White House Leaning Toward Exiting Paris Climate Pact
Timothy Cama
White House officials are leaning toward taking the United States out of the Paris climate agreement, people familiar with the deliberations say.
While some in the Trump administration have warmed in recent days to the idea of staying in the non-binding pact while potentially changing the United States’ commitment, top officials are now leaning the other way, sources said Tuesday.
Trump could announce as soon as next week his plans to pull out. The Huffington Post and New York Times reported on the developments earlier Tuesday.
Central to the administration’s debate is whether the U.S. could reduce its commitment to reducing greenhouse gases for the 2015 pact without running afoul of it.
The agreement states that a country “may at any time adjust its existing nationally determined contribution with a view to enhancing its level of ambition,” which sources say concerns White House Counsel Don McGahn and his staff.
If Trump wanted to ratchet down former President Barack Obama’s promise of a 26 percent to 28 percent emissions cut by 2025, the agreement may prevent it.
The administration is also worried that staying in the accord would give environmentalists a legal argument to prevent Trump from repealing climate regulations like the Clean Power Plan.
In litigation over that rule in 2015, the Justice Department told the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that stopping the regulation would hurt the U.S. diplomatically.
That court declined to halt the rule, but on appeal, the Supreme Court did pause it. Trump is now working to repeal the regulation.
Environmental Protection Agency head Scott Pruitt and White House strategist Stephen Bannon have been leading the charge for Trump to fulfill his campaign promise and exit the pact.
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and White House adviser Jared Kushner, who is also Trump’s son-in-law, have led the charge to stay in, arguing that it’s better diplomatically while keeping the U.S. in international discussions regarding climate policy.
At a Saturday rally, Trump blasted the agreement as “one-sided” and cited it as an example of a pact in which “the United States pays the costs and bears the burdens while other countries get the benefit and pay nothing.” He said it would cause a big hit to the economy and spur factories to close.
Attorneys from various government agencies met Monday to discuss the legal implications of staying in the deal, and the White House counsel’s office took Pruitt’s side, the Times reported.
Andrew Light, a senior fellow at the World Resources Institute who worked on climate negotiations at the State Department under Obama and who helped negotiate the Paris pact, dismissed the legal concerns over staying in the agreement, saying that since the emissions cuts aren’t binding, there is no legal problem.
In White House, Momentum Turns Against Paris Climate Agreement
The Washington Post, 3 April 2017
Juliet Eilperin
Foes of the Paris climate agreement have gained the upper hand in the ongoing White House debate over whether the U.S. should pull out of the historic pact, according to participants in the discussions and those briefed on the deliberations, although President Trump has yet to make a final decision.
Senior administration officials have met twice since Thursday to discuss whether the United States should abandon the U.N. accord struck in December 2015, under which the United States pledged to cut its greenhouse gas emissions 26 percent to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025.
The president’s aides remain divided over the international and domestic legal implications of remaining party to the agreement, which has provided a critical political opening for those pushing for an exit.
On Thursday several Cabinet members — including Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt, who’s called for exiting the accord, Energy Secretary Rick Perry, who wants it renegotiated, and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, who advocates remaining a party to it — met with top White House advisers, including Trump’s daughter Ivanka Trump and her husband, Jared Kushner, and Chief of Staff Reince Priebus.
Both Ivanka Trump and Kushner advocate remaining part of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, even though the president has repeatedly criticized the global warming deal.
During that meeting, according to several people who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations, White House counsel Don McGahn informed participants that the United States could not remain in the agreement and lower the level of carbon cuts it would make by 2025.
The administration is working to unravel many Obama-era policies underpinning that pledge, and the economic consulting firm Rhodium Group has estimated that the elimination of those policies would mean the United States would cut its emissions by 14 percent by 2025 compared with 21 percent if they remained in place. This interpretation represented a change from the White House counsel’s earlier analysis and is at odds with the State Department’s view of the agreement.
Susan Biniaz, who served as the State Department’s lead climate lawyer from 1989 until earlier this year, said in an interview Tuesday that the agreement reached by nearly 200 nations in Paris allows for countries to alter their commitments in either direction.
“The Paris agreement provides for contributions to be nationally determined and it encourages countries, if they decide to change their targets, to make them more ambitious,” Biniaz said. “But it doesn’t legally prohibit them from changing them in another direction.”
Ivanka Trump urged White House staff secretary Rob Porter to convene a second meeting Monday with lawyers from both the White House and the State Department. That session addressed the question of America’s obligations under the 2015 deal as well as whether remaining in the agreement would make it more difficult for the administration to legally defend the changes it was making to the federal government’s existing climate policies, but it did not reach a final decision.
Pruitt, who is spearheading the effort to rewrite several Obama-era rules aimed at curbing greenhouse gas emissions, has argued that exiting the agreement will make it easier to fend off the numerous legal lawsuits he will face in the months ahead.
At a rally with supporters Saturday, Trump said he would make a “big decision” on Paris within the next two weeks and vowed to end “a broken system of global plunder at American expense.”
Administration advisers on both sides of the political spectrum, however, emphasized that the president himself would decide what path to pursue when it came to the climate agreement.
The Centuries-Old Legal Doctrine Looming Over Trump’s Paris Climate Decision
Jennifer A Dlouhy
If the U.S. withdraws from the Paris climate accord — an option gaining favor among top White House advisers — Charming Betsy may be partly to blame.
Or, more specifically, the Charming Betsy doctrine. That’s a legal principle stemming from a 213-year-old case involving a schooner of the same name. It says that federal policies should be interpreted, when possible, so they don’t conflict with international laws.
The doctrine has emerged as a major point of contention in White House debates over continued membership in the international climate pact. At issue is whether staying in the accord could legally oblige President Donald Trump to preserve carbon-cutting policies that he is moving to jettison.
The White House counsel’s office warned Trump administration officials in a meeting Thursday and in a separate memo that if the U.S. stays in the global accord, it could arm environmentalists with legal ammunition for lawsuits challenging the president’s domestic regulatory rollbacks.
Those concerns were amplified in a meeting of White House staff and administration lawyers on Monday, as officials also expressed skepticism about whether the U.S. has authority to dial back its Paris pledge to slash greenhouse gas emissions.
The debates were detailed by three people familiar with the meetings who asked not to be identified describing internal discussions.
Even though concerns with remaining in the Paris accord have dominated the two most recent White House meetings on the subject, the final decision rests with Trump, who has shown himself to be unpredictable in carrying out past campaign vows.
While running for president, Trump promised the U.S. would leave the deal, taking aim at the cornerstone of former President Barack Obama’s efforts to combat climate change. Under Obama, the U.S. played a leading role driving the global accord, which culminated with the support of nearly 200 countries in December 2015. The U.S. pledged to cut its carbon emissions 26 to 28 percent from 2005 levels by 2025.
Trump promised during a rally Saturday in Pennsylvania to make a “big decision” on the Paris accord over the next two weeks. He derided the agreement as a “one-sided” deal that threatens U.S. economic output and will spur the closing of factories and plants nationwide.
“We are not going to let other countries take advantage of us anymore, because, from now on, it’s going to be America first,” Trump told the crowd in Harrisburg.
Top administration officials have been divided over whether the president should make good on his campaign pledge and get out. A State Department memo circulated last week asserts the Paris agreement imposes few obligations on the U.S.
Meanwhile, under questioning from White House chief strategist Steve Bannon at Thursday’s meeting of top aides on the issue, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt said remaining in the agreement imperils his effort to undo Obama’s Clean Power Plan paring greenhouse gas emissions from electricity, the people familiar with the session said.
Supporters of the deal, including environmentalists, a handful of coal companies and some oil producers, warn that U.S. exports, including natural gas and clean energy technology, could face economic sanctions if the country abandons the pact.
“Using the flexibility of the Paris agreement to reduce our commitment, or even going so far as to pull us out, would be a disaster for the United States because it would provoke international blowback, harm our global leadership role, and threaten the health and safety of all families in this country,” Sierra Club Global Climate Policy Director John Coequyt said in an emailed statement.
Mike McKenna, a Republican energy consultant pushing for an exit, argues there’s just too much legal risk to stay in.
“With the exception of those State Department lawyers who abetted in the original unwise decision to sign onto the Paris agreement, the lawyers all seem to agree that the right answer is to exit the agreement swiftly, decisively and cleanly,” McKenna said. The alternative is “UN bureaucrats and fellow travelers having a say in how Americans produce and consume energy.”
But supporters say the U.S. has wide latitude to rewrite a scaled-back pledge or ignore its existing commitment altogether. To lure international support for the agreement, negotiators built flexibility in the deal, encouraging countries to make highly tailored, individual pledges known as “nationally determined commitments,” rather than agree to a universal greenhouse gas target.
h/t to The GWPF
I thought that this Treaty was non-binding? I am hoping after Brexit and with a strengthened Conservative majority the our government does the same, unfortunately we have The Climate Change Act on our statute books, which is legally binding and will have to be repealed.
Oh god I didn’t know that. It’s even worse than I thought. Funny thing is I’d have a quiet bet that Mrs. May knows it’s baloney – she ain’t no dummy after all – but thinks so many are brainwashed that it would be political suicide to oppose. If she could find the bottle to stand up on this one she would have my undying vote.
It looks like you (and I) are going to have to give May the vote first and then wait with fingers crossed to see exactly what we have let our selves in for. I suspect not a few are going to be annoyed / disappointed when all her true colours are revealed later. Note: She voted for remain !
“…so many are brainwashed…”
Too true, Cephus0. Unbelievably, recent polls show an increasing majority of Britons believe the climate change baloney. PM May surely would know this. That’s why we can expect May to campaign on the brain dead economics of climate action rather than debate the “science”. That appears to be Trump’s strategy if his 100 days celebration speech is an indication. He referred to the economically “one-sided” Paris junk deal and made no mention of the climate argument.
So one would expect PM may to campaign on issues that people understand. Like this.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/12/hundreds-millions-british-aid-wasted-overseas-climate-change/
No it does not have to be repealed. The Secretary of State could change the targets and the target dates if he considers that there has been a change in the scientific knowledge about climate change (which there clearly have been since 2008). Unfortunately we still have idiots in charge of the asylum and the election won’t change that.
The choice is between appeasement and a commitment to the truth. Damn the eco-Socialists and full speed ahead!
UN
Sustainable Development Knowledge Platform
Sustainable Energy for All (SE4All)
UN page has a list of companies, organizations, etc.
https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/sdinaction/se4all
Follow the links on this UN webpage.
And: Sustainable Energy For All/ SE4All
A unique partnership: United Nations – The World Bank
Advisory Board includes:
Co-Chairs Ban Ki-moon and Jim Yong Kim
John Kerry, U.S.
Marie-Jose Nadeau, Canada
And others who’s names maybe known to many.
http://www.se4all.org/about-us/advisory-board
‘Fit for whose purpose?’
“Private funding and corporate influence in the United Nations”
Pages 86-96: SE4All
https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/2101Fit_for_whose_purpose_online.pdf
About 144 page document.
Information on SE4All and the United Nations.
It’s about as “binding” as the League of Nations. Unless ratified by the Senate, no promise by a President has the force of law. (At least not once it hits a court that doesn’t follow the Constitution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, i.e., gets out of the Ninth Circuit.)
An Act not backed up by real science or real evidence will rightfully be ignored.
Normally, but today it depends on who appointed the Judge.
Y’know, we didn’t ELECT Ivanka and Kushner. They are nothing but private citizens, albeit they’re family.
President Trump needs to listen to people more qualified to debate this issue, as well as the wishes of the citizens who put him in office. Appeals to emotion are beyond tiresome at this point. We need to just come right out and say that we’re no longer pursuing “solutions” to a NON-PROBLEM.
The Paris accord is just the type of agreement that Trump ran against, as it is rather unfavorable to the US. Politically, the only way Trump could make the green blob happy is to be an orthodox green, and give them everything they want. Compromise with the green blob is futile, and at least some of Trump’s appointees and advisers realize that.
Pruitt has produced some terrible optics such as the unprepared Fox interview with Chris Wallace but he deserves credit here if prevails.
You can’t cut domestic rules while keeping Paris. Even in world gone mad that would be political disaster.
If you peruse the pictures from the Science and Climate marches you’ll see images of promising the guillotine to the President;
https://defyccc.com/climate-march-communist-threat/
Note the happy face.
Paris is 100 trillion in crony Greenshirt globalism and a complete surrender of everything Trump ran against yet here we are with a classic balloon float of a very specific and overdue promise.
I agree that the US should withdraw entirely from the Paras agreements.
However, Pres Trump’s capitulation to the Paul Ryan RINOS and the Democrats on the budget deal recently passes gives me gloom rather than hope.
He has been thwarted on several key issues by lack of support from his own party and belligerent disruptions from the other side. Paris is one of his campaign issue that he can implement without relying on congressional approval.
He needs a win. Here is chance to prove he is capable of following through on SOMETHING.
“However, Pres Trump’s capitulation to the Paul Ryan RINOS and the Democrats on the budget deal recently passes gives me gloom rather than hope.”
Trump made the best deal available at the time. He had some significant gains, considering the circumstances. The next budget bill, in September, will be Trump’s bill. Let’s wait until then to judge him.
I personally think Sean Hannity, and Lara Ingraham were completely over the top with criticism of this bill in the last day or two, and Rush was close to being over the top, although he settled down a little today. The pity of it is these three are basing some of their criticisms on news reports which have turned out to be wrong. You would think they would know better than to trust the reporting of the MSM. You guys need to settle down a little. Trump is good, but he’s not superman and it would take even superman a little bit of time to straighten out all the mess in Washignton DC out. You want it all now! Well, things don’t work that way, even with a champion like Trump leading. Give the guy a chance, how about it (that’s addressed to Sean, Laura, and Rush, not you, Leonard:).
More false new Greg?
I do not know what news you have been reading, but they have not been feeding you news.
Personally, I prefer the WSJ.
A) Trump has yet to be thwarted on anything!
– a) delayed on a few issues, perhaps. Even then, people need to realize that Trump pushed for failure to clear the deck of stupid debris.
– b) Only Trump knows his actual plans and he really doesn’t care what sloppy thinkers and emotional basketcase snowflakes think.
– c) It is stupefying watching democrats following a “scorched Earth” policy on simple idiocies. When they’re screeching their worst it is over simple stuff. Now, everyone thinks the democrats are unable to control themselves, ever. Democrats will switch over to full communist or begin to join Trump’s centrist party.
B) Virtually everyday of Trump’s administration to date has been successful in many ways.
– a) Refusing Trump’s successes reveals significant weaknesses of progressives.
– – 1) Denying daily Obama failures and excesses for eight years.
– – 2) Failing to recognize a President that knows and achieves success with ease; enjoy your years of misery to come.
The American voters, at the county level, voted to give the Republicans the House, The Senate, and the White House, so they could GET SOMETHING DONE.
Ryan has demonstrated that his RINO house is pretty inept, and the best he could come up with is Obama care in a tee shirt that isn’t going to pass the Senate as of now.
But Trump has found the Rosetta Stone. Nuclear fusion.
When this house bill gets to the Senate; what’s his name needs to change the rules, and re-install, majority rule rather than minority rule.
Under the present supermajority nonsense, in the Senate, the Democrats have reduced Ryan and Trump to mere figure heads. The Dems have no need to negotiate, since they know the RINOs in both the House and Senate, will eventually cave to their demands.
The present bill is just Obama care lite, and still has all of the costly pestilence that guarantees it will fail. But this time it will fail with a red label, instead of a blue label.
So the Republicans in the Senate need to restore orderly majority rule, in order to get civilized negotiation to happen.
Other wise it is going to be a repeat of the Tea Party Sweep. The whole lot of these deadbeats, will get turfed out on their fannies in 2018.
DO WHAT YOU WERE ELECTED TO DO.
G
The alarmists are in such an extreme “victory or death” mode, any small concession thrown to them, or anything which can be interpreted as a conscession, will be used to claim some imaginary victory. Better to have a clean cut.
There is also the media to consider. Here in Norway, they all know perfectly well that the “Paris Agreement” is non-binding, but this is never mentioned, so that the uninformed reader may well think it is. That is also the intention of the media, of course. And on this false foundation, they campaign for all kinds of nonsensical climate politics. I would think the situation is not very different in the US. So, in order to make such disinformation more difficult, a withdrawel from Paris is a good thing.
It’s time EVERYONE just said no to sucking up to the preening moral narcissists. A great many citizens of all nations now are aware of exactly how much we’ve been lied to and robbed by prior regimes; if this one wants to up their credibility immeasurably it’s time for Truth.
Wasn’t it the EPA that classified CO2 as a pollutant? If Pruitt declassifies CO2 and Trump pulls out of the Paris Accord that should hopefully take the legal wind out of a lot of sails.
Even if Trump went completely Green, they would just move the goalposts. It is a permanent, full time battle for power. If they have it they will be telling you you can’t fry food in your own home any longer or have more than 1 kid. It’s the march of power mad collectivists who seek only to control. The scourge of human existence.
The U.S. pulling out of the Paris Accord would fatally weaken the Accord as other countries will follow Americas lead. Many are looking for a way out and none are going to live up to the ridiculous economy killing rules as it would result in political doom for those responsible for the unnecessary self-imposed economic collapse.
If I were president, I would stay in the treaty, but modify it so that the US will abide by the same requirements as China.
So Dan,, why would you burden BOTH the USA AND China to a useless waste of effort and resources; including money, all to achieve no discernible climate effect ??
G
George, if I understand it correctly, China has no obligation whatsoever to cut emissions in the next 5 years.
[Until 2030? 2045? .mod]
Happy Cinco De Mayo ? 8>))
Cinco de Mayo… Can anyone tell me why we celebrate Mexicans winning a battle with the French? Or is it just an excuse to have a party?
Like St Patrick’s Day, it is just an excuse to party (with notably better food).
I’ll drink to that…🍸🍸🍸
Many people, even many Mexicans believe that Cinco de Mayo is the Mexican independance day. It isn’t, that’s actually Sept. 15.
Cinco de Mayo celebrates a minor victory in a war that was eventually lost.
The story as I’ve heard is it, is that an American beer company with a Mexican sounding name (Dos Equis) was looking for a way to boost their brand image, and they latched upon Cinco de Mayo as an excuse to party and drink Mexican beer.
We celebrate it because the French lost. That’s not hard to understand.
Never mind they came back a year later and defeated the Mexicans at the Second Battle of Puebla. Of course, the French weren’t forced to leave until the United States (after the end of our Civil War) mustered our troops on the northern boarder and made them think again. Maximilian shoulda gotten out while the gattin’ was good.
MarkW May 3, 2017 at 11:13 am
Mexico eventually won the war, with US help. And because of the growing threat to France from Prussia (Austro-Prussian War, 1866), which would lead to the Franco-Prussian War (1871) and the ouster of Napoleon III, Maximilian’s backer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benito_Ju%C3%A1rez#French_Intervention_.281862-67.29
Mumbles McGuirck May 3, 2017 at 11:28 am
President Johnson couldn’t get Congress to approve intervention against the French, but he did impose a naval blockade in February 1866. There were already federal troops in Texas, but not enough for an invasion. General Sheridan wrote that Johnson ordered him to “lose” supplies, including rifles, on the Border.
PS: Dos Equis is a Mexican brewery.
Mussolini’s socialist father named him for Benito Juarez.
Mexican independence day is Sept. 16… “Diez y Seis”.
Cinco de Mayo is a regional holiday, celebrating the battle of Puebla. While not an invention of Grupo Modelo or Jose Cuervo… Cinco de Mayo in the U.S. is Spanish for St. Patrick’s Day.
The only time that “Going Green” is something to celebrate.
Speaking of battles, reminds me of a joke an actual Irishman told me.
Q: Why did God invent whiskey?
A: So the Irish wouldn’t conquer the world.
It’s about tequila.
They don’t even celebrate it in Mexico; just in San Jose, and LA. Well maybe Delano as well.
G
I think you mean “Happy Tres De Mayo.”
got a coupla days to go til Sink-O.
It is clear that activists have turned to the courts to impose their agenda against fossil fuels. A range of tactics have been deployed including shareholder initiatives, lawsuits using children as shields and claims of necessity to defend illegal actions against energy infrastructure. The Paris accord adds another justification for such behavior, and should be rescinded.
https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2017/01/31/climate-case-judge-defends-rule-of-law/
Same tactics used against nuclear power decades ago.
If the actual “thing” they don’t like is not economically expensive, then make it legally expensive. (Lawsuits, regulations etc.)
Wow, sounds like we’re out. Finally, some sanity on climate engineering policy.
I love the cuts “aren’t binding” but are also going to be cause of sanctions if we exit the agreement.
They aren’t binding, until the Supreme Court decides that they are.
Apparently according to proponents as a practical matter they’re only going to be enforced if we exit. It’s such typical three-card monte — “don’t worry the agreement isn’t binding, oh but if we exit the agreement other countries will pass sanctions.”
Yes, I think everything Trump attempts to implement will end up having to go to the SC. Because leftists.
Until the Senate approves it, the treaty (even if they call it an “agreement”) is not approved or binding.
If a foreign entity proposes sanctions, that has nothing to do with the law of the US, The Constitution and The Bill of Rights.
(But I would like see the Supreme Court that a president’s “agreement” that seeks to bind the US to it is, in effect, what The Constitution calls “a treaty” and requires Senate approval.)
The problem is those same people will turn right around and argue they are binding as soon as that’s the point of law that favors emissions cuts. That’s the wages of the all the “living document” tomfoolery.
Love the sanctions ! We won’t be allowed to participate in any of the programs to replace fossil fuels with renewables. By the Parisianos that is.
They will probably also ban USA investment in ITER.
Hey ! NEWS Bulletin; Sun to Earth !
I’m not in any bottle myself. Just how big a bottle did you have in mind to put my energy source in ??
Even a ten million km radius bottle, I will just evaporate.
Good luck on ITER.
G
Allow me to repeat what I (and many others) have been saying since this all started – there is one clear and CONSTITUTIONAL way to deal with this issue. This agreement between Nations was a Treaty – a President cannot bind the nation to something like this just on his own say-so, and all serious legal scholars on the left and the right agree. All Treaties, according to Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, are to be submitted and shall only be deemed to be in effect if they receive the support of 2/3 of the Senate.
So, the obvious way to deal with this is for Pres. Trump to acknowledge that this is a treaty, and to submit it to the US Senate for deliberation. And then pledge to live with and enforce whatever the Senate decides, yea or nay.
It is not a treaty for constitutional purposes. A treaty was defined by Thomas Jefferson as ‘immutable save by mutual consent’. Paris contains an opt out; itbis therefore not a treaty. To claim that it is upsets over 200 years of settled constitutional law. Nor is it a Congressional Pact (like NAFTA). Legally, it is an executive agreement. Look that up.
“Paris contains an opt out; itbis therefore not a treaty.” And was not this opt-out deliberately inserted in order to get Obama to join Paris?
Then why are all of the Euro’s claiming that this agreement is “binding” and we can’t just drop out of it? (okay, easy answer – because they’re idiots with delusions of grandeur) There is no such thing as “200 years of settled law” claiming that the President can bind the nation to a treaty and call it “not a treaty” just because he retains the ability to change his mind at some point – that is the model of an Imperial Presidency taken to an absolutely ridiculous conclusion.
and yet another huge hole in your logic – Thomas Jefferson once said “I don’t like Broccoli, it gives me gas.”
That doesn’t make Broccoli unconstitutional. We don’t have secular popes who’s every utterance is supposed to be regarded at as an ex-cathedra pronouncement. Find some justification for your view in either the Constitution itself, or statutory law, or some existing SCOTUS opinion. Otherwise it has no legal standing.
I did try doing research on the subject of international executive agreements. As far as I could tell, there is no Supreme Court case dealing with them, and the Supreme Court decisions on domestic executive orders are that they rely on the powers of the President. Any future President can apparently make a new order, or continue to follow an existing order, and do so at the President’s discretion. I am not a lawyer, but that does seem to be the situation.
From a position paper recently published by Horner and Lewis:
“Paris meets the Department of State’s criteria to be called a “treaty by virtue of its costs and risks, ambition compared to predecessor climate treaties, dependence on subsequent legislation by Congress, intent to affect state laws, U.S. historic practice with regard to multilateral environmental agreements,”
“The Agreement endangers America’s capacity for self-government. It empowers one administration to make legislative commitments for decades to come, without congressional authorization, and regardless of the outcome of future elections.”
Obama didn’t seek congressional approval because he knew it would be “dead on arrival” in a Republican-controlled Senate openly hostile to the Paris agreement, Lewis said.
The Obama administration also argued the emissions targets for each Paris agreement signatory were voluntary, relying solely on domestic policies. Obama pledged to cut greenhouse gas emissions 26 to 28 percent by 2025.
But policies Obama put in place to comply with the Paris agreement only got the U.S. about 51 percent of the way there, meaning more legislation and regulations would be needed — another reason Lewis said Paris meets the definition of a treaty.
“This treaty is designed to expand every government’s control over private energy-related capital,” Lewis said, adding Obama wanted to use Paris to make his “domestic energy policies immune to legal challenges.”
“There is no way on Earth an executive can reorganize the economy for the next 35 years,” Lewis said.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2017/05/03/policy-experts-call-on-trump-to-abandon-unconstitutional-paris-climate-treaty/#ixzz4g2wNsHII
But, like prosecutorial descretion, the president can decide to not submit an agreement to the senate and just let it die.
But, the office of the presidency, once people are in, tend to make POTUS not want to weaken power, so even though this has never been to the senate so is not binding in any way other than how the prior POTUS was using the EPA to set standards to meet it, this POTUS seems to feel the need to formarlly reject the agreement that was never a proper agreement in the first place.
This lets the current POTUS continue the anti-constitutional view that a POTUS can enter into such agreements in the 1st place.
This is not a good precedent. I’d prefer this president say there is nothing to reject as there was not binding agreement at all. But as per the above, he’ll likely feel compelled to formally reject it.
Facts and Truth count
Pre arranged computer graphs and throwing chicken bones at tree rings not so much!
I’ll believe it when I see it.
Regardless, I don’t see the required science team at the WH to purge and crush climate extremism. Tesla isn’t set to lose a single fed subside. EPA budget cut? 1% of a fantastically high Obama level.
I hope for the best but why must this go through a PR floating effort? He made the promise, now he should keep it without the waffling around.
Beware the SINOS, (Skepics in Name Only), cousins of the RINOS botching Obamacare repeal. They’re all about and Tillerson is on the top of the list.
The very fact that the Trump admin people are debating whether to withdraw from the Paris Climate Pact tells me that they are probably looking at the withdrawal from the pact primarily from political and financial viewpoints rather than scientific ones.
I would tend to think that if they take the time and effort to poke all the scientific holes in the CO2 induced climate change theory and present the evidence to the public, they would have much stronger ground to stand on when announcing the U.S. withdrawal from it (which I support).
I can only assume that they are in fact aware of the scientific problems with the CAGW theory. Not making use of them to justify withdrawal from the pact just adds more fuel to the anti-Trump fires.
CD, the ‘settled science’ battle is perhaps better fought revising the endangerment finding. Trump is right that Obama got snookered by the Chinese on this; a bad deal for the US. That provides sufficient political cover.
Trump should also withdraw from UNFCCC. Easy grounds. He is already constrained by law (PL 103-236, 1994) from participating or providing financial support because UNFCCC recognized Palestine as a full member state April 2016.
Endangerment reversal (actual science) and pulling out of UN Climate authority are ideal goals.
Take 100 trillion out of crony revenue statements and think about what those solar panels become worth over night? Well over a trillion in green debt. The .com bust will be walk in the park in comparison. Tesla on schedule for total cash burn in less then 2 years, with the subsidies. New highs 50 billion market cap, you think they’ll take the $7500 per car subside away? Guess who guaranteed much of this debt to investors?(Face mirror, write “bag holder” on glass).
If you thought Obamacare was a legacy disaster the green bubble is off the charts. No way market relief from climate superstate is quickly going to overcome the adjustment to come. Why? It’s all about that trillion in private debt alone (back by tax payers often enough) that was added to the economy and what happens when it is unwound. Think of the trillions in expectations never to arrive when climate fraud is/may be cutoff.
Climate policy is like an Obama Deathstar as was the ACA. Best long term they be destroyed but the scale of it and the ability of society to adjust isn’t that certain. “If you like your fraud you can keep your fraud” could well be the next catch phase from Greens the next several elections.
So if Trump blows it up quickly, justly, will the world be thanking him? (Not likely) Hence, it will be slow walked piece meal. We haven’t mentioned cult violence and suicides that will be part of unwinding the climate/green cartel. They’re still in miserable denial and hope to overthrow Trump. If it starts to sink in they really are rejected and climate is heading to the dustbin where it belongs the hipster marches are going to much darker place. We better get that domestic private economy going and fast.
This will be the largest transfer of economy (public to private) since WW2 demobilization and our demographics are so much worse as a starting point. It’s no coincidence a trillion $ infrastructure plan is on the board as a transition.
There are the 2 million US green jobs excessively funded in part due to climate fraud rationalization. 250k workers on largely garbage solar installs alone.
The goal is bring deregulatory benefits as fast as possible while unwinding green fraud in a slow organized way. Hence it’s Kiss-in-the-ring with green bubble industries.
150k fracking worker could outproduce all of those billions sunk in the green rathole. Regardless, it’s still a big political problem of the displacement.
Wait until the academic funding dries up, that will take howling to a level never seen before.
Trouble with trying to fight this on scientific grounds is that the realists will admit that there are huge uncertainties and much is poorly if at all understood whereas the alarmists will as usual loudly and passionately proclaim to know everything and the models all say and peer review and *adjusted* data and 97% and everything donchakno.
Pretending it was ever science first the foremost skeptic/realist cultural delusion. I crossed that Rubicon in the 70’s.
The actual agenda proceeded what evolved into “climate” by many decades in fact. Like him or not Delingpole has the totality of the climate war correct. What advances climate statism is political denial of what it actually is, preferring an abstract science trivia debate to avoid personal political cross currents and other novelty views. Science can’t solve emotional/political delusion and only skeptics seem to believe otherwise.
“The very fact that the Trump admin people are debating whether to withdraw from the Paris Climate Pact tells me that they are probably looking at the withdrawal from the pact primarily from political and financial viewpoints rather than scientific ones.”
My take on it is that Trump is and has been against the Paris Agreement, but he is just allowing all sides to make their cases, to see if any of them change his mind in any way or have anything valuable to say.
At Trump’s speech in Pennsylvania the other night (Saturday), Trump said he was going to make a “big decision” in about two weeks, and Trump said it with such enthusiasm that it leads me to think he has already decided to withdraw from the Paris Agreement. I just don’t think he would announce his coming decision with such excitement if he just means to stay in the Paris Agreement. What part of his base would get excited about that? Answer: Not very many. So staying in is not going to excite his base. Getting out would make his base go wild with excitement. I think he is getting out.
What’s needed is a 500-item FAQ justifying the withdrawal. The raw materials for such a document are already written. I hope some group will structure it into sections and ask/assign people to assemble each of them.
Researched this legal question. Charming Betsy (chief justice Marshall, 1804) concerns statutory interpretation of Congressional laws as not violating international law unless congress is clear or no other interpretation is possible. Not directly applicable here.
The problem with the Paris Accord is that under general international law it is a treaty; under US constitutional law it is not. So, for example, the language permitting only increases in NDCs becomes an international law problem for the US. The situation opens lots of angles for green lawsuits in sympathetic courts like Hawaii and San Fransisco. Just like immigration. Trump is likely being persuaded by that mess to minimize potential entanglements on this, which Pruitt knows are coming on both CPP and the endangerment finding.
Supplemental by extension Rudd.
https://www.technocracy.news/index.php/2016/01/01/trans-pacific-partnership-trojan-horse-for-obamas-climate-change-agenda/
International agreements suddenly achieve international treaty status and legally binding the USA?
Not a chance.
Nor could Obama and Kerry who explicitly worked with international negotiators tailoring phrases to avoid invoking USA treaty status and approval requirements.
Or are we going to consider charging international negotiators with racketeering and collusion?
The USA has never abrogated United States treaty rights. All treaties must be signed and approved by the Senate.
Not signed by the POTUS and approved by the Senate, it is not a treaty.
International collusion attempting to hide treaty statements or disguise them as falling fully under a POTUS’s administrative orders must be criminal in action as well as intent by the lying perpetrators.
I’m waiting for the drama to end and the fat lady to sing. I hope they don’t delay her indefinitely.
10-15 year unwind period at best and the odds still favor Greenshirts. 1.5 Trillion public market cap. Entire political nucleus culturized through their lifetimes.
There is chance but I expect another totalitarian movement to replace climate fraud even if it defeated. Which I still contend is a big “if”. Trump handled this in a very “small ball” way instead of going for it in the existential way that is deserved. Climate fanatics approach it that way because it really is social revolution and near nothing about actual science or climate.
The sad historical reality is fanaticism often wins and climate skeptics largely are obtuse as a rule to the actual AGW agenda based on their comments. Do people really think lawyers would save them with Paris on the global books?? That isn’t just obtuse it’s stupid.
They want to kill you and nationalize forever your children and grandchildren’s minds and this is the device of the moment. Paris overrules the very laws you think might protect your rights. America a UN province no longer a country.
Tossing out the TPP took the hidden enforcement mechanism out of the Obama Paris agreement and opened the door to the full exit without tangable impacts. Paris in the end, was simply a globally distibuted tax/reparation assessed on US taxpayers. Just another part of Obummers globalist initiative to force socialist principles further down the throat of the unknowing American populous.
Why do you think nearly 200 countries signed up had their hands out after signature argueing for more cash, faster.
We are fortunate the deplorables fought back, and others woke up, and turned the tide.
The decision is simple; leave the Paris non- agreement (or better better yet, tear the freakin’ thing up, on camera), and have a chance of being a two-term president. Stay in, and lose that chance.
Putting the issue to debate in both houses would do a lot of ‘intelligence’ broadcasting to the world about how honest the entire AGW premise is. When the majority of the people can kick holes through the entire premise that the hypothesis of .03% to .04% CO2 ppmv causing runaway global warming/climate change is on very shaky ground, then when the Senate kills it, Trump will be off the hook politically and the whole world will be front seat to a debate that will seriously impede this lie all over the world. Maybe this is the chance that we have been waiting for, which is a chance to test the Scientific Method. In the halls of Congress and the Senate.
The downside is that, although a 2/3 vote to endorse the treaty would not be obtained, a majority vote would (say 60 votes—all 48 Dems plus 12 Republicans). It would be a sort of moral victory for the warmists.
This is why a 500-item FAQ is needed to educate those who have been persuaded by warmists. And a debating team.
“It would be a sort of moral victory for the warmists.” 1. They have no morals. 2. Who cares.
It would be even worse then that Roger but you raise an essential point. The Senate is RINO central as if the House isn’t complete disfunction. McCain? Graham? We’re talking an off the chart fiasco.
Keep in mind climate is a cottage issue that only occasionally reaches a critical debating mass nationally. Many of the population might know the main talking points but many more look at it in similar way as debating tax code specifics and quickly lose interest.
I’ve observed this time and again, when the debate swells in scale, becomes more mainstream and politically focused skeptics win. Activists win in contrived closed “expert” or academic closed rooms from where it was all incubated. So if greens operate in the shadows as activists they do better than a national debate. The trouble with the Senate today is it often acts like and out-of-touch university faculty and I for one would have little confidence in their ability to debate the Paris agreement subject to trillions in potential crony conflicts. Add the hatred for the President found there and seemingly endless ability to willfully botch the message the Senate, this Senate should be skipped. It looks terribly weak on Trump’s part.
There’s also the precedent, punt the horrible Iran deal to them as well?? More chaos.
I highly doubt that any Republicans would actually vote yes to staying in. So it definitely wouldn’t even pass with a 60 vote (moral) majority. This isn’t the health care vote where the Freedom Caucus had some legitimate complaints. It is important that a sufficient reason be given to the world now that US is under new leadership and that reason is because the science of the alarmists is political and would not stand the test of the scientific method. If substantive debate ensued that discredited the alarmist narrative that their science is corrupt, then their politic is dead too. It would kill the AGW meme quicker than just taking your marbles and going home.
Perhaps warmism wouldn’t get 60 votes, because not all Democracies would vote to pass the treaty. But probably 20% of Republicans (i.e., 10 votes) would do so, I guess. About 20% of Republicans generally are warmists, and several GOP bigshots have spoken up in favor of Doing Something.
What’s needed is a packet of counterpoints to warmist claims, plus an online team of fast-reply experts to media queries. (For instance, the packet could quote and rebut statements made by Democrats in the House during their 2016 filibuster on climate change.
Roger
Unfortunately, your 500 FAQs can’t undo what 12 years of US public schools have done.
Facts no longer matter, people have picked sides for the climate-religion gang war. Just look at how many folks believe sea level rise is 10-20 times NOAA’s rate – and accelerating.
We’re re-entering the scientific dark ages, where magic & shaman rule.
@Ron Williams. There definitely are a dozen (say) RINO warmists in the Senate. To convert half of them, a year-long moderated red team / blue team debate on dozens of climate change sub-topics is needed, based on the format of the Climate Dialogue site.
As a start, Trump should direct one government agency to conduct, or contract for, a thorough and sophisticated survey of scientists in relevant fields, to debunk the 97% nonsense.
If the Treaty is tossed to the Senate, guess what will happen next: A million mom month-long sit-in around the Capitol, plus a write-in campaign that will dwarf all previous efforts. Plus a media /propaganda deluge backed by billions of dollars from Soros-types. Combined, these efforts might actually be enough to get the Treaty passed. Trump shouldn’t risk it. Those advising him to do so lack the imagination and empathy to see how the other side will respond.
The Trump Administration was first leaning toward the Paris “Treaty” and now it is leaning against it. Reminds me of this joke:
A woman takes her aging father to an old age home for admission. He sits quietly while a nurse interviews the daughter about his needs. Slowly the man begins to lean further and further to his left. Quickly, the nurse props a pillow on his left side so he doesn’t topple over. Shortly after, he begins to lean further and further to his right. Again the nurse stuffs a pillow on his right side, wedging him firmly in the middle of his chair. Later the daughter turns to her father and asks how he likes the home. With a frown he says, “I don’t like it all! They won’t let me f*rt.”
Come on, Trumpy, make up your mind. 🙂
Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke, from my neck of the woods, was a great pick by Trump:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryan_Zinke
I’m not a Fan of D. Rump but I hope he keeps his Campaign Promise to Pull Out considering that 97% of the GHE is caused by Naturally occurring water vapor and Clouds. While Only 0.28% of the GHE is caused by human activity.
Ivanka does not want SJW’s to impact her business is the USA exited the Paris scam
If the USA
Ideally Dr. Lindzen would be in the photo op and announcing the exit of the entire UN Climate protocol on the basis of science and political fraud. Paris exit is half a loaf to begin with.
The monster climate cartel wants to kill Trump and erase his name from history. The response should proportional but it never is. It’s why the left dominates politics and now “science”.
I’ve said this before (although maybe not here), too many people have never seen a real entrepreneur at work. He’s attacking several things at once, and I believe he WILL beat back a lot of the Warmunist threat. While I also think the entrepreneur mentality does handicap him a little bit in the political world, because it’s a perspective of ‘everyone CAN win’, in an environment where too many of the people around him simply do not want that – when push comes to shove, he’s going to get done what he said he would. Everyone that votes on a single issue wants THEIR issue given first, and immediate priority. This swamp didn’t become the putrid, stagnant mess that it is overnight, and it’s not going to be fixed overnight. We need a little patience.
And remember, this board is one of the fronts of the battle – the other side is unified, and it’s simply not going to roll over. They have to be beaten. And a battle is a very fluid situation.
Or maybe he’s not fit for what he promised. It’s been more than 100 days and to keep it short: he failed.
mountainape5
You have a stunningly naive & unrealistic view of what a single man, without support from congress, the courts or the press is able to accomplish in 100 days in a democracy.
Trump is dealing with a couple of credible nuclear weapons threats, ISIS, government funding shutdown, collapsing Obamacare, immigration, a new federal budget for the first time in 8 years, etc, etc. Given all this (and more), I doubt his first priority should be the Paris Accords.
Hey, I’m not interested in the inner workings of the government. He lied or didn’t think of it very well, don’t know which is worse.
Javert Chip
THANK you.
JC,
Not to mention tax reform and negotiations with both allies and opponents on a range of foreign policy issues. Cleaning up Obama’s messes will take not just more than 100 days but more than four years.
Okay, ‘Mountain Ape’ – it’s guys like you, with the permanent loser mentality, that throw your tantrums and stamp your feet, that undermine any serious effort to roll back any of this warmist agenda – Trump is fighting back a bureaucracy that has been being stacked for DECADES – on multiple fronts far beyond the Climate Change issue, and is facing near total opposition. A lot of us on this side of the fence are used to being screwed over, and frankly that’s how people like you develop that ‘sparring partner’ mentality – the first stiff resistance and you’re throwing your arms up, and wailing that your own personal agenda item did not get addressed completely and to your satisfaction within a hundred days. I mean, my GOD, grow up and grow a spine. Do you really think ANY other candidate would have done even THIS much by now?
We WANTED this fight, but did you think the opposition was just going to roll over? Warmists have consolidated a zealot army, and it doesn’t do me much good to think people (or apes) like you are providing the weak link in the chain. My suggestion to you is either get in the fight, stop whining, (and frankly shove your histrionic accusations of ‘lies) or else take your ball and go home.
The loser here are the people who voted for trump, just like your crying long explanation. Ofc trump has the power to do more and he wont.
You’re kind of a sniveling little piss-ant, aren’t you?
And frankly, stupid.
And this is where our conversation ends.
I hope it happens, but I’ll believe it when I see it.
There is a huge Opportunity Cost to staying in the Paris Agreement. All the time and talent spent preparing for any climate conference is an expense where the money could have been directed in some other, more useful direction, or simply left in the pockets of the taxpayers. The U.N. promoted climate change culture has been a huge burden on all the nations of the world, both in terms of money spent foolishly, and also in talented diplomats focusing their skills on the details of these agreements, rather than performing the normal work of diplomats looking out for the interests of their countries.
Getting out of the Paris Agreement and defunding U.N. climate agencies would create a huge financial windfall that would be shared by all the people of the nations of the world.
What you say is correct but the nature of all Keynesian planning is the 100 Trillion weath transfer around Paris announces who the primary crony beneficiaries are to be. The cost and waste is distributed to the whole society. With choice like that and knowing the political class are on the list of fraud winners why else would the establishment do anything but support climate fraud or simply fake opposition which I find the greater crime?
Climate policy is driven corrupt self interest and political sanctimony bordering on delusion. They are “saving the world” and their enemies are “killing the planet” and deserve death and reeducation camps (commonly called public school in the US) for their children.
Optimism about private markets culturally remains near a 50 year low especially among Millennials and the usual identity political groups. The 100 trillion Paris cost in these sectors and groups is viewed as a positive. Reverse “trickle down” belief systems. “I’ll get my share of the government mediation process”. Then there is the moral superiority of “saving the planet” and imagined revenge against “market based capitalism” and those associated. AGW policy is a Marxist anti-Americanism narrative.
Punishing “nationalist” America is central to populist globalism via Paris both in the US and around the statist worshipping globe.
I hope people sign the CEI Paris exit petition that is easy enough to find.
A good week to call or write the White House;
https://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/write-or-call
It might do no good but the track the comments. It takes seconds to write. They only have 10 operators taking calls and the hold time around 10 minutes is common. I still think calling is more effective over time.
I can’t prove this but Greenshirts make the calls while imagined skeptics seldom do. It’s a sociological assessment that I’ve reached this conclusion. Keep it simple;
“Exit Paris Climate agreement as promised or I/we will never vote for you again.” Gets to the point. It’s not like they’re taking editorial notes.
“Both Ivanka Trump and Kushner advocate remaining part of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, even though the president has repeatedly criticized the global warming deal.”
___________________________________________
Who the devil voted for Ivanka Trump and Kushner;
how the devil reelecting them.
Carrying brains uphead to keep their Backbones stiff.
Shucks.
“Both Ivanka Trump and Kushner advocate remaining part of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change” Nothing but rumor and innuendo so far. Show me their quotes. This is a common tactic of the MSM to seed doubt and misdirection about peoples’ intentions. It may be true though but I doubt Trump would give into his daughter and husband on a matter that was part of his platform
Mark, even the FBI doesn’t see through Trump’s ways to decisions.
However – thanks for your reply.
Salute to Ivanka:
https://www.google.at/search?q=african+woman+carrying+water&client=ms-android-samsung&prmd=ivn&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&fir=2zoVLHQLEJ6rgM%253A%252CtjGOAkH2e7EDdM%252C_%253BPdTRRkbziGAjAM%253A%252ChsZGVeahMn4VTM%252C_%253BGqkvlH_XpwTs7M%253A%252C7Be7QSeBwpyzSM%252C_%253BG2kOaH7vr8zFIM%253A%252CFBI98BP_sZKKjM%252C_%253BzZ5NB6osEXg6zM%253A%252CDU-iuCPzMGK9ZM%252C_%253BakT-AmDcu8JOWM%253A%252CEMAPkCcHavVToM%252C_%253BfEwT_-wyjK8OLM%253A%252CHpxeQWn9ddld-M%252C_%253ByuTFfImMeU_-WM%253A%252CP3rnRdZaglKNNM%252C_&usg=__ydtQdSuWuqRequ5Lhgq_W9TH0zc%3D&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj_9Inbx9TTAhVEWBQKHdpECoYQ7AkIMA&biw=360&bih=560
The difference is proud, civil courage:
https://youtu.be/Cv6tuzHUuuk
An agreement to solve a problem that doesn’t exist with an expensive (for the US) solution that won’t work, even by its own standards, and wouldn’t be followed by most of the world.
Just do it, Donald. Put it out of our misery and send a message that the stupidity is being rolled back, slightly. The lamentations, wailing, and gnashing of teeth is already always at 11 anyway. They have nothing worse to say than what has already been said. It is time for the ghost of exaggerations-past to start haunting them.
https://www.google.at/search?q=proud%2C+the+12+deadly+sins+of+st.+augustinus&oq=proud%2C+the+12+deadly+sins+of+st.+augustinus&aqs=chrome.
The holy St. Augustinus himself was a deepest sinner leaving his mother alone on the north african shore when boarding a ship across the Mediterranean Sea heading to Rome.
Bigotry, selfishness.
Do it!!
The organic food trucks should be making a killing off the price mark ups and extra foot traffic of the marches for politicized science etc.
Why not recognize it as a Treaty and have the Senate vote on it?
Because it isn’t one. Why elevate the piece of garbage to a status it never had and never will?
I think the new administration should cut the crap.
Obama was not entitled to enter into that treaty without the consent of the congress.
Hold all related press conferences in Minot.
Trump’s first hundred or so days have passed.
Either Tillerson or Ivanka have identified and detailed all benefits to staying at the Paris table;
Or, after weeks of squirming and hoping that Trump will forget, the questions; Trump is asking why the Paris nonsense is still a burden.
There are no obvious reasons for the USA to continue attending the climate conferences.
A) Everyone, that is, everyone in the world views whomever sits in the USA seat as a massive easy open cash register.
B) Everyone in the world’s elite climate negotiations fails to understand why Trump would not jump on the world socialist juggernaut returning all world workers back to slavery and serfdom.
– – a) Trump is obviously not taking America down any communist primrose path.
– – b) Nor will Trump share any of America’s wealth with euro bureaucrats.
C) Trump’s draining the swamp will eventually erase much of the science on which IPCC and climate negotiators base their alarmisms.
– – a) Then again, if the world’s climate agencies are determined to keep to the alarmist path; USA will have quite a few miscreant researchers needing new positions. Though they’ll likely work for much less and perhaps a few herrings on the side. (that manniacal mikey guy looks like a frequent herring snack kind of guy).
• Thirty years of failed alarmist predictions.
• Hundreds of failed climate models.
• Thousands of easy peasy researchers that do not perform real science and believe they deserve wealth and rich living.
• Alarmist cocksure beliefs that America can fund bad science and worse science researchers forever.
• Alarmist easy living and willingness to trash thousands of hard working lives eager to improve their small worlds.
• Investigate, prosecute and consider charging a number of the central climate felons with treason.
It is time to clean the climate house from top to bottom!
No obligations is UN /international ideologues’ well known strategy. A@enda twotytwo is a perfect example of a motherhood type strategy with a long term bear trap on the end that has been adopted at the municipal and county level. Get property owners to agree to not cut trees along streams and roadways seems a nice gesture to esthetics/scenic goals that are ‘voluntary’. Gee, we will even cut the grass along the property line, maybe plant some wild flowers and keep the underbrush trimmed for ya, at no expense to you. The encroachment and bylaws eventually have prohibitions that prevent you from doing anything without their permit.
They use existing statutes to eventually erode your rights. They act on complaints, etc. etc. Every American should read “Not a shot was fired” by Jan Kozak, a patient diabolical plan using a democratic parliament to eventually get the citizens of Czechoslovakia to clammer for a кoмциist takeover of a democ government. This kind of stuff was invented by a nation of chess players.
+1 Most people don’t even realize the deceit that has been sneaking up to control them. ‘They’ call it “conspiracy theory” but in fact it’s real. Agenda21 is almost 500 pages of obfuscation but if you read it carefully, not even between the lines, the intent is for the UN to take over control with a world government. I believe Trump’s election is the counter attack. Call it Populist movement or whatever but people who have tasted Democracy and freedom KNOW when there’s an attempt to remove either.
How many people voted for Ivanka Trump and her husband Jared Kushner in the US presidential election?
How many people voted for any of the other Trump advisors?
I can understand that you may want to remain in the Paris agreement for political reasons, I just cant think what those reasons could be!
Influence? Just give the billions direct to poor countries if you want real influence.
You have too much money and want to give some away, see point one.
To look good/cool/righteous – to who? People who worry about climate only do so because they have been told to worry. People will move onto the next worry in 6 months time, post funding cuts.
Uncontrolled tax and spend helps no one other than a few multinationals and NGOs.
Stop it and stop it now.
If you don’t get rid of it then when the Democrats get power again (and they will) they’ll have the framework for an immediate clampdown. Without it at least it’ll take a couple years to start over.
They need desperately to reverse EPA’s endangerment finding re CO2. This has opened the door to mainstream adoption of the concept that CO2 is a pollutant. This needs to be a top priority.
Did our authors use a climate model to reach this prediction? Because the observed data of his backpedalling toward announcements of success suggest that more likely next week we’ll learn that the bears, “the white ones, white, very white bears, so cute” are running out of penquins to eat (also cute “but a little fishy”) and announce every house in America must have a big beautiful windmill in the front yard. Best windmills ever.
running out of penquins to eat
The polar bears are not running out of penguins to eat. As of now — after eating all the Arctic penguins — most bears are swimming south to Antartica (‘undocumented’) because they read the literature and want save the penguins
from global warmingfor themselves.If, to save the polar bears from the environment in which they’ve thrived for the past 30 years, we need to move them to Antarctica, then they’ll find plenty of seals there to eat.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weddell_seal
So they won’t be reduced to eating foul-tasting, fishy penguins.
Can a party to the agreement change their emissions targets by increasing them as follows:
Say the initial target is a 2% reduction per year for 15 years for a total of 30%.
Instead the new target is a 50% reduction, with first increases for 50 years stay level for 50 years then decrease over the following 200 years.
After Trump’s election campaigning rhetoric and promises, and in light of his energy policy and objective to create an economic boom, he would look like a bloody idiot if he fails to withdraw America from the Paris Agreement.
Just one concern … the closeness of his democrat climate change believing daughter Ivanka who has “daddy’s ear”!!!! Please, someone, send Ivanka on a world tour. Just keep her away from the White House over the next week.
The only logical step is to leave the Paris Climate Agreement, otherwise it will not be economical to revive the US economy. Simply said, we can’t afford the Paris Climate Agreement and neither can Europe or any other country unless they are suicidal from a social, scientific, ethical and economic perspective.
Join the Paris Climate Agreement and destroy your civilization…Oops that wasn’t written in the agreement was it?
And don’t forget UN Agenda 21 and Agenda 30… Absolutely devastating treaties for all of humanity.