Trump should keep his promise to cancel Obama climate deal

One of the central themes of President Donald Trump’s campaign was the need to extricate the United States from international agreements that hurt American jobs and unfairly disadvantage American companies versus foreign competitors.  Another major theme was the promise to reverse Obama’s regulatory power grabs that dramatically expanded government control over our lives without the approval of Congress.

Those two themes came together in a very concrete promise when Trump said: “We’re going to cancel the Paris Climate Agreement and stop all payments of U.S. tax dollars to U.N. global warming programs.”

So why hasn’t it happened yet? Public reports indicate there is an ongoing pitched battle between the president’s top advisers on whether he should keep his campaign promise or abandon it. And my own private sources in the administration believe the promise-breakers may be gaining the upper hand.

Their argument is that America can remain in the agreement while revising its draconian emissions reduction goals in order to “keep a seat at the table.”  Bad idea.

The Paris treaty effectively bans coal-fired power plants in the United States while China has 368 coal plants under construction and over 800 in the planning stage.  India’s coal production under the deal is allowed to double by 2020 — and they are likely to have emissions much higher than what they promised.  Even Europe is allowed to build coal plants.  It forces Americans to endure painful cuts while the rest of the world continues with business as usual.

Even worse, American taxpayers will be forced to cough up $100 billion in climate-related foreign aid by 2020, with the promise of much more to follow.

As Trump observed on the stump:

“President Obama entered the United States into the Paris Climate Accords — unilaterally, and without the permission of Congress. This agreement gives foreign bureaucrats control over how much energy we use right here in America.”

The idea that we could adjust how draconian the cuts are and remain in the agreement depends on a dicey matter of legal interpretation.

Article 4.11 of the Paris treaty says “A Party may at any time adjust its existing nationally determined contribution with a view to enhancing its level of ambition.”

Is easing off the energy rationing by allowing higher emissions enhancing ambition? Maybe, but I wouldn’t bet on it.

Read rest…

Trackback from your site.

Comments (3)

  • Avatar

    Spurwing Plover

    |

    Obmas climate deal isa deal with the devil and the New World Order

    Reply

  • Avatar

    G

    |

    This was never a “deal”…
    What did the United States get in return?
    A “seat at the table”…?
    A location to bend over and drop our pants?… “Thank you sirs! May I have another?!”

    It’s a giveaway. It’s a surrender. And the Master of the Deal needs to kick it to the curb like rotting garbage.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Amber

    |

    Good article in the Jackson Sun by Phil Kerpen .
    Mr . Trump summarized this exactly correct during the campaign
    knowing he was going to have a mega phone of self dealers
    flipping out if their tax payer bank cut them off .
    Just do it and move on to the next swamp that needs emptying .
    The Liberals hiding behind Mr. Trump should shut it before they damage his brand .

    Reply

Leave a comment