Trump declines to endorse Paris Climate Accord

Via Breitbart: Despite heavy lobbying from G7 leaders, President Donald Trump declined to endorse the Paris Climate Agreement in a joint pledge of support for one of former President Barack Obama’s signature achievements in office.

Trump’s decision upset world leaders like German Chancellor Angela Merkel, desperate to convince the president of the agreement’s merits.

“The Paris deal isn’t just any other deal. It is a key agreement that shapes today’s globalization,” Merkel said, describing discussions with Trump about climate change “very unsatisfying.”

For opponents of the agreement, the decision is a welcome development after the president’s economic adviser, Gary Cohn, told reporters that Trump was “evolving” on the issue. But it still was not a fulfillment of his campaign promise to withdraw the United States from the Paris agreement.

The president announced on Twitter that he would make the decision next week of whether to remain in the agreement.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

355 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Rob
May 27, 2017 3:42 pm

Loving President Trump! Merkel and her stupid ” globalization “.

Reply to  Rob
May 28, 2017 7:42 am

It’s a gift of obtuseness that she would use the word “globalization” but that’s an EU speciality. This happens when you live in a complete bubble of ideas.

May 27, 2017 4:35 pm

I hope that Trump pulls the plug on the noxious Paris Accord. It is no use staying in it and talking to deluded Warmistas as they obviously have no reasoning power at all. Getting out wouldset the cat among the pigeons and force them to face reality. In this matter Trump already has a voice.
They can now concentrate on a real problem like Musim migration and Jihadist terror that always accompanies it.

Reply to  ntesdorf
May 27, 2017 5:33 pm

It doesn’t take Muslim migration, it just takes a Muslim reading the Quran. Islam is a doctrine of war, and the Quran is a tactical war manual.

JBom
May 27, 2017 4:49 pm

Gary Cohn has an espionage problem along with Jared Kushner together with Sergei Gorkov Chairman of Russian state development bank VEB and it is sitting at the table in the Board Room of Goldman Sachs.

May 27, 2017 5:00 pm
Roger Knights
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
May 27, 2017 9:59 pm

Mark Moreno Headline: “Trump tells ‘confidants’ U.S. will leave climate deal”
http://www.climatedepot.com/2017/05/27/report-trump-tells-confidants-u-s-will-leave-paris-climate-deal/

May 27, 2017 5:14 pm

A bit off topic, but while Mr. Trump tries to defuse the “war on coal” other countries feel no constraints on their plans for energy independence.
http://www.aljazeera.com/video/news/2017/05/pakistans-coal-project-provide-power-200-years-170527115829763.html
I know, it’s Al-jazeera, but that doesn’t mean it’s not accurate reporting.

2hotel9
Reply to  Smart Rock
May 27, 2017 6:07 pm

And Pakistan will use slave/convict labor. China will love them long time, boom boom all night long!

May 27, 2017 5:32 pm

Trump had to listen the the best arguments of the G7 on climate, a group of climate amateurs talking climate policy. Should have brought in a few experts or talking heads from each side to cover specifics.

hunter
May 27, 2017 5:44 pm

Tear up this madness of an agreement, Mr. President. It is a trap left by your predecessor, who has left do many traps and so many messes. If you take the GHW Bush route and break your word you will lose supporters and still be hated by those who already hate you. Climate, Inc. is the swamp. Staying in Paris assures the extremists that they will eventually control it all. Stand firm for rational policy. St and firm to make America Great Again. Repudiate the Paris Accord.

Reply to  hunter
May 29, 2017 8:10 am

Hunter,
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/05/27/report-trump-tells-allies-he-plans-to-remove-u-s-from-paris-climate-agreement/#disqus_thread
It looks like a win. I just hope the full followup of elimination of the UN Climate protocol and idiotic endangerment authority happens. I expect campus riots and other huge backlash in the weeks ahead.
Trump needs to embrace a moral authority argument regarding climate fraud, the money argument just isn’t enough politically.

Yirgach
May 27, 2017 6:46 pm

Taormina is so overrated.
The cognoscenti all stay at Castelmola.

Steve Oak
May 27, 2017 6:47 pm

With this Merkel has stated the closest thing to the truth that we are likely to hear. The Paris agreement and the entire AGW movement is not about ‘climate’, it is not about the planet, it is not about ‘the children’, it is a plan by those in power to aggregate more power.
“It is a key agreement that shapes today’s globalization,” Merkel said.

Dems B. Dcvrs
Reply to  Steve Oak
May 27, 2017 7:28 pm

Not to forget, a bunch of Faux Climatologists getting Taxpayer dollars for contrived research, high-tech toys, and professional partying.

TA
May 27, 2017 7:03 pm

Here we go:
http://dailycaller.com/2017/05/27/trump-tells-confidants-hes-pulling-out-of-the-paris-climate-agreement/
Report: Trump Tells Confidants He’s Pulling Out Of The Paris Climate Agreement
“President Donald Trump privately told several confidants that he will be pulling out of the Paris climate deal, three sources with direct knowledge told Axios.”
end excerpt

Dems B. Dcvrs
May 27, 2017 7:23 pm

“President Donald Trump declined to endorse the Paris Climate Agreement”
The Gore/Mann Global Warming Sham – Trumped by actual Science.

Non Nomen
Reply to  Dems B. Dcvrs
May 28, 2017 4:51 am

The Gore/Mann Global Warming Sham – Trumped by actual Science.

No, it’s just common s(ci)ense.

LittleOil
May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

What happens if Trump does not support Paris? Does he need to get it through Senate to be effective?

Reply to  LittleOil
May 27, 2017 7:50 pm

No Senate is required, it was never a treaty. It was a massive Executive overreach from the very people who are trying to overthrow the last election result with their Conspiracy theory culture.

2hotel9
Reply to  cwon14
May 28, 2017 3:22 am

So, it is a failed treaty neither House or Senate would ever seriously discuss? Yep, you are right.

TA
Reply to  LittleOil
May 27, 2017 8:43 pm

Trump can go through the U.S. Senate, or there are actions he can take himself to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris Agreement without going through Congress, although that kind of withdrawal takes several years to complete.
There are pros and cons to doing it either way, although I think there are fewer cons going the Senate route. We could actually get a public debate about the science, and the economics of the Paris Agreement almost guarantee it will fail in the Senate.
I see where California Democrats are balking at Governor Brown’s desire to impose a carbon tax on California. The Dems are worried that the voters are going to get really mad at them especially since they just passed a huge gasoline tax increase on everyone in California. Even California Democrat are wary of pushing things too far.
Democrat U.S. Senators might also balk at supporting the Paris Agreement once it becomes public just how much U.S. taxpayer money would be wasted on this boondoggle. I want to see Democrat Senators stand up and fight for increased taxes and wasteful spending.
This debate would be the perfect setup for the 2018 elections. A forum to expose the delusions that are rampant among Democrat Senators, which should show they are unfit to continue in Office.

May 27, 2017 7:47 pm

The heads up from the Washington Examiner is very encouraging this evening. The withdrawal from Paris confirmed. They are fairly reliable.
Hopefully the whole climate cabal will fold in a somewhat orderly fashion but the green bubble is large and EU bubble even larger as forces counting on the 100 trillion “cost” to maintain their existence face disaster and panic. A financial crisis can’t be ruled out. Climate debts and expectations are huge.
Long term the world seems to have dodged a huge totalitarian bullet but get ready for the Greenshirt onslaught. Next week you’ll see what the irrational Trump derangement syndrome was really all about. “Russians” were just a talking point reaction, prepare for another level of 60’s type treason in every leftist enclave.

May 27, 2017 8:16 pm

Ending the entire UN Climate protocol would by 10x greater then exiting but it’s still a huge win. The CO2 endangerment debunking might be the next big win on the table.
It’s not this significant and there is huge battle to follow but good things do happen;
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FzfSjNSt0Fc
We need the follow through but The President has a chance at greatness.

May 27, 2017 8:37 pm

Reports that Trump will pull U S Out !

May 27, 2017 8:41 pm

If the U S pulls out and we prove up we are out due to Climate Change is luecbased it will be a mortal blow to the evil commie way!
Stand the ground
Fight

Reply to  fobdangerclose
May 27, 2017 8:42 pm

lie based

Roger Knights
May 27, 2017 9:57 pm

Mark Moreno Headline: “Trump tells ‘confidants’ U.S. will leave climate deal”
http://www.climatedepot.com/2017/05/27/report-trump-tells-confidants-u-s-will-leave-paris-climate-deal/

Roger Knights
May 27, 2017 10:16 pm

The greens will now focus on getting states and cities to follow in California’s footsteps and (in effect) sign on to the Paris Agreement independently. They’ve been having success with this strategy already, and Trump’s backing out at the federal level will greatly strengthen their case for action at lower levels. They may be able to get half the US to commit, in substance, to Paris Climat. (Poor residents of those states will shiver in winter, like those in Germany and the UK; they will then truly be “blue.”)

Felflames
Reply to  Roger Knights
May 28, 2017 5:58 am

No US state may enter into treaties with foreign powers.
Any state governor trying that could end up charged with treason.

Roger Knights
Reply to  Felflames
May 28, 2017 6:32 am

“Following in California’s footsteps” (see the very recent WUWT thread on Governor Brown’s latest proposals) means adopting laws mandating that a certain percentage of electricity must come from renewables by a certain date, that in-state CO2 emissions must decline by a certain percentage by a certain date, etc. “in effect signing on to the Paris Agreement independently” does not involve signing on in fact to the Paris Agreement. So no state doing as California has done would be entering into a treaty with a foreign power.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Felflames
May 30, 2017 9:34 am

Haven’t you heard, Felflames? It’s not a treaty.

2hotel9
Reply to  Dave Fair
May 31, 2017 5:06 am

Since it was not debated in House or ratified by Senate you are correct.

Dave Fair
Reply to  2hotel9
May 31, 2017 9:58 am

I’m unaware of any Constitutional requirement for House debate.

2hotel9
Reply to  Dave Fair
May 31, 2017 6:26 pm

The House has no involvement with the treaty process? Wow, someone better let them know, one less thing they got to worry about.

Reply to  2hotel9
June 1, 2017 10:06 am

The House has no roll. That is because the Senate represented the States (which were sovereign), so the States had to approve of new treaties, but not the people (the House). While we forget that this is the United STATES (note the plural), back 230 years ago, it was 13 States (independent nations) that came together to form a new union – the United States. That is why the roll of treaties is by the Executive and Senate only. Not the House.

2hotel9
Reply to  philjourdan
June 1, 2017 7:19 pm

And yet both “houses” of Congress are involved in the treaty process. That is why Barri did the K Street Two Step, and DJT just bent him over a table and a$$ f**ked him. Had he simply followed the process, ratification of a treaty by CONGRESS, his rectum would not be oozing blood tonight. Barrack Hussein Obama f**ked himself with this, Donald just did the honors.

Reply to  2hotel9
June 2, 2017 11:52 am

No, the House can jawbone, but has no say in Treaties or the process.

2hotel9
Reply to  philjourdan
June 2, 2017 6:16 pm

“jawbone” That is what House debate on treaties is? Better tell them, not me, Congress(both sides of it) does have a say on treaties.

Dave Fair
Reply to  2hotel9
June 3, 2017 8:54 am

Outside of a “sense of the House” resolution, please show me in the U.S. Constitution where the House has any of your “… does have a say on treaties.” 2hotel9.

2hotel9
Reply to  Dave Fair
June 4, 2017 4:46 am

You need to convince the House they have no say on treaties because they think they do. That whole being part of Congress thing, ya know.

Reply to  2hotel9
June 5, 2017 7:55 am

Us Constitution, Article 2, Second 2, Second Paragraph:

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur

The House has no role in treaties.

2hotel9
Reply to  philjourdan
June 6, 2017 5:13 am

Again, you need to tell THEM, because they believe they do. Probably because the House has stopped treaties in the past. The Paris Climate Treaty was not ratified. Period. Full stop. Obama did the K Street Twostep because he knew it would never get through CONGRESS. House of Representatives + Senate = Congress.

Bill Parsons
May 28, 2017 12:46 am

“I will make my final decision on the Paris Accord next week!”
This is Trump showing his trademark lack of foresight. If anyone thinks our new pres should have stayed to formally (or informally) address Climate Change issues with Merkel and the other the European heads, I think you are mistaken. He can’t fire them, and he sure isn’t ready to discuss science with them. As for diplomacy… (sigh)
Climate Change may have been politicized out the wazoo, but its assertions (true or not) are all rooted in science, and imo require a scientist to speak to them. Trump knows business and real estate, and with his cabinet now “complete”, there’s nary a hint of a science wonk among them. Ben Carson, a former neurosurgeon, he placed in Housing, and Tom Price, a family doctor, was assigned to Department of Health. Then there’s Jared Kushner, his Senior Adviser, and his daughter, both of whom have very pronounced views on the subject, and are apparently sharing them. Without a science guy to defer to, or to help him understand how to address this issue, his comments on the subject are destined to sound half-baked, half-dismissive, and 100% infuriating.
Every president since Roosevelt has had a science adviser, some of whom left lasting imprints on our country. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_Advisor_to_the_President
Trump, with his particularly shallow understanding of science, desperately needs an adviser to run interference for him, if only here at home. Deference to someone like John Christie at the G8, might have seemed pretty classy; without such an expert on his team, Trump has but one play in his playbook for every science dilemma that presents: punt.
“America is in the process of reviewing its policies on climate change and on the Paris Agreement and thus is not in a position to join the consensus on these topics.” When his remarks are finally released, maybe they will have some semblance of an orderly, coherent analysis about them. Anybody holding their breath?
It’s just that here’s a guy who tweets out bombshells impulsively each morning on every personally irksome subject that crosses his radar, but on the tar pit of global warming – a matter he’s already called a “hoax”, and which continues to threaten multi-billion dollar harm to the U.S. economy – he suddenly turns … (what?) thoughtful?

Reply to  Bill Parsons
May 28, 2017 4:20 am

Climate change is rooted in political collectivism not science.
The guard has changed and there are new discussion rules to be applied.
I’m for a science post mortem to prevent pseudoscience abuses in the future similar to climate fraud but the days of pinhead leftist academia dictating the discussion rules are over.

Bill Parsons
Reply to  cwon14
May 28, 2017 12:36 pm

Climate change is happening, and is a tangible reality. It’s the biased analysis and distorted interpretation of that reality that needs to be countered. The alarmist’s conclusions come from group think, as you say, but that doesn’t negate the suite of physical and earth sciences that underpin it. Domestically, Trump should do two things. He should demand that Congress turn off the spigot of government grants and funds to the purveyors of alarmism; but he should also see that the seeds of real science exploration and research are planted in our schools, universities and government science foundations.
The postmortem you advocate can’t happen until the beast is dead, and it won’t die until its life-blood of
government grants dries up. Right now it’s thriving. The curricula in every school in the nation have been re-written. Everybody in this country can probably name a friend or relative who derives some financial benefit from climate alarmism. Trump will not outlast the enclaves of pseudo-scientists, nor the trickling-down of the legacy grants they’ve created, but he can see that real science has the amplification of the “bully pulpit” to counter the messages they are churning out. What is required is not a single autocrat, but a new network of young scientists who approach their discipline without any agenda. In my opinion, the truth that they will demonstrate is that climate will continue to change with or without our help, and regardless of our alarm about it.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  cwon14
May 28, 2017 4:55 pm

“Bill Parsons May 28, 2017 at 12:36 pm
Climate change is happening, and is a tangible reality.”
You have evidence of that outside a computer model?

Bill Parsons
Reply to  cwon14
May 28, 2017 9:20 pm

Patrick MJD May 28, 2017 at 4:55 pm
We have plenty of historical and archaeological evidence that shows that the Earth’s climate changes constantly. You don’t need prognosticating models to read the temp graphs of proxy data showing many colder and warmer periods in prior eras. Take a moment to re-read what I said. If you still think “climate change” means “global warming”, you’d better do some research of your own. I feel like my comment was windy, but clear enough if you read the second sentence: “It’s the biased analysis and distorted interpretation of (the realities of climate science) that needs to be countered.” We still need climate science and people to study it, imo.

Roger Knights
Reply to  Bill Parsons
May 28, 2017 6:40 am

Without a science guy to defer to, or to help him understand how to address this issue, his comments on the subject are destined to sound half-baked, half-dismissive, and 100% infuriating.

Or a science gal. (Judy Curry has said she’s willing to work for the government in an advisory position. (She doesn’t want to be an administrator or have to be in Washington full-time; apparently she was offered such a job.))

May 28, 2017 3:48 am

More please

troe
May 28, 2017 5:23 am

Follow through Mr. Presdent

Non Nomen
Reply to  troe
May 28, 2017 10:39 am

What do the bookies say? Bet quota?

May 28, 2017 5:34 am

I do hope he pulls the US out, which should mean the UK will seriously think about following.
He needs to move fast on many of his policies because they take a long time to have a public impact. He needs impact for re-election…

Juan Slayton
May 28, 2017 6:08 am

The president needs to hear from us, now, to counter what he is hearing from Tillerson and Ivanka. Needn’t be long. My own contribution, via e-mail:
I would urge you to explicitly reverse President Obama’s personal action endorsing scientifically questionable climate alarm and committing our country to economically destructive (and futile) efforts to restrain the forces of nature.
But if you don’t see fit to take that stand, then the Paris agreement should be submitted to the Senate for ratification. A commitment with such serious effects should certainly be made by the collective representatives of the people, not by one man with a phone and a pen.

Coach Sopringer
May 28, 2017 7:26 am

“The Paris deal isn’t just any other deal. It is a key agreement that shapes today’s globalization,”  — It’s about the climate like a pea is to 3 shells.

May 28, 2017 8:35 am

A Presidential Commission regarding pseudoscience fraud and political manipulation of science should be established. Put Dr. Lindzen in charge of it. No reason to even mention climate “science” in the announcement- res ipsa loquitur