[We have repeated here (on this site) enough that the Paris Agreement is only a declaration of intentions. But it is a declaration of intent which at least has the advantage - it is the only one - of setting a goal: "stay well below 2 ° C, and continue efforts not to exceed 1.5 ° C ". National contributions to this goal put us on the path of a 3 to 4 ° C warming by the end of the century. But doing nothing could push up the mercury to 6 ° C. Now, doing nothing is precisely what the United States has just decided. Trump is trying to make Americans believe that its decision has no ecological consequences for them, but it implies a difference well over 0.2 ° C! ... In any case, the violence of Trump's words leaves little credibility to this idea of renegotiating (the Agreement). In addition to the "emerging" and "developing" countries, the White House troll has taken direct action to its European partners: "Those who ask the US to remain in the agreement are countries Which are costly to the US by their commercial practices and do not contribute to the military alliance. " Merkel is the target. The towel burns really between Washington and Berlin. In any case, let us remember that, for Trump, the profits of the US bosses and the militaristic policy of defending their interests pass before the rescue of the climate of the Earth. ... Precisely because he is weak, Trump chose to satisfy his base - represented in his team by Bannon, Pence, Pruitt, Session and some others. Mike Pence - who introduced his speech - and Scott Pruitt - who commented on it - both insisted heavily on this aspect: the President did what he said. (Pruitt, who really looks like a master-shopper of his master's pumps) added to it in populism, speaking of the "working class", and greeting Trump as "the champion of the forgotten of this country"!).
(The emphatic denunciation of capitalism, in the comment reproduced below, in the subject context, regardless of the fact that despite repeated hiccups its end is just nowhere in sight, is of course par for the course. What, however, is extremely noteworthy is the penetrating analysis of Trump's speech delivered on the ocassion - in defence of the indefensible. Unravelling of the various constituent components (of Trump's response). What is reproduced below is a google translation - option available on-site, from the original in French. Not too bad. - Sukla)] Climate: Trump plays its national-populist vault. What did you expect? June 2, 2017 by Daniel Tanuro The United States denounced the Paris climate agreement, canceled all the measures decided by the United States under this agreement and withdrew from the Green Fund for Climate. These are the major decisions that Donald Trump finally announced, Thursday, June 1, after a long suspense. These decisions are in line with the promises made by the new President during his election campaign. In the past few months, some observers had wanted to believe that Trump would play another music, but it was not. On the contrary, his speech in the Garden of the Roses of the White House sprang from a disturbing nationalist and populist demagogy. What did you expect? As advertised ... Victimization and nationalism For Trump, the Paris accord was nothing but a scandalous dupe market imposed on the USA. "The Paris agreement does not deal with climate ," he said, " it deals with the financial advantage that other countries get compared to the United States. The rest of the world applauded when we signed the agreement. They were happy, for the simple reason that we suffer from a very great economic disadvantage. " Drawing an apocalyptic picture of the implications of the deal, the president said it would lead to the loss of 2.7 million jobs, cost US $ 3 trillion to US citizens, Purchase up to $ 7,000 / year. He added the figures of the reductions in activity that would affect the industrial sectors: "-86% in the coal sector" , he said ... omitting of course to mention that solar already gives employment to 800,000 US workers (against 67,000 in coal) and creates more jobs than the coal industry loses. For Trump, it is simple, there is a conspiracy: the poor Americans, too honest, are victim of an enormous injustice hurled by an evil machination of all the other countries. The denunciation of the agreement is therefore an elementary surge of sovereignty and national dignity: "The heads of state of Europe and China should not have more to say about the policy of the United States than the American citizens . We do not want to be the laughingstock of the world. We will not be. " Populist and security demagogy Recounting the tone of his electoral meetings, Trump pushed hard and throughout his discourse on social demagogy. As if the goal of its billionaire government was to give decent employment and a decent income to workers in Detroit and Pittsburgh, as if the Paris agreement were to take the money and jobs of the American workers for the Distribute to others. "The Paris agreement is unfair to the US. It blocks the development of clean coal (in the United States). China can build hundreds of coal-fired power plants, India can double its coal production, even Europe can build coal-fired power plants. " "We have sufficient energy reserves to get out of poverty all US citizens, a mine will reopen in Pennsylvania, " he said; But, because of the Paris agreement , "millions of American families will remain in poverty" . The axis of this propaganda is employment. For Trump, as a good capitalist, employment obviously depends on growth: renewables could suffice for soft growth, he says, but not on the assumption of 3 to 4% growth. This is what Trump is alluring with its slogan "Make America great again": an America that creates jobs by building walls and making weapons. " For that, we need all the energies, not just renewables," he said. "Otherwise, there will be a huge risk of power cuts for millions of families." As much as to do in the populist demagogy, let us go as much as possible by invoking the fight against terrorism. Trump did not deprive himself of it: "A billion dollars has already been paid to the Green Fund for the climate by the US, including with money that was destined to the fight against terrorism - not by me, by My predecessor, "he said. Not far from a call to hatred Trump does not have to do with the principle of differentiated responsibilities - which is at the heart of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change - and the fact that the United States remains in the lead of the countries that emit the most Greenhouse gas emissions per capita - far ahead of China, India and Brazil. In the Paris agreement , "China can continue to do what it wants for 13 years, (while) India is taking part in The agreement on condition of receiving billions of aid ". Speaking of the Green Fund for Climate (decided at the Cancun COP to help Southern countries in transition and adaptation), the President was not afraid to say that the Fund was intended to "seize Of the wealth of the USA to redistribute it to the developing countries " . He added: "We have 20,000 billion of debt, millions of unemployed workers, cities do not have money to hire the police. This money should be invested here, not sent to countries that have seized our factories and our jobs. " We are not far from a call to hate, there. An imperialist hatred, to divert the anger of US workers from US bosses who have relocated their production to low-wage countries ... and Trump's policy, A difference of 0.2 ° C? On the climate itself, the tenant of the White House did not say much. Let us note however this extraordinary peremptory affirmation: " the Paris agreement would only make a difference of 0.2 ° C ". What is the deadline? In relation to which baseline ? Mystery. We have repeated here enough that the Paris Agreement is only a declaration of intentions. But it is a declaration of intent which at least has the advantage - it is the only one - of setting a goal: "stay well below 2 ° C, and continue efforts not to exceed 1.5 ° C ". National contributions to this goal put us on the path of a 3 to 4 ° C warming by the end of the century. But doing nothing could push up the mercury to 6 ° C. Now, doing nothing is precisely what the United States has just decided. Trump is trying to make Americans believe that its decision has no ecological consequences for them, but it implies a difference well over 0.2 ° C! Renegotiate? My eye… At the same time that he repeated tirelessly his denunciation of the agreement reached at COP21, Trump declared that he was ready to negotiate the re-accession of the United States to this text, or to negotiate an "entirely new" Provided that it does not harm America and its citizens. He does not believe what he says. What is the consistency of this proposal, coming from an individual who claims that climate change is a hoax created by the Chinese to harm the US economy? In any case, the violence of Trump's words leaves little credibility to this idea of renegotiating. In addition to the "emerging" and "developing" countries, the White House troll has taken direct action to its European partners: "Those who ask the US to remain in the agreement are countries Which are costly to the US by their commercial practices and do not contribute to the military alliance. " Merkel is the target. The towel burns really between Washington and Berlin. In any case, let us remember that, for Trump, the profits of the US bosses and the militaristic policy of defending their interests pass before the rescue of the climate of the Earth. How do we interpret that? An analysis is necessary at several levels, and it will be necessary to return to this: this is only a first reaction in hot. The leak ahead of an injured troll In terms of US domestic policy, the denunciation of the agreement gives the impression of a leap forward of Trump to try to get out of an increasingly precarious situation, where more and more voices Are heard in favor of an impeachment procedure. Trump was faced with a tough choice. If it remained in the agreement, it "standardized" (a little) as "responsible" President, responded positively to the majority wishes of the business community (including ExxonMobil and other energy groups!) And reassured the " (Mostly convinced and concerned about the reality of climate change). But if he "standardized", he would turn his back on his militant, populist and reactionary base and lose an important asset among the Republican Party's elected officials, who are far from supporting him unanimously, but are in the majority climato -négationnistes. Precisely because he is weak, Trump chose to satisfy his base - represented in his team by Bannon, Pence, Pruitt, Session and some others. Mike Pence - who introduced his speech - and Scott Pruitt - who commented on it - both insisted heavily on this aspect: the President did what he said. (Pruitt, who really looks like a master-shopper of his master's pumps) added to it in populism, speaking of the "working class", and greeting Trump as " the champion of the forgotten of this country "!). This choice in favor of its base was probably the least possible for Trump, in the short term. But in the medium term, by refocusing on its national-populist core business, the President could bring closer the moment when the dominant circles of big capital and their political representatives decide to get rid of him and Bannon, his soul damned Alt -Right . More will be learned in the coming days, including the hearing of former FBI chairman Comey at the Senate Intelligence Commission. Measuring Climate Impact In terms of climate impact, US withdrawal is serious, but should not be dramatized. The substance of the case, in fact, is that the Paris agreement absolutely does not allow to avoid the catastrophe. This does not mean that its denunciation by Trump is irrelevant, it means Trump's nuisance capacity must be appreciated to its right extent ... It is not to fall in support for the Paris agreement and Its European, Chinese, or other supporters, who take the good part cheaply as they contribute cheerfully to the climate catastrophe. Infographic showing the impact of the fact that the US is joining Nicaragua and Syria, the only two countries that have not ratified the Paris agreement US emissions account for 10% of global emissions. Decided under Obama, the United States' national contribution (NDC) aimed to reduce them by 26 to 28% in 2025, compared to 2005. This represents an effort hardly greater than that which the USA should have achieved at the latest In 2012 (compared to 1990), had they ratified Kyoto. Moreover, the measures taken by Obama covered the target only 83%. That's not all. This effort was in fact not one: it corresponded almost entirely to the "spontaneous" reduction of emissions stemming from the fact that American energy groups disinvested coal to the benefit of shale gas - which was at the same time less polluting And cheaper - and renewable. Trump's removal of the clean power plan and other Obama measures is more serious than denouncing the deal, but will not stop the capital movement. Danger of geostrategic skidding It is at the geostrategic level that the essential seems to be playing out. Trump's climate communication confirms that a disturbing gear is on the move. The crisis between the European Union and the US is sharpening, and the tone is rising between the competitors. A vast realignment of imperialist forces, including the break-up of NATO, EU reform / militarization, and China-EU rapprochement is no longer quite a science fiction scenario. The dominant circles of large international capital do not want this scenario but, as we noted in our article on " The Place of Trumpism in History" , certain elements make the situation evade the control of the protagonists. One of these elements is obviously Trump's own policy. Here, it must be stressed that this policy is not simply and mechanically dictated by the bourgeoisie (hundreds of leaders of big US companies have urged Trump to remain in the deal, including leaders of the energy sector) Nor even by any sector of the capitalist class. On the contrary, there is a dual relative autonomy, which is particularly evident in the contexts of political crisis: the autonomy of the political sphere in relation to the economic sphere, and the individual (Trump with his close guard) Bourgeois political sphere as a whole. In other words, Trump's leap forward on climate - because he is weakened by the investigation of his ties with Russia - could extend into other areas, including military. This could then have the most serious consequences ... and reduce ipso facto the fight for the climate to the Xth rank of the preoccupations. For all the protagonists, even when the emergency is really maximum. What to do ? What to say ? This is not the time to go wrong ... Obviously, it is necessary to denounce Trump's policy, but to demand that the USA remain in the Paris agreement makes little sense. Negotiating concessions to stay there would be unacceptable. Instead of isolating Trump, he will encourage the struggles of social movements in the United States against his policy and prevent him from spreading his climatic-negationist nonsense in the aftermath of climate negotiations. The emission reduction targets of governments that are indignant at the US withdrawal must be drastically increased to fill this gap but also to close the gap between the target of 1.5 ° C maximum and the contributions Of those States, on the other. They must be in social justice and North-South justice, which implies radical anti-capitalist measures instead of "polluting rights" and other "market mechanisms". No support should be given to the Paris agreement, no support for the China-European Union axis. What the Trump case ultimately proves is that a response to the climatic challenge is not possible by respecting the laws of capitalist growth / profit capitalism and a neo-liberal policy that Sows unemployment, poverty and inequality. The defense of the climate requires the struggle of social movements and the convergence of struggles. It is about reviving a global movement for climate justice, in solidarity with the social movements in the United States. Enough of sleight-of-hand and half measures: unconditional respect for the commitments of the Green Fund for Climate; Halt to major fossil infrastructure works; Suppression of unnecessary, harmful (weapons!) Productions, and programmed obsolescence; Socialization of energy, credit and water; Support for local ecological agriculture and food sovereignty; Drastic reduction of working time without loss of pay; Development of the public sector under the control of users in the areas of transport and insulation-renovation ... Only demands of this kind open up a solution to the urgency and gravity of the double social and ecological crisis. June 1, 2017 -- Peace Is Doable -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Green Youth Movement" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send an email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
