Trump CAN end Paris climate agreement participation by the U.S.

Elections Shake Up Climate Policy Picture

Guest essay by H. Sterling Burnett

The election of Donald Trump as the next president of the United States has left reeling the environmental lobbyists and activists and international leaders committed to reducing fossil fuel use to meet the Paris climate agreement. As the Washington Post noted, “Trump comes into office with a plan to toss out most of what President Obama achieved on energy and the environment.”

Trump, who has called the alleged human-caused climate change catastrophe a “hoax,” vowed to “cancel” the United States’ participation in the Paris climate accord. Trump also has committed to scrapping the Clean Power Plan, the Obama administration’s signature effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Trump has said he will review and possibly reverse the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) determination carbon dioxide is a pollutant endangering public and environmental health (the “endangerment finding”). Trump can’t undo the endangerment finding with the stroke of a pen, but he is in a position to get that done over time. Reversing the endangerment finding would end the legal justification for a range of climate regulations. In the process, it also would end radical environmental activists’ ability to use the courts to impose climate policies on an unwilling public whose elected representatives have repeatedly rejected climate policies.

Before the election, Trump said he would reverse Obama administration rules imposing undue burdens on businesses. In particular, Trump said he would cut EPA’s budget dramatically, virtually reducing it to an advisory agency, and review all EPA regulations, eliminating many of them because, “Over-regulation presents one of the greatest barriers to entry into markets and one of the greatest costs to businesses that are trying to stay competitive.”

Trump says he wants to open up more federal lands to oil and gas drilling and eliminate regulations that have contributed to the decline of the coal industry.

The Washington Post reported,

“Scott Segal, co-head of government relations at the legal and lobbying firm Bracewell, said in an email a Trump administration would be ‘clearly in favor of enhanced exploration and production of oil and gas as a tenet of energy, economic and national security policy.’”

Environmentalists and some foreign dignitaries fear what Trump’s election means for America’s climate commitments and environmental policies. “We’re feeling angry and sad and contemplative,” Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club, told the Post.

Asked by the Post how “the environmental movement would deal with a President Trump, Bill McKibben, founder of the climate action group, said in an email

‘[I] don’t really know.’”

The Guardian reports international climate negotiators at the United Nations’ climate talks in Morocco say “it would be a catastrophe if Trump acted on his pledge to withdraw the US from the deal, which took 20 years to negotiate, and to open up public land for coal, oil and gas extraction.”

Speaking to reporters at the Morocco meeting, Ségolène Royale, the French environment minister who helped negotiate the Paris accord, said Trump could not easily withdraw the United States from the treaty.

“The Paris agreement prohibits any exit for a period of three years, plus a year-long notice period, so there will be four stable years.”

On this point Royale is whistling past a graveyard. Trump can end the United States’ participation in the Paris climate agreement either directly or indirectly. Directly, he can “unsign” the agreement. Regardless of the text of the agreement, because it has not been ratified by the U.S. Senate as required by the Constitution, it has no force of law in the United States. And because the treaty sets only voluntary goals with no legal enforcement mechanism, other countries have no legal way of enforcing the agreement’s terms on the United States.

Indirectly, Trump can scuttle the country’s participation by reversing Obama’s climate actions and not replacing them with alternative climate policies. If Trump does this, U.S. participation in the Paris climate agreement dies from neglect.

SOURCES: Climate Change Weekly; Washington Post; and The Guardian

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
November 12, 2016 2:39 pm

Trump’s ability to affect Anything is still over two months away. Even without ratification by congress, oh!bummer! can do a great deal of damage :/

Reply to  ClimateOtter
November 12, 2016 2:40 pm

‘still do’

Reply to  ClimateOtter
November 12, 2016 9:33 pm

What can he “still do” ? He’s a lame duck pres. now. All he can do is a few more exec orders which will get reversed before the ink is dry. And honestly he sounds like he is going to work for a smooth, cooperative hand-over, where he is probably hoping temper some of Trump more outlandish claims. rather than make make a mess and crap on the carpet in the oval office on the way out.

And because the treaty sets only voluntary goals

How about because the treaty IS NOT A TREATY, it’s an “agreement”.
The Paris charade and the climate hoax is now dead in the water.
China has agreed to do nothing other than to expand its economy in the foreseeable future; US will pull-out from this toothless, meaningless “agreement” and the only fools still playing will be a cluster of european countries who are now quaking in their boots after Brexit and Trump results.
If they continue to screw around and fail to reform their anti-democratic EU project, in very short shrift they will be washed aside by populist movements like France’s neo-fascist National Front.
Like Nigel Farrage told them in the EU pseudo-parliament : “you’re not laughing now, are you?”

Reply to  ClimateOtter
November 12, 2016 11:49 pm

There are some irreversible things he can do.
He can designate more Federal lands and sea-areas as Monuments. That move is difficult to undo, even with Congress.
Non-climate/environmental irreversible things he can do:
He can probably forgive a a huge chunk of Federal Student Loans. Once forgiven, that is impossible to “un-forgive.”
He can issue boatloads of pardons to criminals and to ptential criminals like the Clintons and her inner circle.
He will likely order the US military to bring the remaining Gitmo detainees to the US mainland, despite that being illegal.

Reply to  ClimateOtter
November 13, 2016 7:35 am

joelobryan: How do you pardon someone not convicted of a crime? I didn’t know there was “pre-emptive” pardoning of someone who is not yet convicted.

Tom Halla
Reply to  Reality check
November 13, 2016 7:43 am

Reality Check–you must be rather younger than me, and not remember Watergate and its aftermath. Gerald Ford pardoned Nixon before any chaareges were filed, and the pardon stuck. To recycle a joke of the period, Nixon’s last words to Ford on leaving office were “Pardon me”.

Eugene WR Gallun
Reply to  ClimateOtter
November 13, 2016 10:08 am

Greg —
“France’s neo-fascist National Front”????
You must be some liberal who still thinks he can get away with calling anyone he doesn’t like a Nazi. Would you care to guess how many times Democrats have called Republicans Nazis? If you want to be listened to I suggest you drop those slurs from your rhetoric.
Eugene WR Gallun

Reply to  ClimateOtter
November 13, 2016 11:58 am

Tom Halla – I’m old enough to remember Ford’s pardon of Nixon. But it might not serve as a precedent because it was never legally challened in court. I remember at the time almost everyone just wanted Nixon to go away and they wanted an end to the whole Watergate mess. Even at the time I remember a lot of people saying that Ford’s pardon probably wasn’t legal but who cared, just end it.
Since under our laws you are innocent until proven guilty how can an innocent person be pardoned of a crime they didn’t do? Seems to me that you have to be found guilty before you can be pardoned?

Richard G.
Reply to  ClimateOtter
November 13, 2016 1:36 pm
From the U.S. Department of Justice to God Ears:
“Under the Constitution, only federal criminal convictions, such as those adjudicated in the United States District Courts, may be pardoned by the President. In addition, the President’s pardon power extends to convictions adjudicated in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia and military court-martial proceedings. However, the President cannot pardon a state criminal offense.”…
“Under the Department’s rules governing petitions for executive clemency, 28 C.F.R. §§ 1.1 et seq., an applicant must satisfy a minimum waiting period of five years before he becomes eligible to apply for a presidential pardon of his federal conviction. The waiting period, which is designed to afford the petitioner a reasonable period of time in which to demonstrate an ability to lead a responsible, productive and law-abiding life, begins on the date of the petitioner’s release from confinement. Alternatively, if the conviction resulted in a sentence that did not include any form of confinement, including community or home confinement, the waiting period begins on the date of sentencing. In addition, the petitioner should have fully satisfied the penalty imposed, including all probation, parole, or supervised release before applying for clemency. Moreover, the waiting period begins upon release from confinement for your most recent conviction, whether or not this is the offense for which pardon is sought.”…

Reply to  ClimateOtter
November 13, 2016 7:34 pm

FN’s president and daughter of Jean-Marie Le Pen (FN’s founder), Marine Le Pen is pushing an extreme left agenda, with price control on bread. It seems like she hates capitalism as much as communism, and want to control factories to keep jobs. Marine Le Pen is very much Bernie Sanders + “build the wall”.
Jean-Marie Le Pen is a nationalist who was too young to enter the Résistance against the nazis. He likes joking about the Shoah and doubting its reality for the love of provocation. He is a say-anything kind of guy, a sort of uber-anti-PC. Jean-Marie Le Pen is very strongly anti communist. He also promoted some of Ronald Reagan’s ideas.
Marion-Maréchal Le Pen is more a catholic traditionalist who doesn’t want to forbid abortion, but who says that family planing is doing too much leftist propaganda (notably, pro immigration) and cannot get subsidies while they do. Marion-Maréchal Le Pen is considered very much more pro-business and less leftist than Marine Le Pen. She is also more articulate.
French’s “extreme right” a diverse bunch with almost very nuance of almost every idea.

Reply to  ClimateOtter
November 12, 2016 4:44 pm

“The threat is stronger than the execution” – Nimzowitsch

Reply to  ClimateOtter
November 12, 2016 4:49 pm

“Even without ratification by congress, oh!bummer! can do a great deal of damage :/”
You’ve got that right. Obama no doubt has a lot of last minute details he wants to clean up before he leaves the White House, and you know anything he does will require undoing in the future, because it will not be beneficial. What a disaster Obama has been for the whole world.

Reply to  TA
November 13, 2016 5:11 am

Obama’s can still operate through the UN Security Council and, possible, through the UN General Assembly. Trump could still reject those actions for the US. It would muddy the waters a bit more.
What will happen is a large number of well-funded lawsuits. The ACLU, for example, has already announced their intent to sue. What would insure a clear win for the anti-warmist would be Trump appointing someone like Marc Morano as a Supreme Court Justice.

George Daddis
Reply to  cedarhill
November 13, 2016 8:16 pm

SCOTUS appointments should be made on the basis of support for the Constitution as written, not on the basis of ideology, even that which I support.

Reply to  ClimateOtter
November 13, 2016 10:28 am

Trump started affecting quite a bit starting Tuesday night. The coastal blue babies are rioting where? In Democrat controlled areas. Is their lack of control a good image? The EPA is in a panic, the change that is coming is already upon them. Who is in charge of their transition? Paris 2015 is dead and Trump needs to little now or later. He can if he wishes confirm its passing later, if closure is required.

Reply to  Brent Walker
November 12, 2016 5:20 pm

Forces ?? National Geographic ?? I bet he’s scared sh!tless. Is someone going to roll one up and hit him with it ??

November 12, 2016 2:41 pm

Dear Gina McCarthy,
None of the EPA’s environmental agenda has been deemed constitutional, so stop trying force it down the American people’s throat. You are entering the extra-legal world of anti-democracy!
Accept the collective wisdom of the last election and stop any more environmental tyranny, pretty please!

John Robertson
Reply to  Steve Heins
November 12, 2016 9:04 pm

Surely you mean :”Dear Richard Windsor”???

Steve Heins
November 12, 2016 2:46 pm

Dear Gina McCarthy, none of the EPA’s environmental agenda has been deemed constitutional, so stop trying force it down the American people’s throat. You are entering the extra-legal world of anti-democracy!
Accept the collective wisdom of the last election and stop any more environmental tyranny, pretty please!

Rex knight
Reply to  Steve Heins
November 12, 2016 2:57 pm


george e. smith
Reply to  Steve Heins
November 12, 2016 3:33 pm

Who Gina McCarthy. ??
She that pushy broad who used to work at the EPA back in the old days ?
I heard she is still looking for a paying job, which is pretty difficult, when you simply don’t have any marketable skills that anybody needs.

Reply to  george e. smith
November 12, 2016 6:02 pm

Wait – don’t you mean ‘Richard Windsor’?

November 12, 2016 2:50 pm

which took 20 years to negotiate…and still got nowhere
They can go on forever…….
The wrong people are still telling me to not vote for Trump

Stephen Richards
Reply to  Latitude
November 13, 2016 2:43 am

The effing french of all people. A lame president, with his ex ex exs in power telling a true business leader what he cannot do.!
Se degagez Royal you stupid woman. Socialists will destroy every country in which they are dominant and that includes the uk. And yes Cameron was a socialist

Gerry, England
Reply to  Stephen Richards
November 13, 2016 6:53 am

So true, Cameron is no conservative. He modelled the old Tory party into Blue Labour in honour of his hero Tony Blair. The referendum result was just the first step. We need to purge the centrist liberals from power next. The vast open space of the centre right lies empty, waiting for a party to take advantage of it to get support from both Labour and Tory alike. The referendum showed that the old class divisions no longer exist and that as Baroness Thatcher found out, the so called working class can have aspirations too. If only UKIP could rise to the challenge but sadly I think it is unlikely.

Tom Halla
November 12, 2016 2:51 pm

Obama relied too much on executive orders and regulations to leave a lasting impact. Probably the major effect will be Obama appointed judges trying to preserve his legacy, so a very determined appointee to the Supreme Court is required to override that sort of thing. I have seen a story on the web that Trump is considering Ted Cruz, who I tend to agree with on both constitutional law and the green blob. I wonder if Cruz would take it if offered.

Barbara Skolaut
Reply to  Tom Halla
November 12, 2016 4:29 pm

Wonder how we could get President Trump (ooo, that sounds delicious!) to consider Glenn Reynolds or Eugene Volokh for the Supreme Court. 😀

Reply to  Tom Halla
November 12, 2016 4:31 pm

One must wonder whether Princeton would celebrate that with quite the same fervor with which it feted Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor.

NW sage
Reply to  diogenesnj
November 12, 2016 5:07 pm

Is there a difference between a celebration and a wake?

stas peterson BSME, MSMa, MBA
Reply to  diogenesnj
November 18, 2016 4:52 pm

The Obozo Marxist Mediocraties have had ample opportunity to reveal their truly banal selves, No legal thinking ability and truly sub par IQs… They won’t be missed.

Reply to  Tom Halla
November 12, 2016 4:57 pm

“I have seen a story on the web that Trump is considering Ted Cruz, who I tend to agree with on both constitutional law and the green blob. I wonder if Cruz would take it if offered.”
I would like to see Ted Cruz on the Supreme Court. I think we could count on him to defend the U.S. Constitution the way we want it protected. A lot of judges are to some extent unknowns, and don’t always do as you think they would once they get on the Supreme Court, but I think we could count on Cruz to be his consistent self when it comes to the U.S. Constitution.

George Daddis
Reply to  TA
November 13, 2016 8:59 am

Agreed! I would NOT want DJT to use ALL of his possible future opportunities on Cruz clones, but rather to replace Scalia as the sole hard line Constitutionalist. If “near literal” interpretations are are to harsh, there will be others on the bench (e.g. Thomas) to temper his recommendations, but I think we need that one Justice that clearly states and stands firm on what the founders intended.
(I’ve heard legal scholars predict that it will be Scalia’s opinions, even when he was on the losing side of a decision, that will live on longest in legal text books.)

Reply to  TA
November 13, 2016 10:25 am

If Ted Cruz gets appointed to the SC he will turn into another Breyer. His wife is a Globalist.

Reply to  TA
November 13, 2016 2:10 pm


November 12, 2016 2:52 pm

Have the Senate vote on ratification of the Paris Agreement, as was done with Kyoto. See if 2/3 of the Senators will approve or reject.
“The President may form and negotiate, but the treaty must be advised and consented to by a two-thirds vote in the Senate. Only after the Senate approves the treaty can the President ratify it. Once it is ratified, it becomes binding on all the states under the Supremacy Clause.”
In 1997, by a vote of 95–0, the U.S. Senate passed a resolution that made clear that it would never ratify the Kyoto agreement, which the Clinton Administration would sign anyway the following year.
Didn’t vote:
Bryan (D-NV), Not Voting
Feinstein (D-CA), Not Voting
Grams (R-MN), Not Voting
Harkin (D-IA), Not Voting
Reid (D-NV), Not Voting

Reply to  ferdberple
November 13, 2016 10:38 am

Who do you propose to send the “treaty” to the Senate? Obama is unlikely and Trump has need to.

Reply to  Flyoverbob
November 13, 2016 10:40 am

That is Trump has NO need to.

November 12, 2016 2:52 pm

Obama can’t do anything substantive between now and the Inauguration. Executive order is all he has and those will be undone rather quickly so I don’t understand the fear of Obama “doing” anything.

Reply to  nigelf
November 12, 2016 5:00 pm

“so I don’t understand the fear of Obama “doing” anything.”
You don’t live in Israel, I’m guessing.

Reply to  nigelf
November 12, 2016 9:52 pm

He can give pardons, which would be permanent.
Other tan that, nada.

November 12, 2016 2:58 pm

Ségolène Royal, actually.
As in, “royal”, “de nature royale”, related with the King.

Bruce Cobb
November 12, 2016 2:58 pm

I hear China is stepping up to the plate as the “leader” of the Paris climate agreement. Suddenly China is pro-climate. Who knew?

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
November 12, 2016 3:13 pm

They need to get rid of a million acres of solar panels they’ve already manufactured. When that is done we may see wind of change, not that they are going to stop building about one hundred coal powered electricity generating stations in the next few years. .

Reply to  vukcevic
November 12, 2016 3:42 pm

Dear Vukcevik:
As usual from you, good, sensible, practical comments.
The Chinese see themselves as the aspiring hegemon, and nothing is going to stop them. Kruschev said in the UN: “We are going to bury the West!” … but failed. The Chinese have the wind in their sails and they’re not going to goof this opportunity. The US is broke (owing most of it to the Chinese). Some say that they both have each other ‘by the balls’ but time was when no-one had USA ‘by the balls’..
If we ‘flip’, they’ll ‘flop’ and v.v. and continue to turn the screws every which way in the new ‘Long March’ to achieve World hegemony..
Just as Reagan stared the Russians down, I’m hoping Trump will have the ‘balls’ to resist Chinese expansionism, both by World influence and territorial.

Steamboat McGoo
Reply to  vukcevic
November 12, 2016 4:46 pm

Ross King – “I’m hoping Trump will have the ‘balls’ to resist Chinese expansionism…”
Trump just achieved a win (against a “pre-ordained” opponent) that “97%” of pundits were convinced was impossible, and in the process carried several candidates for election/re-election to home plate with him – with all of the MSM and a lot of his own party actively bucking his efforts – and preserving the Senate & House majorities.
Trump has his faults, but Testicular Fortitude is definitely not one of them.

Steamboat McGoo
Reply to  vukcevic
November 12, 2016 4:47 pm

That would be “lack of” …

Reply to  vukcevic
November 12, 2016 6:20 pm

Obama managed to almost double the national debt, but, should it come to the worst, the U.S. can erase it with a truckload of banknote paper and several barrels of green ink.

Reply to  vukcevic
November 12, 2016 7:26 pm

China cannot let the US become energy/oil independent. If they do the US debt owed to China will not become “too big to fail”. They need the US to default so they become the reserve currency.
Someone has invented a method of inexpensively and benignly separating hydrocarbons from any plant. This will drive the price of oil below the Middle East extraction cost and extend the life of oil out another 20,000 years at sub US$10/barrel cost.
China wants to take over a bankrupt reserve currency. Energy price and independence is the key. Renewables are not going to be competitive without subsidies (taxing and printing). China manipulates its currency to get US dollars and complete a massive energy expansion build.
China is not ready to take on the financial world yet. Russia will counter with a permanent base in Syria.
If the US can fix their energy problem they can still come out the winner. They can swap debt for energy.

Reply to  Geoff
November 12, 2016 7:32 pm

Geoff!! Where you been hiding!
Brilliant analysis.
All to do with ultimate Chinese hegemony.
To paraphrase: “Follow the power-urge!”

Reply to  vukcevic
November 12, 2016 8:10 pm

In order to make sure plants cannot be used as an inexpensive source of hydrocarbons it is a requirement that the growth rate of plants be reduced so that plants can only be used as a fibre and food source. The best way to achieve this is to demonize the major plant food, CO2.
This strategy also includes the other major dead plant source, coal and peat.

Javert Chip
Reply to  vukcevic
November 12, 2016 8:31 pm

Only about $1,8T of the roughly $18T US debt is owned by China – the vast majority of the rest is owned by either the US Fed or the us population (e.g.: pension funds, etc).

Reply to  vukcevic
November 12, 2016 8:42 pm

The ability to inexpensively separate oil from any plant without revealing the process to others is crucial to the maintaining a reserve currency without reliance on printing “money”. The reserve would be always backed by energy and hard currency swaps. The price of such a swap would then be dependent on strategic allocation (we don’t want a war so your military cannot get enough energy to win) and market forces based only on demand rather than supply/demand. There would always be enough supply that could be brought on line to satisfy demand. So the price would be set below anyone else’s ability to maintain an alternative source cf OPEC.

Reply to  vukcevic
November 12, 2016 11:55 pm

The debt solution is simply to inflate it away to a mere small fraction of its current value.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  vukcevic
November 13, 2016 5:58 am

Geoff said on November 12, 2016 at 7:26 pm

China cannot let the US become energy/oil independent. If they do the US debt owed to China will not become “too big to fail”.

What kind of silly wacko thinking was that?
The US owes China so damn much money that China can’t afford to let the US fail.
Only lefty liberal miseducated wackos truly believe that …… “killing the goose that lays them their ‘Golden Eggs’ is the right thing to be doing and should be done”.
Read the following and try hard as hell to understand what it means, to wit:

The U.S. trade deficit with China was $365.7 billion in 2015 This is a new record, up slightly from last year’s record of $343 billion. The trade deficit exists because U.S. exports to China were only $116.2 billion ……… while ………. imports from China hit a new record of $481.9 billion. Oct 24, 2016

Chinese workers et el are shipping $481.9 billion worth of manufactured goods to the US this year alone.
US workers et el only shipped $116.2 billion worth of manufactured goods to China this year …… along with $26,9 billion in cash just to pay the debt interest.
GETTA clue, …. if the US fails …… then China fails ……. because there is no other country on earth that China can ship that yearly production of $481.9 billion worth of manufactured goods.

Walter Sobchak
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
November 12, 2016 4:44 pm

They are pro climate when it means that the US and Europe will destroy their own industrial bases without them lifting a finger. I think it was Sun Tzu who said don’t stop your enemy while he is busy slitting his own throat.

Reply to  Walter Sobchak
November 12, 2016 5:14 pm

Actually, I think the quote and it’s variations is attributed to Napoleon. He is reported as saying, “In that case,” said Napoleon, “let us wait twenty minutes; when the enemy is making a false movement we must take good care not to interrupt him.”

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
November 12, 2016 5:21 pm

Bruce, it’s not just China
Every country out there benefits by knocking us down.
..but yes, if they can put a wrench in our production
the more production moves to them

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Latitude
November 13, 2016 9:25 am

Sure, but they needed someone to take the “leadership” role, which it appears China has “gallantly” done.

November 12, 2016 3:02 pm

One can only hope that Trump keeps his word on climate change, and climate change dies a quick death.

Reply to  rishrac
November 12, 2016 9:21 pm

He can’t. Segolene Royale will shriek at him if he tries.

Reply to  rishrac
November 12, 2016 9:36 pm

Right, so Trump, the man who knows nothing of the science is just going to make all this warming go away. I realise your team think he is good, but he is not God.

Reply to  Simon
November 12, 2016 10:17 pm

Art thou in dire needst of a deity S. Simon?
Will you confess your sins and save your soul?
And skin…
And job…
What warmth?
When Trump’s teams cleans the NOAA house of ill repute;
• we may once again view temperatures with measurement errors,
• without the clumsy abuses and tortures NOAA calls adjustments,
• without splicing datasets together and pretending they are one,
• without using shipboard engine intake water temperatures to adjust other more pure ocean temperatures,
• without using models as input,
• without using models and pretending model outputs are better than actual observations,
• with proper surface station distributions,
• with proper surface station installations, maintenance and temperature verification,
• without using temperatures to contaminate inconvenient temperature records up to 1200 km away?
Is that your desire, S. Simon? To once again view temperatures in their original pure pristine state?
What warming?
Where do trolls go, when their reasons for existence are but dust in the wind causing red sunsets?
Please, don’t bother to let us know!

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Simon
November 12, 2016 10:48 pm

Can you tell us what science the lawyer Obama knows? Or, lets say, Obama relies on “advisers”, and those “advisers” would not be politically motivated at all, right?

Reply to  Simon
November 13, 2016 12:00 am

Obama honestly believes he is always the smartest guy in the room. He thinks himself a better speech writer than his professional speech writers. A better policy analyst that scores of professional policy analysts. He’s the pinnacle Progressive, knowing what best for everyone else, including his Lesser progressives.
And That is exactly why his Legacy is about to go into the Trump shredder.

Reply to  Simon
November 13, 2016 10:16 am

Neither are you Simon. And your science is wrong. The solutions that are part of your agenda are devastating. They are only designed politically to cripple western democracies. Nobody else really cares and is not enforceable in the least. The US can’t even stop N. Korea from building a bomb. Which is a real threat of course to the people of Japan, S Korea for sure, and parts of the western US.
After 20 years none of the doomsday predictions have occurred, not one. Way past deadlines or the ” closing of the window “. By the way, what’s going on in eastern Russia ?

Reply to  Simon
November 13, 2016 10:54 am

Simon, November 12, 2016 at 9:36 pm
With regard to the issue I see no way Trump can do worse than Obama, Clinton, et al. Additionally, you have no idea what Trump knows or does not know about science.

stas peterson BSME, MSMa, MBA
Reply to  Simon
November 18, 2016 5:09 pm

I have over 180 credit hours of post graduate science education, I’d wager that Trump has more than the 3 undergraduate credit hours that your hero Al Gore has taken, I have read the original scientific papers; and concluded that it a disproven and discredited theory, therefore a hoax as well. BTW, your genius Gire flunked, giveing him exactly ZERO hours of collegiate Science training, I don’t think his CAGW “guidance” is worth a proverbial bucket of warm spit.

Reply to  Simon
November 18, 2016 5:30 pm

stas peterson: Irrespective of all the letters in your handle, and any course work you may have completed, Gore did win the Nobel 2007 Peace prize (and got $). Anything in your curriculum vitae that can top that?

Reply to  Simon
November 18, 2016 8:05 pm

In fact your “science” is pseudoscience. If willing to debate the issue please respond.

November 12, 2016 3:04 pm

China will be pro climate because it siuts their political and economic interests. I doubt that the steely eyed engineers running the place have any time for the CO2 scam.

David in Texas
November 12, 2016 3:10 pm

> Trump can’t undo the endangerment finding with the stroke of a pen…
True, but he can in effect made it irrelevant by taking a play from Obama’s handbook with regards to immigration… simple don’t enforce it. The courts have already ruled in an immigration case that the immigration agents can’t enforce a law if the administration says that it doesn’t want them to. He could simply order EPA agents to do other things than measure CO2 emissions of a power plant.

Reply to  David in Texas
November 12, 2016 10:40 pm

I believe Trump can demand the EPA provide proofs and then publicly defend them.
Coupled with the evidence already extant regarding EPA – Activist collusions where the EPA depended on activists to write their regulations and findings; I think it would be easy to force EPA to admit error and retract their absurd findings.
What Obama used to corrupt the agencies, as he is/was their chief, Trump can use to reverse the situation.
I doubt Trump plans to flout any law as Obama did. Trump’s plans appear directly aimed at eliminating the regulations and many of the clerical staff who believe their job is to “think up” and then “enforce” regulations.

Owen in GA
Reply to  ATheoK
November 13, 2016 9:32 am

He needs to appoint a criminal investigator as the IG of EPA and have his Attorney General give full access to the FBI and other forensic investigative agencies to pull all the deleted/private/colluded email chains into a full blown criminal case leading to the full prosecution of the “civil servants” who colluded with the activists to pervert the data. Any office within EPA that attempts to thwart the IG or delay or hinder him in any way should be immediately terminated as is an already allowable but almost never used portion of the IG law.

Mike the Morlock
November 12, 2016 3:12 pm

Seems Mr Kerry got a letter from some members of congress about being up right and straight with other representatives at the cop22 meeting.
You know I think he sitting in a dark place right now wondering what to do. All of them bet the farm that Hillary would win. The French and English proponents for the Paris agreement do not understand that It has no more validity than if I signed it for laughs.

Reply to  Mike the Morlock
November 12, 2016 3:24 pm

They understand. The problem is the American people threw them a curve. They thought Hillary would win. In fact, they were expecting the Democrats to have control of Congress as well…. the best laid plans of mice and men aften gang aglee.

Reply to  rishrac
November 12, 2016 4:58 pm

The California AG and now Senator elect still has not responded to a Congressional subpoena. Has something like this this ever happened before?

Reply to  Barbara
November 12, 2016 5:56 pm

In various forms. Congress asked for climate documents from NASA. The cry went out that scientists couldn’t do their work under such conditions. Which I find strange, as all science is always under review. Otherwise, they enter the realm of hocus pocus.

Reply to  rishrac
November 12, 2016 6:37 pm

The New Yorker, Nov.5, 2016
Maya Harris, top adviser to Clinton and s/o Kamala Harris California AG and now Senator elect.
More online on this topic.

Mike the Morlock
Reply to  rishrac
November 12, 2016 7:32 pm

Barbara November 12, 2016 at 4:58 pm
“The California AG and now Senator elect still has not responded to a Congressional subpoena. Has something like this this ever happened before?”
Hi Barbara, I’m not sure but I seem to remember that their is one final hurdle to sit is the House of Representatives. If there is cause they can simply refuse to seat them.
Refusing a subpoena could be viewed as such. But its a tough climb

Reply to  rishrac
November 12, 2016 8:07 pm

Maya Harris:
“Prior to Clinton’s campaign, Harris was a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress and at the Ford Foundation.”
Hillary Clinton named Harris as one of her senior advisors in April 2015.

John M. Ware
Reply to  Mike the Morlock
November 12, 2016 4:56 pm

I took the time to read the letter from the senators. It is excellent: sober, clear, non-confrontational yet firm in its insistence that the agreement is strongly opposed by Congress (both House and Senate) and has been ruled against by the Supreme Court. At one point it says the effect of Obama’s signature is sort of like his giving a speech in favor of the agreement–totally unenforceable. I am very happy to see this letter, and impressed by the senators who signed it–some pretty well-known names. Read it, if you have time.

Reply to  John M. Ware
November 12, 2016 5:54 pm

See my legal,technical comment below. Easy, peasy.

Mickey Reno
Reply to  Mike the Morlock
November 12, 2016 9:34 pm

That’s a great letter. Senator Inhofe continues to be the tip of the spear in the Senate. The letter was CC’ed to Gina McCarthy, too. It basically says the US is not bound in any formal way to uphold any of the Paris provisions and that the “agreement” is just Obama’s personal political opinion. As president he can of course direct the executive branch as he sees fit, but so can the next president. The Paris COP21 agreement in no way binds any administration, nor the current or future branches of Congress, nor does it give any external political element legal tools for holding the US accountable for deviation or inaction. Heh heh heh. Way to go, Senators!

George Daddis
Reply to  Mickey Reno
November 13, 2016 9:29 am

Todd Stern’s argument to prevent the stay was one of the best “circular arguments” (begging the question?”) that I’ve seen in a long time.
If I understand correctly, the stay was based on the notion that implementation would do irreparable harm with no measurable benefits.
Stern argues if that if we fail to enact these restrictions that provide no benefits, other countries “might reduce their efforts or fail to achieve their commitment” to enact their own restrictions (that provide no benefits).
It doesn’t sink in that the opposition to the Clean Power Plan is not political, but rather challenges the basic assumptions upon which it is based.

Reply to  Mickey Reno
November 13, 2016 9:55 am

Excellent summation, Mickey Reno.

Reply to  Mike the Morlock
November 13, 2016 10:20 am

Exactly. They don’t understand that the US President can’t just agree to things. It is a two part process and they just don’t process that. So they think that once the President agrees to something and signs it then it is enforce on the US. But in reality it still requires the US Senate to ratify it or it isn’t valid.
And the Paris climate accords where never even sent to the Senate by President Obama.

Larry D
November 12, 2016 3:23 pm

Paleoclimatic reconstruction of the atmosphere show hundreds of millions of years where the carbon dioxide level was 2, 3, or even 4 times Hansens’ “tipping point”. And that’s just the bottom of the error bars. AGW is a hoax, alright, from the very beginning.
Research shows that North America is a net carbon dioxide sink, has been for decades, and efficiency improvements were reducing our carbon dioxide production even before the recession. No reason for that to change. Not that I expect the trend in CO2 to change, we’re recovering from very low levels during the prior glaciation periods (which we’re only in an interregnum).
The “activists” are worried about the end of their gravy train, and of their influence.

Reply to  Larry D
November 12, 2016 10:28 pm

Larry D, Agreed, Trump and his team should point out exactly that point regarding the clean up of the energy industry but as others have pointed out not many people see this currently as a priority but I still think it should a point they need to have ready before the left makes it one of those issues that stymies the other more important issues like trade, jobs and healthcare. The greens do not need any ammunition to gum up the transition period. With all these comments by the left about ” coming together as a Nation” rings large alarm bells. I wonder what their strategy is to disrupt Trump and our side.

November 12, 2016 3:37 pm

Once the green globalists were little old ladies in tennis shoes who attended Esperanto courses and complained about wax on apples. Now they have governments, multi-billion dollar budgets and institutions like NASA and the UN at their entire disposal.
Guys, better be careful Big Green doesn’t eat us up the way Big Red could only threaten to do. (Anyway, once sliced, Big Green IS Big Red.)

Reply to  mosomoso
November 12, 2016 5:10 pm

Yeah, Big Green won’t be going quietly. They are going to make a lot of noise. That doesn’t change the fact they are wrong on the issues.

Reply to  mosomoso
November 12, 2016 6:05 pm

mosomoso … you hit the nail on the head!

Reply to  mosomoso
November 12, 2016 10:31 pm

mosomoso + many ( see my comment to Larry D above in the thread.)

November 12, 2016 3:51 pm

The Paris agreement and its impact on the US policies is something the US legal process will have to settle. The Paris agreement has three modes for the countries to signify its concurrence after the initial signing but before the agreement comes into force/ The three modes are ratification, acceptance and approval. The document does not clarify or differentiate the differences in terms of obligations, mode of participation and withdrawal. As far as the Paris agreement is concerned the three modes and accession once the agreement enters into force are the same and equal.
Most of the environmental treaties requiring ratification are non-binding legal instruments without any penalties for non-compliance and depends on the enactment of domestic legislation for implementation. Peer pressure or loss of prestige that could trickle to other environmental issues that the country would like to take the moral high ground or leadership or WTO cases are the basic mode of compliance to the non-binding agreement. Sometimes if there is a collective loss of face, the signatories may just change the definitions. For example the national communications of a number of countries to the UNFCCC show an increase in carbon dioxide sequestration from the forestry sector but in between the reporting period there was significant deforestation that would be contrary to common sense. Well, UN just changed the definition of forest cover.
It is natural for China to take the leadership of the climate change debate. It has nothing to loss and everything to gain.

Walter Sobchak
Reply to  eo
November 12, 2016 5:09 pm

It is not a close question. The Paris agreement has not been submitted to the US Senate for ratification, it is not binding on the US government no matter what it says. And, everybody in the whole world knows it.

Walter Sobchak
Reply to  Walter Sobchak
November 12, 2016 5:10 pm

I explained china above.

Reply to  Walter Sobchak
November 12, 2016 5:56 pm

WS, it is not an never was a treaty requiring 2/3 Senate approval, for two reasons. It is not binding, and it contains an opt out. There are very simple solutions. See my legal comment below.

Reply to  eo
November 12, 2016 5:15 pm

“It is natural for China to take the leadership of the climate change debate.”
Yes, the Chinese leadership is very experienced at totalitarian rule, so they are a natural to take over UN operations. Birds of a feather, flock together.

Reply to  eo
November 13, 2016 2:40 am

That assumes a country has previously committed via treaty to be liable to such agreements.
To my knowledge, no country except within the EU, has so committed themselves.
The United States of America has definitely not entered any such agreement.
For all purposes, B. Obama and Kerry agreeing is a personal problem between them and whomever thinks they’re committed.

November 12, 2016 3:54 pm

After the Senate does away with the filibuster (thanks Dirty Harry!), all that needs to be done is to pass a law taking carbon dioxide out of the purview of the EPA. Then it will indeed be a “stroke of the pen” when President Trump signs the bill. This has the outstanding advantage of being very difficult to reverse in the future.

Reply to  drwilliams
November 12, 2016 4:38 pm

Congress needs to better dilineate in the Clean Air Act what is a pollutant, not just eliminating CO2 as a regulatable pollutant, but also things like combustion water vapor and cooling steam/vapor, to prevent future “pen and phone” executive mischief without Congressional consent.
Same thing with the Clean Water Act, and better more precisely define what is a navigable waterway.
On the Endangered Species Act, there needs to be a clear cost:benefit analysis and more consideration of economic impacts in order to stop abuses like the San Joquin snail darter scam that is diverting huge amounts of irrigation water to be flushed into San Francisco Bay and wasted.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  joelobryan
November 13, 2016 6:35 am

HA, they don’t even talk about “navigable waterways” anymore because that was a “strict limitation” that drastically curbed the EPA’s authority to mandate, control and run “rip shod” over millions of acreage of privately owned land.
Now days the magic word is “wetlands” ….. which definitely needs to be more precisely defined.
HA, today, the EPA’s definition of “wetlands” is interpreted as ……. “if you own property that has a “wet spot” on it after a rainstorm, …… then it is classified as “wetlands” and the EPA can tell you what you can and can not do ….. to or with your property”.

Reply to  drwilliams
November 12, 2016 5:57 pm

Precisely. And there is an equally simple solution to Paris Accord. See comment below.

Reply to  drwilliams
November 13, 2016 8:41 am

Reid did away with the cloture rule in 2013 for all legislation, and all justice appointments save supremes. So redefining pollutants and waterways is straightforward. And litigation proof. Makes both CPP and WOTUS disappear instantly.

michael hart
November 12, 2016 4:03 pm

Bill McKibben, founder of the climate action group, said in an email
‘[I] don’t really know.’”

That has just got to be a first.

Reply to  michael hart
November 12, 2016 4:40 pm

He is still in the depression stage of grieving. With luck the entire Green movement will stay there.

November 12, 2016 4:06 pm

mean while Australia is only 17 days to summer latest weather report nsw

John of Cloverdale, WA, Australia
Reply to  tango
November 12, 2016 5:45 pm

Thanks for the weather report Tango. BTW, hopefully the rain in Tasmania will save our woeful cricket team.

November 12, 2016 4:09 pm

Trump is on the record saying he is for clean air and clean water. CO2 is not a pollutant. Bye Bye non binding agreement.

November 12, 2016 4:39 pm

““Trump comes into office with a plan to toss out most of what President Obama achieved on energy and the environment.””
“Achieved” is defined as bringing something to a successful end. Obama hasn’t brought anything to a successful end, and if he had been successful in his endeavors, his “success” would be a disaster for the USA.

John M. Ware
Reply to  TA
November 12, 2016 5:05 pm

Do you all remember when Rush Limbaugh practically got run out of the country back in 2009 when he said he hoped Pres. Obama would not succeed in his aims? He was right, of course: The parts of O’s design that did pass are disasters (Obamacare, for one); and any parts that failed are cause for thanks. What are O’s “successes”? Massive immigration, unchecked, including jihadists; sanctuary cities, where US law is openly ignored; Muslim enclaves where sharia law in effect replaces US law; countless jobs lost in coal mines and related industries; the highest unemployed numbers in history (90 million plus not working; forget about the “official” unemployment figures). As for the environment: the sooner O is gone, the sooner some of the damage can be repaired. Note: No one has to be a racist to see these things.

Reply to  John M. Ware
November 12, 2016 5:21 pm


Reply to  John M. Ware
November 12, 2016 5:25 pm

“What are O’s “successes”?”
The only success I can attribute to Obama is the Ebola situation in Africa. That was handled well.
But everything else he has done both at home and abroad has been one fiasco after another. He really is the worst president ever. I’m just waiting for what he has in store for us over the next two months.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  John M. Ware
November 13, 2016 7:01 am

“What are O’s “successes”?”
Well “DUH”, Obama has been extremely successful at doing what he was intent on doing if elected POTUS.
Which was, as so it appears by his actions, …… to be their bestest friend in a position of power in the US of A …….. that the Muslim religious fanatics, jihadists, terrorists, etc. could ever have hoped of having or even dreamed of having.
Me sincerely thinks that Obama’s pre-election promise to …… “Fundamentally change America“, …. was in actuality, being made to the Muslim religious fanatics, jihadists, terrorists, etc.

Reply to  John M. Ware
November 13, 2016 10:41 am

The 90 Million not working is false, that was disproved a long time ago. Counting retired people and kids as not working is preposterous.

Walter Sobchak
Reply to  TA
November 12, 2016 5:07 pm

Be thankful for the enemy’s incompetence.

Reply to  Walter Sobchak
November 12, 2016 5:59 pm

WS, Napoleon had a saying: ‘Never interrupt the enemy when in themprocess of making a great mistake.’ Applies here and now.

David S
November 12, 2016 4:41 pm

There would be two things that I would give priority to . 1. Re program our younger generation who have been subject to a lifetime of indoctrination on global warming. If both sides are presented at educational institutions I know which makes more sense. The problem is that academics live in a global warming echo chamber. 2. Prosecute key leaders of the global warming movement for fraud including environmental media participants who slavishly pass on the global warming message without even a minimal amount of fact checking. These journalists should be prohibited from practicing their profession.

Reply to  David S
November 13, 2016 11:19 am

Parallels with McCarthyism:
My History is poor: can anyone point to what useful lessons we learnt from the scourge of McCarthyism, its fall from influence, and the factors that helped it on its way?

Reply to  David S
November 13, 2016 5:05 pm

A lot of environmental journalists arrived where they are with help from the Society of Environmental Journalists, SEJ. The 16 foundation grants that SEJ got during 2015-2016 aren’t going to dry up. Nor do the foundations pay tax. I imagine there’s barely a single environmental journalist who’s not been through the SEJ brainwashing. Sacking them just means younger (SEJ) journalists will get jobs. SEJ protects its journalists, making sure they don’t read this. Fortunately the snowflakes will not read your post, so are protected from your hate speech.

November 12, 2016 4:47 pm

The entire IPCCC COP21 delegation understood why the US demanded the INDC’s were voluntary, not mandatory. It was no secret Sec State Kerry had to ensure whatever was signed was not binding on the US, else he and the President would have had to submit it to the Senate for ratification. There are many on-the-record statements to exactly that from Kerry and even Obama.
The Paris COP has no mandatory binding CO2 limits, nor any mandatory Climate Aid Fund payments due from the USA.
Paris COP21 is now not worth the paper it is printed on with Trump ready to ignore it. It is a dead agreement.
They just can not bring themselves to admit that. But they will once Trump is the US President and he tells the IPCCC to get lost, probably sometime in late January.

Mark Johnson
November 12, 2016 4:49 pm

I really don’t care what Mr. Royale of the French government thinks about the accord. Since the agreement was never ratified by the US Senate, it is nothing more than a waste of paper in the United States.

Reply to  Mark Johnson
November 12, 2016 5:14 pm

The only “Royale” of the France was the French navy: “la Royale”.
The mother of François Hollande’s children is Ségolène Royal, of “no climate change on 67P Churyumov Gerasimenko” fame.

Stephen Richards
Reply to  Mark Johnson
November 13, 2016 2:56 am

Madame Royal, Ministre for energy, environment with an open legs portfolio

November 12, 2016 4:58 pm

And there is the 40,000,000 USD of the IPCC AR6 budget that will vanish.

Stephen Richards
Reply to  Nicholas Schroeder
November 13, 2016 2:57 am

What has happened about the $500000000 that the kenyan gave them?

November 12, 2016 5:11 pm

The signing of the Paris climate agreement by President Obama is illegal – and the acceptance by United Nations of that signature is violating the Human Rights.
“Section 2. The President .. shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Sena- tors present concur;”
By the Human Rights United Nation should respect the will of the people of Unites States of America:
“Article 21.
(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.”
The constitution is by definition the will of the people.
More than that, United Nations should strive to promote respect for these rights.
“Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.”

Walter Sobchak
Reply to  Science or Fiction
November 12, 2016 7:22 pm

The real reason the nations of the world must accept the US Constitution is that the USS Gerald Ford is our 11th Nimitz class carrier. Nobody else has one.
Ultima ratio
1. The final argument. This phrase has literal applications, for example, “Your fourth drunk-driving citation is the ultima ratio for suspension of your driver’s license.”
2. The final sanction; the last argument; the last resort; the means last to be resorted to.
Ultima Ratio Regum
The Latin expression ultima ratio regum comes from the Thirty Years War (der Dreißigjährige Krieg, 1618-1648). By order of Cardinal Richelieu the phrase “Ultima ratio regum” (“the last argument of kings”) was cast on French cannons.
The phrase was adopted in the form of “Ultima ratio regis” for the same purpose which appears on cannon cast for Frederick the Great, king of Prussia, c. 1742.

Reply to  Walter Sobchak
November 13, 2016 10:25 am

USS Gerald R. Ford is the lead ship of her class, not a Nimitz-class at all, bigger, faster, more powerful.
And, they are called “Carrier Groups,” not “fleets.”
Just glad they are on our side.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Science or Fiction
November 12, 2016 8:04 pm

“Walter Sobchak November 12, 2016 at 7:22 pm
The real reason the nations of the world must accept the US Constitution is that the USS Gerald Ford is our 11th Nimitz class carrier. Nobody else has one.”
11 carrier fleets, which include cruisers and submarines IIRC, about 9 other vessels including the carrier and all the aircraft on board, that is a significant war machine.

Bill Illis
November 12, 2016 5:24 pm

We could always put climate change to a Vote.
Pick one of the two options:
– Yes, pay more for energy and use less and introduce a Carbon tax of $50/ton; or,
– No, wait until there is more (actually any) real evidence.
Proposition 13 we can call it. It doesn’t matter what the number is, it will fail.

November 12, 2016 5:39 pm

The UN elites thought they were in control. Now they know better.
It’s Trump against the Elites of the whole world.

November 12, 2016 5:52 pm

There is a very simple two part Trump legal solution. Done within one week after inauguration.
For the US, pass by both Repub majority Congress chambers a simple 1 sentence amendment to CAA: for all purposes of this act, CO2 is not a pollutant. Passes Repub majority Senate easily since Harry Reid crammed down a cloture rule revision from 60 to majority in 2013 for all votes except for Supremes. Poof, no EPA Congress delegated power to issue an endangerment finding resulting from Mass. v. EPA, no power to issue CPP based on same. Look at the CAA pollutant existing circular definitions to see why this is easy and sensible and immently lawful. Present law ~ ‘a pollutant that which pollutes’ .CO2 is plant food, unlike SO2, fly ash, or mercury which were clearly intended. Simply clarifying Congressional intent. Not legally challengeable.
For COP21, issue an exec order triggering a one year withdrawal from UNFCCC. Was only an ever just an executive agreement, not a US Treaty or Pact. The Paris Agreement is technically a UNFCCC subaccord requiring 3 year opt out notice. Poof, all US Climate entanglements gone in 12 months. And, US must legally defund UNFCCC anyway, since it has admitted Palestine as a voting member contrary to 2009 US funding law.
Easy. And both steps are not legally challengable in US courts thereafter by watermellons.

Reply to  ristvan
November 12, 2016 6:09 pm

Sounds like a good plan to me, Rud.

Reply to  TA
November 12, 2016 6:28 pm

Been refining it. Some helpful knowledgeable critiques over at CE. Now just submitted to Myron Ebell for Trump transition EPA team consideration. Hoped US watermellon lawyers would shoot some possible holes that I could then research and plug legally. So far nothing, so the simple two part proposal seems bulletproof. Lets get on with it.qà

Reply to  TA
November 12, 2016 9:57 pm

Kudos, Ristvan. A few days ago I wrote that you were man on this kind of matter and you have not disappointed. Getting something concrete into the right hands is outstanding. Thank you very much.

Reply to  ristvan
November 12, 2016 6:25 pm

Although the UNFCCC has four modes for the country to confirm its signature to the negotiated text similar to the Paris agreement, Bush Sr. submitted it to the senate for ratification by at least 2/3 of the senate on Sept. 8, 1992 and the senate ratified it on October 7, 1992 (treaty 102-38). It may be difficult for the Pres just to issue an executive order to withdraw from the UNFCCC .

Reply to  eo
November 12, 2016 6:44 pm

Wrong. ‘Treaty 102-38’ contains a 1 year opt out, so is NOT constitutionally a treaty as defined by Jefferson in 1806 and as thereafter accepted by SCOTUS long since. It is a mere Congressional Pact. And as such, the opt out is exercisable by the sitting president, unilaterally, by long established US Constitutional law. Read up on the details. Larry Tribe taught me this stuff way back when in Harvard 2L Con Law. Same HLS professor whose FoC Brief says CPP is unconstitutional. And he is a flaming liberal whose only higher allegiance is to the Constitution.

Reply to  eo
November 12, 2016 10:13 pm

Quitting and defunding UNFCCC solves the whole problem. It pulls the rug from under whole anti-constitutional edifice.
That is the central column of this whole mess. Knock that out and the rest will come down quicker than the Solomon Building.

Walter Sobchak
Reply to  ristvan
November 12, 2016 7:15 pm

Let me repeat myself. An agreement of any kind with one or more foreign sovereigns, no matter how denominated, is a treaty under the constitution. If the Senate does not ratify it, it has no legal effect on the United States of America at all. It requires no action for the United States to withdraw from it because the United States never entered it. Not now, not ever. The next president need give no notices, nor take any action to withdraw from an agreement with one or more foreign sovereigns that has not been ratified by the Senate, because it does not bind the United States in any way because the United States never entered it.

Reply to  Walter Sobchak
November 12, 2016 10:15 pm

thanks Walt, you can repeat yourself all you like but I find Ristcan’s informed and educated comments carry a lot more weight than your “capish”, Capish?

Reply to  Walter Sobchak
November 13, 2016 10:12 am

One good thing about the U.S. Constitution is it is written in a manner than anyone, even if they are not a lawyer, can understand. American citizens don’t have to consult a lawyer to know their rights. All they have to do is read and understand the words of the U.S. Constitution, and when they do, they have just as much of a right to comment on it as anyone else.

Roger Knights
Reply to  Walter Sobchak
November 13, 2016 12:49 pm

Didn’t you mean “is NOT a treaty”?

Mickey Reno
Reply to  Walter Sobchak
November 14, 2016 11:56 am

I agree with you Walter. Unfortunately, we live in a time when half (or now slightly more than half, depending on how John Roberts is feeling) believes that the written words of the Constitution are just advice, not law.
EPA: I agree with Ristvan’s approach, but I hope on this topic, Trump will continue to be outrageous and just cancel the endangerment finding as being outside the scope of the CAA. Let the green blob lawsuits fly and make the eco-loon NGOs play defense. Ristvan’s advice for formally withdrawing from the UNFCCC should proceed in Congress as a concurrent activity. NGOs will shift into fighting the Administration so their proselytizing activity will be curtailed. In the process, they will come across as the same petulant, immature bullies as we’re seeing at anti-Trump rallies.
Federal Bureaucracy: I hope Trump will go further, issuing new executive orders, effective immediately, forbidding Federal bureaucrats from attending any UNFCCC meetings, including COP meetings except as private citizens on their own time and their own dime. No travel budgets or reimbursements for expenses to any Federal employee. If this were extended to apply to all UN meetings, that would be okay with me.
Military: Trump should order an immediate cancellation of all CO2 based military directives, and any prior directive that suggests America’s enemy is the climate or fossil fuels. He should instruct all the branches to buy the fuel they need for the lowest available price and divorce the military from any ethanol or cellulosic ethanol requirements. Fuel efficiency requirements for any vehicle purchase contracts should be reviewed by military experts and those requirements cancelled if they don’t make financial sense. Trump should just make the case that the military should be aiming for maximum performance from it’s fixed budget. No one can rationally argue against that and the military will love him for this.
Federal Grants: I don’t know how the NIH and NSF are structured, and how much power he has to reach down and influence individual grants, but he should try to get the worst ones cancelled. Failing that, he could try to pass some new rules, creating a review of the grant decisions, and requiring true accountability and scientific rigor, with forfeiture penalties. Scientific rigor includes vigorous falsification, cessation of all correlation = causation assumptions, double blind analysis when expert opinion is called for, full replication requirements, including complete and open data archival, and finally, free public availability for all articles and publications under Federal grant. No private funding can be mixed in if it subverts any of these goals, and NO results may be submitted to “pay-to-read” publications. If that leads to a lack of peer reviewers, then some new way to solicit reviewers will need to be built into the grant proposals with modest stipends perhaps as a way to encourage participation (reducing the amount that goes to the actual researchers). Without meeting these needs, then no grant. And if grants are made and later found not to be in compliance, grants must be returned with interest and penalty, and the guilty parties (including approving universities) made ineligible for future grants. These changes would put the kibosh on a lot of scientific sounding crapola.
DOE grants: These should all just be cancelled immediately. The failures are just too obnoxious and toxic. Any money not disbursed is withheld. Crony capitalism at its worst.
Wind and solar subsidies: Work with Paul Ryan to rewrite the tax code to cancel all subsidies as soon as possible. Make wind and solar compete directly with fossil fuels. Business expenses are NOT subsidies in these new rules. Costs of build-out of infrastructure and maintenance for widely dispersed sources may not be not finessed but must be calculated and added to the cost of wind and solar.
IPCC accuracy evaluation: Create a blue ribbon panel to study how the IPCC has actually performed, from the beginning. This includes looking at the summaries and results of all the working groups; what were the true impacts vs IPCC predictions, costs in economic, environmental (including bird and bat death) impacts, super storms, polar bears, direct economic performance to ratepayers, economic impacts to industry and commercial interests, and future risks to grid security. This panel will not include NGO activists or UN/Leftist/Democrat party toadies, but will state the case for all others as to how the IPCC’s “projections” have actually played out.
I believe that up till now, public perception has been largely driven by appeals to authority to busy, disinterested, low-information voters and people, combined with a conspiracy of leftist media, NGO activists and public educators, which includes operant brainwashing and the actual enlisting of children to co-opt their parents into NGO activism. Many people had no reason, other than the diffuse fear of future rate hikes, to doubt authority or reject the lie that CO2 is proven as the major driver of climate change. We need to reverse that. We need to change the direction of the flow of propaganda, and make climate alarmism a toxic political position for all Democratic politicians.

Reply to  ristvan
November 12, 2016 10:42 pm

Ristvan, I am no legal expert . At he time I wondered what gave Reid the authority to change that Senate voting situation? Can you explain that to us please? Was that even constitutional?. At the time Reid manipulate this but now I wonder if he might have predicted then that Clinton was going to follow Obama but I wonder that now with Trump in place it won’t bite him ( and the Dems) right back in the rear end. Thanks I am looking forward to your comment ( as I always do btw)

Steve Fraser
Reply to  asybot
November 13, 2016 7:24 am

As an ordered body, the Senate makes its own rules of procedure.

Reply to  asybot
November 13, 2016 8:50 am

Asybot, Article 1 section 5.2 of the Comstitution expressly provides that the House and Senate shall make their own rules. When Dems had slim majority control of Senate and Republicans were filibustering to block Obama legislation and judicial appointments, Reid got Dem majority to ram throughnthe cloture change to simple majority from 60 for legislation and judges. Excluded Supremes and certain other personnel appointments.

South River Independent
Reply to  ristvan
November 12, 2016 10:56 pm

Now is there a similar way, using the Exceptions process mentioned in Section 2 of Article III of the Constitution, to have the Congress remove certain issues (e.g., marriage and abortion) from Supreme Court jurisdiction so they would revert to the States?

November 12, 2016 6:00 pm

I have hope. I voted Trump because of all the R’s running, I thought he would not back down and just go along to get along. It wasn’t going to help to win with a bipartisan R. Look at the legacy of George Bush. Nice guy but …..

Reply to  joel
November 12, 2016 8:12 pm

When it comes to liberals and socialists, if you give an inch, they ask for a foot…if you give them a foot, they want a yard ..if you give them a yard, they will demand a mile !!

Tom Judd
November 12, 2016 6:08 pm

2008: Middle Class Family
“Ma, Dad, OB’s just been elected.”
“I know son, we’ll lose the home since we’ll be out of work the next 8 years.
2016: Environmental Elite Family
“Mother, Father, DT’s just been elected.”
“I know precious, we’ll lose the D.C. and Malibu mansions since the lobbying firm’s shutting down.”
“But don’t worry precious, that thing about moving to Canada was just a joke.”

Reply to  Tom Judd
November 12, 2016 8:15 pm

…Umm, did you mean BO…Barrack Obama ?

Reply to  Tom Judd
November 13, 2016 6:22 am

The losers of the last two presidential elections didn’t protest their loss, they had to go back to work.

Reply to  stevekeohane
November 13, 2016 10:17 am

That’s funny, steve.
Working people don’t have the time to riot. Nor the inclination, under normal circumstances.

Reply to  stevekeohane
November 13, 2016 10:43 am

‘Working people don’t have the time to riot. Nor the inclination, under normal circumstances.”
Unless they are named Clive Bundy, along with his supporters.

Reply to  stevekeohane
November 13, 2016 8:01 pm

“Unless they are named Clive Bundy, along with his supporters.”
The radical Right has a dozen radicals making a little noise out in the middle of nowhere. How does that compare to mass anarchy in major U.S. cities spawned by the radical Left?
The Bundy’s are a fringe group on the far Right. The radical Leftists disrupting U.S. cities are the mainstream of the Democrat Party.

November 12, 2016 6:10 pm

Let’s hope the anti Trump riots continue
The longer they go on the less conciliatory Trump becomes

Reply to  Jamspid
November 13, 2016 10:22 am

“Let’s hope the anti Trump riots continue”
Let’s hope this violence and mayhem spawned by the Radical Left wakes average people up to just how radical, and dangerous the radical Left really is. Do people want to be associated with the kind of hate groups we see marching on our streets? I doubt the majority would.
We are now seeing the true, ugly face of the Radical Left. Let’s hope that imagine sinks into the American public’s minds, and they reject these maniacs as representing anything other than craziness and destruction.

November 12, 2016 6:25 pm

How will Bill of cope?
Buy a bigger handkerchief, Bill !!

Jeff from Colorado
November 12, 2016 6:58 pm

“It may be difficult for the Pres just to issue an executive order to withdraw from the UNFCCC.”
I believe all that is needed to exit from a Treaty is an executive order. If not, how have we exited the many treaties that we have signed in the past? Some were replaced by another treaty but others were not.

Reply to  Jeff from Colorado
November 12, 2016 7:18 pm

If a treaty hasn’t been ratified by the Senate, it is just an executive action. That means it only takes another executive action to undo it.

November 12, 2016 7:15 pm

The EPA was so shaken by Trump’s election, they encouraged employees to take sick leave and go home. I wondered at first if they required their “essential” employees to stay and work. But then it occurred to me that there are no essential employees at the EPA. We would benefit more from having them stay home than having them come in to work to dream up more costly regulations that depress our economy. The fact that they were so distraught by Trump’s election tells you all you need to know about how partisan the EPA has become.

Reply to  Louis
November 12, 2016 7:32 pm

When the EPA ordered 40,000 rounds of .40 Smith & Wesson Hydroshock shells, I started getting nervous.
Mission Creep is very real apparently, most especially at the EPA, which should be nothing more than a (small) group of well informed attorneys who’s sole job is to prosecute violations of Congressional Law. They don’t make law at all. This nonsense about “regulation”; Congress is solely charged with making Federal Law and they may not abrogate that responsibility.
The EPA, according to the SCOTUS, a body which is actually supposed to understand US Constitutional Law, now has the ability to make law? How does that work? Are these people scientists? No. They’re lawyers. They wouldn’t know a pollutant from a hedgehog.
The Clean Air Act does not give the EPA license to declare any material/thing/animal/vegetable or mineral they choose a “pollutant” in order to regulate it. The Act needs amendment to make that clear.

Reply to  Bartleby
November 12, 2016 7:35 pm

Well said.
Lawyers know nothing except if it has potential to line their pockets.

Reply to  Bartleby
November 12, 2016 7:43 pm

WHAAAAAAAT! EPA ordering an armory’s-worth of shells???? For what purpose, exactly?
If their Terms of Reference (or whatever) allow them into the arm’s trade, I really wonder if I shd just jump off a bridge before I’m ‘disappeared’ as a denier.
“Denier”!!! … of course … that’s what it’s for … The EPA Plan is to line us up and shoot us as Inconvenient……

Reply to  Bartleby
November 12, 2016 8:55 pm

Ross – I agree there’s over-reach and maybe it’s based on avarice. Regardless of cause, it needs to be controlled. Apparently the way the Act is written leave the definition of a pollutant to the EPA itself, which gives unchecked authority to regulate anything they choose. I believe that situation needs to be corrected.
It’s very similar to the inter-state commerce clause (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3) that’s been used so successfully to grant authority and control over almost anything that passes state boundaries to the Federal Government.

Reply to  Bartleby
November 12, 2016 11:06 pm

Bartleby, the Supreme Court doesn’t know a pollutant from a hedgehog either. That’s why they gave authority to the EPA, under current law, to regulate CO2. The current law needs to change to make it clear that the EPA does not have authority from Congress to define what a pollutant is.

Reply to  Bartleby
November 13, 2016 3:10 am

40,000 rounds of .40 ammunition is 800 boxes.
A good cop’s shooting practice, should use at least a box or two a month. For 100 employees, that’s 4 to 8 months of practice, shooting fifty to one hundred rounds a month.
The real question is why and what are so many agencies doing building and training armored and deadly SWAT teams.
EPA, FWS, IRS, Department of Education, Department of Energy, etc etc.
It is one thing to have a small force of guards protecting buildings; it is a completely different thing when agencies bust down doors, forcibly arrest citizens and search, (as in rip apart) premises by a force of armed and armored aggressive police.
Gibson guitar manufacturer’s experienced this at the Fish and Wildlife Services hands a few years ago.
Several delinquent educational loan borrowers experienced this at the hands of DOE.
It is time Federal agencies returned to friendly civilized dealings with citizens.

Reply to  ATheoK
November 13, 2016 9:35 am

I agree, I don’t understand why the EPA is now an armed force, nor the DOE or any other three letter agency not part of the Department of Justice. It makes no sense to me at all.

Mike the Morlock
Reply to  Bartleby
November 13, 2016 10:03 am

Bartleby November 13, 2016 at 9:35 am
Another thing to put on the to do list. Have congress disarm these agencies leaving only the FBI armed.
None of these other agencies are “law enforcement”. Nor should there be a method for them to address courts for search warrants, that is the job of U.S. Marshals, FBI, or local law enforcement.
I have no problem with Isolated Park Rangers or FWL being armed when out in the wilderness, but only for encounters of the hungry kind.

Reply to  Mike the Morlock
November 13, 2016 8:56 pm

That pretty well sums up my position.

November 12, 2016 7:18 pm

This article is a good overview, but it really is an overview of the obvious. The “Paris Accord” or whatever we’d like to call it has no force of law and if I were President-Elect Trumpf I think I’d simply ignore it. No reason to make enemies needlessly by publicizing the fact you’re going to ignore it. He has four years to re-capture anyone who’s peeved he didn’t make a public spectacle of ignoring the agreement.
Let it die a quiet death, just as the Kyoto Protocol. Everyone is extremely stoked about Trump, but political currency is still currency, and best spent wisely. This is not an issue that needs attention.

Walter Sobchak
Reply to  Bartleby
November 12, 2016 7:38 pm

No reason to leave any ambiguity. Tell the other parties to the so-called Paris Agreement to stuff it.

Reply to  Walter Sobchak
November 12, 2016 7:52 pm

OK Walter. Other Parties? Stuff it.

Reply to  Walter Sobchak
November 12, 2016 7:55 pm

But Walter? I’d like to also make it clear that my opinion also has no force of law, and by telling the “other parties” to “stuff it” all I’ve done is needlessly make enemies. That isn’t the job of a good politician. A good politician lets issues like this one slowly fade into death by attrition.
We can now only hope Trump is a good (talented) politician.

Patrick MJD
November 12, 2016 7:31 pm

This is what the agreement says for Australia;
“We believe through the use of technology and research and science and innovation, there will be many opportunities for Australian businesses,” she said.
“The agreement requires nations to submit climate change pledges every five years, although they are not obliged to achieve them.”
So, the agreement is pure bunkum.

Reply to  Patrick MJD
November 12, 2016 8:29 pm

..Kind of like saying…”Hey boss, I am going to increase production by 200% next month, so can I have that raise now…Even if I probably have no chance in hell of achieving those goals ?? It’s the thought that counts, right boss ?? LOL

November 12, 2016 8:03 pm

Don’t get too excited. Mitch McConnell has his foot on the brakes.
‘But McConnell, who helped engineer enough Republican victories in close Senate races for him to keep his job as majority leader, also cautioned against GOP overreach once the party controls the executive and legislative branches of government come January.
“I don’t think we should act as if we going to be in the majority forever,” McConnell told reporters on Capitol Hill. “We’ve been given a temporary lease on power if you will, and I think we need to use it responsibly.”’

November 12, 2016 8:24 pm

[snip we don’t need this junk video here – Marcus, will you PLEASE STOP POSTING JUNK LIKE THIS?? I’m going to have to put you into the troll bin if you don’t. Anthony]

November 12, 2016 8:34 pm

U.S. to push ahead on climate pact before Trump takes over: Kerry

Reply to  john
November 12, 2016 10:52 pm

John I read that and all I could come up with was they had really good teachers , the Clintons. The whole State department needs as big a shake up as the EPA, DOJ, DOE and the list goes on, What a swamp.

Reply to  john
November 13, 2016 10:33 am

“The whole State department needs as big a shake up as the EPA, DOJ, DOE and the list goes on, What a swamp.”
Amen. Trump needs to ferret out all those Leftist Viet Cong, Obama and Clinton have planted in our bureaucracies over the years. They are still going to be there doing their damage, unless Trump takes mitigating actions, like moving them to an area where they can do no harm, if they cannot be fired outright.

Reply to  john
November 13, 2016 10:48 am

No, all Trump has to do is use mild facial expressions and investment planning in the usual wrong direction will end right along with the fragile companies run by connected politicos. In other words the fear is already upon them and finances are frozen up. To think otherwise is extremely naive from a business planning perspective or finance or contracting or partnering. Tesla is toast but their investors don’t know it yet.

Mike the Morlock
November 12, 2016 8:45 pm

Okay differences between the cop21 Paris agreement and a treaty , and when a treaty is a treaty.
This is a treaty old out of date, but between 9 major Powers early in the last Century. Compare how it is written up and how it applies equally to all, with no special exemptions.
It is worth glancing at just to see what real treaty looks like that imposes limitations and reductions.
Oh yes it was ratified by our Senate for better or worst, the Washington Naval Treaty.
As for the present accord which we are discussing don’t even give it the fig leaf of legality inpresenting formal notifications.
Perhaps Mr Trumps best course of action would something as simple as this.
Just point out that the powers entertaining the creation of said agreement knew of our laws, and that we understand that they have tried to circumvent them. Knowing this we conclude that leaders of Nations that we have accepted as friends, have negotiated in bad faith.

Reply to  Mike the Morlock
November 13, 2016 5:13 pm

And we might point out that the United Nations is not a superior court.

November 12, 2016 9:26 pm

First week please

November 12, 2016 10:19 pm

Perhaps Bon Ki Moon, Barak Hussein Obama and his lover John Kerry presumed the legal citizens of the U.S.A. would just “queue up” to the gas furnaces and fling the bodies in willy nilly But NO. Their most cherished dream is dead as it always was, only in their sociopath minds did it flourish.

Bob Lyman
November 12, 2016 11:22 pm

Do not forget that there are other agreements that have been signed by the Obama Administration that will have to be amended or shelved. Notably, there is a bilateral agreement with China that commits the United States to reduce GHG emissions by 28% by 2025. That is the agreement under which China committed to “peak” its emissions before 2030. If this agreement were honoured, it would mean that, by 2030, Chinese emissions would be two and a half times those of the U.S., according to the International Energy Agency. I believe there is a similar agreement in place with India. The Trump agenda here can include several components: withdrawing from international agreements; terminating funding to the relevant U.N. agencies; stopping payments to the Green Climate Fund; ceasing the immense subsidies to wind, solar and electric vehicle industries; eliminating and/or ceasing to implement EPA regulations with respect to the use of coal in power plants; issuing Presidential Permits for cross-border oil pipelines; reforming EPA; and perhaps giving different instructions to NASA and NOAA. Making it abundantly clear that the U.S. will not impose a national carbon tax perhaps will help to convince other jurisdictions to avoid these, too. Those who favour extensive interventions to reduce emissions through taxes, subsidies and regulation have many allies in the state and municipal governments, so the battle for climate sanity will still go on. However, a Trump Administration can set this whole cause back by a decade, by which time the temperature record may have finally undone it anyway.

Steve Fraser
Reply to  Bob Lyman
November 13, 2016 7:32 am

All in the same bucket. No Senate approval = can be rescinded by presidential signature. Our law is not kept secret from the rest of the world.

Reply to  Steve Fraser
November 13, 2016 5:14 pm

And then just ignoring them, appropriating no money to further those commitments.

November 12, 2016 11:38 pm

“Happy days are here again,
The skies above are clear again,
So let’s sing a song of cheer again,
Our sanity is here again.”

November 13, 2016 12:06 am

Obama was unable/incapable of passing disasteous laws and treaties through the legeslative process, so he decided to use, “a pen and a phone” to enact 235 Executive Orders and various Executive “agreements” (like the Paris CAGW Fiasco), to “fundamentally transform America”…
The upside is that Trump just needs a pen and a paper shredder to make all those executive decisions disappear for all eternity…
Once Obamacare is repealed, and all those executive orders and agreements are shredded, it’ll almost be like Obama was never president— with the exception of the $10 TRILLION Obama added to the national debt in just 8 years…
As Obama said, “Elections have consequences.”
Yes, they most certainly do,

November 13, 2016 12:20 am

The moment that the US via Trump makes other NATO members pay their fair share of defense costs, all hell will break loose in Europe. They cannot afford it and don’t want to be left alone. Where to find the money? First thing will be to cut ‘climate costs’. Trump already gave them a perfect excuse for it: the US is no longer in the Paris Agreement. LOL
This will be So Great!

Steve Fraser
Reply to  Scarface
November 13, 2016 7:34 am

Never was in it to begin with. I wonder if this will UN-trigger the ‘in force’ clause?

Reply to  Scarface
November 14, 2016 10:28 am

“First thing will be to cut ‘climate costs’.”
You so don’t understand the EUSSR. They will steal the funds directly from people’s bank accounts – as they did in Cyprus – before they will deflect their policies of madness and despair by so much as a nanometer. They are mad, mad people.

Johna Till Johnson
November 13, 2016 1:44 am

“The only success I can attribute to Obama is the Ebola situation in Africa. That was handled well.”
Ummm… how about Osama Bin Laden being dead? And secondarily, the global financial crash of 08 not escalating into a global depression? Frankly, if those were the ONLY two things President Obama had done, he’d still get props from me. And I am not a fan, and think he’s dead wrong on the climate front.
But lets’s stop with this divisive politics-mongering, hey? I turn to this site for logic, reason, and healthy scientific debate–not bloviating about politics. The whole rest of the online universe is there for that.

Reply to  Johna Till Johnson
November 13, 2016 11:12 am

Johna wrote: “Ummm… how about Osama Bin Laden being dead?”
Well, I guess I would give him that one, too. But bin Laden would have been dead no matter who was in Office, once he was found. Unless Joe Biden was president. I believe Joe advised against the raid.
Johna: “And secondarily, the global financial crash of 08 not escalating into a global depression?”
I wouldn’t give him anything on that. I can’t think of anything he did to help the situation other than bailing out the banks which would have happened with or without Obama. Other than that, everything Obama has done has harmed the economy, not helped it.
And BTW, the truth might be divisive sometimes. Should we avoid it because it is?

Reply to  TA
November 15, 2016 12:22 am

Lost track of the number of times Osama Oswald died or was ‘killed.’ Whatever the number, The Last Raid, his ‘deep sixing’.and the ‘disappearance’ of the raiders brought this Kabuki serial to a close and the Washington crowd to their feet. Gimmie a break.

November 13, 2016 1:51 am

If plant food can be designated as a pollutant, then could socialist values be designated as mental illness?
If this report by Michael Brown about college undergraduates is accurate, Trump’s win has left them seriously unhinged.
“A friend of mine in the business world told me that it’s common now for college and university grads to have trouble on their jobs, but not because they lack intelligence or the necessary academic training. Instead, it’s because they can’t take correction, having been shielded from it during much of their upbringing and education. “You may be my boss, but you’re making me feel bad, which makes you a bad person, since I’m a good person and therefore a good employee.”
I may be exaggerating the sentiments, but not by much.
In the end, the problem is not with an age group as much as it is with a mindset, and it is a mindset that simply doesn’t work in real life – unless you want to be playing with Play-Doh to ease your pain when you’re married with kids and grandkids.”

November 13, 2016 6:29 am

Now maybe we can get back to funding start-up promising EFFICIENT sources and use of energy that do not impact and harm the environment like wind and solar have.
And I know this is a dream, but possibly determine what our plans might look like in advance of the usual cyclical ice sheet advance when everybody in Canada is now bunking in our backyards and polar bears have gotten used to dumpster diving?
Plea to Trump: We don’t need to plan to mitigate anything when the planet is warm. It’s when it’s cold that we need some advance planning. And just in case you think you would want to stop the cold from advancing, remember, the ice advance clears the atmosphere of evaporation which will allow the oceans to recharge their batteries. Perpetual evaporation isn’t sustainable, though it would be nice.

Reply to  Pamela Gray
November 13, 2016 5:12 pm

Pamela: I am mitigating the warm climate down here in Houston. I have functioning air conditioners in my home and in my cars.

Reply to  JimB
November 13, 2016 7:52 pm

Didn’t Gore declare that air conditioning was more of threat than ISIS? How could you ?!! (Sarc)

November 13, 2016 7:21 am

Why cause a hassle and pull out?
The agreement has NO, none, ZERO “BINDING” requirements only “guidelines” based upon a per capita ratio. So, just ignore the POS. Basically the “agreement” allows the doubling, again, of the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. PERIOD. If Climate Change is caused by CO2, how does that help? That fact alone tells me the whole thing is a SCAM. China or India, either, take your pick, is building 10 to 20 COAL fired power plants for each one that Obama’s CCP has shut down. They have cut back and greatly reduced the numbers of Renewables built. However, the USA should not make any payments. All payments should be based upon CO2 emitted by each person TOTAL. i.e. China should pay more than USA since they emit more than USA.
The agreement is in terms of “Per Capita” emissions. What do you think the population of the USA is going to be compared to the population of China or India in 20 years? They can double their emissions and still meet the “guidelines” for CO2 reduction in the “Agreement”- because their population will double. They, together, are building 20 to 40 coal plants a week and will continue building them for the next 15 years. The agreement is a farce, designed to force the USA to ship ALL manufacturing to china and Asia.

November 13, 2016 7:22 am

During Obama’s presidency the US *doubled* oil production. Seriously, what part does this play in his legacy as a reducer of emissions? And now Trump is going to interfere? How, or even why, would he do that, except to increase it further? There is so much BS going on.

Reply to  JDN
November 13, 2016 11:16 am

“During Obama’s presidency the US *doubled* oil production. Seriously, what part does this play in his legacy as a reducer of emissions?”
What part does Obama play in doubling oil production?
Answer: None. Oil production increased despite Obama, not because of him.

Reply to  TA
November 13, 2016 11:53 am

Exactly. Oil production increased, and increased, and increased, while Obama did nothing (well, next to nothing. IIRC he took credit for it). But he signed the Paris Accord, which does nothing. Yet Trump is the bogeyman for rescinding “what President Obama achieved on energy and the environment”. On what planet?? That’s what I mean by BS.

Reply to  TA
November 13, 2016 8:07 pm

I got it now, JDN. We are on the same page.

November 13, 2016 7:38 am

A faux agreement, with ridiculous goals, that does nothing to the climate, that costs huge money, hurts people, and wastes decision maker time. Kill the Paris agreement with a stake through it’s heart. Good riddance to bad rubish. The climate kooks will be fun to watch as they see their delusions melt in the face of reality.

November 13, 2016 11:58 am

I’m sure the military will be glad to get back to work. Trump can end the “green Navy” initiative. No more $400 dollar a gallon algae/bio fuel. No more idiotic military “assessment” papers about “climate change” is a threat multiplier.

November 13, 2016 1:56 pm

One of the first things Trump must do is kill this monstrosity.

Richard Millard
November 13, 2016 2:27 pm

Pretty sure that the “endangerment” finding could be reversed immediately by Congressional action. Just amend the statute to clearly state that CO2 is not a “pollutant.” End of story. With republican control in both houses, and Trump in the White House, this should not be too difficult.
Worried about a filibuster in the Senate? When the democrats expected to take the Senate, and assumed that Hillary would be in the White House, they were very open about their intentions to abolish the filibuster in order to push through their agenda. This should give the Republicans plenty of cover for doing the same, if they’re willing to use it.

November 13, 2016 5:09 pm

Marty: I go nuts every time I hear this: A person is innocent until convicted. That is a misunderstanding of a rule of court procedure that “a person is PRESUMED innocent” at the outset of a trial. That legal presumption merely requires that the State make a prima facie case in order to go forward in a trial. After which the defendant may respond. It has nothing at all to do with actual innocence or guilt.
Jim Brock, retired lawyer.

November 13, 2016 7:52 pm

When Donald Trump implements his policy to rid America of all the climate change nonsense, and diverts the money to genuine environmental causes e.g. clean water; clean air; etc., the silent majority around the world will celebrate like God has given us a new beginning … and joining the ‘Brexiteers’ and ‘Trumpeteers’ will be the global ‘Climateeers’.

Reply to  Mervyn
November 14, 2016 11:23 am

Amen Mervyn. This is by far the best piece of political news which has occurred in my life to date. So good is it that some streak of natural cynicism cannot believe yet that it is actually going to happen. However, I suspect that the cork is now out of the champagne bottle and it isn’t going to back in again. Sarkozy in France is a skeptic and one of Theresa May’s first actions on entering No. 10 was to scrap the climate change department.
Everyone knows it’s Emperor’s New Climate but Trump is just the first with the balls to definitively call it as such.

November 14, 2016 2:35 pm

The ‘Endangerment Finding” could be simply reversed by demanding a report of the effects on the living ecosystem of an atmosphere devoid of CO2. It wouldn’t be pretty.

November 14, 2016 5:17 pm

Communism was relegated to the ‘dustbin of history’ (DBOH) by Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher and other like-minded rational thinkers who treasured individual liberty above all else.
Of course, Reagan was dismissed as an ‘intellectual lightweight’ by his critics early on, back in the nascent echo chambers of 1980s neo-liberalism. Let’s try assigning labels and see which ones will stick. But Reagan outsmarted them, for he had Teflon on his side.
Now The Donald is inarticulate, I’ll grant you that. He lacks any buffer between his brain and vocal chords. Touché. But he has energy and stamina as evidenced by his modern day barnstorming campaign. If he has the resolve to go with it, when combined with the rumored advisers on ACGW, maybe, just maybe, we can be on the ‘right side of history’ and find another denizen for the DBOH.

Berényi Péter
November 15, 2016 6:34 am

Trump has said he will review and possibly reverse the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) determination carbon dioxide is a pollutant endangering public and environmental health (the “endangerment finding”).

That’s easy. Have Congress amend the Clean Air Act, that no colorless, odorless gas in a concentration with no toxicity at all can possibly be considered a “pollutant”.

Reply to  Berényi Péter
November 15, 2016 11:54 am

Aha! Not so fast you neo-Nazi. Above 10,000 ppm some people can become drowzy in a crowded auditorium. And above 50,000 ppm, CO2 is toxic to humans. EPA regs will require a measurement within 100-ft of the stack for compliace. SO THERE! 😉

Berényi Péter
Reply to  Robert
November 16, 2016 10:29 am

Yep, but first dihydrogen monoxide (a.k.a. hydroxyl acid) should be banned. It is responsible for countless deaths, including poor Jennifer Strange.

James at 48
November 15, 2016 12:38 pm

Plus, there is this thing called Congress. Even if Trump and Pence both keeled over tomorrow, Congress is not going to sign away sovereignty. That is one of those third rail thingeys.

November 15, 2016 5:03 pm

Can a regulatory agency lie in reaching a finding? If not, the endangerment finding is illegal.

November 20, 2016 5:00 am

Until Congress ratifies it the Treaty has no legitimacy. Period. Full stop.

November 24, 2016 9:07 pm!/articles/2/essays/89/pardon-power
“For instance, James Wilson argued during the Convention that ‘pardon before conviction might be necessary in order to obtain the testimony of accomplices.’ The public-policy purposes of the pardon were echoed by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in Biddle v. Perovich (1927): ‘A pardon in our days is not a private act of grace from an individual happening to possess power. It is a part of the constitutional scheme’.”
I agree with Heritage here. It’s only necessary that a crime has been committed, NOT that a conviction for that crime has been obtained. Note further that consent of the person being pardoned is irrelevant.
Biddle v. Perovich is at:

%d bloggers like this: