【 Quora 】:美国为何退出巴黎气候协定？ [美国媒体]

Why did the US withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement?

美国为何退出巴黎气候协定？





1，The major reason is that under the agreement developed nations are asked to PAY, which Trump does not like. In his opinion this makes it a ‘bad deal’ for America.
The COP21 agreement requires developed nations to help fast growing countries like India embrace alternative sources of energy, and use them to fulfill their growing energy demand instead of relying on cheap fossil fuel.
Trump’s pullout rekindles a contentious debate on whether high-growth emerging economies should cut emissions as much as developing economies, who have long exploited cheap fossil fuel for decades 。
Trump pulls out of Paris climate deal: Fact-check on his statements & why US exit won’t hurt India
Trump pulls out of Paris climate deal: Fact-check on his statements & why US exit won’t hurt India
For example this is what he said in his speech: "The Green Fund would likely obligate the United States to commit potentially tens of billions of dollars, of which the United States has already handed over $1 billion. Nobody else is even close."
The Paris accord is non-binding, which means no country is OBLIGATED under the deal to do anything, in simple terms. Hence, I assume that he is under the wrong impression of what the deal was all about.
2. He is a skeptic of man-made climate change.
3. He thinks that the Paris deal is not tough on developing nations.
4. To cut its own emissions, America has no choice but to put restrictions on its coal industry, which it did under Obama. Now, Trump thinks that by lifting restrictions, he can create tons of mining jobs.

1，主要原因是根据协议，发达国家被要求付费，这是特朗普不喜欢的。他认为这对美国来说是一个“坏事”。
第21届联合国气候变化大会协议要求发达国家，去帮助像印度这样的快速发展中的国家去使用新能源，以此来满足日益增长的能源需求，而不是依靠廉价的化石燃料。
特朗普的撤离又引发了一场有争议的争论：高增长的新兴经济体是否应该像发达国家那样减排，这些发达国家曾经几十年来一直利用廉价的化石燃料。

特朗普退出巴黎气候协议：他的声明经过了事实检验，为什么美国的退出不会伤害印度。
例如他在演讲中说：“绿色基金可能会使美国承担数百亿美元的开销，其中美国已经交出了10亿美元，其他人还分文未付。
巴黎协定没有约束力，这意味着没有国家根据协议做出相应事情，简单来说，因此，他认为协议的内容是错误的。
2，他怀疑是否是人为的改变了气候。
3，他认为巴黎的协议对发展中国家来说不够强硬
4，为了减少自身的排放，美国别无选择，只能在奥巴马的煤炭工业上加以限制。现在，特朗普认为，通过解除限制，他可以创造大量的矿业工作。

------------

Because it would do nothing
“”Climatologist Patrick Michaels says despite the presidential hype, the international climate change agreement, which goes into effect on November 4th, “doesn’t really do anything” to reduce global warming.
"The truth is that the Paris Climate Accord doesn't really do anything," Michaels, director of the Cato Institute’s Center for the Study of Science, said of the international agreement, which attempts to prevent average global temperatures from rising more than two degrees Celsius by 2100 by drastically reducing the carbon dioxide emissions of its 191 signatory nations.
“If you take a hard look at the numbers, if every nation did what they said they will do, and they won’t, it would reduce warming between now and the year 2100 by between 0.1 and 0.2 degrees C[elsius]. That is an amount that is too small to measure,” Michaels told CNS News.
“I think it’s quite remarkable that people go around clapping each on the back and congratulating each other when they know that they didn’t agree to do very much at all,” he noted.
Michaels pointed out that even if all the pledges to reduce CO2 emissions are kept, the agreement would have a negligble effect on global warming.””

因为它并不起什么作用。
“气候学家帕特里克·迈克尔斯（Patrick Michaels）说，尽管总统大肆宣传，11月4日生效的国际气候变化协议”对减少全球变暖并没什么用“。
卡托研究所科学研究中心主任迈克尔斯说：“事实上，巴黎气候协议并没有做任何事情，该协议用大幅降低其191个签署国的二氧化碳排放量的方式，试图阻止2100年的全球平均气温上升超过两度，
“如果你认真看待这些数字，如果每个国家都做了他们所说的，他们可能做，也可能不做，现在和2100年之间的变暖将会减少0.1到0.2摄氏度（埃尔西乌斯）。这个数字太小，无法衡量，“迈克尔斯告诉中新社记者。
他说：“我认为，当人们知道他们自己没法做得很好时，他们四处鼓掌，互相祝贺，这是相当了不起的。”
迈克尔指出，即使所有的减少二氧化碳排放的承诺都被保留下来，这个协议也会对全球变暖产生微不足道的影响。“”

------------

We all want clean air, until somebody else pays for it.
According to Trump, the Paris agreement was one sided. USA had to bear the brunt of reducing carbon footprint and other nations (especially developing ones) reaped the benefits of the same as they had certain prerogatives in the policy to their credit.
Under this agreement developing nations such as China, India, Brazil and South Africa along with other third world countries were actually free riders on the money of US taxpayers.
According to Trump, China had an excess advantage of increasing emissions for a period of 13 years but not USA.
India made its participation contingent that it will only comply when it receives billions of dollars in foreign aid to finance clean energy.
India had another perk of doubling its coal production by 2020 whereas USA wasn’t allowed to do anything as such.
However, according to a article by Huffington Post [Source:President Trump, India Never Said Its Participation In Paris Climate Deal Was 'Contingent' On 'Billions' In Aid]
Most of the Trump’s claims are incorrect.

我们都想要干净的空气，直到有人为此付钱。
据特朗普说，巴黎协议是片面的。美国不得不首当其冲地减少碳排放，其他国家（特别是发展中国家）可以从中受益，因为它们在政策上有一定的特权。
根据这一协议，中国，印度，巴西和南非等发展中国家以及其他第三世界国家，实际上是在美国纳税人的钱来搭便车。
根据特朗普的说法，中国在13年的时间里增加了排放量，而美国并没有。
印度的参与特点是，只有在接受数十亿美元的外援来资助清洁能源情况下，印度才会遵守协议。
到2020年，印度再次将煤炭产量提高一倍，而美国也没法这样做。
然而，根据赫芬顿邮报的一篇文章[来源：特朗普总统，印度从来没有说过参与巴黎气候协议是'取决于是否有'''十亿'援助]
特朗普的大部分宣称是不正确的。

MY VIEWPOINT
Climate change is a problem, and we mustaccept it.
Strongest warrior wields the first sword.Hence USA must stick its neck out even when other countries cannot afford/riskto do so. Somebody has to hold the lantern to lead. Leadership means fightingclimate change together not doing away with commitment.
Countries like India and China might havecertain perks over USA, it is because USA can easily afford to address theproblem given its edge in economy and technology.
Hence I do not agree with Trump’s decisionto forsake USA’s commitment to reduce pollution because somehow he thinks thatit is unfair to America (which in fact is completely myopic to long termbenefit of a cleaner planet).

我的观点是
气候变化是一个问题，我们必须接受。
最强的战士带头挥舞第一把剑。 因此，即使其他国家承担不起冒险，美国也必须坚持。 总要有人要提起灯笼引导大家。 领导权意味着共同应对气候变化，而不是放弃承诺。
像印度和中国这样的国家可能在美国获得一定的好处，而美国在经济和技术方面的优势可以轻而易举地解决这个问题。
因此，我不同意特朗普放弃美国减少污染承诺决定，因为这对美国是不公平的（实际上，这一个清洁的地球符合人们长远的利益）。

------------

It is impossible to address this question without leaving one’s emotions behind.
This could be difficult… but it is best.
The whole issue of climate change has been charged with emotions… to the extent that it is likely that some people will not want to read my answer, because I’m clearly not going to go with the anti-climate change lobby, nor the pro climate change lobby.
Sorry.
Evidently, emotions are a very useful political tool… to be used as and when necessary; but at times they can be put aside for financial gain (and thereby create new emotions).
I wrote an answer as to the logic behind Trumps decision:
What logical reasons could the United States have had for leaving the Paris agreement? What, if any, are the benefits of leaving?
In brief, this outlined the countering scientific arguments within the scientific community.
These disagreements exist at the very highest levels within the field of meteorology and climatology.
Typically the high ranking scientists simply dismiss the methods of climatologists as non-scientific, to the point of it being fraudulent representation of their data.

如果不摆脱情绪，就不可能解决这个问题。
这可能是很困难，但这是最好的选择。
面对气候变化问题都是情绪化的表现，一些人可能不想读我的答案，因为我显然不会去对抗气候变化游说团体，也不是亲临气候变化大厅。
抱歉。
显然，情感是一个非常有用的政治工具...在必要时可以使用;但有时他们可以放在一边以获得经济收益（从而创造新的情绪）。
我写了一个关于川普决定背后的逻辑：
美国离开巴黎协议有什么合理的理由呢？如果有的话，离开的好处是什么？
简而言之，这概述了科学界关于此的科学论证的争论。
这些问题存在于气象学和气候学领域的最高层的分歧。
通常情况下，高级科学家只是将气候学家的方法视为非科学的方法，以至于说它们的数据的欺骗性表示。

As laymen, or interested humans, we can only listen to both sides of the argument.
Rather this than listen to regurgitated statements by people who really should stick to their day jobs.
What we learn, is that there is no consensus of views (amongst scientists)
In fact it was the very ‘statement of existing consensus’ that drove a stake through the heart of the climate debate.
It shocked the scientific community to the core… and reinforced ‘position taking’.
… and the very fact that the pro ‘human cause’ faction had minimal hard evidence (due to their field being predictions)… the public support plummeted from what was a solid base.
This created open opportunity for politicians.
As laymen themselves, they could call upon any number of top scientists from either faction, and legitimately choose to follow one or the other.
To quote a great climate change statement:
“This is an inconvenient truth”.
The politician can then choose according to other factors
Sure… the people will be divided - the supporters of ‘climatologists’ vs the supporters of ‘hard science’.

作为外行，或感兴趣的人们，我们只能听取双方的论点。
而不是听那些不好好工作的人的令人反胃的话。
我们所知道的是，在科学家们之间没有一致的意见，
事实上，这正是“现有共识”的声明，是通过气候辩论的核心来推动利益的。
它使科学界震惊了......并强化了“立场”。
......事实上，“人为因素”派系有很少的确凿证据（由于他们的领域是预言）...公众的支持从牢固的基础上下降了。
但这为政治家创造了新的机会。
作为外行本身，他们可以要求任何一个派系的顶尖科学家，并合法地选择遵循这一个或另一个。
引用一个伟大的气候变化声明：
“这是一个麻烦的事实”。
政治家可以根据其他因素做出选择
当然......人民将被分裂 为- “气候学家”的支持者与“硬科学”的支持者。

But that is understood political territory: Democrat vs Republican, Labour vs Conservative.
Trump won on a manifesto that included ditching the climate change stance.
With the support of the scientific community… telling him about global greening, steady rise in sea temperature, and the normality of climate change… it was a much easier decision for him to make.
Sure, he could have preferred the climatologists argument, but this was anyway contrary to his original manifesto pledge (so it was less likely).
The international problem?
So the US goes against international opinion.
… there are teams of people that can calculate the hard impact of this.
The reality is that differing policy is segmented.
Eg. We support human rights, but we continue to trade with abusers of human rights.
Nobody is going to say “oh Trumpy baby… we are not going to trade with you now because you have started to mine coal again”.
It’s just not gonna happen.
There will be a lot of bluster, but that’s all.
Hence the reason why the US withdrew
The ‘all out’ public opinion for man made climate change has shrunk, with the drop-outs becoming ‘maybe, but what about us now’… or downright against the argument.
No impact upon trading relations.

但这也被理解为政治领土的划分：民主党与共和党，劳工与保守派。
特朗普赢得了宣言，包括放弃气候变化的立场。
在科学界的支持下......告诉他全球暖化，海水温度稳步上升，气候变化属于正常......这对他来说是一个更容易的决定。
当然，他本可以选择气候学家的说法，但是这与他原来的宣言承诺是相悖的（所以不太可能）。
国际问题是什么呢？
所以美国对抗了国际舆论。
有很多人可以想这个的影响严重。
现实是，不同的政策处理起来是不同的。
例如。我们支持人权，但我们继续与侵犯人权的人进行贸易。
没有人会说“哦，川普宝贝...我们现在不会和你交易，因为你已经开始再次开采煤炭了”。
这不会发生。
会有很多的吹嘘，但不过如此。
所以美国之所以退出
人类造成气候变化的“全部”公众舆论已经缩水，随着它的衰落，世界“也许，现在”......就彻底反对这个论点。
对贸易关系没有什么影响。

------------

Hii Ramesh ,There are a number of aspects of the climate deal that run counter to the president's worldview.
One, Trump does not accept the dominant scientific consensus on climate change and has a penchant for conspiracy theories that cast experts like researchers, doctors, or government agencies in the role of villain. He has repeatedly tweeted and said in campaign speeches that climate change is a hoax
and even suggested that China — another frequent Trump target — was behind the plot. Trump later said the accusation was a joke, but he has said he doesn't believe China will follow through on its promises to reduce their use of fossil fuels.
Two, Trump is a skeptic of international agreements and institutions in general, which he often complains tie America down with obligations that don't provide enough concrete benefits in return. In addition to the Paris Agreement, Trump has rattled allies by criticizing trade agreements and military alliances.
Three, Trump is not a fan of the regulations and spending that the previous administration proposed to meet its goals, which he warns will reduce economic growth. He appointed a prominent climate skeptic to run the Environmental Protection Agency, Scott Pruitt, and is rolling back the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan, which was set to reduce power usage by coal plants in favor of cleaner forms of energy. Trump campaigned on reviving the coal industry and has expressed displeasure with some forms of renewable energy, especially wind.

Hi Ramesh，气候贸易的某些方面与总统的世界观背道而驰。
一，特朗普不接受气候变化方面的主流科学共识，并偏爱阴谋理论，这些阴谋理论认为专家如研究人员，医生或政府机构担任恶棍角色。他多次发表推特，并在竞选演讲中表示，气候变化就是一个骗局
甚至还暗示中国 - 另一个频繁的特朗普攻击目标 - 是其背后的阴谋者。特朗普后来表示，这些指责只是开玩笑，他还表示，他不相信中国将遵循减少使用化石燃料的承诺。
二，特朗普是一个普遍的国际协议和机构的怀疑者，他经常抱怨把美国放在一个没有足够的实际利益的地位上。除“巴黎协定”外，特朗普还抨击盟国，批评贸易协定和军事同盟。
三，特朗普不是上一届政府提出的目标法规和支出的粉丝，他警告说，这会降低经济增长。他任命了一位知名气候怀疑者科特·普鲁特（Scott Pruitt），来管理环境保护署斯，并且正在推翻奥巴马政府的“清洁电力计划”，该计划旨在降低煤电厂的用电量，转而采用更清洁的能源形式。特朗普竞选宣称之一就是振兴煤炭行业，并对一些可再生能源特别是风能表示不满。

------------

Because it violated the basic byword of his whole credo: America first.
If you did a word map of the speech, I am sure that two of the dominant worlds would be dollars and sovereignty; those are precisely the things this president values more than anything else. The Paris Climate Accord was going to cost America money; Donald Trump wants us to spend most of our money on three things: bigger bombs, protecting our border, and homeland security in general. He does not want to spend a dime protecting the environment.
Here’s the real reason: Trump’s primary motivation is to get even with Barack Obama for the bad things that president once said about The Donald. That means he is intent on reversing, repealing, replacing, and denigrating everything Barack Obama did during his two term presidency. I sometimes get the impression that this matters more to Trump than actually getting a second term in office.
This malignant narcissist who is soon celebrating his 71st birthday is not going to support anything that benefits people other than himself. We already knew that.

因为这违背了他的整个信条的基本原则：美国第一。
如果你看了他演讲的内容，我相信两个主导世界将是美元和主权;这正是这位总统比什么都重视的东西。巴黎气候协议将耗费美国资金;唐纳德·特朗普希望我们把大部分的钱花在三件事上：更大的炸弹，保护我们的边界，以及国土安全。他并不想花一分钱来保护环境。
这是真正的原因：特朗普的主要动机，是巴拉克·奥巴马（Barack Obama）争夺总统曾经对唐纳德说过的坏话。这意味着他打算扭转，废除，取代和诋毁巴拉克·奥巴马在两任总统期间所做的一切。我有时会觉得这对特朗普更重要，而不是实际上获得第二个任期。
这个即将庆祝他71岁生日，这个恶心自恋者不会支持任何有利于他人的东西。我们已经知道了。

------------

Technically​ he hasn't pulled out yet, but the premise is that he will.
With that being said if he does pull out, the MAJORITY of the entire world, including the USA thinks it is not the correct action. Most major oil companies agree that the USA should stay in should speak volumes to everyone for a variety of reasons.
I personally think if the USA does pull out it is a very short sighted policy that MAY have some very short term economic prosperity for a very limited time, but on the flip side it will most definitely leave the USA very far behind in integrating the new technology that is being developed worldwide. We as a country should be LEADING the race to this technology instead of being in last place which is where will end up.
As to China, they are slated to be 50% renewable energy by 2050, which to my mind makes the China hoax conspiracy highly suspect.

事实上他还没有退出，但预测他是会的。
如果这样做的话，那么整个世界，包括美国在内的多数人都认为这是不正确的行动。 大多数大型石油公司都认为，美国应该留下来。许多人都有为此说话，出于各种原因。
我个人认为，如果美国确实撤出，这是一个非常短暂的政策，可能会在一个非常有限的时间内有一个非常短暂的经济繁荣，但另一方面说，新技术肯定会离开美国在全球范围内发展。 我们一个国家应该是这项技术的竞赛处于领先，而不是落后。
至于中国，到2050年，可再生能源将在中国能源比例为50％，这让我高度怀疑，这是中国的戏弄的阴谋。