Axios: Trump intends to leave Paris climate accord

[The_Doctor]

This isn't shocking. His political and donor coalition want to pull out and Trump doesn't have political upside in remaining in the treaty. Any voter who would vote on this issue is already solidly against him no matter what. That's how he looks at it.

If he had a shot in winning California he wouldn't do this. He doesn't, so here we are.

[The_Doctor]

I wonder if individual states will try and participate in the accord somehow. I think it'd be in our best interests to not 100% leave the accord, and at least try to contribute a little bit.

Hahaha, no. States cannot form Treaties, Alliances, or Confederations with foreign countries.

This would be a major win for the Trump administration!

This entire climate change hoax is of course designed so white liberals could assault the public treasury and drain it into their own coffers. Too bad about the election.

Nothing prohibits individual states and localities from passing statutes and regulations that require local areas and states to have emission standards and laws that match what's called for in the Paris Accords.

Now, I realize you're a troll but you should of course remember that Tenth Amendment.

[The_Doctor]

Trump is currently 18 minutes late to his official announcement on this.

Day late and a dollar short?

[The_Doctor]

Getting out only to negotiate for better terms and get back in. This makes no sense.

Ivanka was for staying in, while Stevie Bannon was in favour of getting out. So, they're getting a compromise.

Come again? I'm not watching the forest fire, so I don't follow?

[The_Doctor]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Good riddance, cupcake.

Just out of curiosity, what's your position on climate change? That line sounds like "if it makes liberals angry, I'm for it," which doesn't really sound like you have a definite ideology, Grumps, beyond making Democrats angry.

I mean this seriously, but you seem the type of guy to watch Fox news a lot rather than being an objective reader of news.

[The_Doctor]

As I said, this is not unexpected. We saw this coming months ago. Trump's political base is reliant on coal and old economy jobs. Not the new economy, which overwhelmingly voted against him. Why did we expect him to try to cater to voters who would vote against him no matter what and donors who are going to donate to his opposition, no matter what?

Is it right? No. But we should understand, again, why Trump did this. The vast majority of GOP Congressmen and political leadership are situated in areas that are, again, Old Economy type areas and overwhelmingly white, not exactly educated types. (Of course, I'm generalizing but). The GOP ideology is situated in winning blue collar white areas as the bulk of their political support.

GOP money comes from Texas and the oil industry and the South, not California, not Silicon Valley, or renewable energy, either, which is important. There was no money in support of staying in the deal.

This is what it boiled down to, no matter what. Trump sees no political upside to staying in Paris, and he's a politician. The system doesn't reward long term strategy that has you damaging the people that you voted for. That's not our Constitutional system.

One key mistake that Democrats have made here is that they never bothered to help these areas make the transition to clean energy and high tech areas and relied on people from San Francisco and New York to make the climate deal. That really shrunk the base of support of people who would aggressively push for us staying in the deal on the GOP side. It was a very partisan deal, in that analytical sense.

Why do you ask blue collar white voters to put their (shrinking but still there) jobs at risk with no support to transition to new jobs and towns to try to make a bold leap without economic support? They voted in fear against the deal in a couple of areas.  

[The_Doctor]

Oh I believe some of the climate change is man made, and some naturally occurring.  You can read studies that fits both far-end viewpoints.  The U.S. is getting "cleaner" if you will, but is it a good deal really for American industry?  I don't mind us re-negotiating the accord at all if we can do our part and improve our country and economy at the same time.  I don't think we're  OMGZ land, that's all.

Oh and I don't watch TV news....especially Fux News.  I might put on the PBS News Hour, but I read NBC, CNN, USA Today and Fox's news feeds.

Thanks for answering. I'll have to re-read the Paris Accord myself to see what was so objectionable. I agree with your bolded points actually; I know the Trump Administration was trying to carve out an exception for coal or some such.  

[The_Doctor]

Did some digging.

Interestingly, the story might have been different if maybe, these concessions were granted. These concessions seem squarely aimed at placating the GOP base and donors that might have been sufficiently persuaded to stay in if Trump emerged looking like he wrested important concessions (that may not have been really that major). I wonder why the concessions weren't granted? The inside story sounds more interesting. Please note North Dakota Rep. Kevin Cramer's remarks in particular (and remember North Dakota is a major oil state).

I'm intrigued by Trump's language of wanting to re-negotiate and re-enter and deliberately putting the exit date on November 4, 2020 rather than cutting out the underlying treaty, which Pruitt advocated. I don't view it as mere lip service, given the intense internal debate within the Administration. He also has signed a 2009 newspaper ad calling climate serious and has attributed climate change to human activity (some, at least), right after his 2016 victory.

The story feels more complex than simply the GOP being reflexively anti-climate change. It may have come down to that they didn't feel their economic interests were being represented in this deal enough to continue.