# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
People fly to the moon, they install equipment on Mars or distant planets, but no scientist was ever able to prevent a thunderstorm. How could one explain these unsettling light and thunder rumbles? Scientists know a bit of whatever it is that happens up there, but not everything, because thunderstorms are highly complicated.

# data[].attributes.body
- Read your allocated article.
- In a group with people who read the same article (someone will need to be scribe!): identify the key actors mentioned; identify the responses by the actors; describe any challenges to international cooperation; and explain the most interesting thing that the article tells us about international cooperation on environmental issues (use at least two quotes from the article to support your explanation).
- In groups of three, where each member has read a different article, report back about the findings of your article.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
It was unclear how, exactly, that submission to the United Nations would take place. Christiana Figueres, a former top United Nations climate official, said there was currently no formal mechanism for entities that were not countries to be full parties to the Paris accord.

Ms. Figueres, who described the Trump administration's decision to withdraw as a "vacuous political melodrama," said the American government was required to continue reporting its emissions to the United Nations because a formal withdrawal would not take place for several years.

But Ms. Figueres, the executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change until last year, said the Bloomberg group's submission could be included in future reports the United Nations compiled on the progress made by the signatories of the Paris deal.

There are 195 countries committed to reducing their greenhouse gas emissions as part of the 2015 agreement.

Still, producing what Mr. Bloomberg described as a "parallel" pledge would indicate that leadership in the fight against climate change in the United States had shifted from the federal government to lower levels of government, academia and industry.

Mr. Bloomberg, a United Nations envoy on climate, is a political independent who has been among the critics of Mr. Trump's climate and energy policies.

Mayors of cities including Los Angeles, Atlanta and Salt Lake City have signed on - along with Pittsburgh, which Mr. Trump mentioned in his speech announcing the withdrawal - as have Hewlett-Packard, Mars and dozens of other companies.

Eighty-two presidents and chancellors of universities including Emory & Henry College, Brandeis and Wesleyan are also participating, the organizers said.

Mr. Trump's plan to pull out of the Paris agreement was motivating more local and state governments, as well as businesses, to commit to the climate change fight, said Robert C. Orr, one of the architects of the 2015 Paris agreement as the United Nations secretary-general's lead climate adviser.

On Thursday, Gov. Jay Inslee of Washington, Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo of New York and Gov. Jerry Brown of California, all Democrats, said they were beginning a separate alliance of states committed to upholding the Paris accord.

"The electric jolt of the last 48 hours is accelerating this process that was already underway," said Mr. Orr, who is now dean of the School of Public Policy at the University of Maryland. "It's not just the volume of actors that is increasing, it's that they are starting to coordinate in a much more integral way."

Graphic: How Americans Think About Climate Change, in Six Maps

The United States is about halfway to its 2025 emissions reduction target, Mr. Orr said. Of the remaining reductions, the federal government - through regulations like gas mileage standards for vehicles - could affect about half.

But in a draft letter to António Guterres, the United Nations secretary-general, Mr. Bloomberg expressed confidence that "non-national actors" could achieve the 2025 goal alone.

"While the executive branch of the U.S. government speaks on behalf of our nation in matters of foreign affairs, it does not determine many aspects of whether and how the United States takes action on climate change," he wrote.

"The bulk of the decisions which drive U.S. climate action in the aggregate are made by cities, states, businesses, and civil society," he wrote. "Collectively, these actors remain committed to the Paris accord."

Cities and states can reduce emissions in many ways, including negotiating contracts with local utilities to supply greater amounts of renewable energy, building rapid transit programs and other infrastructure projects like improved wastewater treatment. Similarly, corporations can take measures like buying renewable energy for their offices and factories, or making sure their supply chains are climate-friendly.

Governor Inslee said that states held significant sway over emissions. Washington, for example, has adopted a cap on carbon pollution, has invested in growing clean energy jobs and subsidizes electric vehicle purchases and charging stations.

"Our states will move forward, even if the president wants to go backward," he said in a telephone interview.

America's biggest corporations have been bracing for the United States to exit from the Paris climate accord, a move executives and analysts say would bring few tangible benefits to businesses - but plenty of backlash.

Multinational companies will still need to follow ever-stricter emissions laws that other countries are adopting, no matter the location of their headquarters. Automakers like Ford Motor and General Motors would still need to build cars that meet stringent fuel economy and emissions standards in the European Union, Japan and even China, not to mention California.

American companies also face the wrath of overseas consumers for abandoning what has been a popular global agreement - customers who could buy more Renaults instead of Chevrolets or Reeboks instead of Nikes.

"Pulling out of Paris would be the worst thing for brand America since Abu Ghraib," said Nigel Purvis, a top environmental negotiator in the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations and the chief executive of Climate Advisers, a consulting firm.

" Mars stands by the Paris Climate Agreement," said Grant Reid, the chief executive of Mars. The company, best known for its candies, remained committed, he said, to achieving "the carbon reduction targets the planet needs."

Graphic: How 2016 Became Earth's Hottest Year on Record

It was unclear from Mr. Trump's announcement what commitments the United States would honor in the Paris accord, which include contributions to the operating budget of the accord's coordinating agency, the framework convention.

But Bloomberg Philanthropies, Mr. Bloomberg's charitable organization, is offering to donate $14 million over the next two years to help fund the budget should it be needed, a spokeswoman said. That figure represents the United States' share, she said.

Jackie Biskupski, the mayor of Salt Lake City and a Democrat, said her administration had recently brokered an agreement with the local utility to power the city with 100 percent renewable energy by 2032.

Global warming is having a significant impact in Utah, she said, especially on water availability and quality. "We feel very strongly that we have an obligation to make sure we keep moving in the right direction on this issue," she said.

"We really have to make choices that reflect our long-term goals, that really address long-term issues of today," she added.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
united nations framework convention on climate change

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Bucking Trump, These Cities, States and Companies Commit to Paris Accord

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
It was unclear how, exactly, that submission to the United Nations would take place. Christiana Figueres, a former top United Nations climate official, said there was currently no formal mechanism for entities that were not countries to be full parties to the Paris accord.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Over the weekend, a confusing back-and-forth between the White House and the Wall Street Journal briefly reignited hopes that the US would remain an active participant in the Paris Climate Agreement. Following a climate change conference in Montreal, which the US was not attending in an official capacity, European Commissioner for Climate Action and Energy Miguel Arias Cañete told the WSJ that "The US 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".

The WSJ interpreted this admittedly promising-sounding statement to mean "the US wouldn't pull out of the Paris Agreement", per the lede to the original article, which has now been heavily edited. On Sunday, US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson tossed additional fuel on the fire, when he said on CBS' "Face The Nation" that he thought the US could stay in the agreement "under the right conditions".

Our position on the Paris agreement has not changed. @POTUS has been clear, US withdrawing unless we get pro-America terms.

- Sarah Sanders (@PressSec) September 16, 2017

Of course, this is all just spin. The US is not rejoining the Paris Agreement.

Essentially, WSJ misinterpreted a regurgitation of the lie at the centre of Trump's June "Prexit" speech: That the Paris Agreement's terms were unfairly skewed against American business interests. The problem, both in the original WSJ report (which now reads far more sceptical about the White House rejoining the Paris Agreement) and re-blogs from other outlets, is that this line is so mendacious that even reporting it straight gives unearned credit to what's essentially a Fox News talking point.

Following publication of the original report, the White House fired back with a more candid take on its own intentions. Per the updated WSJ report:

"There has been no change in the US's position on the Paris agreement," said deputy press secretary Lindsay Walters. "As the president has made abundantly clear, the US is withdrawing unless we can re-enter on terms that are more favourable to our country."

Let's be clear: There are no mandatory terms for America's involvement in the Paris Agreement. The US sets its own emissions goals and there are no penalties if it fails those goals. Failure at this point seems inevitable, as the EPA continues to roll back key pillars of Obama's climate legacy, and even questions its own authority to regulate carbon.

It's all voluntary. How could the terms be any more favourable?

As a way of sidestepping a conversation on human-caused climate change, which both Trump and EPA head Scott Pruitt routinely deny, the Trump Administration argues the Paris Agreement doesn't put "America First", instead giving the country's rivals an unfair advantage. As they argue, the Paris Agreement puts an unfair burden on coal mines, who can't meet stringent carbon emissions requirements. Of course, the coal industry has been faltering for decades, largely due to automation and competition from natural gas.

The Trump administration has also argued China has weaker goals under the Paris Agreement, and that it doesn't have to hit those goals until 2030. This is also a lie: China has been aggressively pursuing its emissions reductions targets, with deep cuts to coal and steel manufacturing counterbalanced by heavy investments in wind and solar. Earlier this month, Bloomberg reported on the Chinese government's intention to eventually end the production and sale of fossil fuel-powered cars.

There's no evidence to support the notion that Trump will renege on his promise to pull out of the Paris Agreement, nor that he ever even knew what Paris was. Luckily, withdrawing from Paris is a four-year long process, while rejoining takes only 30 days. The effects of willful ignorance about the impacts of climate change, however, could last a lifetime.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Latest Magical Thinking About Trump And The Paris Agreement Is Totally Wrong

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Over the weekend, a confusing back-and-forth between the White House and the Wall Street Journal briefly reignited hopes that the US would remain an active participant in the Paris Climate Agreement.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A climate policy expert at The Australian National University (ANU) says the world would be better off if the US withdraws from the global climate agreement finalised in Paris last year.

The White House has said it is close to a decision on whether the US will remain in the Paris Agreement on climate change.

In a commentary published in Nature Climate Change, Dr Luke Kemp from the ANU Fenner School of Environment and Society said a rogue US can cause more damage inside rather than outside of the global agreement.

"Having the US remain under the Paris Agreement would reveal the weaknesses of the agreement, prevent new opportunities from emerging, and gift greater leverage to a recalcitrant administration," he said.

Dr Kemp said continued US membership in the global agreement on climate change would be symbolic and have no effect on US emissions.

"The Paris Agreement is procedural: it requires a new pledge every five years, but doesn't limit the actions of the US," he said.

"The US will likely miss its target and cut climate financing regardless of Paris."

There was little evidence to suggest that the US dropping out will trigger a domino effect, Dr Kemp said.

"Countries are more likely to withdraw or renege on their actions because the US misses its target, eliminates its financing and reveals how weak the Paris Agreement really is," he said.

"If the US remains under the agreement it will keep a veto in the negotiations. The US could use its voice and veto to water down the rules and details of the Paris Agreement, which are currently being negotiated. Giving the former head of ExxonMobil a seat at the table is a terrible idea."

Dr Kemp said pushing for the US to remain was short sighted.

"The international community should be more concerned about the actions of the US, rather than whether they are symbolically cooperating," he said.

"A withdrawal could trigger new opportunities to emerge, such as carbon border adjustments and forceful leadership from the EU and China."

Dr Kemp said trade measures and an EU-China climate bloc would be far more effective than the Paris Agreement ever could have been.

"While the Paris Agreement is fragile, international climate action can be anti-fragile: the shock of Trump could make action stronger by allowing trade measures and new, emboldened leadership to blossom," he said.

Dr Kemp will speak at an event titled, "Should the US leave the Paris Climate Agreement?", hosted by the ANU Climate Change Institute at 6pm Wednesday 24 May at Finkel Theatre in the John Curtin School of Medical Research, 131 Garran Road, ANU.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
World better off without US in global climate agreement - ANU expert

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A climate policy expert at The Australian National University (ANU) says the world would be better off if the US withdraws from the global climate agreement finalised in Paris last year.