Ontario Liberals, always looking to buy people's vote want to raise the minimum wage from $11.40 an hour to $15.
This, on top of new legislative RSP that all businesses must pay into will slash jobs, increase the cost of everything including rents (supply and demand) and will leave the people this is suppose to help worse off in the long run.
Yet people making minimum wage will only look at it as an extra $30 a day they make amd think it will be a great thing with their short sightedness. Hopefully not long enough to get this group of politicians who have been gouging Ontario tax payers for the last decade and a half reelected.
In addition to pulling out of the Paris Accord today, I'd like to point out something else. Today is the start of hurricane season. FEMA currently has no Administrator because Trump didn't put forth his nominee til the beginning of May.
Most of the hot air seems to be around Washington these days so maybe we'll be ok...
We might be fine (though give it a year or two and see what Scott Pruitt's EPA will mean for the Great Lakes). Your great-granchildren?? Probably not so much.....
In addition to pulling out of the Paris Accord today, I'd like to point out something else. Today is the start of hurricane season. FEMA currently has no Administrator because Trump didn't put forth his nominee til the beginning of May.
And we've already got Tropical Storm Beatrice in the East Pacific. Which technically started May 15th.
Tropical Storm Adrian is the earliest-forming East Pacific tropical storm ON RECORD since we've had satellite coverage of the globe (so about 50 years). In the Atlantic, Arlene formed in April, it's only the second one on record in April with the first being in 2003.
BTW, pretty much there's always a hurricane season somewhere in the world. In "winter", Africa and Australia have their "hurricane" season. The poor North Indian Ocean can see them them pretty much year round, but peak in May and November.
Trump's big line today: "I was elected to represent Pittsburgh, not Paris". Time for a fact check. Hillary Clinton won Pittsburgh 56-40%. 16 points. Another great stat?? Counties that voted for Clinton account for 2/3 of the GDP of this country.
If there is one slight sliver of joy in this, it's seeing responsible countries with adults running them that the great negotiator can f' off. They aren't intimidated by this man, they are laughing at him, and us, and stepping in to fill the role of global leader we are abandoning by the hour.
If the President has the authority to sign the United States onto the Paris Accord or withdraw from it at will then the person who steps into office in 2020 to replace Trump can easily reinstate our agreement to abide by the accord.
If the President has the authority to sign the United States onto the Paris Accord or withdraw from it at will then the person who steps into office in 2020 to replace Trump can easily reinstate our agreement to abide by the accord.
I'm not disagreeing with that, I'm stating that our world reputation is now completely shot to shit. Now, some people don't care, some people may even like it (not you specifically of course). But it IS true.
I'm not disagreeing with that, I'm stating that our world reputation is now completely shot to shit. Now, some people don't care, some people may even like it (not you specifically of course). But it IS true.
Agreed. The question "does a nation's reputation actually mean something?" is more of a philosophical question than a political one. At the personal level the answer is easy--no. Consider: I don't care whether my next-door neighbor likes me or not and the same is true for my neighbor behind me and the one across the street. However, I do not have existing defense and/or trade treaties with those neighbors like a nation does so the question becomes much more complex when considering a nation's reputation with its neighbors.
The problem with an agreement like the Paris Accord is precisely because it is an agreement and not a treaty--there is no way to *force* signatories into compliance. Because of this, it is easy for a nation to say "sure, I'll sign" because they know that signing costs them nothing and then non-compliance also costs them nothing. I guarantee that if the Accord had been a treaty with clauses to enforce compliance that many nations would not have been so eager to sign.
What was the Accord designed to do in the first place? Get nations to reduce emissions, right? Well...are the nations the ones doing the emitting or are the emissions coming from the corporations which exist in that nation? Given the propensity for corporations to buy politicians I really can't see anyone being able to enact legislation which the corporations might see as somehow negatively impacting their bottom line.
I'm not disagreeing with that, I'm stating that our world reputation is now completely shot to shit. Now, some people don't care, some people may even like it (not you specifically of course). But it IS true.
Agreed. The question "does a nation's reputation actually mean something?" is more of a philosophical question than a political one. At the personal level the answer is easy--no. Consider: I don't care whether my next-door neighbor likes me or not and the same is true for my neighbor behind me and the one across the street. However, I do not have existing defense and/or trade treaties with those neighbors like a nation does so the question becomes much more complex when considering a nation's reputation with its neighbors.
The problem with an agreement like the Paris Accord is precisely because it is an agreement and not a treaty--there is no way to *force* signatories into compliance. Because of this, it is easy for a nation to say "sure, I'll sign" because they know that signing costs them nothing and then non-compliance also costs them nothing. I guarantee that if the Accord had been a treaty with clauses to enforce compliance that many nations would not have been so eager to sign.
What was the Accord designed to do in the first place? Get nations to reduce emissions, right? Well...are the nations the ones doing the emitting or are the emissions coming from the corporations which exist in that nation? Given the propensity for corporations to buy politicians I really can't see anyone being able to enact legislation which the corporations might see as somehow negatively impacting their bottom line.
This stuff is now painfully, completely, obvious now that Trump is in charge. The US is not even paying lip service as being about anything except a government of the corporations.
There's no question as to whether we actually will do the right thing. We are seeing clearly now that with Trump, and all the Republicans happily lining up behind him and getting rich with corporate cash, that we will not.
Ontario Liberals, always looking to buy people's vote want to raise the minimum wage from $11.40 an hour to $15.
That is a popular policy everywhere in the continent. If doing things people want is "buying votes", then all political parties are constantly buying votes (which some would argue, of course).
It has also failed both to have as good results as leftists want, or as bad results as rightists predict, in the places it has already been implemented.
If this were true then no one would ever conduct studies on things.
No one has to abide by anything I say--I am not in charge of anyone here.
You were using the study to give an air of scientific fact to something that is not, in truth, known to be scientific fact. Lots of people do this, and I'm not accusing you of deliberately misleading. I've posted studies myself.
And yes, it is true, and yet people still conduct studies on things. That is how the scientific method works. Not by "proving" or "confirming" as the media (infamously scientifically illiterate) constantly trumpets, but by producing a particular data set that tests or advances a given hypothesis, which is then able to be compared or tested by other data sets.
When other scientific studies come out disputing results, people treat it as if it means scientists can't agree, or that one or both studies are "wrong", but conflicting data sets is exactly how the scientific method operates. Both (or more) sides inch closer to the truth, never finding it (because pure truths are a matter for mathematics and philosophy), but reaching ever closer with their studies that never prove or confirm anything. This method has brought us all the technology of the modern world, for all that it lacks the certainty you think is necessary.
One study, particularly in as problematic a field as human psychology or sociology, should never be used as the basis for anything - except further studies. That goes for your study just as much as it goes for the Stanford Prison Experiment (which is still commonly cited today despite being deeply flawed, unethical, and not actually proving anything).
This stuff is now painfully, completely, obvious now that Trump is in charge. The US is not even paying lip service as being about anything except a government of the corporations.
There's no question as to whether we actually will do the right thing. We are seeing clearly now that with Trump, and all the Republicans happily lining up behind him and getting rich with corporate cash, that we will not.
I have been noting for years (not here, of course, but on other boards) that we have been a corporatocracy (admittedly a made-up word, but designed to denote "government by corporation") for a long time. That Citizens United decision? Corporations are people and money is speech? I think not.
Some people think this move will galvanize Trump's supporters behind him and will assure him a second term. I disagree. Pulling out of the Paris Accord is going to motivate Trump's opponents *a lot* and I think he will lose badly in 2020, presuming he runs for a second term.
Merkel is even dumber than I thought. To even suggest turning your backs on your allies, after your own horrible decision making split the unity of the continent and put the EU into a very real existential crisis, is just insane.
I don't envy anyone who has to deal with a North Korea that's really a threat. Not that they couldn't be stopped, but the risk of many lives lost is very real. Honestly, I don't see a way of ending the North Korean regime without it.
And every day that state exists, more people get taken to concentration camps and get punished to 3 generations for minor infractions. Just an abysmal state of affairs. Truly the least free nation on earth.
In other news, truly insane events happened in congress. A fight broke out when Rep. Ramon Romero assaulted Rep. Matt Rinaldi because he called ICE on a group of illegal immigrants who were protesting. Several democrats had to be held back apparently.
Frankly, I would have done the same and called them.
What irks me most about this story is how NYT spun it so bad it became a blatant lie.
His words were "If he makes good on his threat to attack me at my car I would shoot him in self defense."
What was their headline?
"Texas lawmaker threatens to shoot colleague after reporting protesters to ICE"
Just a total disregard for the truth.
...and then Kathy Griffin holding the severed head of the president. I can only imagine the freak out and the accusations lobbed at trump supporters if news networks like Breitbart held Bernie or Hilary's severed head. Right wing terrorists this, dangerous neo nazis that. And they'd be racist either way.
All it does is confirm my existing opinion about the network.
...and then Kathy Griffin holding the severed head of the president. I can only imagine the freak out and the accusations lobbed at trump supporters if news networks like Breitbart held Bernie or Hilary's severed head. Right wing terrorists this, dangerous neo nazis that. And they'd be racist either way.
So there's an earlier post you might want to read.
Reminder with all this fake outrage over Kathy Griffin how Ted Nugent, who no one on the right has denounced that I've noticed. Here's some stuff he said and did:
“We need to ride into that battlefield and chop their heads off in November,” he said of the Obama administration in April 2012.
Two years later, during a hunting and outdoor trade show in Las Vegas in 2014, he called Obama a “communist-raised, communist-educated, communist-nurtured subhuman mongrel” and a “gangster” who weaseled his way into the presidency.
In a lengthy Facebook post last year, Nugent said Obama and Clinton should be tried for treason and hanged over their handling of the terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya.
I mentioned how it was wrong that Trump invited him (via Sarah Palin) to the White House and took photos with him. I didn't hear the same people complaining about Kathy Griffin chopping a fake Trump head off saying anything about the guy that called for chopping off Obama's head.
Anyway, as I said she's a C or D level celebrity seeking attention. She got it. Don't feed the troll.
But imagine if the next president, presumably a Democrat, invites her to the White House for a photo op. Wouldn't that be great? No it would be insulting and distasteful, just like how Trump was fine with Sarah Palin inviting Ted Nugent.
Stop trying to make what Kathy Griffin did about everyone on the left. It's not very helpful and is inaccurate.
I remember Ted Nugent, and their reaction to him validates my point. Painting all right wingers with his behavior is exactly what they did, what CNN themselves did. It's even the title of the article. I don't see where I went after the whole of the left, but I don't see why its not fair game to employ CNN's own thinking onto CNN.
I remember Ted Nugent, and their reaction to him validates my point. Painting all right wingers with his behavior is exactly what they did, what CNN themselves did. It's even the title of the article. I don't see where I went after the whole of the left, but I don't see why its not fair game to employ CNN's own thinking onto CNN.
You're missing the point there like missing the forest for the trees.
Among other things, Ted Nugent said he wanted to lynch Obama. At the time, where's anyone on the right saying Ted Nugent was wrong? Instead they've kept him around.
This just happened. As far as I see nobody is keeping Kathy Griffin around. Plenty of folks on the left have said Kathy Griffin was wrong here.
Instead Ted Nugent gets invited to the White House and not a peep is said from the right saying well maybe he shouldn't be there. Or maybe that's one pedophile too many in the White House.
Let's look into the future and pretend that the next President invited Kathy Griffin to the White House. I'm sure plenty on the left would be like that's not appropriate. CNN fired he as a correspondent straight away.
You guys on the right dropped the ball with Nugent now you are outraged, I say oh my, outraged about Kathy Griffin? Come on, we're not buying it. Nugent was playing a vocal, seemingly beloved, Trump supporter during the campaign. He wasn't getting fired from stuff. Or disavowed. Instead he gets invited to the White House and the President is like yeah cool.
"Obama, he's a piece of s---. I told him to suck on my machine gun. Hey Hillary," Nugent said. "You might want to ride one of these into the sunset, you worthless b----." - Ted Nugent
I may in the minority here but I have for a long time been a little suspicious of these 'climate agreements'. I have been concerned as to the focus of the type of things to do regarding climate change. I have also been a little concerned with energy as a National Security Issue, as well, as how it affects poorer folks here.
I would like to see more attention given to issue other than just CO2 emissions. Land use being a major factor. I believe we are already at a max CO2 saturation. Given, less would eventually allow this to readjust after a time but not unless we ease up on packing the surface down with reflective surfaces, less forests, and less of a heat island affect.
It does not mean we cannot make changes and still be climate friendly. I get concerned with nuclear plants that get extensions on operating lifespan. I lived right next to one in NC that I was always concerned about.
I think I can see how the Global South could see it is owed a climate debt to a certain extent.
Just my thoughts, without regard to anything politicians may say.
Merkel is even dumber than I thought. To even suggest turning your backs on your allies, after your own horrible decision making split the unity of the continent and put the EU into a very real existential crisis, is just insane.
I'm sorry, MERKEL is the one at fault here?? After Trump walks into the NATO Summit like the kid budging to the front of the lunchline (just brutish behavior literally pushing a fellow member out of the way), and treats one of the most vital post-WW2 alliances like it's a membership fee at Mar-a-Lago?? Merkel turned her back on no one, she is saying there is no way Germany or the rest of Europe can possibly trust a country led by this madman to honor any alliances or promises. As was proven in spades today.
Trump may not believe climate change is affected by human behavior, but his rationale for pulling out of the Paris Agreement still seems odd. His focus seems to be that this is the best way to protect and create jobs. Given that the rest of the world is unlikely to be convinced that coal is the fuel for the future, the number of jobs that could be created in that sector would seem to be limited. On the other hand, the number of jobs that could be lost in renewable industries is considerable (there are twice as many people in the US currently employed in solar alone as in coal).
Trump may not believe climate change is affected by human behavior, but his rationale for pulling out of the Paris Agreement still seems odd. His focus seems to be that this is the best way to protect and create jobs. Given that the rest of the world is unlikely to be convinced that coal is the fuel for the future, the number of jobs that could be created in that sector would seem to be limited. On the other hand, the number of jobs that could be lost in renewable industries is considerable (there are twice as many people in the US currently employed in solar alone as in coal).
The renewable resource jobs are subsidized though so direct comparisons are difficult...
Trump may not believe climate change is affected by human behavior, but his rationale for pulling out of the Paris Agreement still seems odd. His focus seems to be that this is the best way to protect and create jobs. Given that the rest of the world is unlikely to be convinced that coal is the fuel for the future, the number of jobs that could be created in that sector would seem to be limited. On the other hand, the number of jobs that could be lost in renewable industries is considerable (there are twice as many people in the US currently employed in solar alone as in coal).
The renewable resource jobs are subsidized though so direct comparisons are difficult...
Pretty sure oil and coal are heavily subsidized as well.
And the subsidies to the oil industry have been going on much longer. The government has poured far more money into fossil fuels than renewable resources.
Global elites and liberals didn't kill the coal industry. Natural gas did, and cheaper, cleaner forms of energy did. They also have the added benefit of not killing their employees slowly over the years. These jobs are NOT coming back. There is no future in coal. The rest of the world isn't interested, hell, WE aren't interested in it. To be relying long-term on coal for energy or a job in 2017 is a fool's errand. It's done. What Trump is doing is not much different than promising that, despite Redbox and Netflix taking over, he is going to bring back the jobs that were lost when Blockbuster and Hollywood Video went out of business. You know what?? I'm nostalgic for video stores too, but they aren't going to be making a comeback. Neither is coal or certain centers of manufacturing that have been made obsolete due to automation. But instead of facing these hard truths and investing in job training for these parts of Appalachia, Trump is making pie in the sky promises he can't fulfill, and pretending an agreement that even China and Saudi Arabia have gotten on board with is too much for the US to hold to. Nonsense. The current CEOs of Exxon and Shell are against pulling out of this. Most Fortune 500 companies are. You want to know why?? Because these companies have their own scientists, and whether they've let the public believe so or not, THEY are aware climate change is real, and have been for decades. And they know the future of energy and the planet doesn't go through the deadly mines of West Virginia and Kentucky.
Again, Trump mentioned representing "Pittsburgh, not Paris". It's just as stupid and poorly thought-out as everything he says. I watched an interview with the mayor of Pittsburgh tonight. He made it clear in no uncertain terms that their city is, in fact, one that had to reinvent itself in the wake of losing alot of manufacturing, and that hardly anyone pines for the days when pictures like the one @smeagolheart posted earlier were a daily situation. In fact, most Mayors of major cities in this country are vowing to stick with the agreement anyway. Because many of them were at Paris and part of this negotiation. Trump is nothing but a bull in a China shop. I firmly believe this move has nothing more to it than "Obama was at the forefront of it, therefore we have to kill it" as an appeal to his Bannonite base.
Now this is interesting. I was rereading the Paris Accord (remember I linked it last page) and towards the end we find this:
Article 28 1. At any time after three years from the date on which this Agreement has entered into force for a Party, that Party may withdraw from this Agreement by giving written notification to the Depositary. 2. Any such withdrawal shall take effect upon expiry of one year from the date of receipt by the Depositary of the notification of withdrawal, or on such later date as may be specified in the notification of withdrawal. 3. Any Party that withdraws from the Convention shall be considered as also having withdrawn from this Agreement.
The agreement went into force for the United States on 4 November 2016 so the earliest date we can withdraw is 4 November 2019 and the withdrawal itself will not take effect until 4 November 2020 (it may be a few days later, of course, depending upon when notice is actually delivered to the Depositary as noted in sentence 2). Election Day in 2020 is 3 November (the first Tuesday after 1 Nov; look it up for yourself) so our official withdrawal cannot take place until *after* the next Presidential election; until then the Agreement is in force and binding. Given that I project that Trump will lose the person who wins can likely renew our participation in the Agreement on 20 January 2021 as soon as the Chief Justice administers the Oath of Office. Problem solved.
In other words, don't make more out of "Trump pulled out" (I simply had to make that joke--couldn't help it) than there is to it. Trump most likely *wants* his opponents to freak out and make a big deal out of it--he likes the attention. My advice is not to give him the attention he wants. React to his decision to withdraw with shrugged shoulders and a half-hearted "meh, whatever". I suspect being treated as irrelevant will get on his nerves.
Comments
Ontario Liberals, always looking to buy people's vote want to raise the minimum wage from $11.40 an hour to $15.
This, on top of new legislative RSP that all businesses must pay into will slash jobs, increase the cost of everything including rents (supply and demand) and will leave the people this is suppose to help worse off in the long run.
Yet people making minimum wage will only look at it as an extra $30 a day they make amd think it will be a great thing with their short sightedness. Hopefully not long enough to get this group of politicians who have been gouging Ontario tax payers for the last decade and a half reelected.
Tropical Storm Adrian is the earliest-forming East Pacific tropical storm ON RECORD since we've had satellite coverage of the globe (so about 50 years). In the Atlantic, Arlene formed in April, it's only the second one on record in April with the first being in 2003.
BTW, pretty much there's always a hurricane season somewhere in the world. In "winter", Africa and Australia have their "hurricane" season. The poor North Indian Ocean can see them them pretty much year round, but peak in May and November.
If there is one slight sliver of joy in this, it's seeing responsible countries with adults running them that the great negotiator can f' off. They aren't intimidated by this man, they are laughing at him, and us, and stepping in to fill the role of global leader we are abandoning by the hour.
The problem with an agreement like the Paris Accord is precisely because it is an agreement and not a treaty--there is no way to *force* signatories into compliance. Because of this, it is easy for a nation to say "sure, I'll sign" because they know that signing costs them nothing and then non-compliance also costs them nothing. I guarantee that if the Accord had been a treaty with clauses to enforce compliance that many nations would not have been so eager to sign.
What was the Accord designed to do in the first place? Get nations to reduce emissions, right? Well...are the nations the ones doing the emitting or are the emissions coming from the corporations which exist in that nation? Given the propensity for corporations to buy politicians I really can't see anyone being able to enact legislation which the corporations might see as somehow negatively impacting their bottom line.
There's no question as to whether we actually will do the right thing. We are seeing clearly now that with Trump, and all the Republicans happily lining up behind him and getting rich with corporate cash, that we will not.
It has also failed both to have as good results as leftists want, or as bad results as rightists predict, in the places it has already been implemented.
And yes, it is true, and yet people still conduct studies on things. That is how the scientific method works. Not by "proving" or "confirming" as the media (infamously scientifically illiterate) constantly trumpets, but by producing a particular data set that tests or advances a given hypothesis, which is then able to be compared or tested by other data sets.
When other scientific studies come out disputing results, people treat it as if it means scientists can't agree, or that one or both studies are "wrong", but conflicting data sets is exactly how the scientific method operates. Both (or more) sides inch closer to the truth, never finding it (because pure truths are a matter for mathematics and philosophy), but reaching ever closer with their studies that never prove or confirm anything. This method has brought us all the technology of the modern world, for all that it lacks the certainty you think is necessary.
One study, particularly in as problematic a field as human psychology or sociology, should never be used as the basis for anything - except further studies. That goes for your study just as much as it goes for the Stanford Prison Experiment (which is still commonly cited today despite being deeply flawed, unethical, and not actually proving anything).
Some people think this move will galvanize Trump's supporters behind him and will assure him a second term. I disagree. Pulling out of the Paris Accord is going to motivate Trump's opponents *a lot* and I think he will lose badly in 2020, presuming he runs for a second term.
I don't envy anyone who has to deal with a North Korea that's really a threat. Not that they couldn't be stopped, but the risk of many lives lost is very real. Honestly, I don't see a way of ending the North Korean regime without it.
And every day that state exists, more people get taken to concentration camps and get punished to 3 generations for minor infractions. Just an abysmal state of affairs. Truly the least free nation on earth.
In other news, truly insane events happened in congress. A fight broke out when Rep. Ramon Romero assaulted Rep. Matt Rinaldi because he called ICE on a group of illegal immigrants who were protesting. Several democrats had to be held back apparently.
Frankly, I would have done the same and called them.
What irks me most about this story is how NYT spun it so bad it became a blatant lie.
His words were "If he makes good on his threat to attack me at my car I would shoot him in self defense."
What was their headline?
"Texas lawmaker threatens to shoot colleague after reporting protesters to ICE"
Just a total disregard for the truth.
...and then Kathy Griffin holding the severed head of the president. I can only imagine the freak out and the accusations lobbed at trump supporters if news networks like Breitbart held Bernie or Hilary's severed head. Right wing terrorists this, dangerous neo nazis that. And they'd be racist either way.
All it does is confirm my existing opinion about the network.
Here, I'll quote it for you: Stop trying to make what Kathy Griffin did about everyone on the left. It's not very helpful and is inaccurate.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/26/politics/ted-nugent/
Among other things, Ted Nugent said he wanted to lynch Obama. At the time, where's anyone on the right saying Ted Nugent was wrong? Instead they've kept him around.
This just happened. As far as I see nobody is keeping Kathy Griffin around. Plenty of folks on the left have said Kathy Griffin was wrong here.
Instead Ted Nugent gets invited to the White House and not a peep is said from the right saying well maybe he shouldn't be there. Or maybe that's one pedophile too many in the White House.
Let's look into the future and pretend that the next President invited Kathy Griffin to the White House. I'm sure plenty on the left would be like that's not appropriate. CNN fired he as a correspondent straight away.
You guys on the right dropped the ball with Nugent now you are outraged, I say oh my, outraged about Kathy Griffin? Come on, we're not buying it. Nugent was playing a vocal, seemingly beloved, Trump supporter during the campaign. He wasn't getting fired from stuff. Or disavowed. Instead he gets invited to the White House and the President is like yeah cool.
"Obama, he's a piece of s---. I told him to suck on my machine gun. Hey Hillary," Nugent said. "You might want to ride one of these into the sunset, you worthless b----."
- Ted Nugent
I would like to see more attention given to issue other than just CO2 emissions. Land use being a major factor. I believe we are already at a max CO2 saturation. Given, less would eventually allow this to readjust after a time but not unless we ease up on packing the surface down with reflective surfaces, less forests, and less of a heat island affect.
It does not mean we cannot make changes and still be climate friendly. I get concerned with nuclear plants that get extensions on operating lifespan. I lived right next to one in NC that I was always concerned about.
I think I can see how the Global South could see it is owed a climate debt to a certain extent.
Just my thoughts, without regard to anything politicians may say.
American before the EPA
And here's Pittsburgh (1975) that Trump wants.
Again, Trump mentioned representing "Pittsburgh, not Paris". It's just as stupid and poorly thought-out as everything he says. I watched an interview with the mayor of Pittsburgh tonight. He made it clear in no uncertain terms that their city is, in fact, one that had to reinvent itself in the wake of losing alot of manufacturing, and that hardly anyone pines for the days when pictures like the one @smeagolheart posted earlier were a daily situation. In fact, most Mayors of major cities in this country are vowing to stick with the agreement anyway. Because many of them were at Paris and part of this negotiation. Trump is nothing but a bull in a China shop. I firmly believe this move has nothing more to it than "Obama was at the forefront of it, therefore we have to kill it" as an appeal to his Bannonite base.
p.s. that picture is from the '40s not the '70s
Article 28
1. At any time after three years from the date on which this Agreement has entered into force for a Party, that Party
may withdraw from this Agreement by giving written notification to the Depositary.
2. Any such withdrawal shall take effect upon expiry of one year from the date of receipt by the Depositary of the
notification of withdrawal, or on such later date as may be specified in the notification of withdrawal.
3. Any Party that withdraws from the Convention shall be considered as also having withdrawn from this
Agreement.
The agreement went into force for the United States on 4 November 2016 so the earliest date we can withdraw is 4 November 2019 and the withdrawal itself will not take effect until 4 November 2020 (it may be a few days later, of course, depending upon when notice is actually delivered to the Depositary as noted in sentence 2). Election Day in 2020 is 3 November (the first Tuesday after 1 Nov; look it up for yourself) so our official withdrawal cannot take place until *after* the next Presidential election; until then the Agreement is in force and binding. Given that I project that Trump will lose the person who wins can likely renew our participation in the Agreement on 20 January 2021 as soon as the Chief Justice administers the Oath of Office. Problem solved.
In other words, don't make more out of "Trump pulled out" (I simply had to make that joke--couldn't help it) than there is to it. Trump most likely *wants* his opponents to freak out and make a big deal out of it--he likes the attention. My advice is not to give him the attention he wants. React to his decision to withdraw with shrugged shoulders and a half-hearted "meh, whatever". I suspect being treated as irrelevant will get on his nerves.