The Paris Accord

Guest User
Some brief history; the Paris Agreement is a 2015 agreement between 195 different member states of the United Nations, of which 147 states have ratified it. The goal of the agreement is to curtail the global temperature increase, without threatening food production.

Except now the United States is threatening to withdraw from the agreement. If that should happen, it could put even more of a burden on the rest of the world to make up for the United States' greenhouse emissions. 

Diplomatically, it could be a disaster for the United States, as they would show the world that they are unreliable and not to be trusted with deals that are already in force.


Guest User
1: Republicans in general don't believe in global warming. As for Trump, he thinks global warming is a Chinese conspiracy to make us buy Communist products, even though HIS OWN products are made in China. All those "Make America Great Again" shirts and trucker hats Republicans love wearing, they were made in China. America knew this beforehand, but they still elected Trump.

2: America IS unreliable, and cannot be trusted. The world already knows this quite well. Trusting the world's vigilante is the same as thinking the playground bully has your best interest in mind. Just like that playground bully, America only cares about what benefits America, and anything otherwise is Communist propaganda.


Guest User
Well, the United States will be withdrawing from the accord, though it might not have much of an effect. Three states are already rebelling. New York, Washington, and California have put out a joint statement, announcing the formation of the United States Climate Alliance, a coalition that seeks to uphold the terms that the United States agreed to.

It's too bad that something as important as trying to save the fucking planet has to be left to less powerful individuals, because those in power are so disconnected from reality. 

Hopefully other states will join the USCA sooner rather than later.


Guest User
Mood: we're all gonna fucking burn. Literally.

I'm honestly not surprised and I have no expectations whatsoever from that guy, yet he disappoints. With the US being the 2nd largest greenhouse gas emitter, as far as I've read, it could potentially have a pretty big effect, if not environmentally, politically; I do hope it makes the US seem less reliable though, as in letting the country step it down a notch from being a superpower, seeing as the leader is probably the most incompetent man who's ever stepped the face of global politics.

Honestly, I have nothing of interest to add other than shit dude. As a mother, I feel deeply for my kid and future kids having to be left with this shithole of a place now probably heading for extinction thanks to the power of uncultured knaves with power to vote. /rant over


Guest User
I think America needs to have a good old-fashioned Revolution.


Guest User
Aren't a lot of the US states now saying they're going to introduce their own state laws to replace the ones lost by this move?


Guest User
FileTrekkerAren't a lot of the US states now saying they're going to introduce their own state laws to replace the ones lost by this move?


Aye - the United States Climate Alliance. Many of the blue cities and states are joining in. Though I fully expect Trump and his goons to try and outlaw it, somehow.



Guest User
A few things I noticed on this "agreement"
We promised to cut greenhouse gases by 17.89%
China promised to cut gases by 20% (even though there are more and more cars on the roads in China)

Anyone ever ask why that most of the countries are only cutting this by 1% or less?
Some of the countries are 0.00%
United Kingdom is 1.55%

Why do we need an "agreement" to do this anyways ?
Couldn't we set up our own guidelines?


Guest User
Aren't the Chinese gonna spend like +300 billion on renewable energy though?

And I reckon the agreement is needed because during decades of knowing about this risk, government still haven't set up proper guidelines to the point that we're reaching a point of no-return. Personally though, I believe an international agreement is for the best, as to encourage the whole working together thing. Color me a dirty hippie, but I don't think we'll amount to much as a species if we don't start seeing each other as the same people living in the same planet.
This isn't working, this hasn't been working. The Paris Accord seemed to like a chance to move us towards a more functional civilization.


Guest User
The thing about climate change is that it is already a thing that happened. At this point, the best we can do is damage control.


Guest User
eracetA few things I noticed on this "agreement"
We promised to cut greenhouse gases by 17.89%
China promised to cut gases by 20% (even though there are more and more cars on the roads in China)

Anyone ever ask why that most of the countries are only cutting this by 1% or less?
Some of the countries are 0.00%
United Kingdom is 1.55%

Why do we need an "agreement" to do this anyways ?
Couldn't we set up our own guidelines?

The point of the agreement is to find a "fair" way to reduce emissions to the point where we can limit global warming to a certain level. Any reduction of emissions is linked to costs for your national economies, so if everyone else pollutes to make money why should you invest to clean up after the others? Western nations are mostly responsible for historical pollution, so cutting emissions equally across the board would penalize developing countries for being late to the industrialization show. There is also a large difference in emissions per capita among the industrialized nations (US emits twice as much as Europe, China emites less than Europe per capita). Then there are other factors, such as the type of your economy (service-based western economies in the north have lower energy consumtion compared to heavy-industry based economies in areas where you need the AC on all the time) or the degree to which your country converts jungle into farmland. So not easy to find a compromise.

In the end, if you really want to make a difference, you need the biggest contributors to pollution on board, i.e. China, US, India.

The recent events may cast the agreement in a strange light, like it was the best thing ever. It is better than nothing, but when it was signed scientists mostly agreed that it is "too little, too late". Also, it is an "agreement" so there aren't any mechanisms to enforce it.



Guest User
LindaleThe thing about climate change is that it is already a thing that happened. At this point, the best we can do is damage control.


That's not true at all.



Guest User
Anthropogenic climate change is happening.  It hasn't happened.  It's happening.

Also, yeah, at this point, I consider our buffoon of a president a threat to the country and not the planet and in need of immediate removal from power.  States will have to step up to override Trump on his continuous destruction of the US's goodwill and preserve our standing in the world spotlight.  The federal government at this point is no longer representing the will of the people with the exception of far-right extremists.