# Is the paris accord really unfair to the USA **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 2, 2017, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-paris-accord-really-unfair-to-the-usa/787929 "2017-06-02T14:39:33Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2017, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-paris-accord-really-unfair-to-the-usa/787929/121 "2017-06-06T21:14:51Z")
[QUOTE=HurricaneDitka] Is that true or false? I didn’t know, and he didn’t offer much in the way of specifics, so I decided to go do some research. Here is what I found: CNN: Trump’s right and NPR. It seems that he was referring to the Acosta Deep Mine, in Jennerstown, PA, set to open on June 8th. Now, the 70 or so jobs it creates aren’t going to single-handedly save the industry, but this claim seems to be mostly true. Agree? [/QUOTE] The thing about spin is that you use a fact to create an impression, usually in the same way a magician will use a waving hand or fluttering cape to hide the bird he’s pulling out of his sleeve. True, what he’s saying here is ‘accurate’…but it’s tossing out an accurate fact to create a false impression. From your CNN article: > [@](#): > > So coal is roaring back? Not quite. > > A Columbia University study estimates the coal industry lost roughly 60,000 jobs since the end of 2011 and hundreds of thousands since the 1920s. That’s because more and more of the world’s energy production is coming from clean energy like solar and cleaner sources like natural gas. > > The resulting job loss has caused a lot of pain in regions of the country that depend on coal. As a candidate, Trump appealed to those voters. > > The Acosta Coal Mine and others set to open make what’s known as metallurgical coal, which doesn’t face as much competition from cheap natural gas. Half of a steel facility’s energy input comes from coal, with natural gas making up just 5%, according to the World Steel Association. > > Met coal prices have skyrocketed, due in part because China is producing less coal. NPR says something similar in their ‘long answer’ section: > [@](#): > > The coal mines that are opening up produce a special kind of coal used in steelmaking and are opening largely because of events unrelated to federal policy, experts say. The market for the kind of coal used in electricity — the biggest use for coal — remains down relative to where it was several years ago. > > In other words, the industry has rebounded slightly after years of layoffs and closures caused mainly by competition from cheap natural gas. And a handful of new mines in Wyoming, Alabama, Pennsylvania and West Virginia are either opening or slated to open in the next few years. > > The coal mine Trump referred to is the Acosta Deep Mine in Jennerstown, Pa., about an hour east of Pittsburgh. It is scheduled to have an opening ceremony next week, but there’s no word yet on whether the president will be there for the ribbon-cutting. > > “We’re staffing up,” George Dethlefsen, CEO of Corsa Coal Corp., which owns the mine, told Bloomberg in February. The mine plans to employ about 70 people. So, yeah…I agree it’s true that the mine he mentioned is reopening. But the overarching point he’s making by using that is false. And to me, his whole speech is like that. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2017, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-paris-accord-really-unfair-to-the-usa/787929/122 "2017-06-06T21:21:21Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I’m going to have to decline your invitation to try and catalog _all_ of Trump’s accurate statements in the announcement (I simply don’t have the time). I don’t doubt, as a guy who is typically light on details and cares little for lawyer-like precision in his statements, that there are some things Trump said that are inaccurate. I don’t think it’s “most” of what he said, and I don’t know if I’d use the term “flat-out lies” to describe very much of it, but YMMV. This seems strange to me. It is within your power to argue from a position of factual accuracy, if you quantify the number of truths and untruths in the speech. Yet you decline to do so, instead preferring to argue from a position of admittedly self-imposed ignorance. Why would you not seek to dispel the notion that there are more untruths than truths in what you are advocating for? Surely that would render your arguments that much more effective? 😕 ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2017, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-paris-accord-really-unfair-to-the-usa/787929/123 "2017-06-06T21:34:15Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Is that true or false? I didn’t know, and he didn’t offer much in the way of specifics, so I decided to go do some research. Here is what I found: [CNN: Trump’s right](http://money.cnn.com/2017/06/01/investing/coal-mine-trump-paris-speech/index.html) and [NPR](http://www.npr.org/2017/06/02/531255253/fact-check-is-president-trump-correct-that-coal-mines-are-opening). It seems that he was referring to the Acosta Deep Mine, in Jennerstown, PA, set to open on June 8th. Now, the 70 or so jobs it creates aren’t going to single-handedly save the industry, but this claim seems to be mostly true. Agree? There is a slight amount of truth to it, but it is entirely deceptive in nature, along with a decent helping of lies. Break it down… > [@](#): > > the current agreement effectively blocks the development of clean coal in America Lie > [@](#): > > and the mines are starting to open up. Slight truth, 1 mine is opening up. > [@](#): > > We’re having a big opening in two weeks Deceptive. Big? I dunno about that . Quite a bit of pomp and circumstance for 70 jobs. This coal from this mine will not be used for producing electricity, and as such, is a much more limited market that has very limited growth. This mine is not opening because he pulled out of the paris climate deal, it has nothing to do with that, and would have been opened if Clinton was president. Do you truly feel that there was anything in that statement that was not meant to be deceptive? He is trying to give the impression that this mine is opening because of his actions in pulling out of the climate change agreement, or even due to his actions at all, when nothing could be further from the truth. I don’t know that I could rate the statement 100% false, as he did use a couple of actual facts there, but to label it “mostly true” is a more than a bit generous. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2017, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-paris-accord-really-unfair-to-the-usa/787929/124 "2017-06-06T21:41:42Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > … Is that true or false? I didn’t know, and he didn’t offer much in the way of specifics, so I decided to go do some research. Here is what I found: [CNN: Trump’s right](http://money.cnn.com/2017/06/01/investing/coal-mine-trump-paris-speech/index.html) and [NPR](http://www.npr.org/2017/06/02/531255253/fact-check-is-president-trump-correct-that-coal-mines-are-opening). It seems that he was referring to the Acosta Deep Mine, in Jennerstown, PA, set to open on June 8th. Now, the 70 or so jobs it creates aren’t going to single-handedly save the industry, but this claim seems to be mostly true. Agree? In discussing the accuracy of Trump’s speech trying to come up with reasons for withdrawing from the Paris accord, the fact that a coal mine is opening somewhere is completely irrelevant; it’s simply the result of misguided policies that are going to ramp up fossil fuel use again and accelerate the damage of climate change. What we are discussing is whether or not Trump ever provided credible reasons for this extraordinary action that defies every other major country on earth and threatens to undermine critically important international progress on climate change. And we already had that discussion [in this thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=827450) in which you participated, so it’s a bit of mystery why you’re asking again now. To remind you, you started off cited misleading statistics from climate denialist Bjorn Lomborg on how little effect the Paris accord would have, which were appropriately refuted. We then went on to discuss one of Trump’s few tangible claims, the one about the alleged loss of 2.7 million jobs, which turned out to be from the National Economic Research Associates who, as pointed out in that thread, are basically lying shills for the fossil fuel industry. And as also discussed over there, Ted Cruz had made all the same points in an op-ed on CNN, including quoting the NERA job loss figure, and the whole of it was debunked by several prominent scientists as documented [here](http://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/paris-agreement-op-ed-us-senator-ted-cruz-misrepresents-costs-benefits-reducing-greenhouse-gas-emissions/), thus demonstrating that Trump’s stated rationale for withdrawing from the Paris accords was basically a pack of lies. Hope that helps. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2017, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-paris-accord-really-unfair-to-the-usa/787929/125 "2017-06-06T21:43:15Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > This seems strange to me. It is within your power to argue from a position of factual accuracy, if you quantify the number of truths and untruths in the speech. Yet you decline to do so, instead preferring to argue from a position of admittedly self-imposed ignorance. Why would you not seek to dispel the notion that there are more untruths than truths in what you are advocating for? Surely that would render your arguments that much more effective? 😕 Because of the time involved. I have very little desire to fact-check every single line of Trump’s speech to see if I come up with more trues than falses. Such an exercise would be extremely time-consuming, and not particularly interesting to me. Maybe if I’m bored later this week I’ll take the time to do it, but I doubt it. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2017, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-paris-accord-really-unfair-to-the-usa/787929/126 "2017-06-06T21:45:02Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > And we already had that discussion [in this thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=827450) in which you participated, so it’s a bit of mystery why you’re asking again now. I remember the thread. What, precisely, do you think I’m “asking again now”? ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2017, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-paris-accord-really-unfair-to-the-usa/787929/127 "2017-06-06T21:45:17Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Because of the time involved. I have very little desire to fact-check every single line of Trump’s speech to see if I come up with more trues than falses. Such an exercise would be extremely time-consuming, and not particularly interesting to me. Maybe if I’m bored later this week I’ll take the time to do it, but I doubt it. Why wouldn’t you find it “particularly interesting” to know whether or not your impressions of Mr. Trump and his truthfulness are accurate? Are you not interested in being able to defend your arguments and positions as well as possible? ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2017, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-paris-accord-really-unfair-to-the-usa/787929/128 "2017-06-06T21:54:15Z")
> [@](#): > > … the mines are starting to open up. > [@k9bfriender](#): > > Slight truth, 1 mine is opening up. It’s more than a single mine, although he gave additional detail about one particular mine in the immediate future. According to the NPR article I linked to: > [@](#): > > a handful of new mines in Wyoming, Alabama, Pennsylvania and West Virginia are either opening or slated to open in the next few years. That would certainly seem to qualify the “mines are starting to open up” as more than a “slight” truth, don’t you think? > [@k9bfriender](#): > > Deceptive. Big? I dunno about that . Quite a bit of pomp and circumstance for 70 jobs. I don’t know if it’s “big” either, and it’s probably typical of Trump’s penchant for grandiose statements (“bigly”), but before we run off and label it “deceptive”, I’d like to see a bit more of your analysis than “I dunno about that”. How many people are typically employed in coal mines? Is 70 on the high or low end of that range? Are there other ways of measuring the size of the mine besides the # of employees that would support the adjective “big” (like, amount of coal produced)? I don’t know either, but I’m not yet willing to hang the “deceptive” label on the adjective if we’re both operating from ignorance on the subject. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2017, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-paris-accord-really-unfair-to-the-usa/787929/129 "2017-06-06T21:56:45Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I remember the thread. What, precisely, do you think I’m “asking again now”? [This](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=20257925&postcount=113). In response to RickJay previously stating that “… most of what Trump said about the Paris agreement were flat-out lies” you responded “Rather than turning to John Oliver, someone I consider to be a good ways off from a neutral arbiter of facts, why don’t you work from the primary source material and craft your own arguments?”. You seemed to be asking for arguments concerning the accuracy of Trump’s statements to justify the withdrawal. Was that not an accurate interpretation? I found it unnecessary to do so since a number of prominent scientists had already done it. I provided a link to their analysis. Again. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2017, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-paris-accord-really-unfair-to-the-usa/787929/130 "2017-06-06T22:03:43Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > Why wouldn’t you find it “particularly interesting” to know whether or not your impressions of Mr. Trump and his truthfulness are accurate? > > Are you not interested in being able to defend your arguments and positions as well as possible? I already stated the reason, but maybe if you ask it a third time, you’ll get … the same answer again. “The time involved”. I’m not going to spend hours and hours fact-checking every single line of Trump’s speech, and I wouldn’t expect **RickJay** (who made the original “most of what Trump said about the Paris agreement were flat-out lies” claim) to either. If you’ve got that kind of free time, why don’t you dive in and report back to us what you find? You’ll also have the benefit of “know[ing] whether or not _your_ impressions of Mr. Trump and his truthfulness are accurate”. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2017, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-paris-accord-really-unfair-to-the-usa/787929/131 "2017-06-06T22:04:48Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > And we already had that discussion [in this thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=827450) in which you participated, so it’s a bit of mystery why you’re asking again now. To remind you, you started off cited misleading statistics from climate denialist Bjorn Lomborg on how little effect the Paris accord would have, which were appropriately refuted. We then went on to discuss one of Trump’s few tangible claims, the one about the alleged loss of 2.7 million jobs, which turned out to be from the National Economic Research Associates who, as pointed out in that thread, are basically lying shills for the fossil fuel industry… Ok, so of course, let us look at two key facts: Global warming is a fact. The Paris Climate Agreement alone will not solve the climate change problem. The Agreement is voluntary with no enforcement actions or authority. So, altho many nations signed it, few will comply. The Western Democracies will, by and large- _attempt_ to comply. Some will succeed, some will come close, some will fail. This will help the GW problem. The 3rd World Dictatorships and near Dictatorships will- by and large- not even make the attempt. A couple are likely sincere and will proceed until deposed. Most will assign a budget to some Brother in law, who will promptly steal and pocket 90% of the funds. Nothing substantive will be done. \*To think otherwise is naive. \*They sign treaties about Human trafficking etc and blithely ignore them, while meanwhile pocketing profits from such. Counting on them to make the numbers is wishing for Unicorns. The Elephants in the Room are China and Russia. Are they sincere? Who knows? China’s promises are far off and vague. I am inclined to be skeptical. The USA is different. If this Treaty was actually ratified (not gonna happen) it would be Law. The USA is actually quite good on following it’s _ratified_ treaties. (Those “treaties” with the Native Americans were by and large only written agreements, not actual \*ratified \*treaties). These would have been great points for Trump to make. \*\*But he didnt. \*\* (well, sorta but not the main points) The GOP (by and large) doesnt ‘believe’ in Global Warming (as if \*closing your eyes and putting your fingers in your ears and wishing \*will make it go away).:rolleyes: jobs? Sure, it will cost jobs. But in the net, likely it would have led to higher paying and certainly better working condition jobs in the Alternative Energy field. Maybe we would lose 70 Coal miner jobs but gain 35 white collar jobs in Silicon Valley. To me, that’s a new _gain_, not a\* loss\*. But Silicon Valley voted for Hillary while Coal miners voted for trump (more fools they). ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2017, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-paris-accord-really-unfair-to-the-usa/787929/132 "2017-06-06T22:08:42Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > [This](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=20257925&postcount=113). In response to RickJay previously stating that “… most of what Trump said about the Paris agreement were flat-out lies” you responded “Rather than turning to John Oliver, someone I consider to be a good ways off from a neutral arbiter of facts, why don’t you work from the primary source material and craft your own arguments?”. > > You seemed to be asking for arguments concerning the accuracy of Trump’s statements to justify the withdrawal. Was that not an accurate interpretation? I found it unnecessary to do so since a number of prominent scientists had already done it. I provided a link to their analysis. Again. I was thinking RickJay might offer up a defense of his use of the word “most”, perhaps some statistical analysis or scorecard that X statements in Trump’s speech were true, and Y statements were false. As I’ve noted with **Snowboarder Bo** , I don’t _really_ expect him to (although I’d be delighted if he did), but it was intended to highlight the non-factual nature of the “most” claim. As for your points about some of the claims by NERA and other things stated in Trump’s speech, I don’t mind continuing our discussion on that here. I propose we start with the real-world effect the Paris Agreement was going to have on climate change (longer post on this subject to follow shortly). ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2017, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-paris-accord-really-unfair-to-the-usa/787929/133 "2017-06-06T22:12:56Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I already stated the reason, but maybe if you ask it a third time, you’ll get … the same answer again. > > “The time involved”. I’m not going to spend hours and hours fact-checking every single line of Trump’s speech, and I wouldn’t expect **RickJay** (who made the original “most of what Trump said about the Paris agreement were flat-out lies” claim) to either. If you’ve got that kind of free time, why don’t you dive in and report back to us what you find? You’ll also have the benefit of “know[ing] whether or not _your_ impressions of Mr. Trump and his truthfulness are accurate”. Well, for one thing, I already know that my impressions of Mr. Trump and his truthfulness are accurate. Okay; you don’t have the time, you say. I just find it odd that you spend so much time posting here about this subject, yet your priority isn’t in finding out whether or not your position is supported by facts. I do understand that we all have to set our own priorities, tho. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2017, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-paris-accord-really-unfair-to-the-usa/787929/134 "2017-06-06T22:15:09Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > … your priority isn’t in finding out whether or not your position is supported by facts. I’m not clear what you’re talking about. Which position, precisely, are you referring to here? ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2017, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-paris-accord-really-unfair-to-the-usa/787929/135 "2017-06-06T22:20:11Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > As for your points about some of the claims by NERA and other things stated in Trump’s speech, I don’t mind continuing our discussion on that here. I propose we start with the real-world effect the Paris Agreement was going to have on climate change (longer post on this subject to follow shortly). Before you spend too much time on that, I want to make sure that you’ve read [this](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=20248023&postcount=86), which you may not have seen. I’m not sure if there’s really a great deal more to be said at this stage of the agreement, except how important it is that every nation move forward from that baseline. ETA: At last report, 149 of the 197 parties to Paris COP21 have ratified the agreement. ---
**Author:** ![Silver\_lining](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aca169/32.png) [@Silver\_lining](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Silver_lining)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2017, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-paris-accord-really-unfair-to-the-usa/787929/136 "2017-06-06T22:52:29Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > According to Trump: Even Europe is allowed to continue construction of coal plants. > > [https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/06/01/statement-president-trump-paris-climate-accord](https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/06/01/statement-president-trump-paris-climate-accord) > > Is this true or just more bullshit? > > Is he talking about former USSR eastern European states or are we being put at a disadvantage relative to fully industrialized western European states. > > I realize this is a general question but its about trump so… A few questions. 1 ) Would this be a NATO-like treaty where the USA pays 20%+ while other nations pay 1% 2 ) Who tells China and India, two nations not exactly known for being honest to comply? 3 ) I read the plan is to reduce heat by 2/10 of degrees by 2100. Are you kidding me, that’s it. By then the combustible engine was we know it for cars will be replaced. 4 ) Might some smaller nations barter their carbon use for $$$ 5 ) Who has actually read this " agreement " ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2017, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-paris-accord-really-unfair-to-the-usa/787929/137 "2017-06-06T23:20:42Z")
> [@Silver\_lining](#): > > A few questions. > > 1 ) Would this be a NATO-like treaty where the USA pays 20%+ while other nations pay 1% > > 2 ) Who tells China and India, two nations not exactly known for being honest to comply? > > 3 ) I read the plan is to reduce heat by 2/10 of degrees by 2100. Are you kidding me, that’s it. By then the combustible engine was we know it for cars will be replaced. > > 4 ) Might some smaller nations barter their carbon use for $$$ > > 5 ) Who has actually read this " agreement " I’ll ignore the straw men in (1) and (2). (3) is wrong. The objective isn’t to “reduce” temperature, but to limit its rise by reducing emissions on a graduated trajectory, and the target is to limit temperature rise to well below 2°C. Either someone misplaced a decimal point in what you were reading or it’s some of Lomborg’s fudged numbers again. (4) you’ve got cap and trade backwards. For more information on (5) and other related matters, see the link in my post immediately preceding yours. ---
**Author:** ![Silver\_lining](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aca169/32.png) [@Silver\_lining](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Silver_lining)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2017, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-paris-accord-really-unfair-to-the-usa/787929/138 "2017-06-06T23:28:25Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > I’ll ignore the straw men in (1) and (2). > > (3) is wrong. The objective isn’t to “reduce” temperature, but to limit its rise by reducing emissions on a graduated trajectory, and the target is to limit temperature rise to well below 2°C. Either someone misplaced a decimal point in what you were reading or it’s some of Lomborg’s fudged numbers again. > > (4) you’ve got cap and trade backwards. > > For more information on (5) and other related matters, see the link in my post immediately preceding yours. Show me who pays for it. You can’t ignore India, and China staying in compliance, or any dictator for that matter. A target is different than the realist goal, is it not? When I hear 2/10 of degrees by 2100, that is a tiny amount. The earth has had warm and cool period long before carbon machines. There is limited data on sunspot activity and the ozone layer itself seems to fluctuate. For example, the hole in the ozone layer 1-2 decades ago in the Antartica region seems to be back to normal. Sooner or later, there will be a cleaner more efficient fuel cell. Finally, if the other nations are for it, that’s great, let them do it. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2017, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-paris-accord-really-unfair-to-the-usa/787929/139 "2017-06-06T23:39:21Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > (3) is wrong. The objective isn’t to “reduce” temperature, but to limit its rise by reducing emissions on a graduated trajectory, and the target is to limit temperature rise to well below 2°C. Either someone misplaced a decimal point in what you were reading or it’s some of Lomborg’s fudged numbers again. Not so fast there **wolfpup**. Trump stated in his speech: > [@](#): > > Even if the Paris Agreement were implemented in full, with total compliance from all nations, it is estimated it would only produce a two-tenths of one degree – think of that; this much – Celsius reduction in global temperature by the year 2100. Let’s start with an easy one: Is this a true statement or not? Is it estimated that the Paris Agreement would only produce a 0.2 degree Celsius reduction in global temperature by the year 2100? It appears to come from [this MIT report from 2015 (PDF)](https://globalchange.mit.edu/sites/default/files/newsletters/files/2015%20Energy%20%26%20Climate%20Outlook.pdf): > [@](#): > > Assuming the proposed cuts are extended through 2100 but not deepened further, they result in about 0.2°C less warming by the end of the century compared with our estimates, under similar assumptions, for Copenhagen–Cancun. At least at some level “it is estimated that …” is an accurate statement. Although I’m sure you’ll find fertile ground to quibble with the significance of the claim. To get you started, let me add this: MIT itself issued [this rebuttal of sorts](http://news.mit.edu/2017/mit-issues-statement-research-paris-agreement-0602). [PolitiFact said the statement “is broadly accurate but needs some additional context.”](http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/jun/01/fact-checking-donald-trumps-statement-withdrawing-/) I largely agree with MIT and PolitiFact that some additional context is best for fully understanding the statement, but I don’t think it’s accurate to flatly call it a “wrong”. Trump didn’t pull the 0.2 number out of his ass, he read it in a report, from MIT (or, more likely, some staffer did). ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2017, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-paris-accord-really-unfair-to-the-usa/787929/140 "2017-06-07T00:00:10Z")
> [@Silver\_lining](#): > > Show me who pays for it. > > You can’t ignore India, and China staying in compliance, or any dictator for that matter. > > A target is different than the realist goal, is it not? When I hear 2/10 of degrees by 2100, that is a tiny amount. I have read a lot of the information out there and the thing is that those 2 degrees were an acknowledgment that we can not go cold turkey; that indeed, no matter how much the contrarians out there are telling you, the proponent of change are **not** against civilization as we know it. In any case as **wofpup** mentions it, the numbers are not like that and even if that was the case a small amount is a big deal as it means that then the increase in temperature can be first limited and then the updates that will be made should allow the start of controlling or reversing the increase. > **[Factcheck Shows Trump's Climate Speech Was Full of Misleading Statements](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/factcheck-shows-trumps-climate-speech-was-full-of-misleading-statements/)** > > Coal, jobs, China, blackouts all misrepresented > [@](#): > > White House officials said this figure came from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Researchers from the Climate Interactive project, which collaborates with MIT, quickly refuted Trump’s point. > > In fact, the MIT research to which the president referred showed that the Paris Agreement could lower the expected temperature increase by 0.6 to 1.1 C. > > The Trump administration essentially pulled one piece of data out of the study and removed all context before inserting it into a factually inaccurate and entirely different claim, said John Reilly, co-director of the Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change at MIT and author of the study. He said his study showed Paris was an important agreement that could shave off an entire degree of warming, but that climate skeptics have tried to make a similar false claim in the past. **He said that if anything, the study shows an argument for remaining in Paris.** > [@Silver\_lining](#): > > The earth has had warm and cool period long before carbon machines. There is limited data on sunspot activity and the ozone layer itself seems to fluctuate. For example, the hole in the ozone layer 1-2 decades ago in the Antartica region seems to be back to normal. Well thanks for pointing at an international effort were the USA did not make the mistake of dropping off. [https://www.wunderground.com/resources/climate/ozone\_skeptics.asp?MR=1](https://www.wunderground.com/resources/climate/ozone_skeptics.asp?MR=1) > [@](#): > > Ozone depletion worsened globally throughout the 1990’s, with peak ozone losses reaching 70% in Antarctica in Spring, 30% in the Arctic in Spring, 8% in Australia in summer, 10-15% in New Zealand in summer, and 3% globally year-round (WMO, 2002; Manin et. al., 2001; McKenzie et. al., 1999). In response, the international community adopted four amendments to the Montreal Protocol in the 1990’s to promote an ever faster phase out of ozone-destroying chemicals. Finally, in the early 2000’s, although the we cannot yet say that stratospheric ozone depletion has reached its maximum, atmospheric levels of ozone-destroying substances in the atmosphere are now declining, and a disappearance of the Antarctic ozone hole is expected by about 2050 (WMO, 2002). Molina and Rowland were awarded the Nobel Prize in 1995. The citation from the Nobel committee credited them with helping to deliver the Earth from a potential environmental disaster. > > On this 30th anniversary of the beginning of the ozone depletion debate, it is revealing to review the techniques the skeptics used in the CFC-ozone depletion issue over the past 30 years. All of them have parallels in the current global warming debate. > [@Silver\_lining](#): > > Sooner or later, there will be a cleaner more efficient fuel cell. Perhaps, but it is mostly wishful thinking right now. > **[Hydrogen Refuelling: Expensive & Ineffective - CleanTechnica](https://cleantechnica.com/2015/12/06/hydrogen-refuelling-expensive-ineffective/)** > > Hydrogen refuelling networks will be more expensive for no benefit. > [@Silver\_lining](#): > > Finally, if the other nations are for it, that’s great, let them do it. Here one has to notice that many contrarians out there made the point that others were not doing doing enough, therefore we should not do it, now they are saying that when others will do it we should not. They are as consistent as baby poop. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-paris-accord-really-unfair-to-the-usa/787929.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-paris-accord-really-unfair-to-the-usa/787929.md?page=8)