From our Prescott Valley, AZ Correspondent:
President Trump was correct in exiting the United States from the Paris Climate Change Agreement for a number of reasons. One of the most important of which was the fact that the Accords were never submitted by the Obama administration as a treaty, which would require a two-thirds vote by the Senate for approval. Trying to adopt an international agreement such as the Accords without calling the agreement a treaty would have never passed muster with the Senate.
There were additional legal problems with the Accords particularly in regard to any rollbacks that President Trump would implement concerning carbon emissions regulations through the EPA. The courts could use the Accords to reverse any of the president’s actions on emissions in spite of the fact that there was no supportive legislation in effect to justify any kind of rejection. Though not legally binding and more symbolic , any actions to diminish emission standards would have been met with uproar and attempted legal actions to stop the president from lessening emission standards.
The insistence on clamp downs concerning emissions would have no impact on the climate and environment as low-carbon emissions standards have already been established, so there was no need for stricter regulations on the American economy. When President Trump laid out estimates from MIT, which stated that the global climate would be lowered by only 0.2 degrees Celsius by 2100, there was absolutely no need for further regulations to stifle and jeopardize the American economy and the industries and jobs that support it.
In addition, countries attached to the Accords, like China, India, Pakistan and others would have been given a free pass concerning non-binding commitments to climate change and emissions. China made a commitment to reduce emissions by 2030 while India made no commitment other than to attempt efficiency at a lower rate than previous years, plus the country estimated that they would require 2.5 trillion (USD) to meet their climate change actions by 2030. Pakistan simply stated that it would reduce emissions after peak levels were reached. Non input from these countries and others with the same sentiments concerning emissions is acceptable to the climate changers, but is certainly not part of a binding agreement and commitment in support of what the Accords are supposed to accomplish.
It is apparent that the Accords would have put America in jeopardy economically as additional regulations to America, and the costs for other participants, would be placed on the backs of Americans while other countries would be allowed to sit back and reap the benefits. American industries would be stifled and weakened by the added regulations, and there would be little made up for in supposed government green investments, jobs and efficient energy solutions. The agreement wasn’t about promoting any of that. It was more about putting pressures on the United States to interrupt its own economy while not requiring much of anything from competing countries.
For all of these reasons and more, which were outlined by President Trump in his exit speech, he was right about backing out of the Accords. Once again America would receive the short end of the stick and responsibility for the majority of the financial input. The pull out was necessary both legally and monetarily. It was a losing situation that needed to be abandoned for the sake of the American economy and the American people. The agreement is a sham that would have only harmed America and its economy, which would all have been at the pleasure of participating countries. As President Trump noted, “The agreement is a massive redistribution of United States wealth to other countries. “