Home | About | Donate

 Donald Trump’s Withdrawal From the Paris Accords Is a Crime Against Humanity


#1

 Donald Trump’s Withdrawal From the Paris Accords Is a Crime Against Humanity

Mark Hertsgaard

President Donald Trump confirmed his status as climate denier in chief today, guaranteeing his place in history as an enemy of both science and humanity. Trump’s withdrawal of the United States from the Paris Accord on climate change will not stop the rest of the world from continuing to advance toward a clean-energy future. Solar, wind, batteries, and other technologies are growing tremendously fast, rewarding investors and employing far more people than the heat-trapping fuels of the past.


#2

One result of Trump's autocratic stupidity is that America will not be great again. Instead of looking to the future and leading this country to the far more productive path of renewable energy and reaping the many millions of new jobs and business opportunities in manufacturing and R&R etc, Trump leads us into second rate status. For all his blathering about making America great again, he does the exact opposite and abandons us to old technology and virtually a suicidal type of energy production. Why must America be saddled with old technology? Is Trump getting senile? Does he really want to stand against new technology?

Trump makes America lose again. We are falling behind year after year while other countries are growing their sustainable energy economies. As the years go by, we will have lost those jobs and will never have acquired that 'free energy' outlook towards engineering and architecture. New projects that consume fossil fuel produced energy will end up failing or at least partially hamstrung in competition with new projects that not only use renewables but may in fact also produce a surplus of energy that can be fed into the grid. If we had a new grid that would help too!

That 'Free Energy' mentality would most certainly make America great again.


#3

Drastic change was needed in the 90's. This is a good time to read "Ozymandias" again.


#4

Trump and the GOP are nothing BUT "crime against humanity".


#5

I believe the worst about Trump - that he is a misanthrope plotting civil war worldwide culminating in WWIII. Mister Trump will profit from arming both sides of regional conflicts with actions designed to increase suffering, misery and desperation that produces suicide bombers. Mister Trump's agenda is to exterminate world population, specifically the poor and the segregation of races. His only loyalty is to the ruling class (business elite) though to them he's a useful tool to be discarded once his usefulness is complete. Trump may feign concern about globalization and its inequities, but his actions only promote more worldwide transport and luxury travel. The more the world becomes dependent upon long-distance transport, the more vulnerable it becomes to this purposeful disruption. Ruthless oil interests can pull the rug out from under a dependent population at any time to produce famine and starvation even in the United States. Mister Trump will enable the fabulously wealthy to set up sustainable recluse estates for their survival in the coming holocaust. Sea level rise and evacuation of major US cities to refugee camps fits perfectly into his misanthropic design for his intended end of time apocalypse.


#6

Like JFK Johnson Nixon Reagan Bush Clinton Bush Obama?


#7

Donald Trump's withdrawal from the Paris Accords is a crime against humanity, and a crime against the environment, as well.


#8

The fascist mass murderer trump is a crime against humanity!


#9

Actually the Paris Accords are criminal in their lack of meaning. They are a series of voluntary targets meant to protect the profits of corporate polluters he biggest polluting nation on Earth, the US.


#10

If it were as productive and profitable as you make out, then the private sector would already be building it, and Pres. Trump couldn't stop it if he wanted to. And he wouldn't want to.

If all this energy use cutting and substitution were such a great idea, it wouldn't need government or international agreements to do. If old companies (Kodak, Xerox, IBM, etc.) wouldn't do it, then new companies like Facebook, Apple and Google would.


#11

By the Way,
The title of this piece in the Common Dreams digest,
"Paris Accords Is a Crime Against Humanity"

is ironic. Other websites I read have said the same thing. That if the Paris Accords really are implemented, then multi-millions of poor folks around the world will be condemned to lives of poverty. India is among the nations that have declared that the West got wealthy on cheap fossil fuel energy, and they won't forswear using the same development tools to bring prosperity to their people, simply because Western elites get the vapors over climate change.

As side notes, I have heard that Germans have added a new word to their vocabulary, which means "energy poverty". They have the highest electric bills in the developed world, and their socialism can't help their impoverished cope with the inability to pay. Also, a few years ago Der Spiegel remarked that electricity had become a luxury good. As a result, the impoverished are in-the-night cutting down trees in Germany's parks, to put in their stoves and fireplaces.

A second by the way: Critics have noted that Germany and other developed nations are going to miss their reduction targets. The politicians aren't willing to inflict that much pain on their public.


#12

I am glad he did. You do not need to belong in an agreement to be able to be more environmentally protective. This is a way to suck more money out of the tax payer here in the US. We pay enough


#13

Specifically what expenditure would be paid by tax payers required by the Paris agreements?


#14

No not Trump. Yes, there is a crime against humanity [dozens, actually] this one is the Paris Agreement itself!
To put forward sucha dud agreement, with no teeth and plenty of exceptions, deliberately misleads the public, especially when an uncritical MSM spouts received nonsense. The agreement was worthless even before Trump decided against it.


#15

It always amazes me when someone in denial about anything chooses to avoid finding out for themselves what are the facts. You make a claim that private business would jump on alternative energy if it were that profitable and could create that many more jobs. A simple google search of the subject would have provided you with the figures but of course >>> the truth is that you don't really want to know! Try googling about the rate of job growth and investment in renewables by the private sector and by governments around the world.

You with a hypocrisy that beggars belief, comment on how people cut trees for firewood in Germany and shed crocodile tears for their energy needy poor. So then those many millions of poor and elderly in America who will suffer from the assistance cuts in Trump's budget (which will result in serious problems and likely fatalities come winter if it were passed) escape your concern? Or that those who cut trees in American forests (assuming you even meant protected forests) to sell as firewood (a big problem going back decades) where jobs are scarce and corporations like Pacific Lumber clear cut rather than use sustainable harvesting... don't count?

Or that solar and wind development has progressed so far in only the last few years (you'd have to be current and up on the facts rather than maintaining outdated information and old fashioned as well as ill informed attitudes towards such progress) that many European countries are closing their coal mines like in Wales and the Ruhr Valley etc! Think about that! Wales!

Also that there is no clean coal energy. It just isn't possible to do that and scrubbers are so expensive inefficient as they are, that they make running a coal plant much more expensive than are solar and wind alternatives and business won't invest in new coal plants any more? Did you know that Texas (you heard of Texas right? Oilman Texas?) is the leading state for solar and wind development in the USA? Or that China is scrapping plans to build new coal plants and is building solar and wind plants instead because the energy is cheaper than coal and of course cleaner?

Oh wait! Maybe you have stopped trying to know what you are talking about some years ago when solar and wind energy was far less efficient and still more expensive than fossil fuels. Did you know that has now changed in just the last few years? A solar plant is cheaper to run and its energy cheaper to buy than is that from a coal plant? You were almost right about private companies but actually it is they who are avoiding investing in new coal!

As they say - "Science marches on!"

Oops! Are you allowed to say the word science anymore? I know that some scientific words are forbidden by decree by Repubs and by this administration. Strange that in a 'free country' huh?


#16

This is an excellent article, because it reveals the overall consequences of the United States' withdrawal from the Paris Agreements, thus allowing Climate change to escalate unabated, with serious consequences to the world and its people, as a result. The fact that Donald Trump can be so totally insensitive is beyond disgusting...and practically defies belief.


#17

It's a "crime against humanity," true, but how to make that charge STICK?!


#18

We are agreed on the "If -- then ---", but disagree on the truth of the If clause. No matter. You are blind to the corresponding conclusion. If wind and solar were so great, then there would be no need for any government laws, regulations, treaties, agreements or policies to make it happen. Government would simply have to get out of the way.
-- Like they have been asked to regarding those wind mills off the shore of Cape Cod. Various liberals like the Kennedy-s have been blocking that, right? Hypocrits!

I have read in recent months that the German government is permitting the continued use, or the restarting of coal fired electric plants. Maybe not Ruhr coal, but coal all the same. Japan, having Fukushima shut down all its nuclear power plants (I am unsure whether one or two have restarted...) has restarted or built new coal fired power plants, and is importing the coal to run them.

Somehow, whether trying to provide capacity, or trying to ration what capacity they have, those nations and several others on the same clean-binge have been unable to stretch wind, solar, acceptable-hydro, wave, acceptable geo-thermal, etc. & conservation enough to acceptably serve the public. (Of course, we have novels like James Kunstler's 'A World Made by Hand' to describe for us life in a world that must live without energy.)

You Wereflea speak of hypocrisy. I can think of plenty of instances over on the left side. You refer to the closure of the last coal pit in Wales. Hmm. I recall that back c.1980 PM Margaret Thatcher shifted from home dug coal to cheaper imported coal, and the coal miners in Britain went on strike, demanding that their pits continue to operate until every last bit of coal in them was scratched out. Thatcher's name continues to be vilified in that part of Britain...

About China scrapping coal plants: Is that statement believable? Maybe this one is more believable: "In April a science industry newsletter headline read: “Japan, India, and China Still Turning to More Coal Throughout 2020s, Which means More co2 and Pollution.” The air quality today is filthy in Beijing and Shanghai as factories belch out black smoke and smog.", from this article I read today,


I say again, if wind and solar, etc., and conservation were really better cheaper than fossil fuels, then we would not need government to make it happen.


#19

Meanwhile it is obvious that you still didn't google the issue because you really don't want to know the truth! You should be embarrassed!


#20

You say that wind and solar are better cheaper energy sources than ..., and to Google the internet on that subject for proof.

I have more faith in the market. If sellers and buyers think wind and solar are so great, then they will take over the market, and banish fossil fuels. Much like kerosene 180 years ago stopped the whale oil market. Then, and now, it doesn't take government to force it. And I refuse to be one of those demanding that government do what it shouldn't be doing. Buyers and sellers will do it in the market.

Whether I know it correctly (In your opinion) or not matters less than whether the mass of people know what is best for them. The market will find the answer.