4 Reasons Trump Was Right to Pull Out of the Paris Agreement

Topic by

Home Forums Political Corner 4 Reasons Trump Was Right to Pull Out of the Paris Agreement

This topic contains 10 replies, has 8 voices, and was last updated by  Anonymous 2 years, 8 months ago.

Viewing 11 posts - 1 through 11 (of 11 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #499144
    +2

    Anonymous
    6

    President Donald Trump has fulfilled a key campaign pledge, announcing that the U.S. will withdraw from the Paris climate agreement.

    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 single American who depends on affordable, reliable energy.

    It was also bad for the countries that remain in the agreement. Here are four reasons Trump was right to withdraw.

    1. The Paris Agreement Was Costly And Ineffective.

    The Paris Agreement is highly costly and would do close to nil to address climate change.

    If carried out, the energy regulations agreed to in Paris by the Obama administration would kill hundreds of thousands of jobs, harm American manufacturing, and destroy $2.5 trillion in gross domestic product by the year 2035.

    In withdrawing from the agreement, Trump removed a massive barrier to achieving the 3 percent economic growth rates America is accustomed to.

    Simply rolling back the Paris regulations isn’t enough. The Paris Agreement would have extended long beyond the Trump administration, so remaining in the agreement would have kept the U.S. subject to its terms.

    Those terms require countries to update their commitments every five years to make them more ambitious, starting in 2020. Staying in the agreement would have prevented the U.S. from backsliding or even maintaining the Obama administration’s initial commitment of cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 26 to 28 percent.

    The Obama administration made clear in its commitment that these cuts were only incremental, leading up to an eventual 80 percent cut in the future.

    In terms of climate benefits produced by Paris, there are practically none.

    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. The Agreement Wasted Taxpayer Money.

    In climate negotiations leading up to the Paris conference, participants called for a Green Climate Fund that would collect $100 billion per year by 2020.

    The goal of this fund would be to subsidize green energy and pay for other climate adaptation and mitigation programs in poorer nations—and to get buy-in (literally) from those poorer nations for the final Paris Agreement.

    The Obama administration ended up shipping $1 billion in taxpayer dollars to this fund without authorization from Congress.

    Some of the top recipients of these government-funded climate programs have in the past been some of the most corrupt, which means corrupt governments collect the funds, not those who actually need it.

    No amount of transparency negotiated in the Paris Agreement is going to change this.

    Free enterprise, the rule of law, and private property are the key ingredients for prosperity. These are the principles that actually will help people in developing countries prepare for and cope with a changing climate and natural disasters, whether or not they are caused by man-made greenhouse gas emissions.

    3. Withdrawal Is A Demonstration Of Leadership.

    The media is making a big to-do about the fact that the only countries not participating in the Paris Agreement are Syria and Nicaragua.

    But 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.

    Other countries have a multitude of security, economic, and diplomatic reasons to work with America to address issues of mutual concern. Withdrawal from the agreement will not change that.

    Certainly, withdrawing from the Paris Agreement will be met with consternation from foreign leaders, as was the case when the U.S. withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol.

    However, it could very well help future negotiations if other governments know that the U.S. is willing and able to resist diplomatic pressure in order to protect American interests.

    4. Withdrawal Is Good For American Energy Competitiveness.

    Some proponents of the Paris Agreement 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 the agreement.

    Whether it is conventional fuel companies or renewable ones, the best way for American energy companies to be competitive is to be innovative and competitive in the marketplace, not build their business models around international agreements.

    There is nothing about leaving the agreement 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.

    The U.S. federal government and the international community should stop using other peoples’ money to subsidize energy technologies while regulating affordable, reliable energy sources out of existence.

    The Paris Agreement was an open door for future U.S. administrations to regulate and spend hundreds of millions of dollars on international climate programs, just as the Obama administration did without any input from Congress.

    Now, that door has thankfully been shut.

    http://dailysignal.com/2017/06/01/4-reasons-trump-right-pull-paris-agreement/

    #499163
    +2
    Faust For Science
    Faust For Science
    Participant
    22557

    Good post. But, the article left out that this “agreement” was simply open theft of three trillion dollars in wealth from the American people into the hands of the globalists.

    This is why the globalists are upset.

    #499167
    +3
    Grumpy
    Grumpy
    Participant

    Now to convince fuctardius erectus up here in the hinterlands, That Canada needs out of that agreement too.

    There was a time in my life when I gave a fuck. Now you have to pay ME for it

    #499196
    +1

    5. Climate change is a hoax.

    Women are better at multitasking? Fucking up several things at once is not multitasking.

    #499229
    +2
    Blade
    blade
    Participant

    THE PLANTATION HAS NOW TURNED INTO THE KILLING FIELDS . WOMAN ARE NOW ROLLING CAMBODIAN STYLE .

    #499233
    +1
    Atton
    Atton
    Participant

    Sounds smarter to spend 2.5 trillion dollars on unlocking the power of a sun.
    http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/energy/nuclear/national-ignition-facility-achieves-record-energies

    A MGTOW is a man who is not a woman's bitch!

    #499423
    Faust For Science
    Faust For Science
    Participant
    22557

    <iframe src=”https://www.youtube.com/embed/sdqSrGd1bQg?feature=oembed” allowfullscreen=”” width=”500″ height=”281″ frameborder=”0″></iframe>

    This is more like a protest of spoiled entitlists of Europe whom are upset because they were not getting the stolen money they were promised that was intended to come by force from the pockets of the American people.

    On to of this, President Trump has made it clear that the European nations need to pay up for their NATO commitments and for Europe to abolish the trade imbalances that screwed over American based businesses at the behest of European businesses.

    No more free ride at the expense of the American people.

    Sounds smarter to spend 2.5 trillion dollars on unlocking the power of a sun.
    http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/energy/nuclear/national-ignition-facility-achieves-record-energies

    Solar panel makers claim that buyers begin to see a return on their solar panel energy production in 30 years. The solar panel makers forget to mention that solar panels wear out in 25 years.

    Environmentalism is all a lie and con at the expense of the American people.

    It has been over forty years since Nixon created the EPA and the air is dirtier, the water is dirtier, land is dirtier, and we American are poorer because the government has stolen our wealth to give to the globalists in the name of the environment.

    #499427
    +1
    FrankOne
    FrankOne
    Participant
    1425

    I agree completely. I will credit Trump for the win on this one.

    What we need is MORE COMPETITION in energy, for instance, requiring monopoly utilities to provide AT-COST transmission/distribution to other producers and any consumers, and DIVORCING transmission and distribution COMPLETELY from generation of electricity. And lower taxes on exploitation of oil and gas resources. Instead of SUBSIDIES where government picks winners and losers (Solyndra, anyone?).

    Atton: So far, we’ve spent over 30 billion dollars of public money on fusion boondoggles since the 1950’s (National Ignition Facility being only the latest). I prefer private sector research. Then the US is going to spend another $3.9 billion on ITER, an international boondoggle fusion project. I like to call it ‘big science welfare’. The internal combustion engine, television, and numerous other innovations were produced by the PRIVATE sector. Government’s track record on fusion has been an abysmal record of failures: Indeed, 70 years of spending — nearly a lifetime. When there is a viable process, investors will fund it. Everywhere the government subsidizes, produces boondoggles and cost over-runs, whether it’s solar, or next generation nuclear (fission) plant ‘loan guarantees’. I prefer letting markets pick winners and losers, instead of politicians getting duffel bags full of cash bribes picking winners and losers (our current system).

    #499465
    BigGreg3000
    BigGreg3000
    Participant
    54

    5. Climate change is a hoax.

    Couldn’t agree more, although I am probably not as bullish on Trump as Stump the Trump. The President is mostly a puppet of the banksters and the Khazarian Mafia, anyway.

    But let back up his calling out AGW as a hoax regardless, for two simple reasons (I could provide many more, of course, but brevity is the soul of vigor, after all).
    First, there is ample evidence that as far back as the 60s, the Club of Rome, one of many globalist secret societies, was looking for a planet-wide “boogeyman” that would could be used as a fulcrum upon which to ply the lever of their New World Order into their laps. They even admitted to doing so; click on this link.

    Second, the U.N.’s Agenda 21 fits into this mold like a glove, suggesting ample coordination between ‘the usual suspects’, as well as many instances of fudged data and the so-called “pause” in AGW to account for the accurate date they couldn’t bury.

    Silver lining: watching all the celebrity liberals having heart palpitations over Trump’s decision to pull out is amusing. They just LOVE to keep on losing, reacting in a childish, petulant manner (or even violently, as with Antifa or BLM), thus continuing to lose relevancy and voters. Just on this ‘realpolitik’ score alone Trump achieves a win, especially since he has been flip flopping on so many other campaign promises (funding the border wall, healthcare reform, getting mixed up in Syria, giving NuttyYahoo and Saudi Arabia blow jobs, etc.).

    #499527
    FrankOne
    FrankOne
    Participant
    1425

    Faust for Science writes:
    Environmentalism is all a lie and con at the expense of the American people.

    It has been over forty years since Nixon created the EPA and the air is dirtier, the water is dirtier, land is dirtier, and we American are poorer because the government has stolen our wealth to give to the globalists in the name of the environment.

    The industry-destroying EPA was founded 47 years ago.

    By what metric is, say, the ‘air dirtier’ in the USA now compared to then ? If I pick a large ‘mega city’ such as Los Angeles, by almost all metrics, the air is MUCH cleaner NOW compared to a few decades ago — 50-fold decrease in VOC’s, significant decreases in Ozone, etc over several decades. https://eos.org/features/urbanization-air-pollution-now — I attribute these decreases to increased WEALTH causing people to CARE more about the environment AND due to technological advancement; if you’re struggling to feed yourself there is little left for the environment. The basis of this opinion, is there is not an INFLECTION POINT in 1970 when the EPA was created in plots of pollutant concentration vs time.

    The catalytic converter, improved gasoline formulations and fuel: air mixture control, NOT government action, in my opinion, is why the air got cleaner. Elimination of tetra ethyl lead (leaded gasoline) was a MAJOR environmental milestone. The rule REQUIRING pollution control equipment on Major fixed Sources (such as fixed coal-fired power stations) DID have an impact, but in my opinion, did not justify creating an army of bureaucrats to enforce it. Keep in mind all this improvement occurred DESPITE ever more vehicles, fuel consumed, AND higher population.

    Electrostatic precipitators and wet scrubbers on fixed sources (large coal-fired power plants, mainly) has had a profound impact upon ambient air quality in my lifetime.

    I do NOT attribute these advances to EPA. I’ve literally spent WEEKS this year complying with various [State] EPA plan mandates, this has cost the manufacturing company I work out MANY thousands of dollars. Most of the money required to comply with EPA goes to salaries — ‘safety professionals’ who generate permits to install, permits to operate, some goes towards purchase, installation, and upkeep of pollution control equipment, some goes to worthless bureaucrats in Federal, State, and even municipal Authorities/Agencies. Some goes to bribes paid by large trade groups, to politicians for exemptions from rules OR to get permits approved. Most of the wasted money (‘wasted’ on compliance with EPA) isn’t going towards ‘globalists’. It is money that otherwise would have been spent on projects to improve efficiency or expand businesses, at least that is my experience working in manufacturing for three decades.

    #499692

    Anonymous
    6

    I thought we were supposed to be in a new ice age now, it’s hot in Alabama, i could use some cold right about now. We can’t even trust the weather man to be accurate in the span of a week, but we’re supposed to trust scientists to be accurate in the span of a half century??

    NOPE!

Viewing 11 posts - 1 through 11 (of 11 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.