*To the contrary, the United States and the EU, U.N. leaders, climate activists and commentators all bent over backward to emphasize this unprecedented success in bringing the world together. Rather than face criticism for pledges to do nothing, countries received applause. A refusal to take climate action seriously earned the activists’ seal of approval. Getting the deal, any deal, became the entire point.
This expediency had several disastrous consequences. First, it left the world committed to a global climate accord that did not address climate change. Analysis at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology indicated that full compliance with all pledges would reduce temperatures in the year 2100 by only 0.2 degrees Celsius, and even that may have been generous.
Second, it left the United States exposed. When nations reassembled each year to review commitments, what would they find? Those that had submitted the weakest pledges would appear to be on track or even ahead. But President Obama had promised progress from the American people beyond what even his own policies likely would bring about.
We would be the ones making real efforts and incurring real costs, yet we would be the ones chastised for failing to deliver.
This dynamic is already playing out. Pundits are lauding China for achieving peak emissions far sooner than they pledged, without interrogating whether this says more about the country’s progress or its pledge. Meanwhile, EU leaders look down their noses at the United States, even as their emissions rise and U.S. emissions fall.
Why would the United States remain party to such an agreement? We shouldn’t have accepted its terms in the first place, and in an important sense, we didn’t.
*
I’m not willing to do that either, well maybe I would actually, but it isn’t realistic to expect nations to torpedo their economy. They simply won’t so that’s why I posted to the “greatest degree possible”. I don’t know to what degree it can be done, but I’m very certain there is some percentage trade that currently is done with the USA that can be redirected elsewhere. My hope is that other nations will seek to trade with each other and less so with the USA.
1 - I’ve written the Prime Minister of Canada to encourage him to seek trade options for us elsewhere; and,
2 - I’m avoiding buying US products wherever possible. I’m not doing a total boycott, yet, but in particular in the grocery store if I see something as coming from the US, I don’t buy it. I’ve convinced several friends to do that same. Small potatoes? Sure of course, but who knows maybe it’ll catch on. I’m also very certain I’m not the only person doing this.
But I ultimately I probably don’t need to much of anything. Other countries are already seeing the USA as unreliable. It won’t take much for that to transform into a diminished preference. Also, I think it is the USA that wants a trade war, so give them one. Again, it is high time that the USA learns that they need the world more than the world needs them. Will a trade war hurt? Yeah, but it’ll hurt the USA a lot more.
I’ll make a not-so-bold prediction that your friends and your best-intentioned efforts will not be noticed by much of anybody outside of your Facebook friends network and the small circle of people that read about it here on SDMB.
These numbers will largely carry on as they have for years, without significant change.
It is not wishful thinking. I spent time consulting on a project to a US based global power generation corp. They bought and built power generation plants across the entire fuel supply chaing, i.e. gas, oil, coal, hydro, wind, solar and nuclear. Coincidentally, I moved to another consulting gig working for a US based investment and VC corp. The latter was considering making large investments in power plants in Africa in partnership with the former. These were going to be renewable energy plants with large battery storage facilities. Now, being a lowly IT guy, the business and finance folks were kind enough to explain to me the ins and outs of global energy and how the bidding process works when it comes to competing against other power generation companies in the world (China being the largest investor in Africa, for example). And the way I described it in my previous post is a real world scenario and consequences to US business if they drop out of the Paris Accord.
As luck would have it, on a recent whale watching cruise in Maine, I struck up a conversation with a guy who was a director at GE and he confirmed this for me, adding that companies like TESLA were not valuable as car manufacturers but as battery technology and power storage players in the energy markets. Hence, why it’s critical for the US to be seen as the “preferred” vendor, not an outsider in the marketplace.
You can insist that exceptions will be made for the US, but people who understand this industry better than you or I make the argument that there is a very competitive marketplace out there and the US can’t simply sit back and argue that they are indispensable and therefore not subject to market forces or treaties.
I don’t pretend to speak for all liberals, but this liberal would hyperventilate - more like vituperate - far less if Trump demonstrated just once that he does things because they are good or right and not just because they are well within his power to do so.
As an aside, it doesn’t speak well of you to light up your opponents because you are politically opposed to them when you appear to ostensibly be in agreement with their criticism of the orange buffoon. Again, you appear to be smarter than that, fwiw.
I didn’t claim otherwise. You will note, that I am not King of the World, I’m not even the Prime Minister of Canada. I simply expressed my viewpoint that I hope (I have no control over this) that other nations seek to trade with each other more and less with the USA. Americans won’t get it any other way. For the typical American voter (in particular ones that voted for Trump or other ignorant representatives), to get it two things at a minimum have to happen:
1 - There needs to be a personal loss. I think they’re going to see this when the benefits they enjoy are cut. A fair number of these people seem to think that social programs only help the welfare queens, and not good deserving Americans like them. Well, they’re about to get a nice little dose of reality. Although, I think somehow they’ll internalize this as somehow being Obama’s fault. Probably because Trump will tell them so.
2 - There needs to be a loss to the USA that trickles down to the voter, and that can only be an economic one. International reputation means nothing to the American voter, because they believe the USA is the greatest at everything no-matter-what. Really, to be completely honest, I don’t think even an economic hit, unless it was truly severe, would be noticed by the American voter. The idea that there is anything of any importance outside of the USA is just too foreign of an idea to far too many Americans. The USA is just too jingoistic. And again, for me, all the more reason to transition away from the USA and form new partnerships with other people who will appreciate and cooperate with you reliably as a partner.
Would you consider his bombing of Syria’s air base that launched the last chemical weapons attack to do be ‘doing something because it is good and right’? I do.
I’m confused as to your reply. Are you saying that in the vertical market of exporting energy consultation services the US might lose business? The broader point seemed to be that countries would ramp down or even stop trading with the US. Those are two different things. Exporting energy technology or services make up a small share of the US export business, so even if what you are saying were true…hell, even if no country would buy any US energy services or tech…it’s going to be a pretty small hit, if any.
It is wishful thinking to think that the Paris Accords are going to have a noticeable negative effect on US trade, however. But, rather than go back and forth, we shall see what happens. I find it a bit ironic (ok, really, really ironic) that you feel countries not only would but should boycott or embargo US companies and trade because of Paris and, presumably Trump, while in the same paragraph talking about the strides Chinese companies are making. It’s a disconnect that’s hard for me to fathom, to be honest.
[QUOTE=BeepKillBeep]
Also, I think it is the USA that wants a trade war, so give them one. Again, it is high time that the USA learns that they need the world more than the world needs them. Will a trade war hurt? Yeah, but it’ll hurt the USA a lot more.
[/QUOTE]
Let’s think about that for a second. You are from Canada, so let’s look at it from that perspective. Canada currently does over $500 billion dollars in exports to the US. Canada’s GDP is a tad over $1.5 trillion. That means 1/3 of Canada’s GDP is tied up in the trade with the US. Even countries who have less exports to the US would feel the sting of a real, actual, honest to gods trade war with the US. The world economy, not the strongest it’s ever been right now (EU has issues, Japan is as it has been for the past decade or so, China is having real, systemic issues right now, etc etc) would go into a total tailspin if countries tried to actually do this (which none would be stupid enough to do, expect maybe symbolically). The US would probably go into a new Great Depression, which had a lot to do with our own attempts at trade protectionism in the past. Basically, this is similar to the MAD doctrine for nuclear weapons, just using economics instead. Yeah, it would hurt the US…but Canada would fold, and so would a lot of other countries if they tried it.
The real world just doesn’t work like a movie, and the Paris Accords aren’t enough of an issue to have the world push the button just to see if going back to the 19th century would be fun…
Who do you see as those potential new partners? Join hands with Russia in an Arctic Union? Team up with China in a Northern Pacific Treaty Organization? Or start something with some other small countries? Maybe Canada and the Nordic countries?
[QUOTE=XT]
You are from Canada, so let’s look at it from that perspective. Canada currently does over $500 billion dollars in exports to the US.
[/QUOTE]
Should have been:
You are from Canada, so let’s look at it from that perspective. Canada currently does over $500 billion dollars in imports and exports to the US.
I am ambivalent about the bombing as it is the least that any US president can and has done in similar situations since what… Reagan? IOW, it’s a pretty low bar.
Would it make you feel better if I agreed that, yes, it was the correct response? Is that the kind of trivial rhetorical victory that you want to celebrate? Does it really serve to make Trump seem like the competent and respected leader we’d all prefer he was?
It seems odd to say that, because the US didn’t reduce its emissions enough, it is better to trade with China, who won’t reduce its emissions even as much as the US.
I never said “should”. I said it would likely be the unintended consequence of the decision to leave the PA.
I take no credit for these observations in the market place. I am simply relaying what the experts in the field have explained to me about how the global energy industry works. These are not penny ante players.
No, Obama did the least in a similar situation. Do you not remember the ‘red line’?
I think we can both agree that we wish / hope Trump would / will do better. We probably disagree on how bad he’s been so far. I’d say something like “not good”, while many on the Left would use more … animated language. I think it strays into hyperbole (and what I called hyperventilating) sometimes, and try to gently push back on that tendency, like I just did with your “just once” line.
Like I said, even if what you are saying is true, it’s a minor hit for the US, though of course, it won’t be minor to those who are hit by it. I agree, there will probably be some negative unintended consequences for the US from our withdrawal, but I think the part I was responding to earlier is wishful thinking.
Let’s not overstate it. I’m not saying Canada should cut all ties with the US. That’s crazy because as you say it would be devastating to Canada and unrealistic because people aren’t going to cut their own throat this way. What I’m saying is if we can re-direct $20 billion (or 3, or 30, or 5, or 50) of that elsewhere we should. That’s all. Whatever we can trade elsewhere we should trade elsewhere. And maybe I’m dead wrong, it wouldn’t be the first time, maybe that number is zero. It could very well be in which case, in my view that sucks because I really would like for the USA to have a realization that there is more to the world than the USA. I think it would make for a better USA and a better world.
Also, I’m withdrawing my claim that the USA would be hurt more. I did some research into critical import/exports to find some data to respond to HurricaneDitka and I’m mistaken on that. I was under the mistaken impression that the USA imported a lot more critical material than they do.
Even the most racist, knuckle-dragging, mouth-breathing right-wing reactionary dunces in America have at least a vague notion “that there is more to the world than the USA” (after all, how else would they blame the ‘dirty furreners’), so … mission accomplished? Trade war averted?
I think we can all feel some sympathy for that feeling of powerlessness and frustration when someone has been a jerk / wronged us / done something we think is not right, and their position of power makes it such that there’s not much we can do to retaliate / right the wrong. Sorry you feel that way. Life’s a bitch.
