According to my Facebook friends, the world is ending yet again. A few months ago it was Jew-hatred, inspired by the Trumpenfuhrer (see “Donald Trump is threatening Jews?“) and manifested as phone calls to Jewish schools and community centers. Now that the perpetrators turn out to have been an Israeli Jew with an autodialer and an anti-Trump journalist here in the U.S., my friends have been posting like crazy about the dire planet-melting consequences of an American withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement. Here are some samples of their posts and shared posts:
As a parent, as a global citizen, as a human being, as a life form sharing this planet, I cannot fully describe how upset I will be if our ignorance-pandering President does what he is apparently likely to do and exits the most promising global compact of any sort in recent years.
Ugh. Ashamed of my country that made such blind idiocy possible.
Jackass. Pulling out: idiotic. Toying with it arrogantly, omnipotently, to keep the world in suspense: disgusting.
Be there if you can to protest should Trump make good on his reckless promise to pull the United States out of the Paris climate accord. The rest of the world is aghast. This is no longer just about us or about stupid Trump voters — this decision affects the entire planet. [Regarding an Emergency Rally at the White House.]
I’m embarrassed to admit that, though perhaps I once did know what this agreement was (and in 2015 even asked about it here, with Dumb climate change agreement question: how is it different than a diet pledge?), I’d completely forgotten about it until this Facebook frenzy. I’m trying to reeducate myself on what friends tell me (shout at me, actually) is an item of cataclysmic importance to the planet’s future. So far I’ve read “Q. & A.: The Paris Climate Accord” (nytimes):
Unlike its predecessor treaty, the Kyoto Protocol, the Paris deal was intended to be nonbinding, so that countries could tailor their climate plans to their domestic situations and alter them as circumstances changed. There are no penalties for falling short of declared targets. The hope was that, through peer pressure and diplomacy, these policies would be strengthened over time.
So this is like my daily visits to the gym that I conduct annually? And my strict all-organic steamed vegetable diet that I alter as circumstances change, e.g., when bacon is available?
While the current pledges would not prevent global temperatures from rising more than 2 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels, the threshold deemed unacceptably risky, there is some evidence that the Paris deal’s “soft diplomacy” is nudging countries toward greater action.
Countries are sending each other positive vibes?
Because the deal is nonbinding, there are no penalties if the United States pulls out.
Now I’m more confused that ever. If I go to the Big Texan with friends and chow down on a 72 oz. steak (never beat Molly Schuyler, though, sadly), how would they knew whether or not I am still officially adhering to my steamed vegetable diet?
This agreement seems hardly more than an excuse for a lot of highly paid bureaucrats to gather periodically in beautiful resorts at their respective taxpayers’ expense. (Was it ever approved by Congress, the way that a treaty would be? Is the agreement reflected in any U.S. laws?) So the only arguments that I could see for withdrawing are to save money and to save the planet by keeping these folks from flying around to meetings. But here in the U.S. the government spends $4 trillion per year. Cutting expenses at this level is not a Presidential matter.
So why would Donald Trump even bother to mention this nonbinding penalty-free agreement to make, essentially, New Year’s resolutions? And why do my friends think it makes a difference? If they’re interested in keeping up with things that might affect atmospheric CO2, why wouldn’t they be looking more at solar cell production and innovation, windmill design and installations, etc.?
Full post, including comments