It will definitely undermine the climate initiative

The consequence would simply be the slowing down of the endeavor to combat against global climate change that might endanger humans' living on the Earth.

Trump has little to gain and much to lose by backing out of Paris Agreement, analysts say

---President Donald Trump is leaning toward pulling out of the Paris climate agreement.

---The move will please his political base, but threatens to upset allies and provoke trade disputes, analysts say.

---Backing out of the accord will do little to advance Trump's pro-fossil fuel agenda, analysts told CNBC.

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/31/trump-has-much-to-lose-by-backing-out-of-paris-agreement-analysts-say.html

The new media have had a remarkable impact on people's views about various matters in general and the environmental issues in particular. Information sharing and global interaction have turned people of the world aware of political moves and how they influence human conditions across the world. Fighting against global warming is certainly an international concern which factors like the U.S. president's recent decree does not slacken the urgent need for collaboration and cooperation for the purpose bringing the deleterious consequences of the problem under control. Getting out of the agreement would certainly fortify the so-called Anti-Imperialism League because ignoring global warming threatens the very foundations of human existence.

Best regards,

R. Biria

It is widely acknowledged within the United States that this was a bad decision. Involvement by the federal government would be beneficial, but many state and local governments, as well as businesses, are already stepping forward to do what the federal government will not.

The true solution to reducing CO2 needs to be in the marketplace, not in the government.  

The biggest effect will likely be within the political climate of the US.

Just for getting Political mileage can any one ignore threats to human existence.

Michaei is right. political climate of the US is already being affected. one US ambassador has resigned today  in protest against this pull out.

Boycotting /Isolating Qatar. Is it part of the same game

Mainz, Germany

Dear all,

I think it worth mentioning that President Obama accepted and endorsed the Paris accords, but they were never submitted to the U.S. Senate for ratification. It is doubtful that the accords would have been approved by the U.S. Senate --not then, and not now. Yet, without Senate approval, the Accords would have no legal force in the U.S. In consequence, the President's rejection of the Accords changed very little. In effect, the President likely sees himself as rejected the prestige, international window dressing of resisting climate change.

Moreover, with or without the Paris accords, the U.S. industry can still move in the direction of non-fossil fuel energy. It may be that coal is never coming back, and any impulse in that direction has been greatly diminished in any case by the large supplies of natural gas and oil now being produced in the U.S. But the U.S. has more coal than just about any other country.

Notice that President Obama did very little to inhibit development of U.S. energy independence along the lines of new gas and oil production. This has been a development of great geo-political significance. All attention was instead focused on not building a pipeline from Canada to import oil from Canadian oil sands. (The domestic gas and oil is much cleaner, by the way.) The Republicans may now allow the pipeline anyway--as I recall.

Asking the U.S. not to depend on fossil fuels would be rather like asking Saudi Arabia, Iran and the Gulf states, Norway or Great Britain not to exploit their oil and gas reserves. Or, it might be compared to asking France to give up its overwhelming reliance on nuclear power generation. Keep in mind that the U.S. is a very energy intensive economy. In consequence, it will likely take longer to adjust to the long-term advantages of alternative energy sources. For better or worse, and like it or not, the domestic politics actually responds to intensive domestic interests.

H.G. Callaway

President Trump’s reckless decision to leave the Paris climate agreement will live in infamy.

This is a retreat from America’s role as world leader – one that ignores overwhelming scientific evidence and the advice of more than 1,000 business leaders who urged him stand up for our clean energy economy.

It will hurt the United States far more than it hurts the rest of the world. And that’s saying a lot, because the global damage will indeed be considerable.

The most obvious consequence, for people everywhere, will be a slowdown in the fight to reduce the pollution that causes climate change – at the very moment we need to step up. That will mean more deaths from heat waves, extreme weather and disease; a deepening refugee crisis as populations shift in reaction to weather and agricultural changes, and an increase in the price we must pay to solve this problem...

https://www.edf.org/blog/2017/06/01/what-you-need-know-about-trumps-retreat-paris-climate-agreement?utm_source=google&utm_campaign=ggad_transition_pd_dmt&utm_medium=cpc&utm_id=1496409341&gclid=Cj0KEQjw6-PJBRCO_br1qoOB4LABEiQAEkqcVan0-gRvD0g8j3dQxjRRK0uIfZU96SmMd7kQqHoJCHkaAsUL8P8HAQ

Mainz, Germany

Dear Jacić,

Perhaps you are right and the President's "decision to leave the Paris climate agreement will live in infamy." But, in fact, very little has actually changed, since there was no Senate commitment to the accords in any case. As I said, there was never much of a chance for it to get past the Senate. What is different is chiefly the lack of official presidential acclaim for the Accords. Is this a lack of American leadership or simply a change in public rhetoric?

I take it as true that there is some danger to coastal and lower areas in the U.S. arising from flooding and storms, changes in local climates, etc. I've read that Miami is attempting sea walls and there are plans afoot to protect lower Manhattan, too? More often, those more directly effected or potentially so, are more alarmed. That is just the problem, when the matter is viewed in political terms. The benefits to some of simply going on in the same old ways are entrenched, and with some exceptions, the dangers are diffuse and less clearly directed. In consequence, it is very difficult to organize the interests of those potentially effected. As bottom-up politics this matter is not going to easily work.

On the other hand, given the power and economic influences effected in cutting CO2 emissions, are we really so sure that the prominent political defenders of the Accords are going to push for the stated goals, when they cross the economic interests of crucial economic constituents? Will our righteous indignation bring all this about --while leaving the countervailing economic interests firmly in place?

Mr. Trump may well turn out a one-term President. (I didn't support him and I didn't vote for him.) Consider, though that In the last great period of globalization in the U.S., toward the end of the 19th century, we had a long series of one-term Presidents, and virtually no one remembers their names. (Anyone recall the accomplishments of Rutherford B. Hays, e.g.?--any other President between U.S. Grant and Teddy Roosevelt?) In any case, I think the generalized tendency to jump all over the guy at every opportunity is lacking in wisdom. It looks like picking out a scapegoat to blame while distracting ourselves from the political failures of globalization over several decades. Do we recall now, the growing inequalities of our times --all around the world? The growing political dysfunction, including threatened decay of the E.U.? Do we perhaps suspect that the people who benefited most would like us to forget the costs and problems engendered?

Shall we all step up to distract the world from the failures of prior policy all around us? Or, should we perhaps take a more clear-eyed and dispassionate approach? Problems connected with climate change will likely be with us for a good long time, and effective political support for remedies, if such there are, will also take quite a long time. Might we do better thinking a bit about the contrary economic interests and their political support?

H.G. Callaway

Renewable biological resources are considered sufficient to replace about 15% of energy needs when fully developed. If true then the world is emitting about 7 times the sustainable amount of carbon dioxide.

Carbon dioxide in water acts as antifreeze melting ice without raising the temperature. Everyone can prove this with a carbonated drink bottle in a freezer. It remains liquid for a long time then freezes quickly when the carbon dioxide is released. 

A 20% reduction of CO2 in the Paris accord fails to address the larger problem, but does create economic and political problems sufficient to move an elected government out of it.

Dear Jacić,

How can you accommodate the way the IPCC works and the statement on your homepage  “Blind belief in authority is the greatest enemy of truth.” ? Honestly, I cannot see. I have absolutely no blind belief in IPCC results and I consider them as the greatest enemy of truth.

With respect to "climate change" I will add some food for thoughts (not claiming to detain any truth):

Major changes (including entering a glacial period or benefiting of an inter-glacial) are due to orbital parameters' changes (often known or referred to improperly as Milankovitch's parameters) and this paper to be published is a good overview of the changes over the Holocene https://judithcurry.com/2017/05/28/nature-unbound-iii-holocene-climate-variability-part-b/

then over shorter periods of time (i.e. in between 11 to 2400 years) solar activity is the major factor along Svensmark's thoughts:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/226914864_Cosmic_Rays_Clouds_and_Climate

And the solar activity modelling can be found in the latest papers of Valentina: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Valentina_Zharkova

I also like thinking of major past climate changes (though recent) for which humans had no influence at all and still had to cope with:

https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/green-sahara-african-humid-periods-paced-by-82884405

Wood already knew in 1909 that the so-called "green-house" effect had no physical reality as claimed today and one can read to get a better understanding:

https://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf

And finally, the only models that correctly render the temperature profiles (BTW both on Earth and Venus) observed are the adiabatic ones by G.V.Chilingar, O.G. Sorokhtin, L. Kilyuk et M. V. Gorfunkel, Environ Geol DOI : 10.1007.s00254-008-1615-3

https://arxiv.org/pdf/0707.1161.pdf

Finally, CO2 is not a pollutant and moving from 0,03% to 0,04% will not change anything to the climate as bigger changes (in CO2 ppm concentration) in the geological past have not either.

Well, I'll need more than faked graphs (BTW where CO2 has always lagged temperature) to convince me.

Good reading if you wish to consider divergent views.

Patrice.

Article Cosmic Rays, Clouds, and Climate

Dear @Patrice, please do explain your view about my wrong opinion about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).  I have no blind belief in IPCC results as you have mentioned. I have just contributed with an article which brings some new light to the issue of climate. Nothing less, nothing more. I think that it is good for debate here.

Thanks for fine resources that you have brought to this thread.

I have just received this article Scientists comment on the US withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement! I do hope it will contribute to this discussion.

https://www.researchgate.net/blog/post/scientists-react-to-the-us-withdrawal-from-the-paris-climate-agreement

Dear Jacić,

I appreciate your contribution and I am open to the discussion. At the same time I consider IPCC as a political body with a political agenda, mainly trying to set up a fund to exert power and starting with 100 Billions $ / year 2020 and expanding it to 400B.

http://www.greenclimate.fund/about-gcf/global-context

All that is very remote from any sort of science. What I meant is that before burning 100 Billions $, we'd better be back to Wood (1909) experiment who dismissed the supposed green-house effect:

http://principia-scientific.org/the-famous-wood-s-experiment-fully-explained/

as he did rightfully (great physicist) for the N rays:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N_ray

I love your “Blind belief in authority is the greatest enemy of truth.”  and therefore I think we need to be extremely cautious as the IPCC authority is driving us straight into the wall of non-science (if not non-sense).

Best.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_W._Wood

Dear @Patrice, nothing to add! I do agree very much that IPCC is very political body! We should care about science and scientific results, not about the political decisions of such international bodies! Maybe some of this bureau members are researchers also, but politics run their decisions!!! :)

https://www.ipcc.ch/organization/bureaumembers.shtml

The rest of the World must pursue the 1.5 -2 Degree cel. target. Trump can't stop the rest of the global community.

But if USA goes the other direction target of 1.5-2 degree will need added effort!

What a shame!

 I have faith in the overwhelming majority of the USA people who have braced climate change and have developed new initiatives to combat and reduce its effects. They have developed a multitude of new methods of energy generation and off-the-grid systems.

The people are changing their ways and this is important to fight climate change. Trump's decision will have little effect by the time they become law (if that ever happens). So far, most of his "rulings" have been reversed! We have a max of about 3.5 years to go with him "in charge".

Dear @Michael, let us hope that he will not earn another election period of presidency!

Two-thirds of Americans disagree with Trump's decision to pull out of the Paris climate deal!

Less than one-third of Americans support President Donald Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Paris climate accord, a new poll shows, and just 18% of respondents agree with his claim that pulling out of the international agreement to reduce carbon emissions will help the U.S. economy...

http://www.businessinsider.com/poll-trump-americans-paris-agreement-climate-change-2017-6

Its sad that in USA one can be President with minority support.

Mainz, Germany

Dear Chakraborty,

My understanding is that one can become head of government in almost any country with somewhat less than majority popular support. Witness Mrs. May in GB. But more generally, a majority in a parliamentary system, sufficient to elect a Prime Minister does not always come with or require a majority of the popular vote.

The U.S. electoral college vote is weighted toward the states in just the same way that Congress is weighted toward the states. In the U.S. Senate, each state, whether large or small,  gets exactly two votes. Every piece of legislation ever passed by Congress had to pass through the Senate as well as the lower house --where populations are represented equally. To make the Presidency depend on pure popular vote would raise the democratic legitimacy of the office above that of Congress--which the entire constitution aims to avoid doing. The constitution aims to constrain the power of the executive and divide the power of the federal government between three competing branches of government: the executive, the legislative and the judicial. In addition, the various U.S. states have their own independent powers of taxation, policing and policy. The U.S. is both a nation and a federation of the states.

BTW: The President's decision about the Paris Accords, as noted in one of my notes above, is not a matter of law. President Obama, though approving the Accords, never submitted them to the Senate--the approval of which is required for any binding treaty. (If he had, the Senate would have almost certainly rejected the proposal.) Essentially, nothing in U.S. law is changed by Mr. Trump's rejection of the Accords.

Of course, I understand that many people see Mr. Trump quite negatively. My point is to show respect and understanding of the office. 

H.G. Callaway

In these years, it has been shown that economic rationality surpasses ethics and the collective vision of the future. This position is strengthened by using the power of the United States government.

An international climate-action coalition is calling for the postponement of the most significant global climate meeting since Paris in 2015. Climate Action Network-International (CAN), which represents a global collection of more than 1,500 environmental groups, warns that pandemic restrictions could prevent the world’s poorest nations from fully participating in the 26th United Nations Climate Change Conference of the Parties (COP26). The conference has already been postponed by a year, ratcheting up concerns over delayed climate action. The UK government, which is hosting the event in Glasgow, has responded to the call for postponement with concessions intended to enable broad participation. It is providing vaccines to delegations that do not have access to them and covering the cost of hotel quarantine...

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02465-y

@Ljubomir Jacić

So nice of the UK govt to act the way showing concern and generosity for fellow countries.

Yes, it is very nice regarding UK. Dear Subrata Chakraborty , EU announce they will double external funding for biodiversity...

#SOTEU #COP15 #COP26

https://twitter.com/VSinkevicius/status/1438044887228747776?s=20

None of the world’s major economies, including those in the G20 group, have a sufficient plan to meet their obligations under the Paris Agreement on climate change. The policy-analyst group Climate Action Tracker looked at the policies of 36 countries, plus the European Union, that are responsible for 80% of the world’s greenhouse-gas emissions...

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/09/15/world/climate-pledges-insufficient-cat-intl/index.html