It's that last point that I was driving at, and there are two reasons. First, the US and Europe are by far the ones who have created the problem, and second, the US and Europe have the capacity to do so. Paris was an excellent deal for the US and any fair deal would involve the US paying a whole lot more.

@orthaic, why are you so incredibly resistent to actual facts. We know perfectly damn well how to get zero CO2 emissions. Wind, solar, storage. Done.

Producing coal capacity today sets you back between $57 to $148 per MWh
Gas combined cycle costs $42 to $85 per MWh. By comparison, Thin Film Solar Power costs between $46 to $56 per MWh.

Dubai is now buying solar capacity at a stunning $24 per MWH. India procured a 750 MW plant at $42/MWH. Tucson is getting a solar PLUS STORAGE at $45 per MWH.

We sure as hell know how to do it. We need to just stop being fucking numbnuts about it and do it.

And the coal industry has fewer jobs than Arby's. How come we don't decide presidential elections one what's good for Arby's workers?

@Ogion

the transition has been recent, and important milestone was the 2014 Climatescope report that showed benefits for developing nations using renewables, but reliance off of old industrial equipment, gas-automobiles, and many other things that ONLY use fossil fuel based energy is what is keeping developing countries back.

if you want that to change, we're going to need a multi-trillion dollar infrastructure haul in all of these countries

Ogion, that's a fantastic idea.

I hereby announce my candidacy for President in 2020. My slogan? America: We Have the Meats

To me, whether climate change is caused by man, some natural cycle, or both is irrelevant.

The important questions are:
- is the climate changing?
- will it impact human life?
- can we do something about it?

I believe the answer to all three is "yes".

@diplomat, even with your 'yes, yes, yes'

We still need an international agreement. Either to end emissions, or (when it is too late) to control geo-engineering projects (we can do something to cool the planet, we're just not capable of agreeing how to go about doing so...).

"Eturnage, still on the wobbling earth, but no comment on erring on the safe side for those countries that are in danger of being flooded?"

The Paris meeting is only addressing greenhouse gasses. Regulation of those is arguably not going to accomplish anything because China is the source of 3/4 of them anyway. However, there are other things we could do to help--steps to stop deforestation, dessertification, restoration of ecosystems, sustainable agriculture. None of those steps, which do not involve as much government control over our lives, are on the table. Therefore, my hypothesis is that the Paris accord is primarily designed to allow government to grow bigger and interfere with our freedom to an even greater extent. Why aren't those other measures on the table if this issue is so important to coastal countries?

Agree Orathaic. Perhaps I am naive, but allowing deniers to frame the issue as "man didn't cause it" has caused delay in necessary action.

Regulation of greenhouse gases, which included China in the regulation, is going to do nothing under which arguement?

I mean without the US it may be less useful. Though Obama did just call on states, corporations and cities to make their own commitments, which may help.

The US accounted for 21% of the agreed reductions. They are the biggest issie facing Climate Change today, not China.

Needing an international agreement like this, in some ways necessarily requires that governments take some more power. If you can stop dessertification on your own, then please, go out and do so, i'm perfectly fine with individuals taking private actions to improve the environment, all power to you.

Is that what you propose to do to help the situation ( instead of repeating your idiotic claims that this is just a power grab?)

@Diplomat, yes, i think the arguement with deniers is a waste of time. And we should waste time on teir framing. Yet i'm still arguing with Eturnage... I guess that is my fault.

Also this: http://www.livescience.com/59337-trump-leaves-paris-climate-deal-effects.html

Then ask governments to stop subsidizing chem ag. Restoring ecosystems and stopping dessert I stood is an actual solution. Yet it's off the table. Why?

@Orathaic: at least it would move force them to find new reasons for not taking action.

Desertification. Stopping desert might help my waiste line. But not much for global warming.

China is about 30% of emissions now, nor 3/4. Honestly stop making things up. And yes, deforestation is included in the Paris accord. More importantly CHINA. Isin the Paris accord

In any event as bad as chemical agriculture is (and environmentalists are tackling that also, just not in this case) that has almost nothing to do with climate disruption anymore than earths wobble does

Because Paris is based on actual science not kooky racings, Etpurnage

Unintended consequences of emphasizing greenhouse gas issue: biofuel crops led to deforestation in the tropics and thus, increased carbon emissions. Yay! the Paris Accords say that countries will establish data to monitor the extent of deforestation. It can already be seen from satellites what sugar cane and palm oil industries are doing. Deforestation is a much bigger and better way to protect against climate change through carbon sequestration. Yet, they kick the can down the road in Paris.

China is in the Paris accord, was that what you said? Typo confused me.

Forrestation is a form of sequestering carbon. I don't understand what you're suggesting...

If you want to go out and lobby your government on these issues, do. That doesn't stop Trump's decision from being a terrible one.

If the world would grow trees and restore forests we could decrease the impact of global warming. Same as controlling greenhouse gasses, except it doesn't cause each US household to lose $7000 annually complying with your Paris protocols. China gets to increase coal mining for 15 years while the USA eliminates all coal mines? Europe increases coal mines under the accord while US eliminates the coal industry? India is paid billions just as a condition of being a participant? What?

Where's that $7000 figure from. And the coal mining information

Also India being paid billions makes a whole lot of sense. If they industrialized fully, it would have an even worse effect than China's industrialization. They need subsidized clean energy

Where are they losing this $7000 from?

Did some Parisian come in and take it? Are you pulling figures from your ass?

And yes, paying India to reduce future emmissions by investing in new carbon neutral technology is a frakking amazing deal. Save us billions in damage in the future for very little cost now (as we've already developed a lot of the technology required).

Growing more forests is great, except it hurts food production. And anything which reduces food production risks national security. Alas, there is very little room to grow new forests (thoug increased forest growth in Siberia and northern Canada may help a little).

And why would the US want cola when you've got multiple cheaper and cleaner alternatives. The coal industry is already on its last legs, thiusands of jobs are gone and not coming back (without massive government subsidies, which are better spent elsewhere).

Nobody thinks investing in coal is a good idea. So why are you complaining as if this is an issue? Again, trying to muddy the waters?

Bullshit. Frakk off.

@gf, the payments to India are, i believe, to get them to skip the low tech coal and oil/gas solutions (to meeting their power requirements) and industrialise into a green economy.

Which we can only hope is successful.

Yes, he is pulling numbers out of his ass, because as I've shown, moving forward with the Paris targets would likely save Americans money overall.

And reforestation protocols are part of the Paris accords. So, to answer yet another ignorant question: Why aren't forests considered in the Paris Accords? In fact, they ARE considered. Next?

And actually, there's rather a lot of room to reforest or prevent deforestation, especially in the tropics. There isn't much of a global food shortage, although food markets do a fantastically terrible job of distributing that food and ensuring it gets where it needs to go.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sr2J_1J9w3A

Interesting video on the Paris Climate Agreement.

Also, i wonder will Merkel use this as an opportunity to show some leadership, will there be an agreement with China and India to begin economic sanctions against the US (as hurting the US economy might forcibly reduce their emissions) does the political will exist to take on the US?

It would probably require Japan, Germany, the EU, China, India, and South Korea to have any measurable effect (Mexico and Canada could join in if Trump also leaves NAFTA, which i think would be amazing).

Any thoughts? Is this the moral thing to do? And do political leaders actually have the ability to make such a drastic change in the alignment of global economic power?