Paris Agreement Climate Change

Should President Trump Keep His Promise to Cancel the Paris Agreement on Climate Change?

Instead, submit the Paris agreement as a treaty to Senate for a vote

|

ParisHandshakeMichalBednarekDreamstime
Michal Bednarek/Dreamstime

Presidential candidate Donald Trump promised to "cancel" the Paris Agreement on climate change during the campaign last year. Last week, during a rally to celebrate his first 100 days in office at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, Trump declared that a "big decision" would be forthcoming in the next two weeks on the Paris Agreement. A big fight has apparently broken out among Trump administration denizens over the question of leaving or staying in the accord. The Clexiters include strategic nationalist Steve Bannon and EPA administrator Scott Pruitt and the stayers are First Daughter Ivanka Trump and Secretary of State of Rex Tillerson.

During his confirmation hearing, Tillerson told lawmakers, "It's important that the U.S. maintains its seat at the table about how to address the threat of climate change, which does require a global response. No one country is going to solve this on its own."

The opponents and proponents are focusing on a narrow and a broader issue. The narrow issue involves determining whether or not the agreement allows signatories to lower their nationally determined contributions, that is, the commitments that each country has made under the agreement with respect to their future emissions of greenhouse gases. Under the Paris Agreement, the Obama administration committed to reducing U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 26-28 percent below their 2005 levels in 2025. At issue is the Article 4.11, which states that a nation "may at any time adjust its existing nationally determined contribution with a view to enhancing its level of ambition." Ambition means doing more to mitigate climate change. Does this mean that a country's commitments can only be ratcheted upwards and never reduced?

In the New York Times, legal analyst Christopher Horner of the free-market think tank the Competitive Enterprise Institute, asserted, "Despite the mad rush to insist that plain language means either the opposite of what it says, or else nothing at all, under any canon of construction, Article 4 does not permit revisions downward." It's a ratchet. Contrariwise, Todd Stern who was the Obama administration's chief climate negotiator claimed that the flexibility to reduce targets was written into the agreement by careful design. "It wasn't like, 'Boy, nobody thought of that,'" he said to the Times. The plain language of the agreement does imply an upward ratchet, but since there are no explicit enforcement mechanisms in the accord, nothing would happen to a country that formally lowered its ambition, or even just ignored its nationanlly determined contribution commitments.

The Bottom-Up Structure of the Paris Agreement

The Paris Agreement might be thought of as a non-zero-sum bottom-up exercise. Countries are not being told what to do, but each one gets to propose for itself what it plans to do about man-made global warming. In addition, thousands of states, provinces, regions, cities, and businesses have piled on to make voluntary pledges to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. (This is not to say their electorates agree with the decisions being made by their governors and mayors.)

This pledging process avoids the divisive zero-sum gaming that characterized previous climate negotiations. Both the 1997 Kyoto Protocol and the successor agreement that was supposed to be approved at the Copenhagen climate conference in 2009 were conceived as top-down legally binding regulatory systems. Both failed spectacularly.

In any case, would nothing happen really happen if Trump were to submit lower U.S. greenhouse gas reduction commitments under the agreement? Opponents worry that the Paris Agreement would be interpreted as having the force of law by U.S. courts. This brings us the broader issue:

Is the Paris Agreement a treaty?

The United States Senate approved the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) by a rare division vote with two-thirds concurring on October 7, 1993 and President Bill Clinton ratified the treaty by signing it on October 13, 1993. By agreeing to that treaty the United States committed to the "stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system."

The State Department's Foreign Affairs Manual explains that presidents may conclude international executive agreements in three cases: pursuant to a treaty already authorized by the Senate; on the basis of existing legislation; and pursuant to his authority as Chief Executive when such an agreement is not inconsistent with legislation enacted by the Congress. During the climate negotiations leading up to the adoption of the Paris agreement by the Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC, Obama administration attempted to shape the accord as merely an extension to that earlier treaty that would therefore not require the Senate's advice and consent for implementation.

Prior to the Paris Agreement, the Obama administration had made pledges to cut U.S. greenhouse gas emissions pursuant to the Copenhagen Accord (2009) and Cancun Agreements (2010). A 2010 Congressional Research Service (CRS) legal memorandum made it clear that such climate commitments were voluntary and could "not used as an independent basis for agency regulations imposing emissions restrictions on industry." However, the CRS analysis also observes that nothing prevents the president from attempting to fulfill the voluntary pledges by seeking domestic climate change legislation or promulgating regulations pursuant to existing statutes such as the Clean Air Act and the Energy Independence and Security Act. In fact, this is exactly what President Obama did by increasing corporate average fuel economy standards and seeking to reduce by 2030 electric power plant emissions of carbon dioxide by 30 percent under the EPA's Clean Power Plan.

Under the U.S. Constitution, the President has the power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur. So is the Paris Agreement a treaty or merely an executive agreement extending the previously ratified UNFCCC? The State Department's Foreign Affairs Manual offers guidance for determining when an international agreement is a treaty or not. Relevant considerations include (1) the extent to which the agreement involves commitments or risks affecting the nation as a whole, (2) whether the agreement is intended to affect State laws, and (3) the preference of the Congress as to a particular type of agreement.

Mandated shifts in energy production do pose risks to the nation as a whole and do affect state laws. In addition, Congress has expressed a preference with regard to climate agreements.

As it happens, the CRS memorandum noted that a 1992 Senate Committee on Foreign Relations report dealing with the ratification of the UNFCCC flatly stated that a "decision by the Conference of the Parties to adopt targets and timetables would have to be submitted to the Senate for its advice and consent before the United States could deposit its instruments of ratification for such an agreement." The 1992 Senate report also explicitly added that any presidential attempt "to reinterpret the Convention to apply legally binding targets and timetables for reducing emissions of greenhouse gases to the United States" would also require the Senate's prior advice and consent.

The nationally determined contributions submitted by the Obama administration are clearly "targets and timetables" but compliance is voluntary. Does that make a difference?

Policy Laundering

Lucas Bergkamp, as I reported elsewhere, the head of European Regulatory Practice at the international law firm Hunton and Williams, sees the Paris Agreement as a "Trojan Horse" that poses a grave threat to constitutional government. Along with his colleague Scott Stone, Bergkamp argues that the gap between the agreement's ambitious goals and the admittedly insufficient national climate plans leaves space for UNFCCC bureaucrats, climate activists, and unaccountable judges to engage in policy laundering. Policy laundering occurs when activists (and their allied bureaucrats and politicians) use treaties or other international agreements to justify imposing rules, regulations, taxes, and mandates that lack domestic political support. The rationale amounts to: "The treaty (or agreement) made me do it."

For example, climate activists masquerading as the representatives of "civil society" might assert that international obligations under the Paris Agreement require courts to step in and order governments to perform their legal duty to protect citizens from climate change. In fact, last year a Dutch court ordered the government of the Netherlands to do exactly that by reducing the country's greenhouse emissions by 25 percent below 1990 levels by 2020. Unless governments are careful, Bergkamp warns that the Paris Agreement could morph into a vast bureaucratic monstrosity beholden only to climate activists and crony capitalists.

CEI's Chris Horner who has just co-authored a new analysis, The Legal and Economic Case Against the Paris Climate Treaty, asserts:

"The Paris treaty is "politically binding," like prior climate treaties, but carries huge potential legal consequences, and the State Department is misleading the White House by ignoring these risks. If President Trump stays in this treaty and follows through in his energy agenda, every climate-activist state attorney general, environmental group, and the entire climate industry will surely litigate on the basis of the Paris treaty."

I have noted before that as someone who's been reporting on United Nations climate negotiations since the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro where the UNFCCC was adopted, I've seen both the climate activist movement and the U.N. and domestic climate bureaucracies massively expand and gain influence. Global warming is a problem, but I fear that Bergkamp has a point.

One cautionary note: If most of the rest of the world decides to pursue climate mitigation under the Paris Agreement, do not be shocked when they impose carbon tariffs on our exports.

So what to do? President Trump should submit the Paris agreement as a treaty to the Senate seeking that body's advice and consent. Climate activists and climate skeptics both may be surprised at how the American public reacts to a robust debate over the Paris Agreement. In any case, by remaining in the already ratified UNFCCC, the U.S. maintains its seat at the table at international climate negotiations.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

206 responses to “Should President Trump Keep His Promise to Cancel the Paris Agreement on Climate Change?

  1. Yes, it should be cancelled and only reinstated as a treaty ratified by the senate, which is what it should be in the first place. All the end arounds Obama did that was unconstitutional because the Dems arrogantly believed they would be in power forever… time to undo all that crap

    1. The precedent to sign the Paris Climate Treaty came under an Executive Agreement.

      http://www.washingtontimes.com…..mate-acco/

      “The president will use his authority that has been used in dozens of executive agreements in the past to join and formally deposit our instrument of acceptance, and therefore put our country as a party to the Paris Agreement,” Mr. Deese said at a White House press conference.
      He noted that both presidents announced in March that they “would seek to formally join the Paris Agreement in 2016.”
      “That’s a process that is quite well-established in our existing legal system and in the context of international agreements and international arrangements,” Mr. Deese said. “There is a category of them that are treaties that require advice and consent from the Senate, but there’s a broad category of executive agreements where the executive can enter into those agreements without that advice and consent.”

      1. r: Dealt with in article. Just because the Obama Whitehouse claims that it’s so, doesn’t make it so. Look again at the criteria set out in the Foreign Service Manual to which I linked.

        1. I’m making over $7k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life.

          This is what I do,.,.,., http://www.careerstoday100.com

        2. I’m making over $7k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life.

          This is what I do,.,.,.,… http://www.careerstoday100.com

    2. No. submitting it was Obama’s job and he chose otherwise. Doing so now is giving him, and the people he arranged this ‘agreement’ with a free pass.

      Tank the thing and let it be an abject lesson to everyone involved that if your US negotiating partner has no intention of seeking full Senate ratification then you are on a fool’s errand.

      Kill it with fire. Pour encourager les autres.

  2. The Clexiters

    I’m glad that we as a society have finally left -mageddon in the rear view mirror in favor of -exit.

      1. I guess we did an armageddongatexit.

  3. The mandates in the Paris Climate Agreement kind of refutes the whole notion that anything resembling a free market is killing coal.

    There is a reason why President Obama never put it to a vote in the Senate: because it wouldn’t pass (anyone remember ‘cap and trade’ that was tried at the beginning of his administration when the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress?). It would die this time too, but at least people will see what environmental extremists are demanding

    1. There are Republicans now in the climate caucus. Sooner or later enough people will accept the science of AGW and we can move on into the business of going clean energy.

      1. you are scientifically ignorant on multiple fronts

        1. My bachelor’s degree is science based. Most of my posts are based in a link to check out. Contrarians rarely link their points and most of the time, their points have no science.

          1. oh…a BA. congratulations.

            Your links are laughable unscientific propaganda.

            I’ll stack my chem and engineering graduate degrees and 25 years as a practicing scientist up against anyone short of a serious climate researcher in understanding the scientific aspects of energy production and AGW theory.

            1. Then in the area of climate, you have an undergraduate antiscience degree. Congratulations. If you quote contrarian sources that are known liars, I’m going to call you on it. Show me the main stream science of points.

              I have been up against self proclaimed PHDs that were either phony or ignorant. Take your choice. Conservative education is of no value in this area siimply because they dro their reasoning completely and go with emotions.

              The solution is massive, no doubt. Small government can solve this problem, but it requires conservatives to come and talk about solutions so that we can move forward on this horrendous issue.

              1. do without reasoning for conservatives

              2. http://www.climatedepot.com/20…..r-by-2100/

                $100 trillion to do just about nothing. This is what you could get, if those “climate scientists” are right.

                Go ahead, argue away.

              3. Are you claiming the climastrologists invented Navier-Stokes, QED, and acid-base chemistry? You’re going to have to if you want to claim that all of these physicsts, engineers, and chemists are “anti-science.” (Hint: it’s the climastrologists eho are claiming warming amplification of ECS due to increases in water vapor–they are denying arrhenius, the father of co2 forcing).

                1. NotAnotherSkippy|5.5.17 @ 2:59PM|#

                  Are you claiming the climastrologists invented Navier-Stokes, QED, and acid-base chemistry? You’re going to have to if you want to claim that all of these physicsts, engineers, and chemists are “anti-science.” (Hint: it’s the climastrologists eho are claiming warming amplification of ECS due to increases in water vapor–they are denying arrhenius, the father of co2 forcing).

                  There is what you wish to be true, and then there is reality. Water vapor and co2 have a strong relationship with each other that either warms dramatically or can cool dramatically. If co2 goes down then wv also goes down. Its only just physics. No conspiracy here.

                  https://goo.gl/MkXWKc

                  Water vapor is known to be Earth’s most abundant greenhouse gas, but the extent of its contribution to global warming has been debated. Using recent NASA satellite data, researchers have estimated more precisely than ever the heat-trapping effect of water in the air, validating the role of the gas as a critical component of climate change.

                  Andrew Dessler and colleagues from Texas A&M University in College Station confirmed that the heat-amplifying effect of water vapor is potent enough to double the climate warming caused by increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

              4. “Then in the area of climate, you have an undergraduate antiscience degree”

                …..Ad Hominem attack

                “If you quote contrarian sources that are known liars”

                …..2 ad hominem attacks in one sentence.

                “Show me the main stream science of points”

                …..Meaningless. What do you mean? This question is not specific.

                “I have been up against self proclaimed PHDs that were either phony or ignorant”

                …..Who were they and what was the discussion or argument that you had with them? Oh people can be ignorant, If that is the case teach them.

                “I have been up against self proclaimed PHDs that were either phony or ignorant. Take your choice. Conservative education is of no value in this area siimply because they dro their reasoning completely and go with emotions.”

                …..What is the opposite of conservative education? This is a IIgnorantio Elenchi, and ad hominem attack. Logic reasoning should always repeat always be used and never with emotions, that is appeal to emotions or argumentum ad passiones.

                “The solution is massive, no doubt. Small government can solve this problem, but it requires conservatives to come and talk about solutions so that we can move forward on this horrendous issue.”

                …..The solution is non existent and small government will not solve this non existent problem. I do agree the climate issue is a horrendous one and will go down in the annals of history as the biggest example of the ‘boy who cried wolf”.

                Regards
                OiOiOi

          2. Appeal to Authority never ever use appeal to authority. You are not the authority on climate warming

            Regards
            OiOiOi

            1. Quite a contrarian line. Does that mean contrarian opinion is superior to authority? When you go the doctor, that is an appeal to authority.

              1. @renewableguy

                “Quite a contrarian line”

                ad hominem attack

                “Does that mean contrarian opinion is superior to authority? ”

                ad hominem attack and I do not have opinion. I have knowledge, it is up to someone to prove that what I know is wrong.

                3) “When you go the doctor, that is an appeal to authority.”

                IIgnorantio Elenchi, stick to the subject this is not about doctors.

                Regards
                OiOiOi

                1. Every other word out of you is ad hominem. Actually the doctor example applies. If we talk about cancer, I am not the authority. If we talk about clmate I am not the authority and I use authority in the field to talk about climate. Those who study are the authority. Repeating your lines over and over show you aren’t really engaged in intelligent conversation.

                  1. Name one ad hominem that I have applied to you or anyone else for that matter. In addition “Every other word”, means every second word or every alternative word. Hence your statement is a contradiction in terms.

                    Since you acknowledge that you are not an authority on climate warming or doctors. Then your knowledge is insufficient to allow a conversation, which is shown by the rest of your comments in this thread.

                    “Those who study are the authority”

                    …..Absolutely not. The fact that a person occupies a position of authority does not mean that they can exercises authority in any manner that they see fit. Those who study for a very long time will have extensive knowledge on any given subject. They earn my respect by acting responsibly, ethically and selflessly in regards to that knowledge.

                    “Repeating your lines over and over show you aren’t really engaged in intelligent conversation.”

                    …..this reminds me of the old adage “pot calling the kettle black”. I suggest you take a good hard look at yourself. Especially the contents of what you have written in this thread.

                    Regards
                    OiOiOi

                    1. I use autoritative writings because they are good at what they do. However you twist things around to your liking, this is a very standard thing to do. The scientists themselves do it with other papers written. When submitting their own paper, they list the other papers their foundation is based upon.

                      I have sourced a great deal of my points. I notice that you have zero. You are not the authority just you are not the authority to tell me how I should be on here. Go tell someone else how they should follow your rules.

          3. My bachelor’s degree is science based. Most of my posts are based in a link to check out. Contrarians rarely link their points and most of the time, their points have no science.

            So … exactly where did you get your degree in Homeopathy?

            1. electronic engineering tech.

      2. you are scientifically ignorant on multiple fronts

        1. It appears if you are telling the truth about your education, you are well educated but ignorant in climate. That tells me that your emotions are overwhelming your reasoning. Which is what this site is called. REASON.

          When sea level rise forces us to abandon coastal cities. We will have massive problems. This will cost trillions per year.

          1. THEY SKY IS FALLING!!!1111!!!!!111!!11

            THE SKY IS FALLING!!!!1111!!!111!!!111!!!

            1. Ok chicken little.

      3. Your problem, and this applies to all of the other alarmists, is your argument is based on speculation. You can predict the future all you want, but it is a prediction and nothing more. If you really want to get people to change over to renewable energy, market a cheaper solution to them. Don’t have a cheaper market solution? Then you’re going to have problems. You know this, and the other alarmists know this. So you fall on forcing the change to renewable energy not matter the cost or the impact. Well, in case you haven’t noticed, people don’t respond positively to forced change and will reject you.

        1. I. B. McGinty|5.5.17 @ 12:34PM|#

          Your problem, and this applies to all of the other alarmists, is your argument is based on speculation.

          That is your point of view. Read my sources.

          You can predict the future all you want, but it is a prediction and nothing more.

          Co2 is mechanical. Very easy to predict in climate. Slow and steady wins the race.

          If you really want to get people to change over to renewable energy, market a cheaper solution to them. Don’t have a cheaper market solution? Then you’re going to have problems. You know this, and the other alarmists know this. So you fall on forcing the change to renewable energy not matter the cost or the impact. Well, in case you haven’t noticed, people don’t respond positively to forced change and will reject you.

          Government is helping to bring cost of renewables down. Is necessary for our human civilization.

    2. There are Republicans now in the climate caucus. Sooner or later enough people will accept the science of AGW and we can move on into the business of going clean energy.

        1. Why get left behind.

    3. There are Republicans now in the climate caucus. Sooner or later enough people will accept the science of AGW and we can move on into the business of going clean energy.

        1. Thank you for the fuck you Entropy. Like I said, reasoning goes out the window with climate. Its the conservative mental block in this area. Massive amounts of co2 going into the atmosphere has consequences well spelled out by the IPCC.

          1. The same IPCC which claimed the himalayas would be ice free in 18 years and was forced to retract that claim? That IPCC? The same IPCC which had to decrease the lower bound of the likely ECS range and which removed any mean ECS estimate? That IPCC.

            I known i know: SCIENZ!!

            1. NotAnotherSkippy|5.5.17 @ 2:51PM|#

              The same IPCC which claimed the himalayas would be ice free in 18 years and was forced to retract that claim? That IPCC? The same IPCC which had to decrease the lower bound of the likely ECS range and which removed any mean ECS estimate? That IPCC.

              I known i know: SCIENZ!!

              You have your view of climate science there skippy. Yes the IPCC did retract it. I wish fossil fuel contrarians would do the same with their obviously incorrect statements.

  4. Mr. Bailey,

    Having Trump submit the Paris Accord to a vote in the Senate is an ingenious idea.

    1. Why? I wouldn’t bet too much on it failing.

      1. “[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur.”

        —-Article II, Section 2, Clause 2, U.S. Constitution

        They probably couldn’t even get a majority of senators to vote for the Paris Accord.

        Two thirds?

        No way.

        Not even if they were drunk.

        1. I don’t know. I guess almost no Republican would vote for it.

          Problem is a vote wouldn’t prevent it from coming up in the future, but quietly canceling it might allow people to just forget about it.

          1. There are a lot of Democrats I’d suspect wouldn’t vote for it either.

    2. This could grow.

      http://citizensclimatelobby.or…..esolution/

      House Republicans introduce climate resolution
      WASHINGTON, March 15, 2017 ? Seventeen Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives today introduced a resolution that acknowledges the negative impacts of climate change “that are expected to worsen in every region of the United States” and calls upon the House to work on solutions for mitigation and adaptation efforts.

      1. Ah, yes. The Citizens’ Climate Lobby.

        These are the sociopaths who don’t care whatsoever about the social cost of carbon, blowing through it with their carbon tax proposal in three years and never ceasing to raise the tax until carbon usage grinds to a halt — which is very likely to happen from economic collapse alone.

        1. Are you calling Republicans sociopaths. Citizens Climate Lobby is aimed at cooperation with conservatives.

          1. No it’s not. Citizens Climate Lobby is aimed at implementing a punitive carbon tax and rebate scheme though convincing the economically naive that it’s a net benefit regardless of what it does to CO2 emissions. They make no attempt to cooperate with conservatives on any terms other than those.

            1. MikeP|5.5.17 @ 11:09AM|#

              No it’s not. Citizens Climate Lobby is aimed at implementing a punitive carbon tax and rebate scheme though convincing the economically naive that it’s a net benefit regardless of what it does to CO2 emissions. They make no attempt to cooperate with conservatives on any terms other than those.

              You are clearly wrong on this. Educated people should show their sources there Mike. Don’t let your conservatism get in the way of seeing what is true.

              http://citizensclimatelobby.or…..ns-caucus/

              1. Well, I’ll be. I hadn’t visited that page. That positioning is certainly not evident from the About page, which focuses solely on their punitive carbon tax and rebate. Thanks for the enlightenment.

                So it appears their strategies for enacting their punitive carbon tax and rebate motte include building a larger bipartisan bailey that gives the impression of more agreement with their ultimate ends than actually exists.

                It’s hard to call that “aimed at cooperation with conservatives”, but I supposed it’s close enough for political work.

                1. Citizen’s Climate Lobby is quite a serious organization mostly volunteer. I have been to their conferences and have met conservatives there that are concerned about the climate problems. There are conservatives speakers addressing us about climate and progress of a coalition.

                  Fossil fuel money is rampant in obfuscation of climate science. Getting the science out inside the confusion is a bumpy task amongst emotional people.

  5. Here’s the reason I honestly don’t give a shit:

    The best possible scenario here is everybody voluntarily weans off CO2. Even if they al takle unrealistically drastic measures, we will prevent like .1 degree of warming over the next century.

    Any chance we had ot preventing CO2-induced global warming died with the death of the nuclear power industry 40 years ago, and that was largely the fault of the Luddite environmentalists waging an anti-science fear-mongering campaign of misinformation.

    1. Sorry for all the typos. I’m not drunk yet, I promise you.

      1. You should be.

    2. I don’t know about you guys, but I’m gonna continue exhaling CO2 as long as I can…

    3. colorblindkid|5.4.17 @ 4:09PM|#

      Here’s the reason I honestly don’t give a shit:

      The best possible scenario here is everybody voluntarily weans off CO2. Even if they al takle unrealistically drastic measures, we will prevent like .1 degree of warming over the next century.

      Actually you will prevent about 3 to 4 degrees warming on our present path of pollution.

      1. God you are so full of shit.
        RCP 8.5 is like a wet dream to you catastrophic idiots isn’t it?
        News flash. ITS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.

        1. We are on RCP 8.5 path now. We need to crank down the pollution to get on the lower paths.

          Just pure denial bud. The consequences are taking place as the science shows us.

          1. We are on RCP 8.5 path now.

            No we are not, you ignorant twit. RCP 8.5 has CO2 concentrations in 2100 at 936 ppm. For that to happen concentrations would have to increase by about 6.4 ppm/year every year to 2100. Starting now. CO2 concentrations have never increase 3 ppm/year. Dumbass.

            1. Greg F|5.5.17 @ 5:17PM|#

              We are on RCP 8.5 path now.
              No we are not, you ignorant twit. RCP 8.5 has CO2 concentrations in 2100 at 936 ppm. For that to happen concentrations would have to increase by about 6.4 ppm/year every year to 2100. Starting now. CO2 concentrations have never increase 3 ppm/year. Dumbass.

              https://skepticalscience.com/rcp.php?t=3

              Notice it says co2 equivalent. That includes all the ghg’s

              1. Notice it says co2 equivalent. That includes all the ghg’s

                Hey dumb ass the IPCC says your wrong.

                Most of the CMIP5 and Earth System Model simulations were performed with prescribed CO2 concentrations reaching 421 ppm (RCP2.6), 538 ppm (RCP4.5), 670 ppm (RCP6.0), and 936 ppm (RCP 8.5) by the year 2100. Including also the prescribed concentrations of CH4 and N2O, the combined CO2-equivalent concentrations are 475 ppm (RCP2.6), 630 ppm (RCP4.5), 800 ppm (RCP6.0), and 1313 ppm (RCP8.5).

                So to summarize as I stated before the RCP 8.5 has CO2 concentrations in 2100 at 936 ppm. For that to happen concentrations would have to increase by about 6.4 ppm/year every year to 2100. Starting now. CO2 concentrations have never increase 3 ppm/year.

                1. So to summarize as I stated before the RCP 8.5 has CO2 concentrations in 2100 at 936 ppm. For that to happen concentrations would have to increase by about 6.4 ppm/year every year to 2100. Starting now. CO2 concentrations have never increase 3 ppm/year.

                  Following Donald Trump this is very possible. Fortunately most of the world doesn’t see it Donald’s way. One of the feedbacks to climate change, is the earth itself outgassing ghg’s. The rcp 8.5 model shows what kind of world we will have. Not only would our atmosphere get hot, the ocean will increase its acidification rate. There is more going on than just atmospheric change.

                2. This made think through some other angles. I can see your point of view on the 3 ppm per year. The future scenarios take into account future populations. Assuming we hit literally 10 billion people on earth by year 2050 to 2080 and we are very slow at electrification, and over half the world lives as we do today, then this is very possible. I don’t think in terms of 50 years from now. But it becomes important to think down the road to what our future earth could be like.

                  Are we going to be 10% of cars on gas or are we going to have 90% of increased cars on the road on gas. Do you agree staying on gas for cars isn’t good by 2050?

      2. That 3 to 4 degree warming would only be prevented if we stopped emitting all CO2 tomorrow.

        1. Agreed

        2. The benefits that would accrue from a 3-4 degree warming would be amazing–why, we might even go a good way towards freeing up more fresh water, making huge unlivable areas livable again and benefitting all humanity!

          Burn a pile of tires!!

          1. Azathoth!!|5.5.17 @ 10:16AM|#

            The benefits that would accrue from a 3-4 degree warming would be amazing–why, we might even go a good way towards freeing up more fresh water, making huge unlivable areas livable again and benefitting all humanity!

            Burn a pile of tires!!

            https://goo.gl/d4IVWf

            Consequences are already beginning. This site is called REASON. Is it reasonable to go against well studied science?

            1. Lysenkoism was extremely well studied science in the USSR.

              1. A guy on Forbes started this. More fossil fuel rubbish.

    1. Noooooo

      that is not enough.

        1. Anything intelligent to say?

  6. I am quite sure the supporters of the Paris Agreement have been very carefully avoiding it not turning into a bureaucratic monstrosity beholden to climate activists and cronies.

    1. Businesses in the United States are commiting to 100% renewable energy.

      1. Progtards in the United States are committed to 100% idiocy.

        1. You’re tooooo much Entropy. I’m crushed.

      2. Saying you are going to do something is cheap. Having the ability to do it (if it is even physically possible) can be quite costly.

        1. Its already happening.

      3. There is no such thing as “100% renewable energy”. The very phrase is indicative of delusion or scientific illiteracy.
        Any energy production and use must look at a true ashes-to-ashes analysis.

        Hybrid cars for example are calculated to be less energy efficient than the classic American SUV that is routinely scapegoated as the climate killer. From a consumer viewpoint, yes there is significantly reduced daily CO2 output. But that ignores the CO2 generation from the energy used in mining, shipping, component production, and assembly relative to the working lifespan of the vehicle and major components. A Jeep Cherokee has a very long lifespan relative to a Prius, and when it finally kicks it, the Cherokee is far easier to recycle. Ashes-to-ashes analysis is the only way to calculate true CO2 impact. Industry is doing this….the green lobby is not because the numbers make them out to be fools.

        1. MikeP2|5.5.17 @ 7:56AM|#

          There is no such thing as “100% renewable energy”. The very phrase is indicative of delusion or scientific illiteracy.
          Any energy production and use must look at a true ashes-to-ashes analysis.

          Electrification of all that we can. Then hopefully biofuels or hydrogen can do the rest. If they can’t, and have to have it kind of thing, we pay for carbon sequestration. That is what the carbon pricing will do for us. It will create the market to change so that the problems are solved in creative, economical ways. The market will create the solutions to do so.

          1. oh my god, you are just so ignorant. What makes the electricity? biofuels use more energy then they provide.
            Where do you think hydrogen comes from? Right now its generated almost entirely from natural gas.

            1. I didn’t talk about biofuels. Look up EROEI. Energy returned on energy invested. The fossil fuels use to have fantastic numbers in efficiency. They are slowly declining towards being unsustainable. WInd is at 18 and solar at 8. Tar sands 5 all the way down to 1. What that means is one energy in to get one energy unit out. Biofuels is better than some of the tar sands.

              1. Actually I did say biofuels. Sorry. Biofuels from corn is bad news. High sugar type plants are needed such as sugar cane.

                There are hydrogen and big battery type large trucks coming. We will see how well that works.

  7. So what to do? President Trump should submit the Paris agreement as a treaty to the Senate seeking that body’s advice and consent.

    Why? Just cancel it and be done with it.

    1. He would lose in court.

  8. “Nah, let’s not do that.” – The Senate

  9. Obama administration attempted to shape the accord as merely an extension to that earlier treaty that would therefore not require the Senate’s advice and consent for implementation.

    The Paris agreement on Climate Change is non-binding. The president (Obama) cannot alter the deal.

  10. Ron gets it wrong, again. Cancel the damn thing…

  11. Going vehicle shopping soon. Looking for the biggest, loudest emitter of CO2 I can afford…

      1. I’ll buy that for a dollar.

    1. My win-the-lottery, bucket list includes buying a Prius wagon, ripping out the internals, and retrofitting a large volume V8 into the back.
      Loud obnoxious exhaust and a ‘nuke the whales’ bumper sticker.

      1. With whale skin hubcaps and all leather cow interior and big brown baby seal eyes for headlights?

        Denis Leary

  12. The President can’t unilaterally modify a treaty after it’s been ratified any more than he can unilaterally modify any law after it’s been passed. Everything else is quibbling.

    1. Unless he’s Obama

      1. Well sure, but he wasn’t a mere President, he was, and remains King, second only to Elvis in the pantheon of heroes struggling against an unjust system.

      2. … with his extra-Constitutional Pen and Phone.

  13. It certainly shouldn’t be adopted just on the presidential say-so, though he could enforce it on the Executive Branch itself insofar as that doesn’t violate existing law. And even the wimpy GOP of today will never approve it as a treaty. Democrats from states that produce coal or oil in sizable quantities may be reluctant to support it as well.

  14. The question isn’t whether the Paris Accord is a treaty, or not, but whether the United States government has any constitutional authority to attempt to regulate American effects on global climate change.

    It doesn’t.

    PG

  15. Global warming is a problem…

    Citation needed.

    One cautionary note: If most of the rest of the world decides to pursue climate mitigation under the Paris Agreement, do not be shocked when they impose carbon tariffs on our exports.

    So what? That only hurts their consumers, right? Right?

    1. NotAnotherSkippy|5.4.17 @ 7:08PM|#

      Global warming is a problem…
      Citation needed.

      I see problems. But I don’t have your problem.

      https://goo.gl/1ObwHG

      Temperature changes
      2.1 SRES emissions scenarios
      2.2 Projected warming in context
      3 Physical impacts
      3.1 Effects on weather
      3.1.1 Extreme weather
      3.2 Cryosphere
      3.3 Oceans
      3.3.1 Acidification
      3.3.2 Oxygen depletion
      3.3.3 Sea level rise
      3.3.4 Ocean temperature rise
      4 Regions
      4.1 Observed impacts
      4.2 Projected impacts
      5 Social systems
      5.1 Food supply
      5.1.1 Projections
      5.1.1.1 Food security
      5.1.2 Droughts and agriculture
      5.2 Health
      5.2.1 Projections
      5.3 Water resources
      5.4 Migration and conflict
      5.5 Aggregate impacts
      5.5.1 Observed impacts
      5.5.2 Projected impacts
      6 Biological systems
      6.1 Observed impacts on biological systems
      6.2 Projected impacts on biological systems
      7 Abrupt or irreversible changes
      7.1 Biogeochemical cycles
      7.2 Greenland and West Antarctic Ice sheets
      7.3 Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation
      7.4 Irreversibilities
      7.4.1 Commitment to radiative forcing
      7.4.2 Irreversible impacts
      8 Benefits of global warming
      8.1 CO2 fertilisation effect
      8.2 Human health
      8.3 Ice-free Northwest Passage
      8.4 Animal population changes

      1. How many people realize that the northwest passage has been open five times since the discovery of America. Just because something changes does not make it bad.

        1. The passage is going to more than a passage by mid century. We are approaching an iceless artic. Further and further less ice. Record lows are going to continue until no ice occurs in possibly september.

          https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

      2. Peddle your religious shit somewhere else.

        Palmer drought index shows no trend.
        ACE shows no trend
        US tornado count and severity shows no trend (except that warmer is better)
        Polar bears populations are stable to inceeasing
        The earth has greened over 15% over the last 30 years
        Oceans are more basic now than when aragonite corals first evolved. All shellfish thrive at current amd even predicted ph levels
        Cold kills more ppl than heat, so warmer is BETTER. Also heat relates deaths have fallen over 90% over the last century.
        AMOC is hilarious
        Antarctic continues to add ice mass (see GRACE)

        If you wany to repent and buy indulgences for your sins, well, it’s your money and you can be stupid with it all you want. Just don’t drag me into your cult.

        1. NotAnotherSkippy|5.5.17 @ 2:30PM|#

          Peddle your religious shit somewhere else.

          Not your place to tell others what to do.

          Palmer drought index shows no trend.
          ACE shows no trend
          US tornado count and severity shows no trend (except that warmer is better)
          Polar bears populations are stable to inceeasing
          The earth has greened over 15% over the last 30 years
          Oceans are more basic now than when aragonite corals first evolved. All shellfish thrive at current amd even predicted ph levels
          Cold kills more ppl than heat, so warmer is BETTER. Also heat relates deaths have fallen over 90% over the last century.
          AMOC is hilarious
          Antarctic continues to add ice mass (see GRACE)

          If you wany to repent and buy indulgences for your sins, well, it’s your money and you can be stupid with it all you want. Just don’t drag me into your cult

          https://goo.gl/Tr2usy

          Temperature increase leads to a lot of consequences. Such as artic sea ice loss, sea level rise,

          https://goo.gl/QbXDsw

          There are some positives that are short lived compared to the negatives. Our food is going to get more difficult in the future.

    2. One cautionary note: If most of the rest of the world decides to pursue climate mitigation under the Paris Agreement, do not be shocked when they impose carbon tariffs on our exports.

      We will export less due to carbon intensive costs in our products. Soooo kicking and screaming, our friendly deniers will be forced to accept doing something about that they don’t believe to be true. Like the flat earth thing all over again.
      So what? That only hurts their consumers, right? Right?

      1. Like the flat earth thing all over again.

        Just like the rest of your beliefs the “flat earth thing” is just a myth.

        http://veritas-ucsb.org/librar…..Earth.html

      2. If most of the rest of the world decides to pursue climate mitigation under the Paris Agreement, do not be shocked when they impose carbon tariffs on our exports.

        Yes, somehow the risk that aggressively addressing climate change might yield massive trade wars that could lead to actual wars never enters into the predicted costs of those actions.

      3. “We will export less due to carbon intensive costs in our products.”

        That is a very ignorant statement. US production is the most energy efficient in the world. The US is leading the world in energy/CO2 ratio improvement. Carbon tariffs would smack China, India, and the EU….not the US.

        1. MikeP2|5.5.17 @ 7:46AM|#

          “We will export less due to carbon intensive costs in our products.”

          That is a very ignorant statement. US production is the most energy efficient in the world. The US is leading the world in energy/CO2 ratio improvement. Carbon tariffs would smack China, India, and the EU….not the US.

          We need to continue improving in that area. Do you think DJT will do this with fossil fuel executives dominating all our energy departments. I see us going back wards on this. DJT is giong to hurt us economically in the areas of energy.

          1. I guess you don’t realize that fracking is the primary reason why our CO2 emission per energy is improving yearly, while the rest of the world is lagging behind. NG generates more energy per lb CO2 than any other hydrocarbon.
            That those “fossil fuel executives” who ignored the green idiots have done orders of magnitude more to reduce the US carbon footprint than anyone else.

            1. We also have sloppy standards on methane leaking and natural gas is now really ghg intensive than coal. If leakage is above 4% in natural gas, we even out with coal. Some areas are way higher than 4% leakage. WIth the Don in the whitehouse, methane rules are being relaxed and sloppiness will reign polluting all the more.

      4. And here I thought this was REASON which normally places the blame for tariffs on the stupidity of those proposing them (see the wailing and gnashing of teeth when trump suggests them). For Ron to suggest that the threat of eurotards and china and india imposing ecoprotectionism is somehow a concern for the US is just slightly hypocritical.

        1. The whole world does this. Why should other countries follow your rules.

  16. If he does not back out of it, his EPA/Energy departments are going to get sued.

    It is stupid though to withdraw from the Paris accord even if you are a denialist. No one is going to bother enforce our commitment anyway, so why not simply ignore it and not say anything about withdrawing.

    Look, if the Drumpfistas insist that Iran, which has to permit inspections can easily circumvent being caught for violations, the USA which does not have to permit inspections for emissions, or if they do, it is easily railroaded, can do the same.

    But, it matters to his base, because, well they want Mexico to pay for the wall. So, he shall have another dog and pony show to withdraw from this

  17. Perhaps the Treaty wouldn’t get 60 votes, because not all Dems would vote to pass the treaty. But probably 20% of Republicans (i.e., 10 votes) would do so, I guess. About 20% of Republicans generally are warmists, and several GOP bigshots have spoken up in favor of Doing Something. If the treaty got a majority vote, it would be a sort of moral victory for warmists.

    If the Treaty is tossed to the Senate, here’s what might happen next: A million mom month-long sit-in around the Capitol, supplemented by students on their summer break, plus a write-in campaign that will dwarf all previous efforts. Plus a media / propaganda deluge backed by billions of dollars from Soros-types. Combined, these efforts might actually be enough to get the Treaty passed. Trump shouldn’t risk it.

  18. Perhaps the Treaty wouldn’t get 60 votes, because not all Dems would vote to pass the treaty. But probably 20% of Republicans (i.e., 10 votes) would do so, I guess. About 20% of Republicans generally are warmists, and several GOP bigshots have spoken up in favor of Doing Something. If the treaty got a majority vote, it would be a sort of moral victory for warmists.

    If the Treaty is tossed to the Senate, here’s what might happen next: A million mom month-long sit-in around the Capitol, supplemented by students on their summer break, plus a write-in campaign that will dwarf all previous efforts. Plus a media / propaganda deluge backed by billions of dollars from Soros-types. Combined, these efforts might actually be enough to get the Treaty passed. Trump shouldn’t risk it.

  19. If the individual mandate is gone, the ObamaCare Medicaid expansion is over in 2020, and the Paris Climate Accord gets shot down, what’s left of Obama’s “legacy”?

    The Iran nuclear deal?

    Maybe we should put that one up to a vote in the Senate, too.

  20. Is there any way to get a suggestion to Remy?

    Maybe he could do a song about pants shitting.

    You know, Remy is playing like six different progressives, and every time Trump does or says something, they all just shit their pants.

    At the end, Paul Ryan passes an ObamaCare overhaul bill–and they all shit their pants at the same time.

    At first blush, it may seem juvenile, but it’s also funny because it’s true.

    For goodness’ sake, it’s been six months since Trump was elected. When will the media finally stop shitting their pants?

    1. Aw shucks–wrong thread!

  21. https://goo.gl/L8X6FC

    HOME / ENERGY NEWS
    State governors call on Trump to stay in Paris climate deal

    U.S. will fall behind as China and India take up the renewable energy mantle, state leaders warn.

    1. Of all the reasons for government action on climate change, this is the absolute worst.

      Subsidizing an industry for the sake of that industry or the jobs it generates is a losing proposition — broken windows fallacy and all.

      And, living in the Bay Area, I can tell you the pleas for corporate welfare from the very richest people in the world so their investments in green technology pay off are truly sickening. But, for governors and congresspeople, there’s nothing better than strong-arming the poor nations of the world into buying your technology and then proudly celebrating how many jobs it created for you!

      1. One of the most subsidized industries in the world is fossil fuels. It destroys our life support on earth and yet it gets a huge subsidy. Wind and solar are gaining in cost effectiveness. Waiting for them to do it without support hurts our climate and life support. Giving support to fossil fuels hurts us.

        1. I am all for ending all subsidies for all forms of energy — especially fossil fuels.

          1. except they are not subsidized they are allowed business right offs for expenditures just like every mom and pop business in this country

        2. Again you conflate fuel subsidies in shitholes like Venezuela and saudi arabia with the US. I get ehy you want to do it because you can’t win this fight without lying. Your so called renewables receive FAR more subsidies in the US and the industrialized world than the depletion NONREFUNDABLE tax credits that oil and gas receive just like any other extractive industry. And if you look at the subsidies per unit of energy produced your greed energy is orders of magnitude higher than any fossil fuel source.

          And stop spouting that life support shit. The last time I looked we relied on plant growtj to feed the 7bb ppl on this planets, and due to co2 fertilization that planet is 15% greener than it was 30 years ago. We are IMPROVING our “life support.”

          1. NotAnotherSkippy|5.5.17 @ 2:41PM|#

            Its not your place to tell others what to do.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies

            The three largest fossil fuel subsidies were:
            Foreign tax credit ($15.3 billion)
            Credit for production of non-conventional fuels ($14.1 billion)
            Oil and Gas exploration and development expense ($7.1 billion)

            The three largest renewable fuel subsidies were:
            Alcohol Credit for Fuel Excise Tax ($11.6 billion)
            Renewable Electricity Production Credit ($5.2 billion)
            Corn-Based Ethanol ($5.0 billion)

  22. Kill. Kill. Kill. Burn it with fire.

  23. Is this is a serious question?

    Of course he should.

    1. Is this is a serious question?

      Nah, just clickbait for Climatoids.

  24. Many aspects to global warming. This is just the beginning.

    https://goo.gl/FjOZCp

    The study reports that if you live on the West Coast, wildfires, extreme temperatures, poorer air quality, extreme weather events, and agricultural risks are occurring. On the East Coast, you can add vector-borne diseases as a risk area. The central USA region is also similarly being affected.

    As you dig deeper into the report, you learn about how these various climate-related features are affecting health. Each factor is dealt with by three questions: 1) What is happening? 2) How does it harm our health? 3) Who is being harmed?

    For instance, with respect to extreme weather, the report correctly notes that the frequency and severity of some weather events such as heavy downpours, floods, droughts, and major storms are increasing. This harms our health because these events can cause direct injury and death as well as displacement. Extreme weather can also harm vital infrastructure like communication systems, homes, and reduce the availability of clean water and food. Finally, extreme weather can lead to acute outbreaks of infectious disease while at the same time reducing access to health care.

  25. https://goo.gl/W9Ci95

    Climate Deniers Bash Solar for Creating Jobs
    May 6, 2017

    The conservative, climate science denying, American Enterprise Institute scored an own goal with this tweet, proving that solar energy creates 79x as many jobs as coal.

    Now, you see, from their perspective, representing the fraction of one percent “job creators” that the current administration is trying to please ? this makes sense. Who wants to have to hire a bunch of expensive, unpredictable human beings?

    With automation reducing jobs in the United States, wouldn’t it be good to go where a machine can’t replace you yet.

    1. So lets ban heavy equipment to create jobs! Renewableguy is as ignorant about economics as he is about science.

      1. Greg F|5.6.17 @ 10:32AM|#

        So lets ban heavy equipment to create jobs! Renewableguy is as ignorant about economics as he is about science.

        Your education is going to waste there Greg. You said you have 25 years as a scientist. Your so highly biased, you couldn’t see straight if you wanted to. If heavy equipment is needed to run on fossil fuels, then we can go to carbon sequestration. That is if hydrogen and biofuels can’t do the job..

        1. In southern Illinois for excavating coal, they hooked giant excavators up to the utility to do so. It is possible in some situations to do this without fossil fuels.

      2. These people sure are spending a lot of time on this hoax stuff. You sure you want to think like Donald Trump.

        https://goo.gl/Op3qtl

        1 Scenarios
        1.1 Emissions scenarios
        1.2 Global futures scenarios
        1.3 Factors affecting emissions growth
        2 Trends and projections
        2.1 Emissions
        2.1.1 Equity and GHG emissions
        2.1.2 Emissions projections
        2.2 Concentrations and temperatures
        2.2.1 Temperature
        3 Cost?benefit analysis
        3.1 Cost?benefit analysis and risk
        4 Risk
        4.1 Resilient and adaptive strategies
        4.2 Portfolio theory
        4.3 Optimal choices and risk aversion
        4.4 Alternative views
        5 International insurance
        6 Impacts
        6.1 Distribution of impacts
        6.2 Aggregate impacts
        7 Adaptation and vulnerability
        7.1 Autonomous and planned adaptation
        7.2 Costs and benefits
        7.3 Adaptive capacity
        7.3.1 Enhancing adaptive capacity
        7.4 Regions
        7.5 Systems and sectors
        8 Mitigation
        8.1 International public goods
        8.2 Policies
        8.2.1 National
        8.2.2 International
        8.3 Finance
        8.4 Cost estimates
        9 Adaptation and mitigation
        9.1 Paying for an international public good
        9.1.1 Efficiency and equity
        9.2 Trade offs
        9.2.1 Results
        9.2.2 Strengths
        10 Geoengineering
        11 Major reports considering economics of climate change

    2. The goal of an economy is consumption, not production.

      Jobs are a cost. Producing the same good or service with fewer jobs is always better than with more jobs because it frees those resources to produce something else.

      1. MikeP|5.6.17 @ 2:30PM|#

        The goal of an economy is consumption, not production.

        Jobs are a cost. Producing the same good or service with fewer jobs is always better than with more jobs because it frees those resources to produce something else.

        People use to have good jobs and have been put out of work with automation. The auto industry for one. Renewable energy is in a building phase and can put a lot more people to work for years. Giving us energy security, lower energy prices, and better health.

        1. If you want to say renewable energy is not economically sustainable, just say so.

          But every person who works to provide energy is a person not using the energy to do something productive — i.e., a cost to the economy.

          1. What’s not sustainable is fossil fuels in our climate. Cost of fossil fuel burning causing climate change way exceeds cost of implementing renewable energy. We cannot sustain a future 10 billion people on fossil fuels. We will degrade our climate dramatically.

            1. That may or may not be true. Unless the effects of climate change are truly catastrophic, the exponential contribution of economic growth unfettered by tax or regulation will win out over the sublinear contributions of CO2 per dollar GWP and degree warming per tonne CO2.

              So there may be a case for dramatic restrictions on the freedom to use fossil fuels. Terrible economic reasoning is not that case.

              1. Economics isn’t my area of study, but as I understand this so far, the benefits of what we do today will be felt by our children and grand children. They won’t be able to pay us back for this. So look at your children and grand children and great grand children. CO2 is a slow and steady wins the race. This is generations feeling the effect of what we do today.

                https://goo.gl/qlWRIx

                One of the mechanisms for compensation is impossible for this problem: mitigation might benefit future generations at the expense of current generations, but there is no way that future generations can compensate current generations for the costs of mitigation.[70]:4 On the other hand, should future generations bear most of the costs of climate change, compensation to them would not be possible.[61] Another transfer for compensation exists between regions and populations. If, for example, some countries were to benefit from future climate change but others lose out, there is no guarantee that the winners would compensate the losers;[61] similarly, if some countries were to benefit from reducing climate change but others lose out, there would likewise be no guarantee that the winners would compensate the losers.[citation needed]

                1. The long term outlook is hard to pin down and can get squishy with a wide variety of out comes favoring your view or my view. When I get into an area that is new to me in climate, I post a bunch of stuff and it helps me learn in this area.

                  https://goo.gl/qlWRIx

                  Cost?benefit analysis and risk[edit]
                  In a cost?benefit analysis, an acceptable risk means that the benefits of a climate policy outweigh the costs of the policy.[71] The standard rule used by public and private decision makers is that a risk will be acceptable if the expected net present value is positive.[71] The expected value is the mean of the distribution of expected outcomes.[72]:25 In other words, it is the average expected outcome for a particular decision. This criterion has been justified on the basis that:
                  a policy’s benefits and costs have known probabilities[71]
                  economic agents (people and organizations) can diversify their own risk through insurance and other markets.[71]
                  On the first point, probabilities for climate change are difficult to calculate.[71] Also, some impacts, such as those on human health and biodiversity, are difficult to value.[71] On the second point, it has been suggested that insurance could be bought against climate change risks.[71] In practice, however, there are difficulties in implementing the necessary policies to diversify climate change risks.[71]

                  1. What ever path we take, we will have to get to zero carbon emissions and even into negative carbon emissions. Switching people over from one industry to another, many of the workers can be retrained for the new jobskills needed in the clean energy living society. So do we get to zero quickly or do we take a slower path. With Donald J Trump in the White House, it will definitely slow down.

                    https://goo.gl/NhD0dY

                    An approach based on sequential decision making recognises that, over time, decisions related to climate change can be revised in the light of improved information.[9] This is particularly important with respect to climate change, due to the long-term nature of the problem. A near-term hedging strategy concerned with reducing future climate impacts might favour stringent, near-term emissions reductions.[78] As stated earlier, carbon dioxide accumulates in the atmosphere, and to stabilize the atmospheric concentration of CO2, emissions would need to be drastically reduced from their present level (refer to diagram opposite).[73] Stringent near-term emissions reductions allow for greater future flexibility with regard to a low stabilization target, e.g., 450 parts-per-million (ppm) CO2. To put it differently, stringent near-term emissions abatement can be seen as having an option value in allowing for lower, long-term stabilization targets. This option may be lost if near-term emissions abatement is less stringent.[80]

                    1. this is where bipartisanship comes in. Strategies can be developed along different paths for future benefit where things are uncertain. One area of high certainty of damage is Florida from sea level rise. We will loose part of Florida. There are towns now investing in raising their roads and investing in pumps to get the salt water pumped out. This is a clear benefit to invest on your town for the near term. Long term benefit may not be there next century. At what point do you stop investing in the community and let the sea take it over.

                      Resilient and adaptive strategies[edit]
                      See also: management, strategic management, and operations research
                      Granger Morgan et al. (2009)[74] suggested two related decision-making management strategies that might be particularly appealing when faced with high uncertainty. The first were resilient strategies. This seeks to identify a range of possible future circumstances, and then choose approaches that work reasonably well across all the range. The second were adaptive strategies. The idea here is to choose strategies that can be improved as more is learned as the future progresses. Granger Morgan et al. (2009)[74] contrasted these two approaches with the cost?benefit approach, which seeks to find an optimal strategy.

                    2. Sea level rise will crush our coastal cities. Economic trade is vital from our coastal cities. All ports in the world will have to be adapted to rising sea levels. Navies, other shipping will spend trillions on this adaptation alone. This does not stop one ounce of global warming. We will still have to spend money on going to zero carbon. So the sooner we go to zero carbon, then we will have spare money to spend on adaptation that is later to come.

                      Costs and benefits[edit]
                      A literature assessment by Adger et al. (2007:719) concluded that there was a lack of comprehensive, global cost and benefit estimates for adaptation.[94] Studies were noted that provided cost estimates of adaptation at regional level, e.g., for sea-level rise. A number of adaptation measures were identified as having high benefit-cost ratios.

                    3. The atmosphere is an international good. Ghg emissions are an international externality. So what do you think Greg?.

                      International public goods[edit]
                      The atmosphere is an international public good, and GHG emissions are an international externality (Goldemberg et al., 1996:21, 28, 43).[72] A change in the quality of the atmosphere does not affect the welfare of all individuals equally. In other words, some individuals may benefit from climate change, while others may lose out. This uneven distribution of potential climate change impacts, plus the uneven distribution of emissions globally, make it difficult to secure a global agreement to reduce emissions (Halsn?s et al., 2007:127).[108]

                    4. Many contrarians would opt for do nothing, but the economics does not show that.

                      https://goo.gl/V7BsSD

                      A common finding of cost?benefit analysis is that the optimum level of emissions reduction is modest in the near-term, with more stringent abatement in the longer-term (Stern, 2007:298;[132] Heal, 2008:20;[133] Barker, 2008).[134] This approach might lead to a warming of more than 3 ?C above the pre-industrial level (World Bank, 2010:8).[135] In most models, benefits exceed costs for stabilization of GHGs leading to warming of 2.5 ?C. No models suggest that the optimal policy is to do nothing, i.e., allow “business-as-usual” emissions.

                    5. Back to a point of agreement on AGW. There is no disagreement amongst the world’s science societies. All agree climate change is real and human made. Now what we do about it? The Stern report lays out its case.

                      https://goo.gl/33Fr9Z

                      Stern report: the key points

                      The dangers
                      ? All countries will be affected by climate change, but the poorest countries will suffer earliest and most.

                      ? Average temperatures could rise by 5C from pre-industrial levels if climate change goes unchecked.

                      ? Warming of 3 or 4C will result in many millions more people being flooded. By the middle of the century 200 million may be permanently displaced due to rising sea levels, heavier floods and drought.

                      ? Warming of 4C or more is likely to seriously affect global food production.

                      ? Warming of 2C could leave 15-40% species facing extinction.

                      ? Before the industrial revolution level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere was 280 parts per million (ppm) CO2 equivalent (CO2e); the current level is 430ppm CO2e. The level should be limited to 450-550ppm CO2.

                      ? Anything higher would substantially increase risks of very harmful impacts. Anything lower would impose very high adjustment costs in the near term and might not even be feasible.

                      ? Deforestation is responsible for more emissions than the transport sector.

                      ? Climate change is the greatest and widest-ranging market failure ever seen.

                    6. https://goo.gl/33Fr9Z

                      Recommended actions

                      ? Three elements of policy are required for an effective response: carbon pricing, technology policy and energy efficiency.

                      ? Carbon pricing, through taxation, emissions trading or regulation, will show people the full social costs of their actions. The aim should be a global carbon price across countries and sectors.

                      ? Emissions trading schemes, like that operating across the EU, should be expanded and linked.

                      ? Technology policy should drive the large-scale development and use of a range of low-carbon and high-efficiency products.

                      ? Globally, support for energy research and development should at least double; support for the deployment of low-carbon technologies should be increased my up to five times.

                      ? International product standards could be introduced.

                      ? Large-scale international pilot programmes to explore the best ways to curb deforestation should be started very quickly.

                      ? Climate change should be fully integrated into development policy, and rich countries should honour pledges to increase support through overseas development assistance.

                      ? International funding should support improved regional information on climate change impacts.

                      ? International funding should go into researching new crop varieties that will be more resilient to drought and flood.

                    7. We have an increasing population in the world, more mouths to feed and they want our lifestyle because it is a good life. The economics of solving these problems are taken seriously by people and have a great deal of study behind them. We must choose a path forward.

                    8. The benefits easily outweigh the cost of the future possible problems. At least 5% of GDP is a conservative cost. Let us not get to the 20% GDP cost. It can avoided with cliamte action policies.

                      https://goo.gl/33Fr9Z

                      Economic impacts

                      ? The benefits of strong, early action considerably outweigh the costs.

                      ? Unabated climate change could cost the world at least 5% of GDP each year; if more dramatic predictions come to pass, the cost could be more than 20% of GDP.

                      ? The cost of reducing emissions could be limited to around 1% of global GDP; people could be charged more for carbon-intensive goods.

                      ? Each tonne of CO2 we emit causes damages worth at least $85, but emissions can be cut at a cost of less than $25 a tonne.

                      ? Shifting the world onto a low-carbon path could eventually benefit the economy by $2.5 trillion a year.

                      ? By 2050, markets for low-carbon technologies could be worth at least $500bn.

                      ? What we do now can have only a limited effect on the climate over the next 40 or 50 years, but what we do in the next 10-20 years can have a profound effect on the climate in the second half of this century.

                      Read the Stern review here.

                    9. Read the Stern review here.

                      I’ve read it.

                      Read William Nordhaus’s response to the Stern Review here.

                      The Review’s radical revision of the economics of climate change does not arise from any new economics, science, or modeling. Rather, it depends decisively on the assumption
                      of a near-zero time discount rate combined with a specific utility function. The Review’s unambiguous conclusions about the need for extreme immediate action will not survive the substitution of assumptions that are more consistent with today’s marketplace real interest rates and savings rates.

                2. So look at your children and grand children and great grand children.

                  You have to ask your children and grandchildren, Would you rather there was 2 degrees less warming or would you rather have 60% more wealth to deal with whatever was the actually most important problem of your age?

                  The effects of the warming have to be actually and truly catastrophic for them to choose coolness over wealth.

                  CO2 is a slow and steady wins the race.

                  Economic growth is fast and exponential and wins the cost-benefit test. Tonne CO2 per dollar production is sublinear, and degree warming per tonne CO2 is sublinear. Again, the effects of global warming have to be actually and truly catastrophic for the optimal tax on carbon to be anything more aggressive than merely tuning the exponential.

                  In particular, targeting temperature or atmospheric CO2 costs humanity far more than it benefits it. And in my opinion even the benefit due to tuning the exponential with a rational carbon tax has a cost that doesn’t even enter the standard economic studies, that being the cost of giving governments fair and foul the power to collect and use this new tax.

                  1. Scientific evidence points to extreme problems with unattended to climate action. Just in terms of the United states cashing in on the clean energy market, which will have the longest strongest economic growth in the world for the next 50 years, you are actually ignoring your very own basis for arguing against global warming action. Total contradiction. The biggest job growth in the world is clean energy. The decreasing future job growth will be fossil fuels. Economics will be the same way. Fossil fuels does not have a future into the next century.

                    https://goo.gl/EzKj3Z

                    Reason magazine’s science correspondent Ronald Bailey describes the “destructive character” of the Stern Review’s policy proposals, saying that “Surely it is reasonable to argue that if one wants to help future generations deal with climate change, the best policies would be those that encouraged economic growth. This would endow future generations with the wealth and superior technologies that could be used to handle whatever comes at them including climate change. […] So hurrying the process of switching from carbon-based fuels along by boosting energy costs means that humanity will have to delay buying other good things such as clean water, better sanitation, more and better food, and more education.”[29]

                    1. Just in terms of the United states cashing in on the clean energy market, which will have the longest strongest economic growth in the world for the next 50 years, you are actually ignoring your very own basis for arguing against global warming action. Total contradiction.

                      It’s not a contradiction. You are exercising the broken windows fallacy. You cannot point to one particular arena of economic activity and claim it as a positive without recognizing what economic activity is not happening because of it. In a free market, yes, capital and labor diffuse to those activities that provide the most value, hence economic activity is almost always good for the economy as a whole. But economic activity that arises from subsidy or mandate is almost always worse for the economy than whatever alternative economic activity would have happened without the subsidy or mandate.

                      The biggest job growth in the world is clean energy. The decreasing future job growth will be fossil fuels. Economics will be the same way. Fossil fuels does not have a future into the next century.

                      That’s great! If all this happens without subsidy or mandate — for either clean energy or fossil fuels — then it’s a clear net win for the world economy.

                      Yes, Ronald Bailey is making the same argument that I am. Curious that you cite it.

                    2. The value of carbon energy has gone down simply for life sustainability reasons. Its still necessary, but now we know. Your self induced ignorance only leaves you behind on the curve. The IPCC reviews all the science in the world and does not agree with your position and if Ron Bailey disagrees with IPCC he is behind the curve also. Physics combined with economics says to get off of carbon pollution. The longer we wait the more it costs our future generations. That is spelled out in my past posts on here.

                      It’s not a contradiction. You are exercising the broken windows fallacy. You cannot point to one particular arena of economic activity and claim it as a positive without recognizing what economic activity is not happening because of it. In a free market, yes, capital and labor diffuse to those activities that provide the most value, hence economic activity is almost always good for the economy as a whole. But economic activity that arises from subsidy or mandate is almost always worse for the economy than whatever alternative economic activity would have happened without the subsidy or mandate.

                    3. Just in terms of the United states cashing in on the clean energy market…

                      Incidentally, I think the United States “cashing in” is likely to be a net negative for humanity as a whole. It is certainly a grim goal to strive for.

                      Who will the United States — the richest country in the world — “cash in” from? Poorer countries, of course. To the extent that the governments of the developed world subsidize their clean energy industries while strong arming the world into buying those technologies, there is a massive transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich.

                      And to the extent that the poor people of the world are prevented from raising their lot through the least expensive energy sources available — namely fossil fuels — they will suffer continued degraded quality of life.

                      For the families of the 4 million people who die every year from internal air pollution, “clean energy” means anything not burned inside their house. What price must they continue to pay to satisfy the parochial concerns of the already-rich for a cooler world a century hence?

                    4. I’ve described the grimness of living with carbon based energy well enough for you to know my position on that. 100% renewable energy fits into the living boundaries of earth as we know. Carbon based energy has long term consequences of extinction of life forms, ocean acidification, droughts, extreme rains, extreme hurricanes and the list goes on and on. The poor can have lights at night in stead of kerosene. Renewable energy will bring them into the modern world, charging cell phones, connecting to the internet, watching tv and listening to radio. Eneregy right on location rather than transporting carbon fuels everywhere.

                      Just in terms of the United states cashing in on the clean energy market…

                      Incidentally, I think the United States “cashing in” is likely to be a net negative for humanity as a whole. It is certainly a grim goal to strive for.

                      Who will the United States — the richest country in the world — “cash in” from? Poorer countries, of course. To the extent that the governments of the developed world subsidize their clean energy industries while strong arming the world into buying those technologies, there is a massive transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich.

  26. I fail to see why this is an issue at all. This graph on this US government website shows that the US will obviously meet the goal of a 26% reduction of CO2 emissions by 2025. No matter what Trump does, short of supporting the coal industry with billions of dollars of subsidies, will change the trajectory of the US’s reduction of CO2 emissions. And who wants that? This is just a matter of economics, with wind and solar becoming the cheapest sources of electrical energy.

    https://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/carbon/

  27. UNEP godwinized itself decades ago by compelling its employeees to stop smoking not just in the Moonbunker, b=ut on their own time, and WHO remains the world headquarters of the tobacco prohibitionist party.

    It must have something to do with days spent in a tower overlooking Trump’s homeland of Queens.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.