Disney CEO Bob Iger among the executives abandoning Trump advisory roles over climate agreement

Like the 800 other egregious things he has done/said was not reason enough?

A suggests that about 7 in 10 registered voters support the agreement.

I am willing to bet that 7 in 10 registered voters couldn't have a substantive discussion about the Paris accord in terms of climate, economic impacts or international implications much less all three. And that is true about many issues in the public discussion. Good thing we have a republic rather than a democracy.

Not the first time Trump has gone against the grain. Seems to have worked out for him ok other times he has done it. At this point appears that he will be pretty much an ineffective president. Though not sure how effective anyone can be in the position at this point.

"Worked out ok" sure as hell doesn't pass any moral standard I'm aware of.

GoBucks89 said:
At this point appears that he will be pretty much an ineffective president. Though not sure how effective anyone can be in the position at this point.

Trump is such a bad politician that (thankfully) he can't get his agenda through. And he is in a politically easy position in my opinion. Basically the whole government is Republican, and the democratic party is in chaos at the moment. People don't like trump because he's doing a poor job. Nothing to do with people being "out to get him"

"Worked out ok" sure as hell doesn't pass any moral standard I'm aware of.

You left "for him" out of what I said. He has been all about himself his entire life from everything I have read. He is a billionaire (though in reality maybe just multi-hundred millionaire) and is President of the United States. Seems to me that is working out ok for him.

Trump doesn't have an agenda from what I can tell other than pithy, trite sayings which mean nothing. Nothing of substance. That was clear during the campaign. Makes it difficult to get anything of substance done.

The Republican Party is not a monolithic group of people with unity of purpose (neither were the Dems under Obama or the Repubs under Bush, etc.). Everyone within the parties has his/her own agenda often in conflict even though in the same party. Makes getting anything of substance done very difficult.

I wonder how many businesses Trump owns that would be affected by the Paris Accord?

Very few, I'd guess, since he doesn't actually own a lot of companies*; most of his wealth comes from licensing deals. Most Trump hotels and buildings, for example.

Speaking for myself, I don't like Trump because he has no idea what's doing, doesn't understand how government works, apparently thinks that the other NATO members owe the U.S. money -- for crying out loud, the staff of the President of the United States of America has to put his name in as many paragraphs of the one or two page memos he gets, because if he doesn't see his name all the time, he loses interest and stops reading. Sorry, end of rant.

* Well, he does own a lot of companies that own little bits and pieces of his empire, allowing the people who understand finance and law in his Organization to move money around, but in the sense of businesses that actually produce goods or services, not so much.

GoBucks89 said:

...is President of the United States. Seems to me that is working out ok for him.

I'm not so sure about that. By many accounts, he hates his job and misses his old, easier life. He seemingly never wanted to be POTUS. He just wanted to win the election, which he seems to have looked at as a popularity contest or reality show competition. Or maybe hid did want to win, but only so that people would actually like him. And given his historically-awful approval numbers, that doesn't seem to be working out OK for him.

The hate is strong.

Congress never ratified the Paris Agreement just like it never ratified the Kyoto Protocol back in 1992. Just like the Kyoto Protocol, the Paris Agreement would be moot without congressional ratification even if Trump didn't withdraw. The Paris Agreement IS a bad deal for the U.S., it is more about a redistribution of wealth than anything else as billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars would go to underdeveloped nations who have such a tiny carbon footprint to begin with. I'm not enough of an environmentalist to want to pay for that.

Nonsense. Those financial contributions are completely voluntary (just like the emissions targets). Surely Trump, the masterful negotiator he is, could have used his vast intellect and irresistible charisma to explain why the US could not afford such contributions without abandoning the Agreement altogether.

Furthermore, the idea behind that funding was to assist emerging economies. Wealthy, advanced economies have bigly benefited by burning cheap fossil fuels (while doing immense damage to the planet). The Paris Agreement sets forth some much-needed standards going forward, and provides economic assistance to emerging economies so that they are not disproportionately burdened by the more stringent regulations.

That's what I said, redistribution of wealth (the idea behind that funding was to assist emerging economies). No thanks.

A) Assisting developing countries isn't a bad idea, since the benefits rebound to everyone. And if the US can afford to subsidize multi-billion dollar corporations (does McDonalds really need government assistance to sell french fries?), I think the US can afford to support those developing countries.

B) And as dj notes, the Paris Accords are entirely voluntarily. They were negotiated to reflect what the US wanted, and have no means of penalizing countries that don't meet the goals they established for themselves.

A. With the debt we have we can't afford to patch pot holes and fix water lines. We can't afford to support developing countries and either cause a greater tax burden on already strapped citizens or keep increasing our deficit.

B. That is right. As a result, it was likely that the United States and wealthy European nations would have adopted and implemented severe climate change rules while many of the world’s governments would avoid doing anything that would slow their own economies. The agreement basically made the U.S. economy and Europe’s strongest economies sacrificial lambs to the cause of climate change. Once again, redistribution of wealth negotiated by an administration that was more interested in global government than improving wealth at home for a greater cross section of citizens.

Do you feel the same way about cutting national funding for the Great Lakes?

Pete said:

That's what I said, redistribution of wealth...

The US has acquired enormous wealth largely by way of doing substantial damage to the planet (and the cost to others, by the way). Giving back a minuscule fraction (via a noncommittal agreement) seems like we're getting off pretty damn easy.

But again, that's not the point. Your entire defense of the US pulling out of a global agreement were these payments, which are entirely voluntary.

Pete said:

A. With the debt we have we can't afford to patch pot holes and fix water lines. We can't afford to support developing countries and either cause a greater tax burden on already strapped citizens or keep increasing our deficit.

Oh, come on. We can find $3 billion in our couch cushions. You're talking about less than 0.5% of our defense budget.

...while many of the world’s governments would avoid doing anything that would slow their own economies. The agreement basically made the U.S. economy and Europe’s strongest economies sacrificial lambs to the cause of climate change.

Flatly wrong. China has dropped plans for hundreds of coal plants in lieu of spending hundreds of billions of dollars on renewable energy. India has done the same, cancelling plans for coal mines because their renewable energy efforts have made coal less attractive.

These countries will be at the forefront of renewable energy, and will create tens of millions of new jobs. But who cares, right? We just save literally dozens of coal workers' jobs, so it's pretty much a wash.

Yes, but ... potholes and waterlines are the responsibility of city or county governments, not the federal government.

Yes, but ... but each goverment determined their own goals. The U.S. determined its own goals, New Zealand determined its own goals, Brazil determined its own goals.

As noted, the Paris Accords have no means of penalizing a country that doesn't meet those goals, and no means of requiring any country to "pay up" to support other countries.

Pardon my ignorance (and do inform me where necessary), but it seems like so much of this agreement was voluntary, noncommittal and unenforceable that it amounted to little more than a symbolic gesture.

I'm not making judgement. I don't pretend to know (or care) enough. But you guys are sort of convincing me that pulling out isn't going to change anything for real - other than the pleasantries of the symbolic agreements.

djDaemon said:

Flatly wrong. China has dropped plans for hundreds of coal plants in lieu of spending hundreds of billions of dollars on renewable energy. India has done the same, cancelling plans for coal mines because their renewable energy efforts have made coal less attractive.

These countries will be at the forefront of renewable energy, and will create tens of millions of new jobs. But who cares, right? We just save literally dozens of coal workers' jobs, so it's pretty much a wash.

China has dropped plans for coal plants but that is only a reduction of plans to expand coal generated electricity. Their 5 year plan calls for an increase in coal generated electricity from its current 920 GW capacity to 1100 GW. So China gets to expand cheap coal generated electricity while we close coal plants and switch to more expensive alternative energy, such as solar panels made in, you guessed it, China.

It is all a bunch of BS and if renewable energy is cost effective and more efficient it will be adopted regardless if any type of international agreement is in place. But, a Heritage Foundation study found that the Paris agreement would have increased the electricity costs of an American family of four by between 13 percent and 20 percent annually. The same study found that the overall effect of the agreement would have been to reduce U.S. GDP by over $2.5 trillion and eliminate 400,000 jobs by 2035.

Putting additional strain on the economy with any type of energy subsidy to other countries or increasing the cost of energy to US consumers is just plain wrong. And our economy is not strong in a practical sense, but numbers are manipulated to make it seem that way. Retail store chains are folding left and right, crime and gun violence is up in most major cities because of poverty and people are trying to support families by working at fast food joints. Over 21% of the population participates in some form of major government assistance program. College graduates are living in their parent's basement because they can't make ends meet. Our economy sucks and does not serve a large majority of our population very well. Before we participate in some pie in the sky climate BS that would further drain our economy we need to get our own house in order.