[dohboi]

Trump’s abandonment of Paris climate deal to cost U.S. economy trillions, new study reveals

A new study from Stanford finds that failure to meet the goals of the Paris Climate Accord will cost the U.S. economy several trillion dollars in the coming decades — and cost the world economy tens of trillions of dollars.

The study, “Large potential reduction in economic damages under UN mitigation targets,” was published in the journal Nature last week. It is among the first to analyze the economic benefits of keeping global warming to the levels unanimously agreed to by more than 190 nations at the 2015 Paris climate summit.

President Trump has made the U.S. a rogue nation — the only one in the world to abandon the agreement — under the misguided notion that it will hurt our economy. The reverse is true.

“In fact, we calculate the cumulative savings to the U.S. economy alone of meeting the most ambitious Paris targets could total $6 trillion (in today’s dollars),” the researchers Marshall Burke and Noah Diffenbaugh explained in The Hill on Sunday.

Studies have made clear that this huge economic loss from inaction is vastly larger than the cost of reducing carbon pollution.

Indeed, the Stanford study finds that inaction could cause a stunning 30 percent loss in future global economic output — whereas the world’s scientists and governments have concluded that even the most aggressive climate action costs under 0.1 percent of GDP...

https://thinkprogress.org/trump-climate ... 120a5870a/

[Tanada]

That is a sad joke, given that the Paris Accord did nothing except waste energy while politicians partied and their staff's wrote a document with no realistic goals and no enforcement provisions.

[Newfie]

The Stanford statement is ridiculous on its face. It continues to presume that there will be economic growth and that the Earth can be sustainable in the face of such growth.

The only rational route for humanity is the reduction of population and a shift to less resource intensive life styles. Paris ignored this. Therefore the Paris Accords were damaging because they green washed the problem, offering a solution that did not exist.

I don’t think Trump understands any of this either. But we are just trying to differentiate between degrees of denial.

[onlooker]

Yes, to connect the Paris accord with a plethora of jobs is absurd. This Accord only served to save face for politicians before the voters who may have concern for CC , which in the US is not many. So, for some countries it was just an international gesture of good will before the Court of world opinion. (Some countries actually care about that),
And for some countries it was a dead serious issue. But, they just had to grin and bare it. For our species another nail in the coffin

[Plantagenet]

A new study from Stanford finds that failure to meet the goals of the Paris Climate Accord will cost the U.S. economy several trillion dollars in the coming decades — and cost the world economy tens of trillions of dollars.

Simply writing on a piece of paper that global warming should be limited to 1.5° or 2.0°C does nothing to actually limit global warming.

The Paris Accords call for INCREASES in CO2 emissions. That will drive MORE global warming, not less. The Paris Accords represent the most stupid and ridiculous kind of magical thinking.

Cheers!

[dohboi]

Glad to see P and others rise to that juicy bait!

[Plantagenet]

Paris Climate Accords seeks the rest of the 3 billion dollars Obama promised to give them

if-youre-still-in-the-paris-climate-agreement-its-time-to-pay-into-the-green-climate-fund

Obama committed the US to give 3 billion dollars to the "Green Fund" in the Paris Climate Accords. Obama gave them 1 billion before he left office in Jan. 2017, but they still want the other 2 billion Obama promised them.

After Trump took the US out of the Paris Climate Accords, dozens of US cities, states, and universities and businesses headed by people who claim to care about climate change have started a "we're still in" organization, where they pretend the US is still in the Paris Climate Accords. However, when they were asked to pony up the rest of the 3 billion dollars Obama promised to give to the Paris Accords office they decided they weren't really "still in" and wouldn't pay up.

Hahahah!


The "We're still in" group of US phonies who claimed to support the Paris Climate Accords decided they weren't really "still in" when the Paris Accords asked them for the rest of the 3 billion dollars Obama promised in 2016..

[Ibon]

A major macro trend accelerating is the decrease of international cooperation and a decrease of legitimacy of international treaties or organizations that bind nations to work together and cooperate. The EU has major rifts, the US is going down a more nationalistic road, China has its over arching plan of economic empire expansion just to name a few examples. The emergence of trade wars and return of tariffs. There is no world leader or organization today with any global legitimacy. Period. And the macro trend is fragmenting toward every nation focusing on domestic stability over international cooperation. This trend will increase moving forward. In fact the golden age of international cooperation of the past couple of decades is now over and this golden age produced nothing regarding climate change negotiations.

This fragmentation is one of the important solutions moving forward to weaken the juggernaut of kudzu apes on the planet. Each nation attempting to out maneuver each other in the grand game of musical chairs as resource constraints weakens the whole, weakens the legitimacy of the globalization of economic activity.

We are quickly moving from what was a facade of international cooperation into a new world order of overt protectionism of national interests.

At least this new trend line is more honest in its intent.

[onlooker]

Yes, its becoming survival of the fittest as Nature intended. At what point will the the food surplus and/or potent economic countries remove the assistance tether from the countries that do not enjoy these advantages?

[dohboi]

We already knew this, of course, but...

Climate study ‘pulls punches’ to keep polluters on board

‘True risks’ of warming played down to placate fossil-fuel nations

The Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5C and its summary for policymakers were commissioned by governments following the UN meeting in Paris in 2015, when it was agreed to act to limit increases in global average temperature to less than 2C above pre-industrial levels and to try keep that increase nearer to 1.5C.

...... it is the report’s summary for policymakers that is causing concern. This is the document politicians will use as a key climate guide when making changes to legislation. Reviewers of earlier drafts say it is being altered to make the dangers of climate change seem less alarming. As a result, they say,, policymakers could seriously underestimate the risks of global warming. Cuts made to the final draft of the summary include:

• Any mention that temperature rises of above 1.5C could lead to increased migrations and conflict;

• All discussion of the danger of the Gulf Stream being disrupted by cold water flowing from the Arctic where more and more sea-ice is melting;

• Warnings about the dangers that 1.5–2C temperature rises could trigger irreversible loss of the Greenland ice sheet and raise sea levels by 1–2 metres over the next two centuries.

Other cuts from the summary include the sentence: “Poverty and disadvantage have increased with recent warming (about 1C) and are expected to increase in many populations as average global temperatures increase from 1C to 1.5C and beyond.”

The original summary also stated “at 2C warming, there is a potential for significant population displacement concentrated in the tropics”. Again this is not mentioned in the report for policymakers.

“The scientists who produce reports like these try to summarise the latest knowledge, but they have a reputation for being conservative about the worst risks of climate change,” Ward said.

“This time they have outdone themselves in pulling their punches, however.”

https://www.theguardian.com/science/201 ... -polluters

[Plantagenet]

We already knew this, of course, but...

Climate study ‘pulls punches’ to keep polluters on board

‘True risks’ of warming played down to placate fossil-fuel nations

I take no satisfaction in saying I told you so back in 2016 when the phony Paris Accords were signed.....but I told you so.

This is exactly what I feared. By watering down the Paris accords to the point that the final document actually called for INCREASING fossil fuel use and INCREASING CO2 emissions, Obama and the other fools gutted the whole purpose of the UN Climate Change Treaty Process.

I predicted in 2016 it would take at least a decade to get a new treaty that would undo the damage done in Paris, and that it would irreparably set back the whole effort to decarbonize the world. I may have been too optimistic on that prediction---people are so invested in defending the Paris Accords that now even scientists are lying downplaying the implications of their own data to support it.

Cheers!

[onlooker]

These Scientists involved are just following orders. The Nazi soldiers said the same thing. They are just protecting their jobs. Who am I to blame them. It is that most diabolical Catch 22 again. No politician in their right mind will ever or can ever go against the interests of the Economy it is political suicide. The Stakeholders of Wealth, who in fact are the true decision makers, say the Party must continue. And so it does.

[ROCKMAN]

P - A "new treaty", eh? Which brings to mind a question I have every time I see the title of this thread: exactly what countries are currently negotiating today? Did I miss the headlines? Lots of new climate change studies being put out all the time: yet what countries are actually responding to them. At least with proposals if not actual actions.

[Plantagenet]

P - A "new treaty", eh? Which brings to mind a question I have every time I see the title of this thread: exactly what countries are currently negotiating today? Did I miss the headlines?

Apparently, yes. Apparently you've missed the headlines about this for the last 26 years, because thats how long these climate negotiations have been going on.

Since 1992 192 nations ---including the USA--- have ratified the UN Frame Convention on Climate Change. About 165 signatories to the UNFCCC are currently conducting negotiations to "stabilize" the emissions of Greenhouse Gases into the atmosphere. These negotiations are ongoing with meetings held every 2 years. The Kyoto Accords and the Bali meeting in 2008 and failed meeting in Copenhagen in 2010 and the Paris Accords in 2016 were the results of these ongoing negotiations under the UNFCCC. Every two years there is another international meeting. Negotiations also go on in between the meetings.

Trump withdrew the US from the Paris Accords, but the US remains a signatory within the UNFCCC, and the US continues to negotiate concerning climate change within the UNFCCC framework. The 2018 UNFCCC meeting will be held in Poland and the US will be there negotiating about climate change.

In conjunction with the political negotiations under the UNFCCC, there are also biannual international scientific meetings about climate change. These are usually held shortly before the political meetings, to provide updates to the politicians on the progress of climate change research.

United_Nations_Framework_Convention_on_Climate_Change

Cheers!

[Outcast_Searcher]

Trump’s abandonment of Paris climate deal to cost U.S. economy trillions, new study reveals

https://thinkprogress.org/trump-climate ... 120a5870a/

That is a sad joke, given that the Paris Accord did nothing except waste energy while politicians partied and their staff's wrote a document with no realistic goals and no enforcement provisions.

Assuming I correctly inferred from context that this was the post Tanada was responding to, I completely agree.

Plus, while we're scoring political points, let's pretend that once Trump's term as POTUS is over, that the next POTUS, whether D or not, can't jump right back in.

And I'd be a HELL of a lot more impressed if they actually proposed and worked to pass legislation that meaningfully reduced CO2, such as large CO2 taxes. But barking at "the other side" is far easier than doing something meaningful.

The wailing is real but the logic isn't, re much of the debate on this subject.