Paris Climate Agreement Discussion

In a shameless attempt to farm some bananas during a slow week, i figured I'd stir the pot and see what everyone's opinion on the subject of the potential withdraw of the US from the Paris Climate Agreement, as the President is set to make his decision known at around 3 today. I can imagine a lively debate between @TNA and @BobTheBaker will likely ensue, so if nothing else entertainment for everyone else on the site.

On a personal note not a huge fan of becoming company with Nicaragua and Syria as the third country not part of the agreement (based on names alone). Elon Musk has also weighed in on the topic, stating that he will leave the President's economic business counsel if the US decides to back out (for what that's worth to anyone).

It is worth noting that there is a three year probationary period once the intent to leave has been made official, so we are looking at 2020ish before we would actually be "out" so to speak. I guess my only thought is, if I'm the president, since there aren't any actual penalties/sanctions associated with not living up to the "standards of the agreement" of reducing CO2 emissions, why not just play nice and get the easy brownie points with my country/the rest of the world and remain a part, and on the low just ignore or not live up to the agreement?

Financial Modeling Course

  • Get An Edge For Your Interviews & Finance Career
  • The Best (and Most Affordable) Financial Modeling Self-study Courses.
  • WSO Members receive a 15% discount

Comments (52)

Jun 1, 2017

I think we should try to DRASTICALLY increase the amount of CO2 in the ATMOSPHERE because the EARTH is too COLD. DISRUPT the CLIMATE!

    • 4
    • 4
Jun 1, 2017

Id suggest switching your greenhouse gas, Methane is way better for that shit. plus more cows-more steaks.

Jun 1, 2017
dr_mantistoboggan_MD:

Id suggest switching your greenhouse gas, Methane is way better for that shit. plus more cows-more steaks.

How about everybody get their own sex dungeon.

    • 3
Jun 1, 2017
city2017:
dr_mantistoboggan_MD:

Id suggest switching your greenhouse gas, Methane is way better for that shit. plus more cows-more steaks.

How about everybody get their own sex dungeon.

That's crazy.

INSTEAD, everyone should DRASTICALLY increase their SEX DUNGEON utilization, especially at NYU CAS DORMS, to OPTIMIZE and DISRUPT their BORING sex lives.

    • 2
Jun 1, 2017

who actually enforces the accord and collects the penalty money?

Learn More

Side-by-side comparison of top modeling training courses + exclusive discount through WSO here.

Jun 1, 2017

No one enforces and there aren't any penalties from what ive read. The US just emits the second most CO2 as a nation so in theory the "costs" of switching and self regulation would fall proportionally largest on the US. Which is why in the wake of the president's decision, China (the number one CO2 emitting nation) is ponying up saying it'll do more to reverse climate change in the future to counter act the potential US exit, spoiler alert, they wont, but again its all about the posturing.

Jun 1, 2017

@WallStreetOasis.com @AndyLouis the duplicate thread warning isn't working. my thread was up before this one haha.

any way we could merge these two threads?

Jun 1, 2017

sorry about that, it didn't pop up while i was typing so i figured i was in the clear. Honestly i was surprised someone hadn't tackled this already.

Jun 1, 2017

no worries, I care about the discussion, not the banana points. anyway, looks like you and I came to the same conclusion.

    • 1
    • 1
Jun 1, 2017

Get your hands off of @thebrofessor's bananas, man

    • 2
Jun 1, 2017

Why ain't there no benaynaa farms in idaho?

GoldenCinderblock: "I keep spending all my money on exotic fish so my armor sucks. Is it possible to romance multiple females? I got with the blue chick so far but I am also interested in the electronic chick and the face mask chick."

Jun 1, 2017

Global warming obviously.

Jun 1, 2017

But with global warming, Idaho should get warmer, more tropical, hence moar benaynaas

GoldenCinderblock: "I keep spending all my money on exotic fish so my armor sucks. Is it possible to romance multiple females? I got with the blue chick so far but I am also interested in the electronic chick and the face mask chick."

Jun 1, 2017

there's plenty to go around, idaho

    • 4
Jun 1, 2017

Trickle down bananomics?

    • 1
Learn More

Side-by-side comparison of top modeling training courses + exclusive discount through WSO here.

Jun 1, 2017

The agreement is worthless and stupid.

It doesn't do anything to actually address the problem of climate change. First, it's a completely voluntary pledge, and some countries (i.e. China) haven't "pledged" to do anything outside of already existing emission projections. Further, the only reason developing countries signed up was because it is economically advantageous. They get free cash from developed countries like the US in exchange for their worthless pledge. Finally, even if every country met their pledge (which will never happen), some climate scientists project the resulting temperature improvement to essentially be a rounding error.

The whole agreement amounts to political posturing and, from a US perspective, "global leadership." If the US wants to seriously address climate change, our economic and political capital should be spent on creative policies to spur domestic innovation.

    • 8
    • 2
Jun 1, 2017

Wow, a bit cynical aren't you? It's all posturing and the pledge is worthless so just screw it and let's not do anything? The pledge doesn't dictate how countries accomplish this and there's no reason a country can't do better than pledged so couldn't the US just do both? The US pledges (along with, more importantly China) and uses it's "economic and political capital on creative policies? Isn't that good for everyone when this is the first time in the modern era when almost every single country has agreed on something? I feel like you're saying a process is an alternative to an outcome.

    • 6
    • 2
Jun 1, 2017

Very well said. Echo my thoughts exactly. Banana'd

    • 1
Best Response
Jun 1, 2017

Incremental progress is important. The world coming together about this issue and coming up with an agreement is a step forward even if it mostly amounts to political posturing. Yes, the US and the rest of the developed world should allocate significantly more resources to reduce carbon emissions. You can say the Paris Climate Agreement is stupid or worthless, and maybe it is technically, but there is something to be said about the fact that the UN has brought so many countries to the table on this, particularly since climate change is such a contentious issue. Withdrawing from the table on climate change sets a terrible precedent for future engagement on the issue.

Saying we should withdraw from the agreement because it amounts to nothing more than political posturing is ignorant and short-sighted. Keeping people at the table and lines of communication on climate change open is incredibly important. If the US withdraws from the agreement, it incentives other countries to do so as well. Or at the very least, it allows other countries to take the agreement less seriously. If that ends up being the case, dialogue is thwarted. American leadership on climate change and other issues is not about 'staying ahead' of other countries or any other bullshit nationalistic reason. It's because our military and our corporations touch every corner of the globe. Basically every policy decision we make has a global effect and that has to be taken into consideration. Simplistic thinking like "it's worthless" or "it's just political posturing so we shouldn't do it" should have no place in American foreign (or domestic) policy. There are often far reaching effects of political posturing anyway.

    • 29
    • 3
Jun 1, 2017
DeepLearning:

Saying we should withdraw from the agreement because it amounts to nothing more than political posturing is ignorant and short-sighted. Keeping people at the table and lines of communication on climate change open is incredibly important. If the US withdraws from the agreement, it incentives other countries to do so as well. Or at the very least, it allows other countries to take the agreement less seriously. If that ends up being the case, dialogue is thwarted. American leadership on climate change and other issues is not about 'staying ahead' of other countries or any other bullshit nationalistic reason. It's because our military and our corporations touch every corner of the globe. Basically every policy decision we make has a global effect and that has to be taken into consideration. Simplistic thinking like "it's worthless" or "it's just political posturing so we shouldn't do it" should have no place in American foreign (or domestic) policy. There are often far reaching effects of political posturing anyway.

What is the point of being "at the table" when it has an ineffective and unenforceable approach to a problem? The agreement is structured in that it literally allows other countries to not take it seriously. Dialogue isn't productive if it's the wrong discussion.

Leaving the Paris Accord shouldn't signal that America isn't committed to cutting emissions. It signals that we are not committed to an ineffective agreement that sends tax payer dollars to other countries for no apparent reason. You say every policy decision has global effect. What is the global effect of the Paris Climate Agreement? Most would say there is none.

    • 5
    • 1
Jun 25, 2017

deleted

    • 1
Jun 1, 2017
NoEfficientMarkets:

I feel like you literally don't know about the agreement.=

In your view, how does the agreement effectively address climate change?

    • 2
Jun 1, 2017

Actually try to pay attention to DeepLearning's point: even if the agreement amounts to nothing more than posturing, the maintenance of appearances is still incredibly important in fostering the real solutions that you espouse. Furthermore, there are no costs to sticking to the accords (the U.S. does not suddenly claw back financial commitments or escape onerous regulations), so there really is no reason to withdraw. Trump is doing it simply to pander to his base.

Jun 2, 2017
WBI2994:

Actually try to pay attention to DeepLearning's point: even if the agreement amounts to nothing more than posturing, the maintenance of appearances is still incredibly important in fostering the real solutions that you espouse. Furthermore, there are no costs to sticking to the accords (the U.S. does not suddenly claw back financial commitments or escape onerous regulations), so there really is no reason to withdraw. Trump is doing it simply to pander to his base.

The Agreement includes paying hundreds of billions of dollars to developing countries who plan to do jack shit. Nothing is stopping the US from accomplishing everything it pledged in the Paris Agreement. We can do so without the onerous aspects of the agreement.

Here's a good article that sums up both sides of the debate: https://www.the-american-interest.com/2017/06/01/t...
"Like many Trump-era debates, the President's actions on Paris are best understood through the lens of what we (following Tyler Cowen) have called "placebo politics"--elevating or reducing the status of this or that group through symbolic actions that won't have much if any material impact on policy. President Trump's repudiation of the agreements falls into this category: It delights his nationalistic base and sends his internationalist-minded critics into paroxysms of rage and despair--all without actually doing anything, because the Paris agreement consists simply of voluntary, unenforceable emissions pledges that are already being flouted.

Of course, the fact that the agreement is symbolic could be an argument for staying in, rather than getting out. As the MSNBC anchor Chris Hayes tweeted in lambasting Trump, "The agreement quite literally imposes nothing!!!" Honest champions of the accord admit that it may be more or less ineffectual when it comes to solving climate change, but argue that leaving would impose costs on American credibility. This is not an unreasonable argument; it may even be vindicated in the wake of Trump's decision. But it shows that the debate essentially comes down to which kind of symbolism you prefer--the symbolic affirmation of international cooperation and environmental leadership or the symbolic affirmation of the U.S. working class at the expense of the global elite whose "polite fictions, agreed-upon conventions and hypocritical pretenses" seem in many arenas to be unraveling.

The drama of the Paris climate accords, then, amounts to a portrait in miniature of our political moment. A smug establishment indulged in vacuous, photo-op politics that doesn't get us any closer to solving our major problems but pleases donors and nonprofits and makes the great and good feel even better about themselves. An angry coalition of people who felt that their status was declining reacted against this half-hearted phoniness by indulging in a placebo politics of their own--raising their own status by nihilistically tearing down the other side. Trump's decision today doesn't make the U.S. better off, but it probably doesn't make us much worse off, either."

    • 8
Jun 1, 2017

Also, don't we (United States) pay for ~51% of the UN expenses, across budget and peacekeeping. That seems like a lot and I don't think any other nation is even remotely close, not even in the teens in %'s.

    • 1
Jun 2, 2017

Okay, but isn't the Paris climate agreement money that goes to private contractors? Aren't those private contractors incredibly wealthy people like Elon Musk? So it is taking money from poor tax payers and giving it to the top 1% of the 1% so that they can use it to reduce carbon emissions, and these are the same incredibly wealthy people that caused the pollution?

Also, in this agreement, China doesn't have to start doing anything until 2030? According to a lot of climate experts, something was already supposed to happen that was drastic in the year 2015, wouldn't this be too late?

Why should we allocate more resources to significantly reduce carbon emissions? I think it is honestly more moral to have a higher quality of life while we are here and use fossil fuels, than to sacrifice the quality of living of everyone to offset a few weeks of pollution by China. You can probably look up the EIA analysis on these types of plans and how little they would do for reducing climate change and how much they would hurt the economy.

    • 1
Jun 2, 2017

Oh, apparently India doesn't have to do anything in the agreement for a very long time either, yet Obama committed $3 Billion of our money and we are not even the top polluter.

So, basically it is like trickle up economics for the top 1% of the 1% (Damn I almost sound like Bernie Panders here), and would probably have no effect on the actual climate since China and India will continue to hyper pollute?

Jun 2, 2017

It's the U.S. committing to a slush fund for third world dictators. The furor from the far left is laughable.

Jun 2, 2017

Its hillarious watching babies cry.

MAGA

Jun 2, 2017
Big Dumb Idiot:

Oh, apparently India doesn't have to do anything in the agreement for a very long time either, yet Obama committed $3 Billion of our money and we are not even the top polluter.

Say what you will about the agreement, but to this specific point, your comment is incorrect. When India ratified the agreement in late 2016, it set a goal of receiving 40% of its energy from renewable sources by 2030. India also pledged to develop 100 GW of solar power and 60 GW of wind energy by 2022. As of 2017, India has added between 10 and 15 GW of solar power production to its infrastructure. So, while the agreement is technically non-binding, they've made real incremental progress and shown through their actions that they're serious.

    • 1
Jun 2, 2017

How am I incorrect? There is nothing binding about this and setting a goal does not mean you will reach it, right?

Maybe I am incorrect about India, but I do believe China will still be polluting in massive amounts, and they are the world leader in that area.

The idea that large spending in carbon reduction by the US would only offset a few weeks of Chinese pollution is not my opinion, it is the analysis by the EIA, which is a non-partisan independent analysis that they conducted. I can probably find it and link it you would like.

Jun 2, 2017
bd.charlus:
Big Dumb Idiot:

Oh, apparently India doesn't have to do anything in the agreement for a very long time either, yet Obama committed $3 Billion of our money and we are not even the top polluter.

Say what you will about the agreement, but to this specific point, your comment is incorrect. When India ratified the agreement in late 2016, it set a goal of receiving 40% of its energy from renewable sources by 2030. India also pledged to develop 100 GW of solar power and 60 GW of wind energy by 2022. As of 2017, India has added between 10 and 15 GW of solar power production to its infrastructure. So, while the agreement is technically non-binding, they've made real incremental progress and shown through their actions that they're serious.

I would bet my bottom dollar that India agreed to nothing that it already wasn't in the process of doing. Based on the timeline of December 15 Paris Accord through the end of 2016 it is almost certain that India was already working on its solar energy sector.
Could you please at least attempt to be intellectually honest?

Jun 1, 2017

Meanwhile, watch crude prices. Oil had a very volatile session (pared all it's gains, now negative).
Likely in anticipation for the announcement at 3pm.
"Don't discuss it. Trade it."

Jun 1, 2017

MAGA Eternal.

Jun 1, 2017

Renewable energy will become the norm the moment it becomes cost effective. We are getting close, but it isn't quite there yet. Too bad nuclear energy scares people.

Jun 1, 2017

one of the problems with nuclear is storing the waste, Yellowstone is getting full

Jun 1, 2017

Currently working on specs to keep the coal fire air out of Canada. I'll get back to you.

Jun 1, 2017

If only we'd pull out of NATO, take back our anti ballistic missile shield and take the nearly $1T we spend on defense and spend it on Americans.

I used to think I'd get tired of so much winning, but this is great. If only Ginsburg would retire we could stack the SCOTUS full of Trump judges.

Eternal and interstellar MAGA

Jun 1, 2017

laughing greek dood - TNA does it again

GoldenCinderblock: "I keep spending all my money on exotic fish so my armor sucks. Is it possible to romance multiple females? I got with the blue chick so far but I am also interested in the electronic chick and the face mask chick."

    • 2
    • 2
Jun 1, 2017

See , here is the reality.

Green energy is the future and will continue to grow. Natural gas is plentiful and will be a base load power. China is going green. While the Paris accord is nice, we need for focus on Jobs and the American worker that has been forgotten. There is a balance in life and we've gone far too global without remembering that the president represents Americans.

And as far as global influence goes, that ships sailed. We ran the world after WWII, but china is a global power now, Europe is what it is, and we've gotten ourselves $20T in debt. We generate all the energy we need and our global "influence " has gotten us into one disastrous war after another.

What's Switzerlanda defense budget? Jack shit. Why? Cause they have geographic defenses. How a nation isolated with two oceans, pathetic neighbors up north and weak neighbors to our south, drops $1T a year in defense is beyond me.

How about roads and airports. How about paying back debt, using he interest expense savings to fund retraining programs, improving high schools, improving healthcare or social security.

But no. We continue with this global influence lie that slowly bankrupts us. The USA is a 50 year old dude getting hair transplants and andro, trying to run with the young bucks. Age gracefully and focus on improving Americans instead of fucking with the world.

Jun 1, 2017

The # of people saying we should have stayed in climate agreement > # of people who have actually done anything in their lives to reduce emissions (i.e. buying a Prius, Solar Panels, or being vegetarian)

Let me hear you say, this shit is bananas, B-A-N-A-N-A-S!

    • 3
Jun 1, 2017

Two considerations:

  1. Do you really think EM nations did this under their own volition? You are delusional if you don't think they weren't strong armed.
  2. How hypocritical is it to tell EM nations that they shouldn't use cheap energy. Sorry Sub-Saharan African nations, pony up cash for expensive alternatives.
Jun 2, 2017

Since the US has some energy producing states, a blanket environmental policy doesn't make much sense. I've always believed that environmental regulation should be a state issue to better fit the given state's economy. If New York state wants to lead the green charge on their own, then let them do it. Just don't force states like Kentucky, West Virginia, Texas, Alaska and the Dakotas to come along since that level of regulation would gut their economy.

"We listen, if it feels good we shake."
"This town is nuts, my kind of place."
-WSMFP

    • 2
Jun 2, 2017

We are so far down the rabbit hole regarding irreversible impacts of climate change that these agreements will do little to stop the bleeding let alone reverse the course.

Not to sound Orwellian, I envision a world 100 years from now where our grandkids/great grandkids will be fighting water wars or fighting some global pandemic a side effect of a warming planet. I think nature does a good job in fighting back and balancing the scale. A mass extinction event would be in the cards.

In the meantime I plan to pay a visit to Glacier National Park in Montana and see the Alaska Wilderness before they're gone.

    • 1
Jun 2, 2017

This is a sleepy thread. Not a lot of ppl woke AF around these parts.

MAGA

Jun 2, 2017

I still subscribe to the coming ice age of the 70's. So I am considering this as the best decision that could have been made. Did anyone pay any attention to the emission futures yesterday?

Jun 2, 2017
dr_mantistoboggan_MD:

It is worth noting that there is a three year probationary period once the intent to leave has been made official, so we are looking at 2020ish before we would actually be "out" so to speak.

In the U.S., international treaties have to be ratified by 2/3 of the U.S. Senate. The U.S. has zero obligation and zero probationary period under the agreement. In the eyes of the law, the U.S. was never actually a party to the agreement.

Jul 27, 2017

It

    • 1
Jul 27, 2017
Jul 27, 2017