SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The Guardian reports:
The European Union has rejected Donald Trump's offer to renegotiate the Paris climate agreement and pledged instead to bypass Washington to work with US business leaders and state governors to implement the historic accord's commitments.
Less than 24 hours after the US president announced his decision to withdraw from the 2015 agreement and strike a new, less ambitious deal with the rest of the world, Brussels declared its outright refusal to engage in such talks.
EU officials will instead cut out the White House to deal directly with the US states and major corporations, many of whom have already pledged to live by the terms forged in Paris.
China vows to partner with the EU on clean energy.
But Beijing and Brussels have been preparing to announce their intention to accelerate joint efforts to reduce global carbon emissions.
According to a statement being prepared before an EU-China summit in Brussels on Thursday and Friday, the new alliance will say they are determined to "lead the energy transition" toward a low-carbon economy.
The EU's climate commissioner, Miguel Arias Cañete, told the Guardian: "The EU and China are joining forces to forge ahead on the implementation of the Paris agreement and accelerate the global transition to clean energy."
Let's not wait for the guy with the awkward handshake anymore.
That's the gist of documents, seen by the Financial Times*, about the upcoming EU-China summit this Friday in Brussels.
Cooperation on the deployment of electric cars, energy efficiency labelling, and scientific research into green innovation. Further increasing the share of renewable energy, by boosting interconnected power networks. Setting up a scheme for emissions trading in China, with an eye of coupling that scheme to the pioneering EU version. Money to fund developing countries' climate plans.
"The increasing impacts of climate change require a decisive response", the joint statement reads,"Tackling climate change and reforming our energy systems are significant drivers of job creation, investment opportunities and economic growth."
* EU and China strengthen climate ties to counter US retreat. Financial Times, Wednesday May 31, 2017. [Paywalled]
(Score: 0, Troll) by jmorris on Saturday June 03 2017, @08:29AM (11 children)
Wait until he reminds States and especially grandstanding mayors that foreign policy ain't for them. A State can't enter into a Treaty with a foreign power at all and any sort of agreement less than a Treaty still requires the consent of Congress. Now do you think Trump is going to play the "wink wink nudge nudge" game Obama was letting Blue States get away with and ignore laws? Do you think Congress is likely to (not sure if it needs to be veto proof) muster a majority to give them a waiver? There is a reason Obama never considered submitting this thing as a real treaty, something that would have made it much harder for a future POTUS to reverse. You guys seeing the downside to Pen and Phone Presidenting yet?
Oh no, it is you who are sadly mistaken... about a great many things.
(Score: 5, Informative) by c0lo on Saturday June 03 2017, @08:47AM (6 children)
It'll be enough for the willing states to raise the cost of license for coal mining/oil drilling and impose local CO2 emission taxes, while reduce the cost of doing business for enterprises operating in renewables. Furthermore, the state as an entity may participate in emission trading schemes and, possibly, gain some money for the budget - especially states with low industrial operations will be well positioned and in need for extra funds.
All the above perfectly withing the rights of each state, no treaty required.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 03 2017, @11:08AM (5 children)
...to turn into Red states after the next election. :)
Or do you believe voting public would willingly be paying more for less, while the neighbors across the state border don't?
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Saturday June 03 2017, @12:32PM (4 children)
You see, the public is a strange creature: they'll be gladly paying more if they earn more.
With businesses in renewable moving in the state (you noted the "and major corporations, many of whom have already pledged to live by the terms forged in Paris.", right?), it may just happen for the public there to earn more.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Saturday June 03 2017, @01:28PM (3 children)
Whew, that's quite the unfounded hope. I can point to a number of green initiatives that have done the opposite (like Germany's Energiewende, US subsidies of corn-based ethanol, shifty carbon cap and trade markets, and dumping many billions across the developed world on costly renewable energy schemes), but I'm having trouble thinking of a case where making our energy or food supplies more costly (or any of the other (un)intended consequences) allowed us to earn more.
It just might, but it won't. I bet the states which don't bother will also more easily transition over to renewable energy at a later date due to their stronger economies.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Saturday June 03 2017, @01:54PM (2 children)
Export the technology. Like in "Money to fund developing countries' climate plans."
See? Acciona [wikipedia.org] already exported technology to you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday June 03 2017, @03:21PM (1 child)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 03 2017, @09:33PM
It sold you the technology. Early adopters and all that, but it made money from you.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Nuke on Saturday June 03 2017, @08:58AM (2 children)
You don't need a treaty with foreign powers to reduce your carbon emissions; you can just do it. If these mayors are going to discuss their carbon emissions with China or Brussels then it is indeed political gesturing. In a way, that is Trump's point; any nation can make its own decisions. A nation might even want to reject the Paris Accord because they think it does not go far enough.
This is a misconception that many Bremainers have here in the UK. They are like : "OMG, after Brexit we are going to have to return to pounds and ounces, feet and inches, pecks and bushels!". They even think that people voted Brexit because that is what they wanted and expected. But there is nothing to stop any nation adopting international standards to whatever extent they wish, without being involved in an international agreement or giving their right arm to do it.
(Score: 1) by purple_cobra on Saturday June 03 2017, @10:41AM
Yet some proportion of the electorate - and the elected, though they might well be playing to the gallery - wants just that; witness the fools that are arguing about the colour of our passports. Personally I have more important things to occupy my time than the colour of a bit of cardboard.
(Score: 2) by VanessaE on Saturday June 03 2017, @01:09PM
...which makes the decision-makers of that nation monumentally stupid, incompetent, malicious, greedy, or some combination of these, because guidelines that "don't go far enough" can still be extended later to go that much farther.
There's nothing wrong with taking small, incremental steps towards a solution so long as progress doesn't slow down (and a solution is reached before it's too late). It's not as if the Paris Agreement is the only climate change accord that will ever be enacted.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday June 03 2017, @03:01PM
Hey, dipfuck, the individual states don't need to actually sign any treaty, they just need to see what the targets were and voluntarily adapt their industrial output to them. Nothing illegal about that, no signatures required, just plain ol' States' Rights. Don't you get an instant (if still microscopic...) hardon whenever someone mentions States' Rights?
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...