At his April 29 Harrisburg, PA rally (starting at13:09) President Trump made one of his strongest statements yet on the Paris climate (non)treaty.
“Our government rushed to join international agreements where the United States pays the cost and bears the burdens, while other countries get the benefits and pay nothing,” the President said. “This includes deals like the one-sided Paris climate accord, where the United States pays billions of dollars, while China, Russia and India have contributed and will contribute nothing.
“On top of all of that, it’s estimated that full compliance with the agreement could ultimately shrink America’s GDP by $2.5 trillion dollars over a ten-year period. That means factories and plants closing all over our country. Not with me folks! I’ll be making a big decision on the Paris accord over the next two weeks, and we will see what happens.”
After months of White House and Administration discussions and battles over what to do about this anti-fossil fuel, anti-people, anti-US, wealth-redistributionist agreement, there is hope that President Trump will do what Candidate Trump had promised: Bring the United States back from the brink of disaster.
Colleagues and I have previously suggested two options that would quickly nullify what President Obama unilaterally tried to do during his final months in office, as well as any international justification for EPA and other regulations, such as the Clean Power Plan and social cost of carbon charade.
(1) Send the proposed Paris treaty to the US Senate, as required by the Constitution for any international agreement that significantly affects the United States and its citizens. This accord arguably affects us more than the vast majority of agreements that have indeed been treated as treaties and presented to the Senate under its advice and consent duties.
(2) Withdraw from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the grandfather of the Paris treaty. We are well beyond the period during which withdrawal was not permitted, and pulling out of the UNFCCC would terminate any US obligations under the convention, the Obama Paris treaty and all other climate-related agreements.
Here’s why we should do that – and why President Trump should stick to his newly rediscovered guns.
It is increasingly obvious from what has been happening in the USA, Europe, Canada, Australia and elsewhere that climate and renewable energy policies kill millions of jobs and send millions of families into green energy poverty. It is equally obvious that virtually all developing nations signed the Paris treaty solely to share in hundreds of billions of dollars in expected (and demanded) “climate change adaptation, mitigation and reparation” money – and because they are not obligated to reduce their fossil fuel use or greenhouse gas emissions.
That means the United States would be obligated to de-carbonize, de-industrialize, and reduce its growth, job creation and living standards – while sending hundreds of billions of dollars to ruling elites in developing countries that will continue emitting greenhouse gases.
And that means there will be no global climate or environmental benefits even if those gases have somehow replaced the powerful solar and other natural forces that have driven climate change throughout Earth and human history. Atmospheric greenhouse gases will continue to climb, even if the United States shuts down every home, factory, power plant, vehicle, hospital and other carbon-based fuel user.
(For those who still believe in greenhouse gas-driven climate change, we would even be ending our use of cheap, reliable natural gas – the fuel that has allowed the United States to be virtually the only nation in the world to have steadily reduced its CO2/GHG emissions the past five years.)
Rejecting Paris would make the United States a true global leader – by disavowing and walking away from a treaty that was signed by President Obama but, in violation of the Constitution, never presented to the Senate, despite the hugely harmful impacts it would have on this nation. It would also mean this new President, and this new United States would lead from the front, instead of from behind.
Finally, it would awaken the rest of the world and validate their own inclinations to send this ill-conceived, one-sided, destructive, anti-humanity treaty to the ash heap of history, where it belongs.