[indlebe]

When Bjørn Lomborg and James Hansen agree that something (the Paris agreement) is a bad idea, I am willing to put aside the various world leader's enthusiasm and apply a bit of skepticism. Is capping the CO2 output of developed nations really the best and fairest approach here? I don't have the answers, but I'm not sure Paris does either.

[ZeroGravitas]

Can you name anything that doesn't have two people with opposite opinions on either side of it?

e.g. minimum wage to be higher/lower, to have more/less nuclear weapons, higher/lower taxes

edit: I just looked up Lomberg's opinion, and it turns out his response to Paris is almost exactly the opposite of Hansen's. Hansen wants to increase the price of carbon, Lomberg says "Instead of trying to make fossil fuels so expensive that no one wants them – which will never work – we should make green energy so cheap everybody will shift to it."

[indlebe]

Hansen wants to increase the price of carbon across the board. One of the possible main issues is that a country like China is still not classified as a developed country and isn't bound to Article 9, a significant component of the Paris agreements.

[philosopherlawr]

Then he should have provided that reasoning and implored other nations to add those reforms to the agreement. Just backing out is cowardly and shows he doesn't actually care.

[indlebe]

The wording used by the EU was that the Paris agreement on climate change is "irreversible and non-negotiable"

[ocschwar]

That is not Trump's reason for pulling out. And modifying the agreement can only be done from within.

[indlebe]

The EU was firm that there would be no modifications to the agreement whatsoever, "irreversible and non-negotiable"

[usaphp]

I think the problem in USA right now is that a very vocal part of the country is very much against the president and his every decision will be judged without listening to his reasoning, that's a very bad situation, and I can't imagine how any president can be productive in this environment...

Edit: I was not implying that what he did with Paris Agreement is right/wrong, I was just trying to tell that it's hard to work in an environment where every decision you make is judged with negativity right away.

[clumsysmurf]

The GOP and Trump are doing what the Koch brothers paid them to do. Many GOP lawmakers signed the “No Climate Tax” pledge, drafted by "Americans for Prosperity" that was funded by the Koch brothers. If a GOP lawmaker shows support for green energy, they would see their campaign money dry up, or a primary challenger arise(1).

(1) https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/03/us/politics/republican-le...

Jane Meyer (author of Dark Money) also talks about this recently

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/in-the-withdrawal-fr...

[archgoon]

Oh, please provide a link to the presidents reasoning.

[usaphp]

You see, that's a classic example of that. No matter what information I provide you now - you are already looking at it with negativity and it will be near impossible to change.

[stouset]

Okay, but that's basic table stakes for any discussion in which you want to change entrenched parties' minds.

In the meantime, you didn't bother to actually provide anything outlining his reasoning. Which is fine, because having listened to his speech announcing the decision, I can state that virtually none of his stated reasons appear to have any sort of relationship with reality. Which is seemingly par for the course for his administration — is it any wonder people are so skeptical of virtually anything he says?

For starters, he argues that it allows China and India to build coal plants, while allowing the US to build none. Besides the agreement not even having the word coal in it, the entire thing allows countries to come up with their own standards, that they self-enforce. If the US decided our standard was "a coal plant in every home", it wouldn't actually violate any term of the agreement.

[stinos]

you are already looking at it with negativity and it will be near impossible to change.

Well, same can be said of you: I actually wanted to see reasoning and am willing to change my mind on the subject (well, actually not even change, as i don't have a single fixed stance on it because I know I lack the insight), but you're not providing information, instead responding with more negativity :]

[usaphp]

I was not talking about this particular climate change action that he did, I was trying to say "in general" it's hard to change person's mind when he is already negatively looking at the subject.