Comments 53

Трамптың социопатиясы және климаттың өзгеруі

Jun 7, 2017 Jeffrey D. Sachs

НЬЮ-ЙОРК – Климат жөніндегі Париж келісімнен Америка Құрама Штаттарының шығуы туралы Президент Дональд Трамптың шешім шығаруы әлем үшін қауіпті ғана емес; ол сондай-ақ социопатиялық әрекет болып тұр. Ешбір өкінбей, Трамп әдейі басқаларға зиян келтіргелі отыр. Трамп климаттың өзгеріп жатқанына сенеді деген АҚШ-тың БҰҰ-дағы елшісі Ники Хейлидің сөздері жағдайды тіпті нашарлатып тастады. Трамп әдейі және көкбеттеніп планетаға қатер төндіріп тұр.

Трамптың мәлімдемесі бұзақының мақтан сөзіндей болды. Ол әлемнің барлық елдерінде, барлық жағынан симметриялы жаһандық келісім қалай болғанда да құлық, және ол АҚШ-қа қарсы айлакерлік деп айтты. Әлемнің барлық бөлігі «бізге күліп жатыр» деп те айтып өтті.

Бұл сөздер мүлдем бос сандырақтық, арсыз немесе терең надандықтан туған ойлар. Мүмкін осы сипаттаманың үшеуі де шын шығар. Және осы сөздер осылай түсінілуі тиіс.

To continue reading, please log in or enter your email address.

To read this article from our archive, please log in or register now. After entering your email, you'll have access to two free articles every month. For unlimited access to Project Syndicate, subscribe now.

Featured

The Sino-American Cold War’s Collateral Damage

Oct 19, 2018 Minxin Pei
The End of Scandinavian Non-Alignment

Oct 17, 2018 Carl Bildt
Will Italy Sink Europe?

Oct 17, 2018 Jim O'Neill
The Martyrdom of Jamal Khashoggi

Oct 15, 2018 Daoud Kuttab
The Brexit Endgame

Oct 16, 2018 Robert Skidelsky

Jeffrey D. Sachs

Writing for PS since 1995
290 Commentaries

Jeffrey D. Sachs, Professor of Sustainable Development and Professor of Health Policy and Management at Columbia University, is Director of Columbia’s Center for Sustainable Development and of the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network. His books include The End of Poverty, Common Wealth, The Age of Sustainable Development, Building the New American Economy, and most recently, A New Foreign Policy: Beyond American Exceptionalism.

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 50 in all 50 Comments on this article

Robin Guenier Sep 11, 2017

Apologies for the poor formatting of my comment. This may be easier to read:

It seems Professor Sachs may be unfamiliar with the actual content of the Paris Agreement. If he were, he would not have described the it as “symmetric in all ways, across all countries of the world” and “a universal agreement among 193 UN member states to cooperate in decarbonizing the world’s energy system and thereby head off the dangers of climate disaster …”

In fact, the Agreement exempts the so-called “developing” countries, responsible for over 65% of global CO2 emissions, from any obligation, legal or moral, to reduce those emissions. In other words, it’s not “symmetric” and it’s not “a universal agreement to decarbonize the world’s energy system”. Far from it. (LINK: https://ipccreport.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/cop-21-developing-countries-_-2.pdf.)

Professor Sachs says that the world is “nearing the brink of human-made catastrophe” and “needs to move quickly and resolutely to a low-carbon energy system, in order to end emissions of CO2and other greenhouse gases by mid-century”. That may be correct. But, if so, the Paris Agreement is a disaster.

Perhaps Trump’s observations are not so “utterly delusional, deeply cynical, or profoundly ignorant” after all.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Robin Guenier Sep 11, 2017

It seems Professor Sachs may be unfamiliar with the actual content of the Paris Agreement. If he were, he would not have described the it as “symmetric in all ways, across all countries of the world” and “a universal agreement among 193 UN member states to cooperate in decarbonizing the world’s energy system and thereby head off the dangers of climate disaster …”

In fact, the Agreement exempts the so-called “developing” countries, responsible for over 65% of global CO2 emissions, from any obligation, legal or moral, to reduce those emissions. In other words, it’s not “symmetric” and it’s not “a universal agreement to decarbonize the world’s energy system”. Far from it. (LINK: https://ipccreport.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/cop-21-developing-countries-_-2.pdf.)

Professor Sachs says that the world is “nearing the brink of human-made catastrophe” and “needs to move quickly and resolutely to a low-carbon energy system, in order to end emissions of CO2and other greenhouse gases by mid-century”. That may be correct. But, if so, the Paris Agreement is a disaster.

Perhaps Trump’s observations are not so “utterly delusional, deeply cynical, or profoundly ignorant” after all.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Peter Ellis Aug 27, 2017

I think that there is a valid legal basis to impeach Trump for attempted genocide. he is wilfully ignoring warnings about rise in sea levels, increase flooding and wide-spread drought and tropical diseases that will kill millions.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Peter Ellis Aug 27, 2017

You are a typical climate change denier - only one of your sort would quote Bjorn Lomborg: no scientist would.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Ed Jansen Jul 14, 2017

The writer should have a session, together with Joseph Stiglitz, with Bjorn Lomborg, also writing for Project Syndicate. He is a long time expert in global warming.
I am afraid JS doesn't really know what he is talking about when he says thing like 'The next human-caused climate disasters should be named Typhoon Donald, Superstorm Ivanka, and Megaflood Jared.'
Go talk to Bjorn, Jeffrey !
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Nirmalan Dhas Jun 16, 2017

At the risk of being repetitive and trying the patience of your readers I believe that I must, because of the significance of this action taken by the United States of America, under the leadership of its current president, do whatever can be done to draw attention to its potentially profound implication.
The United States of America has emerged as a nation state controlled by the Dominant Dualist Perceptual Paradigm and its concomitant Dominant Dualist Development Paradigm and its emergence as such signals the increase of a global HORIZONTAL struggle between this Dualist Perceptual Paradigm and an emergent Unitive one that horizontally splits not only Nation States but also every existing social institution from the individual and the family to the nation state and global institutions.
It has chosen to withdraw from the global civilization of the species Homo sapiens and the species need no longer look to this state for leadership and orientation. It has in effect become a rogue state...committed to a dark nightmare formerly known as "The American Dream" that promises nothing other than the rapid demise of the species and the destruction of the planet by which it has been generated and sustained.
This does not of course apply to individual citiizens of the United States of America. Individual Federal states may want to secede and they must be supported...Individuals and institutions and organizations may wish to continue to link up with the emerging Unitive Perceptual Paradigm and its Unitive Developmental Paradigm, and they must be welcomed and assisted...the EMERGENCE and gradual SUPERSESSION of the Dominant Dualist Perceptual Paradigm must be recognized and facilitated...and all those who share this perception should be helped to link up over the face of the planet to generate a GLOBAL NETWORK to jointly perceive possible futures and guide the planet to sustainability and resilience through the generation of a sustainable and resilient global civilization...we are witnessing the supersession of DVAITALOKA and the emergence of ADVAITALOKA....
It is a time of happiness and opportunity...and a time of great celebration amongst all those who have been watching and waiting and patiently and tirelessly working to facilitate this great shift in perception throughout the world...our lives and work have not been in vain...and yet it is also a time of sadness and of saying goodby to people who have chosen to throw in their lot with the past and its old destructive ways...along which they have chosen to continue to walk in TRIUMPH with their great and pompous leader DONALD TRUMP!!! a most fateful and fitting symbol of the egotism and narcissistic self worth, authoritarianism, cult of personality, sexism and economic exploitation that has grown wildly over the past 15,000 years.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Jack Harllee Jun 13, 2017

"Trump’s announcement was not really his alone."
Indeed. Opposition to the Paris climate agreement is well nigh universal among Republicans. The American people knew that -- how could they not? -- and yet delivered to Republicans not just the Presidency, but also a majority in the Senate, a majority in the House, an increased share of state legislatures, and an increased share of governors. By focusing on Trump Professor Sachs demonstrates his inability to think clearly. The problem is not Trump but rather the Republicans generally and behind them the American people. Trump's withdrawal merely carries out well-agreed Republican policy and campaign pledges. To call Trump sociopathic is contemptible name-calling on Professor Sachs' part. Worse, it suggests that getting rid of Trump would solve the problem. It wouldn't.
- Peter Ellis Aug 27, 2017
  
  You miss the point that the President has executive power and no matter what any one party wants, or what the statistical majority of any party, Trump's action indicates all the things that Sachs points out. To say what you do is worryingly close to being a climate change denier.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Chris Jones Jun 11, 2017

Trump made the right decision and saved the U.S. taxpayers and consumers billions that would have been transferred to political friends of Obama and Gore for Solyndra type projects that can't make on their own.
The rejection of the Paris Climate Accord by Mr. Trump likely influenced the vote of youth in Britain weaned on AGW propaganda where honest debate is ridiculed. Scientists can't agree on how the last ice age ended where mile high glaciers melted causing floods of Biblical proportions and sea levels rose 400 feet (120 meters) - not because of CO2 levels - yet with absolute certainty and no debate allowed, the children are told uncontrolled global warming will occur.
If the history of climate change is cyclical and we are doomed to relive it, it is likely a Little Ice Age may start in late 2019 similar to the Dalton or Maunder Minimums if the sunspot cycle continues a downward trend.
Climate change, after an impact, killed off the dinosaurs and I hope fickle political change doesn't lead to the demise of Britain who just granted great power to a dinosaur who believes strongly in a political ideology, in varying forms, that was responsible in the 20th Century for the deaths, enslavement, and loss of property for hundreds of millions.
- John Landrum Jun 12, 2017
  
  Climate orthodoxy is a pillar of current leftist thinking along with political correctness, identity politics, victim-hood and the cultism of diversity. Any deviation from absolute believe that Man is the only cause of warming and variations in Earth’s climate meet with name calling such as Sachs' classic, “sociopathic”, his new name, for name calling, in lieu of the usual, “denier”. Mr. Jones below correctly alluded to the scientific fact that CO2 does not drive climate. It is a by-product of warming and always has been. And current CO2 levels do not come close to levels in past millennia. The drivers of climate, as I am sure most know, are “Eccentricity”, variations in the elliptical orbit of the Sun that occurs approximately every 90,000 – 100,000 years, “Tilt” - the variations in the 22% angle that the Earth rotates in its orbit every 41,000 years, “Precession” (of the Equinoxes), - the slight variations in the “wobble” of the Earth on its axis occurring approximately every 23,000 years, the 11-year cycle of the sun and, finally, the movement of the Earth’s tectonic plates. Sachs and his ilk despise any challenge to the leftist orthodoxy and they are especially vile when you challenge their ideas on climate. History has shown time and time again that the left tolerates NO DEBATE.
  
  And more important to understand about the Paris Climate Accord than Sachs' meanderings, is that it is a fully voluntary agreement and any commitment by any country can be changed in any way at any time. It has no enforcement mechanism and, if fully employed as originally agreed, has no discernible impact on Earth’s temperature. As the inscrutable American leftist Hillary Clinton would say, “It is a Nothing Burger.”
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Louis Stouch Jun 11, 2017

After Trump claimed to be representing “Pittsburgh, not Paris,” the mayor of Pittsburgh immediately declared that Trump certainly is not representing his city.............

I think we know what he means Mr. Literal Interpretation.

Where were you when Obama said he had been to all 56, no make that 57 States? were you losing your mind about how we could possibly have elected a complete MORON that cant remember we have 50 states?
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Louis Stouch Jun 11, 2017

se, not better. Trump is knowingly and brazenly jeopardizing the planet.

.... A global agreement that is symmetric in all ways, across all countries of the world, is somehow a trick.........

But I thought the industrialized countries were going to be paying MORE to the 3d world because we've been polluting longer? Like reparations or something. That's asymmetric.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Michael H. Jun 10, 2017

DON THE LYIN' CON
The NY Attorney General’s Office has investigated the "Foundation" run by Don The Lyin' Con's son Eric Trump for allegedly funneling charity money toward Trump family business interests https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/06/09/n-y-attorney-general-looking-into-eric-trumps-foundation/?utm_term=.ce3ab524f780
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Michael H. Jun 10, 2017

DON THE LYIN' CON : from the fake "Trump University" to the fake & money-laundering "Trump Foundation" .

FYI How Donald Trump Shifted Kids-Cancer Charity Money Into His Business http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/how-donald-trump-shifted-kids-cancer-charity-money-into-his-business/ar-BBCfp1n
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Kenneth Wallenstein Jun 9, 2017

The Paris agreement was much less ambitious than those who understand how serious is the looming climate crisis. Dr. Hansen believes global ocean currents may start significantly changing this summer, just as significant arctic melting started in 2012. Permafrost melt and methane pingos exploding are no longer predictions; it is happening. The Paris agreement is the best the world is going to get in terms of a sustained coordinated effort to address climate change.

So Drump believes "the climate is always changing". This is a rather transparent bit of Philadelphia lawyering designed to deflect criticism of being a climate change denier. But the climate is not always changing, the weather is always changing. We have had the same climate for 15,000 years. We call it the Holocene. When scientists say the climate is changing they mean the climate is changing from the Holocene to a new climate regime.

The climate is the set to which the weather is confined until pushed out by an outside force. This force could be a volcano, a meteor, changes in the sun, orbit changes, or burning gigatons of fossil fuels for decades. The climate can be characterized statistically, but this is a description not a definition. See Nonlinaer Systems Analysis by Vidyasagar for the theory to make a rigorous definition of climate

Climate science is incomplete. The weather is a dynamic system with many variables. It is difficult to model and just as difficult to implement on a computer. There is much more to say but... So far the models are too optimistic. So far the models lag reality. The climate problem may well be worse and nearer than the conventional wisdom assumes.

Are records made to be broken? Records are broken more often if the underlying distribution is non-stationary. Tallying record breaking events is a nonparametric statistic and is independent of the underlying distribution, hence very robust. As more and more record breaking weather events happen it will become obvious that the climate is changing. By that time, we shall be well outside the Holocene climate set and we shall not know how to geoengineer our way back.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Curtis Carpenter Jun 9, 2017

I've long held the belief that the only things American "conservatives" are interested in conserving are their own privileges -- and one of those privileges has has always involved the right to pollute.

Many of the comments here from the climate change deniers would seem to confirm that view. The only good news in that is that they and their children and grandchildren will pay their share of the price of their ignorance just as the rest of us will.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Karena Albers Jun 9, 2017

I have the sincere privilege of working with Professor Sachs and his passion and commitment to global sustainable development is contagious. It is important that we arm ourselves with knowledge and take action. The era of apathy is over! KA
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Michael H. Jun 9, 2017

DON THE LYIN' CON
James Comey under oath : 'lies, plain and simple'
- Curtis Carpenter Jun 9, 2017
  
  I'm very fond of the comment I first heard from Mark Shields on PBS: "George Washington was the president that could never tell a lie, Richard Nixon was the president that could never tell the truth, and Donald Trump is the president that can't tell the difference"
  
  It still makes me laugh -- but I think it's a deeply accurate assessment of Trump the man.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Peter Schaeffer Jun 9, 2017
  
  MH, not the best claim. Comey was (among other things) disagreeing with Trump over whether the FBI was 'well lead". That's a matter of opinion, not fact. Comey's use of the word "lie" in this context, detracted from his credibility. Quote from Comey
  
  "And although the law required no reason at all to fire an FBI director, the administration then chose to defame me and, more importantly, the FBI by saying that the organization was in disarray, that it was poorly led, that the workforce had lost confidence in its leader. Those were lies, plain and simple. And I am so sorry that the FBI workforce had to hear them, and I'm so sorry that the American people were told them."
  
  Comey may think he was doing a great job. Trump may disagree. However, these are matters of opinion.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Bernard Fudim Jun 9, 2017

The politicians haven't consulted the designers of electrical power generation and power distribution. They have instead been listening to people who want to sell something that will not solve the emissions of harmful gases and deliver the electrical power required to sustain our artificial life styles.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Mike Nelson Jun 8, 2017

I am so glad to see that the climate alarmists are apoplectic about the U.S withdrawal from the Paris Accords. The unfettered reign of warmist ideology under Obama is now getting serious pushback. Funding could dry up for "climate science" focused on one outcome - creating enough terror to keep the funding coming. Now real science can be done that looks at all the evidence, not just the cherry-picked data.
- Anthony DeAngelis Jun 8, 2017
  
  Their irrationality will be their downfall. And when Trump said he was representing Pittsburgh, not Parris, he was referencing the fact that there is a cost to this clean revolution, a cost bourn by the working Americans.
  
  And the fact that Mr. Sachs conflates Pittsburgh changing industries with the Paris Accord shows that he is biased to the extreme and promotes a straw man fallacy.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Neil Gordon Jun 8, 2017

By chance, "Don" will be the fourth named Tropical Storm (and potentially a Hurricane) in the Atlantic this year. http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/aboutnames.shtml
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Michael H. Jun 8, 2017

LIE, LIE, AND LIE AGAIN: Trump serially lied his way to the presidency, and has kept serial lying after becoming POTUS.

The world can't wait to watch Trump facing James Comey testimony showdown
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Peter Schaeffer Jun 8, 2017

Sachs would have the reader believe that campaign contributions rule U.S. elections. This is what is called a "testable hypothesis". In the last election (2016) one candidate spent twice as much money as the other. The one with twice as much money also had Wall Street, almost all of the media, almost all of corporate America, almost all of every other American institution (including Sachs of course) supporting her.

She and Sachs lost. Why did she and Sachs lose? Many reasons of course. However, neoliberalism is the "god that failed". Sachs needs to recognize this.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Steve Higgins Jun 8, 2017

The Chairmen of both Exxon and Shell are reported as having lobbied Trump NOT to pull out of the Paris Accord. Sachs need to dig deeper.
- Anthony DeAngelis Jun 8, 2017
  
  Big banks will lobby against pulling out of Dodd Frank. One of Porters 5 forces is regulation which provides a barrier of entry. Big companys have the money and power to shape regulations. They love it. Big business lobbying for the Paris Accord is proof enough to pull out of it.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Michael H. Jun 7, 2017

MAKE FAKE "AMERICAN FIRSTT" GREAT AGAIN !

Listen to a car salesman's speech today about the “infrastructure car": “The theft of American prosperity has come to a screeching halt, folks. And a new era of American greatness is about to begin. And you see it, it's already beginning. We will not, so importantly, be content to let our nation become a museum of former glories. We will construct incredible new monuments to American grit that inspire wonder for generations and generations to come. We will build because our people want to build and because we need them to build. We will build because our prosperity demands it."

Completely no-brainer.: the salesman gives no specific details about his "infrastructure car" .

Another problem is this sales man is the same salesman who has sold his fake Trump University to thousand of ordinary Americans in order to thieve their prosperity.

Unfortunately, there have been people who love to be lied to by this salesman.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Donnie Jenkins Jun 7, 2017

A lot of these professors couldn't have made a good used car salesman, Just saying. So far in the last 50 yrs. hasn't been good for them! At least our tax dollars keep them off the street now.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Peter Schaeffer Jun 7, 2017

"This is nuts. The Paris accord is a universal agreement among 193 UN member states to cooperate in decarbonizing the world’s energy system and thereby head off the dangers of climate disaster, such as a multi-meter sea-level rise, extreme storms, massive droughts, and other threats identified by the global scientific community. Some of these threats are already evident in vulnerable parts of the planet. "

This is Fake News. Sachs has a rather serious personal integrity (as in not telling the truth) problem.

From the LA times... "The Paris agreement got the logic of climate action all wrong. Good riddance"

"Developing nations submitted uniformly meaningless commitments. China promised to reach peak emission around 2030, right when it was expected to anyway. India made no emissions commitment but pledged to improve its energy efficiency, less quickly than it already was improving. Many countries offered no meaningful baseline for comparison. Pakistan only “committed to reduce its emissions after reaching peak levels to the extent possible.” Yet no one complained."

No one includes J. Sachs.
- Peter Schaeffer Jun 9, 2017
  
  PF, As it turns out, China alone has produced as much Co2 (most of it very recently), as has all of Western Europe since the start of the Industrial Revolution. You need to get some facts, before you comment.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Peter Schaeffer Jun 9, 2017
  
  PF, "And even today, we emit far more per capita than poor countries."
  
  Alas, life for the factually challenged. The leaders in per-capita CO2 output in 2015 were Qatar, Kuwait, UAE, Australia, Turkmenistan, Oman, the USA, Saudi Arabia, Canada, Kazakhstan. China's per-capita CO2 output exceeded the EU. Iran's output (per-capita) exceeded the Netherlands.
  
  You are living in the past. Your ideas were valid in 1960. That's 57 years ago.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Paul Friesen Jun 9, 2017
  
  Rich countries created the vast bulk of historical emissions. And even today, we emit far more per capita than poor countries. So why is it fair to expect poor countries to cut their small per capita emissions even further?
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Peter Schaeffer Jun 9, 2017
  
  PF, "This problem was created by rich countries, including the U.S." I looked into this a bit more. Only 13% of total CO2 emissions are from the pre-1946 period. Indeed, the entire period up to and including 1980 accounts for only 38% of total emissions.
  
  Are "rich countries" responsible for this problem? Actually, yes they are. "Rich countries", including the U.S., invented the steam engine, steam turbine, gas turbine, internal combustion engine, oil drilling, electric power, etc. However, these technologies are now used everywhere.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Peter Schaeffer Jun 8, 2017
  
  PF, "This problem was created by rich countries, including the U.S.". The actual data shows that more than 50% of total CO2 emissions since 1751, are actually are from the 1990 to present period. It recent explosive growth in CO2 output (in the developing world) that is driving CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere, not emissions from countries that were relatively rich in 1920 or 1980.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Peter Schaeffer Jun 8, 2017
  
  KK, "The soundbites taken from the LA times are very convincing". They should be convincing because they are correct. See climatnexus "Country Climate Pledges".
  
  Pakistan states "In Pakistan's INDC, the country submitted a two page broad statement of support for climate action but did not lay out any specific targets. Pakistan said the specifics of its climate policies would be forthcoming, but specificed that "Pakistan is committed to reduce its emissions after reaching peak levels to the extent possible subject to affordability, provision of international climate finance, transfer of technology and capacity building. As such Pakistan will only be able to make specific commitments once reliable data on our peak emission levels is available.""
  
  India states "In its official INDC, India is committing to: Reining in the emission intensity of per unit GDP by 33 to 35% below 2005 levels by 2030. Increasing non-fossil fuels in its electrical mix to 40% installed capacity by 2030 with the help of transfer of technology and low cost international finance including from the Green Climate Fund (GCF). Adding 175GW of new renewable energy generation by 2022 (of which 100GW will be solar). Adding forest and tree cover to create a carbon sink for 2.5 to 3 billion tons of CO2 by 2030. India intends to cover the $2.5 trillion cost of its pledge with both domestic and international funds. Includes information on adaptation."
  
  Of course, India doesn't pledge to actually reduce its CO2 emissions and in reality plans to vastly increase them.
  
  China plans to "Peak its total carbon dioxide emissions by 2030 or earlier (in a statement announcing the commitment, Prime Minister Li Keqiang said the country “will work hard to achieve the target at an even earlier date")"
  
  In other words, China plans to increase (vastly) its CO2 emissions from now until 2030. Note that China is already the number one CO2 emitter in the world (by very far).
  
  Before you criticize the LA Times (or me), you need to do some homework. Of course, homework and religion don't play nice.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Peter Schaeffer Jun 8, 2017
  
  PF, "This problem was created by rich countries, including the U.S.". Not quite. From the "Center for Global Development", "Developing Countries Are Responsible for 63 Percent of Current Carbon Emissions". At the end of WWII, the U.S. accounted for roughly 50% of global CO2 emission. However, the total numbers were much lower and global warming wasn't a problem back then. Also from the (pro-Trump) Huffington Post . "Developing Countries’ Carbon Emissions Will Vastly Outpace Developed Nations, U.S. EIA Says" and "WASHINGTON, July 25 (Reuters) - Energy-related carbon dioxide emissions from developing countries will be 127 percent higher than in the world’s most developed economies by 2040, according to figures released Thursday by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)."
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Paul Friesen Jun 8, 2017
  
  This problem was created by rich countries, including the U.S. Why is it fair to expect poor countries to pay for it?
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Krzysztof Worytkiewicz Jun 8, 2017
  
  And you, Peter Schaeffer (or whatever your name is) are telling the truth, of course. The soundbites taken from the LA times are very convincing, or course...
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Donnie Jenkins Jun 7, 2017

It was the ice age, then it was global warming. What's next ? Who knows! As long as their is computers and money available the show is on!
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
M M Jun 7, 2017

Trump wants to renegotiate, the " Free Riders " must come to the table, they had "Free lunches " for far too long...
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Peter Schaeffer Jun 7, 2017

China produces two times as much CO2 as the US... However, Trump and the US are the problem... India will pass the US in CO2 over the next few decades. However, Trump and the US are the problem... The developing world now accounts for a majority of all CO2 emissions (and all of the growth). However, Trump and the US are the problem...

The Paris agreement had no restrictions on CO2 emissions from developing countries. However, Trump and the US are the problem...

Right...
- Sean Cox Jun 10, 2017
  
  Look up the population sizes of China, India and the United States and then think again about the size of thier respective emissions. We are fortunate that the governments of China and India acknowledge the issue of climate change as one of the greatest threats facing humanity. Also fortunate that India has more vegetarians than the rest of the world put together. I say good riddance to the hegemony of the United States.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Andrew Kanter Jun 7, 2017

I certainly agree with Jeff's thesis here. But I think the problem is that the calculus does not make sense to the people that do not agree that the US contribution to CO2 is a reason for us to be MORE responsible for changing the planet than others. To be honest, although I do agree that we SHOULD feel that responsibility, we don't NEED to feel it to make a smart choice about where to go now. The rest of the planet WILL decarbonize. If the US choses not to switch technologies and start applying its innovation to that switch, we are simply ceding the leadership and business to other countries. Even if you believe America First, you should want to see US companies and universities leading the way in this new and critical market. Pulling out of the Paris agreement is a BAD BUSINESS DECISION, and if we don't want the US to be like a certain set of Casinos, we had better start making smarter decisions. I hope that the non-Federal response to this will focus attention on alternative methods of achieving the goal of decarbonization. What we can't forget is that the current US government is beholden to people who don't care or who have been co-opted by those who don't care. We need to make them care and a "globalist" view is unlikely to win them over.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Gunnar Eriksson Jun 7, 2017

We must also realize that these figures are lower for the rich countries than they should because a lot of the goods consumed are manufactured by developing economies, like China, so part of their emission should be moved to the consuming country
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Rick Puglisi Jun 7, 2017

Fact: the only country to achieve the Kyoto Protocol targets was the US.
Fact: the US did not sign the Kyoto Protocol because it was essentially a trade manipulation treaty.
Fact: there is nothing to prevent the US from achieving the Paris Accord targets if the US so desires.
Fact: this article another rant by the author.
Opinion: I doubt the countries who sign the Paris Accord achieve their target just like the Kyoto Protocol.
- Rick Puglisi Jun 9, 2017
  
  These countries agreed to only a smaller drop than the 20% the Kyoto Protocol targeted.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Seamus O'Brien Jun 7, 2017
  
  After I read that comment that the US was the only country that met the Kyoto Protocol targets I was surprised so I looked it up.
  
  Its true that many countries didn't even come close to meeting their committments. but the following countries did meet them: Czech Republic, Germany, Romania, Russia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Sweden, Iceland, Poland, UK and Ukraine.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
P. Kamath Jun 7, 2017

It is not necessary for the good prof. to be so harsh on Trump and turn him into a whipping boy. Let US institutions5 look after him quietly in a civillized manner and expose the truth. Let us wait and see!
A new reply to this comment has been posted.