Was it Right for Trump to Pull the US out of the Paris Agreement?

175 parties signed the Paris agreement on April 22, 2016. Only Nicaragua and Syria had abstained. Was the pull-out a justified action?

 

If Don says it was right to pull out, then it was right to pull out because we trust him to the hilt..

 

The Paris climate agreement never went through the Senate, Obama did an end run around Congress by executive order...The agreement requires the US to reduce emissions by 25% by 2025, but China and India do not have to start reducing emissions until 2030.
There is also no enforcement conditions same as the Kyoto accord, Europe and Asia never lived up to those agreements either. Trump pulled us out in its current form yet stated that if a more equitable agreement could be reached, he would reconsider...equitable meaning fair to all countries, not just putting the burden on the US.

 

USA Today did an interesting Fact Checking article on Trump's speech, which didn't bode well for Donald:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...ump-speech-paris-climate-agreement/102399674/

In announcing that the U.S. would withdraw from the Paris Agreement, a global accord aimed at addressing climate change, President Trump made more than a few false and misleading claims:

 

Until there can be an agreement that would treat all nations equally and hold all nations accountable for their emissions then we should stay out of it. This should force the rest of the world to rework the agreement and make it more financially balanced and put some teeth in it which would hold nations accountable for their failures.

 

Yes it was justified......and the Right thing to do.



Paris Can Wait—It Was a Bad Deal
Michael Moore called Trump’s move a ‘crime against humanity.’ Oh, come on. It was just a bad deal in terms of cost-benefit analysis.

During a Rose Garden speech on Thursday, President Trump announced that the United States would “withdraw from the Paris climate accord, but begin negotiations to re-enter either the Paris accord or an entirely new transaction on terms that are fair to the United States.”

This was greeted with predictable scorn. Supporters of the Paris climate deal present a false choice. You either (a) believe in the scientific consensus about climate change (in which case, you support Paris), or (b) you are a denier. But they are missing a third option, which is that (c) this is simply a bad deal in terms of the cost-benefit analysis.

Why is it a bad deal? There are no consistent standards for participation. Countries unilaterally decided what voluntary and non-binding commitment they wanted to pledge. The United States will cut emissions 26-28 percent by 2025—a pledge that is much more rigorous than other nations. “They can do whatever they want for 13 years,” Trump said of China. “Not us.” (Note: Technically, China has obligations that must be fulfilled by 2030.)

According to one report commissioned by the American Council for Capital Formation with support from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Institute for 21st Century Energy, “the Paris climate accord could cost the U.S. economy $3 trillion and 6.5 million industrial sector jobs by 2040…”

American liberals are up in arms, claiming this signals the end of American leadership. Some are going so far as to suggest what he is doing is “traitorous” (Tom Steyer) and a “crime against humanity” (Michael Moore). This sounds like harsh rhetoric aimed at a president who is pulling out of a non-binding and voluntary agreement—and keeping the door open to renegotiating entry.

But maybe there is a third way? The notion that Trump had to either abide by President Obama’s bad deal or withdraw was yet another false choice. If we are to take him at his word, he is leaving open the possibility of negotiating a new deal, making it more favorable.

This won’t be easy. Already, France and Germany are saying they “firmly believe that the Paris Agreement cannot be renegotiated.” But the goal should be to find a solution that would allow America to maintain a leadership position in the world—both morally, and in terms of clean energy—that would simultaneously limit the jobs losses......snip~

http://www.thedailybeast.com/paris-can-waitit-was-a-bad-deal

 

The Obama regime became infamous for dragging us into "agreements" that were very bad for the United States. This "Paris" thing, and that even far worse agreement with Iran are just two examples.

Briefly, the "Paris Accord" thing would have led to huge "carbon taxes" being collected from American citizens to provide 'subsidies' (another word for WELFARE) for foreign countries. Why? Oh, the theory was that somewhere down the road, all these billions of American carbon-tax dollars would enable other countries to clean up their own pollution problems. "Uncle Sugar" to the rescue!

How nice and generous of us THAT would have been! (This is the way that the minds of international, hyperliberal socialists work! ) .

BTW, we in the U. S. cleaned up our own air pollution problems starting about 35 years ago. China and India are choking and gagging on their own pollution problems and it should be entirely up to THEM to fix THEIR OWN PROBLEMS, too!

 

If indeed, one believes the 95% of scientists who have studied the issue, and have concluded that the earth is warming due to the activities of man; then the agreement makes sense, in that it unites mankind in finding a collective solution.

 

President Trump's pull out of the Paris Agreement was justified
for several important reasons.

ONE NATION ON EARTH has experienced COOLING in their
climate since 1950......... That nation is Israel.

Israel led the world on a per capita basis in a combination of planting trees
and in large scale desalination of ocean water for agriculture, reforestation projects and
towns experiencing drought.

The Carl Cantrell theory on how to stabilize the climate is practical but a
carbon tax WILL NOT protect coastal communities from the threat of the
collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet or rapid cracking and sliding on
the land based Greenland Ice Pack.

www.BankingSystemsFlaws.blogspot.ca/

 

I can't think of any better way to begin to solve this problem, than a world-wide buy-in. And this certainly doesn't preclude acting on other theories as well.

 

How is giving money to undeveloped countries finding a solution? How is calling India and China an undeveloped country and giving them money finding a solution? Who says we have to be in some sort of consortium to try and find a solution? Nobody said we were going to stop working on the issue just because we pulled out of the agreement.

 

I see that Trump convinced you with his BS. Why don't you get the facts. Its not going to cost us a "bazillion dollars".. and both China and India do have considerable obligations. India for one will have the larges solar power plant in the world.. and china has cancelled 100 coal fired plants.

I hate demagogues.

 

Surrendering leadership to China in such a unique global endeavour is an opportunity lost, an abdication calculated to make America insignificant again.

A churlish ilk of Isolationists applaud relinquishing international influence, of course, but patriots dedicated to furthering the interests of the United States grasp the implications of abandoning the nation's pre-eminence in such a significant aspect of world affairs, and America's CEOs fully understand the disadvantages of being alienated from the customer base in a global economy. Given the scientific reality and the vital, shared goal of the alliance, quitting is a loser. A very big loser.

Meanwhile, advanced cities and states, in concert with America's corporate sector, will ignore the diplomatic pratfall, and mitigate the self-inflicted estrangement of the current Washington regime in a de facto integration with humankind, an affirmation of shared purpose.

The immediate concern is whether the chair for the Mar-a-Lago Lardass at the kiddy table to be shared with Assad and Ortega can support him better that the American public.

​

 

Maybe we should follow China's lead and continue to build coal power plants until 2030.

 

Trump doesn't care.. he never even bothered with the executive summary.

Donald Trump sees the future in coal. China sees the future in renewables. Who’s making the safer bet?

China is creating 13 million new jobs.


https://www.pri.org/stories/2017-01...sees-future-renewables-who-s-making-safer-bet

 

Was he right to opt America out of an agreement based on fake science that would have transferred a trillion dollars overseas to unknown entities, and that would have destroyed millions of American jobs ?

hmm...let me think on this... This is a tough one, I'll get back to you.

 

That's the problem.. NONE of that is true, but Trump doesn't know either.. He never bothered to even read the executive summary.

Trump has destroyed jobs by getting out of the TPP and he's hurt American farmers and ranchers.

 

Sorry Margot, but you have apparently drank the entire pitcher of kool-aid on this one.

 

The accord was completely voluntary and would cost us about 3 billion total.

 

So basically worthless and costly. What's the problem?

 

The foolishness of Trump's surrender is underscored by his cult's inability to offer a credible rationale. For any cynics who doubted his sincerity when he brayed that he loved the poorly educated, stop questioning his ardour. He cannot resist grabbing them by their credulity.

 

I can't stand the way Trump communicates.. and I think he has that affect on a lot of people.

 

Surrendering the leadership of the global farce, which "climate change", is hardly foolishness. Let's make cognitive room such projects as job creation and the renewal of the nations cities.

And no, setting up windmills and solar farms will not do that.

 

A paltry sum to maintain scientific integrity and leadership, securing an influential place at the head of the table where technological advances will be adopted and sold to a global market - and he could have made Mexico pay for it!

Instead, he opts for exclusive summit meetings with Assad and Ortega to discuss what can be done about cow farts.

 

If you believe that coal is the economic miracle of the future, and that the surge in employment in the clean energy sector is a passing fad, I can understand your refusal to accept the scientific reality.