[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.

[ROCKMAN]

P - Please name the countries that are currently negotiating ENFORCEBLE TERMS for any response to climate change TODAY. A bunch of politicians and advocates posting their thoughts on what they think SHOULD BE DONE to address climate change is not any form of "negotiation" IMHO. As far as those long ago "negotiations"...how's that working for you today? Along the same lines: how soon before changes in our current climate forecast are going to come into effect from those ongoing "negotiations"?

Not trying to pick on you in particular, buddy. But I've always been results oriented and cared very little for what folks say they want achieve. Am way to old to change now. LOL

[Plantagenet]

P - Please name the countries that are currently negotiating ENFORCEBLE TERMS for any response to climate change TODAY.

Do you remember the Kyoto Accords back in 1992? The UNFCC plan from the beginning was to have a purely voluntary "practice" treaty to allow countries to get used to the idea of cutting their carbon emissions, to be followed by a binding, ENFORCEABLE treaty to cut CO2 emissions. The Kyoto Accord was that voluntary "practice" treaty.

From 1992 to 2008 a binding ENFORCEABLE treaty was hammered out an finalized at the Bali 2008 UNFCC meeting. This was the treaty that was to be signed at the 2010 UNFCC meeting in Copenhagen. Unfortunately Obama had become president in the interim, and he went to Copenhagen and got in a tiff with the Chinese and derailed the signing of a binding ENFORCEABLE climate treaty.

Then Obama, together with the Chinese, tossed out the Bali draft agreement and started over again to put together another purely voluntary treaty. This was the document that was signed in Paris in 2016. The Paris Accords should actually be called Kyoto II.

So, to get to your point, there are exactly zero countries negotiating ENFORCEABLE cuts in CO2 emissions now, thanks to President Obama kowtowing to the Chinese. Its the reason I think Obama is personally responsible for doing more damage to the earth's climate then any other individual. Trump derailed the Paris Accords, but they're useless anyway. Obama destroyed decades of work on an ENFORCEABLE CO2 emissions treaty and took the entire world down the wrong path on cutting carbon emissions. And IMHO that is a bad thing.

Not trying to pick on you in particular, buddy. But I've always been results oriented and cared very little for what folks say they want achieve. Am way to old to change now. LOL

No problemo.

I briefly worked on UNFCC issues for the U.S. government---on the science side not the political side----, but that was long ago. You are exactly right that there is a lot of talk and not much in the way of results, considering 30+ years of work on the issue. The reason is clear----Obama and the Chinese didn't want a binding ENFORCEABLE global treaty to cut CO2 emissions and they derailed the decades of work and negotiations by the UNFCC intended to create one.

Cheers!

[GHung]

What would be the enforcement mechanism anyway? We've had other, non-climate related, treaties and agreements. How many of those have been effectively enforced over time, globally?

IMO, carbon reductions, etc, will ultimately be enforced (forced) by Nature and reality.

[Plantagenet]

What would be the enforcement mechanism anyway?

There are several ways. This topic of how binding commitments to reduce CO2 emissions be enforced was on the table and it was being vigorously discussed at the time of the Bali UNFCC meeting---for instance

Climate treaties and the imperative of enforcement---Oxford, 2008

Of course, now that Obama and the Chinese have scrapped the idea of a binding enforceable climate treaty to put together another Kyoto-type deal in Paris in 2016, the subject is moot. Maybe in 10-30 years the idea of a binding ENFORCEABLE UN climate treaty will be resurrected, but its dead for the foreseeable future.

Cheers!

[Tanada]

What would be the enforcement mechanism anyway? We've had other, non-climate related, treaties and agreements. How many of those have been effectively enforced over time, globally?

IMO, carbon reductions, etc, will ultimately be enforced (forced) by Nature and reality.

Actually most treaties are upheld fairly well, either because doing so is in the interest of all the signers or because the benefits of cheating are not worth the international tensions that would be created.

In terms of climate negotiations the Montreal Accord on CFC's has been a nearly complete success, partly because it had a long phase in time for lesser technologically advanced nations to adapt as they could instead of having to go cold turkey and invest a large sum up front.