Sometimes I wonder if the authors of these articles sit back and read what they’ve just written. From the BBC:
Concerns over a Trump presidency are set to dominate the early days of global climate talks in Morocco.
Some 20,000 participants will meet in Marrakech for two weeks, starting on Monday, to agree new rules to limit warming on the planet.
Signed by 193 countries in the French capital last December, the Paris Agreement is now international law, having been ratified by at least 55 countries representing over 55% of global emissions.
20,000 participants from 193 countries? That’s over 100 delegates per country. Are you sure they’re coming to reach an agreement?
Earlier this year Mr Trump said he would “cancel” the Paris agreement if elected. The deal was “bad for US business” and would allow “foreign bureaucrats control over how much energy we use”, he said.
Trump is probably as clueless on climate change as everything else, but you don’t need to know a damned thing about science to see that 20,000 people turning up in Marrakech doesn’t have much to do with mitigating the effects of climate change.
Concern over the rise of Mr Trump helped galvanise the global push to bring the Paris agreement into force. Now that it is operational and binding on countries, taking the US out of the deal would not be easy.
Trump’s support is made up largely of those who are utterly fed up of unaccountable, corrupt elites running things for their own benefit and to the detriment of the common man. Stuff like this is hardly going to persuade them they’re mistaken.
However Mr Trump, who calls climate change a “hoax”, has vowed to cancel the deal if elected.
“The Paris agreement prohibits any exit for a period of three years, plus a year-long notice period, so there will be four stable years,” said Segolene Royal, the French environment minister who played a role in negotiating the treaty.
These lot haven’t quite got the measure of Trump yet, have they?
While Mr Trump would not be able to withdraw easily from Paris, his scepticism about climate science and his determination to revive the coal industry put him at odds with most international leaders.
“Electing a climate science conspiracy theorist like Trump would make America a global laughing stock and embarrassment, all the while relinquishing our leadership role in the world,” said Khalid Potts from US environmental group, the Sierra Club.
“The ice caps don’t negotiate, and neither do rising seas. Donald Trump’s moral failure to acknowledge the climate crisis might very well mean planetary disaster if he is elected.”
Damned electorate. They get in the way of everything, don’t they?
One issue that could see sparks fly is the question of loss and damage. The question of compensation for the long term impacts of climate change is one of the most contentious as poor countries see it as a moral obligation of the rich, while the developed world is extremely wary of establishing a legal liability for the damage caused by their greenhouse gas emissions.
Would the USA – and by extension its taxpayers – be among those with a “moral obligation” to cough up under this agreement, then? Good job they’ve been locked in and have no choice in the matter then, eh?
The most amusing thing about this is the BBC probably thinks Americans will read this and be persuaded not to vote for Trump.