The Great Father in Washington has withdrawn from the Paris agreement. Investors are so terrified about the Earth turning into Venus that the S&P 500 is up 1.75 percent in the last month.
For those of us who advocate for a smaller and/or more decentralized U.S. government, I wonder if this embarrassing spectacle has a silver lining. “Bucking Trump, These Cities, States and Companies Commit to Paris Accord” (nytimes):
Representatives of American cities, states and companies are preparing to submit a plan to the United Nations pledging to meet the United States’ greenhouse gas emissions targets under the Paris climate accord, despite President Trump’s decision to withdraw from the agreement.
A lot of cities and nearly all of our states have a larger population than the world’s median-sized country (about 5.5 million). Most have lavishly funded governments (sometimes so lavish that they need to declare bankruptcy!). It now transpires that they don’t need the Great Father in Washington to make a diet pledge on their behalf. (In retrospect perhaps this should have been obvious. If Denmark and Greece can independently set their CO2 output, why not Indiana and Florida?
Readers: Could this reverse some of the trend toward Americans looking to the federal government to solve all of their problems? Could it actually be more effective in reducing CO2 emissions? (People are more likely to comply with a pledge made locally with their neighbors rather than one made by a politician thousands of miles away?)
John Kerry was saying how 190 countries are in this, but he forgot to mention that for most of these countries, they just get payments to be in it from countries like the US. Why wouldn’t they want free money?
Does CA, MA, and NY plan to send the $100 billion a year to the developing countries (that are only in the agreement to get the money)?
Because without the pledged payments, Trump probably would not even have objected to the agreement. After all, it is non-binding as to performance.
This is great: coal and other carbon fuel producing entities do not commit to the Paris Accords and those entities that have none of the riches do! US economy has adopted to changing environment.
It depends. There’s a limit to what individuals can do, but a lot of major changes can be made at the local level.
For example, in San Francisco and the Bay Area as a whole, there is a lot less housing within walking distance of transit than there could be. Building more housing near on the many parking lots and abandoned industrial spaces near existing train states would reduce the area’s per capita greenhouse gas emissions, and also quite possible the area’s total greenhouse gas emissions if it were coupled with restrictions on building in open space far to the east of the bay area that produces cheap suburban homes but requires 2+ hour commutes in cars to the places where the jobs are. This is a solvable problem technologically (we know how to build apartments/condos on parking lots; we also know how to pass laws protect open space and say that nothing can be built here) but is still challenging politically.
But building housing near transit is often opposed by politically effective community groups that cite various reasons including, but not limited to, 1) This new housing will increase traffic and reduce quality of life of exiting residents 2)This new housing will spoil our neighborhood character 3) this new housing is only affordable to rich people will force out existing residents and induce gentrification 4) this new housing is for poor people and will bring homelessnesss and crime 5) Our schools are overcrowded 6) No one wants to live in this housing, its not a single family home with a yard and is therefore not the American dream
In our hyperdemocracy, each of these arguments is then heard and considered. That’s not *always* a bad thing, but a lot of times (maybe most of the time) it delays or prevents the obviously logical thing from happening.
A lot of people who complain/worry a lot about climate change still drive cars instead of biking and taking transit and aren’t particularly motivated to change their lifestyle or give up any nice. I used to be really bothered by this sort of hypocrisy, but now it bothers me less than the practices of, for example, the San Francisco chapter of the Sierra club, which opposes all new housing in San Francisco. I no longer care that those individuals drive SUV’s; I care a lot more that they influence the types of cities that get built in such a way that people who work here often have no practical choice other than to drive around in cars, whether they like it and care about the climate or not.
Staying in the Paris Climate agreement would not have necessarily solved these issues either. It’s possible assuming local responsibility will force some municipalities to take responsibility for the consistency of their policies with their stated goals. But not clear if that will actually happen.
It will also be interesting to see if this turn of events changes the planned closure of nuclear reactors in California and New York.
The global warming situation is analogous (but on a global scale) to the horrible smog I grew up with in L.A. Even if everyone is willing to spend $1,000 to put pollution controls on their car to clean up the air, it doesn’t make sense for any one individual to do so because that doesn’t buy them cleaner air. They only get cleaner air if everyone does it.
Neal:
Paris accords had to be re-marketed as ‘universal free clean air care’, as Obamacare or European health care rationing systems that result in 50% taxes and US-level debts with less health care, productivity and not able militaries! Trump nixed Paris accords because it did not have right signaling, otherwise he would not ‘repeal without replace’
Most have lavishly funded governments (sometimes so lavish that they need to declare bankruptcy!).
That’s contrary to logic. A government that has to declare bankruptcy needs more funds!
(People are more likely to comply with a pledge made locally with their neighbors rather than one made by a politician thousands of miles away?)
It’s unlikely that any evidence of such behavior can be found. The atmosphere is shared by the entire planet, which is why a global solution is what’s required. Of course, shifting stuff from DC to the states and then on to lower levels of government is just another part of the big business/rich guy agenda. It’s easier and cheaper for businesses to push politicians around at the local level.
In an interview with the Atlantic, Michael Oppenheimer points out one major cost: patchwork regulation.
Russil Wvong # 7, patchwork of regulations already exists among US states, and it could, since states formed the union originally! Repairs in NYC cost at least an order of magnitude more than in other places. That’s why companies move form state to state, it is pretty common in the USA. When we have common regulation such as for laying roads it is usually more of a problem than of a solution.