The Stupid. It Burns. Trump Would “Renegotiate” Paris Agreement

May 18, 2016



Republican presidential contender Donald Trump said on Tuesday he would renegotiate America’s role in the U.N. global climate accord, spelling potential doom for an agreement many view as a last chance to turn the tide on global warming.

A pull-out by the world’s second biggest carbon-emitting country would hobble the deal reached in Paris last December by nearly 200 nations, who for the first time in more than two decades found a common vision for curbing greenhouse gas emissions.


“I will be looking at that very, very seriously, and at a minimum I will be renegotiating those agreements, at a minimum. And at a maximum I may do something else,” the New York real estate mogul said in an interview with Reuters.

“But those agreements are one-sided agreements and they are bad for the United States.”

Trump said he did not believe China, the world’s top emitter of the carbon dioxide gas that many scientists believe is contributing to global climate change, would adhere to its pledge under the Paris deal.


“Not a big fan because other countries don’t adhere to it, and China doesn’t adhere to it, and China’s spewing into the atmosphere,” he said.

The accord to transform the world’s fossil-fuel driven economy was a potent signal to investors.

It seeks to limit a rise in global temperatures to less than 2 degrees Celsius through combined national pledges to cut emissions, and provide funding for developing nations to mitigate the damaging effects of a sea level rise and climate change.

The Obama administration pledged a 26 to 28 percent domestic reduction in greenhouse gases by 2025 compared to 2005, while China promised it would halt increases in carbon emissions by 2030. Both countries have promised to ratify the deal this year.

Many U.S. Republicans have found fault with the deal for overreacting to what they see as an uncertain threat.

Former French foreign minister Laurent Fabius, who helped broker the deal, said this month that the U.S. election was critical to its future. “If a climate change denier was to be elected, it would threaten dramatically global action against climate disruption,” he said.



33 Responses to “The Stupid. It Burns. Trump Would “Renegotiate” Paris Agreement”

  1. “We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately.” (Franklin, per

    The thing of it is, I wonder if Trump isn’t just putting this out as flamebait. Sure, I don’t believe for a second he would in any way be GOOD for mitigation, but butting heads with science deniers and politicians takes a lot of energy. Sure, we need to see that the sciences get the funding they need to continue. But, whether its Lamar the-Black-Death-is-just-fine-with-me Smith, or Australia’s gov dismembering CSIRO, there are some things which are bigger than can be opposed.

    So, rather than wasting energy by throwing ourselves against the pier, I wonder if there aren’t extra-political measures that should be pursued. After all, there are many corporations who see the risk of all this to their supply chains, and organizations like the Navy are worried about losing Newport News docks, and Alaska is having all kinds of climate change-related problems.

    Politicians might deny, and the public may even go along, but ignoring the obvious eventually gets very expensive. As Dr N. deG. Tyson observes, when the wealthy start losing their wealth … things will change, and fast.

    • dumboldguy Says:

      Yep. “…when the wealthy start losing their wealth … things will change, and fast” is the key to the whole thing. Greed and belief in the free market by the “privileged” is what got us to this sad state, and it will continue until every last one of them is personally impacted by AGW.

      • addledlady Says:

        I have to admit to a sense of anticipatory glee at the prospect of affordable EVs knocking the oil industry off its insufferably smug perch. Nasty of me, but I don’t care. I know it’s 5+ years away before there’s any serious impact expected, but once there are half a dozen or more _affordable_ EVs on the market, their cards will be marked.

        They’re all in a tizzy at the moment because the Saudis aren’t playing fair and are unbalancing the market with 2 million barrels a day too many for the demand. But that’s just temporary, the Saudis can change their minds any day and all will be well – for a while. Once people start test driving, then _buying_ EVs, that’s an irreversible reduction in demand. Then the aggregate numbers of EVs will, at some time, equal those 2 million barrels a day surplus to demand and the oil industry’s place in history is determined – history. They’ll still be selling the stuff to people who’ve not yet switched or to niche markets that will be stuck with ICE for a lot longer for various technical reasons, but the future – and the asset values and the share prices – will be pretty bleak.

        Their only way of increasing their profits from that point onwards will be to take customers from each other, because the market is contracting, not expanding. They’ll be like dogs squabbling over fewer and fewer, smaller and smaller, bones.

        Can’t wait.

  2. *ahem”

    “GOP Member Letter to Enviromental Activist Organizations on Coordinated Efforts to Deprive Scientists of First Amendment Rights”

    Were you having a nice day, friends? Have a better one.

    • Enjoy the brutality and viciousness coming as the SHTF, you will not have a free pass, nor will any of us.
      Our window of opportunity to prevent that scenario is closing fast and you are doing all you can to ensure it happens ASAP

    • Lionel Smith Says:

      Well Russell that just confirms what a piece of work you are bring this up with obvious glee.

      But thanks for the heads up and demonstrating what a nasty small minded little POW Lamar is, as if we had not already grasp that.

      • dumboldguy Says:

        Yes, “small-minded little POW” is a good descriptor for both Lamer and Russell. Russell’s “obvious glee” is just more evidence of what a useless POW Russell is (note that the W is just above the S on the keyboard and I’m making fun of Lionel’s typing error—-we all know he meant S for S**T).

        The flurry of “letters” from Lamer is to be expected as the denier world and the Repugnants thrash about in the face of the new attacks on them. Actually, Lamer’s tactic may backfire on the Repugnants, in that the climate change issue will now get more publicity, and the public will be able to see what sorry POS’s they are as they try to make something of nothing—-remember the Benghazi hearings and the Clinton email “investigations?

        With any luck, the courts will side with the AG’s and the “environmental organizations” as the battle goes on, and the Repugs will get much egg on their face just in time for the elections.

    • greenman3610 Says:

      Russell, your continuing example of vacuity and cluelessness continues to underline what this blog is all about. Thanks for bringing it day after day.
      Long may you gibber.

      • Peter – this “vacuity and cluelessness” you speak of, is it something you only believe is true or are you confident you can prove it? Taking things out of context is the HALLMARK of what your leaders do. Witness Ross Gelbspan’s fame centering entirely around the “reposition global warming as theory rather than fact” phrase – the extent to which he and Gore / Oreskes have taken that out of context is beyond description.

        You’re welcome to come interview me at my humble abode to see in person whether I am as vacuous and clueless as you believe I am. I’d be glad to show you that Fred Singer email chain (that “d.o.g.” here is so in love with as something that will “indict” me) in its full context. But if I also show you where that last talking point by Oreskes in your li’l video came from, along with various other holes in your assorted arsenal of evidence, will it instead by you who is revealed to be “vacuous and clueless?”

        You know where to contact me. The one stipulation is that any interview of me will be recorded in its entirety by one of my pals, to ensure you don’t take anything out of context. You remember how well that same situation worked out for Mark Hertsgaard, right?

        • dumboldguy Says:

          Peter doesn’t need to prove Russell’s “vacuity and cluelessness”—–Russell does so conclusively every time he gibbers (comments) here on Crock.

          This comment is classic Russell, gibbering about “taking things out of context” when Russell’s WHOLE LIFE is built on taking out of context just a few sentences from an obscure piece by an obscure writer. Gelbspan is old news, as is Gore really—-the current climate scientists and the endless stream of “bad news” discoveries that they are making, as well as the unprecedented impacts of climate change is the real news in 2016.

          Things like record temperatures, unprecedented ice melt, wildfires, etc—-but Russell will NEVER talk about that with us—-besides being ignorant of all things science, he’s too busy saying “prove it” when it’s now self-evident (a legal term that Russell also doesn’t understand) that EXXON KNEW and that Russell and his Heartland masters are whores for fossil fuel interests

          Now Russell shows how demented he is by asking Peter to come to CA to freaking INTERVIEW him??—-a distance of ~2300 miles? On his own dime? And Peter has to go to CA to see the Fred Singer email chain in its “full context”? (LOL) Why bother when it can be found on the web courtesy of desmogblog and others?

          Russell then makes boastful “demented rooster” comments about how he can “show holes” and actually INSULTS Peter? And then STIPULATES conditions for this interview after a 2300 mile journey and thereby insults Peter yet again?

          Vacuity and cluelessness indeed! And delusionalism, dementedness, narcissism, and even some sociopathy. In addition to showing us the face of denialism, Russell also shows us the face of someone who needs to see a mental health professional.

        • otter17 Says:

          Why would he give you an interview? And how specifically is “reposition global warming as theory rather than fact” taken out of context when the rest of the document describes several public relations type campaigns and no mention of attempting to use the scientific method researchers to put out the most scientifically correct message. It is rather apparent that the API document describes a PR campaign, and in light of the direction the scientific method journals have gone following the evidence, a misleading PR campaign on the part of an industry that had a conflict of interest in conducting that campaign.

          • @otter17: Why would Peter need to interview me? To prove his statement about my “vacuity and cluelessness”, of course. Consider this shining additional example concerning yourself – point to the Crocks audience exactly where the phrase “reposition global warming as theory rather than fact” appears ANYWHERE in the API document you mention. Handy PDF file for you to use in your search: Friend, I keep supplying you guys with items that you consider the ‘broadsides of a barn’ to shoot at, but — to paraphrase yet another movie quote — “like a poor marksman, you keep missing the target!!”

            As I’ve said multiple times at and in my online articles with numerous links to back it up every which way to Sunday, the “reposition global warming” phrase is out-of-context because it is not what Gore, Gelbspan and Oreskes portray it to be. Without evidence that there was a pay-for-performance arrangement between industry and skeptics under which those skeptics operated on a directive to “reposition global warming as theory rather than fact”, then you have no industry corruption to prosecute. How hard is that for you to figure out?

          • otter17 Says:

            Ah, it was the earlier 1990’s Western Fuels annual report, not the leaked 1998 API communications plan. Your defense of either is rather a non-starter, really.

            More importantly, how many times can you repeat the strawman argument? No, Western Fuels probably didn’t bribe any of their target scientists directly saying “we want you to reposition global warming as theory, not fact, and be sure to use those words”. NOBODY HAS MADE THAT CLAIM OF DIRECT BRIBERY!!!

            From the document:
            1) Reposition global warming as theory (not fact).
            2) Target print and radio media for maximum effectiveness.
            … etc.

            ^^^ How are the strategies taken out of context again? More quibbling about wording from you in some form of weak defense?

            You seem to think that it is just fine and dandy for Western Fuels or any of these other groups with a vested financial interest in this scientific subject to seek out a select few scientists and amplify their funding streams. THAT is what is wrong, because you apparently do not see that activity is wrong. As soon as those scientists accepted that funding from fossil fuel sources, whether they changed their minds on anything relative to the science or not, their credibility just goes out the window. Such blatant conflict of interest or appearances of such are what tank your argument. If you don’t find that wrong, then well essentially all working scientists, no matter the field, would say that you are just plain incorrect.

    • otter17 Says:

      So, making efforts to put up a bit of a fight against organizations that may be knowingly misleading the public outside the scientific method process is wrong in your view, Russell? Is that what you are saying?

      • dumboldguy Says:

        You ask Russell questions that relate to politics and science? You waste your time, since Russell is a failed graphic artist and “business major” who knows nothing about the AGW issue beyond that it provides him a small meal ticket as a denier propagandist and troll.

        If he has any intention at all of answering your question, he is probably right now flipping through his Talking Points and General BS for Denier Trolls Manual (or calling his Uncle Fred at Heartland for instructions).

        • Pure psychological projection on your part, ol’ d.o.g. You are the ones with the talking points, appeals to leaders for direction, and leaders who aren’t climate scientists – have you looked into what the degrees were for the last two IPCC Chairmen yet?

          • dumboldguy Says:

            Typical Russell—-“gibbering” on in a “continuing example of vacuity and cluelessness that continues to underline what this blog is all about” as Peter put it—-well said! (Synonyms for “gibber”—-prattle, babble, ramble, drivel, jabber, gabble, burble, twitter, mutter, mumble, yammer, blabber, jibber-jabber, blather yak, and (vulgar slang) verbal diarrhea).

            As predicted, Russell doesn’t answer otter’s question, but instead makes his usual failed attempts to deflect, distract, and obfuscate.

            He proves my point and provides a laugh of the day with his question “Have you looked into what the degrees were for the last two IPCC Chairmen yet?”, a straw man that is so poorly constructed it won’t stand up.

            And WE “are the ones with the talking points, appeals to leaders for direction, and leaders who aren’t climate scientists”? That is such pure gibberish that it doesn’t merit a response.

            Russell is indeed a moron, moron, moron, moron, moron, moron, moron, moron, moron, moron, moron, moron, moron, moron, moron, moron, moron. moron, moron, moron, moron, moron, moron, moron, moron, moron, moron, moron, moron. That’s “moron” repeated 27 times in commemoration of the time Russell repeated his motto “prove it” 27 times in a discussion he was having (losing) with a commenter on another blog.

            Yep, “Long may you gibber (mutter, mumble, yammer, blabber, etc)”

          • Lionel Smith Says:

            …have you looked into what the degrees were for the last two IPCC Chairmen yet?

            Have you Russell? Maybe you don’t really comprehend well written English for Bob Watson has quite substantial qualifications, experience and accolades going back further than the miserable attempts of fossil fuel fools that act as apologists for those industries.

            Note the dead hand of the fossil industry in ousting Watson as IPCC chair:

            In April 2002 the United States pressed for and won his replacement by Rajendra Pachauri as IPCC chair. According to New Scientist, “The oil industry seems to be behind the move.” The industry campaign to oust Watson had begun days after George W. Bush’s inauguration in January 2001, with a memo to the White House from Randy Randol of oil giant ExxonMobil asking “Can Watson be replaced now at the request of the US?”

            Your antics have long since become tiresome.

          • @Lionel Smith: Why would Peter need to interview me? To prove his, and apparently your belief in my “vacuity and cluelessness”. Consider this shining additional example about yourself – you speak of Robert Watson as though he was THE former IPCC Chairman. Are you truly unaware that Rajendra Pachauri is NOT the current IPCC Chairman???

          • “d.o.g.” sez, “ …in commemoration of the time Russell repeated his motto “prove it” 27 times in a discussion he was having (losing) with a commenter on another blog….” This is why I luv “d.o.g.”, he hopes y’all will simply trust what he says, and not look it up for yourself and see that the above bit didn’t happen at a blog, it was an email exchange with a guy whose identity I still protect as a matter of courtesy. Y’all can read for yourselves whether I was losing that correspondence, too: Meanwhile, “d.o.g.”, who proclaims to have thoroughly read my blog so Crocks readers don’t have to, is aware of these facts since it was he who took the time to count the number of times the word “prove” appeared in my taunts of that emailer.

            So, the question ultimately is, why does “d.o.g.” seem to have an enslavement to asserting something that is demonstratively contrary to what actually happened, and why does he not trust Crocks readers to come to their own conclusions about such matters?

      • “… may be knowingly misleading the public outside the scientific method process …” – and you have what climate science expertise to say AGW critic scientists are lying/misleading? (Notice I leave out the challenge for you to prove they are paid industry money to lie, since you are one of an extreme minority here who apparently acknowledges that no industry corruption has taken place with skeptic climate scientists).

        Nossir. What I’m saying is that if the collective ‘RICO push’ crew is so confident with their position, then they will have nothing to hide and will be only too glad to share their material with GOP and Dem investigators alike. It’s why I challenge your pals about the evidence proving skeptics were paid industry money to lie, if they have so much confidence that such material exists, then they would readily hunt it down and show it to everybody.

        • dumboldguy Says:

          Get the net! Otter has hooked Russell once again —–we need to get him back in the water so that we can catch him again (Catch and release is the sportsmanlike way of dealing with dumb fish).

          Russell asks otter “….and you have what climate science expertise to say AGW critic scientists are lying/misleading?” Lord love a duck, but that’s a whopper! Russell has admitted on camera that he has NO science expertise AT ALL, and he’s sniffing at otter and demanding otter show his?

          And that’s ignoring the implications of using a term like “AGW critic scientists”, which is rather ill-defined, since many of the “scientists” that are “critical” of AGW, like Russell, have NO expertise in climate science—-take Happer for one. Good old Russell—-we can count on him to mislead.

          The “hook” that otter used to catch Russell this time is evidenced by “…since you are one of an extreme minority here who apparently acknowledges that no industry corruption has taken place with skeptic climate scientists”.

          In addition to his vacuity, Russell is APPARENTLY too clueless to understand that otter was baiting him with the EXTREMELY unlikely proposition that the deniers and fossil fuel interests just happened to find each other and discover that they agreed, and that’s why the fossil fuel interests gave $$$ to their new friends the deniers.

          Russell closes with a stirring rendition of his one-note song—-“prove it”. That’s no more necessary than proving that the sun comes up every day, the sky is blue, water is wet, gravity exists, and Russell is a moron—-all are self-evident (obvious, clear, plain, evident, apparent, manifest, patent, axiomatic; distinct, transparent, overt, conspicuous, palpable, unmistakable, undeniable).

          • Lionel Smith Says:

            Otter has hooked Russell once again….

            And only the really, really stupid don’t know when to stop digging their hole, Russell and Lamar being really stupid PsOW have demonstrated this in spades (s’cuse the pun).

          • otter17 Says:

            Yeah, the trick is to simply hold to analysis of a single claim at a time and not let him change the subject to something else. Also, step-by-step make sure to flesh out his stance on the supporting evidence for the claim. From our previous conversations, to the point of step-by-step trying to explain the conflict of interest, or even the appearances of a conflict, I don’t think he will ever understand that such an arrangement erases any credibility he may have had. Well, having none to start with doesn’t really leave a person much room to fall, but, whatever. I don’t think that he will ever understand that his blog and recent undertaking are based on misunderstanding on his part, a strawman representation of the claims made. There probably wasn’t much direct bribing going on. “Hey, scientist…. take this wad of cash to say Exxon Rules!” Likely never happened.

            It would be a stupid strategy of any fossil fuel interests to directly bribe a think tank or scientist to publish pro-industry material outside of the scientific method channels. All the industry has to do is find a group like Heartland or a couple scientists out of the small minority like Dr. Soon or Dr. Michaels that already coincidentally had a contrarian/denial view. Then, just bolster their views with financing and keep on advertising to the public far more than any credibility they have within the scientific method circles.

            A quote that I would like to coin, “the best shills are the ones that actually believe in their own shilling.” Russell just so happens to really believe in his own shilling, and simply doesn’t see that accepting money from such sources while holding such views just nose-dives the already zero credibility into negative something or other.

        • otter17 Says:

          “It’s why I challenge your pals about the evidence proving skeptics were paid industry money to lie, if they have so much confidence that such material exists, then they would readily hunt it down and show it to everybody.”

          How often can you just repeat the same thing without addressing the charge that it is a strawman argument? 10, maybe 20 times? No, we don’t have an email to Dr. Pat Michaels that shows a fossil fuel company asking him to lie in order to get the ~40% of his funding. That isn’t the point. The very idea that Dr. Michaels or others like him would accept such funding, knowing his stance on the subject presents the appearances of a direct conflict of interest wrecks his credibility. It also wrecks your credibility for associating with groups like Heartland that have a similar conflict of interest in their funding streams.

          It would be STUPID for the industry to ask people to lie for them when there are already a handful of folks that will put out a message on the subject that aligns with the industry interests. Just funnel more money to bolster those folks, and indirectly that trickles down to you. “The best shills are those that really believe in their shilling.”

  3. danialcblog Says:

    Trump’s election would immediately test the durability of long held strategic alliances.

    Consider this:

    Only one nation on this planet has joined the US in every major military fight in the last 100 years.

    Australia sent 50,000 combat troops to Vietnam from a population of 12 million.

    America’s extraordinarily brave and utterly awful (often hand to hand awful and brave) pacific campaign saved Australia from a Japanese invasion.

    This reality has been genetically embossed into every subsequent Australian generation.

    Despite the 1960s/70s political fracture of the Vietnam /American War the US – Australian Alliance (ANZUS) has always been the corner-stone of Australian foreign policy regardless of the left / right Federal Government alignment

    In 2012 a poll of Australians showed that, had they been allowed a vote they would have delivered President Obama the largest landslide in US or Australian history

    Then this happened, just 3 years later

    His conduct has Global implications. His promise to ditch PARIS will have immediate implications in China. If rock solid alliances are in danger what does this mean for the fragile ones ?

    I think this is significant. Not regionally. Globally.

    • dumboldguy Says:

      I’ve always wondered why the folks in AUS and NZ were so eager to send their young men off to die for Great Britain (a la Gallipoli in WW1 and North Africa in WW2), and I’m not sure following us into Viet Nam was a smart move. Perhaps loyalty to “tradition” and the “mother country”?—-the same thing that caused the importation of rabbits and foxes?

      As you point out, AUS and the US have a long and positive relationship, and my branch of service, the USMC, has a special relationship with AUS dating back to WW2. I AM surprised that ONLY ~45% of Australians would question the AUS-US alliance if Trump were elected President—-I thought you folks had better sense. If I were an Australian and Trump got elected, I would be thinking it was “On the Beach” time.

      • Lionel Smith Says:

        If I were an Australian and Trump got elected, I would be thinking it was “On the Beach” time.

        I think that will go straight over Russell’s head for he doesn’t do ‘allegory’ and his education seems limited.

      • addledlady Says:

        ” I AM surprised that ONLY ~45% of Australians would question the AUS-US alliance if Trump were elected President …”

        Don’t be. It’s a bit depressing but Australia’s gone a bit wonky for nearly 20 years now. Finishing up with electing the party of the consummate clown, Abbott, to government last time round the mulberry bush. (Think of and even dafter Stephen Harper, but in a court jester suit complete with bells.)

        With any luck we’ll get rid of them in July – but we do need luck and a following wind because Australians don’t often chuck out first term governments the first chance they get. This lot have been so extraordinarily incompetent as well as nasty that it could well happen.

        We’ve always been fairly conservative – but in a way that Americans wouldn’t necessarily recognise that way. But we seem to have gone head first over some kind of bigotry cliff and I don’t know whether we can pull back from it just yet.

Leave a Reply to Lionel Smith Cancel reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: