The Paris Agreement, a legally binding international treaty on climate change, was adopted by 196 Parties at the UN Climate Change Conference (COP21) in Paris, France, on 12 December 2015. As of February 2023, 194 states and the EU, representing over 98 of global greenhouse gas emissions, have ratified or acceded to the Agreement. China and the United States, the countries with the first and second largest CO2 emissions among UNFCCC members, have also joined the agreement.
The main focus of the Paris Agreement is to combat climate change and accelerate and intensify actions. In 2017, President Donald Trump withdrew the United States from the agreement, but President Joe Biden reversed this decision, and the United States rejoined the Agreement in 2021.
The agreement entered into force on 4 November 2016, thirty days after the date on which at least 55 Parties to the Convention, accounting for at least 174 states and the European Union, signed the agreement. Since 2015, 197 countries, nearly every nation on earth, have endorsed the Paris Agreement. The EU and all its member states have signed and ratified the Paris Agreement and are strongly committed to its implementation.
Today, 195 Parties (194 States plus the European Union) have joined the Paris Agreement. President Biden signed the instrument to bring the United States back into the agreement on January 20, his first day in office. The Paris Agreement is a legally binding international treaty on climate change that aims to address the negative impacts of climate change and accelerate and intensify actions.
📹 What Has the Paris Climate Agreement Achieved After 5 Years? | Net Zero
The world reached a historic deal 5 years ago, with 195 countries signing the Paris Climate Agreement. For the first time, there …
Who signed the Paris Agreement dealing with greenhouse gas emissions?
The Paris Agreement, a global treaty, was open for signature by states and regional economic integration organizations from April 2016 to April 2017. It binds parties to not act in contravention of the treaty’s goals. The agreement was signed by 175 parties, including 174 states and the European Union, on the first day it was opened for signature. As of March 2021, 194 states and the European Union have signed the agreement.
The agreement would become fully effective if 55 countries producing at least 55 percent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions ratify or join the treaty. Alternative ways to join the treaty include acceptance, approval, or accession. The European Union ratified the agreement on November 4, 2016, and the agreement entered into effect on November 4, 2016. Both the EU and its member states are individually responsible for ratifying the Paris Agreement. A strong preference was reported for the EU and its 28 member states to ratify simultaneously to avoid fulfilling obligations that strictly belong to the other.
There were fears that disagreement over each member state’s share of the EU-wide reduction target and Britain’s vote to leave the EU might delay the Paris pact. However, the EU deposited its instruments of ratification on October 5, 2016, along with seven EU member states.
Who is signed to the Paris Agreement?
As of February 2023, 194 states and the EU, representing over 98 of global greenhouse gas emissions, have ratified or acceded to the Paris Agreement. China and the United States are the countries with the first and second largest CO2 emissions among UNFCCC members. Three states have signed the Agreement but not ratified it, and all 198 UNFCCC members have either signed or acceded to the Paris Agreement. Both the EU and its member states are individually responsible for ratifying the Agreement.
There were fears that disagreement over each member state’s share of the EU-wide reduction target and Britain’s vote to leave the EU might delay the Paris pact. However, the European Parliament approved ratification of the Paris Agreement on October 4, 2016, and the EU deposited its instruments of ratification on October 5, 2016. Some sub-national territories of parties are subject to a territorial exclusion from their sovereign state that is party to the Agreement, and the party can then extend the ratification to said territory.
How many people signed the Treaty of Paris?
The Treaty of Paris was drafted on November 30, 1782, and signed on September 3, 1783, by Adams, Franklin, Jay, and Hartley. French Foreign Minister Vergennes proposed a solution to deadlocked negotiations between the United States and the British, which was rejected by the United States. Spain insisted on continuing the Revolutionary War until it could capture Gibraltar from the British. Vergennes developed treaty terms under which Spain would forego holding Gibraltar and the United States would be granted independence, but it would be confined to the area east of the Appalachian Mountains.
Britain would keep the area north of the Ohio River, which was part of the Province of Quebec, and an independent Indian barrier state south of that would be under Spanish control. The American delegation believed they could obtain a better treaty by negotiating directly with the British in London. John Jay agreed to negotiate directly with the British, and Lord Shelburne, who was in charge of the British negotiations, saw a chance to split the United States from France and establish the new nation as a valuable economic partner.
How many nations signed the Paris Peace Act?
The Paris Peace Conference, held in 1919 and 1920, was a series of diplomatic meetings between the victorious Allies and the defeated Central Powers. The conference, led by Britain, France, the United States, and Italy, resulted in five treaties that rearranged Europe’s maps and imposed financial penalties. The major decisions made during the conference included the creation of the League of Nations and the five peace treaties with the defeated states.
The main agreements included the transfer of German and Ottoman overseas possessions as “mandates” to Britain and France, the imposition of reparations upon Germany, and the drawing of new national boundaries to reflect ethnic boundaries more closely.
US President Woodrow Wilson commissioned a group of 150 academics in 1917 to research topics likely to arise in diplomatic talks on the European stage and develop a set of principles for peace negotiations. The Fourteen Points document, based on this research, became the basis for the terms of the German surrender during the conference and had been the basis of the German government’s negotiations in the Armistice of 11 November 1918.
How many countries signed the treaty of Paris?
On January 20, 1783, representatives of Spain, France, Great Britain, and the United States signed a provisional peace treaty, thereby declaring an end to hostilities. This treaty was subsequently formalized in Paris on September 3, 1783.
How many people signed the Paris Climate Agreement?
The Paris Agreement is a legally binding international treaty on climate change, adopted by 196 Parties at the UN Climate Change Conference in 2015. Its goal is to limit global average temperature increase to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and to limit it to 1. 5°C above pre-industrial levels. However, world leaders have emphasized the need to limit global warming to 1. 5°C by the end of this century.
How many countries have ratified the Paris Climate Agreement?
The Paris Agreement, a legally binding international treaty, was signed on November 4, 2016, by 195 Parties, including the European Union. It commits all countries to reduce emissions and work together to adapt to climate change impacts. The Agreement provides a pathway for developed nations to support developing nations in climate mitigation and adaptation efforts, while creating a framework for transparent monitoring and reporting of countries’ climate goals. It marks the beginning of a shift towards a net-zero emissions world and is essential for achieving the Sustainable Development Goals.
Who hasn’t signed the Paris Agreement?
Iran, Libya, and Yemen have not ratified the 2015 Paris climate agreement, which has been endorsed by 194 out of 197 nations, including all G20 countries. The agreement was initially withdrew by the US under President Trump in November 2020, but was re-entered by Joe Biden in January 2021. Turkey, Iraq, and Eritrea signed up in late 2021 and early 2023, respectively. The US withdrew from the agreement under Trump in November 2020.
Who all signed the treaty of Paris?
On January 20, 1783, representatives of Spain, France, Great Britain, and the United States signed a provisional peace treaty, thereby declaring an end to hostilities. This treaty was subsequently formalized in Paris on September 3, 1783.
Who monitors the Paris climate agreement?
The Conference of the Parties (CMA) is the supreme body of the Convention, responsible for the meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement. All parties to the agreement are represented at the CMA, while non-parties can participate as observers. The CMA oversees the implementation of the Paris Agreement and makes decisions to promote its effective implementation. It meets annually during the same period as the COP, and non-parties can participate as observers but without the right to make decisions. The functions of the CMA relating to the Paris Agreement are similar to those carried out by the COP for the Convention.
📹 The Paris Accord: What is it? And What Does it All Mean?
At the heart of the desire to get America out of the Paris Agreement seems to be three things: 1. Nostalgia. The focus on coal, …
I have been trying to learn and understand this agreement for the last 3 hours. I have yet to locate a comprehensive “guide”. All I find is generalizations and commentary. I do not trust anything I am reading or listening. Can someone point me in the direction of a non-partisan break down so I can learn more and make up my own mind?
I presume Di Caprio didn’t arrive with a commercial flight 🙂 People will sign anything provided they are not obliged to live up to their promise. The agreement failed because people don’t want their comfort zones disturbed. They’ll gladly use a paper straw but don’t you dare to tell them they shouldn’t wear Zara because there’s oil byproduct in their clothes. It’s a strategy made in good faith but it’s never going to work until it hits you in the face.
People complaining about the vlogbrothers “getting too political”, they’ve literally always talked about these things? It’s what they do? Go back and look, in some of their first articles in 2007 they discuss international conflicts and renewable energy and climate change and political candidates. Hank started out running a blog called eco geek. If anything, they’ve gotten less political over the years, or more reserved in expressing personal opinions.
I am from Bangladesh, a lowland impoverished developing nations, where 170 millions people strut their physical ability to earn a meagre wage, typically 1,000 usd a year. With more than 30 percent of population without electricity or intermittent access to electricity, our government is trying to invest heavily on coal based power plant to meet with our demand and to help our fledgling economy. Our neighbour India, with 300 millions of people without electricity, opting for coal based power plant and has envisaged to mine billions of tons of coal by 2019. Electricity is a privilege, it powers those marginalized people: giving a child opportunity to do his/her homework, a small business to operate at night. Industrialized country has reap the benefit and they can now make transition to clean energy but we cannot. Paris accord has enormous importance, thanks for your informative article. Hopefully people in US will understand its importance.
Since I’m going to assume most Nerdfighters are strongly on the same side of this issue already, and the trolls who come through here aren’t going to be swayed by facts and reason anyway, I’m not going to address the subject matter and instead look at the product here. I don’t know how much lead time you had to put this together, but the article editing is FAN-FREAKING-TASTIC. Great work Hank, and anyone who helped in the production. Beautiful vlog, well worth sharing to those friends who AREN’T Nerdfighters. If anyone has any, that is.
As someone who lives in one of those developing countries… I find it baffling that this is even a debate. Over here, EVERYONE agrees that climate warming is a thing. Why? Because we see it, we feel it. Everyone feels it. Kids that used to wait for may-ants are now disappointed to learn they’re near extinct. Rains get delayed to June, sometimes delayed to September, drying out many crops, raising prices, setting the economy into an inflated chaos… it goes on and on. I’m disappointed that the POTUS just looks at this like a business, like a deal. He says it doesn’t benefit the USA, and hell, maybe it doesn’t, but that’s no excuse. For all the things the USA has done to harm the world in the last 200 years, a little help would be appreciated, welcome, and invaluable.
Other countries: Do we have to pay for it? America: pfft, nah we got it. WE will send YOU our money. Other countries: Do our people have to make sacrifices right NOW right now? America: nah, we’ll do most of it, y’all keep doing your thing. Other countries: Yeah! We’re in! Hey, maybe we’ll even take action in 2030.
Thank you Hank. I am disappointed in the decision made but as a non-American teenager there isn’t much I can do besides complaining. So thanks for the article, I know it won’t change the decision but at least it will inform more people about the Paris Accord and the effect of the decision, and maybe inspire them to take action. I’m also thankful for you speaking up on this matter as I imagine having a large audience means you have to be more careful with the content you put out. DFTBA.
Hey all, do you think that talking about climate change would be more effective and influential if we referred to what’s changing as Earth’s “habitability”, rather than just “the environment”? I think that the term “environment” already has deeply engrained and politicized connotations, so it’s just become something that gets tuned out.. what are your thoughts?
Why do people just not care? That’s the question I really struggle with. When I’m feeling particularly generous I try to put it down to ignorance, even apathy would be easier to stomach than what I think is the most likely explanation; plain old selfishness. I took a Conservation Biology module in my last semester at university and I really feel for the amazing people working in that field. It felt like lecture after lecture of how we (humans) are impacting on every taxon and every biome on the planet, with a smattering of success stories but one is always left wondering how long they will last. Trying to communicate the issues to the people in decision making positions must be like banging your head against a brick wall! Here, in the UK, the government are rolling out plans for fracking sites all over the countryside; the Yorkshire Dales and Sherwood Forest to name a couple. Advice from conservation groups and earth scientists on the risks to the environment, water systems and of seismic activity just roll off the back of policy makers when making money is a possibility. The feeling of being let down over and over again is exhausting and I really worry about where we are heading as a species.Apologies for the depressing comment but it’s a sentiment I’ve been sitting on for a while now :/ I promise to go back to being awesome as soon as possible!
I known that this won’t matter but i will still say it. I’m an electrician and the government heavily restricts engineer’s on making self sustainable solar power viable. They force you to be connected to the grid. Even thou there are cases in which you produce more energy than you consume. It’s sad that the government’s won’t help out there own people. One example is the Carter administration. They pulled down the solar panels. It’s a sad and frustrating era to live in.
Thank you Hank for a beautiful and very clear article on the Paris Agreement! Please, keep up the good work. I would love to see more articles that portray news in a truthful but kind manner, without insulting or scaring anybody (including politicians). It is urgent to push forward for climate-friendly actions, and it is more urgent to educate people on the subject in a non-aggressive way, so that we may all unite for this cause.
I know a lot of people in the comment section are worried that Hank is speaking to an echo chamber. Here is how I look at it. We probably all have like 80% – 95% of friends who dislike Trump. But we all know a few people who are pro-Trump or think in the mindset of “why we need to do these for other people” . We need to communicate our thoughts with those people and not just “delete” them as friends.
Is it bad that the biggest question I have after perusal this article is: who mows the grass at 3:50 and how the hell do they keep from damaging the billion dollar solar panels and blowing grass all over them? Does this person still make landscaper wages or is there a special profession that deals in lawn cutting in high security and sensitive equipment areas?
My grandmother, who is a devout republican, is still convinced that climate change isn’t a thing. When it’s winter in my home town she will turn to me and say, “Look how cold it is! See! Global warming is not a thing!” It’s people like her that are so misinformed that are going to lead our future to ruin. Ironically, she majored in Botany, and I could imagine that if she was in school now she would never question the reality of climate change. Because it is reality, and it is caused by the influx of fossil fuel use.
I’d like to point republicans to Arnold Schwarzenegger’s response to the leaving this agreement, It’s okay to disagree with someone you share values with, I voted for Obama but didn’t agree with all of his Drone strikes, and many other things he did, but I’d still vote for him again because I agreed with more then I disagreed with, same can be true about this to republicans, Listen to Fellow Republicans like Arnold Schwarzenegger if you aren’t willing to listen to me.
Worth pointing out that emissions cuts in Paris were not based on advice on how to reach 2 degree goal, but just what countries each thought they could do. This was projected to lead to 3 degrees of warming. So the Paris deal was not enough to reach its own targets, but was a crucial first step. Now it’s unclear if it’s even that..
I am surprised that you failed to discuss the number one greenhouse gas that affects global climate change. I concerns me that we are not talking about the dangers of dihydrogen monoxide. Studies from NASA, Yale, and the American Chemical Society have all proven that it is responsible for between 66-80% of the greenhouse effect you discuss in your article. CO2 levels have been significantly higher, even through ice ages on this planet, and yet life has survived. However, the impact of dihydrogen monoxide has created some of the largest extinction events on our planet. According to Cosmos Magazine it was responsible for the loss of 86% of all species on the planet during the first extinction event. In the most recent extinction event it was responsible for the extinction of between 50-75% of all life on this planet. The lack of attention to this historic killer really frightens me.
Yea that sounds great but this is what hank doesn’t tell you: Even if the Paris agreement were implemented in full, it is estimated that it would only reduce the global temperature by 0.2 degrees by the year 2100. In the mean time, the increased regulation of energy would cause energy prices to skyrocket, and families would have even less money to spend on necessities like food and clothing. Although the climate is changing, more research must be done before we can decide to make drastic changes in our lifestyles. It is illogical to pretend that a 0.2 degree change is worth crippling the US economy. The Paris agreement was a useless excuse for officials to pat each other on the back, without doing anything significant to combat climate change. Trump was right to pull out of it.
Very interesting article. It sort of tells me that the people complaining have to make a decision. Are they worried about what problems need to be addressed now (National healthcare, war on terror, etc.) or things that may happen later (climate change harm). You can’t have everything especially when the US is footing the majority of the bill and trying to save the world.
Honestly at this point it’s about hurting ourselves too. I live in California (a large co2 polluter) and it’s very clear that the air quality is getting much worse; going on walks aren’t as pleasant anymore with smoggy and a constant glowing orange sky night and day; and we also had/have an extremely long summer this year, it’s October and we are still getting record high temperatures of above 100°F! And that’s in NorCal by the coast😶
Question: At 1:12 he says the radiation from the sun gets through the atmosphere and then bounces off the earth and then gets trapped by the atmosphere. If the atmosphere traps the radiation after it bounces back up off the earth, why didn’t the radiation get rejected when it first hit the atmosphere in the first place before hitting the earth? Thanks in advance for the help.
Lots of people asking here how to do something to help with the climate change issue. Of course it comes to mind right away saving energy, turning lights off, using more your bike than you car and other stuff. But a point that is often missing is the essential decision of what we put into our mouths. Animal farming is one of the leading causes for climate change as it generates a huge share of the greenhouse gases we release everyday. The good thing is that everyone can choose what they eat. Nobody can force you to ingest anything. So something that you could do right now, without much effort, is reducing your meat and dairy consumption at the lowest levels you can. Eat more veggies, fruits, grains and nuts. Research how to create your favorite recipes without using animal products. You will be already making a huge impact if you back off from supporting animal farming. Be the change you want to see in the world. Hope this can be helpful to all those out there wishing to make a good impact in our planet! 🙂
I am all for the Paris agreement and reducing the global carbon footprint. But I am curious about what devolped countries plan to do when the inevitable happens. Eventually sea levels will rise (in my still developing collegiate opinion the best we can do is slow down the process of climate change) and we need to be prepared to find ways to protect our coasts and adapt to our changing climate.
Three huge dangers: 1) Forgetting that the extent to which we currently feed and clothe and house people is vitally dependent on fossil fuels. 2) Oversimplification of the political process and/or value of the Paris Agreement. This is an easy way to discredit the arguments against leaving the Agreement, at best; at worst, it is a failure of the pro-climate-response side to take the issue seriously when the anti-climate-response side has been digging trenches for decades. Before you comment: I am a huge (but qualified, for other reasons) supporter of the Paris Agreement and I absolutely do not support inaction. 3) Social media and YouTube are wonderful for a lot of things and they are the current (if you believe the hype) preferred methods of data retrieval for human beings. This is an inefficient and ineffective method for such large problems as resource dependence and climate change. More needs to be done, and I don’t think anyone reading this disagrees, but there is an extent to which these media end up acting as outlet valves for those of us inclined towards change to let off excess steam. And we know where steam goes. YouTube could easily be a force for change, but you would need to convince a lot of people to watch a thoroughly researched 4-hour documentary (for free) on it to move the needle. Otherwise, it acts as a release valve for pressure that needs to stay in the pipes until something bursts and we get an adult plan for what’s coming.
what surprises me is all of the mainstream media talks about the drama behind the agreement. they talk about the views on climate change and how it will effect the economy. but why don’t they try to educate the public on what the agreement is? and give examples of different countries’ contribution? or the story behind how it was set up? I’m convinced the media doesn’t want the public to be educated but just to be entertained.
i’m one of the people that says “how fast we need to meet that goal” is ten years ago. Penalties? there should have been. One person leaving makes the paris agreement fall apart because THERE IS NO PENALTY. If the penalty were for example, OPEC raising prices of petrochemicals for violating countries until their goals were met the economic response would be similar to the Opec oil embargoes in the 70s, but one useful side effect of that was that Americans got careful and clever with their greenhouse gas use, forming carpools with their neighbors and buying better cars. We have more recycling facilities that can process the high emissions clunkers now than we did back then, so less of the material from cars junked by a similar embargo would go to waste, essentially lowering the level of emissions used to obtain that material by a car company wanting to use it (and if you asked Elon musk about recycled material cars, he’ll probably tell you he did it years ago, because he’s Elon Musk, no other explanation needed.) I don’t have a car myself, I happen to take the bus but I know if I could afford a car I would buy one. (Ironically I’d probably pick flex fuel not electric because the local electric company are assholes and I rent on the third floor, and if I used the freedom of that flex fuel vehicle to find a new apartment with the space, I’d probably try to find a landlord interested in letting me make field expedient biodiesel for a share if it went well.) The point is as a poor American I have to bear the brunt of any damage that rich americans do to society, and as fun as Fallout 4 is, I live in the real commonwealth, and I don’t want it to become.
Forget the whole thing about climate change in this argument. You’re not going to win anyone on the opposing side since it’s such a debatable topic. What we need to focus on is how lowering our fossil fuel consumption will improve the lives of the areas hit the most. In many areas the air quality is barely breathable and is littered with smog. Then we need to incentivize how switching to renewables can give a positive outlook. Around the world there are constant feuds over oil and petrol making it very unstable and could lead to conflicts. A great example is the relationship between the EU and Russia. The EU is tied to Russian oil and it’s only escape from Russia’s threats to cut the power is by switching to their own independent renewable power. Each country becomes energy independent and there’s no conflict. That’s how we win.
I think the big issue here is there’s no repercussions if countries don’t stick to the goals set for them. Developed countries are supposed to give 100 billion dollars to China and India so they can focus on renewable energy. That’s all well and good but the idea that no one is going to hold them accountable is worrying to say the least. There are better ways to do something like this, and the deal should be rewritten. Either add consequences for not meeting bench marks, get rid of the billions of dollars, or something along those lines. You can’t just shovel money away and say ‘Now you make sure to do what you promised!’ how is that fair to the American people.
if we all leave more plant-based we can see a huge reduction. the carbon footprint of animal agriculture is enormous and by switching to a mostly plant-based or vegan diet can reduce every person’s carbon footprint by one ton of carbon a year. that’s 50% less of what the average person produces. what’s even better is we can start making those changes today
Interestingly one thing omitted from this article was the one most significant method of ‘reducing’ carbon emissions – carbon credits. The 2 degree figure was not a measurable figure; it was a calculation based on certain calculations, which included carbon dioxide creation. What the Paris agreement (in part) legitimised was the method of trading your excess production (for certain countries) for other nations reduced numbers (principally as they simply did not have the industry to ever exceed their ‘targets’. Second – this is not ‘pollution’ either;’ the agreement covers global warming reduction; it does not set levels specifically for reductions of harmful carcinogenic particulate matter; so in terms of immediate ‘think of the children’ panic – and many news commentators have conflated the two – removing the US from the Paris agreement is not a green-light to pump Carbom MONoxide into your children’s faces; that is still as permitted/not permitted as ever it was.
now, I haven’t studied the Paris agreement so thoroughly, but isn’t there a part of the agreement not allowing withdrawal for a certain period of time? I think with all requirements in mind that period is 4 years, in other words the duration trump is president (3 years from the time the agreement was met, plus 1 year to complete the withdrawal).
I myself am not a republican and I do believe in climate change. But I am absolutely appalled by what is being said about the president. I disagree with the US pulling out of the plan but the amount of people state it is all Trump’s fault have not fully assessed the situation Hank Green stated. Trump’s primary goal is to pull us as a country out of debt as much as possible in 4-8 years. This means certain sacrifices must be made, I know climate change is real and the US is a cause but economic stability is needed before we can try to completely restructure energy usage and source. So to any of you reading this comment I urge you to please look through the past 3 decades and what has happened to lead to the economic instability forcing us to remove ourselves from the Paris Accord
Thanks for sharing. So many unknowns that you pointed out. Some questions you never covered…important ones. If we are already meeting these goals mentioned, why would other countries think we are not concerning? Pulling out does not mean we stop doing what WE are already doing, it was said that the money was better used at home and the agreement was not a good one in the first place. You said many things the President did not say and that is misleading.
Like you said the agreement doesn’t work if everybody doesn’t join in and work towards the same goal. Besides the US not everyone is doing that including China. So if China hasn’t done anything yet and doesn’t plan to then there is no point to the agreement. Also, as you mentioned, the developing countries can’t afford basic fossil fuels. If the nations who are helping these developing nations won’t provide cheap fuel and only offer expensive and ineffective renewable energy it will only hurt them. Like you said, it’s not right to deny countries their own industrial revolution.
Ya know I remember when I was a wee lad who once was amazed at the solar panel … I mean gathering energy from the sun and turning it into electricity! Electric cars were also an amazing way of traveling…. of course big oil companies don’t want you driving a car that doesn’t need oil/gas/extra car accessories so they made a way to tax those who use clean energy to prevent big oil companies from going broke. Theres a nice documentary in the 90s going into full detail about why solar panels are not on roofs, why we aren’t using electric cars, why we still paying an electricity bill. Corporate greed
The USA was the only country paying big money for this. By pulling out of the agreement, the only thing that changes is we are not wasting billions of dollars on something that was doing nothing. It does not mean that we are going to stop improving with technologies that create more efficiencies and “cleaner” energy, it in fact may allow us to improve on these faster. Less tax dollars wasted equals better economy, better economy means more consumer spending which equals more jobs which equals more money which equals more people having the ability to invest in the newer technologies such as LED bulbs, newer cars and other such items that were not previously affordable.
listen….so is there a science to taking a large subject and condensing it down to a 5 to 10 minute script? If so…..can you share it please! this is great info!!! I’ve learned quite a bit from your ‘Crash course’ website, FAR FAR FAR FAR MORE than i ever learned in school. what is the science please?
I think that it’s a little dishonest to say that the US was a leader in reaching the Paris Climate Accord when we actively advocated on behalf of corporations in this country to make sure that the agreement wasn’t binding and that emissions targets were set for us to hit 2 degrees of warming and not the much safer 1.5 degrees of warming.
For everyone saying we should be spending billions of dollars to help undeveloped countries.1.If tax payer dollars are being spent and everyone doesn’t agree its a good thing then they need to stay in the US.2 By all means if you don’t agree with the first point thats not my fault it called life we’re not born equal we’ll not die as equals it’s a fact of life.3 If we can pump billions on to other countries we need to continual strengthen our own country first because if we strengthen other countries and at the same time weaken ourselves that leaves us vulnerable say what you like but I will all ways want to see America prosper over every other country before we help develop countries. I know that sounds and is greedy but unless you’ve lived a easy laid back life why would you ever want you country to chance the economy on helping the rest of the world when they may not return the favor not to mention if we’re being real about it how much of this money is actually going to make it to some of these 2nd and 3rd world countries before there corrupt governments line there pockets with because remember it’s non binding so they can say they’ll spend it on emissions development but want have to show any proof what so ever I mean we’ve been send aid to Africa for god knows how long and nothings changed as a matter of fact all that free aid made the population size increase to where now their dependents of aid from the US or they face mass starvation.
Maybe we can convince the president to do his own climate type initiative that blows the Paris one out of the water. Maybe we can convince him that FCL bulbs do more harm than good and LED is the best way to go, and even convince him to bolster industry for solar and wind power, maybe even make Nuclear power safer. He’s so keen on the business side of things maybe if we convince him that “going green” is more profitable and a better long term investment for the economy. Play to his interests/mindset.
The world is experiencing a surge of Nationalism, and with that a decrease in globalism and International Cooperation. Nationalism is not inherently a bad thing, but it tends to hinder any progress the world can make regarding Global Issues like Poverty, Disease, and Climate Change. With the rise of the Political Minority in the United States, Conservative Voices ( Typically the more patriotic side of the spectrum ), the U.S will pursue targets to benefit the U.S economy and its people. ( Which isn’t again, a bad thing necessarily ). However, Liberal Voices tend to be more Globally concerned, with this it can leave their own country feeling abandoned and other people internationally oppressed by their Global Policies. If we could find a middle ground that would both Help the United States Financially and secure Environmental World Sustainability, that would be the best option. However as long as Climate Change is denied we can’t go forward to find an absolute solution that will satisfy both Liberals and Conservatives. *Bias Statement*: Left Leaning Moderate – I did mention that the conservative voice was a political minority which is statistically correct as shown by recent voter turn out in both midterms and the 2016 presidential election.
As an Environmental Scientist I will agree that man has an effect on the environment and that being a good steward of the planet is essential. I’m not here to argue projected theory but to say the Paris Accord is not about reducing global carbon emissions equally across nations. The non-enforceable accord asks the US to reduce coal output by nearly 86% but does nothing to curb China and India two of the largest contributors of CO2 into the atmosphere . Just examples. Does something need to be done? Absolutely! Is the Paris Accord it? No, not even close. I won’t get into what a shared agreement would actually need to look like, but it is fair to say ALL must come to the table without an agenda. I’m not a fan of the current President, but as an Environmentalist looking to renegotiate the Paris Accord was the right thing to do. PS. in the article what appears to be white smoke coming from some of the stacks is actually steam … more of a thermo problem rather than a CO2 problem. Just trying to be accurate.
At the same time that this is so sad and distressing, it’s also ironic. It’s ironic that the party that has espoused state’s rights as a cloak for corporate rights is being stood up to by the states it needs the most. In some ways, it’s almost fitting that the states that can stand on their own will continue to uphold the agreement. Hopefully, these states will continue to lead the way. They will show us that Americans and America can be successful in cutting emissions and economically.
Nahin Hossein, “I’m not trying to start an argument here, I just want to understand their perspective before I form my own opinion”. I am taking you at your word, here. Nahin Hossein, “Can someone please explain why the people who are against the Paris deal think that it is bad for the US economy?” Before I go on, the hidden assumption in that must be pointed out. There are many reasons to approve of pulling out. As to Economics, I only have a very simplistic knowledge; If people want something, you can make money giving it to them. If you get very wealthy, it gives you world class authority and power. I do know a bit more about Thermal Dynamics and Chemistry and some fairly easy Mathematics. Thermal Dynamics is probably the easiest science of all to learn. The best known field of Thermodynamics is water and gas. My current imagineering project is a heat recycling ICE. TermoDynamicals, an haiku: “Energy Wanna Be Equal, Temp Is The Level.” Considering my knowledge of Economics and Thermodynamics: In my considered opinion, Civilization Caused, Catastrophic, Global Warming is a money scam bigger than the world has ever seen. Much bigger that Tulips, greater than the DotCom “bubble,” bigger even than the Federal Reserve International Corporation that the USoA banks with. That is why I approve of leaving. Yours, SamT
You neglect to mention that the US has been already steadily decreasing its emissions long before the accords, China only set goals that it was going to meet anyway decided on an economic change before the accords, Germany has actually increased its carbon emission both years since the accords, and India only agreed to the terms they came up with if they continue to received hundreds of millions of dollars from other countries and that they just opened up a coal plant that stands in opposition to their agreed goal.
Hank you said we all have to eat everyday . You also said we Americans benefit the most from burning fossil fuels. Climate change is REAL but so is a slowing economy people are absolutely seeing diminished wages, job loss and at every turn their dollar earned doesn’t go as far. Many people like myself that agree with the fact that climate change/global warming is a serious problem that needs to be solved. I believe we are simply too early on technologically to make the changes needed AND maintain a similar standard of living for ALL. It is easy to be in favor of the changes needed because the evidence is there, but when those changes do not affect you directly you are speaking from perspective that does not have complete insight of the damage that can be done restricting our abilities to perform in the global market. To conclude, Global climate change is an extraordinary issue that does need solving, maybe just not this second. Let’s change the world in a way that benefits everyone from the 1st world to the 3rd world, Hank, we can’t feed the homeless today, Americans and foreigners alike losing jobs, children still starving..dying from curable diseases. Maybe just maybe those are the problems of today and global climate change is the problem of tomorrow when we are better equip to solve it.
The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consulate at Bergen Norway Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the Gulf Stream still very warm. Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared. Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelt which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds. Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt the sea will rise and make most coastal cities uninhabitable. * * * * * * * * * I must apologize. I neglected to mention that this report was from November 2, 1922, as reported by the AP and published in The Washington Post – 94 years ago. This must have been caused by the Model T Ford’s emissions or possibly from horse and cattle flatulence?
I’m curious about … about how many of the people who do not believe in man-made global warming do it because of a legitimate skepticism and a legitimate quest for the truth … and how many don’t believe in human-induced climate change only because the political/social implications of how we would deal with this fact (implications that have nothing to do with the matter of whether the fact is objectively true or not) could be in conflict with their political/social ideology.
What many people don’t seem to get is that while the Paris Agreement has no punishments for states that do not achieve their goals, it can be argued that to some degree it is a binding agreement or ‘soft law’ Technically any country could do what they want against any international law, but because of pacta sunt servanda (that which has been agreed) and the simple fact that removing the US from the agreement will shift the view of other countries. Just look at China and the EU now: the countries are basically furious and this only adds to the decline of trust in the US. In the future the US will most likely have a harder time making any agreements, being political or economic in nature. Trust in the US economy may reduce, causing negative effects. Essentially the consequences of leaving may be worse than the consequences of staying. tldr: although non-binding, the Paris Agreement is to some degree binding
Paris Accord is an unenforceable agreement. If a nation breaks it’s promises, nothing happens to them. Plus, this is an Accord that was never agreed to by US Congress. PLUS, there is no scientific consensus on how much CO2 reductions would reduce global temps. Climate is VERY complex and numerous factors have a forcing effect on temps – CO2 is just one of many. Man should focus more on investing Trillions of Dollars on helping Third World develop, rather than throwing that same money at a “problem” that isn’t fully understood.
I think instead of spending money to reduce CO2 emissions we should be spending that money to research and design better Green Energy alternatives. Bill Gates is making huge steps and bounds in the Green Energy R&D. The Paris Agreement is doing very little for way to much money (In the amounts of $2 trillion dollars per year)
You can fool yourself into believing that we “share” this world, but we hold on to what we have by the aggressive use of force. I like being in a rich country and want it to get even richer. The rest of the world gloms onto the technology that our riches produce, so I don’t think they have much to complain about if they aren’t able to get rich themselves, at least they get our castaways.
I live in the Pacific (Fiji) a place where many people dont even have cars in the remote areas but we’re being affected majorly by climate change. Many nearby islands are sinking into the ocean and people have to leave their homes not to mention the cyclones (Cyclone Winston is. recent one) and disasters that have been affecting us all the way here because of the way people in developed countries are relying heavily on fosil fuels. It all seems unfair to me.
You kind of gloss over the fact that the renewable energy solutions basically make us the prison wardens for the developing countries who become eternally dependent on the developed ones to provide. That kind of sounds like a monopoly horror story to me with a lot of real world problems of it’s own. “Come Cohagen, you got what you want. Give dis people air!”
You say if global temperatures rise by more than 2 degrees Celsius, then it will be “really bad for everyone.” Please define this. The best conservative arguments I’ve heard against many “green” policies is that their economic costs will outweigh their probable benefits. That is to say, it might be more cost effective to have people slowly move away from the coasts then to regulate fossil fuels so much that Americans have to live like Amish people.
It’s up to the people to decide and change their habits. Recycle, drive less, turn off lights you when your not using them, buy an electric car instead of fueled cars. Car companies are already planning to get rid of fueled cars by 2050’s. Ride bikes or walk if you live in the cities. We gotta do as much as possible to help. Doing our part to lower CO2 emissions. Do something to help the planet instead of turning our back on it. Unlike Trump did.
Well said especially my points on 3 world countries and their dependency on old technology. Coal. China USA and India are the 3 worse offenders. Without the Chinese government on board and China India making the majority of the worlds population. The first worlds efforts to reverse climate change are futile and only will make a dent. We need solutions for the worse offenders and the USA pulled out of Paris agreement. But otherwise the Paris agreement has some great ideas.
Interesting article it made me do some thinking. What did other countries like China, India and U.K. agree to in the treaty. You mentioned stable climate? How do know what stable is and how long it should take to change. Why when people build in ares below the water level and close to water that could flood or get higher is it the worlds problem? Sorry I think that’s like standing in the street with your eyes closed you know a car will come but you just don’t know when. The USA has been reducing probably more to save money and increase profits then any thing else.
the country’s that move forward to protect the earths environment would have done so without this act. people and business have made a profit off of in recent years moving towards renewable and safer alternatives. the dollar sign is what always has and always will invite interest. oh and i know you will still hear people saying “i do my best for the enviroment.” which is great but you must still be able to have jobs. they wont be around if the govt always steps in to mandate.
The Paris agreement would make sense if 1) We understood what the influence of human activity really has on the environment 2) Renewable energy sources were sufficient to cover our energy needs 3) We did not use a communist dictatorship making all the renewable products. There is so much wrong with number three when you consider how the Chinese treat their people, lie to the world, and pollute the atmosphere VISIBLY. Sea level and temperature rise is not well established. Please look at data. We scarcely have 100 years of data to evaluate a system that is billions of years old.
(my English wrote isn´t so good) What I’m saying here isn’t lol: Everywhere heard about the increase of the temperature: It’s false: as long as Ice and water exist on Earth, the temperature can’t change, only is there more or less ice. It’s important as well then, we aren’t speaking only the ice on poles and glaciers, but on clouds, under see and add all the material than can accumulate calories. I know a couple of more things, but meanwhile, I´m listening about in Paris spoken about the temperature shouldn’t increase more than two degrees. I think I´m the only one see somethings: Perhaps I’m a fool, so I not going to speak over more things. So, until the most ice melt away, nothing important will happen.
so, this article isn’t exactly about the Paris agreement. just more global warming talking points that everyone is already aware of. we’ve been taught this stuff in high school. there isn’t really much information in this article that would help one understand what it actually is, and why someone would or would not want to agree to it. Yet, at the start of the article these people point out that a lot of people don’t know anything about it so they shouldn’t be voicing their opinions, yet it doesn’t appear as if the people here know much about the details either.
Cool, all of this costs money. So when the bill gets placed on the table, everyone looks over at America to pay the bill, if I’m India (for example) and just say ” I forgot my wallet ” … ultimately america ends up footing the bill. An agreement with no teeth and/or accountability sucks and promotes and enables bad and wanton behavior. “Why should I stop doing something that makes me lots of money and if don’t ; there are no fines or penalties for doing so?”. In short: It’s the equivalent of a bank refinancing someone who has been refusing to pay their mortgage and the bank saying; “That’s ok, we’ll make your mortgage payments for you ” … It’s a money game, no way around it …
Frustrated that your laws won’t let you take your house off the energy grid and run strictly on renewables? If your lifestyle can fit it, consider getting an RV that is retrofitted to run off of solar panels. It’s super cost effective and nice if you like traveling. I’m considering buying a big commercial van and doing my own conversion to make it a camper van and see how long I can put up with living out of it and save coin. There’s some gorgeous conversions showcased on YouTube.
Let’s be honest, guys. The biggest issue here is not about climate change or the US economy, or even their public image. It’s that this nation has no goddamn plan at all. I would have been perfectly content with leaving this agreement if we had an alternative plan prepared, but we don’t. Perhaps we could spend those millions into our own field of research, but who’s to say all of those millions will go there? Why not instead spend it on starting another coup in the Middle East and call it “fighting ISIS”? At least the global military market will keep on rolling along and we all know how profitable the arms race has been since the Cold War days. The thing is, not only does pulling out tell the rest of the world that the US gov’t can’t be trusted for even something as basic as agreeing on climate change, it tells everyone that a new “world-leading nation” will rise in the coming decades, and China is keen on being that. Then again, this is a Youtube comments section, so who gives a damn. At least I’m venting. It’s the thought that counts, right?
Why should we have to be on the Paris Accord agreement if we plan on building better and more energy efficient power plants anyhow? We don’t need to be on the agreement to do any of that. because american was already been building such infrastructure before we even got on that agreement. And you’re simply just assuming that all construction on such infrastructures will just stop because we’re not on it anymore.
What is your opinion (anyone) on Trump saying that other countries, (like china and India), aren’t doing enough, and that he claimed that he wants to renegotiate an agreement where each country has to: 1)contribute to the green fund, and 2) Cut back on carbon emissions, both proportionally to the amount that they’re producing. The United States would have contributed 1/3 (100 Billion) despite being below both China and India in carbon emissions, with China and India not having nearly as strict regulations and contributing little or nothin to the Green fund. I’m not looking to start anything, I just want to see if people think he’s being genuine in trying to protect both the economy AND the environment.
Sorry you’re sad Hank. I like you and your work. I disagree that America cannot continue to be the leader we are in reducing carbon emissions. Without prosperity Americans will hurt economically and with poverty comes poorer education. People only actively care about environment when they have the financial security to do so. People struggling to pay for daycare while working two crap jobs to pay exorbitant rent with next to no hope of buying an overpriced home do not have the luxury of giving a crap about CO2 in the atmosphere. I’ve not driven my 1984 Mercury to work for 2 years. I walk even though I have to buy shoes more frequently because I do care but I understand others perspectives. Thanks for your perspective Mr Green.
The issue with this and all such reports: No mention of the amount of warming actually cased by a given amount of carbon dioxide. In fact, this follows a law of diminishing returns, with most of the effect being present at a tenth of current levels. iwrconsultancy.co.uk/science/modtran That is the theory, and it does NOT support the alarmist predictions. The actual measurements show that modern warming began in 1910, which was before fossil fuel usage reached levels sufficient to cause a significant rise in CO2 levels. An effect cannot start before its cause. Likewise, Vostok and EPICA ice core measurements show that historically, temperature increases happened before CO2 level increases. When you understand this, you can see where the alarmist rhetoric goes wrong. Neither the theory nor the measurements support their claims.
The best part is 3:57…. Every one has their arms up in the air over nothing, “We don’t know the cost is. We don’t know what the benefits of our target goal will be or what it will take to even achieve that goal BUT….” This is the whole point, you feel we must do something and are willing to go hostile if we don’t do it but your not even sure what we should do or what kind of positive effects we should expect but 97% of scientist agree. Pardon me, but agree on what? Every one forgets to take into account is that carbon in our atmosphere is at its lowest point in history. We are forgetting during a high carbon environment is when life exploded on earth. We forget that carbon is released in the environment naturally on a massive level without human interference. DO we forget Hawaii grows every year with this mass carbon release? Do tree’s not die every day? Is there carbon not released or is it buried hermetically as you presume at the start of this article? Your war against carbon is as logical as a war against water. It is never consumed or depleted. It’s merely transfers state in a life cycle. We are Carbon, life as we know it is carbon. We and all life that we have ever encountered is a carbon based life form. From single cell organisms up to complex organisms. The Earth will cool, it will warm. It will take a giant dump on your chest and won’t ask you how you feel about it. An asteriod will hit the earth, block out the sun and kill most life and plants on this earth like it has done before.
Studies show that the money we were paying to all those “poor countries who were suffering in the last century while the US was getting rich” (as if that’s America’s fault in any way) is largely going to waste. Poor countries who do not receive foreign aid from the US tend to have faster economic growth. We do them no favors by slipping them a cool $3 billion while their government makes no attempts to improve their people’s lot.
I think the biggest thing that conservative Americans are struggling with here can be explained by one of your previous vids with Minute Earth about statistical paradoxes. So anyone who hasn’t watched that yet go watch it. Essentially, unless I’m mistaken, while China as a whole currently releases more emissions than the US, the US releases far, FAR more per capita, and has a much longer history of emissions, which is why they are held to different expectations going forward. Unfortunately politicians and oligarchs conveniently fail to mention these statistics when indoctrinating their supporters.
As much as people might want to be pissed about Trump doing this, the US had to dedicate a substantial amount of money compared to India and China ($0) if this all went through. Let’s be honest, if this was really about Climate Change then why not just renegotiate with the US to get things done in a fair manner. I think Trump made the right call.
I don’t think the Paris agreement was the best solution, it seem to be more of vague plan to reduce emission while not having a roadmap of sorts and there is a lot of things that this article does not say. For example china can keep using coal till 2030 and they haven’t put up the money as USA has. That it would cost trillions of dollars. Let’s just say it skimp out the most notable negative features. While I agree this is a global problem and every country should take part on reducing their emissions. I feel that money we spend on the treaty could be better use, such as bill Clinton and other people funding the green research and development. This development would allow our green energy more efficient and hopefully produce way less emission while being more reliable energy. Also another thing the USA should work on is the way we produce thing, as an example hybrid cars are super good for the environment but the thing that is not good is the manufacturing process of the car. Which cause a lot of emission and is super bad for the world If you made it this far thanks for reading and feel free to put your opinion and if I got something wrong just correct me.
my issue wasn’t with the premis of the Accord but some stipulations in it as well as how it was done. I also think that there is an argument to keep the govt out of this. complicated. also this doesn’t mean we won’t take steps to move away from fossil fuels (without having to pay massive amounts to third world countries) and I think that it is a poor way to frame that part of the argument imo
I’m going to be honest I have not read the deal so if I’m missing the point of it please, politely, let me know. But I’m under the assumption that it’s only purpose is to end climate change. And if that is the case then it’s a good thing that American is, hopefully, pulling out of it. I’m not saying that CO2 doesn’t have a warming affect. But what I am saying is that if you look at the peer-reviewed scientific literature the amount that the CO2 will warm the planet is small enough to make little to no difference. For example places like the IPCC and really depending on where you look you’ll find that in articles that aren’t peer-reviewed or where the author has the final say in what is published then you’ll usually see an estimate from anywhere between 3 degrees F warming per doubling of CO2 all the way up to the insane 6 degrees F warming per doubling of CO2. And if you go by these estimates then yes climate change is a dangerous issue. But the facts are this isn’t the case. You look at the peer-reviewed literature you’ll find that you will only get a 1-1.5 degrees F warming per doubling of CO2 which isn’t dangerous at all and in fact could be largely beneficial. And I know what some of you are thinking, but what about the 97% of scientists who agree with global warming. Well that number is misleading to say the least, yes 97% of scientists agree that CO2 will raise the temperature of the planet but that’s not the debate, the debate is climate sensitivity where as I stated before the overwhelming amount of papers will suggest a 1-1.
You give us a quick rundown of how greenhouse gasses work, but nothing else on the extent of warming caused by the capture of UV rays by carbon dioxide. I don’t know all the data on temperature and carbon levels throughout the world’s history, but it seems fallacious to assume that societal scale carbon output is the cause of our current warming period without considering other factors. Even if carbon was the only factor we know of that indirectly affects temperature, it would still be unscientific to claim it’s the cause without data to back that claim.
You should make a article on one of your websites about whether or not windmills and solar panels kill lots of birds. People in my family who are global-warming deniers like to state this fact to me all the time, but it’s very hard to counter with how many bird deaths global warming caused by coal energy causes when they don’t believe in global warming! It’s very hard to find actual numbers on how many birds each form of energy kills, but maybe you know some experts!
why do people look for the government to help, the govermemt is only a representative for the people( in a few cases). Its like if i see a big pile of waste in my estate, since i live there, surely i would clean it, right?, instead most people do nothing themselves and say “oh jesus just let the council do it” but then complain when they didnt do it right, or the way they wanted
You’re overlooking some very important factors: 1 – how many pennies of each dollar we give actually get to the sites where the tech is supposed to go, and not in the pockets of the EU bureaucracy, local warlords, etc? Would we not achieve more if we simply donated materiel instead of the cash they want to wring out of us? How does this not trigger an alarm bell for you? 2 – We are not the only major carbon emissions source, China has already taken the lead. And yet on this accord they are nowhere to be found, even in the top 20, of sources of income for this plan. Funny, that. Once again we bear all the blame even when we are no longer the largest source. 3 – as you noted yourself, the designated places for this new tech are places that hardly have any tech at all. How much reduction in their carbon footprint will be achieved if they have hardly a footprint in the first place? Would you not achieve a greater reduction in emissions using that tech in places like the U.S, China, Europe … and then give those developing countries the old tech we replaced with the new cleaner tech? Overall you increase energy output globally while keeping carbon footprint equal to what it is now. Plus the company donating the old equipment gets a tax write-off for the donation. You get more “bang for the buck” as the old saying goes and everyone wins. 4 – investing in renewables? You mean like Solyndra? Do we really have to go over this again, about why it always ends badly when the government tampers with the market?
Sure, there might be costs to develop climate-friendly power generation and industry. However, green power is a booming industry in the US and spending more on it could stimulate the economy and create long-term jobs – coal would give us maybe a handful of jobs in the short term, and we’d need to give up on it sooner or later anyway. Even if you assume that emission reductions is going to cost us a lot, there is absolutely no way it would cost us more than having our major production centers like New York being under a dozen feet of water when the ice caps melt. Business could also become unfavorable if the international community decides to sanction us for failing to reduce our pollution. And it’s not just a business decision. This is something that we simply have to do, no matter the cost. Until we learn to live sustainably, we will continue to degrade our environment and deplete non-renewable resources, until the Earth’s habitability is irreparably damaged. We have to leave the planet better than we found it, to ensure that future generations have a good place to live. I don’t want to be blamed as the generation that turned the Midwest into a desert. The decision to back out is just incredibly short sighted and irrational on every level. It’s running away from the future.
Wait so how would global temperature increases be and considering that the earth warming would open up more land for farming I don’t see how that would be bad considering that this change in temperature wouldn’t make the land disappear in a decade it would take a lot more time so why don’t you try to decrease on fossil fuel emissions and then also set a reserve for a relocation of the people affected by this global seas rising
Think of it this way, whatever country has made the transition from fossil fuels to non will reap the rewards when the coming fossil fuel crash comes. People are buying more and more electric cars, and in a few years they will outsell gas/diesel cars. When more and more countries do not need fossil fuels, the companies that produce fossil fuels will see huge gluts of coal/oil/gas and the price for them will crash. This will force most of those companies out of business which will raise the price as the market gets fewer and fewer companies producing them. So when solar panels outsell shingles and nobody drives a gas car, do you want to pay the premium for outdated technology? Because everyone else won’t be.
I liked the article but I don’t know about the claim that the US is the “country that benefited the most from the carbon dioxide currently in the atmosphere” (5:23). You have a metric tons by country graph displayed when you say that, but it doesn’t really correlate to benefit (in whatever capacity you mean) and the US’s benefit isn’t just due to carbon dioxide emissions. The timing of the US emergence as a country should be considered when addressing the notion that coal power and emissions led to US success. This is because the country emerged just in time for coal power to catch on and infrastructure utilizing that power was constructed for the continued expansion across what became the continental US. This expansion continued with Arizona and New Mexico being the last contiguous states admitted to the union in the early 1900’s; whereas European and Asian peoples had thousands of years before coal power was a thing and had significant infrastructure in place from earlier eras. For that reason, I don’t know if it is fair to equate US success to carbon emissions. Again, I like the article and support greener energy, but that point seemed glossed over to establish some ethos of responsibility, which should already be in place as one of the largest emitters of CO2 regardless of whether or not it was of benefit for the US.
but the global temperature is set to decrease for the next couple of decades due to solar inactivity. Im not saying I deny climate change or even humans have a hand in it but that nature contribuutes more to then we ever could amd is certainly not as catastrophic as we think. Sources: NASA, National Swiss Science Foundation
Why will the other countries work on this even if the USA doesn’t? Because every bit helps and when they have a bunch of extra money from cheap power, they can build up their military and threaten war with the USA. That’s why. Plus a bunch of other reasons including not starving to death when the climate is ruined.
It’s probably difficult to balance the potential consequences of negligent climate practices (especially given that the current controlling body’s own constituency will probably be largely unaffected by whatever actions are or are not taken, and even then those consequences will likely not be fully realized in their lifetimes) with the dramatic economic and competitive advantages that come with bolstering our current energy industry and lowering restrictions on manufacturing. Pollution is bad – I like clean water and safe food and clean air. But as long as our pollution doesn’t get to the point where my water and food and air are unclean, I can’t really say I care about the Paris Accord. And since I don’t really care at all about the people that will be alive after I’m dead, I’m on board with the “Let’s make the next 100 years an awesome party and screw the consequences” party. Because let’s be honest, we’re probably too late to turn back major climate change anyways. At this point we might as well embrace our doom.
Why did you politicize this? The agreement doesn’t cover China nor Russia reducing emissions, and further yet, Trump acknowledges that climate change is an issue, but one that should be dealt with equitably and impartially. With the deal, we would be one of the few remaining countries expected to keep on track while covering other, less sophisticated countries bills fiscally. You can say we should help them “catch up”, but China isn’t going to help us do that, and proportionally, Europe isn’t going to help us either with their recovery as well. So, if we’re all in this for climate change, I’m with Trump to say let’s ALL negotiate an accord which will make a difference for all to invest in and benefit from, rather than leach off the successful as communism would have us do.