Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Climate advocates have boasted about physically bullying President Trump, and are hurling vile insults at President Trump and the USA in general, over Trump’s refusal to date to endorse their climate bully pact.
Trump Delays Final Decision On Paris Agreement Until Next Week
28/05/2017 2:11 PM AEST | Updated 28/05/2017 2:11 PM AEST
…
Sources told HuffPost this month that Trump was leaning toward withdrawing. But since then, world and corporate leaders have increased pressure for the U.S. to remain in the deal. During his first visit to the Vatican this week, Pope Francis gave Trump a 184-page letter on climate change.
In the president’s best-known business book The Art of the Deal, he outlines a strategy for negotiating based on making aggressive opening salvos. Vowing to withdraw could be an initial step toward reworking the Paris Agreement to get what his administration considers more favorable terms.
Pulling out of the agreement could have major economic consequences. The U.S. could lose jobs in a clean energy industry estimated to be worth $6 trillion by 2030. Countries could put a tariff on American-made imports. And investors could sour on the U.S. amid what they see as instability sown by sclerotic regulation of carbon emissions.
The diplomatic ramifications could be worse. Quitting the deal could brand the nation as a “rogue country“ and a “climate pariah” as it loses its seat at the negotiating table on global climate policy. Moreover, the U.S. risks ceding global influence to rival superpower China, which has already promised to support poorer countries’ efforts to adapt to climate change.
“Trump has heard now very clearly from world leaders, CEOs, and even the Pope,” David Waskow, director of international climate policy for the World Resources Institute, told HuffPost by email. “It’s time for him to make the right decision.”
…
The Australian National University, which seems to think “the ends justify the means” when it comes to the climate cause, also joins the growing wave of insults against the USA;
Paris Agreement safer with the US out: Climate observer
ELEANOR HALL: One close observer of international climate negotiations says it would in fact be preferable were President Trump to pull the US out of the Paris Agreement.
Dr Luke Kemp is no climate change denier. He is a lecturer in International Relations and Environmental policy at the Australian National University, and he joined me earlier.
Dr Kemp welcome to The World Today.
LUKE KEMP: Good to be here Eleanor.
ELEANOR HALL: Now European leaders are warning that the US should not abandon the Paris Agreement, but you argue that it would be better for international action on climate if the US were to withdraw. Why?
LUKE KEMP: Well it’s really quite simple, the US as a rogue administration can do much more damage inside of the agreement, than it can do outside of the agreement.
All you’re doing by keeping the US inside of it is gifting greater leverage to a recalcitrant administration.
…
Read more: http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2016/s4676829.htm
This is not the first time greens have called the USA a rogue state to try to get this way. The following from back in November, shortly after Donald Trump won the Presidency;
US will be a ‘rogue state’ if Trump backtracks on climate: UN envoy
Published on 16/12/2016, 9:07am
Former Ireland president Mary Robinson says incoming administration must live up to the country’s commitments or be ostracised
By Ed King
Governments, civil society and faith groups must unite and condemn the US if the incoming Donald Trump administration pulls out of the Paris Agreement and stops climate funds.
That’s the view of Mary Robinson, former president of Ireland, the UN’s envoy for El Nino and La Nina and a long-term advocate of tougher climate policies.
“If the Trump administration does not live up to its Paris commitments in whatever way – by increasing emissions, looking for oil or failing to support the Green Climate Fund – it must be called out as a rogue state,” she said.
“It’s just not acceptable: countries came to an agreement in Paris. The situation of the world could be grossly worsened – the window to act is short yet the opportunities there are good.”
…
Climate advocates have also suggested that the age of mutual cooperation with the USA is over;
Merkel, After Discordant G-7 Meeting, Is Looking Past Trump
By ALISON SMALE and STEVEN ERLANGERMAY 28, 2017
BERLIN — Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany, Europe’s most influential leader, has concluded, after three days of trans-Atlantic meetings, that the United States of President Trump is not the reliable partner her country and the Continent have automatically depended on in the past.
Clearly disappointed with Mr. Trump’s positions on NATO, Russia, climate change and trade, Ms. Merkel said in Munich on Sunday that traditional alliances were no longer as steadfast as they once were and that Europe should pay more attention to its own interests “and really take our fate into our own hands.”
“The times in which we could rely fully on others — they are somewhat over,” Ms. Merkel added, speaking on the campaign trail after a contentious NATO summit meeting in Brussels and a Group of 7 meeting in Italy. “This is what I experienced in the last few days.”
…
The new French president, Emmanuel Macron, has shown a willingness to work with Germany and to help lead the bloc out of its troubles. And Ms. Merkel sees Germany’s future more and more with the European Union of 27 nations, without Britain after its vote to leave the bloc.
“This seems to be the end of an era, one in which the United States led and Europe followed,” said Ivo H. Daalder, a former United States envoy to NATO who is now the director of the Chicago Council on Global Affairs. “Today, the United States is heading into a direction on key issues that seems diametrically opposite of where Europe is heading. Merkel’s comments are an acknowledgment of that new reality.”
…
Read more: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/28/world/europe/angela-merkel-trump-alliances-g7-leaders.html
The attempt to bully the USA isn’t just verbal; President Macron of France seems to have admitted that he intentionally tried to physically hurt President Trump with his infamous G7 “handshake”.
Mr. Macron told the French news media that his now-famous handshake tussle with Mr. Trump was a deliberate effort to show that he could not be pushed around by the American president. He told the Sunday newspaper Journal du Dimanche that it was “a moment of truth” — designed to show that he is no pushover, and a message for the European Union leadership, as well.
“My handshake with him — it wasn’t innocent,” Mr. Macron said. “One must show that you won’t make small concessions, even symbolic ones, but also not over-publicize things, either.”
…
Read more: Same link as above
Video of the infamous handshake incident
All this in my view demonstrates how toxic and dysfunctional the international political environment has become.
The world is facing real threats, real unstable rogue states actively deploying chemical weapons against their own people, rogue states attempting to acquire long range nuclear capability. The day when terrorists or unstable lunatics acquire the ability to destroy entire Western cities with nuclear bombs may almost be upon us.
But instead of responding to President Trump’s call to pull together, to deal with those real threats, climate advocates hurl insults at the USA and apparently try to physically bully President Trump, to prevent the almost undetectable 0.3C of warming which might occur by the end of the century if the USA withdraws from the job destroying Paris Agreement.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Without the United States, i.e. The Treasury of the United States to subsidize the “renewable energy industries in Europe, China and southern hemisphere” and the “Lifestyles of the European and Famous” there is no other source of substantial money. The “agreement” will quickly disintegrate and the “agree-es” will quickly begin warring on themselves, for what residual monies they think are to be had.
The whole game really plays out as the tragedy of the commons. NATO is a defense commons, and 23 of the 28 nations (farmers) are “free-riders” or “free-loaders” attempting to use the pasture at no cost. The Paris pact is a climate commons, with about 80% of the nations (farmers) not only wanting to be free-riders, but also wanting the “bigger” (bigly?) farmers to pay for their sheep (development). It is human nature to cheat at this game, and anything considered a “commons” (atmosphere) will play out as a tragedy. This is a fool’s game with predictable outcomes. Nations are better served when considered as private property (sovereign). Good fences make good neighbours! Good neighbours look after each other when need arises (foreign aid).
All the US gets out of NATO anymore is the use of Ramstein Air Base and Landstuhl Hospital in Germany. They have proved helpful in prosecuting war in the Near East and Afghanistan. But they’re not vital.
On my way home to Afghanistan in 2005, our C-17 from Ft. Sill, OK cycled through Labrador and Ramstein. On the way home, I went by C-130 to Dubai, thence by chartered civilian flight to Budapest, thence Ramstein, thence Baltimore, thence by domestic commercial to PDX. So there are alternatives to Germany.
Time for a little levity and irony by the great Randy Newman. I would love to get hold of his crystal ball….
PMK
😎
From what the Paris advocates are saying you’d think quitting Paris would be “dropping the Big One”!
(I’m sure there a few Bigger Ones we need to drop!)
Follow the money. The most important part of the Paris agreement is to support the “Green Climate Fund”.In other words, the rent seekers want the US to give them lots of money.
PS. What is a green climate?
One flush with cash.
Just because others are barking up the same tree does not make it the right tree.
Apparently, for some people, the understanding of climate change is limited to the discovery that CO2 is a ghg. The fact that CO2 is a ghg just scratches the surface.
Delve deeper into the science and discover that thermalization and the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution of molecule energy explain why CO2 does not now, has never had and will never have a significant effect on climate.
You think it’s about science Dan. That’s like bringing a knife to a tank battle. This is about geo-politics and how to defang and declaw America and capture all her treasure.
This stopped being about science a long time ago.
I am aware that, for a lot of people, “This stopped being about science a long time ago.” IMO that is sad.
It appears to me that lots of folks are pretty sure CO2 is not a problem but might be puzzled as to why the ghg CO2 doesn’t cause significant warming. The explanation of why is found a little deeper into the science. Click my name to see what I have found.
“The U.S. could lose jobs in a clean energy industry estimated to be worth $6 trillion by 2030”
I think they meant to say that Europe/China will lose those jobs. The only jobs the U.S. would lose would be installation of renewable generators, which, of course, actually means a savings in energy costs. Funny how people argue jobs loss as if those salaries were paid by others.
“…Pulling out of the agreement could have major economic consequences. The U.S. could lose jobs in a clean energy industry estimated to be worth $6 trillion by 2030…”
Aside from the absurdity of the $6 trillion claim…why would this Paris agreement be a necessity for clean energy jobs? How many jobs “could” we lose, and how does that compare to the climate reparations that we’d be paying?
(Source: https://www.aei.org/publication/renewable-energy-projects-cost-us-taxpayers-26-billion-for-only-2300-permanent-jobs-which-is-11-5-million-per-job/ )
Moreover, even if one argues that the capital-intensive nature of the industry makes the jobs question not the key issue, it still is a BIG WASTE OF MONEY based on ROI/EROEI.
The rest of the world pretty much has gone nutso about “climate change”, with many just along for the ride in order for the handouts. Now, a “rogue” nation – the US is about to say “no” to the insanity, likely pulling all nations back from the brink.
You’re welcome, world.
All is well the world.
The curious rise of the ‘white left’ as a Chinese internet insult
I find it sad that Merkel and some other European members were so naive as to not understand that our Constitution did not allow Obama to sign on to the Paris accord without ratification by the senate, and Obama knew it would not be ratified. Would you sign onto a false commitment with someone who does not have the authority in a company or organization to make the deal. Could they be so stupid?
Merkel should be mad at Obama for duping her into believing the US commitment was legit? Did she not see the many reports and discussions in the US indicating such a deal had to be submitted for ratification to the US Senate or does she believe anything CNN claims. Or is she so blind sided by her climate change zealotry that she could not think straight.
Also I find it disappointing that she does not appreciate the fact that were it not for Ronald Reagan and the USA, she would still be living under the Iron rule of Russia, not in a free country as she grew up in East Germany although apparently of privledged parents. Really arrogant of her not to appreciate all the US have done for her. In fact today Germany and western Europe would still be taken over by Russia since the USA is the only deterrent for such takeover given their weak defensive posture and her failure to pay the dues for NATO.
Finally why would anyone follow the Leader who destroyed their country by taking in 1 Million un-vetted migrants from a war torn community lacking human rights for women and Christians or anyone else who don’t subscribe to their radical version of Islam while resorting to bombing and be-headings.
Sorry Merkel your arrogant and petty, elite statements are an insult from someone whom we have given so much to over many years. Many do not believe the fake claims associated with Catastrophic Climate Change, you need to learn to respect others scientific views. Finally you need to respect that Trump is our duly elected President according to our Constitution and the people approved of his plan to get out of the illegal Paris accord. Do not insult the American people with secret elite meetings with Obama, it is disrespectful and by now you must acknowledge how he duped you, no reason to be disrespectful of Trump he is keeping an election promise.
Interestingly, the Paris Agreement just happened to be formulated in a way (no binding quotas) that allowed Obama to sign it without a ratification. It was discussed at WUWT in some detail.
Here’s one of those WUWT comments, just FYI:
“jstalewski (7:50am today): Circular 175 is not law. Given ad arguendo that Circular 175 along with Japan Whaling Ass’n v. American Cetacean Soc’y make Obama’s actions voidable, not void, this helps President Trump (and also argues against sending it to the Senate for the needless delay of rejecting the Paris deal).
That is, the Circular 175 argument cuts both ways: it says that, likewise, Trump has the authority to rip it up and throw it into the garbage (where it belongs, imo).
So, your point is relevant and of interest, but, moot.”
(me, here: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/05/27/trump-declines-to-endorse-paris-climate-accord/#comment-2513171 )
If what you say is correct, Merkel and others should have known that it was a useless document without teeth, ergo they were duped by Obama; or they never saw the possibility that Hillary would not get elected or any future sane president. No Reason to be mad at Trump, they should be mad at Obama for not executing a document to serve their wishes.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/03/07/trump-should-keep-promise-withdraw-u-s-from-paris-climate-treaty/#comment-2444797
That isn’t entirely correct. Yes, it was discussed in WUWT at length. My recollection of the conclusion to those discussions was that it was still a treaty and still needed to be ratified by the US Congress.
Hivemind, the one who could have brought the Paris agreement to the Senate was Obama. As Obama did not, any treating of the executive agreement as a treaty now would give it a status it currently does not have. Whether Trump formally denounces Paris or not, his repeal of the Clean Power Plan, the enforcement measure for Paris in the US makes it effectively a dead letter. I think it is bad idea to leave it up to the courts or the Senate.
Hmmm. Interesting. Maybe Merkel et al should have recognized that Obama was a rogue president, and his signature was not worth squat on a treaty that was not submitted to and approved by the Senate.
“I find it sad that Merkel and some other European members were so naive as to not understand that our Constitution did not allow Obama to sign on to the Paris accord without ratification by the senate, ”
They aren’t that naive. They were just hoping Obama could slip it through. Had Hillary been elected, it would be fairly smooth sailing for the Paris Agreement.
We dodged a Big bullet! Thanks Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania, and all the other 62 million+ who voted for Trump!
TA May 29, 2017 at 5:27 pm
” Thanks Michigan”
You’re Welcome !
Also, what some don’t realize is that Mi voters, voted Bernie in the primaries and then “WHAM” voted Trump on election day.
You’re Welcome !
I bet Michigan is going to be getting a lot of favors from Trump for their support. Favors in the form of creating jobs in Michigan. You earned it! 🙂
After traditional swing states FL, OH and IA, PA clinched it. MI and WI were icing on the cake.
They all know this, Catcracking, they just don’t care. If there’s anything the rest of the world hates, it’s how highly we value our Constitution and how readily we stick to it when the stakes matter.
And, if there’s anything the rest of the wold loves, it’s our money (and young soldiers dying o defend them).
They knew. There are numerous UN “agreements” that various presidents have signed, but were never sent to the Senate for ratification because it would never pass. As such, the signatures are symbolic, and the UN is generally happy to have that much.
The Paris agreement felt that if structured properly, they could basically shame future presidents into enforcing it, even if non-binding. They didn’t foresee a president that basically doesn’t give a rat’s ass about their shaming.
I think they mean $6 trillion in US taxpayer funds, including proceeds from a VAT-type carbon tax. It is laughable as an industry impact number with failing firms and tax credits for the rich propping up half of it.
Some reporter screwed something up there.
That is hilarious. (thanks for pointing it out — when I saw her name, I just skipped over what they wrote about her and never saw that)
The FUNNY thing is — it is actually TRUE. Just can’t make this stuff up!
United Nations: Theater of the Absurd!
Time for the “dagger” in the game;
Metal of Freedom for Dr. Lindzen.
A call for academic reform to prevent political abuse of “research” as we’ve been subjected to for decades now.
Withdrawal from UN Climate protocol as Dr. Lindzen and others petitioned for.
Debunking the endangerment finding of CO2 a “pollutant”.
Purging all public educational institutions of biased green activist exclusivity. Defunding NPR/PBS as propagandists adjunct to this effort.
DJT has only focused on safe “economic” talking points which will fail in the longer term. Climate is proxy to vast leftist culture and must be destroyed at the root. It would be good politics as well and completely synergetic to the “fake news” shaming effort.
Meanwhile monetary stimulus to prop up the EU continues and was just affirmed for more time.
Keynesian monetary inflation, the original global junk science belief.
The exact reason another central planning tool, Paris Climate authority model, must die as soon as possible.
Keynesian economics works very well. It is just since Whitlam demonstrated the failure when you go past what is economically possible (stagflation, both high unemployment and high inflation). Since then governments have kept the economic lever at max. The result is that you don’t actually get any more benefit from it because you are always living on the edge.
From the article: ” “Today, the United States is heading into a direction on key issues that seems diametrically opposite of where Europe is heading.” – Ivo H. Daalder –
I fervently hope so.
It’s really hard to find financial commitments other than maybe $100b/year. My guess is that the deadbeats expect Uncle Sugar to pay a big chunk. And that’s why they are so upset about the potential pull out.
Sounds like sour grapes. Aesop had insight long ago.
If the Trump administration does not live up to its Paris commitments in whatever way – by increasing emissions, looking for oil or failing to support the Green Climate Fund – it must be called out as a rogue state,”
Fair Enough.
However, since foreign treaties require the approval of 2/3rd of the Senate, and the Glow-Bull Warming Treaty was NEVER submitted to the Senate – – – why, there is ABSOLUTELY NO COMMITMENT on the part of the US.
Barry Soetoro DID spray-paint his graffiti tag on something in Paris, but that has no bearing on US treaties or commitments.
The Constitution is irrelevant when the left have weaponized courts to make the law.
Only SCOTUS has constitutional authority to exist. All lower federal courts exist solely at the pleasure of Congress and are one signed bill away from being dissolved.
It’s not about climate. It’s about about destroying capitalist free markets, and replacing it with Marxist ideology, and agenda 21, run by the UN as a one world government
Tin foil hat anyone?
Rob is fairly correct as compared with lie “it’s a serious science debate”.
Um, there are leaders in the AGW scam who admit exactly this, from their own mouths.
A “reliable partner” and “world leader” is EU Socialist code phrases for “It is the responsibility of the United States to pay.” If the U.S. does not pay, someone else gets to step up to the plate to be world payer cum leader. China? Let them. “Leader” means “payer” in Socialist lingo.
Yes the progressive mob always resorts to bullying and lies by the trillions!!
Someone show write a book with the title Going Rogue. First line could be Drilll, Baby Drill
Anthony, can I suggest that all those whom believe that the US should withdraw from the Paris Climate agreement email the Whitehouse and say so. President Trump might need your/their support. I’ve done so and I’m from Australia.
I have to laugh when critics of the US’s actions warn that China might take the lead in climate initiatives by offering aid to developing nations. The reality is that the “aid” so far has been funding for over 100 new coal plants in Africa. Meanwhile if the US does pull out, it will have, as some commenters have already mentioned, a similar effect as when it refused to sign the Kyoto Protocol. It didn’t take long before other countries started pulling out also when it became evident, as the US recognized from the outset, that most of the countries couldn’t come close to reaching their targets. Canada and Japan gave up the ghost on Kyoto in 2011 when they realized the cost of compliance exceeded any benefits. Chances are good that we’ll see a similar scenario with Paris even if the US stays in the deal. Since Paris is non-binding, if nations fall short of their commitments, all they have to do is apologize and promise to do better next time since there are no penalties attached. Except the “next times” will probably extend beyond 2050 while taxpayers everywhere carry the main burden.
“I have to laugh when critics of the US’s actions warn that China might take the lead in climate initiatives by offering aid to developing nations. ”
Oh no, someone else might open their wallets! Nevermind, we’re in!
Don’t know how Twitter videos will show up here but check out Trump’s take on his recent trip. (Twitter is really rockin’ video quality lately if you haven’t noticed – investment thoughts that is).
Trump is better when CNN or MSNBC are not “translating” it for you in straight-up spin.
https://mobile.twitter.com/WhiteHouse/status/869321474091302912/video/1
Thanks for sharing that video, Bill Illis. I enjoyed watching that.
Even more, I was riveted to the screen when I watched this, grinning nearly the whole time:
U.S. (and some others) business leaders exchange signed contracts with Saudi counterparts
(youtube — President Trump channel)
… President and CEO, Lockheed Martin…. President of Raytheon …. CEO of General Dynamics ….
Vice-chairman of General Electric….. Chairman of Dow Chemicals ….. President of Exxon-Mobil ….. President of Honeywell …. President of Boeing…..
#(:))
Everything I read about this agreement is that it is a real nothingburger. I remember when it was being negotiated and John Kerry had to make changes to it that gutted it in order for Obama to avoid having to get the Senate’s approval.
What we are seeing isn’t anger over losing the United States’ compliance with the agreement. We are seeing anger over the US daring to walk away from it.