How much do you know about the Paris Agreement?

Biggest lickspittle on boardz

As we all know, the US decided to withdraw from the Paris agreement last week. This was met with howls of doomsday style reports in the media, and almost universal criticism worldwide.

Now, to be absolutely clear before we begin. There is no doubt whatsoever in my mind that a joined up global response is needed for climate change. The planet is being thrashed, most especially in Third World countries. Environmental rules in the West are extremely tight, maybe too tight in certain aspects. But that's a separate argument.
Personally, I'm not entirely convinced that climate change is exclusively Anthropogenic, but I would see it as an overall good move, both environmentally and politically, to reduce or eliminate our dependence on Middle Eastern oil sources. So for that reason, I support the continuation of a clear global environmental policy.

So when I actually decided to sit down and investigate the agreements myself, I found myself agreeing with Trump to a certain extent. It was an AWFUL agreement.

The agreement states that the USA must implement stringent changes immediately, but major polluters like China and India can wait 20 or 30 years before phasing in changes. Do we really have that much time to wait? If the situation is critical, shouldn't these changes be rolled out immediately? As in, a global state of emergency declared, and a new global Marshall plan implemented?

One of my main criticisms is that the likes of India are already heavily subsidised by Western aid packages. On top on this, they are somehow able to run the following:

• A nuclear weapons programme
• A Space programme
• A Nuclear energy programme (probably the only one that could be justified).

Also, the USA must pay $3 billion to a 'Green Climate Fund', a downpayment of which $500 million has already been paid. This would go to the 'developing' countries to mitigate climate change. Because throwing money at developing countries has worked so well in the past.

Now, here's a breakdown of the financial expectations of the Green Climate Fund. Note that it is made up of almost exclusively Western nations. You might note that there isn't one of the oil rich Arab countries on the list:




On the surface, the Paris Agreement is a good idea. And there are a lot of people who become hysterical at the slightest mention of climate criticism. But I can't help but thinking that there may indeed be a trojan buried within the framework of this agreement, one designed to bleed the Western countries for a few bob.
Again, a global agreement is needed. But the fine details in this are a bit dodgy for my liking.

The UN ambassador for the US insists that Trump believes in climate change, but that the details of the agreement were too onerous: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40147749


So maybe this is the kick up the backside the global community needed to bring forward a more realistic solution environmentally.

Your thoughts please.

ricero

I commend donald trump and the usa from pulling out of an awful agreement on their part. The donald takes no time in acting on these horrible agreements

"They're laughin at us!"

seamus

The GCF and the Paris Agreement are not inextricably linked, it's straight up dishonest of you to imply otherwise. Being a part of the Paris agreement does not make one a part of the GCF and vice-versa.

The purpose of the fund is for wealthier developed countries to assist developing nations to grow their economies on green energy sources rather than making the same mistake that the developed world made in building their economies on fossil fuels.

Anyway, on a per-capita basis, Sweden has pledged the most to the GCF, the USA is down in 11th place despite being one of the largest producers of CO2.

The EU as a whole has pledged one and a half times more than the United States.

Any claim that the US is being treated unfairly or has gotten a "poor deal" over climate change is plain wrong. The United States has been let away very lightly considering its status as the largest overall contributor to carbon emissions.

Climate change is a global issue, one country stepping away from fixing the problem based on selfishness tells you everything you need to know about the state of that country.

Birneybau

Perfect.

gifted

It's all fake news people....you got it?...it's all fake news!

The_Valeyard

I agree with you with India, playing the part of the poor country when it suits them and out with the beggers bowel, while building nukes and spending huge amounts in space programmes.

Biggest lickspittle on boardz

seamus wrote: »

The GCF and the Paris Agreement are not inextricably linked, it's straight up dishonest of you to imply otherwise. Being a part of the Paris agreement does not make one a part of the GCF and vice-versa.

The purpose of the fund is for wealthier developed countries to assist developing nations to grow their economies on green energy sources rather than making the same mistake that the developed world made in building their economies on fossil fuels.

Anyway, on a per-capita basis, Sweden has pledged the most to the GCF, the USA is down in 11th place despite being one of the largest producers of CO2.

The EU as a whole has pledged one and a half times more than the United States.

Any claim that the US is being treated unfairly or has gotten a "poor deal" over climate change is plain wrong. The United States has been let away very lightly considering its status as the largest overall contributor to carbon emissions.

Climate change is a global issue, one country stepping away from fixing the problem based on selfishness tells you everything you need to know about the state of that country.

Yes I should have made that clear, the GCF and Paris Agreement are not inextricably linked. I'm happy to clarify that here. However, they are generally mentioned together, even if they are separate entities.

Also, it isn't really selfishness to walk away from a bad deal, whether is it business or national. It is simply practical self interests. I certainly wouldn't commit to a bad deal for fear of being called selfish.

Do you have any concerns that some GCF funds may end up in the pockets of local warlords, dictators, or simply corrupt officials in Third World countries?

pangbang

That it either happened in Paris or was by an agreeable bloke named Paris. Or both.

I know a fair bit about the general agreements and protocols, one of the people who designed the Kyoto protocol.

But I'm less arsed by specifics these days, prefer the bigger picture. The various guidelines in place (or being disassembled) are an "all in" or "all out" scenario. It wont work any other way. The fact that trump pulled out is neither here nor there. If it wasn't him, it would have been someone else. If they didn't pull out altogether, they would have changed the protocols significantly.

As long as there are entire tranches of gigantic industrial and human pollution in some parts of the world, while the likes of our government is penalising us for not separating our earl-grey tea bags from mint-tulip tea bags.....never gonna work.

The basic idea is that we, Europe, and other countries got a headstart industrially, so therefore we have to allow others to go 30000% pollution to catch up.....not gonna happen.

Only two scenarios to play out. One is that Europe won the race, too bad for the rest. The second is that its everyman for himself. Looks like its gonna be the second sentiment leading us into this century.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

In general, I applaud the agreement but I have major reservations about the subsidy to India. It just seems so ludicrous.

Biggest lickspittle on boardz

pangbang wrote: »

That it either happened in Paris or was by an agreeable bloke named Paris. Or both.

I know a fair bit about the general agreements and protocols, one of the people who designed the Kyoto protocol.

But I'm less arsed by specifics these days, prefer the bigger picture. The various guidelines in place (or being disassembled) are an "all in" or "all out" scenario. It wont work any other way. The fact that trump pulled out is neither here nor there. If it wasn't him, it would have been someone else. If they didn't pull out altogether, they would have changed the protocols significantly.

As long as there are entire tranches of gigantic industrial and human pollution in some parts of the world, while the likes of our government is penalising us for not separating our earl-grey tea bags from mint-tulip tea bags.....never gonna work.

The basic idea is that we, Europe, and other countries got a headstart industrially, so therefore we have to allow others to go 30000% pollution to catch up.....not gonna happen.

Only two scenarios to play out. One is that Europe won the race, too bad for the rest. The second is that its everyman for himself. Looks like its gonna be the second sentiment leading us into this century.

This seems to be my biggest criticism of the Agreements. They're as much about punishing the West and 'balancing' the economies, as they are about climate concerns. I can't help but suspect a certain amount of Socialist ideology has influenced the framework.

Idealistic, rather than pragmatic.

Your Face

But de media sez the Donald is bad.
So, yay Paris Agreement*


*not my actual thoughts.

WinnyThePoo

Biggest lickspittle on boardz wrote: »

This seems to be my biggest criticism of the Agreements. They're as much about punishing the West and 'balancing' the economies, as they are about climate concerns. I can't help but suspect a certain amount of Socialist ideology has influenced the framework.

Idealistic, rather than pragmatic.

Warlords yesterday and now suspecting socialists now. fascinating stuff.

Biggest lickspittle on boardz

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

Warlords yesterday and now suspecting socialists now. fascinating stuff.

So you can 100% guarantee some of the funds won't end up being pilfered and end up in some corrupt official or warlord's pocket? Because if you can't, this should be more closely examined and scrutinised.

seamus

Biggest lickspittle on boardz wrote: »

However, they are generally mentioned together, even if they are separate entities.

Well, no, they "generally" aren't. In the last two weeks, Trumpists and Climate change deniers have been desperately searching for "proof" that America got a "bad deal". An excel chart with an incorrect (and misspelled) title that someone uploaded to Wikipedia and you reposted here, isn't proof of anything.

The GCF was established before Paris, the commitments made by various countries in terms of how much money they would give, happened before Paris.

When Paris came along, the GCF agreed that they would align the use of their funds with the aims of the Paris agreement. Because that makes sense.

That is the only link. If the Paris agreement were to be disbanded tomorrow, the GCF would continue. And vice-versa.

So no, people do not generally mention them together because they're two separate things. You mention them together because it suits your trolly narrative.

Also, it isn't really selfishness to walk away from a bad deal, whether is it business or national. It is simply practical self interests. I certainly wouldn't commit to a bad deal for fear of being called selfish.

Well of course it's selfish. Doing something in your own self interest is the very definition of selfish.

However, it's not a deal and it never was. A deal is a give-and-take matter, "I give you this, you give me that". The GCF is a voluntary commitment to provide funding to poorer countries with the aim of improving the entire planet. It's not a trade deal or a business deal or any kind of other political "deal". It's a co-operative aiming towards a common goal.

Withdrawing from that co-operative because you want to keep some money in your pocket is worse than selfish; it's stupid and short-sighted as well. America gets to "save" $3bn, but the world comes to an end. Yeah, real clever.

Do you have any concerns that some GCF funds may end up in the pockets of local warlords, dictators, or simply corrupt officials in Third World countries?

Of course. That's why you establish a fund that manages the money and controls where, when and how it gets distributed. You can read up on how the funds works and how the money is managed, on the GCF home page.