On Monday, President Trump took the step he promised in 2017 to officially withdraw the United States from the Paris agreement on climate change, which every other country on Earth has signed. This is not America first; once again, it’s America isolated.
Climate change is already affecting every sector and region of the United States, as hundreds of top scientists from 13 federal agencies made clear in a report the White House itself released last year. The past five years were the warmest ever recorded. Without steep pollution reductions, climate change will risk tens of thousands of U.S. lives every year by the end of the century. Rising seas, increased storm surge and tidal flooding threaten $1 trillion in public infrastructure and private property now along U.S. coastlines. The United States has experienced at least $400 billion in weather and climate disaster costs since 2014. The recent hurricanes that slammed America’s southern coasts, as well as historic wildfires in California, resulted in more American victims of severe weather juiced by climate change than ever before.
Climate change also threatens national security. As we testified to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform in April, this link has been clear for decades. Our military bases, and hence our security preparedness, are threatened by sea-level rise and other impacts. If you put a map of places with high political instability today over a map of places with high climate vulnerability, the two would be nearly identical. The American Security Project, an organization of retired flag officers who spent their careers in uniform and other leaders, calls climate change a “ring road” issue, meaning that climate change will worsen other threats facing the nation. “It will change disease vectors. It will drive migration. These changes, in turn, could affect state stability and harm global security,” the ASP reported.
Other major powers will benefit economically from the U.S. withdrawal from Paris. By putting up roadblocks to the necessary transition to a low-carbon global economy, Trump is making American businesses less competitive and leaving new jobs and economic opportunities up for grabs to other countries. The 2018 report by the Global Commission on the Economy and Climate details the evidence that between now and 2030, policies and measures aimed at solving this problem and building resilience could generate at least $26 trillion in economic benefits worldwide in industries including renewables and energy efficiency.
The clean-energy economy already employs 3.3 million Americans, with solar employing twice as many people as coal. But the United States is lagging far behind other countries that are determined to capitalize on this low-carbon market. For every dollar the United States invests in renewable energy, China puts in three. That’s why globally 99 percent of electric buses on the road are in China. India has the largest solar and wind targets in the world, and the nation is making steady progress in achieving them. And the European Union announced last year that at least 25 percent of its next budget will go toward transitioning to a low-carbon economy.
The Paris agreement was a start, not a finish line. But it was the best ignition switch the world could agree on to spark international cooperation on this critical issue, something that many leading Republicans agree is essential to do because the United States can’t solve this problem alone. Without this agreement, China, India and many other major emitters would not have a commitment to the world to reduce their emissions, let alone one with transparency and international oversight for all.
Monday marks a dark day among those of us who believe in working with allies to share the burden of solving tough problems — especially a climate crisis that demands a World War II-style mass mobilization before it’s too late. But there’s a silver lining: Even as the Trump administration submits the paperwork to surrender our leadership on a climate accord we wrote, we won’t officially exit the agreement until Nov. 4, 2020. We have an election in our country on Nov. 3, 2020.
The United States can rejoin the agreement at any time once we have a leader willing to do so. We must all mitigate the damage Trump does to the United States before then, but if there was ever an election in which U.S. leadership and the nation’s security were on the ballot, 2020 is it. Americans can pull the lever for the clearest choice ever on climate action to ensure that on Day One of a new administration, America will be back.
Comments(38)
I thought treaties had to be ratified by Congress, if the Paris Accord was not ratified by Congress, we were never in it.
Pulling out of the agreement doesn't mean that the green jobs or the effort to lower emissions will stop. In fact, the U.S. Has made more progress on lowering emissions than most of not all other signatories. The question about the agreement is: If this agreement is so good, why didn't Obama send it to Congress to get ratified as a treaty? If it was a treaty. It would have been more difficult to end it.
thank god for president trump
No it's not. Consider this. China (our biggest threat) isn't even required to cut carbon output. Neither is India. Both lead the world in Carbon output but a classified "developing" countries by this accord. The United States and rest of the Western "woke" countries are on the hook to pay billions for this fake science. No thanks, glad we pulled out of an accord that affords nothing but a free hand up to China and India two countries that SHOULD be paying more for their pollution.
The personal behavior of 1% of the U. S. population results in their CO2 footprint being 50 TIMES that of the average of the other 99%. This surprises no one. But when people realize that were this small group to only emit 25 TIMES the average of everyone else OVERALL U. S. CO2 emissions would IMMEDIATELY, not over decades, decline 17%. Alas, many of the AGW scammers are part of this small group and will never tell you that fact nor will their compliant media friends. Why do something simple and immediate when there are taxes to be skimmed from billions of people to protect a few million worldwide. THAT would be an emergency!
Actually, it was quite a bright day, one in which Trump officially recognised what, at best, lousy "science" AGW is, or, at worst, what a complete fraud. I doubt Trump is bright enough or schooled enough to note the pathology of the so-called "science" behind the claim that climate cycles are anthropogenic, but it's not difficult to see that those claims oh-so-conveniently "justify" the Left's dreams of bigger, more intrusive, governments and higher taxes. It's also not difficult to see why governments that stand to benefit by trillions of dollars transferred from wealthier countries to their own favour the Paris Agreement regardless of the (in)validity of the "science."
While I agree with your premise that climate change has not been anthropogenic in the past, the populations exponential growth will certainly effect the future. What I do not agree with is your leap from that to "bigger, more intrusive governments". I agree with the withdrawal but would like to see a replacement form that would include some restrictions on the containment of waste spewed into our environment by all countries.
The problem with the exponential growth argument is that since exponential growth is unbounded, we WILL eventually kill the planet , make ourselves extinct, or both. No "restrictions on the containment of waste spewed into our environment by all countries" will work in the long run if the run is long enough and the world population remains unchecked. The solution is to limit the population, not hammer the lifestyles of the present population. And "restrictions on the containment of waste" can only be achieved by more intrusive governments and the annual $100 billion "subsidies" of the poorer nations by the richer ones certainly requires more intrusion--even ignoring nutty stuff like banning aeroplanes and hamburgers.
The Paris Agreement is a worthless in terms of efficacy. That we are out, means nothing.
Au contraire, "Climate-change" is a political sham perpetrated on the people of this planet by the Anti-capitalists in science and politics. I live in Houston, TX, it is hot and humid in the summer, mild and humid in winter, same as it has been for centuries. Don't be a useful idiot for these scam artists.
The Paris Accord was total garbage for the United States
This is a glorious day for America. Trump has castrated the eco-terrorist leftists who think that $24/gallon gas is a desirable goal. The TRUE PURPOSE of the ecological movement today is to make energy unaffordable for the poor and middle class.
First of all, there is no climate crisis. CO2 is plant food and the sun and its cycles is the overwhelming influence on the earth's climate. And second, if there was a crisis the phony Paris Accord did nothing to help, with India and China promising to do nothing, and Obama's USA assuming a crushing burden. I salute President Trump for taking the USA out of this corrupt deal that harms the USA.
Thank you Mr President. It's time to end the warming scam that will cost us trillions while India and China keep burning coal and advancing their economies at our expense.
I call it a win. "Paris accord" has NO place in our Constitutional Republic, having no value as "treaty" as the "deal" wasn't approved by congress, no more value than, say, bathhouse barry soetero obeyme's paying Iran's ayatollah's hundreds of billions of dollars to forestall their nuclear weapon development just long enough for him to get reelected. This is GOOD for America. Following OUR laws, OUR jurisprudence, not that of a handful of jetsetting a-holes who think they run the world.
john kerry. now that's funny....
Bravo President Trump!!!! KAG!
HAPP! HAPPY! JOY! JOY! I shall have a celebratory drink tonight to toast our beloved President! Getting out of that farce of a treaty is further proof of what a great President Donald J. Trump is!
Two points: (1) If all countries accomplished the Paris goals, the temperature would decline by a whopping .05 degrees, costing $trillions and making the US less competitive. (2) The earth was warmer around 900-1000 AD. It is not proven that human activity is the cause for warming. Its just a natural cycle.
Excellent news. The Climate Agreement is an unscientific farce. There is no such thing as man made global warming, but if you believe there is, the USA is reducing CO2 emissions more than any other country in the world...thanks to fracking.
Thanks President Trump! It's a scam. Make America competitive again.
Chuck Hagel is from the farm state of Nebraska. Just for the sake of honest debate on this "low carbon" future they preach about--why do Midwest farmers know there is a yet-to-be-quantified increase in crop yields because there is some extra CO2 in the atmosphere (agriculture and plants 'love' CO2). The ultimate response to a liberal Democrat over treating CO2 as a pollutant is that for those who now 'legally' grow marijuana in controlled enclosed environments (like a hothouse, etc.) they actually inject more CO2 into the enclosure to increase their crop yields (and it works!) Again, plants and agriculture 'love' CO2. To consider CO2 a pollutant is to not understand the oxygen-CO2 exchange of plant life. Further, and again, just for debates sake. I presume that both Kerry and Hagel have a belief in God--the 'Creator.' So, why is the planet 'abundantly' stocked with carbon-based energy sources--e.g., oil, gas, coal? What was it placed in this earth to do? And to further complicate the question, mankind--until about 20-30 years ago when this 'climate change/global warming' thing got started--man has used these sources of energy to raise and advance the standard of living around the world for billions of people. Access to relatively cheap and abundant energy has provided the sources for societies to keep warm, keep moving, and keep powered to advance civilization. In the case of Paris, the U.S. has continued to reduce its production of these gasses regardless of belonging to Paris. The other signatories to Paris; well, not so much. They are more than welcome to do their own promised reductions on their own. We do not need them as signatories to any document for them to carry through with their own promised commitments and reductions. Right? In the case of Paris, our nation was to be obligated to transfer $$$ (wealth) to other nations, who are not fulfilling their promises anyway. The decision to withdraw from Paris is a spot-on, correct decision.
You are a complete moron! You act as if this is the first time that the Earth has had drastic climate change.
Trump has been doing a good job. I'll be happy to see him re-elected, despite no-stop Trump hatred from this paper.
What a load of garbage... just how stupid and scientifically ignorant do you think we are?
No, this is a GREAT day for America. this misguided agreement would have cost the U.S. billions of dollars and hurt our economy, costing everyday Americans jobs and financial health. It exempted China and India, the 2 biggest offenders from making changes now; without their participation we are essentially spitting into the wind. I am glad we are not paying billions of dollars to do so. The other reality is that on every level, State, local, big business, small business, Americans have stepped up and implemented sweeping measures to reduce emissions and combat climate change, many of these measures came about BECAUSE the president opted out of this badly flawed agreement. Great decision, great leadership.
Doesn't it tell you something that China is happier with the Paris agreement than even... Paris? Yes, guilt-tripping Westerners let the 3rd-worlders cut corners, but does Science care about your guilt? Let me tell you something. NO agreement will have any effect unless the biggest polluters China/India are screaming and kicking. That China is all happy is all you need to know the Paris agreement is garbage. Also feel free to justify ditching carbon in any way you desire. Just don't throw in the (very unscientific) claim ditching cheap energy sources for sources in the range 1000% more expensive is going to make us rich. The consistent argument is, going green is going to hurt our wallets but need to do it anyway. It's the same stupid type of argument along the lines knocking a building down makes us wealthy cause we hire people to fix it. Dumb.
The US should exit the entire globalist cabal, The UN Climate Framework and restore rational empirical science as a standard by doing so.
Trump ran in 2016 that he would pull out of the Paris Agreement. He keeps his promises
Has ONE climate model EVER been right? Have they ever gotten even close to reality? NO! In the 70's we were going to have an ice age....Then miracles upon miracles everything changes & Miami is to be underwater. Well Miami isn't in the danger of being underwater. Wild fires & Hurricanes have always been with us. Wildfires that cause more damage & burn faster & hotter are because environmentalist don't allow Calif to manage the land & remove dead brush & trees. So guess what? Fires burn quicker & hotter, & have NOTHING to do with climate change. Hurricanes are a fact of nature & have not been any worse in this century than the last. They cause more damage because we have built more on the coastlines. Not because of climate change. The Paris accords are a joke & considering China & India are doing nothing to curb their emissions. The little amount the USA contributes is not going to make any difference. Trying to meet the goals of the Accord would have devastated our economy. Good Riddance, & Thank you Mr President!
If it is such a great plan, how come China, the world's biggest green house gas (GHG) emitter (producing more than twice as much as the US or Europe with an economy less that half as large) would not agree to reduce its GHG footprint for the foreseeable future (through 2030)? Instead, it will continue to add to the GHG amounts indefinitely. If you remember your early environmental action history, it was recommended 40 years ago by leading environmentalists that the US and others push to produce more natural gas and send it throughout the world because it could immediately cut GHG emissions by 50%. That is still the answer. Wind and Solar are intermittent power sources that require a full grid (currently with fossil fuels) to back them up. As technology improves, we will have more options, but we aren't there yet. Your article doesn't even mention the cleanest energy of all, nuclear. We shouldn't discount it out of hand. We are not a bunch of Luddites who are afraid of science and technology. Those are the issues. Setting up an arbitrary schedule and agreement is worthy of the world political class. The Paris Accord did not solve a thing, nor is it a starting point to anything. It was a furtherance of the proclamations going back to the 1980s through the UN conferences that solved little. If we are serious, let's have a simple plan. Start with a unanimous approval to push natural gas worldwide (which to Sec Perry's credit he has made major strides toward). On its own this will reduce GHG emissions immediately. Second, stop pouring money into very expensive solar and wind subsidies and invest in technology development for battery storage on a large scale and safe nuclear options. The use of sweet government deals to make well connected people lots of money while not solving the problems is not helpful. Third, stop pushing more meetings and more agreements that accomplish little. What counts is the activity on the ground to meet the first two points here. We can meet the challenge of less GHGs if we do that. When most Americans hear that the goal of the climate deal is for government to take over more of the economy, they get worried. Make it simple, less talk and accords, and let's move forward. We can do this. Sorry Sec Kerry, I like you, but we need action now with immediate results. Your plan is not providing that.
China produces 33 percent of the worlds CO 2 emissions.India produces 6 percent. The USA produces aproximately 14 percent . The CO2 emissions of the USA have dropped 14 percnt since Trump took office primarily because of natural gas.Yjos amounts to a 2 percent decreae in CO2. The standard of ling is much lower in China and in India .Is your fix to lower the USA standard of living to that of China and India?
So we can all agree on the climate changing and the world coming to an end in twelve years. If that's the case then "WTF". Climate history shows California drier in the past, Atlantic hurricanes stronger in the past. For these two clowns to suggest differently is total BS. The climate is changing but to think that these former hacks in Washington can fix anything is a joke. Let's create a climate control board and will put Hunter Biden and Kerry's stepson in charge. You stinken crooks. Get James Taylor to sing " You got a friend "and all your troubles will go away. Kerry you start by parking your plane and your yacth. Better yet stick the yacht in a ketchup bottle. Call it the "TAX DODGER", you stinken crook. Sorry, back to the climate. Paris is a unfair deal to the US taxpayer, you both know it and don't care. You will fix the climate like you fixed "healthcare". Just a bunch of Obama lackeys look in to be relevant. The "Marshall plan" was a real plan to create a better world in Europe. Well I haven't seen anything close to Marshall Plan to create a better climate . If the Paris climate accord is the best you have then Mr Kerry your a either a fraud or a cheat to the American people. Next time you talk to Bullcrap Joe Biden sing him this song lyric. Some people are born with silver spoon in hand and boy they help themselves. But it ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no Senators son.
If the agreement was so great, why didn't the Obama administration submit it to the senate? You now complain the agreement was nullified by unilateral executive action, but that option only exists because the US entered the agreement by unilateral executive action. The solution you offer to the issue is to elect a president that will once again enter the agreement through executive action? Are you afraid of debate or are you actually advocating the US enter/exit treaties based on whomever wins the presidential election? It seems clear you are clearly advocating the end justify the means and will smear anyone that disagrees with you.
The catastrophic global warming belief is not based on science as climate is too complex for scientific calculation. The projections are made by computer models powered by algorithms that are heavily dependent on their creators' assumption. Even those projections, which so often failed the test of reality, predict that the Paris agreement would bring only a 0.2 degrees C temperature reduction by the end of the century. A totally negligent result of an extremely expensive commitment.
"Without this agreement, China, India and many other major emitters would not have a commitment to the world to reduce their emissions, let alone one with transparency and international oversight for all." Huh? What commitment has China (and India et al) made? To build a multi-megawatt coal fired power plant every (on average) through 2030??? The Pairs agreement was designed to transfer wealth from the West (America in particular). Kerry & Obama "contributed" A BILLION DOLLARS of our money -- to what end? What contributions have other nations made? (I think about none -- no one is as dumb as Obama & Kerry (not to mention HRC). China is THE MAJOR CONTRIBUTOR of CO2 and they're add to their emissions. And, if you believe the pseudo-science underpinning the Paris agreement, what do you think their science says about the effectiveness of the agreement? Ans: the predicted decrease in global temperatures will be less than the margin of error.
Blah blah blah blah blah.
No country is atually paying attention to the Paris Accord,a political documnet meant to help liberals, who believe in the cult of climate change, to feel good, while sharing American beneficience for doing nothing positive. The entire thing is an unscientific hoax.
Comment Policy
Comments that include profanity, personal attacks, or other inappropriate material will be removed. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, steps will be taken to block users who violate any of the posting standards, terms of use, privacy policies, or any other policies governing this site. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.