The Paris Accords, a Letter, Thoughts on Conservatism and Comments on "Change"

The Paris Climate Agreement's language is technical and perhaps difficult to understand.  Here is an article from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution giving you an excellent summary of  it.  I have highlighted the portions of the article (reproduced without permission) relating to our withdrawal from among the nations participating in it.  

My concern is I cannot see from what the president is protecting America and its citizens, as he claims, unless it is merely the fact that the accord was supported by his predecessor and that it results in the nation following some not necessarily binding rules established on an international basis.  Following this logic, his next step would be to pull us out of the United Nations, an act which many of his gullible supporters would probably praise. 
Jack Lippman

What is the Paris climate agreement? Nine things you should know

Fiza Pirani

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

11:24 a.m. Friday, June 2, 2017  

President Donald Trump  has announced plans to withdraw the United States from the Paris climate agreement.  In a live stream at The White House Thursday, Trump said, “In order to fulfill my solemn duty to protect America and its citizens, the U.S. will withdraw from the Paris climate accord.”

Trump announced the country will immediately cease implementation of the non-binding accord, including ending implementation of the country’s Nationally Determined Contributions and pledge to the Green Climate Fund.   But, he said, the administration will start to negotiate re-entry into the accord under terms that are fair to both the U.S. and its taxpayers or negotiate a new deal that benefits the nation.

Here are 9 things you should know about the Paris climate agreement:

What is it?

The Paris climate agreement, also referred to as the Paris climate accord, Paris climate deal or Paris agreement is a pact sponsored by the United Nations to bring the world’s countries together in the fight against climate change.

What is the overall mission?

Countries that sign on to be a part of the pact agreed to limit the century’s global average temperature increase to no more than 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above the levels from the years 1850-1900 (the pre-industrial era).

The agreement also states a more rigid goal of limiting temperature increases to only 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial era levels.

What is each country responsible for?

Participating nations made a historic pact on Dec. 12, 2015, in Paris, France, to adopt green energy sources, cut down on greenhouse gas emissions and limit the rise of global temperatures (as mentioned in the overall mission).

Under the agreement, every country has an individual plan (or “Nationally Determined Contributions”) to tackle its greenhouse gas emissions.

For example, under the Obama administration, the country vowed to cut its emissions by 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels by the year 2025.  The U.S. also pledged $3 billion to the Green Climate Fund, which helps developing countries adapt and mitigate practices to fight climate change.
The overall agreement asks developed countries to provide $100 billion to the fund.

When did the agreement enter into force?

The agreement went into effect on Nov. 4, 2016, 30 days after at least 55 countries representing at least 55 percent of the world’s global emissions ratified it on Oct. 5, 2016.

Is it legally binding?

According to the U.N.’s website on climate change, the agreement has a “hybrid of legally binding and non-binding provisions.”  But there's no clear-cut consequence or penalty for countries that fall short of their pledged goals.

Note:  I don't see anything to which the president might object in any of the above other than our spending $3 billion dollars or cutting carbon emissions to a level to which our energy industry might not like.  I suppose this is the basis for the president's action, even though I personally believe there are far more jobs to be lost in "green" energy development than our backing out of the Accords will save.  (JL)

How many nations are part of the accord?

As of May 2017, of the 196 negotiating countries that signed the agreement, 147 parties have ratified it.

One hundred and ninety-six nations committed to the climate deal in 2015 and the nations had a deadline of April 21, 2017, to make it official.

According to the Independent, the Russian government said it fully supports the agreement, but added its goals would be less effective without the participation of major countries.

How does withdrawal from the agreement work?

According to the New York Times, the Trump administration can either request a formal withdrawal, which takes four years, or it could withdraw from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change altogether.

If the U.S. withdraws from the underlying convention, it would signal the country’s departure from any United Nations-sponsored climate discussions. 

How would U.S. withdrawal affect the country and global efforts against climate change?

According to the New York Times, a U.S. withdrawal could “seriously weaken global efforts to avoid drastic climate change,” the New York Times reported.

Instead of cutting emissions to 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025 (the nation’s original pledge under the Obama administration), an analysis by Rhodium Group estimated that emissions would fall just 15 to 19 percent below 2005 levels. 

“Pulling out of Paris is the biggest thing Trump could do to unravel (former President Barack) Obama's climate legacy,” Axios' Jonathan Swan wrote early Wednesday. “It sends a combative signal to the rest of the world that America doesn't prioritize climate change and threatens to unravel the ambition of the entire deal.”

The effects of U.S. withdrawal on global efforts will heavily depend on how other countries react, but the nation could still face some diplomatic consequences for leaving, including possible carbon tariffs imposed on the U.S., the New York Times reported.

Would the U.S. be the only UN country not supporting the deal?

No, but the only other two UN-member countries that aren’t supportive of the Paris Climate agreement are Nicaragua and Syria.

At the 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference, Nicaragua representative Dr. Paul Oquist said the agreement didn’t go far enough, adding that voluntary responsibilities are a path to failure, TelesurTV reported.

According to the Financial Times, Nicaragua is responsible for only 0.03 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions.

Syria, which is in the middle of a civil war, was responsible for 0.19 percent of global emissions in 2011, when the war began.

In 2014, according to the Environmental Protection Agency, the United States was responsible for approximately 15 percent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions. 

And according to the New York Times, while China surpassed the U.S. a decade ago as the current number one carbon polluter, the U.S. is the biggest carbon polluter in history.

All Things Possible 

For government to get things accomplished in the fields of job creation, foreign relations, education, health care, the environment, our infrastructure, consumer protection and other crucial areas, changes must take place and often that change is difficult.  With that in mind, let me pass on an interesting quote regarding change.

“… I learned the valuable lesson that the concept of change is universally appealing in the abstract and personally frightening in reality.  People go to great lengths to deny, deflect, and defend rather than to admit and resolve.  Change is destabilizing.  People feel more comfortable when they know what’s coming.  But if change is hard for one person, it is nearly insurmountable for a group, even in situations where staying put is clearly detrimental.

Niccolo Machiavelli wrote prophetically: ‘There is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct or more uncertain in its success, that to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things.’ “

I feel these thoughts on change well illustrate the difficulty Barack Obama had in bringing about change and point up the challenges future progressive administrations will have in doing that.  

Supporters of President Trump might claim that this should apply to what he is attempting to do as well.  That is not so, however, because his administration is dedicated to “deconstruction” in these areas rather than achieving constructive goals. Quite simply, everything his administration does is aimed at tax reduction and elimination of consumer protection legislation.  Nothing else matters.  They destroy.  They do not build.  They are not advocates of change.  They are reversers of constructive change.

The quote, incidentally, is from “All Things Possible,” a biographic memoir by Andrew Cuomo, Governor of New York, describing his setbacks and successes in politics and in life.

JL

Are We All Conservatives?

Things just aren’t the way they used to be.  Conservatism isn’t what it used to be.  The idea of mutual responsibility for one another isn’t the way it used to be.  The role of government, at least in the eyes of some, isn’t what it used to be.  And many, many Americans accept such changes as normal without even thinking very much about them.   

The "conservative" approach of wanting to keep things the way they are, "conserving them," has been replaced by looking backwards as if past progress has been detrimental to the nation.  Along with this, government is no longer looking after the people so much as guaranteeing some people the freedom to do whatever they please.  It seems that we are no longer our brothers’ keepers.

 

And the people around us seem to be insensitive to these changes.  Sensitivity has given way to violence.  Why?  Look at the movies we are viewing at theatres and on home screens.  They are keyed to violence, and video games are worse.   Look at what are the most popular programs on television.

 Look at what sports are gaining in popularity:  professional football and automobile racing, both of which are filled with violence and lack the subtleties found in baseball and some other sports.  And listen to the music which is popular today.  Its non-cerebral appeal is based solely on a repetitious rhythmic beat.  We used to be better than that.

When people think of what they want, their minds turn to immediate gratification, often in terms of what is the moment’s style.  Some stores change their merchandise monthly to keep up with their customers’ changing whims.  They want things “now” and think little of the future. Yesterday's groundbreaking electronic gizmo is history. They line up to get the latest gimmick from Apple or from some "start-up" in the world of virtual reality.  Many never give a thought to how they will finance their lives when they become too old to work, or when jobs are no longer available to them.  The quick solution is what they seek, a modern version of “eat, drink and make merry … for tomorrow we all will die,” but they never get past the first five words.  Easily available credit makes this possible.  The acceptance of the drug culture as part of life colors their thinking, even for non-users.  Cool is good.

But their satisfaction does not last very long, and their primarily economic problems persist and they become angry as a result.

These people don’t recognize that things aren’t the way they used to be, because for many of them, they never were.  And these people may be the majority in our country, and they just don’t know the harm they are bringing about, or just don’t care.  Yes, things aren’t the way they used to be.

If you are of a mind to want things to be the way they used to be, that is to preserve or conserve what has worked for years and not continue in the direction they are going, you are a conservative, regardless of your political leanings.  The problem is that the Republican Party, the traditional home of true conservatism, has been captured by radical right wingers whose agenda is to turn back the clock to the days before democracy existed in our country.  They are the ones who relish the fact that things just aren’t the way they used to be, and they like it that way.  Their positions are counter to what conservatives have always worked toward, keeping things the way they are. And many of those things include progressive innovations which true conservatives have come to accept.  Social Security and Medicare are two examples.
  

The easiest way to get the nation back on track is to get rid of these scoundrels and the 2018 Congressional election offers all Americans, regardless of party, a tool to with which to accomplish this. 

True conservative and progressive agendas, regardless of party, should merge to get this done.  The Democrats alone cannot get it done. Republicans who know the true meaning of conservatism must join with Democrats to destroy those who would turn back the clock to feudal times.  

JL

I Write Letters

Here is the text of a letter from me which was published in the Palm Beach Post two Sundays ago. Last Saturday, an abbreviated version appeared in the South Florida Sun Sentinel, which had a tighter word limit.  Together, it reached over 200,000 readers.  Something bugging you?  Write a letter!

A reader's letter, "Concierge service raises questions," concerning physicians instituting "concierge service" whereby patients pay an upfront fee to become entitled to health care on a "priority" basis, raises an interesting question.  Do we have a medical “profession” or a medical “business”?  

Control of medical fees by insurance companies and by the government has forced many physicians, in managing their practices, to make what are clearly “business” decisions for which they cannot be blamed.  

But this is no more of a solution to our healthcare problems than the Affordable Care Act and the proposed American Health Care Act are.

The only real answer is the extension of traditional Medicare (with the option of purchasing individual supplements to “fill the gaps”) and Medicare Advantage plans to all Americans.  The time has come for us to join the rest of the world’s major countries in providing citizens with healthcare.  As always, the argument that this will raise taxes will be voiced by those in the higher income brackets, but the vast majority of real Americans won’t mind.  And physicians with wealthy clienteles can always “opt out” of participation in such plans, and there always will be patients to fill their waiting rooms.

Jack Lippman

HOW TO BE ALERTED TO FUTURE BLOG POSTINGS.

Many readers of this blog are alerted by Email every time a new posting appears.  If you wish to be added to that Email list, just let me know by clicking on Riart1@aol.com and sending me an Email.  

HOW TO CONTACT ME or CONTRIBUTE MATERIAL TO JACK'S POTPOURRI. 

BY CLICKING ON THAT SAME ADDRESS, Riart1@aol.com   YOU ALSO CAN SEND ME YOUR CONTRIBUTIONS TO BE PUBLISHED IN THIS BLOG AS WELL AS YOUR COMMENTS.  (Comments can also be made by clicking on the "Post a Comment" link at the blog's end.)

MOBILE DEVICE ACCESS.

DID YOU KNOW THAT www.jackspotpourri.com IS ALSO AVAILABLE ON YOUR MOBILE DEVICES IN A MODIFIED, EASY-TO-READ, FORMAT?   

HOW TO VIEW OLDER POSTINGS.                                                

To view older postings on this blog, just click on the appropriate date in the “Blog Archive” midway down the column off to the right, or scroll down until you see the “Older Posts” notation at the very bottom of this posting.  The “Search Box” in the right side of the posting also may be helpful in locating a posting topic for which you are looking.

HOW TO FORWARD POSTINGS.

To send this posting to a friend, or enemy for that matter, whom you think might be interested in it, just click on the envelope with the arrow on the "Comments" line directly below, enabling you to send them an Email providing a link directly to this posting.  You might also want to let me know their Email address so that they may be alerted to future postings.

Jack Lippman