Trump reportedly will pull out of Paris Climate Accord

Via the Hill – President Trump will pull the United States out of the Paris climate change agreement, according to several reports Wednesday.

Axios first reported that Trump is working with a group led by Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) chief Scott Pruitt on the exact mechanism of pulling out before announcing his final decision. CBS News also reported that Trump is telling allies about his decision.

The move marks a dramatic departure from the Obama administration, which was instrumental in crafting the deal. It also makes the U.S. an outlier among the world’s nations, nearly all of whom support the climate change accord.

But Trump’s decision fulfills an original campaign promise he made just over a year ago to “cancel” the accord.

Trump tweeted on Wednesday that he “will be announcing my decision on the Paris Accord over the next few days.”

Trump had been telling close confidants about his decision in recent weeks, Axios reported. But a public letter sent to him last week by 22 Senate Republicans, led by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), helped seal his decision.

The agreement was reached by nearly 200 countries in 2015, the first global climate accord to include that many nations. Each country made its own non-binding pledges to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

The Obama administration, which helped negotiate the pact, had promised a 26 to 28 percent cut in the country’s emissions, a pledge that Republicans had slammed as necessitating expensive, job-killing regulations.

Trump, who doubts the science behind climate change, has already begun the process of reversing American climate policies.

In March, he signed an executive order to undo most of Obama’s climate agenda, including a key rule to cut electricity sector carbon emissions, and he has proposed gutting funding to federal agencies that tackle climate change, renewable energy and the environment.

He delayed a decision on the Paris deal until after last week’s Group of Seven (G7) summit in Italy, where foreign leaders pressured him to stay in the agreement.

The White House said Trump was considering the leaders’ opinions on the agreement, but others, led by German Chancellor Angela Merkel, characterized the summit more as a six-on-one debate over the merits of the deal, with Trump standing alone.

His decision to leave the deal comes after scores of stakeholders asked Trump to keep the U.S. in the agreement, including businesses, environmentalists, major energy companies, Democrats, a handful of congressional Republicans and some officials in his administration.

Numerous companies and individuals aligned with Trump on other policies have publicly pushed him recently to remain in the agreement, including Exxon Mobil and Cloud Peak Energy. They argued the U.S. needs to stay involved in climate work to have influence over global policy decisions that could impact their bottom lines.

Full report here


OFFICIAL SAYS TRUMP EXPECTED TO PULL US FROM PARIS DEAL

BY JULIE PACE
ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump is expected to pull the United States from a landmark global climate agreement, a White House official said Wednesday, though there could be “caveats in the language” announcing a withdrawal, leaving open the possibility that his decision isn’t final.

Exiting the deal would be certain to anger allies that spent years negotiating the accord to reduce carbon emissions.

The official insisted on anonymity in order to discuss the decision before the official announcement.

AP Report here

Advertisements

191 thoughts on “Trump reportedly will pull out of Paris Climate Accord

  1. Congratulations! That is one of the few things where I hoped that Trump would keep his promisses. For the rest I don’t think I have much in common with his ideas, but that is US politics, so I can’t be sure what he really means…

    • Yes. But. If DT goes down in history as the guy that showed proved the emperor naked and thta we don’t need to impoverish the third world, our children and theirs’ and us all, right now when we can least afford it, he would rightly and righteously rise in every thinking person’s mind when the veil is lifted and this gigantic, malevolent bsmachine grinds to a halt.

      We need more. It must be utterly exposed for the fakery it is. If this costs as much as a couple of years of the waste that climate science has created, so be it.

    • Ferdinand, you will see great benefits in your country, too. If T does simply pull out, the whole carnival will fall to pieces. As you in particular well know, their isn’t enough fossil fuels to put CO2 above 500ppm and even before that, the prices of these fuels will rise substantially. They are needed intrinsically for making petrochemicals and fertilizers (natural gas for nitrates).

      • I have read – but am not sure of the veracity – that the longest word in modern German has 1,720 letters, describes its subject in considerable detail, and, in English, means ‘Car’.
        Or

        Auto

        (Well, I read it on Filthy Jokes, so there is a real possibility someone was pulling someone-else’s p1s5er [if I may?])

    • noaaprogrammer

      Interesting comment.

      I note that of the seven most despotic regimes of the 20th Century, USSR, China, Italy, Germany, Spain Cuba and N.Korea, all but one have their roots in socialism.

      Every one of them, except N. Korea of course, have converted to a capitalist, largely free trade philosophy and prospered. It’s also notable that Trump is the only one standing up for free trade to ensure workers have access to jobs in the face of the Paris accord which will destroy jobs.

      Funny that, capitalism recognises the need for workers, and socialism seeks to subjugate them.

  2. I liked the idea of him submitting it to Congress to be shot down there — respect for Congress, rule of law, and all that. But what a President’s pen giveth, another giveth away.

    • I agree ! If this is rejected by the Senate it would be politically more difficult for a future President to revive it. Also, there are quite a few Dem Senators from red states that are up in 2018 that really don’t want to have to cast a vote on this.

      • Too risky. Trump can simply declare it null and void. The party with which the agreement was made is no longer relevant to the equation.

      • I suspect there are a lot of Republicans who don’t want to be on the record against the Paris agreement. They will be labeled as “anti-science” and there are still a lot of people that believe all of the MSM BS about man made global warming, rising seas, more violent storms, more disease, etc, etc, Having Trump cancel the agreement gets them off the hook. Cowards that they are!

      • In agreement with Bob. Should the Senate take up the Treaty, it would take 2/3’s to pass it. Mind you, only 22 Senators signed the letter to Trump. I view that as a sign of risk that half of the Republicans are subject to folding under pressure that a ratification debate would bring.

        Furthermore, Trump and McConnell don’t need anything else to clutter up the Senate calendar.

        Lastly, even if the Senate rejects the Treaty, we have seen plenty of evidence that future Presidents will continue to operate and regulate as if it had been passed. The Kyoto treaty, facing a 95-0 preconference resolution disapproving, was never taken up for ratification by the Senate and today is hardly a dead issue at the EPA.

        One hopes that Trump is listening to lawyer Scott Pruitt on how to make the withdrawal legally ironclad and make the terms of Paris Accord irrelevant in future court room proceedings.

      • I fear goofy Republican Senators who are already blowing their last chance at meaningful dismantling of the economic suicide pact entered into by our former Pres.

  3. “It also makes the U.S. an outlier among the world’s nations, nearly all of whom support the climate change accord.”

    Given the US contribution to science, culture and money, it’s the rest of the world that’s about to become the pariah.

    • well….we’re supposed to hand over our money to a bunch of crooks and thieves…who have proven they can’t even run a carbon credit scam…and have our best interests dead last

      • Latitude,

        “we’re supposed to hand over our money to a bunch of crooks and thieves…”

        I disagree. That sounds like a terrible idea. As you yourself concede, they’ve shown themselves to be incompetent custodians of cash and (as felons) are unlikely to prioritize US interests.

        So no. Thanks but no.

    • Brad you say “nearly all of whom support the climate change accord.”, hmnmnm not really they support it, but dodge it, knowing the EU and neo-progressives will not hold fellow liberals to account , Like Canadian Liberals signed the Kyoto protocol and did absolutely nothing!

    • The US was already the outlier in the amount of money that was to be forked over to the kelptocrats. I like Trump’s version of being an outlier much, much better.

  4. If the Paris Accord had allowed nuclear power to be counted as an acceptable power source, maybe Trump wouldn’t have ditched it.

    The green purists won and won until they lost.

    • The Paris accord does not prevent that…

      e.g. China, UK, India, Korea and the UAE all see nuclear as part of CO2 reduction and are building/just built reactors

      • This is good, it is right that nuclear is part of a country’s energy mix for a number of reasons.
        Trump should do something to protect the US nuclear sector from gas-related low energy prices.
        The best way for this would be to subsidise the decomissioning related costs which are unnaturally high.

      • @Griff

        It so happens that China and India are also building coal fired plants hand over fist. And so is goody gumdrops Germany which after Frau Dr Merkel decided to close down nuclear and crying crocodile tears over DT last weekend, has been un-mothballing 6 older coal fired plants and building another 8 for good measure, just to keep the lights on. Several of these plants will be burning brown coal, the dirtiest of all coal but a resource Germany has in spades.
        It’s a reality check against political grandstanding.

      • @ptolemy2, “to subsidise the decomissioning related costs which are unnaturally high. “

        Why? To subsidise anything is to go counter to the efficient allocation of capital, to be LESS efficient.

        But let’s look more closely at your quote: costs which are unnaturally high.
        “Well THERE’s your problem!” Let us not work on subsidy schemes.
        Let’s look at what government is doing to make the costs unnaturally high. Industry cannot make progress in lowing the cost of nuclear recycling if the government had forbade any such activity. The government has taken upon itself as a monopoly of how to dispose of spent fuel without regard to maximizing the spent fuel’s value. The only thing the DOE contractors care about is …. continuation of the contract.

        h/t Despair.com

      • Apparently the owners of Three Mile Island nuclear plant just signaled that they need a subsidy to compete with low cost natural gas fired plants. Read this in today’s paper.

  5. Invest in popcorn futures, for the inevitable meltdown of the Leftists, Greenies, and Warmunists.
    It will be an awesome show.

    • It’s already beginning. The doom and gloom of the left is making for a great comedy… at the moment. Once they get over their melt down it’ll be interesting to see how they (the Left) lash out.

      • Kathy Griffin’s little stunt just swung another 3 million 2018 mid-term votes to the GOP. They’re like the snake swallowing itself tail-first now.

    • Agreed! Trump is on the right side of science but the political upheaval should be quite a show.
      Make America Great!

    • Six of the G7 nations just restated their commitment to Paris and urged Trump to do likewise…

      Exactly which world nations are going to pull out/reduce their commitment apart from the US?

      • Griff,
        When The USA pulls out, the Paris Accord will become meaningless. Europe isn’t going to pay for this, they don’t have the money. It won’t matter, at that point, who stays in or withdrawls.

      • Griff
        See my comment above about German Paris hypocrisy. Also, the Central European EU countries are in full and open revolt against Paris, something you hear too much this side of the pond.

      • Griff May 31, 2017 at 7:36 am

        Grill you are talking to the wrong people. The Paris accord was made with the previous President. And only him.
        You and the “G6” should be going after him for not submitting the agreement to the U.S. Senate for ratification.
        Understand this once and for all there is no Paris accord with the U.S.A. Never was.

        The European leaders knew how the U.S. system for treaties worked, they should have pressured the previous U.S. President to submit it to the Senate instead of participating in a subterfuge against the American people.

        You may as well appeal to a thundercloud for all the good it will do.

        michael

      • Griff: The G7 rely on world trade more than the U.S. does. They want every advantage over the U.S. they can get cost wise and using French-style government support for Airbus and other key sectors. Getting the U.S. to fork over the largest share of redistribution of wealth cash for developing countries but with G7 contractors to do the work is a less advertised goal, but that is exactly what happened in Iraq and elsewhere. They also want to minimize defense spending in their budgets while still calling NATO vital.

      • It’s not what they say know that matters. That’s just political theater. It’s what they do after that matters.

      • Mike, perhaps those EU leaders were also convinced that Hillary was a shoe in. Another 8 years of far left wing leadership, and it wouldn’t matter anymore.

  6. I’m waiting for something more official than the word of unnamed sources before breaking out the Champagne.

    • I really like the new Honda Accord Hybrid… Now I just have to figure out how to afford one.

      • I think you are on to a new slogan for Trump pulling out of this agreement.

        Can’t Afford the Accord! ;-)

      • Will you really save that much money in fuel (if you will save any) by purchasing a hybrid? Have you checked out the cost of a replacement battery pack? An extra 10 mpg doesn’t seem worth the extra cost hybrids incur due to this factor. And they’re certainly not any cleaner due to the high pollution cost of battery production and the smug they produce.

      • I Came I Saw I Left,

        At current fuel prices, the likely answer is ‘No’ (I drive about 50K miles a year so, maybe), I wouldn’t save much money in fuel costs (assuming I could afford the car in the first place). If fuel prices rise north of $3.00 again, the answer is definetly ‘Yes’. And yes, I am well aware of the cost of a replacement battery.

        Also, I’m not interested in the car, or any other hybrid, for the ‘green cred’… that’s just stupid.

  7. His decision to leave the deal comes after scores of stakeholders asked Trump to keep the U.S. in the agreement, including businesses, environmentalists, major energy companies, Democrats, a handful of congressional Republicans and some officials in his administration.

    Numerous companies and individuals aligned with Trump on other policies have publicly pushed him recently to remain in the agreement, including Exxon Mobil and Cloud Peak Energy. They argued the U.S. needs to stay involved in climate work to have influence over global policy decisions that could impact their bottom lines.

    And there will be nothing barring those same Businesses, Environmentalists, major energy companies, Democrats, or the handful of Congressional Republicans, nor those officials inhis administration from doing anything personally as they believe. Nothing will prevent them from investing in Wind or Solar, there will simply be no Government investments in such.
    Exxon Mobile and Cloud Peak Energy can erect wind farms or solar farms if they wish to, Trump won’t stop them. Just fon’t look for the government handout to do so.

      • Don’t forget the solar roof system at 10K credits and now the house structure with integrated roof and battery charging system for another 25K. But the most important thing to remember is these are tax credits from the bottom line tax due to fund public services and they allow an end run around the alternative minimum tax scheme that blocks the benefit of ordinary deductions.

      • Tesla stock up today, obviously no fear of the subsidies being purged in the price.

        Greenshirts are confident they can outlast DJT.

        I don’t see the total war team to make the Paris exit stick. It’s a conventional 80’s economics rebuttal and Reagan, twice the President of past 10 combined, lost the war with greens looking out over the past 30 years.

        “Caveats”? We don’t need no stinkin caveats on the exit.

        I don’t see the skeptic science team in place, I don’t see the needed purge of governmental Greenshirt operatives.

        It’s still a start but looks very shallow in what’s important.

      • Electric cars will be necessary after about 2050 as fossil fuels decline and prices go up. Ultimately F fuels will be wanted to maintain petrochemicals. Nuclear is going to be the ultimate choice this century, whether liked or not. Engineers will even be making them safer and more efficient – maybe small molten salt reactors for personal use! Or fusion, finally.

      • Regarding those 200 countries or so, I wonder what the recipient/payer ratio is…

    • True

      and they’ll keep on investing in renewables in the US…

      and US coal plants, the major CO2 contributors will still keep closing.

      • If market forces free from govt manipulation, move the US away from coal produced electricity, then so be it.

      • Griff,
        US coal fired plants are closing not because of renewables [favored Green myth, that] but because of cheap fracked gas.

        And something the Green blob is missing completely, is that US coal may not be able to retrieve US market share, but instead is now back on the international markets big time – there are 1500 coal fired plants in operation or being built around the world right now which all need, you guessed it, coal, something the US a lot of. That’s a good number of those miners back who voted fro DT back on the job.

        Meanwhile two of the US coal majors have come out of Chapter 11. And who’s right now supplying coal to the re-commissioned German coal fired plants – you guessed right again…

      • Griff May 31, 2017 at 7:37 am
        “and US coal plants, the major CO2 contributors will still keep closing.”

        Should have checked first. There are new mines opening in West Virginny & Pennsylvania.
        did you not think someone would check? Or that someone might have knowledge of new openings? You need to start using your brain I know you have one. Making stupid statements like the one above discredits any other statements you put forth. Check next time before you try to score points with a one liner.

        Griff do better okay.

        michael

        https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-02-17/u-s-coal-mines-are-opening-in-a-year-of-cautious-optimism

      • One constant with Griff, is that he always assumes that any trend that is going in a direction he approves, can’t change.
        For example, the fact that natural gas is currently cheaper than coal will remain true forever.

    • A great argument, Brian A, and one that is too often neglected.

      Remaining in the Paris Accord is a forfeit of Liberty and a “trump” card for the regulators, lawyers, and NGO’s. Tearing up the Paris Accord is a return of Liberty for all and a drastic cut in power of those who want to control the lives of others.

  8. Drives me absolutely NUTS how all these writers insist on calling emissions “carbon,” which evokes the image of black, sooty pollution. It’s CARBON DIOXIDE, people!! Colorless, harmless trace gas plants and all other life on Earth needs for food! I wish someone like Judith would write a brief, idiot-proof editorial correcting this; and send it to the AP, NYT, WashPo, etc.

    Meanwhile, 10,000 thanks to DJT for keeping his promise to MAGA!!!!!!!!!! :-))

  9. I can’t recall, how much “global warming” would the US allegedly prevent if it cut CO2 emissions by 20%?

    In general, how far off is this info that I posted elsewhere regarding this issue? –

    “For the record, the climate has been warming since the end of the Little Ice Age (approx. 1850), there is a “Green House Effect”, and CO2 is one of the Green House Gasses. However, regarding the Paris Accord – “climate scientists” are not in agreement on exactly how much warming of the atmosphere may be directly caused by atmospheric CO2. They say that for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 there may/might be a warming of “X” degrees Celsius. “X”, in the early UN IPCC reports was possibly as high as 4 degrees Celsius but later IPCC reports said it might be 2.5 degrees and the latest might be between 1 and 2 degrees Celsius while even more recent peer reviewed papers show it probably closer to 0.5 degrees Celsius. What this implies it that when the atmospheric CO2 level goes from 250 ppmv (Parts per million by volume), which it generally was in the 1850’s, to 500 ppmv, which it could reach by 2050 or 2060, 0.5 degrees Celsius of any atmospheric temperature increase may/might be attributed to that atmospheric CO2 level change. We are already over 400 ppmv so at best we can only now have an effect on the final 100 ppmv, or less than half of that 0.5 degrees Celsius. Further, the IPCC reports imply that only as much as half of that change might be attributed to human CO2 emissions. Think about that: of the 0.5 degree change, over half of it has already happened (since we are already over half of the rise from 250 to 500) so at best we can only effect half of that: 0.25, and only half of that may/might be human attributed, which is 0.125 degrees. The Paris Accord would have some, but not all, Nations cut up to 20% of their emissions. Therefore, if all Nations cut CO2 emissions by 20%, it may/might limit the warming by a mere 0.025 degrees Celsius by 2050/60, delaying the overall warming by a few years.”

    • a mere 0.025 degrees Celsius

      Easily reversed using the lapse rate by wearing higher heels….

      • So we can adapt to global warming by wearing platform shoes. Does that also require us to bring back disco?

    • If the US followed its obligations set forth in the Paris Accord, it would reduce temperatures in 2100 by 0.008C…if we were optimistic and continues the obligations beyond 2030 all the way to the end of the century, it would reduce global temperature rise by 0.031C. The entirety of the Paris Agreement would reduce the rise by 0.08C…if we also extended it another 70 years then it would reduce the rise by 0.17C. This assumes no leakage.

      • @ Tucker:

        You mean “allegedly” it may/might have that effect on the Global Atmospheric Temperature, don’t you?

  10. Assuming this goes through, I really believe that history may define this as the moment the CAGW bandwagon and all the billions of $/€/£ etc etc cost that go with it ground to a halt. Like Brexit day, the impact will not be immediate, indeed it may take years, but it will be hugely important for governments and people across the world.

    • I agree. the MOMENTUM of the bandwagon will be lost—and momentum is vital to its success in the near term. If we get a three-year breathing space, warmists will be forced to engage in televised debates with disbelievers, which will move the needle in a skeptical direction among the public.

  11. YES!!!

    Thank you, President Trump!
    Thank you, Americans, for voting him in!

    Now let’s start to make Europe great again too!

  12. ‘Trump is pulling U.S. out of Paris climate deal ‘

    “President Trump has made his decision to withdraw from the Paris climate accord, according to two sources with direct knowledge of the decision. Details on how the withdrawal will be executed are being worked out by a small team including EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt. They’re deciding on whether to initiate a full, formal withdrawal — which could take 3 years — or exit the underlying United Nations climate change treaty, which would be faster but more extreme…..”

    https://www.axios.com/scoop-trump-is-pulling-u-s-out-of-paris-climate-deal-2427773025.html

    • How can it take five years to leave an agreement that was merely signed by the previous President?

      I mean, if that’s all it takes to prevent the next President from acting, why doesn’t Trump just sign a bunch of agreements that will prevent a future Democrat from revoking them for five billion years?

      • “How can it take five years to leave an agreement” I think that is a misunderstanding, AFAIK, the signatory nations have a limit of 3 years in which to withdraw from the agreement, after signing. This does not mean that a withdrawel takes years to carry out. But the best thing would in any case be to get out of all UN climate change organisations.

      • But the best thing would in any case be to get out of all UN climate change organisations.

    • — or exit the underlying United Nations climate change treaty, which would be faster but more extreme…..”

      Be still my fluttering heart. Could it be true? Might we get out of that whole UNFCCC nightmare?

      The Palestinians being allowed in gives President Trump all the pretext he needs under U.S. law.

  13. It also makes the U.S. an outlier among the world’s nations, nearly all of whom…

    Not nearly….all….all of them get paid

    This was supposed to be the biggest money maker for them

    • Latitude,

      And Chine gets a free hand to increase its emissions until 2030 while the US reduces its emissions by 26-28%. Some sweet deal for China.

      Of course, China enthusiastically supports COP 21 under such favorable circumstances and India will take the China route as well. So, one-third of the world’s population will be exempt from emissions reductions under COP 21. China and India are the real “outliers” among a growing list of others (Poland, Russia and other eastern European nations).

  14. They argued the U.S. needs to stay involved in climate work to have influence over global policy decisions that could impact their bottom lines.

    Smash the camel’s nose and get it out of the tent. link If we let the nose stay in the tent, surely the rest of the camel will follow. Staying in the Paris Accord would just be stupid. The Democrats will eventually control Congress and we don’t want to leave the framework in place that will let them easily impose the green agenda on America. Drain The Swamp.

    The United States is the world’s only superpower. It has the political, military and economic might to convince the rest of the world to do what it wants.

    The cacophony of greenies reminds me of the squatters living in the antlers of Thidwick the Big-Hearted Moose. The squatters brought Thidwick to the verge of death because he was too polite to act in his own interest. Why let the greenies hector us into economic ruin?

  15. Why get involved in the rest of the worlds self destructive religious beliefs (e.g. anthroprogenic climate change). To hell with them. Mr. President, get us out of this insanity.

  16. The opposition media is preparing their outrage attack like pulling a chain saw cord to crank up their ugliness.
    They will be hyperventilating while spewing.

    • Their outrage machine, continuously dialed up to 11, is being tuned out now by pretty much everyone outside the Acela Corridor and the self-righteous Birkenstock smoothie-swilling crowd on the left coast.
      Trump is doing what those 95% of counties in red-state America elected him to do–keeping his promises!

  17. I agree Latitude. This “Accord” is and hopefully was about money……borrowed money!

  18. Just get on and announce it – it will add strength and weight to the eastern European nations that don’t want to see industry, steel manufacture and jobs exported to other countries that will pollute far more than the West.

  19. “Beijing …. has reaffirmed its commitment to meeting its targets under the Paris accord, recently canceling construction of about 100 coal-fired power plants and investing billions in massive wind and solar projects.”
    There they go again, telling porkies about China in order to fit their climate narrative. China doesn’t care one whit about “climate change”. They get to have their cake and eat it too by pretending to go along with it, doing what they would be doing anyway, and laughing all the way to the bank watching its competitors sandbag themselves.

    • “Wind and solar” that exist on paper only, and we all know will never get built because they DON’T WORK.
      The Chinese want to grow their economy, and are not stupid.

      • Griff: A 40 MW floating solar system might be the world’s largest of that obscure type, but it is quite small by other standards including the hundreds of coal fired power plants recently built or being completed there. The same goes for their nuclear plants. And 40 mw is small even by utility scale solar standards.

      • Griff
        Time for a cold shower. Greenpeace’s obfuscations notwithstanding, China continues to build coal fired plants at what amounts to 1 per week. 40 Mw of solar is like pissing in the Yellow River – there’s no noticeable change in either flow or color.

      • “The Chinese want to grow their economy, and are not stupid.”

        The Chinese education system has the long school days, tough discipline and regularly heads global league tables. For this bunch of little ones there is much more to it than the three Rs

      • Peter
        Interesting find…but this could be the money quote

        China is now the world’s top clean energy investor and it has bold plans to continue on this path. In early 2017, the Chinese government announced that it planned to spend more than $USD360 billion on renewable energy by 2020. It is hoped that this spending will result in some of that toxic fog leaving China’s capital and greatly reduce the effects of global warming

        I am curious just how much of that proposed U$360B of proposed expenditure was to come from the US Klimate Kash that China was hoping to get by then

    • “Beijing …. has reaffirmed its commitment to meeting its targets under the Paris accord,”

      I’ll bet Beijing is reaffirming its commitment.

      Beijing’s commitment = Produce as much CO2 as you want until 2030.

      Yeah, I would reaffirm that, too, if I were Beijing.

  20. “The White House said Trump was considering the leaders’ opinions on the agreement, but others, led by German Chancellor Angela Merkel, characterized the summit more as a six-on-one debate over the merits of the deal, with Trump standing alone.”

    Yeah, everybody else is really concerned that the US is involved to foot the bill.

  21. In spite of all the mocking, name calling and media assaults directed at President Trump and the smug self-righteousness of the other G7 “leaders” President Trump is the only leader of G7 and one of a few internationally who has figured out the CAGW swindle and called the bluff. He deserves great credit for this no matter what.

      • Griff, they may have reasons to want to believe CAGW is real. It fits right in with their political agenda.

      • Maybe it is because, lIke many who follow the global warming dogma they have their beliefs handed to them and don’t bother to examine the evidence and decide for themselves, but I can’t pretend to know how they decided what they believe. I only know what the evidence shows us. Mild global warming has happened in fits and starts the past 150 years or so at similar rates before and after industrialization could have played any role, and there is no direct evidence human activity and especially CO2 emissions have been the main driver. There is a mountain of evidence that climate models, on which most dire predictions are based, are hopelessly inaccurate. And to date the only important measurable effects of warming and rising CO2 are, in majority, positive. President Trump’s statements on this are the closest to the truth of all the G7 leaders.

      • Nope. Obama signed it and as long as it just lays there a corrupt Judge, of which there are clearly many, can just use it as the existing Executive position and by means of using it justify a climate extremist demand impose it on the nation by a bench ruling. Paris is extremely dangerous. There is a very good chance a Judge will over rule the repudiation of Paris. We ate much more at risk at this time than you realize.

      • So, why have the other 6 not figured that out?

        Because they all get paid Griff….including China

        Truth is, it doesn’t matter any more…..wait and see how much money they cough up now….nada
        …if any do, it will be China. Crippling their competition, of course, is in their favor.

        …and the EU can’t float at all without our money

      • Griff May 31, 2017 at 7:38 am
        Ah Griff The “G6” are not the rest of the world. As a matter of fact several of the Eastern European members are in rebellion
        The Poles and Cech republic are of a group uniting against some of the commitments the EU expects of them.
        Funny that Cechs and Poles not giving in to the Germans.

        And the German let all their Panzers turn to rust while the Poles modernized their military.
        michael :-)
        http://www.climatechangenews.com/2017/05/29/eu-climate-targets-undermined-polish-czech-revolt-documents-reveal/

      • I missed the opportunity in my original reply to Griff’s question to point out that it is actually a very good question and perhaps one of the most important ones to solve. Why do so many people, scientists, policy makers and politicians believe a theory and advocate such expensive disruptive change in human society when there is so little evidence in support and a considerable amount in opposition to the theory? A very complex problem with likely many threads to the answer. What we do know is it isn’t the first time and will not likely be the last where so much of the human collective cerebrum misfires.

      • Please, somebody; give Griff the Red Pill. He’s been suffering these delusions long enough . . .

  22. As I see it the problem is how best to do this.

    The Paris “Accord” states that a nation has to give 4 years notice to leave; clearly we do not want the USA following this idiocy for the next 4 years. If Trump simply announces a withdrawn he is admitting the USA bound by the “accord” and so is accepting that condition.

    Better to do something more devious:

    Say it is a treaty and has not been put through the correct approval process, hence the USA never adopted it. Trump can then ignore it or send it to Congress to reject.

    or

    Say it is not a treaty and hence it is not binding. So the USA does not need to withdraw, it just does not do anything in the accord.

    • Nope. Obama signed it and as long as it just lays there a corrupt Judge, of which there are clearly many, can just use it as the existing Executive position and by means of using it justify a climate extremist demand impose it on the nation by a bench ruling. Paris is extremely dangerous. There is a very good chance a Judge will over rule the repudiation of Paris. We ate much more at risk at this time than you realize.

    • I mostly agree, Bill P. The exact legal status of foreign executive agreements has never gone to the Supreme Court, so proceeding on any plausible, defensible basis is a reasonable tactic.
      If Trump decides to treat Paris as being on the same status as a domestic executive order, all he has to do is ignore it, and write policy that does not follow anything in the Paris accord. Thus far, eliminating the Clean Power Plan would seem to follow that approach.

    • We should leave the entire UN Climate Protocol less the monster live on.

      It’s a win but I don’t see the Greenshirt crushing dagger in the process.

      Get Dr. Lindzen the Metal of Freedom, denounce Soviet styled NWO climate for the right optics.

    • Bill P May 31, 2017 at 7:24 am

      The Paris “Accord” states that a nation has to give 4 years notice to leave; clearly we do not want the USA following this idiocy for the next 4 years. If Trump simply announces a withdrawn he is admitting the USA bound by the “accord” and so is accepting that condition.

      I don’t think so, Bill. The Paris agreement was never ratified by Congress so it was never a decision of the USA and has no standing in US, or international law. Therefore, it is outside the jurisdiction of US courts and international courts alike.

      As far as I can see there is no legitimate authority on Earth that could constrain Pres. Trump not to withdraw the USA from the Paris agreement unilaterally and entirely on his own terms if he wants to. His administration did not sign up to the Paris agreement; Obama’s did and Obama would have needed the authority of an absolute ruler to commit the USA to it in perpetuity unconditionally and solely on his say so. It would set an unconstitutional, antidemocratic and absolutist precedent if the current President of the USA was to be held bound by the arbitrary, unratified decisions of a previous President. The US courts could not possibly rationalize upholding such an absurd precedent, no matter what Pres. Trump admitted or how corrupt the courts might be.

  23. The entire Paris Climate Treaty is based on a gigantic pack of lies. The sooner we leave this scam behind us the better.

  24. Last week, Al Gore et al thought that they had boxed Trump in at the G-7 meeting, with comments of confidence that Trump would stay in bouncing about.
    Trump has shown he will listen, but unlike most politicians who follow the advice of the last person they talked to, you can’t put words (or a decision) in his mouth.

    • “but unlike most politicians who follow the advice of the last person they talked to, you can’t put words (or a decision) in his mouth.”

      Yes, Trump has a mind of his own. He doesn’t need others to form his opinions, he already has them.

  25. “It also makes the U.S. an outlier among the world’s nations, nearly all of whom support the climate change accord.”

    The US has always been an outlier among the world’s nations. No other nation originated as a concept and, most importantly, with a declaration clearly stating that which government shall not do. Leadership is not conformity. Just as the US saved the world from itself 70 years ago, the US gets the honors of saving the world from itself, and its primitive passions, once again.

    Leadership emerges from the most unlikely human beings, does it not?

    • “Just as the US saved the world from itself 70 years ago, the US gets the honors of saving the world from itself, and its primitive passions, once again.”

      Well put.

  26. “The move marks a dramatic departure from the Obama administration, which was instrumental in crafting the deal.”

    I never hear anyone talk anymore about the fraudulent Carl 2015 paper that supposedly gave Obama the needed pretext to justify his signing the Paris accord.

  27. Remember this day, June 1st 2017. It’s the day the World started to awake from the illogical green-left nightmare of the CAGW scare. A hundred years from now the early 21st Century Climate Change debacle will surely be viewed with some mystification, alongside the Salem Witch trials, Alchemy and y2k.

  28. Any country that abides by this “Accord” is committing economic suicide…I hope all of the socialist E.U. countries stick with it, just more jobs for us to Make America Great Again !! ..( I see a few more”Brexits” coming in the near future )

  29. You know what I find odd about the Paris Climate Accord ? — check this for yourself — NEVER is the word “CO2” or “carbon dioxide” spelled out. I did a word check of the actual text, and neither of these words exists in the writing of this accord.

    What you find is the word, “emissions”, which keeps the specifics hidden in the language of the accord’s directives.

    You would think that an agreement of this magnitude would, at least once, mention the “greenhouse gas” that is most dominant in the supposed threats to the climate. But no, never, not once is this word mentioned.

    … just the word, “emissions” and a deference to “proven science” — very obscured appeals to authority.

    An open honest discussion about CO2, thus, appears to be above such an accord, which should cue you as to what this accord is really about.

    It’s one big ol’ obfuscation.

    • “You would think that an agreement of this magnitude would, at least once, mention the “greenhouse gas” that is most dominant in the supposed threats to the climate. But no, never, not once is this word mentioned.”

      That’s a revelation to me. Thanks for the detective work.

    • My thanks, too, Robert.

      That which is not said, can be more important than what is.
      Watch the pea under the cup….
      Robert’s observation is proof that Paris is a “junk science, traitorously clever political” accord.

    • Robert, once again, a great observation.

      1. Does the word “carbon” exist in the text? I think it does in Article 5 at least twice.
      2. What link to the text were you using?

      • Here is a link I am using:
        https://unfccc.int/files/essential_background/convention/application/pdf/english_paris_agreement.pdf

        The word “carbon” appears only twice. in Article 5, para 2.

        …and the role of conservation, sustainable
        management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks in developing
        countries;

        ….while reaffirming the importance of incentivizing, as appropriate, non-carbon
        benefits associated with such approaches.

        “greenhouse gas” or “greenhouse gases” appear 15 times. I do not see a definition of greenhouse gases in the Agreement, nor any indication that different gases have different marginal contributions to “total greenhouse emissions” or climate change.

        “climate change” is mentioned 32 times.

      • P.S. For the true importance of this word count one must realize that “water vapor” is a most powerful greenhouse gas. The Paris Accord, as written, could be used to regulate source emissions of water vapor.

  30. Now we see how hard the zombie climate true believers will really fight to establish their state religion. Frankly it doesn’t look that promising for skeptics. This may be more like attempts to stop the Catholic church from being the state religion after the Nicea process was undertaken by Constantine. His successor who attempted to roll back the power of the newly empowered Catholic church, was assassinated. We already gave a chilling set of examples that lefty/climate extremists will support threats and actual violence against Trump and any others who resist their irrational hysterical demands.

    • Sadly Trump is likely to show quarter when none is deserved for Greenshirt extremism. It’s been a solid pragmatic economics case against Paris.

      Meanwhile his opposition is usurping the election result. When the full blowback comes he’ll be trying to catch-up in the media war. The greens aren’t just wrong they’re evil and there is a solid block who support maximum political vilification of the Climate cabal.

      DeVos should purge all climate propaganda and fraud activists from government educational locations and materials.

      Still no sign of the skeptic science swat teams either.

      We know how “we’ll all get along” with climate radicals and communists ends. So DJT’s opponents are playing for blood while the President is playing the moderate with them. A mistake.

  31. Got my party hat on. Just waiting for the official news, then I toss the confetti.

    Hey Michael-the-nature-trick-liar Mann, it is getting to the point where I really don’t care if I see your falsified data anymore. In the words of Trump, I am beginning to get tired of winning all the time.

    Schadenfreude^2.

  32. An opinion – Lending political credence to this ‘accord’ by sending it to the US Congress for debate, is probably not the right course of action for our beloved POTUS, DJT. From what I have been able to determine (and I stand ready to learn from you all if my conclusions are off target), the Paris Agreement signed by He Who Shall Not Be Named was an adjunct/extension of the Kyoto Protocol – and in that previous administrations’ minds therefore not required to be submitted to congress for further US ratification for the US of A to conform to its’ content.

    It is the fruit that should not be picked by sending to congress, but starved of vitality and allowed to die on the vine. And the raisin resulting from that withering should not be fit for any other purpose except to be discarded into the midden heap of a sad history.

    And – let the petulant left watermelons stomp their feet, scream at the top of their collective (pun intended) lungs, and cry for their now-out-of-reach Utopias. Elections really do have consequences, and I praise Deity-of-choice everyday that we elected President Trump.

    Sir – Keep up the work we hired you to do!!

    Regards,

    MCR

  33. We are going to get to learn more about human psychology in the near future. The people on the alamists side see themselves losing money, prestige, jobs, and some of them think CO2 is going to kill them soon if something isn’t done to curtail it. So we are going to get lots of reactions as soon as it is official. Psychopathy on display

  34. Oh please, oh please, oh PLEASE announce the USA’s exit from the UNFCCC! That would be the very best way to handle all of this, I think. Imagine, no more funding from the US for the IPCC, no US bureaucrats participating in the IPCC (some of them might participate on their own time and their own dime, if the want. I’m fine with that.), no more paid travel for them to attend COP meetings in the world’s most beautiful and exotic locations. Oh, how sweet that would be. No more American funding could very well be the death knell for the IPCC and would drive at least a few nails in the coffin of it’s alarmist, CO2 based agenda.

    • One year exit to UNFCCC. By article 25, also automatically an exit from Paris at same time as a subsidiary agreement. And by a US law passed in 1994, US is prohibited from financial support to UNFCCC or any of its ancillary activities (Green Climate Fund, IPCC) because UNFCCC recognized Palestine as a member state in April 2016. My guess is Pruitt will figure this out.

  35. Trump will reportedly do handstands on the moon.
    Doesn’t mean a thing. Just dog-whistles to keep the faithful in line.
    Look closely at what else he is doing at this time. There will be something.

  36. CO2 is good. Cue photos of growing grain crops, thanksgiving meals, green trees. We write songs about amber waves of grain. The basic molecule of all life on Earth is CO2.

    Anyone who claims CO2 is bad is the real villain. Eg. the United Nations is full of politicians and bureaucratic lawyers. Those people are bad. See photos of Al Gore, Stalin, bottles of poison, etc.

    It’s a matter of life or death. CO2 is life.

  37. It also makes the U.S. an outlier among the world’s nations…” Given the state of the world’s nations, outlier status can only be a good thing. I look forward to the US graduating to full rogue status.

    • Pat,

      I foresee an attempt to have the World Court rule that the United States
      refraining from participating in the Paris Accords gives us an “unfair”
      economic advantage in the prices of the goods we make available for
      export.

      They’ll call it a form of fiscal subsidy and an underhanded tariff on
      foreign goods offered to US markets.

      The fines they” try to impose on us will be astronomical !

      • Should that happen, RS, I’d look forward to Trump pulling Andrew Jackson’s move. They have their ruling — now let’s see them enforce it.

  38. How many of the vast number of nations remaining in the accord actually toss money in the pot vs. how many come to the table with their hands out? With the US out, the pot will be greatly reduced….

    PMK

  39. It will be interesting to see how the US leaves the Paris accord.

    It is obvious the Paris accord is a bad deal for the US and for the other developed countries.

    1.There is no CAGW or AGW problem to solve. Observations and analysis does not support CAGW or AGW.
    2.The forced spending on green scams will have no significant impact on CO2 emissions and will cripple the US economy.

    How much will the Paris accord cost the US? Should be similar costs for the other developed countries.

    Odd the media completely, totally, weirdly ignored the cost and negative impact of the Paris accord on the US and the other developed countries.

    http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/29/opinions/withdraw-paris-accord-opinion-cruz/

    According to a recent National Economic Research Associates Economic Consulting study, the Paris Agreement could obliterate $3 trillion of GDP, 6.5 million industrial sector jobs and $7,000 in per capita household income from the American economy by 2040.

    Meeting the 2025 emissions reduction target alone could subtract $250 billion from our GDP and eliminate 2.7 million jobs. The cement, iron and steel, and petroleum refining industries could see their production cut by 21% 19%, and 11% respectively.

    Not only would these unfair standards reduce American job growth and wages and increase monthly utility costs for hardworking families, they would fundamentally disadvantage the United States in the global economy. The result: our economic output would lag while other countries continued to expand their GDPs.
    In return for crippling our economy, the Paris Agreement would do next to nothing to impact global temperatures.

    Under the EPA’s own models (William: EPA’s models are based on IPCC Models which ridiculously amplify the impact of CO2 on temperature), if all carbon emissions in America were basically eliminated, global temperatures would only decrease by less than two-tenths of a degree Celsius.

    The US has a massive deficit and hence cannot waste more money on green scams that do not work.

    And by the time he leaves office, President Obama will have added more to our national debt that all the other presidents before him combined. When President Obama finally leaves office, the national debt will be almost $20 trillion. Prior to taking office, the man who has tacked on $9.3 trillion to what our children and grandchildren owe once said the then $9 trillion national debt was “unpatriotic.”

    …. The estimated cost of regulations under Obama is a staggering $873 billion. That includes a shocking $344 billion cost in Environmental Protection Agency regulations alone. All told, the number of new regulations that been finalized under President Obama checks in at almost 3,000.

    https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/endangermentcommentsv7b1.pdf

    (EPA written internal report, suppressed)

    “Technical Support Document for Endangerment Analysis for Greenhouse Gas Emissions under the Clean Air Act”
    “I have become increasingly concerned that EPA has itself paid too little attention to the science of global warming. EPA and others have tended to accept the findings reached by outside groups, particularly the IPCC and the CCSP, as being correct without a careful and critical examination of their conclusions and documentation. If they should be found to be incorrect at a later date, however, and EPA is found not to have made a really careful independent review of them before reaching its decisions on endangerment, it appears likely that it is EPA rather than these other groups that may be blamed for any errors. Restricting the source of inputs into the process to these two sources may make EPA’s current task easier but it may come with enormous costs later if they should result in policies that may not be scientifically supportable.

    The failings are listed below in decreasing order of importance in my view: (See attached for details.)

    1. Lack of observed upper tropospheric heating in the tropics (see Section 2.9 for a detailed discussion).

    2. Lack of observed constant humidity levels, a very important assumption of all the IPCC models, as CO2levels have risen (see Section 1.7).

    3. The most reliable sets of global temperature data we have, using satellite microwave sounding units, show no appreciable temperature increases during the critical period 1978-1997, just when the surface station data show a pronounced rise (see Section 2.4). Satellite data after 1998 is also inconsistent with the GHG/CO2/AGW hypothesis 2009 v

    4. The models used by the IPCC do not take into account or show the most important ocean oscillations which clearly do affect global temperatures, namely, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, and the ENSO (Section 2.4). Leaving out any major potential causes for global warming from the analysis results in the likely misattribution of the effects of these oscillations to the GHGs/CO2 and hence is likely to overstate their importance as a cause for climate change.

  40. I’m taking at least two long driving vacations this year to celebrate. It’s okay to spend money again. The all clear signals are coming from DC now, if slowly.

  41. This decision by President Trump speaks to the kind of gutsy leadership we’ve sorely missed. And you know what? This decision could be the beginning of the end of the whole house of cards the other world leaders have carefully built and/or cowed to. Leadership – great leadership – will find a following, and we will soon see the weaseling begin as they try to join ‘the outlier’. This is monumental. A tipping point, if you will.

  42. This is called true leadership. It will lead the world and science in the true direction. We who wanted to do real science was demotivated and punished for so long. Now we can see some directions.

    • Most of them pledged to take our money for their dictators and tyrants to get even richer. Why would they not sign up for a free ride??

  43. Similar like IPCC! The unanimous consensus !! The whole scientific basis and arguments are flawed. Arrange open debates over media and common people need to know the facts. So much funding, power were bypassed for wrong reasons for so long.

  44. “Each country made its own non-binding pledges to cut greenhouse gas emissions.”

    We need to put this one to bed, though it may be the source of the oft-cited quotes of Trump describing the global-warming boondoggle as being ‘Chinese’.

    Many countries, China and India being the leading examples, made a non-binding pledge to increase their greenhouse gas emissions, not reduce them. Increase them to a point where they won’t feel the need to increase them further. Non-binding, of course. And they also agreed to accept as much money as the fools on the other side of the equation (us) are willing to give them. That bit is non-binding too, but I am happy to take that part at ace value, believing they would treat free money as something to be accepted seriously, in good faith, and in large amounts.

  45. “Could be caveats in the language ”

    This is how defeat is snatched from the jaws of victory. I hope “could” is fake news.

    Not expected but the whole UN Climate Protocol should be exited. A UN Climate docs and all IPCC reports manufactured the past 28 years for the pseudoscience agenda should be burned along with random tires on the Whitehouse front lawn.

  46. Please do it.

    If the Trump Administration does nothing else for the next four years, pulling out of the joke that is Paris is sufficient to justify the entire Presidency.

  47. Just read that Elon Musk has threatened to leave a White House advisory councils if President Trump exits Paris accord. What could be better? And if Musk has any integrity (stop snickering there in the back) he will offer all his government gifts and subsidies back to the taxpayers.

    • Musk pull out ,,,

      Sounds stupid to me because he has personally benefited financially with all the subsidies for everyone. He has been a master of “a sucker is born every Moment”. Unfortunately Obama made us taxpayers the sucker who subsidizes Musk with solar and elite electric cars.
      Good bye to subsidies too?

  48. The Paris accord was a scam by various countries to pretend to do something about global warming. Full compliance with the accord, which was voluntary, would have reduced temperatures very little, even by the most generous of estimates.

    The irony is the United States will, in all likelihood, will meet the terms of the agreement anyway. Switching coal generation for natural gas, higher mileage cars, electric cars, continued deployment of LEDs….if the closed Brayton cycle that uses supercritical carbon dioxide (s-CO2) as the working fluid pans out, as it probably will, 40% additional energy per year can be extracted from existing power plants, meaning 40% of all existing thermal power plants could be closed at the same power output. That change alone would exceeds every goal in the Paris accord by a wide margin. The technology also is very good at harvesting waste heat from any source – it is estimated that there are 10,000 MW of waste energy that could be captured. Add to that 18,000 MW of hydro in non-powered or under powered existing dams. Fracking ensures we will have low cost natural gas for a century or more, and it is still improving. Coal will be dead in 30 years, and there is nothing that will change that.

    And all of this will pay for itself. No subsidies or mandates are necessary. And all these improvements are easily exportable and implementable by other countries.

    You’re welcome world.

    • I dunno about all that. Might want to clean that crystal ball of yours. Seems to have a greenish film on it.

  49. “They argued the U.S. needs to stay involved in climate work to have influence over global policy decisions that could impact their bottom lines.” Obviously these companies are more interested in their bottom line than they are the impact it will have on the US economy. I suppose that is normal. But Trump needs to look at the bigger picture which is more than just looking out for the well being of a few companies.

  50. Anthony,
    As an Australian I am interested in where this leaves my country.
    Foolishly our federal government signed the Paris Agreement shortly after President Trump’s election in November last.
    This commits us to the Green Fund, the”loss and damage” fund and no doubt a number of other monetary obligations of which I am unaware.At Bonn recently there was the call for a further 300 billion dollars annually on top of 100 billion dollars already pledged.
    If the US departs, little attention has been paid by our MSM to the consequences for the remaining countries which are the “developed nations” in annex 1 to the UNFCCC, Kyoto, Paris etc.
    The same considerations of course apply to Europe and the Western democracies who have been cajoled into this mess.
    Australia has already contributed or committed to pay hundreds of millions of dollars to the UN or its affiliates.
    I suppose refunds are out of the question!
    Presumably,the “fair shares” of the Annex1 nations now expand considerably.
    This will add further fuel to the confected outrage of the MSM if the US exits.

  51. Has Trump made a final decision/announcement yet???
    He should read Anthony’s “Dear Mr. President” open letter (as his speech) to the nation to announce his decision…
    Let’s hope…I don’t think AW would call for plagiarism…

  52. This may seem obvious but I don’t hear this argument:

    The reason intermittent electrical supply is a societal risk is because modern societies run on baseline power generation sources. Instead of putting $100 bn per year into the feeding trough in order to ‘continue to lead’ (is leadership for sale?) why not put $100 bn into research per year? CNN’s climate alarm, politically sarcastic ‘great humiliator’, this morning took snark to a new level. She attempted to paint the Paris Agreement as the Last chance Saloon where the only drink on tap is klimate koolaid. Make America Great Again by signing that pledge! It was cringing to watch.

    The green solution seems awfully dedicated to things that already exist and not to brilliant solutions to ‘the energy problem’. If the US committed $100 * 83 bn to energy research by 2100 they would solve every challenge imaginable on the energy front.

    If, as it seems, the real Copenhagen agenda is to transfer development money to poor countries to upraise and educate and house them, say so! I am totally I favour of the world ‘taking care of its own’ but not through stealth and not through Goldman Sachs.

    Read the Panama Papers. We are not threatened by climate change nearly as much as by systematic thievery and fraud. Iniquity and inequity abound.

    It the USA wants to lead something, develop some moral balls and take on the tax havens, the scofflaw corporations and underground banking industry that protects them. The world is immensely wealthy in human capacity and the spirit of cooperation. Stop feeding the ‘development trolls’ and help heal the world.

Comments are closed.