The dystopian world-is-ending crowd had a heyday when President Trump kept his campaign promise to pull out of the accords and protect the American people. They really should have stayed on their meds.
Before we go through the very sound reasons for Trump pulling the U.S. out, it’s worth getting a sampling of just how fevered the reaction has been. Here are a few of the Chicken Little tweets following Trump’s announcement:
- “Trump just declared war on the very idea of life on earth.” Trita Parsi, Grawemeyer Award for Ideas Improving World Order Recipient. (TRA translation: You must now stop even thinking about earth or be attacked!)
- “If Trump pulls the US out of the Paris Agreement he will be committing a traitorous act of war against the American people.” Billionaire and supposed environmentalist Tom Steyer. (TRA translation: Trump is a traitor. Impeach him!)
- “Pulling out of the Paris Agreement would be a massive step back for racial justice, and an assault on communities of color across the U.S.” ACLU National tweet. (TRA translation: It’s racist.)
- “If Trump is pulling out of Paris, he is turning his back on the public in every single US state.” Sierra Club. (TRA translation: Trump hates Americans.)
- “As a species we flunked the collective action problem that is carbon emissions. It’s now adapt or die.” Christopher Mims, Wall Street Journal. (TRA translation: People be stupid.)
- “Serious question-Can millions of people launch a class action suit if the US pulls out of Paris accord for negligence?” Actress Patricia Arquette. (TRA: Serious answer: Yes. In November 2020. Read your Constitution.)
- And finally (and enough for now) the Huffington Post’s top headline on the decision: “TRUMP TO PLANET: DROP DEAD” (TRA translation: Trump’s mean. And dumb. And mean.)
Why this is just so much silliness
For all of the hyperbolic screechings of the climate change brood, there were several very sound reasons for the U.S. pulling out.
And what’s important to remember is that every one of these points holds true even if you accept the most dire warnings of the global warming alarmists. But if it is true that the global temperatures are rising quickly as a direct and primary result of human use of fossil fuels, all of these points remain legitimate to the specifics of the Paris Accords.
- Virtually nothing would be gained on global warming. According to a Heritage Foundation study: “…using the Model for the Assessment of Greenhouse Gas Induced Climate Change developed by researchers at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, even if all carbon dioxide emissions in the United States were effectively eliminated, there would be less than two-tenths of a degree Celsius reduction in global temperatures” by 2100. And the accords were only looking at a few percentage point reduction. So, negligible at best. MIT came to the same conclusion. The agreement actually would have almost no impact on global temperatures. So explain the above tweets again?
- Dramatic U.S. economic damage. The Heritage Foundation study found an overall average loss of nearly 400,000 jobs; an average manufacturing shortfall of more than 200,000 jobs; a total income loss of more than $20,000 for a family of four; an aggregate gross domestic product (GDP) loss of over $2.5 trillion; and an increases in household electricity expenditures between 13 percent and 20 percent.
- The risk-reward ratio for the U.S. was awful. So combine our facts. The economic impact from the accords would be nearly catastrophic to the U.S. Guaranteed. But the benefits would be minimal at best, and the models constructing those benefits are hard to trust as they have been wrong for nearly two decades. It was a reckless set of accords — except for the people safely ensconced in those negotiating rooms in swank hotels around the world, flying in on private jets fueled by fossil fuels.
- The accords were voluntary and unenforceable. And some of the biggest contributors would never abide by them. China, for instance, signed the accords, but stipulated they would not begin implementing any emission goals until 2030 — not coincidentally the year that the agreement runs out. But they get credit for signing it. In fact, all of the nations that signed on and are the fastest climbing carbon emitters would do nothing to curb their use. But they would gain economic advantage.
- Risk losing national sovereignty. This agreement — negotiated remember by President Obama with no Senate approval — set the U.S. on the path to allowing a global organization, maybe headquartered in Europe, to control domestic policy. That, of course, spells ultimately the end of the Great American Experiment, and that is not hyperbole. We have no effective Constitution if other countries can set our policies. In his announcement, Trump said: “…our withdrawal from the agreement represents a reassertion of America’s sovereignty. Our constitution is unique among all nations of the world. And it is my highest obligation and greatest honor to protect it…” Absolutely correct.
- The media coverage is wholly untrustworthy. A whole lot of people are being led to a conclusion, not provided impartial data. Never ever forget the “journalists” who were covering the Paris Accords who spontaneously responded with clapping and dancing and hugging like they were Greenpeace activists. You really have to watch the 13-second clip. So, like many of the climate change scientists, it is impossible for any average or above-average American to trust the climate change journalism gang.
For some great historical context on the untrustworthy combination of science and journalism on this topic, the 1990 Today Show program reported “facing a sea-level rise not of one to three feet in a century, but of 10 or 20 feet in a much shorter time. The Supreme Court would be flooded. You could tie your boat to the Washington Monument.” Again, worth watching the short clip.
There is a rational case for convening an impartial panel — meaning a panel of scientists and others who think the warming is man-made and those who do not and those who think it is overstated — to truly study and verify the data without a one-sided agenda. This panel could include investigating the data we know was corrupted to make it look like there is more warming than there is. And then posting as directly to the web and people as possible to bypass the untrustworthy climate change media.
Without that, too many people are suspicious. And the worthlessness of these accords on global warming only furthers that suspicion.
A no-brainer to pull out
And finally, pulling out of the Paris Accords was a Trump campaign promise. He made promises, was duly elected and has been keeping them. This was one of those. It’s unusual in Washington, but a good thing.
This agreement was all risk for the United States and very little reward for the climate, even accepting the global warming assumptions.
The well-being of the American people was put in grave harm’s way. Any good President should stand against such an agreement. Obama made the agreement, knowing that it harmed the country. Trump removed us, knowing that doing so was good for the country. And there is virtually no harm by the climate models by doing so.
That is such a kicker. Unfortunately, millions persuaded of the horribleness of this deed may never really know that because they are trusting the climate change journalists for information.
Looking at this accord in its entirety suggests there were a lot of countries that were using it as a tool to gain an economic advantage on the United States. It had nothing to do with climate change for them.
Trump was absolutely right to keep his promise and protect the American people by pulling out of it.
EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Revolutionary Act.