Politics Discussion Thread (Heated Arguing Warning)

[Mr. Cairo]

Just because it is symbolic doesn't mean it lacks power. Or meaning.

It was the first time developed AND developing nations, especially the major polluters (USA, China, EU, India, Canada), actually got together and agreed to take action against climate change. It is a big deal, and Obama made sure that the USA was seen as taking the lead on that issue. Sure, maybe Trump pulling out of it wont have a large real-world impact, but it will have an impact. Like most (but not all) of what of what Trump does/says, its biggest impact will be in how the rest of the world, and the rest of the world's leaders, view the USA.

[Mardoc]

It was the first time developed AND developing nations, especially the major polluters (USA, China, EU, India, Canada), actually got together and agreed to take action against climate change.

Maybe it's the engineer in me, or the cynic, but no, they didn't. They agreed to think about talking about potentially in the future (when someone else is in charge and paying the price) taking action. It's at least the difference between 'nice to see you again, we should do lunch sometime' and 'how about wednesday noon at that place on fourth street'. Maybe someday it would turn into action, but it's a safe bet that it wouldn't. It's just that being politicians, they covered their non-agreement with lots of press and a signing ceremony and speeches that made it look like it was something real, when nobody promised anything except 'let's meet in Paris again'.

[Dreylin]

Most of those agreements are more symbolic in nature. Most of what Trump does is symbolic, at least to me.

I think this is a good point, and to be honest I think all of the fuss around it during his trip to Europe, with global leaders trying to persuade him to stay in, just reinforced his intent to leave because now it would make an even bigger statement.

Of course the solution was to just rename it to "The Trump New York Climate Agreement", then he'd have loved it!

[Old Harry]

So do you think a global agreement is too hard Mardoc? I know there's a school of thought that there's no point doing anything that doesn't completely solve the problem so we should just carry on as we are. To my mind human nature and political realities mean every increment is important if you want to see something done about climate change. Even small increments like getting everyone to agree that the problem really exists.

And Singaboy is spot on - Trump is running on the Zaphod Beeblebrox theory of presidenting ("His job is not to wield power but to draw attention away from it.") I wonder who's really in charge?

[Commodore]

And Singaboy is spot on - Trump is running on the Zaphod Beeblebrox theory of presidenting ("His job is not to wield power but to draw attention away from it.") I wonder who's really in charge?

Terrifyingly, I think the answer is actually "nobody". Not in a single coherent who, anyway. Clearly there are people in charge of some things, and the vast majority of people are in charge of nothing (voters), but looking for a single Illuminati group will get you nowhere. A kakistocracy rules us.

[AdrienIer]

Yes everything so far can be explained easily by sheer stupidity and incompetence

[Commodore]

Yes everything so far can be explained easily by sheer stupidity and incompetence

I like Hanlon's Razor as much as anyone, but never discount evil, either.

[Mardoc]

So do you think a global agreement is too hard Mardoc?

Well, yes.  If we're going to cut CO2 emissions, it'll be by using better technology which is cheaper/more efficient and as a side effect happens to not emit CO2.  We already have that technology, in fact, and have for 70 years - but everyone is paranoid about nuclear power except the French.  Make electricity non-carbon and cheap and no global agreement would be required, people would switch out of self-interest.  Heck, make electricity cheap enough and the oil companies would be manufacturing gasoline from CO2 instead of pumping crude.

But nobody really believes it's a problem, so instead we get everyone pushing for whatever they wanted already. Which is usually 'put me in charge' or 'give me money'.

[AdrienIer]

Nuclear energy has its own problems.
1) it's not renewable, as uranium mines are not infinite. So long term it doesn't solve everything.
2) you have to deal with the nuclear waste and burying it into the ground is actually a terrible way to do away with it.
3) when you take into account the cost of dismantling the plants it's not that cheap. The maintenance costs rise exponentially as plants get older. And we're not sure how some parts of the newest plants can be dismantled.
4) the safety of a nuclear power plant is never 100%. A terrorist attack on a plant could have devastating consequences.
5) the new generation of power plants are awful. The EPR in Finland is 10 years late (and billions of euros over budget), the one in Normandy had to halt its construction for a while because the concrete around the future nuclear core wasn't strong enough, and is probably going to be a decade late too, and we just conned the UK into building one in Wales that is likely to kill EDF (our national electrical company) like the other two EPRs killed Areva which was in charge of them

[ipecac]

What's there to be surprised at?

How to respond to AGW has been a partisan issue for the US. Bill Clinton signed the Kyoto Protocol, and Bush refused to ratify it (to great outrage). Similarly, Obama signed the Paris thing and Trump is pulling out of it. And the response is outrage.

It's all to be expected.