The agreement signed in 2015 by an overwhelming majority of representatives of the world's countries is intended to limit the increase in temperatures to one and a half degrees above its level in the pre-industrial era. Trump expressed his fear that the US compliance with its commitments will cause unemployment to rise in the countries that supported him, especially in the "rust belt"
US President Donald Trump is about to withdraw the US from the Paris climate agreement. This is reported in the last day in the US media.
The agreement signed in 2015 was the first time that most of the countries of the world agreed on one agreement with the aim of mitigating climate change. The agreement was signed by 195 of the 197 member countries of the UN Climate Change Panel. The two abstaining from signing were Syria and Nicaragua.
In a tweet on Wednesday, Trump wrote that he was going to announce his decision in the coming days. It would be a setback for the Obama administration's efforts to fight climate change and it could also prompt further efforts to erode the important treaty.
The exact mechanism by which the US will withdraw from the treaty has not yet been announced. In a conversation last Saturday, Trump clarified his intention to fulfill his election promise to withdraw from the Treaty on Reducing Carbon Emissions, claiming that this would have negative consequences for jobs in the areas where he won a large majority in the elections - the "rust belt" areas and the western plains.
However, he met on the subject last Wednesday (yesterday) with Secretary of State Rex Tyrellson who supports staying in the treaty. The day before, he met with the most vocal opponent of remaining in the treaty, whom he appointed to the position of the director of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Scott Pruitt.
The term climate change, or in a less washed-up language global warming refers to the destructive effect of gases, or emissions emitted from industrial and agricultural facilities into the atmosphere. The Paris Convention aims to limit the increase in temperature caused by those emissions.
The goals of the treaty were:
- To keep the increase in temperatures well below 2 degrees Celsius above the average in the pre-industrial period and then strive for a lower limit - an increase of 1.5 degrees.
- To limit the amount of greenhouse gases emitted as a result of human activity to a level where the trees, the soil and the oceans can absorb the excess carbon and in fact enable a carbon neutral economy, starting some year between 2050 and 2100.
- Every five years, the committee will examine each country's contribution to reducing emissions, so that the countries will be required to increase their efforts.
- To allow rich countries to help poor countries by providing "climate finance" to adapt to climate change and switch to renewable energy.
Trump called climate change a "hoax" invented by the Chinese government. He promised to "repeal" the Paris Agreement during last year's election campaign, arguing that it was bad for American business because it "allows foreign bureaucrats to control how much energy we use."
However, according to the convention, each country sets its own emission limits and not an external body.
The BBC points out that there are several ways for the US to withdraw from the treaty, starting with a demand to ratify it in the Senate, which would cause it to be overturned due to the Republican majority there, and ending with the US withdrawing from the United Nations Climate Change Organization, which was established in 1992 and on the basis of which the Paris Agreement was signed. The president who then signed the entry of the US into the organization was George Bush Sr., and his son, who was not known for his love of activity against climate warming, also left it intact.
More of the topic in Hayadan:
4 תגובות
To my father, you are wrong. Carbon dioxide is a gas that causes global warming of the earth, desertification, wars and mass death.
Everyone has the opportunity to save on fuel, electricity, and consumption of unnecessary products.
For me, the token fell quite late in my life, I just couldn't understand how Tiota, Ford and others manage to sell their goods at such a low price. I recently understood the equation: the profit of these companies comes from future sales (spare parts).
The processes we are talking about: transition to electric vehicles (meaning: much fewer parts in the vehicle), transition to autonomous transportation (meaning: much fewer accidents) and in addition to this, the integration of 'green' energy (for example: Tesla is testing or trying to "fuel" the batteries using the sun . and they are also testing a model where the customer pays for the vehicle. The "fuel" will be by Tesla).
What I have described here in a line and a half - is (in my opinion) the essence of the nightmare of Akio Toyoda and his friends (say, D. Trump). We don't want to be there - and what happened => good for us.
From here it spills over to the insurance companies who will be obliged to re-register the mortality tables (and by the way lower prices), and hospitals who will suffer from an excess of vacant beds (here I'm less sure), and this is only from the angle of the automobile industry...
There are endless angles - and the financial paradise, as it exists today, is in danger, and only because of this whole green trend.
Today, enemy No. 1, he is the good-natured geek who has most of his mental resources available for disrupting convenient moves, Ofer, Tshuva (this is in Israel) and a similar list in the USA.
They should be warmed up.
This abomination must be removed from the agenda.
And this is done with the help of the rednecks (they are the basis of the whole thing), the ruling families, and the politicians whose main objective is to remain politicians.
-
As I see it, the war is seemingly lost in advance.
but it is not correct.
We are moving forward, instead of a hundred kilometers per hour
B - 5 km/h.
And the only tool I know that moves at this speed is a bulldozer...
Despite everything I wrote before, I think it is great that there is an international agreement to reduce environmental pollution.
But this method of buying emission units with money, and the fact that they actually dressed up for the carbon dioxide, which in my opinion is one of the least bad pollutions of all the other radioactive and biological chemical pollutions that the industry emits.
And regarding Trump - as a president who represents one of the most polluting countries in the world and a major oil producer, it is clear that his order of priority is in favor of the oil industry, and because there is a scientific dispute, it is very easy for him to hide behind it.
If the agreement had dealt with the air pollution with burning materials from cars and power plants, or the pollution of the sea with mercury or pollution with radioactivity, or with the products of genetic engineering, or other environmental pollution that has clear evidence of the damage they cause, perhaps they would have received cooperation from him as well.
What this treaty has caused is a distortion where rich countries give money to poor countries and continue to emit gases for fun.
For example, they once showed a farmer in Africa who installed a water pump with a gasoline engine, so now he receives money to disable the water pump's engine and pump the water manually - and the ones who do it are his poor wives, of course.