than the coal industry The real impact will probably be in the respect that the US has on the global scene, or more specifically, how Trump is viewed globally. With the entire world behind the agreement, he stands as much of an outlier. This is now an opportunity for other nations to claim the mantle as the global leader on environmentalism. I'm cautiously optimistic. Not optimistic for the planet as much as I am optimistic for the future of the agreement. I think there is too much of a push for more stringent climate regulations in the US for this withdrawal to hurt our progress </pre>: <pre>[removed]</pre>: <pre>[removed]</pre>: <pre>[removed]</pre>: <pre>[removed]</pre>: <pre>[removed]</pre>hiroqantagonist: <pre>I might have missed somewhere. There were three ways it could have went down, right? Either he takes the official exit (which could take until 2020), he does it through Congress (which could take a while), or he yanks the plug. Which is it?</pre>SummerInPhilly: <pre>Yanking the plug means the exit in three years. He could have <ul> <li>submitted it to the Senate (formal treaties require approval of 2/3rd of the Senate) which would have effectively killed it (Senate only has 48 Democrats and Independents, far short of the 67 votes needed), but then he would lose the ability to hold a Rose Garden ceremony proclaiming that he fulfilled a campaign promise</li> <li>modified the emissions targets that Obama declared, since the agreement is voluntary...and I really don't know why he didn't choose this, probably because of the reason I mentioned above</li> <li>left immediately (sort of):</li> </ul> <blockquote> The Trump administration may choose to exit the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The UNFCCC has nearly universal membership and provides the underlying framework for international cooperation to combat climate change. This led to the Kyoto Protocol and then the 2015 Paris Agreement. Any country that leaves the UNFCCC "shall be considered as also having withdrawn from this Agreement," according to Article 28 of the Paris Agreement. The US could leave the UNFCCC with one year's notice, which gets it out of the Paris Agreement without having to wait until November 2020. This is the the "quickest path" out, as advocated by the conservative Heritage Foundation. </blockquote> <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/01/politics/paris-climate-agreement-trump-ways-to-withdraw/">source</a> <ul> <li>...or leave the old-fashioned way, in Article 28 of the agreement, which it appears Trump has chosen:</li> </ul> <blockquote> <ol> <li>At any time after three years from the date on which this Agreement has entered into force for a Party, that Party may withdraw from this Agreement by giving written notification to the Depositary. </li> <li>Any such withdrawal shall take effect upon expiry of one year from the date of receipt by the Depositary of the notification of withdrawal, or on such later date as may be specified in the notification of withdrawal. </li> <li>Any Party that withdraws from the Convention shall be considered as also having withdrawn from this Agreement.</li> </ol> </blockquote> <a href="http://www.lewik.org/term/11998/withdrawal-from-the-agreement-article-28-paris-agreement-climatic-change/">source</a> EDIT: I can't format</pre>hiroqantagonist: <pre>So, then, leaving in that manner, it doesn't happen until three years after the agreement goes into effect, which is next year, right? So that would be 2020. If someone else gets elected, would they not be able to smack the abort button or re-sign or something, since it's such a turnaround time? Or to be honest, at any point in the next three years how often is he allowed to change his mind?</pre>SummerInPhilly: <pre><blockquote> If someone else gets elected, would they not be able to smack the abort button or re-sign or something, since it's such a turnaround time? </blockquote> As I understand it, yes <blockquote> at any point in the next three years how often is he allowed to change his mind? </blockquote> As often as he wants. As a politician he's pretty unpredictable so that one will be hard to, well, predict</pre>-thisismypassword-: <pre>Isn't the date like November 2020? The new president wouldn't come in until 2021</pre>SantaClausIsRealTea: <pre>To be fair, copying <a href="/u/hiroqantagonist">u/hiroqantagonist</a>, I'm not sure how this can be accurate given it was never ratified by Congress in the first place.</pre>jcfac: <pre><blockquote> How much of an impact is Trumps decision really going to make? </blockquote> Great question. Isn't China exempted out of the agreement for 10 years, even though they pollute more than US & Europe combined? If so, then how impactful is this really? I'd like to hear what the response is, outside of political hysteria.</pre>Probably_Important: <pre>I don't have numbers, but I can speak to the politics of it a bit. If you look into it you'll find a lot of things like that - that provide special circumstances for some countries, or support the development of other countries. This might seem unfair on the surface. But really, this agreement isn't going to fix climate change. The point is to get the whole world to agree on a broad solution and cooperate. Even if their contribution is less than others, this is the first step towards an international dialogue. This is also why it's so amazing that nearly ever country on earth agreed to it. Pulling off diplomacy like that isn't easy or always 'fair', but it is important when you're trying to balance so many economic interests against one another. For example, a developing nation might want more time or more leeway to 'catch up' to the more powerful economies so that this humanitarian effort doesn't put them at a blatant economic disadvantage. If the world comes out ahead due to that, it's okay with me. The Paris Agreement needs to go further, but opening this forum was a miraculous and unexpected step towards really tackling the issue. America's refusal to get involved has more impact on our international standing, than on the climate itself, I think.</pre>DirkRockwell: <pre>Excellent perspective, thank you for this. </pre>1knightstands: <pre>Awesome post. To elaborate, think of fairness not as a flat tax, but as a progressive tax. Most people agree that flat taxes disproportionately affect the poor who don't have as much disposable/savable income and are already spending most of their money. Poor countries won't come to a climate discussion if they're told to cut emissions the same as the rich countries who profited crazy amounts by destroying the world's climate since the 1850s. An across the board carbon reduction would kind of be like a flat tax. A more reasonable conversation that has a chance of bringing all parties to the table is a discussion about a more progressive carbon reduction system - where the countries who benefitted the most off polluting for the last 100 years and have already been developed for a long time need to reduce their emissions more. Because, in theory, they should have more resources at their disposal for reducing their emissions. China might have an insane amount of pollution, but they only relatively ramped up their industrialization and they have ~1.3 billion people. Poor countries won't come to the table and have a discussion if they're held to the same standards that profited off of destroying the planet's climate for the last 200 years.</pre>RedScare3: <pre>Didn't lots of countries agree to it because it doesn't affect them in any way and they are promising to do anything at all? I mean besides getting money from other countries. I would think it would be easy to get every country to agree if you don't make most of them do anything except receive money from bigger countries like the US. </pre>tshadley: <pre><blockquote> Didn't lots of countries agree to it because it doesn't affect them in any way and they are promising to do anything at all? I mean besides getting money from other countries. </blockquote> No. Developing countries stand to lose more in the short-term if they reduce fossil fuel dependence, and preserve instead of use up natural resources. What stops Brazil from clear-cutting the Amazon rain-forest if that's in their economic interest? The loss has to be compensated in some way by developed nations. If they do their part, we do our part.</pre>SantaClausIsRealTea: <pre><blockquote> This is also why it's so amazing that nearly ever country on earth agreed to it. </blockquote> To be fair, Is it really surprising that most countries, being net receivers of climate change funds under the Agreement, would be for it, whereas those bearing a disproportional amount of the cost (eg the US) might think twice? Have people not wondered at all why countries like North Korea signed the agreement? It's a direct transfer of funds from US taxpayers to subsidize the development of green technology in other countries across the world, without any obligation on those countries to invest those funds in US produced greentech.</pre>WakingMusic: <pre>I'm not qualified to answer the question in full, but I'd at least like to point out that China and India are both still rapidly developing countries and under normal circumstances would be expanding their fossil fuel consumption at an enormous rate (like the US did during the industrial revolution). The fact that they have both committed to expanding using mostly renewable sources is remarkable, and a remarkable sacrifice even if they are not willing to commit to fully stabilizing carbon emissions in the short term. Asking China and India to abide by the same limitations as the US would be absurd.</pre>Oneflewoverus: <pre>*13 years.</pre>Clarenceorca: <pre>You have to remember that the agreement is nonbinding, and no country has to enforce it, nor does the agreement have provisions to penalize those who do not. Not to downplay it of course, since its a good first step to take. </pre>hiroqantagonist: <pre>Right, isn't it up to private industry to actually make the changes? If the US stayed in the deal, couldn't they just not do anything, or even do the opposite with no consequences? So if it's up to private industry, what's stopping them?</pre>asockthatdreamed: <pre>Nothing, but private industry, especially smaller companies, wants to maximize immediate worth. They usually don't think 50-100 years into the future. Countries do (or should).</pre>amkamins: <pre>While China is exempt they are also making some pretty big strides to improve their environmental record. Regular smog crises in urban centres has amped up internal political pressure and the government can't continue to ignore it. </pre>Subito_ergo_spud: <pre>This is what many fail to see. China's internal pressures to ease its obvious pollution problems are far greater than any international pressure.</pre>syedahussain: <pre>Purely anecdotal but when I lived in China for a while, I noticed that there was a genuine despair surrounding the air pollution; it's really bad there. In the month that I was there, I would regularly clean my nose out with tissue and find black soot(?) in there. Discussions with colleagues, I noticed that it was the norm and that people left their air purifiers on 24/7. The thing is, in China, the regular folk are suffering now. Air pollution is not a fallacy, but something they live through every day which costs them a lot financially to manage.</pre>Buscemi_D_Sanji: <pre>Yeah, when I was there, I never saw the skyline of Beijing once. At one end of the city, you can see a few buildings, like 10% of them. It's sad, I wore a mask daily.</pre>sunburn_on_the_brain: <pre>And we're not just talking "oh, the air is kind of dirty, we should do something about it." We're talking about smog so bad you can't see the next block. There has been a booming industry in some Chinese urban centers to build enclosures for yards to turn them into indoor spaces so that the kids can go "outside" to play. The air quality in China's biggest cities is a severe public health issue. </pre>somewhatdecentlawyer: <pre>I studied abroad in Beijing, and was told I can't spend more than 3 hours outside consecutively without it negatively affecting my lungs since I was not from the area and not used to the smog. That was as a 21 year old college student. Imagine a 2 year old's lungs in those air conditions.</pre>Magnety2k: <pre>You bring up an excellent point that many American's are not aware of at all. I have spoke to lot of student intern prospects who stated this issue when studying abroad. They come back with a first hand account. If you recall preparations for the Beijing Olympics in 2008. The manufacturing was halted 3 months prior to the event to get the air quality to a safe level. But our administration plans to bring back coal and manufacturing. So as we are currently the 2nd largest emitter after China, I wonder how this will play out. </pre>Human_Robot: <pre>The problem with using China as the example that makes our actions okay is that China is not a democracy. When the Chinese party leadership decides they don't want to bring coal anymore here's what they do - "hey guys, no more burning coal". And the country stops burning coal. In the US, you have to lobby politicians, garner public support, gather business support, write a bill, get it through committee, get it passed, get it through another committee, get it passed again, get them reconciled, get the bill signed, have the president sign the bill create a regulatory framework for the bill (now law) with an agency to regulate it, have that pass public comment, publish in the federal register, get passed the inevitable multi year lawsuit from the regulated industry - quite possibly more than one. I'm probably missing a few things but that's the gist.</pre>JabbrWockey: <pre>China is the largest coal-power consumer on the planet, but they're also the largest producer of green energy. They're making progress.</pre>Iswallowedafly: <pre>China is investing a massive amount into green energy. As someone who lives in a large Chinese city, they have to. What they are doing now is not sustainable. They are looking for alternative options. </pre>IRequirePants: <pre>So why is the treaty necessary? The US is already trending downward due to natural gas. By the time that dries up, hopefully renewables will be more affordable. China is aiming to trend down due to smog. Wouldn't a better battle be to fight governors, like Cuomo, who are shutting down nuclear plants and will probably have a large negative effect on the environment?</pre>Toddzilla1337: <pre>Keep in mind this is NOT a treaty. A treaty is actually signed by members of each countries political bodies. This was simply a voluntary agreement by the participating countries to have each individual country attempt to do more "green" things. Unlike a treaty, there's no enforcement of anything with the agreement. A treaty has consequences should you not obey the terms. The Paris Agreement has no consequences for not obeying (besides any sort of environmental effects that would have been different if they were followed).</pre>Dark-Light_Eco: <pre>So wait honest question, wouldn't it make more sense to continue to be more green, but not sign the agreement? We are already working towards cutting emissions and if we continue to do so, why do we have to sign an agreement and pay a ton of money so that some other countries might be better if they want to, but they aren't forced to. I understand that everyone wants to make the world greener but can't we just do that on our own and not foot the bill for half the world? </pre>Arsalan85: <pre>You're right, it's relatively easy for the US to go green by ourselves. We're an advanced economy that has reaped the benefits from already adding a ton of Co2 for like 150 years. But it can't just be the more advanced economies that go green. The whole world needs to do it. Developing nations get a pretty raw deal if they don't get any outside help. We've got all this wealth from decades of messing up the environment and now we tell them not to do it? The United States is the world's richest nation and the largest emitter of greenhouse gases in history, so we have to pay more. In the end it's also in our interests to do it.</pre>amkamins: <pre>The reason for the agreement is to hold developed nations to a particular standard. Right now going green is disincentivised by short term increases in production costs, which leads to short term losses in international trade. Holding all western countries to the same standard reduces this disparity and decreases the consequences of being an early adopter. </pre>Duese: <pre>But the agreement isn't holding developed nations to any particular standard. In part, it's self-defined standards. In effect, the non-binding nature and lack of oversight makes hitting even your self-defined standards lacking.</pre>erty3125: <pre>that is true but ignores a few factors China's pollution isn't actually awful for their population, being hugely below America's per capita and only a bit above EU China is putting work into Focusing on their smog issues first and the changes aren't negligible by any means and is more immediate threat to them China is the worlds factory, they do so much of dirty manufacturing and disposal for the entire world that saying its their fault for all the pollution is like blaming your neighbour for producing so much trash when you party at their place every night and leave your garbage there</pre>SpudgeBoy: <pre><blockquote> is like blaming your neighbour for producing so much trash when you party at their place every night and leave your garbage there </blockquote> As somebody that has been in the computer/technology manufacturing space, this is the best description of what is going on I have heard. This is the absolute truth. Everything is made in China. I also know they are well aware of the pollution. They aren't oblivious to what is going on. Lots of peopel like to confuse governments and populations.</pre>erty3125: <pre>yup, back when I was in Electronic Engineering and part of course was on learning best and ethical ways to get components you quickly learn its hard to say no to Chinese manufacturing even for custom parts that cost a dozen times less to parts mad elsewhere even when you are dealing with reputable businesses that are on more ethical end of spectrum</pre>KJ_Jeller: <pre>This seems to be a bit of a misrepresentation. Absolutely correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand it, they just don't have to meet the goal for 10 (13?) years. That doesn't really mean in practice they can ignore it, because if they continue to pollute more and more, they won't be able to meet that goal in the future. This stuff takes a long time, so they have to start now.</pre>lonestarhandy: <pre>No one has to do anything. The entire thing is completely unenforceable. Even after the 13 years China could just say, "Oops we're not there yet, sorry." and nothing would happen.</pre>kilot1k: <pre>The thing is it's not a mandate, but a promise to work towards lessening the impact on global warming. You can't really force any one country to do something like this because they are soverign. This whole Paris agreement is the world's way of saying we recognize the problem of global warming and we are pledging to reduce our footprint.</pre>IcarusFlyingWings: <pre>China pollutes much less on a per capita basis than the US. Yes - more people produce more pollution than fewer people, but if there were 1.5 billion Americans the world would be a much, much worse place. </pre>Vorbiz: <pre>That's due to a lower standard of living. What would be more interesting is a side by side of Chinese people who meet the same average standard of living as those in America and then compare emissions</pre>roundearthshill: <pre>im excited for someone smarter than me to answer this question. eager to learn more!</pre>Climbers_tunnel: <pre>Stealing the comment that <a href="/u/valorphoenix">u/valorphoenix</a> posted on <a href="/r/news">r/news</a> <blockquote> The agreement is about trade and diplomacy. Withdrawing cedes diplomatic power to China and the EU. It also opens the US to a potential trade war and collapse of our energy sector. </blockquote> <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/paris-climate-agreement-trump-decision-2017-5">http://www.businessinsider.com/paris-climate-agreement-trump-decision-2017-5</a> > ...leaving the Paris Agreement would create an uncertainty in the economy over the future of both fossil fuels and renewable energy resources. That would be "bad for businesses"... > For example, Sterman says, "It's not that far-fetched to imagine a scenario where China, in response to the US pulling out...implement[s] a carbon tax on all goods exported from the US to China, and others nations could follow suit." <a href="http://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/31/trump-has-much-to-lose-by-backing-out-of-paris-agreement-analysts-say.html">http://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/31/trump-has-much-to-lose-by-backing-out-of-paris-agreement-analysts-say.html</a> > "The notion of a trade battle over climate change is something everyone's tried to avoid for two or three decades. That's why we have an international agreement to put everyone in the same frame" (Negotiations started under Reagan) <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/11/the-problem-with-abandoning-the-paris-agreement/508085/">https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/11/the-problem-with-abandoning-the-paris-agreement/508085/</a> > But if the administration pursues a largely typical, business-friendly foreign policy, then the United States’ withdrawal from Paris could scuttle some of its other diplomatic goals. It could struggle to favorably renegotiate NAFTA, for instance. Leaving Paris could also damage American companies and economic innovation while needlessly ceding diplomatic ground to China. Edit: Went to a movie (wonder woman go watch it hella good) and came back to bunch of people calling out the links I posted. I literally just copy pasted the comment from <a href="/r/news">r/news</a> since many people found it useful on there. Sorry for not proofreading each article, in the future I'll know to post things I've actually read through and can have a discussion about. Again, sorry. </pre>byperheam: <pre>Not a stupid question. </pre>PatchworkObserver: <pre>What can we do better for our environment?</pre>Soktee: <pre>I have been reading research for a while and compiling a simple bullet list. If anyone spots a mistake or would like to add something let me know. FOOD: <ul> <li>eat less meat, dairy, and other animal products (none is the best)</li> <li>eat less industrially produced food, less processed food, less packaged foods (for example, bottled water uses energy to be packaged, produces waste, needs energy to be refrigerated, so drink tap water)</li> <li>eat proper portion sizes</li> </ul> ENERGY: <ul> <li>don't be afraid of nuclear power plants</li> <li>buy solar panels</li> <li>use efficient lightbulbs, turn the lights off when you're not in the room</li> <li>insulate your home, don't warm or cool the rooms more than necessary</li> <li>if at all possible forgo living in a single-family house in favor of apartment-style housing. (That way more people get to live on less land, sharing of walls is more energy efficient, commutes are shorter etc.)</li> <li>criticize and complain about large buildings like malls that warm up or cool down the air too much</li> <li>drive less, cycle and walk as much as possible</li> </ul> WASTE <ul> <li>buy recyclable items (q-tips with paper stick instead of plastic, bamboo toothbrushes, etc.)</li> <li>recycle</li> <li>don't buy more than you need (but for items that you are certain you will use and can last for a while buy in bulk to avoid extra packaging)</li> <li>avoid items with too much packaging</li> <li>avoid single-use items (don't use disposable cutlery, disposable wipes, if you are menstruating use menstrual cups instead of pads or tampons, etc.)</li> <li>contact manufacturers and complain of excess packaging</li> </ul> WATER: <ul> <li>don't flush the toilet when not necessary</li> <li>don't throw anything in the toilet except bodily fluids and solids and toilet paper (no cotton pads, no q-tips, no floss, no tampons, no cigarette butts, no paper towels...)</li> <li>turn the water off while you are lathering, brushing your teeth etc.</li> <li>cut down on showers and baths</li> <li>don't water your lawns, try to plant local plants that don't need watering</li> </ul> ACTIVISM: <ul> <li>Encourage others to adopt sustainable lifestyle</li> <li>Donate money to environmental charities</li> <li>Be careful who you vote for, pressure your representatives and politicans</li> <li>Look into buying carbon emission offset (this is the only point on this list that I haven't researched yet, so I'm not sure)</li> </ul> I think out of those, eating meat, flying and driving are the worst offenders, but since there is 7 billion of us, everything matters. A 2014 study into the real-life diets of British people estimates their greenhouse gas contributions (CO2eq) to be: 7.19 kg/day for high meat-eaters 3.81 kg/day for vegetarians 2.89 kg/day for vegans. -<a href="http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-014-1169-1">Dietary greenhouse gas emissions of meat-eaters, fish-eaters, vegetarians and vegans in the UK</a></pre>jandetlefsen: <pre>Missing a point about consumerism, you don't need to buy a new phone every year etc. Producing electronics actually has a big impact.</pre>Soktee: <pre>A good one, I should add this in the future too. Also, for people who love to consume: Switch to content instead of items. Consume entertainment, online classes, apps...</pre>ImLivingAmongYou: <pre>You should mention in your main post communities where you can find more resources to lower your impact like <a href="/r/ZeroWaste">/r/ZeroWaste</a>. It could do a lot of good for more people to see it.</pre>BadderrthanyOu: <pre>I just can't wait until solar panels get more affordable for common people like me. I just can't afford to spend $40k like that.. </pre>TheBaconBurpeeBeast: <pre>I'm on my way to owning every pet and mount in World of Warcraft! Digital consumption! How bout that for saving the environment?</pre>donkeyrocket: <pre>Clothes too. This age of fast-fashion is havoc on the environment. Buy fewer, higher-quality (or used) clothes that will last. I don't have any statistics or anything but I can't imagine it is pleasant on the earth. Folks also sort of ignore the environmental impacts of using services like Amazon for things they truly do not need in two days (especially with Fresh and Now). This comes in the form of packaging waste and fuel/emissions etc. I still have my guilty consumer items like bike stuff (which I justify by biking everywhere) but also LEGO but I know they're working on (and set goals for) developing a more eco-friendly plastic. </pre>jandetlefsen: <pre>I agree that the packaging stuff is wasteful af, but i got a feeling that using Amazon instead of Walmart could be less wasteful. In the end both both are warehouses/distribution center. But for the supermarket every customer takes their own transport to get to while online shipper can optimise routes. They also most likely have a higher turnaround for something like cooled storage etc. Anyway it's just a feeling. If you take your bike to go shopping it probably looks different.</pre>timeslider: <pre><blockquote> cut down on showers and baths </blockquote> Way ahead of you.</pre>Oosp: <pre><blockquote> eat less meat, dairy, and other animal products (none is the best) </blockquote> <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/mar/21/eat-less-meat-vegetarianism-dangerous-global-warming">Here's</a> an article about cutting down on meat consumption and environmental impact. A lot of people balk at the idea of cutting meat from their diets, but simply reducing the amount of meat we eat can have a significant impact. Aim to have at least one meatless meal per day or choose fish or chicken over red meat. There are also a lot of <a href="http://www.sustainabletable.org/794/should-you-eat-less-meat">health benefits</a> to eating less meat. </pre>AnalEscapade: <pre>That's the problem I consistently find with the people suggesting this. If you talk about a reduction in peoples meat consumption, you can get them to listen. If you start by mentioning, or even mention at all that it's best to eat none, then people write you off as a vegan turd. I know I sure react that way, and I have had multiple meatless days per week, and been eating limited red meat for years. Edit: I can't type words good</pre>ZeiglerJaguar: <pre>I've resisted this, because I love meat, love a good hamburger, but... honestly, after today, I think I'm going to try and start cutting down hard on red meat. Maybe once a week or so. I need to do something personally, driving a Prius and obsessively recycling just doesn't cut it anymore. I can live with chicken and fish. ... but still, I would have a lot of trouble cutting down my cheese and dairy consumption. One step at a time.</pre>Akveritas0842: <pre>My roommates and I eat meat almost every meal. But we live in Alaska and probably 90% of the meat we eat is moose or salmon that we hunted or caught ourselves. One moose feeds our household for an entire year. The only meat we buy is chicken or the occasional ribeye when we want something fancy.</pre>SunliMin: <pre>Exactly. Everyones always "vegetarian" or "I could never do that!". When I'm at a restaurant, I'll order meat, because I enjoy it and its my spoil-me meal. But when I'm grocery shopping for myself, for those meals we eat day in and day out, I buy meat every couple times I shop if that. 9.5lbs of ground beef lasts me 4 months~. If a steak is 300 grams, that's a steak every weekish worth of meat. I eat meat probably every 2 days, but I take that ground beef, turn it into meat balls and defrost them before I cook, so it's a small amount of meat in my meals every time rather than a big steak or burget with a small amount of veggies. You don't have to give up meat, you don't have to call yourself a vegetarian, and you don't have to reject peoples meals when they cook you meat that odd time your a guest. Reduction is really easy. EDIT: As for protein, eggs are fantastic and not nearly as bad from a environmental point of view. From a animal cruelty point of view, chickens are treated terribly, so if you can afford it buying from a local farm is best (and still cheap. Eggs are 30 cents in store, about 60 cents directly from local farmers. Almost no other food gets you that much protein and nutrients for such a small price. It's literally everything needed to produce and sustain life, in a small 30-60 cent bundle)</pre>Volandum: <pre>How could fish be less impactful? Aren't they carnivorous, so less efficient at making meat?</pre>Soktee: <pre>There is herbivorous fish and choosing those would be better. Mind you, this is just about human greenhouse gas emissions. Most fish that has been cough is wild fish so there is no other emissions than for transportation and refrigeration. However, since overfishing is threatening life on the planet in a different way, greenhouse gas emissions are not the only measure of the impact we are having.</pre>M_Night_Sammich: <pre>There is a really cool site where you can compare how much water it takes to produce certain food products. You can see that beef requires lots of water (to drink, water for their food supply, etc) as compared to soy, which just needs water to grow. The site points out that it takes more water to produce a bottle of water, than actually goes in the bottle.</pre>Fashiond: <pre>Graham Hill has an awesome TED talk on being a weekday vegetarian. Definitely recommend. </pre>gsfgf: <pre><blockquote> day or choose fish or chicken over red meat </blockquote> Where's pork fit in the continuum? </pre>sultry_somnambulist: <pre>slightly better than beef, significantly worse than chicken or not eating meat. </pre>W1Z4RDERINO: <pre>Can someone actually explain clearly how abstaining from eating meat helps the environment and why it's worth it?</pre>Soktee: <pre>Livestock takes a lot of land, water and food to grow. It creates a lot of excrement and farts out methane, a very potent greenhouse gas. In most simplest terms, imagine how many resources it takes to keep a whole animal alive for months to be able to get a few kilograms of meat from it. Instead of that land that was used to grow food for livestock can now be used to grow food for people. </pre>st4rG4zeR: <pre>To add... "The single biggest direct cause of tropical deforestation is conversion to cropland and pasture, mostly for subsistence, which is growing crops or raising livestock to meet daily needs." <a href="https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Deforestation/deforestation_update3.php">https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Deforestation/deforestation_update3.php</a></pre>fabulousmanatee: <pre>Energy conservation up trophic levels, if rather than consuming a primary consumer that consumes a producer an organism could conserve 90% of the energy in the previous transfer by eating at the lowest trophic level. This comes as 90% of the energy from a producer is lost to heat energy and the remain 10% travels up the trophic level. Animal agriculture also creates more waste than plant agriculture thus more bacteria is needed to break down the animal waste and as this bacteria breaks down waste in a biotic process O2 is consumed and CO2 is emitted. Thus by consuming less meat, less land will need to be used to fulfill global food demands, less fertilizers and pesticides will be used, less of these two will run off into waterways and less biomass will be decomposed.</pre>dragonxwings: <pre>The land an resources required to produce meat products are substantial when you consider land used to grow feed, to house the animals, water for all the animals, in most cases chemicals to get them fatter/produce more, etc. So by not eating meat you're cutting back on all of these requirements. Not to mention the gas necessary to transport the meat. If you were raising pigs in your back yard, it'd be a bit different, but I think that's a fairly accurate/inclusive explanation. Hopefully someone else can jump in here and write up something better.</pre>mywerk1: <pre>Take beef as an example. Baby cow is born. Eats grass Eats corn (lots of CO2 in its production). Has to fart. Cows exhaust methane, like a lot. Methane worse than CO2 for emissions. Cow needs to drink a lot of water. Cow gets big and fat, consumes more water, farts more. Cow goes to slaughter via diesel trailer. More pollution. <a href="http://www.co2list.org/files/carbon.htm">http://www.co2list.org/files/carbon.htm</a> <-- here is a neat link with estimated CO2 for various items used.</pre>yugeness: <pre>Also, you have to ship beef in a refrigerated trailer, which also require a lot of energy/CO2 emissions.</pre>Volhn: <pre>On - 'don't water your lawns, try to plant plants that can take drought' Are there any results on emphasizing local flowering plants rather than drought resistant for the sake of local bee populations?</pre>FakeFendi: <pre>Wear a condom or use other kinds of birth control </pre>FreshGrannySmith: <pre>Vote for politicians who take it seriously, and educate your fellow citizens.</pre>Ketchupkitty: <pre>My question is this. Without the Paris agreement where will the US be 2025 compared to if they complied with the agreement? </pre>PlanetGoneCyclingOn: <pre>Take a look at <a href="http://energiogklima.no/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Fig_10AogBScience.png">this figure</a>. The top line projects continued emissions. the second line projects moderate effort starting by 2030. the third line shows if the current Paris pledges are met. The fourth line shows an estimate with "ratcheting," which is using the original pledges as a base, but further reducing emissions past the original pledges. This was the hope of the original deal. So to answer your question, by 2025 things will likely be nearly the same as they are right now regardless. That's because Earth is a huge system and CO2 lasts a long time in the atmosphere, and we are committed to more warming before it gets better. However, that does not mean that the Paris Agreement is meaningless, as we need to be considering longer time scales, even if politicians generally don't. Also, look at the probabilities on the right side of the figure. The only chance we have of staying under 2 degC is with the accord. Source paper -- <a href="http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/climdyn2015/slides/Science-2015-Fawcett-1168-9.pdf">Fawcett et al 2015</a> Edit: <a href="https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DBQpulkWAAE2mrc.jpg:large">A simpler figure</a></pre>SirT6: <pre>The Conservative argument for pulling out of the Paris agreement is that: <ul> <li>it will have a modest, mostly symbolic impact of surface temperatures (less than 2 degrees if fully implemented)</li> <li>it will cost tax US taxpayers trillions</li> <li>it will be harmful for the US economy</li> </ul> <blockquote> It would result in increased U.S. electricity expenditures of 15-20 percent over the next decade, 400,000 fewer American jobs, a total income loss of over $30,000 for an American family of four, and a loss of over $2.5 trillion in U.S. gross domestic product. (per Heritage Foundation) </blockquote> How valid are these complaints?</pre>TehBrawlGuy: <pre>2 degrees is modest? Please tell me that's in F, because if that's in C it's absurd. Heck, even in F, 2 degrees is significant.</pre>klparrot: <pre>2°C above pre-industrial levels. It's agreed that this goal is insufficient, but the idea was that getting near-universal agreement worldwide would do more good for now, as it would put more pressure to actually meet the targets, and provide better momentum for a future agreement that would be more restrictive.</pre>SrSkippy: <pre>But it was completely devoid of actionable items. The thing only stated what the end goal was and that everyone had to pay into a global redistribution fund, and try their best. It was both nebulous and toothless.</pre>RulerOfSlides: <pre>A fund that the US and EU paid about 70% of, while China paid a whopping 0%.</pre>GreatNorthWeb: <pre>I posed a question about China and the best replies I received were about China's per capita carbon emissions being far less than ours. But if that is the case, I think they should pay far less than U.S., but not zero.</pre>DMAredditer: <pre>China is still a developing country. There are many people still in slums who have not yet moved on to the expanding middle class. China is at a significant disadvantage already by having to develop under the scrutiny of the world regarding their climate impact - something the US and Europe didn't have to deal with while developing during the industrial revolution. While currently the US and Europe have lower carbon emission level, you need to consider the fact that over their history they have been far worse offenders. Countries which are already developed used coal and other highly polluting energy sources during their development. The idea of having developed countries pay for the development of third world countries is to allow them to bypass the stepping stone that are fossil fuels. While you may think a world superpower like China isn't a developing country it still is considered one. India and China have a very quickly growing middle class but many people haven't joined it yet. People are still living in slums. By having them not pay for the development of other countries they can invest in the advancement of their own renewable energy sources - something they are already doing. </pre>Tekz08: <pre>Who was slated to contribute the most to said fund?</pre>puffic: <pre>Developed countries would contribute the most. For the longest time, climate negotiators struggled with a basic issue of fairness: Developed countries like the United States got ahead and developed vibrant economies on the backs of carbon-intensive energy and industry. If the whole world has to cut down on emissions, then developing economies like China won't have that opportunity. It's not just an issue of bad feelings: developing countries are hard pressed to provide for the needs of their citizens, and climate restrictions would make that harder. The Paris framework asks developed countries to subsidize clean energy development in the developing world. Hopefully this gives developing world countries (especially China and India) the support they need to keep developing their standard of living while also living up to their Paris commitments. For what it's worth, these payments were set to be only a tiny portion of developed countries' economies, and even before the US exit there was some doubt that the payments would be sufficient to alleviate all the pain pro-climate policies might bring to industrializing nations. On balance, the developing world are still likely to lose out if everyone lives up to their climate commitments.</pre>Azor_Ahigh: <pre>The US would pay around 30% while the entirety of Europe paid 40%.</pre>TheGreatMonkeyKing: <pre>It's worth noting that the Europe (depending if you mean, Eurozone, EU or a broader definition) has roughly the same population as the US, it's GDP is less than 66% of the US and emits about 66% of the GHG as the US: <a href="https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/european-union-greenhouse-gas-inventory-2016#tab-data-references">https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/european-union-greenhouse-gas-inventory-2016#tab-data-references</a> <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas_emissions_by_the_United_States">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas_emissions_by_the_United_States</a></pre>ILoveMeSomePickles: <pre>Isn't that roughly on par with the relative sizes of the economies involved?</pre>always_contrarian: <pre>The UN climate model predicts the Paris climate accord will prevent 0.3 degrees F warming over the next 100 years, more so if there are even stronger actions taken to prevent climate change. What impact will that have?</pre>xgunnyx504: <pre>Nope, 2 degrees C or 3.6(?) degrees F</pre>SrSkippy: <pre>Take a look <a href="https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-08/documents/epa_global_nonco2_projections_dec2012.pdf">here</a>. Though everything is still models, estimations, and calculations (we could be off by orders of magnitude in either direction), the summary of the EPAs report is that continuing 'business as usual' is estimated to mean a <a href="https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/climate-change-science/future-climate-change_.html">2.7° F rise by 2100</a>. Of all scenarios run, worst case is 4.0°C higher [than 1850 avg temp], best case (total cessation, including biological greenhouse emissions) is 1.8°C higher. The variation is not absolute, and there's a wide range for the same scenario based on the model used.</pre>Miseryy: <pre>Yeah seriously. What a joke. The consensus seems to be Celsius, which makes this even more terrifying. 2 degrees Celsius overall warming of the planet is modest, conservatives say. Rip.</pre>Greg-2012: <pre><blockquote> 2 degrees Celsius </blockquote> Do you have a source for that? The number I was hearing is 0.2 C over 100 years. Correct me if I am wrong. Edit: 0.2 degrees C by the year 2100 <blockquote> Trump’s statement about the amount of temperature reduction expected under the treaty is broadly accurate but needs some additional context. </blockquote> <a href="http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/jun/01/fact-checking-donald-trumps-statement-withdrawing-/">http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/jun/01/fact-checking-donald-trumps-statement-withdrawing-/</a></pre>: <pre>[removed]</pre>: <pre>[removed]</pre>LemmeSmashPls: <pre>Wouldn't a push for greener energy create an entirely new industry with a lot more jobs? I know jobs would be lost in some areas, but wouldn't they be offset somewhat by gains in another sector doing R&D, building infrastructure to support it, etc.? I have a science background not a business/economics background so sorry if this sounds dumb. I just feel like it's not an either-or scenario. Gain some, lose some. We don't know the concrete numbers</pre>ThomasMulcair: <pre><blockquote> Wouldn't a push for greener energy create an entirely new industry with a lot more jobs? </blockquote> A push from where, exactly? Energy is a multi-trillion dollar industry. If there's multi-trillions to be made, what makes you think that R&D and infrastructre improvements won't still go ahead in America regardless of whether or not they're signatories to a non-binding, non-ratified accord?</pre>Sanpaku: <pre>As I understand, the projected human impacts of climate change are highly non-linear. There are arguments that up to 1.5° C they may be neutral (for example, there are possible benefits from carbon fertilization). After 2° C, the balance of nearly all impacts turns very sharply negative. Lines like these should be alarming: <blockquote> Holding current growing regions fixed, area-weighted average yields are predicted to decrease by 30–46% before the end of the century under the slowest (B1) warming scenario and decrease by 63–82% under the most rapid warming scenario (A1FI) under the Hadley III model. </blockquote> Schlenker and Roberts, 2009. <a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/106/37/15594.long">Nonlinear temperature effects indicate severe damages to US crop yields under climate change</a>. Proceedings of the National Academy of sciences, 106(37), pp.15594-15598. The Paris Accords were imperfect. Assuming all countries (including the U.S.) kept to their current commitments, it might limit warming this century to the ~3.5° C range. Without US emissions reductions, it would be the ~4° C range. Not enough, but its a start, and the Paris Accords provides a framework for future emissions reduction commitments. There little chance that a deal more beneficial to the U.S. could be negotiated, and rational concerns that the global community will find it in their interest to enact sanctions against nations that pollute without concern for the future. Importantly for the world, the Paris Accords demonstrated a near universal resolve to confront the issue. For individuals, the Paris Accords offered hope that it would be confronted. Humans need hope in a future, and not just for their own benefit, but to make the human enterprise meaningful.</pre>fsmpastafarian: <pre>As far as I'm aware, it can't both be a symbolic act and cost taxpayers trillions. Either it's mostly meaningless, or it's binding and harmful to taxpayers and the economy. I don't see how both can be true. Furthermore, fighting climate change will cost money, but it's something that needs to be done regardless of whether or not we remain in the Paris agreement. Via the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/31/climate/qa-the-paris-climate-accord.html">NY Times</a>: <blockquote> Unlike its predecessor treaty, the Kyoto Protocol, the Paris deal was intended to be nonbinding, so that countries could tailor their climate plans to their domestic situations and alter them as circumstances changed. There are no penalties for falling short of declared targets. The hope was that, through peer pressure and diplomacy, these policies would be strengthened over time. </blockquote> Based on that information, I'm not sure how the second and third bullet could be true.</pre>dylxesia: <pre>The US doesn't have to be in the Paris agreement to meet the agreed upon C02 emissions targets in the agreement. We are already doing that.</pre>BravoFoxtrotDelta: <pre>I've got no scientific credentials, however I do not think your logic holds. It's entirely possible for the agreement to be all at once very expensive for the US, harmful to the US economy, and ineffectual in achieving significant reductions in actual increases in surface and ocean temps. There's no reason to think that just because something is expensive that it is therefore effective.</pre>Esc_ape_artist: <pre>I think you are confusing "symbolic" with efficacy. The claim is that it is mostly symbolic, and the counter argument is that symbolism isn't costly - so it imply that the "symbolic" argument is false. Your position is that it can be ineffective and costly. If you think this is the case, then why?</pre>zacht180: <pre><blockquote> The hope was that, through peer pressure and diplomacy, these policies would be strengthened over time. </blockquote> Let's be realistic, if there aren't penalties involved would this really work? I support Paris by the way, I'm just curious. Just saying that, "Well let's sign this thing so that we all can say that we're trying to do this, but if we don't then ¯_(ツ)_/ " doesn't seem really effective.</pre>ImNotJesus: <pre>There are also now twice as many solar jobs in America as there are coal jobs. Changing to the new economy can actually stimulate incredible job and GDP growth. </pre>PolygonMan: <pre>Twice as many total solar jobs as coal power plant jobs, if I remember that article correctly. It was pretty misleading.</pre>Norphesius: <pre>How are those solar jobs counted vs coal jobs? I'm not pro-"clean-coal" or anything, I just feel like that claim seems a little far fetched based on what I know about both industries. Could you link a source?</pre>Berries_Cherries: <pre>They are probably counting installation carpenters and roofers, electricians, solar salesmen, accounting and finance, recruiters, HR, ect. that support the industry. A friend of mine heads a large energy company's solar division recruiting and HR and he has something like 5 full-time in-house recruiters solely for solar. Add in accountants, project managers, call center staff, marketing, PR, IT, management, sales, and install staff and you can get to that number. </pre>SrSkippy: <pre>The complaints are very valid - <ol> <li>The only written requirement was that richer nations put in $100 Billion each year to go to poorer countries.</li> <li>The agreement was symbolic. There were no written guidelines for any participants, nor were there any penalties for failure to meet the immeasurable 'ideals'</li> <li>Due to facts 1 and 2 listed above - this was essentially free money for many nations with absolutely zero caveats or requirements.</li> <li>There's the issue of a president entering into an agreement which has a not insignificant effect on a number of things outside of his unilateral control - namely the cash and regulation. Without the blessing and continued commitment from congress (never sought nor given) this is little more than political grandstanding. The president has zero actual control over the budget. Whether this was a treaty requiring congressional signoff is up for debate.</li> </ol></pre>FranciscoGalt: <pre>People seem to misunderstand what the Paris Climate Agreement is about. In order to raise standards of living we need economic growth. In order for there to be economic growth, we need energy. Every product and service that has ever been sold required energy. Caring for the environment is expensive. Polluting is cheap. So we are looking for growth with environmental consciousness. However, it's not that simple. The US has achieved a GDP per capita of 57k USD through cheap and polluting energy. It has gone past a manufacturing economy and into a service economy by massively contaminating the environment through cheap energy. In fact, the US is responsible for 27% of the emissions emitted from 1850 to 2011. Now that we are at a crux and global warming effects are starting to affect everyone, we all know we need to do something. The US points at China saying it's the biggest pollutant. China points at the US saying it has achieved a GDP per capita 4x its own by contaminating the planet. Why would China invest in being environmentally friendly when it can focus those resources into being competitive and bringing more people out of poverty? Why would it do so especially after the US didn't have to do it? The US and developed countries increased their standards of living at the expense of the rest of the world. Now we want to cap everyone's emissions which won't give underdeveloped countries the opportunity of competitive growth through screwing the world as the developed countries did. So how do we deal with this? <ol> <li>We hold developed nations accountable by having them finance part (a very small part) of the expenses that underdeveloped countries will have to make in order to reduce emissions. </li> <li>We allow underdeveloped countries to continue growing* as long as each consecutive dollar added to the GDP contaminates less than the last* (that's why China will still increase emissions until 2030, when they start to decrease). Instead of letting everyone run freely and screw the environment thinking "we don't even make a difference", we all commit to progress.</li> <li>Developed countries start reducing emissions immediately, as they are not as concerned with survival of their poor and they have done the most damage of all. </li> </ol> What this does is set a relatively level playing field. We all suffer the expenses of going green which leads to no-one having an advantage. The arguments of "cost" it will bring to Americans don't make sense because every country will incur costs which will eliminate any disadvantage Americans would have. Unfortunately I don't have total emissions in Tons of carbon, just percentage, but if we take the % of total cumulative emissions that a country has emitted and divide it by millions of current population, we see how developed countries have emitted much more per capita in order to get to where they are. <ul> <li>US: 27%/325= 0.08%</li> <li>European Union: 25%/510=0.05%</li> <li>Russia: 8%/146=0.05%</li> <li>Japan: 4%/126=0.03%</li> <li>China: 11%/1,400= 0.008%</li> <li>India: 3%/1,300= 0.002%</li> </ul> With these numbers we can see that for every person in China, each American has emitted 10x more carbon to reach 4x greater productivity. If we are to bring people to America's standard of living (which we should all be hoping for), it's unreasonable to ask countries to sacrifice that growth just because they are late to the game. TL;DR The Paris Climate Agreement is based on achieving sustainable development. Developed countries have contributed most to the situation we're in, and will pitch in and make bigger sacrifices to help underdeveloped countries develop without too much sacrifice. source: <a href="https://wri.org/blog/2014/11/6-graphs-explain-world%E2%80%99s-top-10-emitters">https://wri.org/blog/2014/11/6-graphs-explain-world%E2%80%99s-top-10-emitters</a></pre>bossfoundmyacct: <pre>Going to ask you my burning questions because you seem to care about informing rather than flaming, and also logically present your argument. I'm not here to refute any of your points, just trying to balance my perspective and hopefully learn. It seems to me that the crux of this agreement is to essentially have developed countries give money to undeveloped countries, but they have no way of regulating what said undeveloped country does with that new money. <ol> <li>Why not spend that money to fund domestic programs that can lead to equally satisfying results?</li> <li>Where would this money even come from? (The portion that the US agrees to give.)</li> <li>Does pulling out of the agreement diminish the power of current and future US green energy programs in any non-trivial way?</li> </ol></pre>rseasmith: <pre><blockquote> it will have a modest, mostly symbolic impact of surface temperatures (less than 2 degrees if fully implemented) </blockquote> That's the goal of the agreement. To limit growth to 2°C. This is not a "modest, symbolic impact". <a href="https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/">We're predicting 2 °C to 10 °C changes over the next hundred years.</a> Only 2°C would be phenomenal. <blockquote> it will cost tax US taxpayers trillions </blockquote> And the costs of climate change are in the trillions as well. Rising sea levels and higher temperatures affect crop growth and population distribution. I'd like to see more explicit reasons how this "trillions" was come up with. Over how long a period? Trillions towards what, exactly? To who? This is a very hand-wavy reason. <blockquote> it will be harmful for the US economy </blockquote> The Heritage Foundation is a known conservative think-tank who <a href="http://www.heritage.org/environment/commentary/heritage-applauds-paris-climate-agreement-withdrawal">applauds the removal from the Climate Agreement</a>. I'd hardly call that a valid source for those claims.</pre>InvisibleRegrets: <pre>The goals are to limit temperature increase to 2C, however, the <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v534/n7609/abs/nature18307.html">realities of what have been agreed to</a>, are far from sufficient to meet those goals. </pre>CTownChampion: <pre><blockquote> The Heritage Foundation is a known conservative think-tank who applauds the removal from the Climate Agreement. I'd hardly call that a valid source for those claims. </blockquote> That makes them a biased source, not an invalid source. They've cited their claims. Their study uses economic models. Are the economic models they used invalid? Are they scientifically incorrect? </pre>heyitsth4t1guy: <pre>This is <a href="/r/science">r/science</a> so I will pose my questions. Does the US alone pulling out of the deal have a quantifiable impact on global warming? Does this decision help US citizens and the US economy? I know global warming is a documentable occurrence, so I just want to know the science behind how much humans are responsible and whether or not it is logical to pull out of the agreement for the sake of the US economy. Don't want to take sides here, just want the facts.</pre>FranciscoGalt: <pre>People seem to misunderstand what the Paris Climate Agreement is about. In order to raise standards of living we need economic growth. In order for there to be economic growth, we need energy. Every product and service that has ever been sold required energy. Caring for the environment is expensive. Polluting is cheap. So we are looking for growth with environmental consciousness. However, it's not that simple. The US has achieved a GDP per capita of 57k USD through cheap and polluting energy. It has gone past a manufacturing economy and into a service economy by massively contaminating the environment through cheap energy. In fact, the US is responsible for 27% of the emissions emitted from 1850 to 2011. Now that we are at a crux and global warming effects are starting to affect everyone, we all know we need to do something. The US points at China saying it's the biggest pollutant. China points at the US saying it has achieved a GDP per capita 4x its own by contaminating the planet. Why would China invest in being environmentally friendly when it can focus those resources into being competitive and bringing more people out of poverty? Why would it do so especially after the US didn't have to do it? The US and developed countries increased their standards of living at the expense of the rest of the world. Now we want to cap everyone's emissions which won't give underdeveloped countries the opportunity of competitive growth through screwing the world as the developed countries did. So how do we deal with this? <ol> <li>We hold developed nations accountable by having them finance part (a very small part) of the expenses that underdeveloped countries will have to make in order to reduce emissions. </li> <li>We allow underdeveloped countries to continue growing* as long as each consecutive dollar added to the GDP contaminates less than the last* (that's why China will still increase emissions until 2030, when they start to decrease). Instead of letting everyone run freely and screw the environment thinking "we don't even make a difference", we all commit to progress.</li> <li>Developed countries start reducing emissions immediately, as they are not as concerned with survival of their poor and they have done the most damage of all. </li> </ol> What this does is set a relatively level playing field. We all suffer the expenses of going green which leads to no-one having an advantage. The arguments of "cost" it will bring to Americans don't make sense because every country will incur costs which will eliminate any disadvantage Americans would have. Unfortunately I don't have total emissions in Tons of carbon, just percentage, but if we take the % of total cumulative emissions that a country has emitted and divide it by millions of current population, we see how developed countries have emitted much more per capita in order to get to where they are. <ul> <li>US: 27%/325= 0.08%</li> <li>European Union: 25%/510=0.05%</li> <li>Russia: 8%/146=0.05%</li> <li>Japan: 4%/126=0.03%</li> <li>China: 11%/1,400= 0.008%</li> <li>India: 3%/1,300= 0.002%</li> </ul> With these numbers we can see that for every person in China, each American has emitted 10x more carbon to reach 4x greater productivity. If we are to bring people to America's standard of living (which we should all be hoping for), it's unreasonable to ask countries to sacrifice that growth just because they are late to the game. TL;DR The Paris Climate Agreement is based on achieving sustainable development. Developed countries have contributed most to the situation we're in, and will pitch in and make bigger sacrifices to help underdeveloped countries develop without too much sacrifice. source: <a href="https://wri.org/blog/2014/11/6-graphs-explain-world%E2%80%99s-top-10-emitters">https://wri.org/blog/2014/11/6-graphs-explain-world%E2%80%99s-top-10-emitters</a></pre>greenit_elvis: <pre>Excellent post, which explains the Paris agreement from the point of view of developing countries. One of the key points of the Paris agreement was getting everybody on board, and most countries are developing. </pre>GreatNorthWeb: <pre>Why did the country with the most carbon emissions (China) have to pay nothing into the fund while the United States did have to pay into the fund? This was one bullet point of several that made me skeptical. Please answer with honesty and honorably as I am genuinely curious about this point. Thanks.</pre>iNeverbreak: <pre>Because it's supposed to incentivize those who are going through their own "Industrial Revolutions" i.e. China and India and other developing nations to make a quicker switch to clean energy. The United States and the rest of the developing world got a head start and were able to reap the rewards of their pollution earlier on, and later modernize and advance to reduce their emissions, and are now looking back on it as a regret. But developing nations are entering into that period now and would like the economic benefit industrialization brings along with it, pollution and all. After all Europe and the U.S. had their turn, fair's fair right? So the Climate Fund is supposed to incentivize these developing countries to make the switch earlier and forego the short term economic benefits in favor of long term. </pre>willyslittlewonka: <pre>We in India (and China) do not have the luxury of Western Europe/US to go through the Industrial Revolution in the same way because it would be disastrous to our environment. But while some level of pollution is inevitable since we're trying to industrialize huge countries in a short span of time (relatively), we are also working on other alternative green energy initiatives so that dependence on natural gases decreases over the next few decades.</pre>UnlimitedOsprey: <pre>China and India, due to the fact that western nations industrialized earlier and thus have a larger total emissions, even those two countries have some of the highest currently. It was a concession to get them to sign on. </pre>DeadlyUnseenBlade: <pre>China and India are considered developing countries in the agreement, and thus they received a different set of rules. </pre>m0llusk: <pre>CO2 has been predicted to be a disaster at atmospheric levels of 350 ppm or more and Earth is now at 410 ppm atmospheric CO2. The Paris agreement is weak sauce of limited relevance. We need dramatic moves to eliminate emissions and reduce existing build up or the environment is toast. </pre>Operation_Hashtag: <pre>I think the big issues with the Paris Agreements has less to do with science and more to do with funding and politics. Man made climate change exists. Anyone with an iota of critical reasoning should be able to look at the myriad of peer reviewed papers and interviews with credentialed experts on the subject, and logically come to the conclusion that this is an enormous problem that can only be tackled effectively on a global scale. HOWEVER... the Paris Agreements are: A) ineffective (allowing countries to tailor reduction goals in any way they seem fit) B) toothless (no punishments for missing targets; "peer pressure" is how some of the developed world expects to ensure emerging markets keep their end of the bargain) C) expensive ($100 billion a year minimum, from wealthy developed nations to emerging economies, in order to offset the cost of using more expensive "green" technology) NOTE: Depending on which article you read, the $100 billion dollar figure is either a yearly total paid by all the big developed countries... or the figure to be contributed yearly just by us in the USA. To date, we have pledged around 30% of the total funds for the United Nations Green Climate Fund ($3 billion from us, $7 billion from 42 other countries, for a little over $10 billion total). So I think it's fair to say that the amount would've been between $30 and $100 billion yearly from the US to other countries That's a lot of money to give away to other nations with no guarantees that they will follow through on their end, especially since the recipients include our economic competitors such as China and India. For comparison's sake, $30 billion is the amount America spends yearly on humanitarian aid throughout the world. This money could definitely yield better short term results if pumped into similar programs (clean water/combating AIDS or other diseases/lessening poverty), whether domestic or abroad. On the other hand, the US spends almost $4 trillion dollars a year; this is a small percentage to pay for us to combat such a large scale problem... especially when we know we'll be seeing multi-trillion dollar economic reductions once it starts to get real bad in the 2080's and the 2090's. Personally, I think the Paris Agreement was nothing more than political grandstanding, a proverbial pat on the back for all the world leaders. "We did something about climate change, yay!" I understand that it's hard to get almost 200 countries to agree on something, but the current language is so weak that it is practically useless. As Americans, what we need to do is push our elected officials to come up with a legitimate and detailed plan that actually spells out the monetary costs associated and the targets that must be met. It really doesn't have to be so expansive in number of countries - if we could get China, India, Pakistan, and the EU on board, we'd have the majority of the world's greenhouse gas emitters right there with us. Then we could use "peer pressure" to convince the smaller ones left. It is a much more rational and substantive way forward. Now, is the current administration going to lead the way forward with this? Almost certainly not. But that's a topic for another day. Sources: <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/06/01/fact-checking-president-trumps-claims-on-the-paris-climate-change-deal/">https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/06/01/fact-checking-president-trumps-claims-on-the-paris-climate-change-deal/</a> <a href="http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/jun/01/fact-checking-donald-trumps-statement-withdrawing-/">http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/jun/01/fact-checking-donald-trumps-statement-withdrawing-/</a> <a href="http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/12/12/459502597/2-degrees-100-billion-the-world-climate-agreement-by-the-numbers">http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/12/12/459502597/2-degrees-100-billion-the-world-climate-agreement-by-the-numbers</a> <a href="http://www.cnbc.com/2015/12/13/paris-climate-agreement-all-you-need-to-know.html">http://www.cnbc.com/2015/12/13/paris-climate-agreement-all-you-need-to-know.html</a></pre>Terkala: <pre>You should also add to the toothless point that developing nations aren't forced to spend the money in any particular way. Developed nations will pay extra for having unclean energy sources, and poor countries can spend that money to build more coal power plants if they want cheap electricity. Which is clearly not actually helpful for the environment.</pre>zbirdlive: <pre>I might be wrong, but usually in international agreements such as these, funds are handled by IGO's such as the UN. The US isn't going to be sending out unchecked money. Also, these organizations are usually headed by developed countries and the U.S., which means that they will not have an incentive to let the money go to waste. Also, how set is the stipulation to give money to lower developed countries? The US and many other nations have pledged to give money in numerous UN Resolutions before but have not given nearly as much funding as they had pledged for. </pre>greenit_elvis: <pre>You have unrealistic views of international politics, because an agreement with penalties was never possible. It was the Paris agreement or nothing. You may think it's only grandstanding, but most experts saw it as a huge step forward compared with the previous situation. </pre>New_To_This_Place: <pre>Can someone who understands this better than I do explain how this agreement is really all that great especially focusing on the Chinese contributions to the agreement. Quote from another comment: "2015's manmade carbon output in kilotons: China 10,641,789 United States 5,172,338" why then, does China's contribution to the agreement begin with quote "Peaking of carbon dioxide emissions around 2030" Essentially indicating that the LARGEST producer of carbon output in kilotons is going to be continuously increasing that output (without bounds) for the next 13 years. If that's true, it doesn't seem like even the combined efforts of the entire word will take much of a chunk out of what China is and will be contributing for the next decade and a half almost. Doesn't seem like quite the amazing environment saving deal that everyone is on about when I consider that fact. </pre>New_To_This_Place: <pre>Follow up question; I saw just on CBSN today before the president spoke, the scientist correspondents saying (could go back and quote) that we have less than 4 years at the current rate we're going in reference to coastal cities possibly beginning to flood and major weather events that parallel Katrina. Is this blatant fear mongering? If not, won't China's 13 years of increased output cause this anyway?</pre>weirdsciguy: <pre>Dumb Question, but why does it matter where <a href="/r/science">r/science</a> leans on this? Reddit doesn't serve any political roles, so is it just a show of solidarity?</pre>Boobr: <pre>There needs to be a bigger push on nuclear power. It's clean, it's incredibly efficient and it seems to be the best bet when trying to get both sides of the issue to agree on it - those who are for the environment have no realistic reason to be against it, and those who are only interested in it's energy outputs can be assured about the efficiency of this method.</pre>antihero19: <pre>Can anyone comment on the validity of the claim he made about China, something along the lines of: "Even if the Paris agreement were implemented in full, with total compliance from all nations (...) In fact, 14 days of carbon emissions from China alone, would wipe out the gains from America's expected reductions in the year 2030."</pre>Lynchmobb: <pre>As of today China emits <a href="https://www.wikiwand.com/en/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions">twice as much of the US</a>. If we look at US + EU, China still emits more. The agreement gives """developing""" countries like India and China until 2030 to start reducing their emissions. 2030 to start. You can try to do the math, but my napkin math says that is an entirely reasonable claim to make when China's GDP is estimated to double by then.</pre>epd20: <pre>you forgot to say that China's population is about 4 times larger than the US. Maybe you can do the maths on the procapita emissions and check them out. Also, you might want to have a look at the total amout of CO2 produced historically.</pre>LesBadgers: <pre>If I understand this paris thing right, we could still have our name here but literally do nothing along the lines of it. why did we join in the first place?</pre>ssick92: <pre>I 100% am of the opinion that climate change is a big issue. However, has anybody actually read the Paris agreement? The agreement says that the US has to reduce carbon emissions by 26%, but China and India have no such requirements. The agreement states that the US must donate billions of dollars (Obama committed 3 billion) to help smaller countries lower carbon emissions, but China and India have no such requirements. Why is it that the US has to be the sole responsibility in fixing the climate change issue? I agree with the decision to remove the US from this deal because I do not believe this is a fair deal. Not because I do not believe climate change is an issue. I would like to have a civilized discussion about this is anyone wants to reply or PM me. I simply want to hear more opinions on the matter because I do not believe that the general public is actually informed on the terms of the agreement. </pre>Bvllish: <pre>I see a lot of responses here but I don't think they hit the nail in the head. Here's why the US and Europe are paying, while China and India are not: First, China and India have MUCH lower emissions per capita than the US and Europe. People always conveniently forget the "per captia" metric, as if a Chinese is only worth 1/2 of an American. If I remember the data correctly, China emits 1/2 of the US/pc, about equal to Europe/pc; India emits 1/10 of the US/pc, about 1/5 of Europe/pc. Obviously, as humans we naturally emit gases and waste; it's not about how much absolutely is emitted, but how much we are OVER-emitting. In my opinion, China and Europe are slightly over-emitting above a global sustainable rate, and the US is WAY over-emitting. Second, the life blood of industrialization is cheap energy, i.e. fossils fuels. The US and Europe went through that phase, and were major polluters during that time. As developing nations, China and India must go through the same phase. It is unfair to take money from the pot then declare it illegal after your pockets are full. Third, poorer countries do not prioritize the climate; they are literally more concerned with getting enough food and finding reliable shelter. But richer countries do value the climate, and getting a better enviorment is by its nature a team effort. In an analogy, say there is a town where some people have houses and some don't; everyone needs to poop, so the houseless people have to poop on the streets. As a solution, the rich people pool some money to build a public bathroom. I do suppose it's your perogative if you prefer more money or no poop on the streets.</pre>Bvllish: <pre>Some what related thought I'll put here: if the US does not adhere to some sort of emission/waste rules, it opens itself up to justifiable tariffs in the medium/long future. Rationale: developed countries who are already on a course to adopt clean energy want a cleaner environment. Emissions and waste from any location can have a tangible impact on anywhere on the planet. As such, these countries may aim to reduce emissions by reducing imports that come from a non-green country. </pre>sydney__carton: <pre>Well the first issue is we are one of the biggest contributors to it. The second is we have the infrastructure and money to invest in green energy, where it was a general concession that India and China were essentially catching up to becoming a superpower and severely limiting them right away would cripple them and cause more harm than good. 3 billion in U.S aid is a drop in the bucket, you know it and I know it, so is that really a good excuse. At the end of the day, the U.S has been a leader for a lot of progress and change in the world. Is this something we want to take a backseat on because its not fair? Why does it need to be fair when its something that affects the whole world. Is that not essentially the U.S mantra? That we can shoulder a bigger load? Do you honestly, and I'm being serious, do you honestly think that we aren't one of the biggest countries to have an impact on global warming in a negative way? Do you know how much energy we use? How inefficient our infrastructure is? </pre>OwnedHunterD: <pre>If the US is one of the biggest countries to have an impact on global warming, why donate the money to help other countries and not use that money to reduce their own negative impact? Im amazed at this thread so far, such a positive discussion.</pre>FranciscoGalt: <pre>People seem to misunderstand what the Paris Climate Agreement is about. In order to raise standards of living we need economic growth. In order for there to be economic growth, we need energy. Every product and service that has ever been sold required energy. Caring for the environment is expensive. Polluting is cheap. So we are looking for growth with environmental consciousness. However, it's not that simple. The US has achieved a GDP per capita of 57k USD through cheap and polluting energy. It has gone past a manufacturing economy and into a service economy by massively contaminating the environment through cheap energy. In fact, the US is responsible for 27% of the emissions emitted from 1850 to 2011. Now that we are at a crux and global warming effects are starting to affect everyone, we all know we need to do something. The US points at China saying it's the biggest pollutant. China points at the US saying it has achieved a GDP per capita 4x its own by contaminating the planet. Why would China invest in being environmentally friendly when it can focus those resources into being competitive and bringing more people out of poverty? Why would it do so especially after the US didn't have to do it? The US and developed countries increased their standards of living at the expense of the rest of the world. Now we want to cap everyone's emissions which won't give underdeveloped countries the opportunity of competitive growth through screwing the world as the developed countries did. So how do we deal with this? <ol> <li>We hold developed nations accountable by having them finance part (a very small part) of the expenses that underdeveloped countries will have to make in order to reduce emissions. </li> <li>We allow underdeveloped countries to continue growing* as long as each consecutive dollar added to the GDP contaminates less than the last* (that's why China will still increase emissions until 2030, when they start to decrease). Instead of letting everyone run freely and screw the environment thinking "we don't even make a difference", we all commit to progress.</li> <li>Developed countries start reducing emissions immediately, as they are not as concerned with survival of their poor and they have done the most damage of all. </li> </ol> What this does is set a relatively level playing field. We all suffer the expenses of going green which leads to no-one having an advantage. The arguments of "cost" it will bring to Americans don't make sense because every country will incur costs which will eliminate any disadvantage Americans would have. Unfortunately I don't have total emissions in Tons of carbon, just percentage, but if we take the % of total cumulative emissions that a country has emitted and divide it by millions of current population, we see how developed countries have emitted much more per capita in order to get to where they are. <ul> <li>US: 27%/325= 0.08%</li> <li>European Union: 25%/510=0.05%</li> <li>Russia: 8%/146=0.05%</li> <li>Japan: 4%/126=0.03%</li> <li>China: 11%/1,400= 0.008%</li> <li>India: 3%/1,300= 0.002%</li> </ul> With these numbers we can see that for every person in China, each American has emitted 10x more carbon to reach 4x greater productivity. If we are to bring people to America's standard of living (which we should all be hoping for), it's unreasonable to ask countries to sacrifice that growth just because they are late to the game. TL;DR The Paris Climate Agreement is based on achieving sustainable development. Developed countries have contributed most to the situation we're in, and will pitch in and make bigger sacrifices to help underdeveloped countries develop without too much sacrifice. source: <a href="https://wri.org/blog/2014/11/6-graphs-explain-world%E2%80%99s-top-10-emitters">https://wri.org/blog/2014/11/6-graphs-explain-world%E2%80%99s-top-10-emitters</a></pre>MegaFatcat100: <pre>Though climate change is real we should be free to negotiate on our own terms. The main reason why i am divided on the act is that it requires us to pay aid to poorer nations, which we already do, all while being heavily in debt. We should be able to negotiate a solution to climate change which is fair both economically and environmentally. It's important to understand that you can accept climate change as real and happening while rejecting terms of the agreement as it currently stands.</pre>zerositnator: <pre>How come China doesn't have to pay or pledge anything until 2030 while the U.S. has to front the bill? And for that matter, why doesn't India either? The U.S., China, and India are recognized are the leaders in cost emissions, but the U.S. is currently first in money pledged, so I'm unsure as to why that's a thing. How much would this treaty reduce global temperatures? The Head of the EPA, Gina McCarthey, was asked this and didn't answer, so could someone enlighten me? Is it true that this Paris Protocol would <a href="http://www.heritage.org/environment/report/consequences-paris-protocol-devastating-economic-costs-essentially-zero">cut 400,000 American jobs (200,000 manufacturing), lose the median family income by $20,000, and increase family electricity expenditures 13 to 20%?</a> Will this also not lead to being like Germany who recently had to sell their electricity because they had too much and no way to store it, and mainly because of their switch to alternative energy? I'm not being cynical, but I feel like tougher questions should be had on this topic.</pre>usnavy13: <pre>I to would like this answerd</pre>SkippingBike: <pre>I know I'll probably be crucified by saying this but I actually think the Paris accord was bad, and did very little if anything to combat climate change, I mean even former head Nasa climate scientist Dr. James Hansen thought the deal was pointless and I tend to really be confused why lots of people are being hysterical about this. It's not the end of world, just an opinion of a an american resident on the internet, probably will get downvoted like crazy for having this opinion though.</pre>fsmpastafarian: <pre>Stepping out is a huge symbolic act for the US to take, and one that we will pay for dearly on the global stage. We are no longer in agreement talks to discuss climate change, so our interests will not be represented. Us stepping out sends the message that climate change is not a priority, which may result in other countries taking it less seriously. This could have drastic consequences for the world and everyone who inhabits it. You can say it's meaningless if you think symbolic acts are meaningless. But of course we know that based on how humans make decisions, symbolic acts can be crucial.</pre>vitalityy: <pre>From what I've gathered the agreement was non binding and pretty inconsequential, According to <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1758-5899.12295/full">this</a> peer reviewed article from Global policy. The author has had some run ins with climate skepticism in the past but the basis of the publication is a widely used, standard climate model with optimistic assumptions. The paper was also peer reviewed and published by the Global Policy journal. <blockquote> All climate policies by the US, China, the EU and the rest of the world, implemented from the early 2000s to 2030 and sustained through the century will likely reduce global temperature rise about 0.17°C in 2100 </blockquote></pre>AudioDadio: <pre>Isn't the Paris Accord more than science though? I mean the agreement has ideological conflicts in it as well such as the US paying a sum of money to other countries in hopes that they follow through, with the added that they have no form of punishment if they don't follow through plus I'm sure it has other cons. That being said, I'm all for being more green but it's hard to deny that this agreement isnt mostly suited for a one sided political party.. </pre>TheMadmanDidIt: <pre>There is a difference between science and policy. I don't understand why your subreddit is advocating for policy, if you're claiming to not take stance on political issues. You can accept that climate change is real and also think the Paris Accord is bad policy.</pre>always_contrarian: <pre>Can someone tell me why China and India don't have to cut back on emissions until 2030? Doesn't seem like much of an agreement to me if China, that emits twice as much CO2 as the USA, doesn't have to sacrifice anything for another 13 years while our energy prices will skyrocket. </pre>MightyAdam: <pre>I dont kid myself into thinking im all that intelligent, but im a lurker here, and first time poster. I love the posts and comments and i learn so much. So from those that know more than me on this issue, in terms of climate change, what will be the consequences of Trump/US existing the Paris climate deal? I know Nicaragua and Syria are the only countries that havent signed on, (The US) now the 3rd. What will happen now? What are the positive and negative consequences of this?</pre>xpastfact: <pre>Here's my honest question. So rich countries donate $100 billion to poor countries. Ok those poor countries are very often not mature democracies, and contain a lot of corruption, etc. I mean, corruption is everywhere, and I don't think it disappears just because the massive amount of money flows in with the name "climate change". So is there any idea about how much of the money donated actually goes into climate change initiatives, and how much is just coffered away by those in power?</pre>HARRYCHESTICLES: <pre>Posting something like this to <a href="/r/science">/r/science</a> is a slap in the face to actual science. It's at its best virtue signaling, and at its worst, a blatant misconstruing of the actual debate in order to paint the other side as anti-science or anti-environment. Since <a href="/r/science">/r/science</a> apparently feels it is now necessary to dive into economic theory, might I suggest reading some Milton Friedman first next time before they ascend the pulpit? All climate change 'solutions' have economic costs. The interesting question is not whether climate change is real (we must defer to the experts here), but rather are the proposed 'solutions' worth the associated economic costs? You can find many people, including very intelligent economists, that wholly believe in climate change but reject the Paris Agreement on economic grounds.</pre>Bardfinn: <pre>I would like to refer to a comment about <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/1z1hyo/two_of_the_worlds_most_prestigious_science/cfpy15c/?context=3">the state of popular discussion of science in general and climate science in particular</a> made three years ago by <a href="/u/tired_of_nonsense">/u/tired_of_nonsense</a>, in this subreddit, and which has been heavily referenced whenever a discussion about climate science arises on reddit. Reading and thoroughly understanding the referenced comment is heavily recommended so that everyone can understand the state of discussion of climate science, and can avoid employing common rhetorical fallacies and spurious claims, and can appreciate the viewpoint of (at least one and assuredly very many) scientists on the topic of discussing poltitically contentious scientific topics. Edit: <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/1z1hyo/two_of_the_worlds_most_prestigious_science/cfpyb3c/">The top comment underneath it is wise, as well</a>. Thanks.</pre>Kamwind: <pre>How does this agreement with it sending 3 billion dollars a year to countries that don't have to make cuts in greenhouse emissions for a decade plus help to save people from climate change?</pre>Klorg_Bane: <pre>Well, does <a href="/r/economics">r/economics</a> stand with this decision? Because I don't think it's fair to pretend this was about science.</pre>JustSomeBadAdvice: <pre>Serious question if anyone actually reads this - Why aren't more scientists pushing for corrective actions regarding climate change, i.e., climate engineering, rather than responsive tactics that will always lag behind their causes? It seems to me with 7 billion apex predators on the planet reshaping daily it in ways unprecedented in all of natural history, that climate changes are unavoidable. Instead we could seek to drive climate changes in the direction we wanted through intelligent actions, and use that to counterbalance the unexpected(or difficult-to-mitigate) impacts we have on climate?</pre>TheSchindler: <pre>Don't forget... the agreement was non-binding. </pre>AdityaSharmaDotIn: <pre>This is a sad state of affairs, the countries responsible most for the climate change and who had gained the most out of it are the developed countries and seeing them avoiding responsibility is just sad. If this is what the developed countries are doing what will all the developing and under developed countries do. Do you expect a country where starvation is still a major issue to focus on solar panels instead of cheaper energy alternatives?</pre>Parcus42: <pre>Economics stands with the free market. </pre>celltroll: <pre>What are carbon taxes doing for us? They allow those who produce carbon emissions to pay to do so then increase the price of their goods or services while the government collects the tax.....where do the tax funds go exactly?</pre>ThomasMaker: <pre>If the Paris Accord was about actually saving Earth, wouldn't they be willing to renegotiate?.................................................. I mean if it really was then any agreement with the US would be better than none.....</pre>leijae: <pre>is it true that it imposes standards on the US that it does not on the worlds largest polluters? and that those polluters actually benefit financially from it? ... if it was me, I'd take it to congress and let them bang out a better deal...</pre>Tommy27: <pre>How does the U.S. leaving the Paris Climate Accord effect emissions pathway scenarios? </pre>Pretzel_Bagel: <pre>According to this <a href="http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2015/11/why-the-paris-climate-deal-is-meaningless-000326">Politico EU article from 2015</a> the Paris Climate Agreement has no teeth, no objective standard, and is based on unverifiable self reporting. China and India are not reducing their carbon emissions to any level below what they're already predicted to produce, and the whole thing is a huge financial payment out to developing countries for unspecified goals. Why is this now being hyped as this "gold standard" treaty that will fix climate change?</pre>: <pre>[removed]</pre>

用户登录

今日阅读排行

一周阅读排行

最新主题