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. “
Owatonna, MN Correspondent-When it comes to government and politics, I am by nature a skeptic. World politics makes me even more skeptical. To think that a handful of people claiming to represent the best interests of seven billion people can agree on anything substantive is definition number one of the word absurd. This raises the question of whether the Paris Agreement is meaningful, relevant, and contains policies and initiatives that will enable the world to better cope with the challenges of a rapidly changing climate.
Many experts say the Agreement lacks teeth because there are no penalties for non-compliance or failure to meet pollution reduction goals. Others say that governments will resist implementing pollution restrictions if other countries don’t match their efforts, because stricter pollution laws may hamper their economy and cost them votes in future elections if too many workers become unemployed because of expensive pollution laws.
The best argument for the United States withdrawing from the Paris Agreement is that national governments are the least effective institutions when it comes to implementing change or finding solutions to problems. Enterprising businesses, committed individuals, and non-profit groups raising awareness of climate issues will be far more effective and responsive to change and challenges.
Limiting the effects of carbon emissions on our climate will be slow. It must start with a groundswell of individuals doing whatever they can to reduce their carbon footprints. Small businesses and entrepreneurs must come up with alternatives to fossil fuels, methods of controlling or mitigating the pollution we still produce, and new technologies to replace polluting technologies. Non-profits must lobby wealthy and influential entities to advocate for polluting less, conserving more, and finding solutions that are fair and equitable to as many people as possible. If the United States’ withdrawal from the Paris Agreement spurs our country to work faster and more efficiently toward dealing with climate change, then President Trump made the right call. But we won’t know the answer to that decision for many years.
Gastonia, NC Correspondent-The Paris Climate Change agreement was a watershed moment in the attempt to right the damage being done to the planet by the five billion dirty homo sapiens scattering our garbage all over the globe. There was much good feeling, hand shaking, back slapping and self-congratulatory smiles and speeches from all the signatories to the document.
There was just one glaring flaw: It was an agreement, not a treaty or pact or law with any sort of enforcement protocol or vehicle for monitoring to make sure that the signatories did what they said they were going to do. It relied on countries to self-report their progress toward the lofty goals set by the agreement. It was a carrot with no stick, and as such was barely worth the paper it was written on.
That said, it was a great thing, at least indicating that the vast majority of the world’s nations recognized that something needed to be done to stem the tide of climate change and combat things like the island-sized rafts of floating garbage in the Pacific Ocean that threaten shipping and wildlife. Perhaps it was symbolic, but it was a good symbol.
Withdrawing from the agreement sends a message to the global community that our Negotiator in Chief is taking a hard look at every pact the United States has made with other countries. He will be governing with the logic behind “The Art of the Deal” rather than the political writings of Rousseau and Jefferson. This is not entirely a bad thing, as the U.S. for decades has been the generous big brother letting unequal trade deals and treaties bleed us dry, but I wish he’d picked a different spot on which to make his stand.
The U.S. is the strongest country in the free world, indeed anywhere in the world, and in some instances we still need to set the example for others to follow.
Sheffield, Jamaica Correspondent-Just another Trump dilemma. When he’s not tweeting his mouth off on Twitter, he’s making selfish and ill-advised decisions from the White House.
One such ill-advised decision Trump has made of late is to announce his exit from the Paris Climate Change Agreement of 2015 to combat issues like global warming. This decision of his will actually weaken the effects of the agreement to fight against global warming.
Based on reports from The New York Times, some in the White House has argued that the Paris Climate Change Agreement posed a wicked threat to the American Economy and Sovereignty.
In a speech Trump delivered from the Rose Garden, he made it blatantly clear that the Paris Climate Change Agreement was cruel, by referring to it as “draconian”. Did Trump make a shrewd decision when he exited the United States from the Paris Climate Change Agreement? He made a terrible decision. However, he does believe he’s made the right choice, when he mentioned that, “I was elected to represent the citizens of Pittsburgh, not Paris”. How selfish. Trump is only thinking about America and no where else. With that attitude, he’ll actually get the country into deep dark waters.
With his decision to exit the Agreement, he not only spat in the face of 195 nations, but he disregarded heads of state, corporate executives, climate activists, and members of his own presidential staff.