Is Paris pointless?
Re “Paris accord relies on faulty logic,” Opinion, June 4
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
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
GERMAN ACTIVISTS who support the Paris climate accord demonstrate in Berlin on June 1.