Global anger at U.S. for quitting climate pact

Posted June 06, 2017

"All the discussions we've had for the last several weeks focused on one singular issue: Is Paris good or not for this country?" said Scott Pruitt, head of the Environmental Protection Agency, during a White House press briefing.

In withdrawing the United States from the climate accord, which was signed by his predecessor, Barack Obama, U.S. President Donald Trump cited the predicted economic burden and job losses associated with complying with the accord as some of his reasons.

"We have a lot of momentum in the U.S.to continue the fight at the state and city level", said Heurtel.

President Barack Obama pledged to contribute $3 billion to the fund by 2020 and the US has already sent $1 billion to the fund.

Critics of the arrangement point to China's rising emissions as evidence of a fundamental unfairness. In 2008, MA lawmakers passed a law requiring the state to reduce its carbon emissions by at least 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.

Republican politicians and representatives of the coal industry have cheered Trump's action.

"No Larry, no. The height of hubris is not opposing climate change against God's will". Article 28.1 of the accord stipulates that a party can withdraw from it by giving a year's written notice to the United Nations secretary-general only after three years of the agreement having been in force. The president made the announcement on Thursday, claiming the agreement had disadvantaged the U.S. "to the exclusive benefit of other countries, " leaving American businesses and taxpayers to absorb the cost.

Though experts believe it would be hard to meet the main goal of the accord, they note that the announcement at this juncture would at the most be symbolic in nature. Reilly told Reuters the White House did not contact MIT scientists or offer them a chance to explain their work before Trump used it in his speech at the Rose Garden this week.

Trump argued that the nonbinding agreement imposed "draconian financial and economic burdens on our country", and predicted it would cost millions of jobs and trillions of dollars to the United States economy - a stance critics quickly noted did not consider the health benefits from cutting emissions and the potential economic benefits of investments in clean energy.

It forces neither China nor the United States to do or not do anything.

Ford spokeswoman Christin Baker said on Thursday the No.2 United States automaker believes "climate change is real, and remain deeply committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions in our vehicles and our facilities".

Neither the law nor realities on the ground support Trump's statement.

China will be allowed to build hundreds of additional coal plants.

"Here as elsewhere, the key to unlocking the climate puzzle is to realize that if we handle other pieces of our business better - in this case, stewardship of vital food, timber, and water sources like wetlands, mangroves, forests, prairies, and peat bogs - we will simultaneously make major strides toward a safer climate and a cooler world", the co-authors write.