In June 2017, President Trump announced that the U.S. would withdraw from the Paris climate accord in an effort to boost the nation’s industry and energy independence. Mr. Trump argued that the climate accord was unfair to the U.S. since the agreement imposed easier restrictions on China and India who lead the world in carbon emissions. Opponents of the climate agreement argue that it unfairly penalizes U.S. energy companies and consumers by imposing restrictions on domestic energy production. Proponents of the climate accord argue that exiting it sets back decades of diplomatic efforts by the U.S. government to reduce worldwide carbon emissions.
Narrow down which types of responses you would like to see.
Narrow down the conversation to these participants:
@ISIDEWITH8yrs8Y
No
@9FBWDGZ2yrs2Y
Since 1880, the global annual rate of temperature has increased just under 1 degree Celsius. I've found this information to be consistent in more than one source. The Paris Climate Agreement plans to take action to decrease the rising heat globally. However, if we withdraw, others will either join us and the world will get hotter. Or, we will become outcasted and ostracized for withdrawing. Besides, we're already in it, what is the argument to leave it?
@9F86FDM2yrs2Y
The Paris Climate Agreement helps us secure the environmental well being of this planet. Withdrawing from this can, and will, put the United States out of a discussion that affects the entire planet. Perhaps, we could deliberate on environmental guidelines that are more fair to the United States, or more harsh on countries that are getting a lighter restrictions, like China and India.
@9F82Y752yrs2Y
While the Paris Climate Agreement is a non-binding structure provided by an international system, it is a structure nonetheless that prompts nations to proactively battle the detrimental effects of climate change. Per the UN Secretary General in 2022, climate change has already passed the point of no return, and it would be nonsensical for us to continue pursuing our path to destruction without a proper commitment.
As of 2023, climate change is no longer about returning Earth to its pristine state, but about reducing the damage dealt by our generation and our preceding generations so that our children and descendants may have a chance to thrive on Earth.
@9FMK7N72yrs2Y
As of 2023, climate change is no longer about returning Earth to its pristine state, but about reducing the damage dealt by our generation and our preceding generations so that our children and descendants may have a chance to thrive on Earth.
@ISIDEWITH8yrs8Y
Yes
@9F82Y752yrs2Y
By withdrawing from the Paris Climate Agreement and choosing to reduce our commitments to fighting climate change, we will be denying the right of future generations--our sons and daughters--to enjoy a clean and safe Earth.
@9F6B9XX2yrs2Y
The responsibilities of the U.S is unbalanced compared to other powerful countries like China and India.
@7KVRQ5Y 2yrs2Y
The Paris Climate Agreement puts far too much responsibility on the United States and far too little on countries like China and India.
@9F99F2TRepublican2yrs2Y
The Paris Climate Agreement postulates too much on conjecture that claims humans are soley responsible for the changing of the climate verses looking at natural cyclical issues.
@9F98LLT2yrs2Y
The US is the largest country in production and the other countries involved are not being asked to change. Pollution is bad but shouldn't be regulated by the government.
@9FBWDGZ2yrs2Y
If America withdraws from the Paris Climate Agreement, it leaves our country and others susceptible to the negative effects that come from rising heat levels. As well as incite other countries to withdraw, potentially harming future generations.
@ISIDEWITH8yrs8Y
Yes, until other countries are held to the same standards
@9FJCC5Z2yrs2Y
The U.S. is a global leader in not only diplomacy- but in pollution. Regardless, The U.S. should be a model for the world because the less pollution the better.
@9YJ9Y7CRepublican6mos6MO
“but in pollution”
In Co2 emissions alone, China produced more than twice as much as the US in 2023. Source: worldometer
@9FKZBN4Women’s Equality2yrs2Y
Make a deal with France that says each city in the agreement only has a certain amount of carbon emission they can use.
@9FL4ZGZ2yrs2Y
Other countries are not emitting the same levels of Carbon Emissions as the United States. Developing countries have to catch up to the economies of the developed world which might mean temporarily heightened carbon emissions. But, the United States is a developed economy and must invest in sources of clean energy.
@99DVWMS2yrs2Y
No, but everyone should be held to the same standards.
@8DGDGGV5yrs5Y
No! It is hurting the US that #45 pulled us out of the Paris Accord. The US needs to be in the Paris Accord, as it is a group of smart, caring nations who want to protect our environment. Right now glaciers are melting, there are wildfires in California, tropical storms are more frequent & are more dramatic. We need to work on this as a nation, and with other countries.
@9RXP9KX9mos9MO
No, and countries should be held to different standards based on various factors such as population, size and total carbon emissions levels
@9FDNW6G2yrs2Y
The problem is China, stop importing from china , until they clean up their act. It means nothing we can do in America can't overtake the damage being done by China.
@ProgressiveXerus2yrs2Y
You're spot on about the significant environmental impact China has as a manufacturing hub. But, it's a bit like saying, "Why should I tidy my room if my brother’s room is a mess?" Every country has a role to play. The Paris Agreement is about all countries collectively stepping up. So, should we order China to clean their room? Absolutely. But we also gotta make sure our room is **** and span too!
@9KDC6G5Republican 1yr1Y
No need to withdraw, because other countries have countries have already broken the agreement, making the agreement null and void
@9CJ6CB61yr1Y
The agreement is a timed one, no one’s “broken” it until it reaches the deadline, or they leave, and we left, so we broke it. It doesn’t matter who does or doesn’t commit, the deal remains, and we’ll follow it because it’s a good investment in the future and a safe move for people overall.
@8RJTRPZ4yrs4Y
No, but hold the other countries to the same standards.
@8KB6K22Libertarian5yrs5Y
No, but everyone should be held to the same standard
@93MJRBY3yrs3Y
No, but the other countries should be held to the same standard if not higher due to their level of carbon emissions and their carbon footprint.
@8RLDFKL4yrs4Y
I don't really care for it .
@8TZDJ754yrs4Y
No, but other countries should be held to the same standards if we really want to make positive change.
@9GN5KWP2yrs2Y
No, though the deal should be reformed to ensure that all nations participate equally, namely China and India.
@9GZDTYYIndependent1yr1Y
The U.S. can withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement until other countries are held to the same standard, but not in such a way that damages actively harms the environment severely.
@9F34HDB2yrs2Y
I need to do further research.
@9SV9J3J8mos8MO
Everyone should be held to the same standards, but quitting so quickly is hasty. Talk it over first to protect the climate and Earth.
@Chase-Oliver2yrs2Y
Yes because it dictates how we are required to address climate change.
@8N7WJHK5yrs5Y
@9DDV2KR2yrs2Y
@9D9VQ4G2yrs2Y
@9NHS5NN11mos11MO
As long as it helps the environment and helps other countries that are suffering from environmental issues.
@9K2JBJTLibertarian1yr1Y
The US should not be part of any climate agreements until China is forced to demonstrate significant reductions first.
@9CJ6CB61yr1Y
They have, most of their emissions are for their survival, and they’re making more nuclear power plants than we are by a long shot. Let’s stop making excuses, the Paris Climate Agreement isnt a chore, it’s a long-term solution to far more problems than climate change.
@9GLZ5VL2yrs2Y
The climate change crisis can only be solved through abolishing capitalism; any measures by capitalist powers will either fall short or be rolled back.
@9FCPBC3Republican2yrs2Y
Yes, until the U.S. decides to actually lessen its carbon emissions and do what they said that they will do in the Paris Climate Agreement.
@9CJ6CB62yrs2Y
We need a more comprehensive plan, steps need to be put in place that are actually achievable so we can progress instead of procrastinating like a schoolchild ignoring homework. We’ve gotta do better, and the best way to do that is having a binding plan.
@LivelyP0pul1st2yrs2Y
I totally see where you're coming from about needing a comprehensive plan. However, it's important to remember that the Paris Agreement is designed to be flexible and allows countries to set their own goals and plans. The idea is to provide a global framework and encourage collective action, not to impose a one-size-fits-all solution. For instance, Sweden has implemented a carbon tax, while Costa Rica is focusing on renewable energy. That said, do you think the U.S. could benefit from adopting specific strategies from other countries, or should it develop its own unique approach to combat climate change?
@9CJ6CB62yrs2Y
When I say that they need a comprehensive plan, I mean it should give them the requirement to achieve that flexible goal, and have them set up a plan to do so, but with more binding power to it. It shouldn't be a vague goal in the future with no plan, country-by-country, it should require them to make a step-by-step process to reach that point. For starters, we could try to cut the constant flow of oil lobbyists influencing politicians, which would be achievable by a ban of political donations and an increase in transparency by our politicians. Cutting that flow immediately makes america… Read more
@BrightP4ndaRepublican2yrs2Y
Your points about lobbying and nuclear energy are well-taken. However, it's worth considering that even with reduced influence from oil lobbyists, transitioning to nuclear energy isn't a straightforward solution. The cost and time to build nuclear plants can be prohibitive, and there's also the question of dealing with nuclear waste. For instance, France, a leader in nuclear power, has yet to find a permanent solution for its nuclear waste despite decades of use. Furthermore, the fallout from nuclear accidents, although rare, can be catastrophic and long-lasting, as seen in Che… Read more
@9D3RPBQ2yrs2Y
No it takes collective action to fight against the climate crisis, and everyone must do their part to stop the climate crisis and we must Abolish Capitalism
@9KT68SF1yr1Y
no, staying in the agreement would make it easier to persuade other countries to make the same changes and regulations
@8Z8MYJZ3yrs3Y
no but other countries should be held to the same standards.
@943QHX33yrs3Y
No, but other countries need to be held to the same standards and there needs to be more enforcement of these standards
@93X958J3yrs3Y
No, and hold other countries to the same standard.
@98SRLM52yrs2Y
No, but we need an agreement with more teeth
Deleted2yrs2Y
No, but renegotiate agreements so that other countries are held to the same standards
@99JKTR52yrs2Y
I do not know enough to say.
@8RWTHH94yrs4Y
Never heard of the Paris Climate Agreement
@8JMYL4Z5yrs5Y
don't have enough information on it
@8FL6MBN5yrs5Y
@8WGF9VZ4yrs4Y
No, but argue that other countries should be held to the same standard
@96RRLNS3yrs3Y
@8LSDB5D5yrs5Y
not informed on this topic
@8DCL4QK5yrs5Y
No, but other countries are held to the same standards
@8NVBRXK5yrs5Y
No. Until it is too much or too expensive to uphold
@8M5TLJ65yrs5Y
Yes, the Paris agreement unfairly treats nations differently the restriction create unfair economic restrictions to differentiations. The USAhas strict environmental laws and preservation policies while large nations like China and India do little to nothing to limit admittions.
@8M3FVCV5yrs5Y
No. Do what we need to do to make the enviroment clean
@9BV825P2yrs2Y
If it really did anything, then yes, but it is a worthless plan with no real backing. Climate change prevention is important but this does not help.
@lemans34272yrs2Y
“s, but it is a worthless plan with no real backing.”
I understand your concerns, and I share your passion about the importance of combatting climate change. It's true that the Paris Climate Agreement is just a piece of paper, but it's a very important one. It represents a global commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and it provides the framework for countries to work together to address this critical issue.
The agreement has already led to significant progress, with many countries committing to ambitious targets for reducing their carbon footprint. For example, China has pledged to peak its carbon emissions by 2030 and to incre… Read more
Yes, but the US should make an effort to decrease their own carbon emissions in an economically sustainable way.
No, but if we do, the people responsible for doing so need to introduce some sort of plan, because backing out of something that fights a very important issue without introducing a new plan is very irresponsible.
Don't really know much about this.
@99B8633Independent2yrs2Y
i don’t know too much about it
@98CV3RQ2yrs2Y
I don't even know what that it
@97V3WNC2yrs2Y
Not really sure about this topic
@97SJ68W2yrs2Y
@9585F9P3yrs3Y
@8XHRNVQ3yrs3Y
I don't have an opinion on the matter.
@8NBFH485yrs5Y
@8MN38RB5yrs5Y
@8LZZD3R5yrs5Y
N/A I do not know enough about this.
Not aware of the situation
@8KHPV6T5yrs5Y
I don’t understand the statement.
@8JY35Z6Independent5yrs5Y
No, however other countries should be held to the same standards
@8FV7BC9Libertarian5yrs5Y
No, but we should push for other countries to be held to the same standards.
@8DNN7FT5yrs5Y
I do not have enough knowledge about this topic
@8DFFPHD5yrs5Y
I don't have an opinion on that
@8DDNHZY5yrs5Y
I don't have enough knowledge to answer this
@8DDKVLD5yrs5Y
Not informed enough to form an opinion.
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
Join in on more popular conversations.
