So which is it?

Emre Peker / Wall Street Journal:
Trump Administration Won’t Withdraw from Paris Climate Deal  —  U.S. has stated it will ‘not renegotiate the Paris accord’ but will review its terms  —  NEW YORK—Trump administration officials said Saturday the U.S. wouldn’t pull out of the Paris Agreement, offering to re-engage …
Brandon Conradis / The Hill:
WH denies reports that Trump is softening stance on Paris climate deal  —  The White House on Saturday denied reports that the Trump administration is no longer seeking to withdraw from the Paris climate deal.  —  “There has been no change in the United States’ position on the Paris agreement.
Trevor Hughes / USA Today:
White House says no change in position on Paris climate agreement  —  The White House said Saturday it has not changed its position on the Paris climate accord and will withdraw from the agreement that President Trump has called unfair to the United States unless it can be re-negotiated.

#Trump #globalwarming #news #media #journalism #contradiction 

Some Meta notes prior to more in depth study ...
  1. This query really should be posted in group politics, or even in group unhackthebrain
    • unfortunately those groups are, imho,  hopelessly conflicted.
  2. This query has no partisan agenda. 
    • It is not pro or con Trump. 
    • It is not pro or con global warming.
  3. My agenda here is to discover ...
    • how this  contradictory story gets (got) told in contemporary America …
    • the effect of the contradiction on our political body, and ...
    • maybe discover practical proposals  about how it can be reconciled. 
  4. Personalities are important to consider here too – these are not just abstract disembodied stories which float up from some mystical dimension, but rather they are stories told by and about actual people.
  5. Contributions to this thought should stick to this topic and at least be complementary to my agenda as stated in 3 & 4 above.
  6. The study can progress in comments below ...


Fact#1 …

Europe’s top climate and energy official, Arias Cañete, told the Journal Trump administration officials stated the policy shift during a 30-nation, minister-level meeting in Montreal Saturday and that instead of withdrawing from the 2016 accord, the White House said it would reengage with the global pact aimed at combating climate change. “The U.S. has stated that they will not renegotiate the Paris accord, but they will try to review the terms on which they could be engaged under this agreement,” European Commissioner for Climate Action and Energy Miguel Arias Cañete told the Journal.


Fact #2 …

Sara Sanders, the White House press secretary, seems to contradict what was  said in the minister-level meeting in Montreal on Saturday.

More background reported  …

The Paris Agreement is not legally binding, and there is no enforcement mechanism. That is why environmental groups warned earlier this year that staying in Paris “in name only” would not be the win people might think. But, as my colleague Rebecca Leber noted in May, it would still be preferable to leaving entirely “if only because it would be easier to pick up the pieces in four years if Trump isn’t reelected.”

Even if the U.S. remained, the Trump administration would not have had to do anything if they didn’t want to. “Since Paris is voluntary, there’s no concrete reason for Trump to pull out or to stay in,” Kevin Drum wrote in May. “The United States can do whatever it wants either way. The whole thing is about signaling,”

There was a lot of blowback from the international community when Trump announced he was pulling us out of Paris. Maybe they finally realized that they can weaken it without having China bring it up in every meeting by just staying in?

Mother Jones


So in a way there is no direct contradiction … 

“withdrawing unless we get pro-American terms” 

apparently is the same stance as
“try to review the terms on which they could be engaged under this agreement”.


More speculation here …

Our thought bubble: Nobody has really taken this "renegotiation" idea especially seriously. Why people are surprised today is that it wasn’t believed the administration was serious about really engaging on this at all. It is still a very big question how genuine their efforts are, but today’s news represents the next stage regarding what Trump already said in June he was willing to do. He said the U.S. is going to withdraw unless it can get a better deal.

Bottom line: The basic question here is whether the U.S. might be cracking the door open slightly to a more serious willingness to stay in with a softened commitment.

Go deeper: What we’ve written before about the Trump administration’s climate outreach.



the specific terms that are “unfavorable” to the US are reported to be  …

up to $3 billion in aid for poorer countries by 2020


My analysis as of my current reading …

There is no contradiction. 

The administration is trying to avoid paying other countries $3 billion dollars.


Yep! #CBG – but for a #boondoggie ? why?

p.s. I like the name Emre Pecker

mark is assuming that the money would not be well spent
and would not have the effect desired. 


Now that story might happen …
or it might not happen.

don’t forget that: ...
all reasonable stories of the future can happen
tag #underdetermine.

That last little thesis of mine,  tag #underdetermine,  is, me thinks:
quite a thesis to absorb
Please to not argue about it !
rather maybe try to understand it.

I don’t care about it  
    Why you spread your                         story                              all over
   maybe your 
                             is                                                                                            broken! 


Conversation forked to thought 24484

I guess #CBG turned to just Garbabe.null