U.S. Starts withdrawal from Paris Climate Accord.

President Trump is fulfilling his most important de-regulatory promise.  This is a great day for America, and 4th November 2020 when U. S. withdrawal becomes final will be an even greater day. 


On the U.S. Withdrawal from the Paris Agreement

Press Statement by Michael R. Pompeo, Secretary of State

November 4, 2019

Today the United States began the process to withdraw from the Paris Agreement.  Per the terms of the Agreement, the United States submitted formal notification of its withdrawal to the United Nations.  The withdrawal will take effect one year from delivery of the notification.

As noted in his June 1, 2017 remarks, President Trump made the decision to withdraw from the Paris Agreement because of the unfair economic burden imposed on American workers, businesses, and taxpayers by U.S. pledges made under the Agreement.  The United States has reduced all types of emissions, even as we grow our economy and ensure our citizens’ access to affordable energy.  Our results speak for themselves:  U.S. emissions of criteria air pollutants that impact human health and the environment declined by 74% between 1970 and 2018.  U.S. net greenhouse gas emissions dropped 13% from 2005-2017, even as our economy grew over 19 percent.

The U.S. approach incorporates the reality of the global energy mix and uses all energy sources and technologies cleanly and efficiently, including fossils fuels, nuclear energy, and renewable energy.  In international climate discussions, we will continue to offer a realistic and pragmatic model – backed by a record of real world results – showing innovation and open markets lead to greater prosperity, fewer emissions, and more secure sources of energy.  We will continue to work with our global partners to enhance resilience to the impacts of climate change and prepare for and respond to natural disasters.  Just as we have in the past, the United States will continue to research, innovate, and grow our economy while reducing emissions and extending a helping hand to our friends and partners around the globe.


0 0 votes
Article Rating
72 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Melbourne Resident
November 4, 2019 5:29 pm

wow – now if only Australia could follow suit!

Warp10
Reply to  Melbourne Resident
November 4, 2019 5:34 pm

It will never happen unfortunately. Even the Libs are centre-left these days and beholden to the thoroughly left wing Canberra bureaucracy

Reply to  Melbourne Resident
November 4, 2019 5:37 pm

First, Australia needs to play it’s Trump Card.

nw sage
Reply to  nicholas tesdorf
November 4, 2019 6:37 pm

Oh boy! I’m SO glad I didn’t say that! LOL!

ColA
Reply to  Melbourne Resident
November 4, 2019 5:42 pm

Scomo and the LNP know they should but don’t have the balls to do it!!

Krudd Gillard of the Commondebt of Australia
Reply to  ColA
November 4, 2019 9:18 pm

Grow a pair, ScoMo, stop pandering to the doctors’ wives elements in the Liberal Party.

Aidan Donnelly
Reply to  ColA
November 5, 2019 2:32 am

You really think that blob of Jelly PM is going to get real?
We need just one more knifing, our usual method of deserting sitting PM’s – put Dutton in place of this vacillating Turnbull mouthpiece.

Patrick MJD
November 4, 2019 5:37 pm

The US didn’t make any agreement in Paris. It was Obama without being ratified by the US Senate. So Trump doesn’t have to do a thing.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Patrick MJD
November 4, 2019 6:19 pm

The 0bama EPA’s patently unconstitutional Clean Power Plan (CPP) was his ploy meet US INDCs under the Paris Agreement and hobble the US economy with escalating electricity prices and wind and solar pay-offs in order to payback the Democrat’s GreenSlime backers.

A President Hillary was certainly going to continue on with the 0bama climate scam and middle class fleecing. Furthermore, President Hillary would have put two intellectually dishonest Liberal Justices on the Supreme Court bench to ensure CPP and whatever else the despotic Democrats wanted got past their “unconstitutional” nature of violations of both States Rights and the vested legislative powers to Congress.

There is still the very real threat the totalitarian-loving Democrats will attempt to Pack the Supreme Court with 4 more liberal Justices should they get the White House and majorities in both chambers of Congress in 2021.

Patrick Healy
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
November 4, 2019 10:43 pm

Good points Joel,
When will some person with some balls appeal the ridiculous court ruling that Carbon Dioxide is “pollution” and not plant food?
Now that would read l Lynn set the record straight.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Patrick Healy
November 5, 2019 12:32 am

There is Supreme Court ruling saying the EPA has the authority to declare CO2 a harmful air pollutant under the CAA via its Endangerment Finding. So it has already been fully litigated as far as it can go.

Now we the EPA to “unscrew” the bad science behind that Endangerment Finding. That will be very tough, because the politically corrupted NAS and AAAS has supported the Endangerment Finding. IOW, Rent seeking by climate scientists pays off handsomely with govt grants when you do what your political masters tell you to do.

michael hart
Reply to  Patrick MJD
November 4, 2019 6:41 pm

Part of the scandal is that Obama personally signed up to an ‘agreement’ stipulating that the US couldn’t immediately withdraw on Day 1 of a new presidency but had to give so much notice. That seems like an abuse of Presidential power, binding a future President when the former President’s authority has gone.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  michael hart
November 4, 2019 7:15 pm

0bama committed impeachable high crimes by directing the 2x$500million ($1Billion total) cash payments to the UN’s Climate Aid Fund. Appropriated funds transfers from the US Treasury outside of the original Congressional appropriation intent and without Congressional approval/appropriation for the re-direct.
That was just one of many high crimes and misdemeanors 0bama committed in his 8 years as President.

Rotor
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
November 4, 2019 10:06 pm

Joel O’Bryan

The real crime is the spineless Congressional Republicans response to this unlawful action.
When confronted their only reaction was to mumble , look at the ground and shuffle their feet.
Compare that with what happens any time President Trump tries to move a couple of bucks for the wall.

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  Rotor
November 5, 2019 1:28 am

Impeaching the first US black President wasn’t a viable political option for House Republicans, especially when Obama had a the suckup Liberal media protecting him and failing to do their journalistic job.
Obama knew that. His well-played race card was his permit to stomp all over the US Constitution with impunity. It was only the Supreme Court that stopped him. Obama lost more 9-0 unanimous Decisions at Supreme Court challenges than any other 2 term president.

Duke Henry
November 4, 2019 5:37 pm

Thank you Mr Trump!

Larry Hamlin
November 4, 2019 5:38 pm

Great !!!

Wade
November 4, 2019 5:39 pm

How can you withdraw from something you were never in?

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Wade
November 4, 2019 6:04 pm

Trump is playing along with the UN Marxists little deception for now and abiding by the withdrawal rules.
With the US still officially part of the COP process, Trump can send US representatives to all the meetings to harangue them about the virtues of coal and natural gas.

And since the INDCs were completely voluntary with no enforcement, the entire thing was meaningless except for the free wealth transfer the 3rd World was expecting in order for them to go along with the charade.

Richmond
Reply to  Wade
November 4, 2019 6:17 pm

The wedding is canceled. (The only wedding that is hard to cancel is the good old fashioned shotgun wedding.)

Redge
Reply to  Wade
November 4, 2019 11:21 pm

Isn’t that what Clinton said?

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Redge
November 5, 2019 1:09 am

I don’t think that was Clinton. Maybe something from Cuba.

Redge
Reply to  Patrick MJD
November 5, 2019 2:34 am

I meant Wade’s comment:

“How can you withdraw from something you were never in?”

😉

John Endicott
Reply to  Redge
November 5, 2019 5:03 am

I think Patrick was making a cheeky reference to the Clinton’s cigar with his “Maybe something from Cuba”.

Newt Love
November 4, 2019 5:50 pm

I wish somebody would beat into the heads of the Green New Deal people that America is the only nation meeting or exceeding the CO2 goals while China and India are building coal powered electric plants, and exceeding their quotas.

Wait! This was never about fixing climate. It’s all about putting Earth under socialist / communist rule. Now it makes sense.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Newt Love
November 4, 2019 6:06 pm

India and China have no declared “quotas” under the Paris Agreement.

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
November 4, 2019 6:47 pm

I think China intends to continue increasing emissions until 2030.
India expects to increase emissions, but not to exceed the West’s per capita amounts.

Interesting ways of presenting their “quotas” – – their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs).

BillJ
November 4, 2019 6:24 pm

Pretty silly that it takes a year to withdraw from an accord that was never approved by Congress.

Tom Abbott
November 4, 2019 6:42 pm

About the only place where the Paris Climate Accord is alive and well is in Europe, Australia, New Zealand, China and India.

Europe, Australia and New Zealand are dutifully ruining their economies trying to do away with fossil fuels. The Chinese and Indians are dutifully following their part of the Paris Climate Accord that allows them unfettered use of fossil fuels until at least the year 2030.

The Paris Climate Accords are a disaster in motion. The U.S. isn’t going down that path under Trump.

LdB
Reply to  Tom Abbott
November 4, 2019 9:55 pm

It’s only alive in China and India because they don’t really have to do anything because they deemed themselves developing countries. How the worlds second largest economy can be considered a developing nation is the joke.

James Clarke
November 4, 2019 6:57 pm

“The U.S. approach incorporates the reality…”

Bingo!

J Mac
November 4, 2019 7:15 pm

Put thatin your climate change crack pipe and smoke it, Paris Climate Accord hucksters!

Paul Penrose
November 4, 2019 7:32 pm

Tell the governor of California that *he* is excused from this discussion.

November 4, 2019 7:59 pm

We’ll always not have Paris.

The SkSJugend weren’t happy about the announcement a year ago:

comment image

The US withdrawal (minus a few thousand “military advisors”) from the Parisian theatre will be a greater contribution to peace than Greta Thunberg has made, and I’m confident it will clinch Trump his overdue Nobel, because the so-called Norwegian Committee has too much integrity to be swayed by partisan political animosities. They gave it to Obama just for being elected, so their characteristic moral consistency and lack of hypocrisy dictates that they’ll obviously give it to his successor too.

November 4, 2019 8:04 pm

Pompeo:

“In international climate discussions, we will continue to offer a realistic and pragmatic model…”

Whoa! Make up your mind there buddy. Will the US

A. be “realistic and pragmatic”

or will it

B. continue to participate in international discussions of what to do about the 30-year statistical running average of weather conditions

??

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Brad Keyes
November 4, 2019 8:39 pm

code words for “US Energy Dominance”… frack on baby!

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
November 4, 2019 9:24 pm

You know we’re losing the Climate Wars when both sides of politics pay lip service to the caphophobia movement, a movement even the Trump White House dares denounce only in “code words.”

If the good guys are too cryptorchid to state outright that the whole CAGW narrative rests on unmitigated pseudoscience, then frankly I think we deserve to lose.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Brad Keyes
November 5, 2019 4:11 am

“You know we’re losing the Climate Wars when both sides of politics pay lip service to the caphophobia movement, a movement even the Trump White House dares denounce only in “code words.”

Excellent point!

Republicans do not normally forcefully refute the human-caused climate change narrative (unless you are Senator Inhofe:). I think it is understandable, for the most part, they are not scientists, and don’t know every nuance of the climate debates, so they fear being put on the spot by Alarmists and the news media, and the “97% lie” for going against the grain of conventional thinking. So they hedge and do not get out front of this issue.

On the other hand, it will be different after a Republican or Republicans sign on to some bill that is aimed at reducing CO2 in order to curb human-caused climate change. At that point, those Republicans will not be called out by the alarmists or the news media, they will be called out by the Skeptics, and they better have their scientific ducks in a row then or else they are going to be very uncomfortable with the conversation and the conversation may affect whether they are reelected or not.

Republicans can remain silent on the subject only until they take a public stance. And that’s coming soon. Republicans should go have a long talk with Dr. Willima Happer and get their heads right before they do something foolish like trying to restrict the burning of fossil fuels, for no good reason.

KaliforniaKook
Reply to  Brad Keyes
November 6, 2019 4:44 pm

We will continue to lose the CAGW war until it morphs in the next few years to CAGC. We will lose that one two – especially since cold is so much worse for wealth building than warmth.

The cause and the cure will remain the same.

Joel O'Bryan
November 4, 2019 8:37 pm

Folks,
Share John Stossell’s video on the junk Paris agreement on your social media feeds and with friends.
It couldn’t be more clear than this that the Paris Agreement is a fraud on both reason and the West’s financial security.

Even if you compeltely accept the CO2-CAGW hypothesis, rational thought demands the Paris Agreement rejection … if we are to return to sanity

https://youtu.be/cVkAsPizAbU

J Mac
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
November 4, 2019 9:08 pm

Joel,
Thanks for that… will be put to good use.

icisil
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
November 5, 2019 4:12 am

Same can watch here

Kramer
November 4, 2019 9:22 pm

I never did see how the US was legally “in” since it wasn’t ratified by the Senate.

Kenji
November 4, 2019 9:45 pm

Fabulous statement by Pompeo … with one small exception.

At the end of his logical, reasoned, and well supported statement he needed to say… “and Global Warming aka CAGW … is a HOAX. The greatest, most expensive, Socialist HOAX in the history of mankind”. “The US will continue to operate in a positive, forward-looking, productive manner”.

greg
November 4, 2019 11:53 pm

not at all clear what has actually been done here. It takes 4 years to pull out of Paris agreement not 12mo. The only way to get out in 12mo is to pull the rug on the entire UNFCCC(P) of which IPCC is a subordinate part.

some clarification is needed , where does this 12mo claim come from.

If it is the start of the 4 year pull-out of Paris agreement , at least he has done it in time to see it through if he wins 2020. That should be vote winner at least.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  greg
November 5, 2019 1:07 am

There was no agreement.

John Endicott
Reply to  Patrick MJD
November 5, 2019 5:25 am

There was an agreement – not with the US (that requires ratification from the Senate), but with the Obama administration. The Obama administration is no more, so any such agreements it entered into are effectively null and void as they are no binding on the US or his successors.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  John Endicott
November 5, 2019 4:42 pm

This makes sense to me now. I, wrongly, assumed that a US administration could not agree to international treaties on behalf of the whole of the US without first obtaining ratification from the Senate (Senate or Congress? I don’t know). Maybe Obama expected to win another term or Hillary to win and follow his lead, who knows? As with the recent Australian federal election where the Australian Labor Party (Liberals) would win an unlosable election, voters proved them wrong. Trump is just following protocol.

John Endicott
Reply to  Patrick MJD
November 6, 2019 6:19 am

Yes. Obama knew he could never get it ratified (Just like Bill Clinton could not get Kyoto ratified) so he helped draft the Paris Accord so that he could “join” it by Executive agreement in stead of going to congress. The problem for Obama is that Executive agreements are entered into by executive action and can be exited the same way (IE the next President can just say no). Obama (like most of the Obama-sycophants in the MSM) believed Hillary would be his successor (it’s was 99% certain, after-all) and follow on with the agreement he made.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  greg
November 5, 2019 4:27 am

“not at all clear what has actually been done here. It takes 4 years to pull out of Paris agreement not 12mo.”

The U.S., according to the rules, was required to wait until yesterday to formally file the withdrawal. After the formal withdrawal is filed, the rules say the U.S. has to wait one year before that withdrawal becomes final. So the day after Trump is reelected will be the day the U.S. is officiallycompletely out of the Paris Climate Accord.

Obama and the UN wrote the rules to make it as difficult as possible to withdraw from the agreement. That’s why it is taking so long.

Some on here argue that the U.S. does not have to follow these rules setup by the UN and Obama, and not ratified by the U.S. Senate, and I would agree the agreement is not legally binding on the U.S., but Trump has chosen to follow their rules, and the endgame is the same: The U.S. is out one year from now. In the meantime, the agreement has no effect on any U.S. policy, so the U.S. was as good as “out” the day Trump got elected in November 2016.

John Endicott
Reply to  Tom Abbott
November 5, 2019 5:22 am

Indeed Tom. By playing exactly by their rules, Trump cuts off their arguments that Trump can’t do that and saves Trump from having to fight for it in the courts (which could tie up exiting for even longer). As you said, effectively the US was out the day Trump got elected, this is just an exercise in dotting the Is and crossing the Ts to make it more difficult for the other side to undo. Of course Trump still needs to get re-elected, otherwise the Dems will make use of the agreements 3-month window for re-entering (which expires in Feb 2020, a month after the presidential swearing in that takes place in Jan 2020).

John Endicott
Reply to  John Endicott
November 5, 2019 12:30 pm

dates in last sentence should have been Feb 2021 and Jan 2021. Where’s that edit button when you need it?

John Endicott
Reply to  greg
November 5, 2019 5:12 am

greg, I’m pretty sure we’ve gone over this with you before in other posts, so I don’t know why you still don’t understand it. The Paris agreement takes 4 years from when it *went into effect*. In went into effect Nov 2016. According to the rules of Paris the earliest a country can submit the paperwork to pull out is 3 years after it went into effect (in other words, Yesterday Nov 4th 2019 was the earliest Trump could file the paperwork) and requires 12 months from the submitting of the paperwork before it becomes “official” (in other words it will be official the day after election day 2020). Unfortunately there is one additional “gotcha” in that the accord also gives 3 months after the withdraw is official for the country to immediately re-enter (IE until Feb 2020, after the president is sworn into office on Jan 2020), in other words Trump needs to get re-elected or the Democrats can simply undo his exiting the accord – the long process, I suspect, was by design in case obummer’s successor was not a Democrat.

reg
November 4, 2019 11:56 pm

what is the source of this article, no link to the supposed press release ! The link is just pomeo’s bio.

Carl Friis-Hansen
Reply to  reg
November 5, 2019 1:35 am
French geographer
November 5, 2019 2:21 am

Yes ! Very good news ! I had a dream : France is leaving Paris Climate Accord. But with the dwarfs who are governing my poor old country…

bonbon
November 5, 2019 4:11 am

Since Bank of England chief Mark Carney has an entire global GFI, riding on Paris, watch WallStreet/London very carefully :
https://www.greenfinanceinstitute.co.uk/
At Jackson Hole, Wyoming, on August 23rd 2019, Bank of England Governor Mark Carney proposed that Central Bankers take control of the entire world as a new financial crisis begins, replacing the dollar as a reserve currency with a digital currency controlled by Central Banks. His proposal was seconded by BlackRock, LLP, the world’s largest hedge fund which features many central bankers on its board. They advocate central bankers taking control of all spending, world-wide, ending the reign of nation states.

I think many here are totally misunderestimating the gravity of the financial mudslide now in motion.

Carl Friis-Hansen
Reply to  bonbon
November 5, 2019 5:40 am

I believe it is the competition or war between BRICS and the traditional western economy.
It is all so interconnected and CAGW used used as ammunition.

John Endicott
Reply to  bonbon
November 5, 2019 6:05 am

You’ve made the claim under several articles here at WUWT, so
1) define what constitutes a “central banker” in your mind
and
2) please point out which of the board members (see link) are these “central bankers” you speak of
https://ir.blackrock.com/board-of-directors

failure to do so will just confirm that your conspiracy theories are just that and not to be taken seriously.

Julian
November 5, 2019 4:26 am

Yet here in the UK our political betters lap all this stuff up even entertaining Greta.

Alba
November 5, 2019 9:14 am

Donald Trump was (effectively) elected President of the USA on 9 Nov 2016.
“4th November 2020 when U. S. withdrawal becomes final”
So four years almost to the day when he was (effectively) elected the withdrawal becomes final.
How come it has taken that long?
Moreover the withdrawal could be very short-lived if a Democrat takes office in January 2021. Or would it take him/her four years to reverse the withdrawal?

John Endicott
Reply to  Alba
November 5, 2019 12:13 pm

How come it has taken that long?

The rules of the accord specify the earliest opportunity to file the withdraw papers is 3 years after the accord went into effect. That was Nov 2016 + 3 years is Nov 2019 (specifically Mon Nov 4th 2019). Once the paperwork is filed (which Trump did on the 4th) it takes 12 months to become official (again, per the accords rules) which takes us to Nov 4th 2020 (the day after election day, as it happens).

Moreover the withdrawal could be very short-lived if a Democrat takes office in January 2021. Or would it take him/her four years to reverse the withdrawal?

You are indeed correct, the rules of the accord allows 3 months after the withdraw becomes official to undo the withdraw. Nov 4th 2020 + 3 month is Feb 4th 2021. The president is sworn in a couple weeks earlier than that, so if a Democrat wins he can undo the withdraw as one of his first acts in office if s/he so chooses.

ResourceGuy
November 5, 2019 11:05 am

I guess there is a problem now with the project match money (from U.S. taxpayers) for all those hundreds and thousands of Chinese renewable projects in developing countries. They were all counting on this financial shell game to benefit themselves.

ResourceGuy
November 5, 2019 1:13 pm

Do I get a refund?

Carl Friis-Hansen
November 5, 2019 1:45 pm

Laughed out load on this one:
Putin reacts to Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lw-XyTaAf0o
It is getting colder in Moscow, it is all Trump’s fault (or something), Putin said with a grin.

John Dilks
Reply to  Carl Friis-Hansen
November 5, 2019 3:11 pm

Carl Friis-Hansen,
Video from 2 years ago.

Carl Friis-Hansen
Reply to  John Dilks
November 5, 2019 11:17 pm

What a bummer 🙂

Bruce Cobb
November 5, 2019 2:43 pm

The Paris “Accord” is a treaty in every sense except the name. Obama simply did an end-run around the US Constitution, which was his wont. And just imagine the sneaky trick of inserting that 3-month grace period after pulling out of the Accord. That was specifically designed for the US, as they knew that if there was a new president, the decision could be reversed. It is an outrage.

Chad Jessup
November 5, 2019 3:00 pm

As the treaty was never ratified by the Senate, it never achieved legal status.

%d bloggers like this: