Donald Trump pulled the US out of the Paris Climate Accord. It was a good thing to do as all the burdens were to fall on the US:
- Goodbye to ‘American Last.’ The Paris agreement was basically an attempt to halt climate change on the honor system. Its only legal requirements were for signatories to announce goals and report progress, with no international enforcement mechanism. As a result, it was likely that the United States and wealthy European nations would have adopted and implemented severe climate change rules while many of the world’s governments would avoid doing anything that would slow their own economies. The agreement basically made the U.S. economy and Europe’s strongest economies sacrificial lambs to the cause of climate change.
- Industrial Carnage. The regulations necessary to implement the Paris agreement would have cost the U.S. industrial sector 1.1 million jobs, according to a study commissioned by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. These job losses would center in cement, iron and steel, and petroleum refining. Industrial output would decline sharply.
- Hollowing Out Michigan, Missouri, Pennsylvania, and Ohio. The industrial carnage would have been concentrated on four states, according to the Chamber of Commerce study. Michigan’s GDP would shrink by 0.8 percent and employment would contract by 74,000 jobs. Missouri’s GDP would shrink by 1 percent. Ohio’s GDP would contract 1.2 percent. Pennsylvania’s GDP would decline by 1.8 percent and the state would lose 140,000 jobs.
- Smashing Small Businesses, Helping Big Business. Big businesses in America strongly backed the Paris climate deal. In fact, the backers of the climate deal reads like a “who’s who” of big American businesses: Apple, General Electric, Intel, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Morgan Stanley, General Mills, Walmart, DuPont, Unilever, and Johnson & Johnson. These business giants can more easily cope with costly regulations than their smaller competitors and many would, in fact, find business opportunities from the changes required. But smaller businesses and traditional start-ups would likely be hurt by the increased costs of compliance and rising energy costs.
- Making America Poorer Again. A Heritage Foundation study found that the Paris agreement would have increased the electricity costs of an American family of four by between 13 percent and 20 percent annually. It forecast a loss of income of $20,000 by 2035. In other words, American families would be paying more while making less.
- Much Poorer. The overall effect of the agreement would have been to reduce U.S. GDP by over $2.5 trillion and eliminate 400,000 jobs by 2035, according to Heritage’s study. This would exacerbate problems with government funding and deficits, make Social Security solvency more challenging, and increase reliance on government’s spending to support households.
According to a study by The Heritage Foundation released in 2016, if the Obama Paris agreement were to be followed, “there would be 206,104 fewer manufacturing jobs between 2016 and 2040.” Heritage projects a loss of over $2.5 trillion in aggregate loss of gross domestic product by 2035.
The Competitive Enterprise Institute put out a similar report in May of 2017, which found that “the United States cannot comply with the Paris Agreement and pursue a pro-growth energy agenda.” The group concluded that the agreement’s “central goal is to make fossil fuels, America’s most plentiful and affordable ene
rgy source, more expensive across the board” and “would destroy U.S. manufacturing’s energy price edge.”
The accord is said to be toothless, but it does leave the US vulnerable. The US would suffer while China and India would plow on building up their consumption of oil and coal. The accord is in line with obama’s desire to diminish the US’ prominence and redistribute our wealth to the world.
Predictably, hysteria broke out among liberals.
Nicole Wallace called Trump “cynical and shallow.”
John Kerry, who promised us Syria had given up all its chemical weapons, said Trump has “put America last.”
Congressional democrats called it “cruel” and “indefensible.”
Fareed Zakaria sputtered that Trump has “resigned as the leader of the free world.”
Obama also whined about it.
But the Grand Prize goes to billionaire Tom Steyer, who made his fortune in oil and gas, called Donald Trump’s action a “traitorous act of war.”
Aside from sucking at civics, Steyer is world class hypocrite.
While he may say what he is doing is good for everyone, the policies he’s pushing are good for him—not for “everyone.” The Washington Postcalled him: “The man who has Obama’s ear when it comes to energy and climate change.” In California, where he has been a generous supporter of green energy policies, he helped pass Senate Bill 350 that calls for 50 percent renewable energy by 2030. California’s current mandate is 33 percent by 2020—which California’s three investor-owned utilities are, reportedly, “already well on their way to meeting.” It is no surprise that California already has some of the highest electricity rates in the country. Analysis released last week found that states with policies supporting green energy have much higher power prices. In October, Steyer spent six figures for an ad campaign calling for the next president to adopt a national energy policy similar to California’s: “50 percent clean energy mix in the U.S. by 2030”—which will raise everyone’s rates.
With Steyer’s various green-energy investments, these rate-increasing plans are good for him but bad for everyone else—especially those who can least afford it. And, it is the less affluent, he’s targeting with predatory loans for solar panels through Kilowatt Financial, LLC, (KWF)—a company that listed him as “manager” on corporate documents. KWF recently merged with Clean Power Finance and became “Spruce.” The financing structure used, according to the Wall Street Journal (WSJ), allows “homeowners to get solar systems at no upfront cost and then to pay monthly for the use of the power generated. Homeowners end up saving on their total electricity use, while financing companies get steady revenue over 20 years.” WSJ, points out, the KWF financing can be offered to “people who wouldn’t be approved otherwise.”
Despite Bush dumping the Kyoto accord, the US met the Kyoto goals.
The big question is, if alternative fuels are so great, so efficient and so easy, why are China and India permitted to build hundreds of coal-fired plants? Why aren’t they going straight to the alternatives?
Is it possible to be a democrat and not be an a$$hole?
Bonus: THE 11 DUMBEST REACTIONS TO TRUMP QUITTING THE PARIS CLIMATE ACCORD
DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education.
DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed.
Except for liberals being foolish.