Trump Paris Meta-Decision

[Final-Fan]

robzo100 said:

- Source1 (Vox: Four Things to Know...)

- Source2 (Slate: trump thinks we spend billions...)

- Source3 (NPR: So what exactly is in...)

Source1 states "richer countries, like the US, are supposed to send $100 billion a year in aid by 2020 to the poorer countries" misleading us to think this is specifically a US-goal. Source2 is misleading on the grammatical plurality/joke of 6 billion while also saying the 3 billion pledge "...isn’t even an annual contribution" making no distinction between that and the 2020-annual "project." Source3 explains that the 100-Billion goal "...is identified as a 'floor,' not a ceiling" which is quite misleading and/or confusing when all sources stress the casual non-abiding nature of the agreement despite meaningless addendums like this. Also, they don't mention who is on the "list of developed nations" that will be supporting developing nations. With such huge GDP differences in nations, surely a similar breakdown of expected contributions would ensue, but we are left in the dark.

In summary, between 3 articles, there are not enough specifics when it comes to being clear on how and why pre-2020 payments differ from post-2020 payments, how it relates to the reflection on countries GDP(relevant due to outliers like the US, and outliers in the other direction, but who is on this list anyways?), how this "floor," applies to the agreement in general, and no specific breakdown of how this 100-Billion objective is going to be achieved. Part of the criticism is in fact aimed at the casual nature of the deal which may inherently cause these problems in reporting.

My arguments, as they relate to individual efforts overlapping collective ones(rather than being cumulative), the science not being what people have been led to believe(and the nature of science itself), and Trump having an important meta-game of power at stake still stand regardless.

1.  I agree that the story doesn't explicitly say that it's a collective goal, not a goal for each individual country, but as you yourself pointed out earlier*, a reasonably educated reader can guess that it's not $100 billion per year from each of many countries.  The grammar of the passage does not support the interpretation that it could be a US-only goal and that other countries have other individual goals.  ("richer countries, like the US, are supposed to send $100 billion a year in aid by 2020")

* You:  "I don't see how countries whose GDP's are only a fraction of the US's would pay the same 100 Billion"

2.  I just totally disagree that the story was ambiguously written on that point.  Even after knowing that you managed to misread it, I think readers can reasonably be expected to interpret it correctly. 

3.  I agree with you that the individual story doesn't make it clear that the agreement is non-binding in the sense that there really aren't any penalties for failing the targets.  On the one hand, this has been said many times in other stories, but on the other hand a story titled "What exactly is in it" ought to mention something like that!  However, the "floor not ceiling" idea simply means "at least this much", that is, the goal is not meant to put the brakes on donations if that much and more actually starts coming in.  Lastly, contrary to your expectations, I would be quite surprised if they have put together anything as formal or specific as you mention for the breakdown of who is expected to give what. 

To me, it's plain that the only real difference between "pre-2020" and "post-2020" is that the donations are supposed to be ramping up.  Countries are not expected to go from nothing to $100 billion (collectively) the day the ink dries on this agreement.  By 2020 the hope is that (at least) that amount will be flowing in (but not limited to that amount, therefore "not a ceiling"). 
___
Regarding the other points: 
4.  Meta-game of power:  Totally disagree with you here.  Firstly, Trump has showed the world pretty clearly that he runs things differently from his predecessors on a personal level already.  Secondly, it's not a good idea to trash international agreements just to prove what a rebel you are:  you should act on the merits.  And he already quit the TPP!  How many international agreements does he have to pull out of before he's a rebel?  Quit NATO?  The United Nations? 

5.  Individual vs. collective effort:  You already discussed this with palou.  In the end, I don't think you ever came up with a counter to his argument that individual actions would NOT be likely to solve the problem due to the incentives to behave otherwise; whereas the sum total of individuals might collectively agree to a structured effort that they would not spontaneously do as individuals.  It seemed to me that you just basically dropped the debate. 

My argument would be that the societal environment can be tilted so that individuals are not disincentivized (or not as much) from individual efforts.  Whereas the sort of scenario he painted, which I believe would be an example of "the tragedy of the commons", might well obtain absent such collective activity.  It is important to note that the state is not the only possible solution to this sort of conundrum; a society can create norms that reinforce behavior that is beneficial for everyone.  But it cannot be solved by looking purely at the individual level.  That is exactly the problem in this case.  And in the case of humans messing up the environment, I think it is evident that "society influencing individual behavior" has not yet solved the problem and expecting it to suddenly do so now with no state-level encouragement is, I hope you'll agree, just fantasizing. 

6.  "science not being what people have been led to believe(and the nature of science itself)":  Wow, after you throw that parenthesis in there, I really think this would take up its own thread.  I'm all for a good debate, but maybe we should save this one for later, or choose this one and leave the others for later (if ever!)?