Skeptical Trump says would renegotiate global climate deal

trumpRepublican presidential contender Donald Trump said he would renegotiate America´s role in the UN global climate accord, spelling potential doom for an agreement many views 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 177 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 media.

“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 gasses 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 US Republicans have found fault with the deal for overreacting to what they see as an uncertain threat.

Read rest…

Trackback from your site.

Leave a comment (newest first):

Comments (10)

  • Avatar

    GR82DRV

    |

    “Renegotiate”?…

    How about “scrap”, “$#!+can”, burn, expose-the-truth-about…

    Tell failed socialist regimes to pay their own bills for a change!

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Al Shelton

    |

    FIRST… Provide proof that CO2 can cause global warming as claimed by those believing in the GHG Theory.
    There is no empirical proof that CO2 can “trap” “heat” and warm the atmosphere.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    Very good observations #1 & #2

    Moreover :

    There is NOTHING to re-negotiate.
    The ” accord ” is NOT binding on the USA gov’t nor the American People.

    O’Bama might as well have been signing used toilet paper, it would have been just as binding.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Amber

    |

    Renegotiate ? Charge the promoters of the biggest scam in history for fraud and quit burning tax payers .
    Ontario has just embarked on a mission that will result in zero change in the earths temperature at a cost of $$ Billions . But Ontario excels at ways to screw tax payers
    and the economy . Liberal governments are all in vogue and the results are the same .
    At least there is a glimmer of hope with Trump but renegotiate a bank heist ?

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Stevencap

    |

    #2 Al Shelton 2016-05-18 11:51
    FIRST… Provide proof that CO2 can cause global warming as claimed by those believing in the GHG Theory.
    There is no empirical proof that CO2 can “trap” “heat” and warm the atmosphere.

    Al– CO2 can trap certain bands of infrared. So, yes, it can “trap” heat. But CO2’s heat-trapping function exponentially declines as its concentration increases. And so, the idea of runaway manmade warming runs into some clear, scientific problems. The way that the warming community overcomes this flaw is by assuming that water vapor feedback will actually do most of the warming. And yet, even that runs into problems, since it requires the assumption that, on net, clouds serve to warm surface temperatures.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    David Lewis

    |

    Expanding on Al Shelton’s statement “There is no empirical proof that CO2 can “trap” “heat” and warm the atmosphere.” There is in fact lots of empirical proof on carbon dioxide’s ability to warm the atmosphere. So far this century we have seen a dramatic increase in the level of CO2 and yet at the same time had a pause in warming. Add to this that 40% of the warming blamed on man occurred between 1910 and 1941 when the CO2 levels were lower and relatively stable. The empirical proof says that CO2 is not a significant factor in warming the earth.

    Stevencap, you mentioned the assumption that clouds amplify the warming by CO2. From what I read the alarmist theory goes like this. Warmer temperatures from CO2 cause more evaporation and therefore more clouds. The clouds then warm the earth by reflecting heat back to earth at night. The trouble with this is that the environmentalists totally ignored the fact that during the day clouds cool the earth by reflecting sun light back into space.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    David Lewis

    |

    For the sake of argument let’s say that global warming caused by man is a problem. Even if that were true, Trump, if elected, should let Obama’s agreement on the Paris deal end with the Obama presidency. The agreement would reduce warming by only 0.17 degrees by 2100 and only if all parties kept their part of the bargain.

    http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/why-the-paris-climate-treaty-is-just-a-load-of-very-expensive-hot-air.html

    The cost of the agreement would be 2 per cent of global GDP per year.

    http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/no-one-ever-says-it-but-in-many-ways-global-warming-will-be-a-good-thing.html

    The agreement puts a disproportional burden on developed countries.

    We don’t have a climate change problem other than the politics, but even if we did, the next president should not honor Obama’s agreement.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Stevencap

    |

    DavidLewis. Totally agreed. The warmest theory is basically, water vapor feedback will get us the rest of the way there (to higher temps.) But their theory also requires relative humidity to remain constant as well– which never happens in what we call the real world. Water vapor forms clouds, which reflect solar radiation back into space, shade (cool) the ground, and produce rain (which not only cools surface temperatures, but also scrubs CO2 from the atmosphere.) As long as the general public doesn’t study any of this, they’ll continue to believe the alarmist headlines, since Arctic ice melts each summer.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Amber

    |

    How can anything costing $$ Trillions of dollars in time and money not go through a neutral scientific evaluation process with the politicians and rent seeking maggots out of the room .
    The IPCC was a farce with a well known political bias built in . Thousands of scientists
    acknowledge warming and the possibility humans have some minor effect . There is a net benefit of warming and if not let’s see a scientific organization present their case that it is not better than cooling .
    As everyone knows climate changes and runs in long cycles of cooling and warming .

    Humans are not going to run the show …
    Mother Earth along with natural variables
    will continue do so whether some ego maniac humans think otherwise or not .

    Let’s face it take the money out and the “global warming crisis ” disappears as fast as the 1970’s global cooling scare show .

    At least the global cooling farce didn’t have an entire industry built around the propaganda .

    Where are those” credible ” global cooling scientists now Time magazine ?

    Reply

  • Avatar

    amirlach

    |

    [quote]Stevencap, you mentioned the assumption that clouds amplify the warming by CO2. From what I read the alarmist theory goes like this. Warmer temperatures from CO2 cause more evaporation and therefore more clouds. [/quote] The Co2/Water Vapor feedback “assumption”, more warming was supposed to cause an increase in water vapor.

    And that water vapor creates what scientists call a ‘positive feedback loop’ in the atmosphere — making any temperature changes larger than they would be otherwise. Some claimed by three times.

    This has however been invalidated by observations. Instead of increasing, water vapor is in decline.

    http://clivebest.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/GlobalRelativeHumidity300_700mb.jpg

    And the entire CAGW hypothesis rests on this invalidated assumption. All of the models predicted a Hot Spot that simply does not exist.

    http://joannenova.com.au/2008/10/the-missing-hotspot/

    Maybe the better question to ask, instead of how much warming increased Co2 might cause is. Because Co2 alone cannot cause any alarming or catastrophic warming.

    By what observable effect does increased Co2 cause any positive feedbacks?

    The Co2 /Water Vapor thing is busted.

    Reply

Leave a comment

No Trackbacks.