(JD Heyes) Far-Left Democrats and so-called “environmentalists” who still believe the global warming hoax
are furious at President Donald J. Trump for keeping his campaign
pledge to withdraw the United States from the “non-binding” Paris
Climate Accords signed onto by the Obama administration.
by JD Heyes, June 2nd, 2017
But perhaps after they calm down and allow their blood pressure to return to normal, they can take a rational, reasoned look at why the president made his decision; if they afford him that courtesy, there is no way they can conclude that his decision was wrong.
In making the announcement from the White House Rose Garden Thursday afternoon, Trump stated that he felt obligated to withdraw from the agreement — which should have been sent to the U.S. Senate by Obama to be ratified as a treaty, because that’s what it was, in both style and substance — because it is “a bad deal” for American workers, taxpayers and companies.
Trump also knocked the cost of the agreement — which will rise to some $450 billion a year, much of which would have to come from the U.S. — while major polluters who are also signatories to the deal do not have to comply with the accords’ emissions limitations for more than a decade. Meanwhile, the U.S. has to comply immediately.
The president also lashed out at his critics who said pulling out of the deal would be a disaster for the country, noting that remaining in the agreement would cost American families and businesses billions per year. Also, he said, the agreement prohibited the U.S. from “conducting its own domestic economic affairs” by preventing the development of our own natural resources, like clean coal and natural gas, both of which create far fewer emissions than other forms of energy.
“I was elected to represent the people of Pittsburg, not Paris,” Trump said. “It’s time to pursue a new deal that protects” the environment, as well as the American people.
Trump, according to various experts and analyses, was right to withdraw from the current agreement as written.
“Through a litany of regulations stemming from the agreement, Obama has essentially offered up the U.S. economy as a sacrificial lamb to further his own legacy,” Americans for Tax Reform noted Wednesday in a post on its website. “Sadly, the agreement will not just hurt the country’s growth as a whole, but will trickle down to low-and-middle income Americans. As a result of the agreement, energy costs will skyrocket, in turn raising the cost of utility bills for families and increasing the costs of consumer goods.”
A study of the agreement by the Heritage Foundation, released in April 2016, found that the agreement would have resulted in the adoption of government policies that dramatically increased electricity costs for a family of four between 13 and 20 percent annually. In addition, the analysis found that American families would lose out on some $20,000 in income by 2035, regressive (not progressive) economic policies that no doubt would hit the nation’s poorest the hardest. [Meanwhile, we’re sure that Obama won’t have any trouble paying his electric bill, no matter what it costs]
Other analysts, as Trump noted in his speech, noted that the loss of U.S. annual gross domestic product would be close to $3 trillion by 2035, while reducing employment in the U.S. by about 400,000 jobs, half of which would be in manufacturing.
But perhaps most galling of all is the fact that even the far Left admitted that the agreement would accomplish virtually nothing — and certainly was not the global carbon emissions destroyer its principle advocates made it out to be.
In fact, emissions reductions are barely on the table at all. Instead, the talks are rigged to ensure an agreement is reached regardless of how little action countries plan to take. The developing world, projected to account for four-fifths of all carbon-dioxide emissions this century, will earn applause for what amounts to a promise to stay on their pre-existing trajectory of emissions-intensive growth.
As Trump said, “The agreement is a massive redistribution of wealth from the U.S. to other countries.”
There is no good reason to remain in it, just as there was no good reason for Obama to have signed it.
About The Author
J.D. Heyes is a senior writer for NaturalNews.com and NewsTarget.com, as well as editor of The National Sentinel.
Stillness in the Storm Editor’s note: Did you find a spelling error or grammar mistake? Do you think this article needs a correction or update? Or do you just have some feedback? Send us an email at firstname.lastname@example.org with the error, headline and url. Thank you for reading.