Is Paris point­less?

Re “Paris ac­cord re­lies on faulty logic,” Opin­ion, June 4

Los Angeles Times - - OPINION -

Be­fore rush­ing to judg­ment on Pres­i­dent Trump’s de­ci­sion to re­pu­di­ate the Paris cli­mate ac­cord, one should know what the agree­ment is. Oren Case’s op-ed ar­ti­cle de­scribes the ac­cord as noth­ing more than wishy-washy pledges and an­other in­ter­na­tional bu­reau­cracy with no power to hold any mem­ber to its pledge.

The only good that can come of it is that the mem­bers agree to meet once in awhile and talk about cli­mate warm­ing. That’s some­thing po­lit­i­cal lead­ers are good at, talk­ing and do­ing noth­ing.

That be­ing said, pol­lu­tion is a real prob­lem, and Trump should show the world how to grow our econ­omy with­out con­tribut­ing to pol­lu­tion. We solve our pol­lu­tion prob­lems, we cre­ate jobs, and we solve global warm­ing. Ger­ald Sozio Los An­ge­les

The op-ed by Cass, a se­nior fel­low at the rightwing Man­hat­tan In­sti­tute, re­peats the claim made by the Trump ad­min­is­tra­tion that an anal­y­sis at the Mas­sachusetts In­sti­tute of Tech­nol­ogy showed that fully com­ply­ing with the Paris ac­cord would re­duce tem­per­a­tures in the year 2100 by only 0.2 de­grees Cel­sius.

On June 2, MIT re­leased a state­ment that this claim is mis­lead­ing and that the 0.2 de­grees fig­ure re­ferred to the dif­fer­ence be­tween the Paris ac­cord and the pre­vi­ous Copen­hagen agree­ment. The study found that im­ple­ment­ing the Paris ac­cord com­pared to no agree­ment would re­sult in a re­duc­tion of 1 to 1.8 de­grees Cel­sius.

Fur­ther re­duc­tion will oc­cur if coun­tries strengthen their com­mit­ments after 2030, as the ac­cord en­cour­ages them to do.

This is an­other ex­am­ple of the op­po­nents of the ac­cord re­ly­ing on mis­in­for­ma­tion to make their case, since the in­for­ma­tion is not on their side. Jeff Cohlberg

Rolling Hills Es­tates

Thank you to The Times and es­pe­cially Cass for rev­el­ing the truth about the Paris ac­cord. If the gen­eral pub­lic would do a lit­tle in­ves­ti­ga­tion in­stead of re­ly­ing on Leonardo DiCaprio for their in­for­ma­tion they might learn a great deal.

I am ac­tu­ally sur­prised that The Times pub­lished this ar­ti­cle. It has given me a lit­tle bit of hope for more truth­ful ar­ti­cles in the fu­ture. Su­san Lache­mann

Nipomo, Calif.

Cass com­plains that un­der the Paris ac­cord, the U.S. would have been re­quired to make more ef­fort at greater risk than other coun­tries.

Fair­ness is an ap­peal­ing ar­gu­ment, and whether or not an agree­ment is fair to the United States speaks to Trump sup­port­ers. Still, the fair­ness ar­gu­ment breaks down when both over­all and per-capita car­bon emis­sions are con­sid­ered.

China is the world’s fore­most emit­ter of car­bon; the U.S. is sec­ond. On a per-capita ba­sis, how­ever, U.S car­bon emis­sions are twice that of China and many times greater than most na­tions. True fair­ness would dic­tate that the U.S, China and other de­vel­oped na­tions make stronger com­mit­ments to low­er­ing car­bon out­puts as we are col­lec­tively con­tribut­ing more to cli­mate change.

We should worry less about whether the U.S. is get­ting a fair deal and more about the fu­ture of the planet. Mar­jorie Pop­per

Solvang

Rainer Jensen As­so­ci­ated Press

GER­MAN AC­TIVISTS who sup­port the Paris cli­mate ac­cord demon­strate in Ber­lin on June 1.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.