U.S. Exit of the Paris Climate Accord: Reasons Reverberate Today

From MasterResource

By Robert Bradley Jr.

Editor Note: On this day in 2017, President Trump announced that the U.S. would withdraw from the Paris Climate Accord. Formal withdrawal began on November 4, 2019, with notification to the United Nations. Effective one year later, the withdrawal was reversed by the Biden Administration on his first day in office, January 20, 2021. Six years later, the logic of withdrawal remains–and more so.

“Thus, as of today, the United States will cease all implementation of the non-binding Paris Accord and the draconian financial and economic burdens the agreement imposes on our country. This includes ending the implementation of the nationally determined contribution and, very importantly, the Green Climate Fund which is costing the United States a vast fortune.” – President Trump, below

THE PRESIDENT: One by one, we are keeping the promises I made to the American people during my campaign for President …. I am fighting every day for the great people of this country. Therefore, in order to fulfill my solemn duty to protect America and its citizens, the United States will withdraw from the Paris Climate Accord — but begin negotiations to reenter either the Paris Accord or a really entirely new transaction on terms that are fair to the United States, its businesses, its workers, its people, its taxpayers. So we’re getting out. But we will start to negotiate, and we will see if we can make a deal that’s fair. And if we can, that’s great. And if we can’t, that’s fine.

As President, I can put no other consideration before the wellbeing of American citizens. The Paris Climate Accord is simply the latest example of Washington entering into an agreement that disadvantages the United States to the exclusive benefit of other countries, leaving American workers — who I love — and taxpayers to absorb the cost in terms of lost jobs, lower wages, shuttered factories, and vastly diminished economic production.

Thus, as of today, the United States will cease all implementation of the non-binding Paris Accord and the draconian financial and economic burdens the agreement imposes on our country. This includes ending the implementation of the nationally determined contribution and, very importantly, the Green Climate Fund which is costing the United States a vast fortune.

Compliance with the terms of the Paris Accord and the onerous energy restrictions it has placed on the United States could cost America as much as 2.7 million lost jobs by 2025 according to the National Economic Research Associates. This includes 440,000 fewer manufacturing jobs — not what we need — believe me, this is not what we need — including automobile jobs, and the further decimation of vital American industries on which countless communities rely. They rely for so much, and we would be giving them so little.

According to this same study, by 2040, compliance with the commitments put into place by the previous administration would cut production for the following sectors: paper down 12 percent; cement down 23 percent; iron and steel down 38 percent; coal — and I happen to love the coal miners — down 86 percent; natural gas down 31 percent. The cost to the economy at this time would be close to $3 trillion in lost GDP and 6.5 million industrial jobs, while households would have $7,000 less income and, in many cases, much worse than that.

Not only does this deal subject our citizens to harsh economic restrictions, it fails to live up to our environmental ideals. As someone who cares deeply about the environment, which I do, I cannot in good conscience support a deal that punishes the United States — which is what it does -– the world’s leader in environmental protection, while imposing no meaningful obligations on the world’s leading polluters.

For example, under the agreement, China will be able to increase these emissions by a staggering number of years — 13. They can do whatever they want for 13 years. Not us. India makes its participation contingent on receiving billions and billions and billions of dollars in foreign aid from developed countries. There are many other examples. But the bottom line is that the Paris Accord is very unfair, at the highest level, to the United States.

Further, while the current agreement effectively blocks the development of clean coal in America — which it does, and the mines are starting to open up. We’re having a big opening in two weeks. Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, so many places. A big opening of a brand-new mine. It’s unheard of. For many, many years, that hasn’t happened. They asked me if I’d go. I’m going to try.

China will be allowed to build hundreds of additional coal plants. So we can’t build the plants, but they can, according to this agreement. India will be allowed to double its coal production by 2020. Think of it: India can double their coal production. We’re supposed to get rid of ours. Even Europe is allowed to continue construction of coal plants.

In short, the agreement doesn’t eliminate coal jobs, it just transfers those jobs out of America and the United States, and ships them to foreign countries.

This agreement is less about the climate and more about other countries gaining a financial advantage over the United States. The rest of the world applauded when we signed the Paris Agreement — they went wild; they were so happy — for the simple reason that it put our country, the United States of America, which we all love, at a very, very big economic disadvantage. A cynic would say the obvious reason for economic competitors and their wish to see us remain in the agreement is so that we continue to suffer this self-inflicted major economic wound. We would find it very hard to compete with other countries from other parts of the world.

We have among the most abundant energy reserves on the planet, sufficient to lift millions of America’s poorest workers out of poverty. Yet, under this agreement, we are effectively putting these reserves under lock and key, taking away the great wealth of our nation — it’s great wealth, it’s phenomenal wealth; not so long ago, we had no idea we had such wealth — and leaving millions and millions of families trapped in poverty and joblessness.

The agreement is a massive redistribution of United States wealth to other countries. At 1 percent growth, renewable sources of energy can meet some of our domestic demand, but at 3 or 4 percent growth, which I expect, we need all forms of available American energy, or our country will be at grave risk of brownouts and blackouts, our businesses will come to a halt in many cases, and the American family will suffer the consequences in the form of lost jobs and a very diminished quality of life.

Even if the Paris Agreement were implemented in full, with total compliance from all nations, it is estimated it would only produce a two-tenths of one degree — think of that; this much — Celsius reduction in global temperature by the year 2100. Tiny, tiny amount. In fact, 14 days of carbon emissions from China alone would wipe out the gains from America — and this is an incredible statistic — would totally wipe out the gains from America’s expected reductions in the year 2030, after we have had to spend billions and billions of dollars, lost jobs, closed factories, and suffered much higher energy costs for our businesses and for our homes.

As the Wall Street Journal wrote this morning: “The reality is that withdrawing is in America’s economic interest and won’t matter much to the climate.” The United States, under the Trump administration, will continue to be the cleanest and most environmentally friendly country on Earth. We’ll be the cleanest. We’re going to have the cleanest air. We’re going to have the cleanest water. We will be environmentally friendly, but we’re not going to put our businesses out of work and we’re not going to lose our jobs. We’re going to grow; we’re going to grow rapidly.

And I think you just read — it just came out minutes ago, the small business report — small businesses as of just now are booming, hiring people. One of the best reports they’ve seen in many years.

I’m willing to immediately work with Democratic leaders to either negotiate our way back into Paris, under the terms that are fair to the United States and its workers, or to negotiate a new deal that protects our country and its taxpayers.

So if the obstructionists want to get together with me, let’s make them non-obstructionists. We will all sit down, and we will get back into the deal. And we’ll make it good, and we won’t be closing up our factories, and we won’t be losing our jobs. And we’ll sit down with the Democrats and all of the people that represent either the Paris Accord or something that we can do that’s much better than the Paris Accord. And I think the people of our country will be thrilled, and I think then the people of the world will be thrilled. But until we do that, we’re out of the agreement.

I will work to ensure that America remains the world’s leader on environmental issues, but under a framework that is fair and where the burdens and responsibilities are equally shared among the many nations all around the world.

No responsible leader can put the workers — and the people — of their country at this debilitating and tremendous disadvantage. The fact that the Paris deal hamstrings the United States, while empowering some of the world’s top polluting countries, should dispel any doubt as to the real reason why foreign lobbyists wish to keep our magnificent country tied up and bound down by this agreement: It’s to give their country an economic edge over the United States. That’s not going to happen while I’m President. I’m sorry.

My job as President is to do everything within my power to give America a level playing field and to create the economic, regulatory and tax structures that make America the most prosperous and productive country on Earth, and with the highest standard of living and the highest standard of environmental protection….

The Paris Agreement handicaps the United States economy in order to win praise from the very foreign capitals and global activists that have long sought to gain wealth at our country’s expense. They don’t put America first. I do, and I always will.

The same nations asking us to stay in the agreement are the countries that have collectively cost America trillions of dollars through tough trade practices and, in many cases, lax contributions to our critical military alliance. You see what’s happening. It’s pretty obvious to those that want to keep an open mind.

At what point does America get demeaned? At what point do they start laughing at us as a country? We want fair treatment for its citizens, and we want fair treatment for our taxpayers. We don’t want other leaders and other countries laughing at us anymore. And they won’t be. They won’t be.

I was elected to represent the citizens of Pittsburgh, not Paris. (Applause.) I promised I would exit or renegotiate any deal which fails to serve America’s interests. Many trade deals will soon be under renegotiation. Very rarely do we have a deal that works for this country, but they’ll soon be under renegotiation. The process has begun from day one. But now we’re down to business.

Beyond the severe energy restrictions inflicted by the Paris Accord, it includes yet another scheme to redistribute wealth out of the United States through the so-called Green Climate Fund — nice name — which calls for developed countries to send $100 billion to developing countries all on top of America’s existing and massive foreign aid payments. So we’re going to be paying billions and billions and billions of dollars, and we’re already way ahead of anybody else. Many of the other countries haven’t spent anything, and many of them will never pay one dime.

The Green Fund would likely obligate the United States to commit potentially tens of billions of dollars of which the United States has already handed over $1 billion — nobody else is even close; most of them haven’t even paid anything — including funds raided out of America’s budget for the war against terrorism. That’s where they came. Believe me, they didn’t come from me. They came just before I came into office. Not good. And not good the way they took the money.

In 2015, the United Nation’s departing top climate officials reportedly described the $100 billion per year as “peanuts,” and stated that “the $100 billion is the tail that wags the dog.” In 2015, the Green Climate Fund’s executive director reportedly stated that estimated funding needed would increase to $450 billion per year after 2020. And nobody even knows where the money is going to. Nobody has been able to say, where is it going to?

Of course, the world’s top polluters have no affirmative obligations under the Green Fund, which we terminated. America is $20 trillion in debt. Cash-strapped cities cannot hire enough police officers or fix vital infrastructure. Millions of our citizens are out of work. And yet, under the Paris Accord, billions of dollars that ought to be invested right here in America will be sent to the very countries that have taken our factories and our jobs away from us. So think of that.

There are serious legal and constitutional issues as well. Foreign leaders in Europe, Asia, and across the world should not have more to say with respect to the U.S. economy than our own citizens and their elected representatives. Thus, our withdrawal from the agreement represents a reassertion of America’s sovereignty. (Applause.) Our Constitution is unique among all the nations of the world, and it is my highest obligation and greatest honor to protect it. And I will.

Staying in the agreement could also pose serious obstacles for the United States as we begin the process of unlocking the restrictions on America’s abundant energy reserves, which we have started very strongly. It would once have been unthinkable that an international agreement could prevent the United States from conducting its own domestic economic affairs, but this is the new reality we face if we do not leave the agreement or if we do not negotiate a far better deal.

The risks grow as historically these agreements only tend to become more and more ambitious over time. In other words, the Paris framework is a starting point — as bad as it is — not an end point. And exiting the agreement protects the United States from future intrusions on the United States’ sovereignty and massive future legal liability. Believe me, we have massive legal liability if we stay in.

As President, I have one obligation, and that obligation is to the American people. The Paris Accord would undermine our economy, hamstring our workers, weaken our sovereignty, impose unacceptable legal risks, and put us at a permanent disadvantage to the other countries of the world. It is time to exit the Paris Accord — (applause) — and time to pursue a new deal that protects the environment, our companies, our citizens, and our country.

It is time to put Youngstown, Ohio, Detroit, Michigan, and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania — along with many, many other locations within our great country — before Paris, France. It is time to make America great again. Thank you very much.

5 25 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
June 2, 2023 3:30 am

I have no skin in the game, but surely the focus should be on the upcoming election?

Now is probably a good time to start reminding your people about the original green new deal. Is it not the American ideal of hard work and reward that is in peril now? The original draught document is in my opinion the unvarnished truth of the matter. It has gems like…

“Economic security for all who are unable or unwilling to work”

Being unable to work is one thing, but being unwilling to work is quite another; it’s Atlas Shrugged writ large. And then there is that nice Mr Kerry and his desire of killing agriculture (Bill G has been busy buying up land…)

“We set a goal to get to net-zero, rather than zero emissions, in 10 years because we aren’t sure that we’ll be able to fully get rid of farting cows and airplanes that fast, but we think we can ramp up renewable manufacturing and power production, retrofit every building in America, build the smart grid, overhaul transportation and agriculture, plant lots of trees and restore our ecosystem to get to net-zero “

Green New Deal (h/t AOC)

We live in interesting times.

Reply to  strativarius
June 2, 2023 4:05 am

but we think we can ramp up renewable manufacturing and power production, retrofit every building in America, build the smart grid, overhaul transportation and agriculture

1,000 years of human progress reversed – in 10 years.

What a genius.

Reply to  HotScot
June 2, 2023 2:43 pm

The Paris Agreement is a fraud and should be seen as that .
It will make no difference to world wide “emissions ”
All it will accomplish will be to shift manufacturing from Europe and North America to Asia.
The Paris Agreement is a solution to a non existent problem which is now making most countries poorer except for China and India .
Inflation is rampant around the world due to shortage of affordable energy in many countries ,which pushes up the cost of almost everything .
Since this farce of an agreement was signed world coal production has twice exceeded 8 billion tonnes per year .
That seems to be okay that industry is shifting to Asia to those that signed this farce.
Our news media here in New Zealand did no favors for Trump but in my opinion the best action he undertook was to exit the Paris Agreement .

Reply to  Graham
June 2, 2023 3:05 pm

While thats true, manufacturing has been shifting/gone to Asia for 50-60 years or so . First it was to Japan, China has just quadrupled that , including moving from Japan ( the clever electronic bits they kept for themselves).
More recently it was to Mexico.
Globalisation was the cause and the cure.

Peta of Newark
Reply to  strativarius
June 2, 2023 4:58 am

From my experience of keeping bovine cows, what’s going on is a classic stampede.

I noticed that any modestly sized herd of cows is a fairly bombproof thing.
i.e. Where the majority can see the horizon and any incoming threats are judged by the majority and thus ignored.
(Large animals = cows, bison, zebra, elephants etc but not so much the likes of sheep/goats)
Unless it is truly massive threat, maybe a wildfire with huge cloud of smoke coming at them.

But as the herd size increases, there comes a point where even just one single individual, dozing and half-asleep, can be startled by a very trivial thing.

The large size of the herd means that the majority cannot see/gauge the threat and because one animal ‘jumped’ – they do too.
The herd simply ‘detonates’

No one individual knows why it’s running or what it’s running from – it just runs because all around it are running.
Once they kick off, there’s no defusing it apart from keep out of the way and letting it run out of steam. If it meets an impenetrable barrier – it just bounces and comes right back to where it came from.

The parallels are incredible.
That One Scared Individual was James Hansen.
i.e. Sleepy and half-awake (as vast numbers are because of their lifestyle/dietary choices) doing junk science even he didn’t understand.
He frightened himself.

The rest of the herd picked up the alarm and because they can’t ‘see the horizon’ and/or assess the threat, they jump/run/stampede also. They do it because everybody else is running – they don’t know why and it’s pointless the ‘fire starter’ saying: “Sorry, I got it wrong – everybody relax
The stampeding herd is deaf and blind.

The ‘horizon‘ is = a genuine understanding of the science, GHGE. and CO2
(The cloud of smoke is a perfect analogy innit)
Instinctively, everyone knows that it’s garbage – weather and climate are imprinted into our genes- they just don’t have the knowledge/words/education to know or explain that.

And that in itself is frightening, esp for those making ‘poor health choices’ and thus are permanently half-asleep.

But nobody dares say that because the sleepy state is endemic.
(Well they did, Donald Trump did, but see what the stampeding herd did there)
It crept up on everyone, everyone now has it and being half-asleep is the norm.
So if somebody says ‘No it’s not‘ – they’re told that they’re crazy and laughed out of court.

Until, until someone calls the name of a sleepy one, or, shouts ‘fire’
The sleepy ones then simply panic and run with no stopping them.

Reply to  Peta of Newark
June 2, 2023 5:23 am

“No one individual knows why it’s running or what it’s running from”
“Once they kick off, there’s no defusing it “

I would argue that over the last few decades [UK] education has morphed from lessons given by knowledgeable teachers to indoctrination with activists; with a firm emphasis on a world hopelessly doomed by a very nasty plague – the human being. This is backed up by the media.  No need to mention Attenburghee and Co. We know what they do.

Animal rights types – it seems to me – gauge their compassion for a species by their estimation of its intelligence/cuddleability, ignoring the bigger picture of course. 

My point is humans do have herd instincts, but I would say how they were educated makes all the difference – especially today.

Reply to  strativarius
June 2, 2023 1:46 pm

A secondary plague is the belief that is being indoctrinated into the children that capitalism is the problem and only socialism/communism can save us.

Reply to  Peta of Newark
June 2, 2023 5:34 am

From my experience of keeping bovine cows

You mean there’s non bovine cows? 🤣

Reply to  HotScot
June 2, 2023 5:38 am

I resisted that….

Feel good Friday.

Reply to  HotScot
June 2, 2023 6:04 am

There are cows which are not bovine like elephant cows.
There are non-cow bovines called bulls.
The reference could be to a herd of cattle with no bulls, only cows.

Right-Handed Shark
Reply to  HotScot
June 2, 2023 6:04 am

One that springs to mind is the stupid cow that put net zero into UK law.

Reply to  Right-Handed Shark
June 2, 2023 9:48 am


Reply to  HotScot
June 2, 2023 3:21 pm


Well, the U.S. CINC has claimed that most of the females working in the administration nwere women! Imagine that. And try to imagine what the other ones are……

So non-bovine cows seems O.K.

Gums sends…

Reply to  Peta of Newark
June 2, 2023 7:06 am

“Men, it will be seen, go mad in crowds, and only come to their senses one by one over time”

  • Charles Mackay 1841
Ben Vorlich
Reply to  Mr.
June 2, 2023 8:15 am

The Great Sheep Panic 1888
Around eight o’clock, tens of thousands of sheep across an area of about 200 square miles, around the town of Reading, impulsively and simultaneously went berserk.
There were similar events in Oxfordshire in the following years including December 4, 1893.
As far as I’m aware no cause has been positively identified

Reply to  Peta of Newark
June 2, 2023 2:06 pm

What you are describing here Peta is magnesium deficiency in cattle .
This was a problem in New Zealand over 60 years ago with cows suddenly stampeding for no reason. .
Supplementing with very small amounts of magnesium oxide is universal practice on New Zealand dairy farms and there has been no problems for the last 55 years.
Maybe these panicking green tards could be deficient in magnesium but they are certainly deficient in reasoning ability .

Coeur de Lion
June 2, 2023 4:43 am

I remember the frightful BBC Shukman raving about how Trump’s wise withdrawal would sink Pacific islands – oh god not again – flooded Miami streets, etc. produced a little Maldivian who wanted money from the US ( to build airports actually). Lying by omission- US only country reducing CO2 at the time. Vomitous

Reply to  Coeur de Lion
June 2, 2023 5:27 am

Just about every BBC journo is frightful – ask Elon Musk!

Reply to  strativarius
June 2, 2023 5:37 am

Having given so much money to the BBC, the corporation is to be renamed GBC, Gates Broadcasting Corporation.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Coeur de Lion
June 2, 2023 7:17 am

There’s the real irony. Biden’s colossally stupid policies being implemented by executive fiat, and as a result of his efforts to strangle oil and gas development, not only do we have horrible inflation but US “emissions” (not that they matter) are going UP.

Gary Pearse
June 2, 2023 5:56 am

Is there not a majority of Americans that
agree what President Trump said here? Do the people not know that the UN and EU are anti-American organizations by design.

The EU was created as a United States of Europe to compete with the US. It was doomed to fail from the outset because they couldn’t let go of the last political idea they ever had, moldy 19th Century Marxism. The fascination with this dystopian nightmare that snuffed out about 100 million people is nothing short of mass neurosis. Marx didn’t visualize the bad stuff happening, of course, but a top down governance of any kind unerringly morphs into tyranny, whether a marxists mode, ‘Third Reich’ type or garden variety despotic set up.

The UN started off as a meeting place to go to as a deterrent to deadly wars.Over time, especially after the collapse of the Soviet Union, ideologues of Marxist bent infiltrated it and redirected it to anti-American activities.

You can’t compete with a free nation economically, scientifically, even environmentally, so the alternative is to bring them down, destroy their system, take away their freedoms. Who would ever have thought this possible to happen to the United States?

I’m not American, but I sure hope America can make a comeback. The rest of us won’t be able to do that.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Gary Pearse
June 2, 2023 6:00 am

I meant do that without the US.

Richard Page
Reply to  Gary Pearse
June 2, 2023 6:51 am

Don’t worry, so did Obama.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Gary Pearse
June 2, 2023 8:57 am

Yes! And that majority voted for him in 2020…


TRUMP 2024!


Gary Pearse
Reply to  Janice Moore
June 2, 2023 12:59 pm

I hope something can be done about the voting chicanery. We have a chicken and egg problem. Somebody honest and caring about the country has to get voted in to change voting practices. Remember Democrats have been all-in with the EU and UN in destroying democracy, freedoms, free enterprise, borders, family, science, agriculture education K-PhD … A thousand executive orders won’t cut it.

June 2, 2023 6:15 am

Biden stumbled on that one too.

Richard Page
June 2, 2023 6:49 am

Why on earth are we still talking about the defunct Paris embarrassment? None of the G20 countries pay it any attention and very few of the other 193 signatories do either. Before the end of 2030 when the climatistas will finally have to admit that their precious agreement has been an utter and complete failure, my bet is that the signatory countries will leave in droves rather than admit they all signed up for unachievable, impossible goals. Either that or there will be complete silence on the subject so they can try to hide their stupidity.

John Hultquist
Reply to  Richard Page
June 2, 2023 7:50 am

 Why on earth are we still talking about the defunct Paris …?

The goal of “net zero” appears to align with the Paris accord. I assume they are not directly connected. So while most countries are not doing “Paris Accord” things, some are committed to Net-zero.
For instance in June 2019, the UK became the first major economy in the world to pass laws to end its contribution to global warming by 2050.
The target will require the UK to bring all greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2050. Ireland, The Netherlands, and others appear to be on-board with this net-zero thing.
The current U. S. administration and many of its largest states appear to be actively, if not required by law, following this path.

Much of Trump’s 2017 words are as applicable now as they were in 2017 – and the 2024 election cycle has started.

Richard Page
Reply to  John Hultquist
June 2, 2023 8:03 am

I agree with you that that appears to be the theory however, in practice, most (if not all) signatories will completely miss the 2030 targets by a wide margin. And when they miss those targets so badly, surely it should become obvious to even the most committed climate enthusiast that Net Zero, also, will never be achieved?

Reply to  John Hultquist
June 2, 2023 8:05 am

Easy to say that one will do a certain thing . . . far harder to actually fulfill what is said. IOW, hypocrisy at its finest!

Net-zero? IMHO, not only highly improbable but impossible in the next 50 years, pending a new breakthrough in physics related to power generation.

June 2, 2023 7:21 am

On this day in 2017, President Trump announced that the U.S. was $20 trillion in debt (see sixth-to-last of the green boxes in the above article).

Today, the US debt is in excess of $31.8 trillion.

I can only shake my head and wonder how much of that 59% increase (additional $11.8 trillion over just six years) is the result of the Biden administration, with Congressional complicity, continuing to follow idiotic climate policy and funding exemplified by the Paris Accord/Green Climate Fund.

Reply to  ToldYouSo
June 2, 2023 7:55 am

When you are borrowing more money just to pay the existing interest, it’s hard to see how it won’t spiral out of control. Interest alone is over

Reply to  Greg61
June 2, 2023 7:56 am

Hit post too soon – Interest alone is over $2B per day

Reply to  Greg61
June 2, 2023 8:27 am

I believe you are a bit too high on that daily figure.

According to https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/02/14/facts-about-the-us-national-debt/ article dated 14 February 2023:
“5. Servicing the debt is one of the federal government’s biggest expenses. Net interest payments on the debt are estimated to total $395.5 billion this fiscal year, or 6.8% of all federal outlays, according to the Office of Management and Budget.”
That would be about $1.1 billion per day for FY2023.

And you may be familiar with this:
“A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you’re talking real money.”
— quote misattributed to former Senator Everett Dirksen

Reply to  ToldYouSo
June 2, 2023 1:51 pm

I believe the quote was a million here, a million there.

Just shows how bad things have gotten that the quote has to be inflated to be meaningfull.

Reply to  MarkW
June 3, 2023 5:07 pm

The Web and a good search engine can be helpful to check one’s beliefs. To wit:

The closest documented statement came at a joint Senate-House Republican leadership press conference on March 8, 1962, when Dirksen said, “The favorite sum of money is $1 billion – a billion a year for a fatter federal payroll, a billion here, a billion there.” . . . But the “and pretty soon you’re talking real money” is missing.

In another close call, the New York Times, January 23, 1961, quoted Dirksen: “Look at education – two-and-one-half billion – a billion for this, a billion for that, a billion for something else. Three to five billion for public works. You haven’t got any budget balance left. You’ll be deeply in the red.”

— source of the above two paragraphs:

June 2, 2023 7:40 am

I am glad he tried to get us out the main problem continued even within his statement. He agrees there is a reason to be in an agreement like the Paris Accord it just needs to be fair to the US.

The better option was a short statement that we are out and there is no reason to have anything like it. CO2 is a blessing.

Genuflecting to imaginary things is a bad idea.

June 2, 2023 2:25 pm

Story Tip


THE THERMOSPHERE IS HEATING UP: If you’re a satellite, this story is important. A series of geomagnetic storms in 2023 has pumped terawatts of energy into Earth’s upper atmosphere, helping to push its temperature and height to a 20-year high. Air surrounding our planet is now touching satellites in Earth orbit and dragging them down.
“Blame the sun,” says Martin Mlynczak of NASA Langley. “Increasing solar activity is heating the top of the atmosphere. The extra heat has no effect on weather or climate at Earth’s surface, but it’s a big deal for satellites in low Earth orbit.”

Mlynczak is an expert on the temperature up there. For 20 years he has been using the SABER instrument on NASA’s TIMED satellite to monitor infrared emissions from “the thermosphere,” the uppermost layer of the atmosphere.”Right now we’re seeing some of the highest readings in the mission’s 21.5 year history,” he says.
The thermosphere is exquisitely sensitive to solar activity, readily absorbing energy from solar flares and geomagnetic storms. These storms have been coming hard and fast with the recent rise of Solar Cycle 25.
“There have been five significant geomagnetic storms in calendar year 2023 that resulted in marked increases in the amount of infrared radiation (heat) in Earth’s thermosphere,” says Mlynczak. “They peaked on Jan. 15th (0.59 TW), Feb. 16th (0.62 TW), Feb. 27th (0.78 TW), Mar. 24th (1.04 TW), and April 24th (1.02 TW).”
The parenthetical values are TeraWatts (1,000,000,000,000 Watts) of infrared power observed by SABER during each storm. The sensor obtains these numbers by measuring infrared radiation emitted from nitric oxide and carbon dioxide molecules in the thermosphere.

“The two storms exceeding 1 TW are the seventh and eighth strongest storms observed by SABER over the past 21.5 years,” he says. “It is interesting to note that each successive storm in 2023 is generally stronger than its predecessors.”Actually, it doesn’t take a strong storm to cause problems. In Feb. 2022, a minor geomagnetic storm dumped enough heat into the thermosphere that 38 newly launched Starlink satellites fell out of the sky. SpaceX has since started launching their Starlinks to higher initial altitudes to avoid the drag.
If current trends continue, the thermosphere will warm even more in 2023 and 2024. This is a matter of concern because Earth’s population of active satellites has tripled since SpaceX started launching Starlinks in 2019. The growing constellation of 4100 Starlinks now provides internet service to more than a million customers. An extreme geomagnetic storm like the Halloween Storms of 2003 could shift the positions of these satellites by many 10s of kilometers, increasing the risk of collisions and causing some of the lowest ones to de-orbit.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights