US will meet Paris accord commitment even if Trump withdraws

[IAMX 3,055]

10 minutes ago, bcking said:

Our contribution to the Green Climate Fund is a separate issue. He could have pulled out of the fund without pulling out of the Paris Agreement. I think the problem is he didn't actually even realize the distinction.

 

We made the committment to the fund at the Paris Climate Meeting, but it isn't in the actual text of the Paris Climate Accord. 

Why not pull out? This thread is proof that it was pointless. 

[bcking 3,157]

9 minutes ago, IAMX said:

Why not pull out? This thread is proof that it was pointless. 

I could maybe agree with you if the issue was "Why sign?"

 

There is, unfortunately, a big difference between not signing an agreement, and pulling out from one. The difference may be mostly symbolic, but it is still there. It is just like not starting a therapy in the hospital vs. starting it and then having to "withdraw" it (DNR vs. Full resuscitation then withdrawing care later). Had we not signed it in the first place we could have come up with all sorts of reasonings that we weren't willing to make the committment (Nicaragua didn't sign specifically because the agreement has no accountability for countries). By signing, joining and pulling out it makes us seem inconsistent, not trustworthy, and we set a bad example to a lot of other countries.

 

The act of pulling out of the agreement hurt our already precarious standing on the world stage. Our reputation is already suffering, and this doesn't help. As you said, it may make no difference because businesses will continue to innovate, but our country's government shouldn't want to look like the "old fossil" (pun intended) when it comes to moving the world into the future. Trump's attempt at explaining his reasoning only hurt our case even more because it so apparent he didn't really know what the agreement entailed and what he was pulling out of. Talking about how it was keeping us from advancing coal while it specifically didn't keep China from doing the same thing? It would have been funny if it wasn't already just so sad that it was representing all of us.

[IAMX 3,055]

40 minutes ago, bcking said:

I could maybe agree with you if the issue was "Why sign?"

 

There is, unfortunately, a big difference between not signing an agreement, and pulling out from one. The difference may be mostly symbolic, but it is still there. It is just like not starting a therapy in the hospital vs. starting it and then having to "withdraw" it (DNR vs. Full resuscitation then withdrawing care later). Had we not signed it in the first place we could have come up with all sorts of reasonings that we weren't willing to make the committment (Nicaragua didn't sign specifically because the agreement has no accountability for countries). By signing, joining and pulling out it makes us seem inconsistent, not trustworthy, and we set a bad example to a lot of other countries.

 

The act of pulling out of the agreement hurt our already precarious standing on the world stage. Our reputation is already suffering, and this doesn't help. As you said, it may make no difference because businesses will continue to innovate, but our country's government shouldn't want to look like the "old fossil" (pun intended) when it comes to moving the world into the future. Trump's attempt at explaining his reasoning only hurt our case even more because it so apparent he didn't really know what the agreement entailed and what he was pulling out of. Talking about how it was keeping us from advancing coal while it specifically didn't keep China from doing the same thing? It would have been funny if it wasn't already just so sad that it was representing all of us.

Maybe the US felt a need to before, but makes no sense to look at things now like before if things have apparently changed, so I find "why sign?" to be a pointless and irrelevant question. Has nothing to do with the US' standing on the world stage either. The tantrums being thrown by the other leaders put themselves under the microscope, not Trump.

Edited July 18, 2017 by IAMX

[bcking 3,157]

4 minutes ago, IAMX said:

Maybe the US felt a need to before, but makes no sense to look at things now like before if things have apparently changed, so I find "why sign?" to be a pointless and irrelevant question. Has nothing to do with the US' standing on the world stage either. The tantrums being thrown by the other leaders put themselves under the microscope, not Trump.

The status quo for Trump was to remain in the accord.

 

If the accord truly makes no difference, the logical thing would be to not change the status quo.

 

Pulling out is an action, as opposed to just leaving things the way they are. The action hurt our standing on the world stage and as you pointed out did little to change what happens with climate change. So in that sense I would say we should have just stayed in.  Not rock the boat and make us look like idiots.

[IAMX 3,055]

1 hour ago, bcking said:

The status quo for Trump was to remain in the accord.

 

If the accord truly makes no difference, the logical thing would be to not change the status quo.

 

Pulling out is an action, as opposed to just leaving things the way they are. The action hurt our standing on the world stage and as you pointed out did little to change what happens with climate change. So in that sense I would say we should have just stayed in.  Not rock the boat and make us look like idiots.

I'd question the idiots in Europe who are lambasting the President for not staying in when it doesn't benefit the US whatsoever.

 

Would be nice to exit plenty more useless accords.

Edited July 18, 2017 by IAMX