The scientific method is well established!

From an Essay by Prof. Adam Frank, 13.7 Blog, NPR, July 18, 2017

Just before joining other leaders at the G-20 summit, President Donald Trump gave a speech in Poland where he asked: “Does the West have the will to survive?”

Since then, a lot of ink (and electrons) has been spilled asking about the value, and values, of Western Civilization.

Far be it for me to pass judgment on entire civilizations — but as a whole I’m all in with the best parts of Western Civilization. That’s because one of the “best parts” of this thing that happened in the West was this other thing we call science.

What we call science had its roots in the achievements of the Hellenistic Greeks. It began with Thales of Miletus who first attempted to apply reason as a means of understanding the world. Later, Greek thinkers would expand on this reason-based method to map the stars, reveal the laws of geometry and establish the first classification schemes for life.

It’s important to note after the Greeks (and to some degree the Romans) the story of science’s progress moves away from what historian Ian Morris calls the “Western Core” of civilization. Beginning with the fall of Rome, “The West” goes fairly dark with respect to science for almost 1,000 years. Progress shifts in an easterly direction.

The Muslim empires take the lead in astronomy. Look at a star chart, where you’ll find a mess of Arab names like Algol, Deneb and Rigel. These cultures were also a force pushing mathematics forward. Look up the origins of the word “algebra.” Meanwhile, over in India, mathematicians were doing their own important work including figuring out how to deal with “0″ in calculations. And further to the east in China, the Tang and Song dynasties were piling up inventions and discoveries such as the compass, gunpowder, paper-making and printing.

So the story of science can never be seen as just the story of Western Civilization. But it was the West’s particular version of genius that gave us science’s all-important methodology and institutions.

It’s from these that science as we know it emerges with all its insight, reach and power.

From Galileo, Francis Bacon, Sir Issac Newton and others we got the mix of direct experimentation and mathematical description that is the hallmark of modern science. Together, these approaches would let us hear nature speak for itself. In the Age of Reason and the Enlightenment, these practices became codified into norms of behavior for science’s practitioners. Then, with the foundation of the Royal Society of London (1662), the Paris Académie Royale des Sciences (1666), and the Berlin Akademie der Wissenschaften (1700), a distinctly new kind of force was established in society.

As human institutions, each of these scientific academies had their deep imperfections. But, ultimately, each was dedicated to a way of knowing that would rise above prejudice, cronyism and the dictates of the powerful. Most importantly, this new way of knowing would be self-correcting. The Royal Society’s motto says it all: Nullis in Verba. Take no one’s word for it.

In other words, rely on evidence.

That scientific method for relying on evidence — on facts — was one of the supreme achievements of Western Civilization. The material wealth and power that stemmed from the codification of the scientific method is exactly why Western Civilization has been so successful over the last 500 years.

So given that history, you would think science would be worth defending. Given the success it has granted us, you would think those institutions of science would be cherished as a foundation on which Western Civilization rests.

Yes, that’s what you’d think. That’s what you would hope.

But just as the administration was asking about defending Western Civilization, it was being forced to defend its own decision to pull out of the Paris Climate Accord. At the root, this move was driven by the administration’s continued denial of climate science’s principle conclusion: that the Earth’s climate system is shifting due to human activity. It simply does not take climate science seriously.

But if climate science is hoax then what do we make of the fact that all of Western Civilization’s major scientific institutions affirm its overwhelming scientific evidence? The entire scientific community of the West (and everywhere else) is unanimous on climate change. How else could we have gotten something as difficult as the Paris Accords signed by practically every nation on Earth?

So what, then, does it mean to deny the conclusions of climate science or worse — call it a hoax?

To deny climate science is to deny the rest of science that it stands upon. And to deny all the rest of that science is to deny the network of institutions, practices and values that make science itself possible. And, finally, to deny those institutions and practices is to deny the values we all cherish about Western Civilization itself.

So, I agree with the administration: We should defend Western Civilization’s best achievements. Let us start with something obvious from which we all benefit. Let us defend science: the root of our prosperity, strength and well-being.

>>> Adam Frank is a co-founder of the 13.7 blog, an astrophysics professor at the University of Rochester, a book author and a self-described “evangelist of science.”

The US under Trump is in chaos

Energy 202: Trump’s Paris speech needs a serious fact check

From an Article by Dino Grandoni, Washington Post, June 2, 2017

Donald Trump spent 131 days contemplating what life would be like if the United States left the Paris climate agreement. Ultimately, he seemed to like what he saw, and followed his gut.

This past Thursday, the president made official his long-rumored decision to withdraw the United States from the 195-nation accord.

Speaking outside the White House, Trump fulfilled a campaign promise to remove the United States from the landmark deal aimed at curbing climate-altering emissions and keeping global warming below a threshold — 2 degrees Celsius above the global temperature before humans began burning fossil fuels — at which the worst consequences of climate change are believed by the scientific community to take hold. (The Post’s Philip Rucker and Jenna Johnson have the main story here.)

A wide swath of world leaders, top scientists and business titans immediately condemned the decision. But in a Rose Garden speech, Trump said withdrawal was necessary for U.S. economic security.

“I am fighting every day for the great people of this country,” he said. “Therefore, in order to fulfill my solemn duty to protect America and its citizens, the United States will withdraw from the Paris climate accord.”

For roughly 25 minutes, Trump laid out his rationale for withdrawal. Some of this made sense — some coal jobs, for example, will indeed be saved by eliminating the Clean Power Plan, one of President Barack Obama’s main efforts at meeting the Paris commitment.

But many of the other reasons Trump gave for withdrawing seemed at best strained and at worst unfounded.

Below we break down some of the claims we found especially difficult to understand:

CLAIM #1: For weeks, as the tug-of-war between the pro- and anti-Paris camps in the White House played out, Trump seemed to grope for a way to claim a middle ground on the Paris decision. The bone he chose to throw Paris supporters is the possibility that the United States can somehow ”reenter” the agreement in the future.

In his speech, Trump promised to “begin negotiations to reenter either the Paris accord or really an entirely new transaction on terms that are fair to the United States.”

“We will see if we can make a deal that’s fair,” he continued.” And if we can, that’s great. And if we can’t, that’s fine.”

THE PROBLEM: From the start, the Paris agreement was designed to have the plasticity Trump seemed to be seeking by talking about some kind of renegotiation. The breakthrough Obama and others made in the lead-up to Paris was allowing nations to choose the amount of greenhouse-gas emissions they were willing to cut.

“Paris already gives countries tremendous flexibility, and no penalties,” said Michael Gerrard, a professor of environmental law at Columbia and director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law. ”Trump obviously didn’t read the Paris agreement, and his statement was written by people who willfully misrepresented its contents — his staff or their lobbyist friends.”

Unlike its predecessor, the Kyoto Protocol, the Paris accord did not legally bind nations to emissions targets. The only thing keeping a nation in check was pressure from its international peers. Under the agreement, the United States could miss an emissions goal and face no penalty. It could reset that goal, too, with no formal consequence. It’s unclear what other concessions the United States could gain from a renegotiation.

Also, a new Paris deal may not be practical.

Right after Trump announced his decision, three large European nations indicated they have no interest in a do-over. Italy, Germany and France issued a statement barely an hour after Trump’s speech, saying that the Paris accord “cannot be renegotiated since it is a vital instrument for our planet, societies and economies,” according to Reuters.

Environmental Protection Agency head Scott Pruitt — who lobbied heavily for leaving the deal — argued on CNN after the Rose Garden announcement that Paris was a “failing agreement to begin with.” He added that Trump has repeatedly said he is “committed to continuing” climate-change discussions, but with “America at the forefront of those discussions.”

CLAIM #2: While Trump as president has taken a decidedly softer stance toward China than he did while running for office, he used the Paris announcement to take a swing at one of his favorite punching bags to illustrate the raw deal he believes the United States got under the agreement.

“China will be allowed to build hundreds of additional coal plants,” Trump proclaimed. “So, we can’t build the plants, but they can, according to this agreement.”

And again, Trump said: “Under the agreement, China will be able to increase these emissions by a staggering number of years, 13. They can do whatever they want for 13 years. Not us.”

THE PROBLEM: Not so. Again, the agreement does not bind any nation to any emissions target. What China did choose to do under the agreement is have its carbon emissions “peak” by 2030 before then declining. The world accepted that longer leash for China and other developing nations to let them use fossil-fuel energy to promote greater economic growth.

But to meet that goal, China cannot “do whatever they want” until then, as Trump said, at least if China wants to meet that voluntary 2030 target. It needs to begin acting now to control emissions — and in fact, is signaling to the world it is already doing so by announcing in January the cancellation of plans to build more than 100 coal-fired power plants.

The Paris deal “is more fair to the U.S. than previous agreements because it includes all the major economies of the world, not just the rich countries, so both developed countries and developing countries have skin in the game,” Jody Freeman, a Harvard Law School professor and director of the school’s Environmental Law and Policy Program, said. Trump’s ”portrayal is at odds with reality,” she added.

CLAIM #3: In a baby step for a politician who once dubbed the idea of climate change a hoax, Trump suggested in his speech that human activity can warm the planet — albeit backhandedly, and to make the point that the climate accord is futile. Here’s what Trump tweeted in 2013:

“Even if the Paris Agreement were implemented in full, with total compliance from all nations, it is estimated it would only produce a two-tenths of one degree — think of that, this much — Celsius reduction in global temperature by the year 2100,” Trump said during the speech, holding up his hand with thumb and index finger only millimeters apart.

THE PROBLEM: While it’s true that current commitments are not enough to meet the two-degree goal, Trump’s figures are off. As my Post colleague Chris Mooney writes, reporting on an analysis from an MIT researcher: “The current country level pledges under the Paris agreement would reduce the planet’s warming by the year 2100 down from 4.2 degrees Celsius (7.6 degrees Fahrenheit) to 3.3 degrees Celsius (5.9 degrees Fahrenheit), or nearly a full degree Celsius.”

CLAIM #4: Trump also singled out for criticism a United Nations initiative that actually predates the Paris deal called the Green Climate Fund. It’s a pool of money that finances climate mitigation and adaptation efforts in poor nations, but Trump is concerned that U.S. contributions are hurting the United States.

“Beyond the severe energy restrictions inflicted by the Paris accord,” Trump said, ”it includes yet another scheme to redistribute wealth out of the United States through the so-called Green Climate Fund — nice name — which calls for developed countries to send $100 billion to developing countries all on top of America’s existing and massive foreign aid payments.”

And that money the United States pays is ”raided out of America’s budget for the war against terrorism,” he said. ”That’s where they came.”

THE PROBLEM: There are a few, according to the nonprofit Friends of the Earth.

The Green Climate Fund contains $10.3 billion not $100 billion. And the U.S. share comes from the Treasury, not any pool or money set aside for anti-terrorism purposes.

“I’d never heard anything like this before,” Karen Orenstein, deputy director of economic policy at Friends of the Earth, said of the terrorism claim. “It’s totally ridiculous.”

CLAIM #5: During his Rose Garden speech, Trump attempted to rev his coal-country base by saying: ”I was elected to represent the citizens of Pittsburgh, not Paris.”

THE PROBLEM: This line is confusing. It was delegates of the nearly 200 nations of the world, not the approximately 2 million people of Paris, who negotiated the climate accord. Paris was simply the city that hosted the talks after which, in the long tradition of diplomatic nomenclature, the agreement was named. Nonetheless, the line is likely to resonate with Trump voters who feel they have been left out of the economic recovery and who do not relate to international diplomats who they don’t believe are working in their best interest.

One other note: Hillary Clinton actually won Allegheny County, Pa., where Pittsburgh is located, by 16 points. Or, as the mayor of Pittsburgh, Democrat Bill Peduto, said: “Pittsburgh stands with the world & will follow Paris Agreement.”

And The Post’s Philip Bump reminds readers what Pittsburgh used to look like: “Once upon a time, the city of Pittsburgh was a robustly blue-collar anchor to the American steel industry. Once upon a time, the air was thick with smog and soot from industry lining the city’s rivers. Once upon a time, decades ago, the collapse of the steel industry and American manufacturing put the city itself at risk.”

>  >  >  >  >  >  >  >  >  >  >  >

Paris City Hall goes green as does many other buildings around the world

Bucking Trump, These Cities, States and Companies Commit to the Paris Accords

From an Article by HIROKO TABUCHI and HENRY FOUNTAIN, New York Times, June 1, 2017

Michael Bloomberg, a former mayor of New York, is coordinating a group of politicians, academics and businesses that is committed to the Paris climate accord despite President Trump’s decision to withdraw from the agreement.

Representatives of American cities, states and companies are preparing to submit a plan to the United Nations pledging to meet the United States’ greenhouse gas emissions targets under the Paris climate accord, despite President Trump’s decision to withdraw from the agreement.

The unnamed group — which, so far, includes 30 mayors, three governors, more than 80 university presidents and more than 100 businesses — is negotiating with the United Nations to have its submission accepted alongside contributions to the Paris climate deal by other nations.

“We’re going to do everything America would have done if it had stayed committed,” Michael Bloomberg, the former New York City mayor who is coordinating the effort, said in an interview.

By redoubling their climate efforts, he said, cities, states and corporations could achieve, or even surpass, the pledge of the administration of former President Barack Obama to reduce America’s planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions 26 percent by 2025, from their levels in 2005.

It was unclear how, exactly, that submission to the United Nations would take place. Christiana Figueres, a former top United Nations climate official, said there was currently no formal mechanism for entities that were not countries to be full parties to the Paris accord.

Ms. Figueres, who described the Trump administration’s decision to withdraw as a “vacuous political melodrama,” said the American government was required to continue reporting its emissions to the United Nations because a formal withdrawal would not take place for several years.

But Ms. Figueres, the executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change until last year, said the Bloomberg group’s submission could be included in future reports the United Nations compiled on the progress made by the signatories of the Paris deal.

Only Two (2) Countries are Outside the Paris Accords

There are 195 countries committed to reducing their greenhouse gas emissions as part of the 2015 agreement.

Still, producing what Mr. Bloomberg described as a “parallel” pledge would indicate that leadership in the fight against climate change in the United States had shifted from the federal government to lower levels of government, academia and industry.

Mr. Bloomberg, a United Nations envoy on climate, is a political independent who has been among the critics of Mr. Trump’s climate and energy policies.

Mayors of cities including Los Angeles, Atlanta and Salt Lake City have signed on — along with Pittsburgh, which Mr. Trump mentioned in his speech announcing the withdrawal — as have Hewlett-Packard, Mars and dozens of other companies.

Paris City Hill was illuminated in green on Thursday in opposition to President Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Paris climate accord. Buildings in New York City, Boston and elsewhere around the world joined in.

Eighty-two presidents and chancellors of universities including Emory, Brandeis and Wesleyan are also participating, the organizers said.

Mr. Trump’s plan to pull out of the Paris agreement was motivating more local and state governments, as well as businesses, to commit to the climate change fight, said Robert C. Orr, one of the architects of the 2015 Paris agreement as the United Nations secretary-general’s lead climate adviser.

Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo of New York and two other governors are starting a separate alliance of states committed to upholding the Paris accord. On Thursday, Gov. Jay Inslee of Washington, Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo of New York and Gov. Jerry Brown of California, all Democrats, said they were beginning a separate alliance of states committed to upholding the Paris accord.

“The electric jolt of the last 48 hours is accelerating this process that was already underway,” said Mr. Orr, who is now dean of the School of Public Policy at the University of Maryland. “It’s not just the volume of actors that is increasing, it’s that they are starting to coordinate in a much more integral way.”

The United States is about halfway to its 2025 emissions reduction target, Mr. Orr said. Of the remaining reductions, the federal government — through regulations like gas mileage standards for vehicles — could affect about half.

But in a draft letter to António Guterres, the United Nations secretary-general, Mr. Bloomberg expressed confidence that “non-national actors” could achieve the 2025 goal alone.

“While the executive branch of the U.S. government speaks on behalf of our nation in matters of foreign affairs, it does not determine many aspects of whether and how the United States takes action on climate change,” he wrote.

“The bulk of the decisions which drive U.S. climate action in the aggregate are made by cities, states, businesses, and civil society,” he wrote. “Collectively, these actors remain committed to the Paris accord.”

Cities and states can reduce emissions in many ways, including negotiating contracts with local utilities to supply greater amounts of renewable energy, building rapid transit programs and other infrastructure projects like improved wastewater treatment. Similarly, corporations can take measures like buying renewable energy for their offices and factories, or making sure their supply chains are climate-friendly.

Governor Inslee said that states held significant sway over emissions. Washington, for example, has adopted a cap on carbon pollution, has invested in growing clean energy jobs and subsidizes electric vehicle purchases and charging stations.

“Our states will move forward, even if the president wants to go backward,” he said in a telephone interview.

Corporations and their Executives Support the Paris Accords

America’s biggest corporations have been bracing for the United States to exit from the Paris climate accord, a move executives and analysts say would bring few tangible benefits to businesses — but plenty of backlash.

Multinational companies will still need to follow ever-stricter emissions laws that other countries are adopting, no matter the location of their headquarters. Automakers like Ford Motor and General Motors would still need to build cars that meet stringent fuel economy and emissions standards in the European Union, Japan and even China, not to mention California.

American companies also face the wrath of overseas consumers for abandoning what has been a popular global agreement — customers who could buy more Renaults instead of Chevrolets or Reeboks instead of Nikes.

“Pulling out of Paris would be the worst thing for brand America since Abu Ghraib,” said Nigel Purvis, a top environmental negotiator in the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations and the chief executive of Climate Advisers, a consulting firm.

“Mars stands by the Paris Climate Agreement,” said Grant Reid, the chief executive of Mars. The company, best known for its candies, remained committed, he said, to achieving “the carbon reduction targets the planet needs.”

It was unclear from Mr. Trump’s announcement what commitments the United States would honor in the Paris accord, which include contributions to the operating budget of the accord’s coordinating agency, the framework convention.

But Bloomberg Philanthropies, Mr. Bloomberg’s charitable organization, is offering to donate $14 million over the next two years to help fund the budget should it be needed, a spokeswoman said. That figure represents the United States’ share, she said.

Jackie Biskupski, the mayor of Salt Lake City and a Democrat, said her administration had recently brokered an agreement with the local utility to power the city with 100 percent renewable energy by 2032.

Global warming is having a significant impact in Utah, she said, especially on water availability and quality. “We feel very strongly that we have an obligation to make sure we keep moving in the right direction on this issue,” she said.

“We really have to make choices that reflect our long-term goals, that really address long-term issues of today,” she added.

Trump misunderstood MIT climate research, university officials say

From an Article on CNBC, Reuters News Service, June 2, 2017

Massachusetts Institute of Technology officials said U.S. President Donald Trump badly misunderstood their research when he cited it on Thursday to justify withdrawing the United States from the Paris Climate Agreement.

Trump announced during a speech at the White House Rose Garden that he had decided to pull out of the landmark climate deal, in part because it would not reduce global temperatures fast enough to have a significant impact.

“Even if the Paris Agreement were implemented in full, with total compliance from all nations, it is estimated it would only produce a two-tenths of one degree Celsius reduction in global temperature by the year 2100,” Trump said.

“Tiny, tiny amount.”

That claim was attributed to research conducted by MIT, according to White House documents seen by Reuters. The Cambridge, Massaschusetts-based research university published a study in April 2016 titled “How much of a difference will the Paris Agreement make?” showing that if countries abided by their pledges in the deal, global warming would slow by between 0.6 degree and 1.1 degrees Celsius by 2100.

“We certainly do not support the withdrawal of the U.S. from the Paris agreement,” said Erwan Monier, a lead researcher at the MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, and one of the study’s authors.

“If we don’t do anything, we might shoot over 5 degrees or more and that would be catastrophic,” said John Reilly, the co-director of the program, adding that MIT’s scientists had had no contact with the White House and were not offered a chance to explain their work.

The Paris accord, reached by nearly 200 countries in 2015, was meant to limit global warming to 2 degrees or less by 2100, mainly through country pledges to cut carbon dioxide and other emissions from the burning of fossil fuels.

Under the pact, the United States – the world’s second biggest carbon emitter behind China – had committed to reduce its emissions by 26 percent to 28 percent from 2005 levels by 2025.

A senior administration official defended Trump’s use of the findings. “It’s not just MIT. I think there is a consensus, not only in the environmental community, but elsewhere that the Paris agreement in and of itself will have a negligible impact on climate,” the official told reporters at a briefing.

The dispute is the latest round of a years-long battle between scientists and politicians over how to interpret facts about the effects of burning fossil fuels on the global climate, and translate them into policy.

Trump has repeatedly cast doubt on the science of climate change and once called it a hoax perpetrated by China to weaken U.S. business.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

NOTE: “Trumped Up Hoax Theory Reins” — Donald Trump believes that climate change is a hoax, he has said so many times but he refuses to explain or justify this position. DGN

See also: www.FrackCheckWV.net

Paris Climate Agreement of Earth Day 2016

Administrator Scott Pruitt Speech On Paris Accord

Speech Presented by Scott Pruitt, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, White House Rose Garden, June 1, 2017

Thank you, Mr. President.

Your decision today to exit the Paris Accord reflects your unflinching commitment to put America First. And by exiting, you are fulfilling yet one more campaign promise to the American people.

Please know that I am thankful for your fortitude – courage – and steadfastness as you serve and lead our country.

America finally has a leader who answers only to the people – not the special interests who have had their way for much too long.  In everything you do, you are fighting for the forgotten men and women of America.  You are the champion for hardworking citizens all across this land who just want a government that puts their needs first.

You have promised to put America First in all aspects of your Administration. And you have done that in any number of ways – from trade – to national security – to protecting our border – to right-sizing government here in Washington, D.C.

And today, you have put America First with regard to international agreements and the environment. This is a historic restoration of American Economic Independence – one that will benefit the working class, the working poor, and working people of all stripes.  With this action, you have declared that people are the rulers of this country once again.

It should be noted that we as a nation do it better than anyone in the world in striking the balance between growing jobs and our economy – while also being a good steward of our environment. We owe no apologies to other nations for our environmental stewardship.

After all – before the Paris Accord was ever signed – America had reduced its CO2 footprint to levels of the early 1990s.  In fact – between the years 2000 and 2014, the United States reduced its carbon emissions by more than 18 percent and this was accomplished largely by American innovation and technology from the private sector rather than government mandate.

For that reason – you have corrected a view that was paramount in Paris – that somehow the United States should penalize its economy – be apologetic – lead with our chin – while the rest of the world does little. Other nations talk a good game – We lead with action –  not words.

Our efforts should be on exporting our technology and innovation to nations who seek to reduce their CO2 footprint – to learn from us. That should be our focus versus agreeing to unachievable targets that harm our economy and the American people.

Mr. President – it takes courage and commitment to say no to the plaudits of men while doing what’s right by the American people.

You have that courage – And the American people can take comfort because you have their back.

>  >   >  >  >  >  >  >  >  >  >  >

Fact Checking Trump’s Paris Agreement Speech

From an Article by Jane C. Timm, NBC News, June 1, 2017

President Donald Trump announced his intention for the United States to leave the Paris climate agreement on Thursday in a lengthy and rambling speech that veered into inaccurate territory several times.

Here are four claims Trump made that don’t hold up.

1. The U.S. can renegotiate the agreement.

“We’re getting out, but we will start to negotiate a deal that is fair. And if we can, that’s great. If we can’t, that’s fine,” the president said.

According to four European nations who released a joint statement Thursday afternoon, renegotiating the deal is not an option.

BREAKING: France, Germany, Italy issue joint statement saying Paris climate accord can’t be renegotiated.— The Associated Press (@AP) 4:47 PM – 1 Jun 2017

The French president said he would not work with the U.S. on climate issues anymore, and all three nations vowed to do more to help developing nations adapt.

“We deem the momentum generated in Paris in December 2015 irreversible and we firmly believe that the Paris Agreement cannot be renegotiated, since it is a vital instrument for our planet, societies and economies,” the leaders of the three nations said in a statement.

2. The agreement tied America‘s hands.

In his speech, Trump painted a picture of a global cabal dictating America’s actions and economy.

“We can’t build the [coal] plants, but [China] can, according to this agreement,” Trump said.

But the Paris accord doesn’t bar America, or any of the 194 other countries that are a part of it, from doing anything. The non-binding agreement allowed countries to map out their own, personalized plans for reducing emissions that cause climate change. The hope was that through peer pressure, diplomacy and negotiation, the countries would grow their commitment to reducing carbon emissions over the years while giving them the flexibility to respond to future variables. The accord carries no penalties should nations miss their targeted carbon emission reductions or simply decide not to comply.

The U.S. vowed to reduce its emissions by at least 26 percent below 2005 levels by 2025, something that could mean less coal for America, but there is no specific limit. Under China’s plan, their emissions would peak in 2030 — indeed allowing them more reliance on coal in the short term — after which a fifth of its energy would come from carbon-free sources.

3. Leaving the accord is a boost for the coal industry.

There is no industry-wide consensus. While some members of the industry cheered Trump’s decision, some in the coal industry actually lobbied the president to stay in the Paris accord, arguing it would better serve their interests long term.

Additionally, while claiming the deal was bad for domestic energy industry, like coal, the president mentioned in off-script comments that there was a forthcoming “big mine opening up, a brand new mine. It’s unheard of; for many, many years that hasn’t happened.”

Whichever mine opening the president is speaking of is not the first in years. A handful of mines have already opened or are in the works this year, though it is of course more rare than it is common. Still others have continued to close, with three coal plants that shuttering today, according to the Los Angeles Times.

4. Promises update.

“One by one, we are keeping the promises I made to the American people during my campaign for president,” Trump said in his speech.

Trump did promise to leave agreements like the Paris accord, and did largely keep his promise with the announcement on Thursday. But he’s also broken a slew of his own promises — he opted not to label China a currency manipulator or leave NAFTA, to name two.

This remark comes mere hours after the White House announced it would not yet move the U.S. Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, something the president swore he’d do right away. In January, he said he “wasn’t the kind of person to break promises” when an Israeli publication asked him about it.

Paris Climate Agreement Moves Rapidly, But It Is Not Enough!

From an Article by Valerie Volcovici, Reuters News Service, November 4, 2015

“This is a moment to celebrate. It is also a moment to look ahead with sober assessment and renewed will over the task ahead.”

LONDON/WASHINGTON, Nov 4 (Reuters) – A landmark global accord to combat climate change officially entered into force on Friday, putting pressure on countries to start executing plans to slash greenhouse gas emissions to limit global warming.

The 2015 Paris Agreement was agreed last December by almost 200 countries and has been described as the most complex global treaty since the Marrakesh (trade) Agreement, signed in 1994.

The Paris accord passed a threshold on Oct. 5 of 55 nations accounting for more than 55 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, allowing it to come into force 30 days later. Ratification was swift compared to other international treaties, showing strong international support, but around 100 countries have yet to ratify it.

“This is a moment to celebrate. It is also a moment to look ahead with sober assessment and renewed will over the task ahead,” United Nations’ climate chief Patricia Espinosa said in a statement.

“In a short time – and certainly in the next 15 years – we need to see unprecedented reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and unequaled efforts to build societies that can resist rising climate impacts,” she said.

The Paris Agreement seeks to wean the world economy off fossil fuels in the second half of the century, limiting the rise in average world temperatures to “well below” 2.0 degrees Celsius (3.6 Fahrenheit) above preindustrial times.

It also notes an ambition to limiting temperature rise even further to 1.5 degrees. The pact kicked off a rolling start in the Pacific region on Thursday, home to low-lying islands states which are in danger of rising sea levels.

On the same day, the annual report of U.N. Environment analyzed countries’ current pledges for emission cuts and said they were not sufficient.

Even if emission-cutting pledges under the Paris agreement are fully implemented, predicted 2030 emissions could put the world on track for a temperature rise of 2.9 to 3.4 degrees Celsius this century, the report said.

The latest round of U.N. climate talks begin on Monday in Marrakesh, Morocco, where representatives from countries will try to find ways to implement the agreement and work out the rules.

Environmental campaign groups, as well as some businesses, investors and academics said the meeting in Marrakesh must keep up the spirit of international support for climate action.

“Even with the commitments made in Paris and encouraging action on the ground, we will not meet our aspiration of limiting warming to 1.5 degrees unless we move faster and at the scale that is needed,” World Bank Group President Jim Yong Kim said.

“As the world heads into (the meeting) in Marrakesh, we must regain the sense of urgency we felt a year ago,” he said.

Also on HuffPost:  Climate change seen from around the world

See also: www.FrackCheckWV.net