Home | About | Donate

If Trump Dumps Paris, Says Naomi Klein: "Time for Some People's Sanctions"


If Trump Dumps Paris, Says Naomi Klein: "Time for Some People's Sanctions"

Jon Queally, staff writer

Whether President Donald Trump keeps the United States in the Paris climate agreement or not—and with an official announcement expected as early as Thursday—author and climate activist Naomi Klein is among those saying it is time to recognize the world's largest historical producer of greenhouse emissions as a global pariah and argues that hitting the U.S. where it hurts, in the pocketbook, could be the best way to end the nation's destructive foot-dragging.


Karmically and otherwise, it may be inevitable the US will be sanctioned at some point. The US can’t behave like this and keep going. Sooner or later, punishment is coming from the other countries. I thought of us being sanctioned, too. We depend on too much from the outside now.


Here’s my prediction. rump will remain in the accord but say “I will renegotiate it, I will make a deal, the best deal, because that’s what I know best, making deals. I am the best deal maker ever. STRONG!”


I’m going to frankly state that a Trump-inspired trade war is a surefire pathway to recession.

And that’s about the only way you’ll get rid of him in 2020.


Here’s the reality.

Paris is no where enough to counter the problem.

I mean getting upset with Trump pulling out of Paris is like getting upset with someone not putting a band-aid over a gunshot wound to the gut.

I don’t know what we should do. But pretending that the problem is Trump pulling out of an accord that is moving the deck chairs while the ship sinks and opposing him on that is not what we need to do. We need something much more radical.

It’s time for us to start calling for what needs to happen. OUTLAWING burning fossil fuels. Ending industrial agriculture. Maybe at least we’ll move the debate closer to real solutions.

A Carbon Tax is a Neo-Liberal phony solution. What’s next? Making murder legal but making people pay a tax on it? Sheesh. Burning carbon is murdering the ecosystem that works for us. As Carlin said, the Earth will survive, but we won’t.


But tax incentives are the duopoly’s religion. Well, that and endless war.


Your proposals are just a bit impractical? And this is the first time I’ve heard progressive tax policy being called “neoliberal”. So steeply progressive income taxes (which are essentially the same kind of thing as a carbon tax) are “neoliberal” too? Better to just round up and imprison everyone above a certain income - or caught with some heating oil trying to stay warm in winter?

And I’m sure you are not using fossil fuels right now - no heat, no transportation, no electricity? And what is “industrial agriculture”? Large scale farming? At what scale does agriculture become non-industrial?


If by “nonviolent revolutionary change” you mean not harming any living thing save for the cockroaches and rats in the capitalist’s property that we burn, then I agree with you.

But it seem strange that commenters here call for nonviolent change but then endlessly criticize anybody that is actually getting off their asses and organizing to do just that - from calling Naomi Klein “a neoliberal shill” one day to those who engage in vigorous direction action “police provocateurs”


A carbon tax is a flat tax on carbon usage. That makes it regressive. A large corporation making an enormous profit will pay a small percentage of their income in their carbon tax. A working class person who uses his or her pick up truck to their job will pay a higher percentage of their income in their carbon tax.

The truth is that taxes used for any other purpose other than financing government services are NeoLiberal because they are attempting to affect things via the market costs.

I am for a highly progressive income tax and wasn’t commenting on that at all.

Individuals can attempt to live lifestyles that are more earth friendly. But it won’t fix things until the system is changed. Yes, I use fossil fuels to heat my home and for transportation. My electricity is hyrdo, by the way. We intentionally use our electricity for our cooking and water heating when it would be more economical to switch to gas- but our electricity is hydro. We keep our house as cold as we can, by the way. I drive a diesel and when I could get it, used biodiesel.

But we have little choice on these things. Outlawing burning of fossil fuels means all new vehicles (after the date the outlawing is phased in) would have to be electric. It means all new power plants would have to be non fossil fuel and some timeline would be required to switch existing plants to no fossil fuel production. Supposedly the goal of a carbon tax is to get corporations to do that because the tax makes it more profitable for them to do so- but outlawing means they just have to do it. No carbon tax means that working people who have no say in what they buy to heat, power, and transport aren’t carrying the burden as we change.

Yes, large scale farming with extensive use of pesticides, GMOs, and machinery. Factory farms of animal products.


If you aren’t working for Zero Population Growth, you aren’t part of the solution…
and God-help any USA politician who advocates ZPG.


Intersectionality is a catch phrase for the peoples of this planet refusal to understand, and accept, over-consumption of some, but not all that is capable of being produced, is simply bad. It is deadly in some cases, as we’ve found out throughout recorded history. Examples are replete.
Oil is turning out to be one of these products. And, that is not without acknowledging the tremendous benefits that petroleum related bi-products have contributed to our standard of living. It is immense in its scope, currently. And, in some cases it cannot be replaced without severe disruptions, across the board. More intersectionality that some might overlook in a heated discussion over climate change. So it goes…
Also, growing the economy is as misleading as the term, " clean coal ". It is a subterfuge, since GDP doesn’t mean or measure anything relative to good or bad. It could mean, for example, the building of more prisons because of rising incarceration rates. While not measuring why so many people are being put away under lock and key. Thus, throwing away the Bill of Rights and the entire Constitution would, in theory, add growth to the economy and thus raise GDP. Something like that.
Political Science ( Politics) is defined as " the art of the possible ". Well, we shall with the Paris Climate Accord. Since, ironically, it is voluntary, after all.
However, as long as politicians allow, and some entrenched businesses conspire, we’ll continue to collectively drive down roads that are dead ends. We need to end using the old saw, " he who has the gold, makes the rules " and return to the original intent of the real Golden Rule. If we still can.
Oil isn’t, in the end, the only bad product that raises GDP, while destroying the planet and the inhabitants of it. Maybe disrupting the current situation, found in the definition of the art of politics and possibilities, will stop us from going down some dead ends. That’s the hard part in all voluntary accords.
Accord is defined as " to be in harmonious agreement with ". Man, oh man, do we have our work cut out for us. Yikes is in order, here.


This perhaps will be the shot in the arm needed to inspire real action and forge ahead of the lame Paris Accords. The best thing out of the accords was the acknowledgement of the crisis humans are facing by world governments. Then real action can proceed and leave fossil fuels in the ground where they belong. Encouraging is the public’s embrace to act on their own behalf. One can choose, e.g.; to drive less, planning trips in advance with a benefit to the pocketbook to boot; switching to LED’s or floursecent bulbs; using public transport when possible; getting solar, if possible; things that when added up will start to help. But ultimately it’s up to governments to really effect change by dismantling military machines and putting most monies into a rapid shift to a rearrangement in all aspects of commerce and energy production. Until that happens things will continue to deteriorate rapidly. And time’s running out.


I intentionally had no children. Population is still the #1 reason driving human and most other living beings extinction.


Our sh*t-spewing fuhrer might get away with pissing off a country here or there, but when you get everyone pissed off, you’re in real trouble. Even the threat of REAL sanctions, Iran-type sanctions, against the U.S. would cause Wall St. to shit their pants, precipitate a 60 - 75% drop in the stock market, and spell the end of Trump, not in 2020, but before the 4th of July 2017. Not that they will, but don’t think for a moment that they don’t think about it. Actually all they need to do is stop buying U.S. bonds and open discussions about replacing the petro-dollar with something else. The U.S. economy and financial markets are actually quite vulnerable. When the world realizes that the U.S. is willing to kill off the entire planet rather than give up their God-given position as Imperial Grand Wizard, the end of empire will be assured. And the only fool who doesn’t have a clue is you-know-who.


I think we need to be very, very careful here because the mic in this country would love nothing more than an excuse for another war. All they would need to do is find a way to lay blame on the proper villain, of course. The American people are not used to having to do without so it would feed nicely into their plans.


While I still believe that the U.S. deserves to be sanctioned I am worried about the potential reaction to this from the U.S. Even before we had the recent man-child Commander in Chief, the U.S. acted in actions it would go to war with other countries for, under the delusion of exceptionalism. How will the U.S. react when the “lesser” countries start sanctioning the “exceptional” nation?


The US thinks it can control a tax war on imports. Try to figure out what the US manufacturers that the non US world doesn’t also manufacture. For awhile IT stuff was dominated by the US - not any more. Cars for a long time but that market is gone.The US market is very large but it is not larger than China and is in the same ball park as other large countries.
I don’t want an all out trade war but some push back on climate related items is appropriate. Boycotts on Iran, Russia, and Korea have had negative impacts for these countries. A concerted effort against the US would have an impact on our economy.


Wouldn’t a carbon tax on US imports be even more effective than sanctions? The use of a carbon tax would force any US company that wants to export to employ the most stringent environmental manufacturing rules possible to make their product prices viable. Isn’t the idea to force the US to lower its carbon foot print and not just to punish the stupidity of the Tangerine Turd. My problem with sanctions is it usually the common folk, who have zero influence over what management does, that end up suffering the most. Sanctions make the poor, poorer and decimate the middle class where catalyst for change in the top might arise.

If the EU just wants to punish the Mango Mussolini, then have the Hague issue warrants for crimes against humanity. They dropped the ball with Bush and Obama so maybe they can make up for it now. Be an interesting case for someone to be charged and tried in absentia for a crime that will kill in the future; real Minority Report stuff.


“And time is running out.” Sorry, but I think that statement needs rewritten to the past tense as in “Time has run out.” The damage is already done and we can only try to mitigate the horrendous damage to the planet so that total species extinctions, including ours, does not happen. Given that humans are so damned selfish that they cannot even follow an accord, that was at best a third of the action actually needed, means that our myopic, shortsighted natures will not allows us to make the sacrifices necessary to save our only home. Even now, the discussion is still about how to save the world’s wealthy economies and not about how to save the world itself. To save the world, the present world economic model must die.


How many readers and commenters have actually examined the agreement. I would bet the answer is;- NONE.
The agreement doesn’t stand up. It’s maybe not a con, but completely unrealistic and impossible to achieve.
It was DEAD before it was signed by anyone and Trump’s actions are not relevant here.

Benjamin Studebaker’s blog shows it up; Look it up!
“The Paris Climate Agreement’s Failure Was Structurally Inevitable”