Donald Trump may have done my favorite move of his presidency by pulling the U.S. out of the Paris climate treaty.
Facebook Friend and meteorologist Mike Smith posted …
To my many liberal friends: Want more Republicans in Congress? Want Trump to be reelected to a second term?
Then, keep doing these silly total freakouts completely out of proportion to the facts of a situation.
The Paris Agreement was a joke that even Dr. James Hansen condemned. …
Trillions, yes, trillions of dollars for almost no positive effect. 0.01°C of averted warming? We can’t even measure that amount.
… with this response:
I have been in the electric vehicle business for over 20 years, and agree with pulling out of the farce that this (non biding) agreement was. The Paris climate accords were a terrible deal – it would have imposed vast costs on America, undermined our economy, cost U.S. jobs and let major polluters like China off the hook for decades while doing almost nothing to help the environment. The U.S. is already a leader in clean energy, having reduced CO2 emissions 12 percent in the past decade. We can do so much more with the $100 bil that the US would have had to spend for other countries getting a free pass. We can be more sustainable with our own agreement. Don’t be so quick to criticize- So glad we are pulling out of this bad deal.
Let’s free up the American economy to produce more and cleaner energy without these one-sided, job-killing global restrictions.”
Not to mention that Obama entered this deal illegally without required approval of congress. The solutions we need for to clean the air will happen in a more efficient way!
Arthur Milikh covers the worldwide reaction, which should not matter one bit:
Phony high-mindedness is also being deployed against Trump. French President Emmanuel Macron, for instance, went around America’s head of state and chief representative to flatter the American public, reassuring the American public that France and the world still “believes in you.”
That global elites feel sufficient self-confidence to attempt to publicly shame the president of the United States is partly because other U.S. presidents have typically succumbed to similar pressures long before they became public.
Yet few arguments against Trump reveal as much as a recent Washington Post headline: “Trump made up his mind on Paris. Now the rest of the world will do the same on him.” In other words, the U.S. president’s deliberations should be derived from fear of elite ire, speaking on behalf of a world majority.
Leveraging the alleged authority of the majority—not a national majority, but that of the world itself—Trump’s critics cite the fact that America, Nicaragua, and Syria are the only nations not subject to the Paris accord. The dogma that majorities are wise—half-believed, half-used as manipulation by advocates—is striking partly because of the elevation of nations like Iran and North Korea, suddenly viewed as committed environmentalists.
Using similar arguments, the Obama administration worked hard to obligate the American public, despite itself, to agreements that appeared to be treaties, but that have none of the legal or moral authority. The Iran agreement, for instance, proceeded in this way. From its example, one learned not only that such agreements are unenforceable, but that they contain a host of cash transfers, which would never stand the light of investigative inquiry if they were real treaties.
More importantly, obligating the entire nation for generations to come requires Senate ratification, for no small reason. That is because the public should consent to being obligated to going to war, like in case of violation of the Iran deal, or of transferring billions of dollars to other nations, while stifling domestic interests, like in the case of the Paris Agreement.
This Obama-era approach in practice means rule not by the U.S. Senate, but rule by elite international opinion, hiding behind a seeming majoritarian consensus. These opinion makers, feeling neither moral obligations to the well-being of any particular nation, nor under any check to carry out their promises, aim to replace the deliberative function of the Senate.
Trump is right to not cave to this breed of influence. If the agreement is suitable for the U.S., the Senate must debate the matter and gain the public’s consent. Without this, public trust and republican honor are undermined, and our constitutional institutions are replaced with rule by international pressure.
You may have read that big business CEOs opposed Trump’s move. Jordan LaPorta explains:
Libertarians and true conservatives heralded the move as one of Trump’s best to date, but liberals and big business leaders have attacked the decision on the mainstream airwaves and on Twitter.
Massive corporation after massive corporation has come out in favor of the U.S. remaining in the deal, including heavy-hitters such as Exxon Mobil, Chevron, BP, and Shell.
“We believe climate change is real,” said Ben van Beurden, CEO of Shell. “We believe that the world needs to go through an energy transition to prevent a very significant rise in global temperatures. And we need to be part of that solution in making it happen.”
Perhaps one of the most vocal critics of the president’s decision to leave the regulatory compact is Elon Musk, American entrepreneur and founder of Tesla Motors and Space X. On Twitter, Musk pledged to leave the president’s business councils because of his altruistic stand on behalf of mother earth. It’s quite touching, really.
Musk, like many other business elites, lobbied hard for Trump to keep America in the restrictive agreement. But the real reason Musk, Shell, Exon, and so many others wanted to the country to stay in the deal has nothing to do with the saving the planet — that’s just the “PR” reason. The real reason is that the agreement’s increased regulations on businesses work in their best profit interest. The thought is certainly counterintuitive, but it makes quite a bit of sense.
The Wall Street Journal recently reported on the incredibly high cost of business regulation in the United States, finding that Americans spent $1.6 trillion to comply with government mandates in 2016 alone. That money would be enough to constitute the world’s seventh-largest economy. But big businesses owned by the likes of Musk can afford these high costs, while their smaller competitors cannot. What this creates is an environment ripe for oligopoly, headed by a few big cartels. That’s not exactly what I would call a “free market.”
Musk and oil companies are no opponents to government intervention at all. In fact, the government subsidizes both Musk’s playthings and the entire oil industry to the highest degree.
It’s incredibly frustrating when people look at such system and cry wolf about the evils of “capitalism.” This is not capitalism; it’s corporatism writ large. Libertarian thinkier Albert Jay Nock put it best when he said “the simple truth is that our businessmen do not want a gov-ernment that will let business alone. They want a government they can use.”
But I guess you can’t put “Down with Corporatism” on a Che Guevera shirt and expect it to sell.
These big businesses wouldn’t be out any profit at all; they would just pass the cost to consumers in higher taxes. Too bad for you if higher energy prices mean no vacation for your family.
Instapundit has this revealing report:
RENT-SEEKERS GOTTA SEEK RENTS: German carmakers fear losing competitive edge after U.S. Paris exit.
“The regrettable announcement by the USA makes it inevitable that Europe must facilitate a cost efficient and economically feasible climate policy to remain internationally competitive,” Matthias Wissmann, president of the German auto industry lobby group VDA, said in a statement on Friday.
“The preservation of our competitive position is the precondition for successful climate protection. This correlation is often underestimated,” Wissmann said, adding that the decision by the Unites States was disappointing.
The VDA said electricity and energy prices are already higher in Germany than in the United States, putting Germany at a disadvantage.
Now we know what the Paris Accords were really about — hampering U.S. industries to make Europe’s more competitive.
Global climate change is occurring, but not principally because of human causes. The question therefore is what are you willing to give up for a negligible effect on the world climate?