Exiting The Paris Climate Accord

by Dr. Jack Sternberg, Contributing Author: How can I not say something about President Trump’s decision to pull out of the Paris Climate Agreement? The article below says most of what I would want to say but I will start with a few of my own observations (nothing particularly unique: just other thoughts that I have had).

First, let me start by saying that I do believe the earth is warming but I do think that there is legitimate disagreement over how much and to what degree.

But as soon as I say that, I want to add that I’m not at all sure how much is man-made and how much is just another warmer/colder cycle that the earth has been experiencing for thousands of years having nothing or little to do with mankind or the byproducts of civilization. These cycles could be caused by increased solar activity, increase volcanic activity, etc. (National Geographic News – February 28, 2007 - Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent climate changes have a natural—and not a human-induced cause – i.e. - The Sun’s activity which affects both planets).

This “Accord” should have been presented to the U.S Senate for ratification as a Treaty, which it wasn’t, and the U.S should not be held responsible for President Obama’s personal signing of this “Accord” on his own. It should not be legally binding on the United States. If there are any legal penalties, Obama should pay them, since it was his personal deal. Trump was right to refuse to comply with Obama’s accord. But maybe the smartest move would have been for him to say he was going to allow the Senate to vote on it as a treaty thereby following the law surrounding a treaty’s passage.

I really like the fact that America has already reduced its carbon dioxide emissions by 18% having nothing to do with the Paris Accord. Good old-fashioned American ingenuity and marketplace factors have been responsible (increased use of natural gas because of fracking, which has made natural gas abundant and cost effective, increasing hybrid and electric cars, increased efficiency of air conditioners and lighting, etc.).

Some states and private companies have said they will move for more stringent rules concerning emissions now that the Paris Accord is no longer. That’s great!! It should be a State By State issue. And if a company wants to voluntarily go “Green or Greener,” God Bless them. But the government should not impose onerous regulations on businesses that destroy their productivity and profit, especially when it will do little overall to worldwide CO2 emissions.

And finally, why should we, a country with a $20 trillion dollar national debt, pay $100 billion dollars yearly to other countries when other countries (i.e. – China – with a national surplus) pays nothing and has until 2030, along with India, to begin complying with the accord. Oh, and let’s not forget that there is no legal enforcement rules if a country doesn’t comply. I love that President Trump refuses to let us be treated as a sucker.
4 Reasons Trump Was Right to Pull Out of the Paris Agreement
by Nicolas Loris and Katie Tubb:   President Donald Trump’s decision to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris climate agreement has unleashed a predictable firestorm of criticism. But it was the right move.

The Paris agreement, which committed the U.S. to drastically reducing greenhouse gas emissions, was a truly bad deal—bad for American taxpayers, American energy companies, and every American who depends on affordable, reliable energy. Here are four reasons Trump was right to withdraw:

1. The Paris Agreement is highly costly and would do close to nothing to address climate change. If carried out, the energy regulations agreed to in Paris by the Obama administration would destroy hundreds of thousands of jobs, harm American manufacturing, and destroy $2.5 trillion in gross domestic product by the year 2035.

Even if every country met its commitments—a big if, considering China has already underreported its carbon dioxide emissions and there are no repercussions for failing to meet the pledges—the changes in the Earth’s temperature would be almost undetectable.

2. In negotiations leading up to the Paris conference, participants created the Green Climate Fund, designed to collect $100 billion per year by 2020. The goal of this fund is to subsidize green energy and pay for other climate adaptation and mitigation programs in poorer nations. It was also created to get buy-in (literally) from poorer nations for the final Paris Agreement.

Some of the nations that will receive these government-funded climate programs have in the past been among the most corrupt, meaning corrupt governments will collect the funds, not those who actually need it. No amount of transparency negotiated in the Paris Agreement is going to change this.

3. The media is making a big to-do about the fact that the only countries not participating in Paris besides the U.S. are Syria and Nicaragua. That doesn’t change the fact that it’s still a bad deal. Misery loves company, including North Korea and Iran, who are signatories of the deal.

Some have argued that it is an embarrassment for the U.S. to cede leadership on global warming to countries like China. But to draw a moral equivalency between the U.S. and China on this issue is absurd.
China has serious air-quality issues (not from carbon dioxide), and Beijing has repeatedly falsified its coal-consumption and air-monitoring data, even as it participated in the Paris Agreement. There is no environmental comparison between the U.S. and China.

4. Some proponents of Paris are saying that withdrawing presents a missed opportunity for energy companies. Others are saying that it doesn’t matter what Trump does because the momentum of green energy is too strong. Neither argument is a compelling case for remaining in Paris.

Whether conventional or focused on renewables, the best way for American energy companies to be competitive is to be innovative in the marketplace, not build their business model around international agreements.

There is nothing about leaving Paris that prevents Americans from continuing to invest in new energy technologies. The market for energy is $6 trillion and projected to grow by a third by 2040. Roughly 1.3 billion people do not yet have access to electricity, let alone reliable, affordable energy. That’s a big market incentive for the private sector to pursue the next energy technology without the aid of taxpayer money.-------------------
Jack Sternberg, MD, is a retired medical doctor and former Chairman of the Garland County TEA Party Patriots in Arkansas, and a contributor to the ARRA News Service.

---

Tags: Jack Sternberg, Exiting, Paris Climate Accord< President Trump, exiiting, Paris Climate Accord To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!