Trump Paris Meta-Decision

[Final-Fan]

robzo100 said:

Final-Fan said: Where is the $100 billion coming from?  Is it like 2.5-4 billion per year over the whole expected lifetime of the Paris Agreement?  $100 billion over 30 years is chump change to the USA, and even more chump change compared to the impact of rising sea levels on premium coastal real estate (and entire coastal cities).  

Projects related to reducing global cimate change can't really be called "extraneous" to nations that exist on this planet IMO.  I believe all the signatories to the Paris Agreement do. 

I wish they had just called it the Pittsburgh Agreement, and then Trump would have stayed in. 

• "So as part of the Paris agreement, richer countries, like the US, are supposed to send $100 billion a year in aid by 2020 to the poorer countries. And that amount is set to increase over time. Again, like the other provisions of the agreement, this isn’t an absolute mandate.

From here: 4 Things to Know About the Agreement

I'm not irked by any means, this is how you find out about facts you didn't know, knew partially, had wrong, whathaveyou. Not that that will swing your opinion, but the financial aspect isn't a small deal, especially in the context of the US 2017 Budget:

Climate change that affects the planet negatively is not "extraneous" in and of itself. But the fact remains we are currently not scientifically sure how negatively impactful it is, how much of that impact can be changed by human activity(and at what cost), and how much is actually affected by humans versus other processes. I've not seen anyone be able to dispute the plainess of that, not only here, but in general(public, friends, family, other online forums, etc.).

Okay, you're right, it's $100 billion a year by 2020.  No, you're wrong, it's not $100 billion a year from the USA.  It's, from what I now understand, a goal of $100 billion a year collectively from many of the developed world signatories.  For instance, as of a recent story by the Washington Post, the U.S. had pledged about 3 of about 10 billion dollars worth to the green fund, of which we have actually paid one billion.  And I doubt we would end up paying 30% of the ramped-up pledges even under a pro-Paris-Agreement administration; we have every right to call on others to put in as well.  If this information I got is bogus, please do let me know. 

I think it's fair to say that we don't have one hundred percent certainty of exactly to what degree humanity has affected the environment to cause the current warming and how much impact the warming will have.  But I also think it's very wrong to say that we have no idea how much humanity has done so nor how bad it will be.  There's a broad scientific consensus, evolving on the details but pretty clear on the general picture being painted.  Warming climate, rising seas, less ice, more extreme weather, etc.  How much and how fast is water expected to rise?  They can tell you a probable range, but not nail it down to a certainty.  Is it enough to act on?  I think so. 

I'm curious what you meant by "scientifically sure".