Jump to content
Thailand Visa Forum by Thai Visa | The Nation
webfact

Exclusive - U.S. envoys told to be coy on re-engaging in Paris climate deal: cable

Recommended Posts

Exclusive - U.S. envoys told to be coy on re-engaging in Paris climate deal: cable

By Yeganeh Torbati and Valerie Volcovici

 

tag-reuters.jpg

FILE PHOTO: U.S. President Donald Trump holds up an executive order on "Energy Independence," eliminating Obama-era climate change regulations, during a signing ceremony at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) headquarters in Washington, U.S., March 28, 2017. REUTERS/Carlos Barria/File Photo

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. diplomats should sidestep questions from foreign governments on what it would take for the Trump administration to re-engage in the global Paris climate agreement, according to a diplomatic cable seen by Reuters.

 

The cable, sent by U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson to embassies on Friday, also said diplomats should make clear the United States wants to help other countries use fossil fuels.

 

In the wake of President Donald Trump's announcement in June that the United States would withdraw from the accord, the cable tells diplomats to expect foreign government representatives to ask questions like: "Does the United States have a climate change policy?" and "Is the administration advocating the use of fossil fuels over renewable energy?"

 

If asked, for example, "What is the process for consideration of re-engagement in the Paris Agreement?", the answer should be vague: "We are considering a number of factors. I do not have any information to share on the nature or timing of the process," the cable advises.

 

A U.S. State Department official declined to comment on the cable.

 

Trump, a Republican, had campaigned on a promise to "cancel" the Paris deal, saying he believed it would cost the U.S. economy trillions of dollars while leaving developing nations such as China unfettered. In a sharp difference with the previous administration of President Barack Obama, a Democrat, Trump has several times called climate change a hoax.

 

In June, Trump left the door open to re-engagement if terms improved. The United States will "start to negotiate, and we will see if we can make a deal that's fair," he said.

 

The State Department guidance clarifies that right now, "there are no plans to seek to re-negotiate or amend the text of the Paris Agreement." But it adds: "The President is sincere in his commitment to look for a path to re-engage that takes into account his concerns for U.S. economic growth and energy security."

 

The Paris accord, agreed by nearly 200 countries in 2015, seeks to limit planetary warming by curbing global emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases that scientists believe drive global warming. The United States, under the Obama administration, had promised to cut emissions as much as 28 percent from 2005 levels by 2025.

 

Separate from the diplomatic cable, the Trump administration is reviewing a draft report written by scientists across 13 federal government agencies that shows the effects of climate change pose dire, near-term threats to the United States.

 

The Environmental Protection Agency declined to comment on the draft, which The New York Times published on Monday.

 

The report puts the White House in the awkward position of either clearing the report's findings or editing them.

 

"CLEAN AND EFFICIENT FOSSIL FUELS"

 

The diplomatic guidance makes clear that the United States intends to attend global climate summits during the prolonged process of withdrawing from the Paris deal to protect U.S. interests. The next summit is in November.

 

A U.S. official said a major priority in these talks would be to beat back attempts to have separate standards in the guidance on emissions cuts for rich and poor nations - long a sticking point in negotiations.

 

"There's certainly nothing in the policies of this administration that would make us think that we should be acting differently," the official said on condition of anonymity to discuss the internal memo.

 

The cable also anticipates questions over why the United States has changed its policy to make it easier for global development banks such as the World Bank to finance coal-fired power projects. In 2013 the Obama administration said the United States would oppose most coal projects, guidance since altered by the Trump administration.

 

"The new principles will allow the (United States) the flexibility to approve, as appropriate, a broad range of power projects, including the generation of power using clean and efficient fossil fuels and renewable energy," the cable said.

 

(Reporting by Yeganeh Torbati and Valerie Volcovici; Editing by Rich Valdmanis and Leslie Adler)

 
reuters_logo.jpg
-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-08-09

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Force coal users to clean up emissions of hazardous materials (solid, liquid, or vapor) such as dust or smoke particles, ash, mercury, arsenic, or carbon dioxide and to securely dispose of these waste materials for thousands of years, or tax them the equivalent amount.  Suddenly the cost of coal would become clear to the world and its use would cease overnight.

 

 

Edited by HarrySeaman
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

And the nightmare toupee begins.....over and over again

Edited by smileydude

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Troll post and reply removed.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good for Trump! It is about time America lets the rest of t he world save itself without the USA getting involved. 

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Science deniers, and common sense deniers (same same) shouldn't read the following article.  It's too much science and truth for them to stomach.  Better for them to just sit in their air-conditioned cocoons, and stay steadfast in their myopic allegiance to guru Trump.

 

npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/08/10/542720189/2016-hit-records-for-global-temperature-and-climate-extremes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/08/2017 at 10:23 AM, boomerangutang said:

Science deniers, and common sense deniers (same same) shouldn't read the following article.  It's too much science and truth for them to stomach.  Better for them to just sit in their air-conditioned cocoons, and stay steadfast in their myopic allegiance to guru Trump.

 

npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/08/10/542720189/2016-hit-records-for-global-temperature-and-climate-extremes

I have a question that I can't find the answer to.  Maybe you can help.

 

Why does NOAA take this data;

 

map-land-sfc-mntp-201706-t.gif

 

 

Combine it with this data;

 

201706.gif

 

 

Then remove nearly all of the Blue coloured parts, and change it into this which is released to the public?

 

map-percentile-mntp-201706-t.gif

 

 

Honest question because I cannot find out why they always remove nearly all of the cold temperatures (including in the middle of the ocean) and replace them with above average temperatures.  There were regions in the first graphic which were -2°C which were manipulated into very above average Red temperatures.

 

Why Is that?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, KunMatt said:

I have a question that I can't find the answer to.  Maybe you can help.

 

Why does NOAA take this data;

 

map-land-sfc-mntp-201706-t.gif

 

 

Combine it with this data;

 

201706.gif

 

 

Then remove nearly all of the Blue coloured parts, and change it into this which is released to the public?

 

map-percentile-mntp-201706-t.gif

 

 

Honest question because I cannot find out why they always remove nearly all of the cold temperatures (including in the middle of the ocean) and replace them with above average temperatures.  There were regions in the first graphic which were -2°C which were manipulated into very above average Red temperatures.

 

Why Is that?

Of course it's not an honest question. You're just being disingenuous. You must have gotten this from some anthropogenic climage change denial website and are posting it here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Of course it's not an honest question. You're just being disingenuous. You must have gotten this from some anthropogenic climage change denial website and are posting it here.

 

No, I got it from NOAA.

 

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/global-maps/

 

What's up with the personal attacks?  Why can we never ever discuss this without personally attacking people who are asking questions?

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, KunMatt said:

 

No, I got it from NOAA.

 

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/global-maps/

 

What's up with the personal attacks?  Why can we never ever discuss this without personally attacking people who are asking questions?

Well here's a link to an explanation. I can't say that I understand it yet, but it's clearly not about distorting data.

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/dyk/global-mntp-percentiles

EDIT: It seems to me that the percentile map refers to a much longer time period. Dating back as far as 130 years. 

It just seems odd to me that you didn't do a search for "difference between temperature anomaly and temperature percentile". 

 

Edited by ilostmypassword

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, KunMatt said:

 

No, I got it from NOAA.

 

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/global-maps/

 

What's up with the personal attacks?  Why can we never ever discuss this without personally attacking people who are asking questions?

Yeah sure. Amazingly, astoundingly I did a search for fake NOAA maps and I found this:

https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/37119/did-noaa-publish-a-fake-map-with-temperature-data-it-doesnt-have/37147

As I suspected, more anthropogenic climate change denial BS.

 

Edited by ilostmypassword

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Well here's a link to an explanation. I can't say that I understand it yet, but it's clearly not about distorting data.

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/dyk/global-mntp-percentiles

 

Apology accepted!

 

Isn't it strange how this new method was only recently introduced to fulfil a need in 2012?

 

And it is exactly distorting the data.  It has changed a region with more than a -2°C temperature average and manipulated the whole country into an above average temperature.  

 

Most of Africa appears to have no recorded data and it is modelled to be all above average temperatures dispute there being a couple of actual recording devices in Algeria and Nigeria which both read well below average temperatures.  All of this was manipulated away by this modelling system and the 2 real below average readings have both disappeared and the rest of central Africa, which agaon has no recording devices, has been modelled to be totalled above average which is probably incorrect.

 

Do you think those last 2 graphics represent the same data and what is reality?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, ilostmypassword said:

Yeah sure. Amazingly, astoundingly I did a search for fake NOAA maps and I found this:

https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/37119/did-noaa-publish-a-fake-map-with-temperature-data-it-doesnt-have/37147

As I suspected, more climate denial BS.

 

I gave you the link to NOAA's website which has those graphics.

 

If you look at the code of my first post I used the http code from NOAA's site.

 

You owe me yet another apology.

 

And again I find it strange that you are trying so hard to attack the source of the data instead of discussing the actual data.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

BANGKOK 17 October 2017 13:08
Sponsors
×