Paris Climate Agreement a Bad Deal for Americans

obama summitWashington, D.C. – The Committee on Science, Space, and Technology today held a hearing to examine the various scientific, economic and other policy issues surrounding President Obama’s recent pledge to the United Nations-led effort to curtail greenhouse gas emissions. The president pledged that the United States will cut its greenhouse gas emissions by as much as 28 percent over the next decade and by 80 percent or more by 2050.

Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas): “The president’s Paris pledge will increase electricity costs, ration energy and slow economic growth. Congress has repeatedly rejected the president’s extreme climate agenda. The president’s climate pledge is a bad deal for the American economy, the American people and would produce no substantive environmental benefits.” A video of Chairman Smith’s full statement is available here.

Witnesses today questioned the legality of the agreement and stressed that the president’s pledge lacks constitutional legitimacy since it has not been ratified by the Senate. In addition to promised greenhouse gas reductions, the Paris agreement would require the United States to contribute billions of taxpayer dollars to developing countries to reduce their carbon emissions. Witnesses today questioned how the administration intends to honor this agreement without Congressional approval, since all public funds must be appropriated through Congress.

Witnesses were also critical of whether the agreement would have any significant impact on climate change. For example, the U.S. pledge to the U.N. is estimated to prevent only one-fiftieth of one degree Celsius temperature rise over the next 85 years. And EPA’s own data shows that the administration’s costly Clean Power Plan regulation that is the cornerstone of its pledge would reduce sea level rise by one one-hundredth of an inch, or the thickness of three sheets of paper.

In December, a majority of Congress disapproved of the EPA’s Clean Power Plan regulation through the Congressional Review Act. The governors of most states are also challenging the rule in court.

The following witness testified today:
Mr. Steve Eule, Vice President for Climate and Technology, U.S. Chamber of Commerce

Dr. John Christy, Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth System Science Center, University of Alabama in Huntsville

Dr. Andrew Steer, President and CEO, World Resources Institute

Mr. Steven Groves, The Bernard and Barbara Lomas Senior Research Fellow, Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom, The Heritage Foundation

For more information about today’s hearing, including witness testimony and the hearing webcast, please visit the Committee’s website.


Comments (5)

  • Avatar

    David Lewis


    This article stated, “the U.S. pledge to the U.N. is estimated to prevent only one-fiftieth of one degree Celsius temperature rise over the next 85 years.”

    I would like to interject the alarmists’ answer to this so that readers of this form will be ready when talking to friends or commenting on other web sites.

    The alarmists say that small amount of cooling from the Clean Power Act isn’t what is important. What is important is it permits the US to lead other nations to reduce emissions and collectively it will be enough to matter.

    A good response comes from John Kerry, on of the main alarmists. He said that even if the industrial world’s emission went to zero, emissions would still increase because of what is happening in the developing world such as India and China.

    Obviously, Obama is not leading other nations with what is doing to the US. However, he is causing significant job loss and harm to our economy.

  • Avatar



    Obama legacy …changed the sea level rise by
    one one -hundredth of an inch ..maybe . Costs $$Trillions for sure . He was not considered insane at the time .

    Global warming is good . Hands up from those that would like to see a cooling trend . Plants and animals mailed in their votes for warming . PS .. If CO2 helps a bit carry on humans .
    And what about the feelings of fish,don’t they count ? A bit more room to swim around is a good thing for all the sea criters isn’t it ?
    One one -hundredth of an inch isn’t much but
    hey it would have been going the right way .
    You know offset some of that island building by the Peoples Army of China in the South China Sea .

    The 1970’s global cooling promoters really picked the right scare but like the current global warming scare reality intervened and that just sucks if you are trying to fool the people . BOO only works for a little while and that is just an inconvenient truth .

    The difference this time is the pile on by banks and a host of other gamers . Those global cooling guys were not so clever . No Enron’s to
    write the play book for them . They just looked for headlines and a bit of grant money .

    Not every President can say they may have changed sea levels by +/- one one-hundredth
    of one percent .

  • Avatar

    Charles Higley


    It is valid to say that any law or executive order that alters our energy supply is UnConstitutional. The Federal government has no Constitutional power to mess with our energy supply. In the interest of facilitating interstate commerce, they may help even out the power grid and such, but any law interfering with or decreasing or destabilizing our energy supply is illegal.

  • Avatar



    I agree with you but

    There is no way you or anybody else is going to convince an

    arrogant mozlam piece of shit called O’Bama that he is not G-d and therefor can dictatorially rule and exercise the prerogatives of deity

    The pig called O’Bama thinks he is G-d !

  • Avatar



    Then JayPee why talk about it? 😉

Comments are closed