UPDATE (02/06/2017): So, he’s done it. President Trump has announced that the US will be withdrawing from the Paris Agreement. The UN deal on climate change anyway didn’t include legally-binding measures, and so the move from Trump is largely symbolic. Nevertheless, could it encourage other countries to follow? And, as America is the largest emitter of carbon dioxide in the world after China, will the rest of the world be able to meet the goals laid down in the Paris Agreement without the US? Let us know your reactions in the debate below!

ORIGINAL (01/06/2017): Donald Trump is planning to withdraw from the Paris Agreement on climate change. That’s according to sources inside Trump’s (notoriously leaky) White House. His final decision will be announced in a speech today in Washington DC at 3pm local time (9pm CET).

During his election campaign, Mr Trump pledged that in his first 100 days in office he would “cancel the Paris Climate Agreement and stop all payments of US tax dollars to UN global warming programs.”

Upon election, he softened his stance and said he would take the time to learn more about the issues before coming to a decision. His approach has greatly frustrated America’s allies in Europe, and even Pope Francis himself has been lobbying Trump not to pull out of the deal.

The UN Paris Agreement was adopted on 12 December 2015 and came into force in November 2016. It aims to limit warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius (so far, average temperatures have risen by a little under 1 degree Celsius). The USA is one of the largest carbon dioxide emitters on the planet, so if Trump does pull out of the agreement it could have a huge impact in the fight to lower greenhouse gas emissions.

Europe and China have vowed to forge on with the Agreement even without the US. Famously, the US did not ratify the Kyoto Protocol which preceded the Paris Agreement. So, on paper, it would be going too far to describe the deal as “dead”. However, even without the Kyoto Protocol, previous US administrations have recognised the dangers posed by climate change.

It’s currently unclear whether President Trump agrees with the overwhelming scientific consensus behind man-made climate change. His proposed federal budget would essentially gut the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with budget cuts totalling nearly 30%. So, could Trump put the Paris deal into jeopardy?

Is the Paris climate change deal dead? What happens if the US pulls out? Will Europe, China, and the rest of the world be able to salvage the agreement? Let us know your thoughts and comments in the form below and we’ll take them to policymakers and experts for their reactions!

IMAGE CREDITS: CC / Flickr – Duncan Hull


95 comments Post a commentcomment

What do YOU think?

  1. Matteo Magnus Magni

    maybe I think at the extreme solution if we pass the not return limit and if the temperature will rise of 6° over now

    • Stefania Portici

      si parla di cambiamento climatico non di riscaldamento ( le temperature della terra si stanno abbassando non alzando ) ma distribuita in modo diverso da come è oggi.

  2. Matej Zaggy Zagorc

    Climate change will happen regardless of human contribution. Instead of trying to prevent it, we should prepare for its consequences.

    • Faddi Zsolt

      It ain’t a clever answer. Human contribution is massive and it accelerates the natural process of warming to the extreme extent!

    • Matt Czapliński

      Yep, just by looking at human contribution you can admit that we have an influence on climate. The question is how much.

    • Matej Zaggy Zagorc

      This is very true, we’ve accelerated it far beyond natures pace. what I’m pointing out is that we should start to prepare for what it will bring.

      I know we all feel cozy as we are, we don’t want drastic changes, that frightens us because of our most primitive instinct- survival, but we must cope with the fact that this change will come and mankind will have to be prepared

    • Gerardo Hdo

      Heating the world a little bit more

    • Ed Cocks

      That would be fantastic! Hope your idea gains steam and passes!

  3. Dimitris Stamiris

    have yoy seen ice age ???
    earth have ”ages’ of very cold and many many centuries later comes the hot …… all those last centuries we was somewhere in the midlle , and we need many to go to the hot age ……. the rest is only to make us buy new cars , new tv’s ect

    factories brings the hot age earlyer !!!!
    think
    why they dont stop the big factories but they want to stop us ?? one big factory makes polution like 2-4 countrys cars

    money money money money !!!!!

  4. Juan Diego Giordano

    This is the difference between: TO BELIEVE AND TO PROVE. DON’T BELIEVE IT BUT PROVE IT. THAT HAPPENED WITH LIES YOU BELIEVE THEM BUT YOU CANNOT PROVE THEM.

    • Gerardo Hdo

      Very good idea. If some item is made producing more CO2, Many people will not buy it

    • Paolo Ortenzi

      I’ll buy more US produced goods since now on… :D

  5. bob

    It would be the beginning of the end.

  6. Rosy Forlenza

    no, europe and everyone else needs to go ahead, ignore the u.s. and sanction it. i am sick of our independent lands and countries and peoples having to hang on to everything that country decides to do or not do.

    • Tarquin Farquhar

      @Manuel Alegria
      Cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo!

      Yeah, like France (AKA THE COWARD) and Spain (AKA THE CAN’T BUILD SUBMARINES BRIGADE) can match the USA + UK!!

      @Rosy Forlenza
      EU countries are NOT independent. They are inter-dependent at best and slaves of Germany at worst!

  7. Tiago Miranda

    No! Sanctions against the US, Syria and Nicaragua! Let them know how serious the problem is! And let us show them how committed the rest of the WORLD is to fight against Global Warming!

    • Gerardo Hdo

      Boicot to american products

  8. Carl Holyoake

    Yes well the planet has never had so many humans on it for a start which is the major problem , but Muhammad believes that certain culture should breed and multiple where as China has realised the problem for many years and introduced one child one family policy . The human race will think of any excuse not to reduce population rebuild forest and cut down our globle industries where parts are made in other parts of the world assembled and sent back again all in the name of a peace of paper we call money and progress

  9. Mikael Pettersson

    Yees, long live Trump…”Climatechange” is just the next brainwashing tool… just like “Cancer” for braindead fools… why else would they talk about “climate” instead of demolish the Military for real “world peace”…

  10. Maia Alexandrova

    “When the last tree is cut down, the last fish eaten, and the last stream poisoned, you will realise that you cannot eat money.”

    Native Americans said that long time ago to the invaders of their lands, but it sounds like a message to Trump – a man blinded by so much greed that he cannot see further from his nose… There should be sanctions on USA as their selfish and reckless actions pose a global threat to life on this planet. Import from USA should be restricted or banned. Playing games with the future of humanity should not be allowed.

    • Tarquin Farquhar

      @Maia Alexandrova
      How is it that you can recognise planetary-wide resource issues and YET cannot imagine such issues would blight the UK ie too many EU-foreigners in the UK?

    • Maia Alexandrova

      Tarquin Farquhar, you are talking as if EU citizens are the ONLY foreigners in the UK. This is a perversion of the truth. We all know which foreigners are the most populous in the UK – those from non-EU countries who, on top of that, have a tradition of having many, many children in their families which in turn attracts big, big benefits and especially for women – being traditionally out of work, i.e. a burden on society, public funds and services. This is what depletes the resources on the planet, and also in the UK – having too many children – a result of reckless behaviour on the part of their parents who did not think about the future before creating them. The problem with overcrowding in the UK is conveniently blamed on EU citizens, but is actually caused by huge immigration from outside EU, especially in the last 30 years, and the exceptionally high and unsustainable birth rate of those immigrants and their descendants, including those who have already obtained British citizenship from previous immigration waves since the 1960s. You are having an elephant in the room and yet you cannot see it… How can you then solve your problem? Certainly not by attacking EU citizens, or getting out of EU!

  11. Charles Vee

    I wish it was. Since 2014 when thie deal was struck Malta has been under attack by chemtrails!! Seems we have no right to know what is being sprayer in the air to fight global warming and you still find morons who call those ‘lines’ forming a grey sky with fake clouds contrails!!!

    • Philip Stone

      Wat u hav to ask urself charlie is this, the airplane ur watching spray its “chemtrails” is flying at around 30,000 ft allowing for the hundreds of different wind directions do you really think those cpl of little vapour trails wud accurately hit sweet little malta

    • Charles Vee

      Funny how these vapour trails exploded over Malta in 2014… before that it seems like airspace over Malta was closed and guess what… we had no airport either! Ignorance is bliss buddy. You have eyes… you have a head… Look up and use both!

    • Łukasz Osiński

      You can’t be serious, right? This is just water vapour condesating on particles from engine exhaust. And in the exhaust is just water, some CO2 and other substances, but nothing worse than those from cars. More clean than diesel even.

    • Philip Stone

      I do and iv been watxhing vapour trails for 50 yrs lol including many yrs over malta in the 70’s and we or all still here

    • Philip Stone

      Dont tell me, charles its a conspiracy thieory film uv been brainwashed into believing wwith no eveidence other than nonsence on the net, dont u really think hot jet cold air equals vapetrails

    • Charles Vee

      Okay Philip Stone Explain this: 2 air planes flying at 38,000 ft … one on the east side the other a bit further north and same weather conditions (but at that height there is no weather no?) …so… one is flying and doing a vapour trail creating a fake cloud left hanging there for hours and the other a vapour trail which I leart about 20 years ago at school… vapour from the hot engines mixed with the -35°c up there and dissappears in seconds… I’m dumb… i’m stupid and i have no eyes to see that something is going on up there. And I can speak about Malta not America. In America you eat GMO’s and everything is fucked up there. Even the weather. Before 2014 we used to see vapour trails of air planes today we get cloudy weather from air planes!!! It is also wierd and worrying that there are people who BASH people who talk about these new, yes they are new here, ‘vapour’ trails! Enjoy your GMO’s! …ahh wait, GMO’s are also a conspiracy theory right? :)

  12. Marialuisa Wittlin

    Time to sanction the US for pulling out of Paris. Trump is totally unacceptable as a world leader. The US accounts for over 16% of pollution- and Trump is unwilling and too stupid to do something about it?

    • César García

      if the Americans stop importing european goods, the Eu industry will face a huge crisis…it could be the end of the german auto industry, for instance.

    • Jean-Pierre Lemaître

      César García : And vice-versa. Welcome to enlighted american democrats in Europe !

  13. catherine benning

    Trump is right. This is another con game to fleece the Western tax payer out of money for the so called developing world. Or, more to the truth, the developing worlds despotic leaders. Why not tell it as it is? The funds are wanted to ‘AID’ the third world at the tune of billions a year.

    Global warming is a fact of the changing planet. The humans within it cannot save it from whatever is taking place. Why not explain to us all that recent vulcano eruptions created far more pollution in one blast than mankind has in all its CO2 emissions.

    Don’t believe it?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Smhn1gL6Xg

    And here is scientific logic which gives you permission to decide for yourself.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXxHfb66ZgM

    And here you will learn about vulcano effects.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fAnacf4eboQ

    • James McManama

      Catherine,

      According to the US Geological Survey (i.e. the US government agency responsible for, among other things, monitoring and studying volcanic activity), man-made CO2 emissions in 2010 were up to 270 times larger than the maximum annual global volcanic CO2 emission estimates. (Here’s the link: https://volcanoes.usgs.gov/vhp/gas_climate.html)

      So, you’re incorrect to argue that “vulcano (sic) eruptions created far more pollution in one blast than mankind has in all its CO2 emissions”.

    • catherine benning

      Well James,

      Here are a few facts for you. Chew them over and expand your horizons.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Km3uhv6oVWg

      It is delusional for you, or any other man/woman, to believe the direction of climate changers can effect planetary paths that are far into the formation they have moved toward. All the ignorant voices of know alls suggesting mankind is the mover and shaker of our solar system implies masses are suffering from messianic complex.

      Global warming is not singular it is plural within our galaxy. And mankind, with its CO2 emissions, have nothing to do with it. It is the evolution of our universe.

    • James McManama

      Catherine,

      That video in no way supports your hypothesis that a single volcanic eruption emits more CO2 than all the man-made CO2 emissions ever produced.

      Nowhere does it say that volcanoes are the cause of climate change. Instead, it argues that “Scientists have come to the conclusion that we have moved into an area of space that is different and has a much higher energy level”

      Which scientists, exactly? The video doesn’t say.

      Your video does cite one Dr. Mike Lockwood. However, I’m not sure he would be happy to be associated with your hypothesis. For example, read this from New Scientist: “Human-induced global warming, [Lockwood] says, is already a more important force in global temperatures than even major solar cycles.” (LINK: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24512-solar-activity-heads-for-lowest-low-in-four-centuries/ )

      So, in other words, your supposed video evidence demonstrably contradicts your argument.

    • catherine benning

      James McManama

      First and foremost, there were many, many videos of so called ‘proof’ on the matter of Global warming that have, strangely, been wiped off the internet. Now how is that I wonder? It’s a great deal the same way the alleged Obama’s birth in Kenya was completely hidden for how many years before it finally spilled out?

      Remember, one most very important matter, before you start in with your Christ the Redeemer stance taken. All this scientific theory, is just that, theory. None of it is provable. And more than that, these persuasions are bought and paid for by those who see themselves making billions from the tax payer under the guise of CO2 control can save the planet. Man cannot save a planet that has turned its orbit from the old path to a new one. So, your stance is just as flawed as mine.

      Trump is right. He wants to provide the ‘American people’ with a life today, not a life for those who may come centuries down the line, or, not, as the case may be.

      However, you hang on to your opportunity to make billions by fraudulent claims and I will go on with my opposition to your scam, as ‘I’ don’t want to be paying through the nose to keep you in mink.

      One last eye opener for those who visit this website. The American people are paying through the nose for something that cannot be proven. What a wonderful scam that is. Read all about it.

      http://www.newsmax.com/MKTNews/global-warming-hoax-facts/2014/10/17/id/601458/

      And here we see another person who poses a different ‘theory’ on climate change being stifled. I wonder why that is? Could it be those who make a lot of fraudulent money from this lark don’t want it to be free for public knowledge.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rI-KCN4p0Cw

    • James McManama

      Catherine,

      The theory in the latest YouTube documentary you linked to is directly and explicitly contradicted by Mike Lockwood, the scientist cited in the first YouTube video you linked to.

      “The Svensmark hypothesis has also been attacked in recent months by Mike Lockwood from the UK’s Rutherford-Appleton Laboratory. He showed that over the last 20 years, solar activity has been slowly declining, which should have led to a drop in global temperatures if the theory was correct.”

      LINK: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7327393.stm

      So which video do you support? Your first video? Or your second video?

      Also, we’re now talking about cosmic rays. What has this got to do with the CO2 emissions of volcanoes (which was the original point we were discussing)?

  14. Joyce Gessey

    Cannot understand why billions have to be paid in for climate change. Surely stiff laws and penalties for polluting and emissions in every country would be two thirds of the battle. Where do all those billions of dollars go?

  15. Antti Lampinen

    The only things dead after this are the US’s global influence and their industries’ potential for innovation.

    • Paolo Ortenzi

      On the contrary. They will have more money for development and research.

  16. Paweł Kunio

    It dont have to be. Just tax the all american goods with some 3-5% of carbon tax wherever its sold and introduce it in China, India and EU and problem will resolve itself sooner than we may think.

  17. Paweł Kunio

    It dont have to be. Just tax the all american goods with some 3-5% of carbon tax wherever its sold and introduce it in China, India and EU and problem will resolve itself sooner than we may think.

  18. Ferre Jaime

    Acho que so os tolos vao seguir o acordo, a maioria apenas assinou, quando chegar a hora, dao o nega.

  19. Roller Mars

    opinions and more opinions!! scientists, there’s a few ones in this world, people dont care about the facts, remember…in your education system theres not science and the science of beheavior…just shit!! all we are victims of the culture, and the great majority dont know what to think objectivaly about global warming, theres global warming and a lot of people dont see it…its amazing, doumbed down society

  20. Roller Mars

    if people dont believe in global warming it means you are stupid, and this type of victims of the culture will not capable to help change the world, renewable energies means something?

    • Wojciech Małecki

      Change world into what? Pseudo-Utopia run by binladens or banksters?

    • Roller Mars

      do you know what is a resource based economy? check The Venus project if you want…if people has a better offer to humanity kool

  21. Annalise Cunat

    the Problem is..all have to stand up..everybody..but just writing do nothing from the most of the People..we have to stand up..

  22. Tony Ball

    Climate change being completly man made is only a consensus of opinion. .. by very clever scientists .. but still a consensus of opinion . Not enough data to make a true comparison. And trump said he was pulling out in his campaign so no news here! . Also america is still looking at reducing emmisions just not under some agrement .

  23. Robert Tokarski

    Rightist scum doesn’t believe in solidarity and making word a better place like fighting with global warming.

  24. Daan Feenstra

    This may upset some of you…. But I have a bottle with 2.5kg PURE CO2 over here… It is used in my aquarium to help the plants grow. Because of people like you who don’t exactly know how plant biology works, I have paid at least twice for this pleasure. According to NASA the added CO2 in the atmosphere has greened the planet more than ever recorded. Additionally, temperature ups and downs have happened many times in the past, the hockeystick has conclusively been proven to be fraudulent, and it is now common knowledge that global sensory data has been adjusted upwards to make the models work. Thats not how science works, ladies and gentlemen.

  25. catherine benning

    This explains part of the earth change in atmosphere.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-ha1K9jj9E

    Add to it nuclear testing and bombings carried out over the last 20 years alone and you can easily calculate the damage to our atmosphere.

    • James McManama

      Catherine,

      Ok, so now we’re talking about volcanoes again. Here is an article from Snopes that comprehensively demolishes your assertion that a single volcano throws as much CO2 into the atmosphere as all the CO2 ever produced by humanity throughout history. It also traces the author of this spurious claim (Ian Plimer).

      http://www.snopes.com/volcano-carbon-emissions/

      Also, here’s the official position of the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration on this question:

      https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/which-emits-more-carbon-dioxide-volcanoes-or-human-activities

      And, once again, the position of the United States Geological Survey:

      https://volcanoes.usgs.gov/vhp/gas_climate.html

      You’ll notice that the USGS page also makes reference to the cooling impact of volcanic activity on climate (i.e. the sort of “volcanic winters” referred to in Tech Insider video you’ve cited here). Obviously, geologists and climate scientists don’t deny that volcanoes can have a cooling effect. However, the Tech Insider video you linked to admits this is a short-term effect.

      Look at this: http://news.yale.edu/2016/04/22/new-analysis-traces-impact-volcanic-activity-climate-change

      “Scientists at Yale, the University of Texas-Austin, and Rice University created a global database of volcanic activity going back 720 million years, in order to study the ebb and flow of warm and cold climate that Earth has experienced.”

      “[The] study provides strong support for the idea that long-term climate change is driven by very slow changes in the release of carbon dioxide, indicating that the current jump in carbon dioxide is anomalous over at least the past half a billion years”

      In other words, volcanic activity HAS been a long-term driver of climate change. But the current period of man-made climate change is something new.

      Also, I’d still love to hear your explanation for why you keep posting videos that contradict one another. As I said before, the theory in one YouTube documentary you linked to is directly and explicitly contradicted by Mike Lockwood, the scientist cited in another YouTube video you linked to.

      “The Svensmark hypothesis has also been attacked in recent months by Mike Lockwood from the UK’s Rutherford-Appleton Laboratory. He showed that over the last 20 years, solar activity has been slowly declining, which should have led to a drop in global temperatures if the theory was correct.”

      Here’s the link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7327393.stm

      So which video do you support? Your first video? Or your second video?

    • EU Reform- Proactive

      Hi Catherine & James,

      what should one believe about climate change? The global cooling- or warming fallacy? Both might be possibilities! Which (paid) lobbyist, scientist or politician is to be believed? Who is neutral? Nobody is infallible!

      Choose what you believe in! The earth’s air quality we breathe is surely the most important factor before we get lost in futuristic (political) arguments. Nobody really knows for sure- least of all our so “informed” politicians and parties.

      All THEY know well (specially the EU clique) is to devise treaties after treaties and create more laws funded by us taxpayers.

      Evolution & social pressures will take care of every nations needs by selecting the most appropriate innovation and implementation at the right time & right pace!

      An “unsigned treaty” is not equivalent to a total disregard of nature- the opposite can be true as well!

      In the meantime, we should enjoy life, be happy, informed, tolerant, fair and vigilant, but demand a high air quality, a stop to any pollution on industrial scale & reckless degradation of our environment. That’s simpler, easier & very urgent.

      Personally, I fear a “Yellowstone” type super eruption, a meteor impact, a new ice age, human overpopulation or over eager politicians more- than a failure of the Paris climate accord!

      Why get overly excited and argue who the greater political fool is (Trump, Kerry, Merkel, Macron- or…) or the more dishonest lobbyist, political party or country?

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling
      http://principia-scientific.org/top-russian-scientist-fear-a-deep-temperature-drop-not-global-warming/

  26. catherine benning

    @ James

    US officials are as bent as a nine bob note.

    Your problem is brainwashing. You want to brainwash the population with what is simply a theory. You therefore must have some stake in the outcome.

    As I wrote prior. all of this is simply a notion inside the head of paid, so called, scientists. None of it is real. It is similar to a business projection plan. ‘Well, maybe I can make this much money in six months, if lady luck stays with me.’

    Both my videos, or more of them, are suitable for my consumption. Yours are hogwash in my eyes. As are your fanatical rebuffs. Learn to accept others have a different opinion to you. Who indoctrinated you with this notion that no other ‘theory’ is equal to your ‘theory’? Or, to those you use as maybe right.?

    I have an unusually strong belief in government officials, of any kind, being manipulators of political extremes. In nearly all cases, to make money for themselves. I have a very elderly distant relative who worked for NASA when von Braun was rocket scientist there. And he is an eye opener to political games of this kind with science and scientists.

    You hang on to your frustration and I will ‘happily’ continue with my enormous scepticism. My purpose for adding all that I regard as plausible and more likely being as near to accurate as possible, is because those who read people with your illusions are hardly ever opposed, questioned or brought to account on any of it. Not good for the education of the population. As ‘question more’ is the way to understanding.

    Come to think of it, your annoyance proves my leanings must be close to the what is really going on. Otherwise it wouldn’t bug you so much.

    And it is obvious Volcano activity produces more pollution than mankind in one outburst. Think it through. Man has used cars and petrol, etc., for a very short period of time. Volcano eruption has been since the planet formed its present movement. A volcano kills thousands in one outbreak, take Vesuvius and Pompeii as an example, how many CO2 gases have created such havoc in one day? Mmm?

    The so called current climate change is not current at all. It is the product of centuries, as was so clearly observed on the prior videos. Your list of warped American universities who have to hang on desperately to funding, via a method of making sure they give the answers required by the funder, means nothing. Not that American universities are alone in this method of raising their financial status, the Brits are good at it as well. As are all those funded abroad by the West.

    Here is a little fun about volcanos. Explain to me how mankind compared to this in any one day. And this is only one explosive mountain. That is, other than the Americans dropping of atomic bombs on Japan in WWII.

    http://www.history.com/topics/ancient-history/pompeii/videos

  27. ironworker

    Damn right is a dead deal. Trump put it this way: “- America First”… What part don’t you get it?

  28. SD

    The Earth has warmed and cooled since millions of years long before significant human industrial development. If Humans are responsible in any way for global warming then the question that arrises is how much of that is natural and how much of that is man made warming, nobody has ever answered that question.

required
required Your email will not be published

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Notify me of new comments. You can also subscribe without commenting.