President Donald Trump withdrew from the Paris Agreement. Cue the leftwing meltdown.
Though everyone knew the withdrawal was coming, the left and the “international community” are still decrying America’s alleged abdication of leadership on climate.
But toothless agreements window dressed with international summits and photo ops are not the same as leadership. The truth is America has led the world in reducing emissions for years not because of the Paris Agreement, but because innovation and the free market facilitate the deployment of cheaper and cleaner energy.
Let’s review the record.
In recent decades, America has achieved unprecedented — and unexpected — energy production thanks to fracking and horizontal drilling. Since the early 2000s when these twin technologies began to be deployed much more expansively, U.S. natural gas production has more than doubled. By 2016, hydraulically fractured gas wells accessed through horizontal drilling accounted for nearly 70% of all oil and natural gas wells.
While the left may clutch its pearls at the increased production of a fossil fuel like natural gas, this clean energy source has been a main driver of U.S. emissions reductions.
Over the past 15 years when America has massively increased natural gas output, the U.S. reduced carbon emissions more than any other country. We can see this year by year.
For example, from 2022 to 2023, America offset dirtier coal energy generation with natural gas. As coal declined by 121.9 terawatt hours of electric generation over that time, natural gas increased by 118.9 terawatt hours. At the same time, U.S. greenhouse gas emissions declined 1.9%. Notably, 80% of the U.S. carbon emissions reductions were driven by the electric power sector — precisely where natural gas has an outsized impact.
Notice what didn’t cause those emissions reductions? The Paris Agreement. The American energy sector — powered by innovation and good-old-fashioned free market economics — has been driving down carbon emissions cheaply and effectively before the Paris Agreement was a twinkle in climate activists’ eyes. And it will continue to reduce carbon emissions long after President Trump’s decision to withdraw.
The Paris Agreement is far from the panacea some activists claim it is. It isn’t even a particularly effective tool to rally nations toward greater climate success. In the middle of the allegedly climate-conscious Biden administration, none of the world’s biggest emitters — America included — had reduced their emissions in accordance with the Paris goals. Apparently, the $1 trillion regulatory and subsidy regime erected by President Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act had little bang for the buck. What Agreement supporters forget is that no number of high-profile international accords can make command-control tactics work — or instill other nations with the ambition to fulfill their empty promises.
The Paris Agreement is the definition of bureaucratic failure, conflating meetings, busyness, and lofty goals as success. Its only achievement is to make climate ideologues and green jetsetters feel good about themselves as they fly to international conferences.
It’s no wonder President Trump withdrew. Talk is cheap. What matters is success. On that metric, the Trump administration is set to actually achieve what Paris Agreement signatories only write on paper.
Trump entered office promising to deregulate the fossil fuel industry, increase permitting for natural gas extraction, approve the construction of energy facilities like natural gas export terminals, and re-establish American energy dominance.
By leaning into America’s carbon advantage and exporting clean American energy abroad, he will boost the U.S. economy, supplant dirty energy from nations like Russia and Venezuela with a clean American alternative, and lower emissions both at home and abroad, all without the jaw-dropping price tag of the failed Biden-era green agenda. We should combine these steps with efforts to actually hold the biggest polluters accountable (which are being discussed by President Trump’s cabinet). This approach would be the antithesis of the Paris Accords’ America-last strategy.
Of course, some are urging President Trump to go further and not just withdraw from the Paris Agreement, but also back out of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). This may seem like an easy choice, seeing as the UNFCCC, like so many UN bodies, acts contrary to American interests. But that’s exactly why America must remain in the UNFCCC.
Climate treaties will be formed whether or not the U.S. is involved, and the UNFCCC will continue to operate as a forum for those negotiations. Staying in the UNFCCC costs America nothing while allowing Trump and his appointees to keep a seat at the table, hold the UN accountable, and counter any deal that would put America at a disadvantage. While the UNFCCC can be harmful, it’s only the Paris Agreement that’s impotent.
The breathless alarm over the withdrawal from the Paris Agreement is overwrought. When President Trump withdrew from the Paris Climate Accord during his first administration, America went on to cut carbon emissions to the lowest level in 25 years. Re-embracing the power of natural gas in his second term, he’ll do it again.
So instead of the UN and international climate activists judging the U.S., we should remind everyone that if you want to put climate first, you should actually put America first.
Chris Johnson is a GOP strategist who organizes the next generation of conservative leaders. He also serves as a senior advisor to the National Federation of College Republicans, focusing on energy issues.
This article was originally published by RealClearEnergy and made available via RealClearWire.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
If the Green Blob really believed their greenhouse gas obsession, they would stop their obstructionism on nuclear power. But they clearly have other motives.
They are misanthropes.
It’s funny you should say that, the BBC is reporting Starmer will make building nuclear easier.
Go nuclear!
Story tip ?
These climate activists who are so keen about emissions reductions won’t stop their whining unless these reductions are a result of the adoption of renewables almost 100%. Except with the current technology this is far into the future or never possible at all. That’s fine with the alarmists because the longer it stays this way the more they can justify their demands for subsidies and funding for climate conferences and treaties. Net Zero could easily mean that such handouts could dry up—God forbid.
Record-breaking snowfall hits Hokkaido as cold front sweeps Japan
A powerful low-pressure system is unleashing record-breaking snowfall along Hokkaido’s Pacific coast, with the city of Obihiro accumulating more than 1 meter of snow in just 12 hours through Tuesday.
Maybe Al Gore is around ? 😀
He’s not just a round, but an oblate spheroid. His reasoning is simply circular.
I mean the so called Gore-effect 😀
One gentle correction to the post. Coal generation these days isn’t “dirtier”. True, CCGT produces about 40% the CO2 of coal generation, for two reasons.
BUT CO2 isn’t “dirtier” except to climate alarmists—whose other big assertions have also all been proven wrong.
Yes Rud, I gave up reading the article when dirtier was mentioned. I suggest the author has little or no technical qualifications and certainly has no engineering experience with fuel (and waste fuel eg wood waste) fired boilers or furnaces. Some here talk about science when they should be talking about engineering technology such as thermodynamics and heat transfer which it appears no scientists understand. I have suggested that everyone should ask AI about the second law of thermodynamics. Two sites I have looked at say that the 2nd law applies spontaneously at every point of heat transfer that rules out back radiation from a colder source to a hotter receiver. CO2 in the atmosphere has zero effect on the Earths surface temperature. Trump and the USA are right to pull out of any climate organisation at the UN or anywhere in the world. It depends on the definition of weather and climate. I suggest there has been no climate change since the end of the last ice age about 16,000 years ago.
There are some wastes produced at coal fired power plants, such as ash, slag and flue gas sludge that many people would consider part of what makes coal dirtier than natural gas.
Some of those wastes may contain valuable minerals. One a related note, the energy content of the trace amounts of uranium in coal is about equal to energy content from burning the coal. TBF, that assumes that the uranium is completely consumed in a breeder reactor fuel cycle.
Just imagine, if all the subsidies ‘spaffed’ on ruinables, instead had been invested in processing those undesirable residues.
You are correct. However, those wastes are often recycled: fly ash in cement, bottom ash and slag in shingles, flue gas sludge in wallboard.
When coal (and wastes such as tyres, sorted garbage etc) is used as fuel in a cement clinker kiln there is no emission of any ash, slag or sludges. The use of natural gas is less efficient than coal due to a) a lower emissivity of the flame b) and greater volume of the exhaust gases. A similar situation applies with a modern fuel fired boiler. Coal (pulverised) is more efficient because the flame has greater emissivity. Modern boiler plants have very efficient dust catching efficiency so that there is no visible emission. Flyash from Australian black coals have an high silica content which it is a useful addition to cement or direct use in concrete for extending or replacing ordinary Portland cement by upto 30%. Ash from Brown coal or lignite has a composition close to that of soil. There have been and are processes to extract Alumina and Aluminium from these ashes which are dry, very fine and easily handled.
“Chris Johnson is a GOP strategist who organizes the next generation of conservative leaders.”
Sorry to have to say this, but it is a terrible strategy to concede that emissions of CO2 matter AT ALL to the climate outcome. Better to accept that the attribution of any of the reported warming, and the expectation of any future warming, related to incremental CO2, have been unsound all along. It may take a few more years for this to become more obvious, but better to get ahead of the game and instead start saying truthfully that “NO ONE KNOWS” that emissions of CO2 have anything to do with any trend of any metric of climate interest.
“Sorry to have to say this, but it is a terrible strategy to concede that emissions of CO2 matter AT ALL to the climate outcome.”
That’s right. I think we have a Luke-warmer in Chris.
And, from listening to his comments yesterday, I think our new Secretary of Energy is also a Luke-warmer, who thinks CO2 has some significance to the climate.
I wonder what Trump thinks about CO2. He has never really said if he thinks it poses any problem or not.
“I wonder what Trump thinks about CO2.”
Me too. But he knows China is building new coal-fired power plants at a rate of about 100 per year. For example, that figure was used by Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent in his recent Senate confirmation testimony.
We also need to divest from the term “fossil fuel.”
Aside from it being incorrect (s/b coal and hydrocarbon fuels), it has a negative emotional connotation for being antiquated/out dated, etc.
The natural processes that form coal and create hydrocarbons are totally different than the processes that fossilize flora and fauna.
I propose “hydrocarbon fuels from natural deposits” or maybe just “natural hydrocarbons.”
The so called biofuel is a synthetic hydrocarbon fuel.
But it is not a “fossil fuel” since it is “renewable.”
Perhaps natural resource fuels? Dunno. Have to mull it over a bit.
While I appreciate the approach, the general public wants things simple.
Coal, just a nit, is not a hydrocarbon fuel. Coal is a carbon fuel.
The point is to not give credibility to the insanity by parroting the idiotic phraseology and vocabulary.
I have some problems with this article. While I (non American) completely support and applaud president Trump’s actions, like exiting the failed and useless Paris Agreement or renewed production of fossil fuels etc, I oppose the manner, in which this article is written. I believe, we can assume, that Mr. Chris Johnson is totally physics illiterate, since he is seemingly unaware that carbon is a solid, hence it can not be emitted, unlike CO2 which is a gas. The terms carbon emission, (some also use carbon pollution) or dirty coal are straight from a vocabulary of warmist wackos, designed to scare populations away from fossil fuels. So why is there a need to pamper the warmist activists by using their silly terminology? Why wouldn’t Chris explain to us, what makes energy produced from coal a dirty energy? The filtration on coal power station has been perfected to the point, that all they emit is water vapor and CO2. (and yes, trace amounts of other gasses) The same applies to Chris’ assertion, that Venezuela’s and Russian energy is dirty, but American energy is clean! I would also ask, why is there any need to discuss emissions at all? It was estimated, that we, the humans, contribute to total CO2 concentration around 4%. Some contribution indeed. Is Chris aware, that not only CO2 is not controlling the Earth’s temperature, as many studies in recent years showed, (many of which were featured in WUWT) but increased concentrations of CO2 are beneficial to life? Does he know about the greening of the planet, thought to be the result of the small increase in CO2, all of which is mostly natural? I think Mr. Chris Johnson needs to do a bit of research on the topic and refrain from parroting what the corrupt Marxist MSM are daily spewing out.
Yeah, it’s dismaying when people say “carbon” emissions, when they really mean “CO2.”
Amen, it’s a particular pet peeve of mine. Climate nuts say “carbon” to psychologically link it to soot, a black solid instead of an invisible gas like CO2. They also are trying to change “natural gas” to “methane,” which sounds like a chemical. It’s all about controlling the narrative through language, the underlying chemistry does not change.
They can’t speak in whole molecules.
The true effect of the US withdrawing is it undermines the legitimacy of the climate crisis/emergency nonsense, and without the USA on board it halts the political momentum leaving only Europe – ruining itself – promoting it, since the rest if the World pays only lip-service in order to get $$$ handouts, but carries on business as usual.
“leaving only Europe – ruining itself – promoting it [Net Zero],”
Yes, European politicians need to wake up and look around. They are the only ones vigorously cutting back on CO2, and they are bankrupting themselves in the process.
And their CO2 reductions will not matter one bit in the greater scheme of things, as other nations’ CO2 output swamps their efforts.
It’s a good thing CO2 is not the control knob of the Earth’s temperatures, otherwise we would be in big trouble because the amount of CO2 is going to increase no matter what Europe does. Get used to it. It will help your mental health to accept the inevitable. And the inevitable is: More CO2 in the air and the weather is nice, and familiar.
Agreed. We pragmatics must achieve to a higher standard.
“For example, from 2022 to 2023, America offset dirtier coal energy generation with natural gas.”
Of course coal energy production doesn’t have to be dirty. A decade or so ago a coal power plant in Northampton, MA spent 50 million dollars to retrofit its exhaust to clean up its emissions. Shortly after that the state forced it to shutdown- then they threw a party to watch the chimney being knocked down.
It’s dead simple: if temperatures don’t fall back, then climate upheaval will continue.
President Musk and puppy Trump can’t make that stop; other than stopping the reporting of it, in the US anyway.
People will still see and feel it with their own senses.
So in due course there will be yet another US re-entry into the Paris Climate Accord.
It’s getting embarrassing.
The El Nino is already subsiding !
Temperature has dropped 0.5ºC in 8 months. !
El Ninos are nothing to do with CO2, human or otherwise.
There is no such thing as “climate upheaval”.. That is a science fiction terminology.
Nobody can sense a change of a fraction of degree in the temperature.
Its all just being pushed by the MSM into gullible minds.
Yes, the Paris Accord is extremely embarrassing for all concerned..
It has no purpose even as a soggy paper bag.
Where on earth do they get this claim from?
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cwyjk92w9k1o
I suppose, if they could detect a global change of this magnitude for just one day, it would become is ‘big’ story.
The BBC is a real joke.
Looks like it comes from Gavin S
chmidt, chief urban surface-data manipulator at GISS.ie.. it is not science.. and is not real.
Put down your crack pipe.
Go wet the bed at The Guardian.
Graeme, can’t you spell laddie?
It’s Grauniad, never Guardian : )
The only embarrassing thing is you still believe there is “climate upheaval”
… in due course? don’t make me laugh, the US has got at least another 8 years of common sense governance before any of those freaks at the DNC get back into power.
This piece of Parisian toilet paper that you hold so dear like a magic spell scroll is batshlt crazy.
“To limit global warming to 1.5°C, greenhouse gas emissions must peak before 2025 at the latest and decline 43% by 2030.”
Really?
The ridiculousness speaks for itself, but to give an idea of what 43% reduction in ghg emissions over 5 years would feel like, look at 2020, the world basically stopped and all that achieved was a 6.4% drop.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00090-3
Meanwhile China and India have, from 2000 to 2023, increased their emissions by 262% and 197% respectively.
A worthless bureaucratic document to make bureaucrats feel better about themselves, shameless.
I think, the US, need 12 years, to make it stick. Looking from across the pond (so I don’t know the true state of other politicians). Vance seems to have a similar approach as Trump (well, he did eviscerate Stewart), therefore I’d hope he’ll run in 28, and go for a second term.
Vice President Vance will be visiting Europe soon, and everyone can get a good look at him. I think he is going to do a good job.
I’m impressed with Marco Rubio, too. He looks like presidential material to me.
One good thing is Republicans have a lot of good talent available in the wings.
Hey…. the Dems have AOC and Hogg and a great assortment of other crazed loonies.!
That is what’s needed. Even as a brit, it gives me hope.
We have some good, solid Republicans available, and they are going to be even smarter and more capable after watching Trump operate for four more years.
First of all, the term “green house gas” like “greenhouse emissions” is bogus.
It is CO2. There is no “greenhouse” effect anywhere in the world except in the environmental control systems called green houses, which do not operate the same way as the atmosphere and ocean energy system.
So strike those terms from the list. Using them only gives credibility to the idiots spouting this nonsense.
Sounds more like wishful thinking that the next president will rejoin the COP scam. We won’t really know until closer to 2028 who is even going to be running. We are 17 days in and the fun and games are just starting on this presidents term..
You know every end of world cult always says you are going to see it … what makes your cult different?
It’s getting embarrassing for you, but not for normal people.
“Climate upheaval”, ha ha ha. Is that worse than “climate crisis” in your sorry world of clapping seal memes?
Oh man, you just aren’t prepared for this are you? What stage of coping are you at?
Mr. Nail: “Dead simple” may work for dead simpletons who talk of “climate upheaval.” Your hero Greta tried the “I can smell CO2” ploy, and all she got was older.
She also claimed she could see CO2.
Idiot.
Reducing carbon emissions had and has nothing to do with the migration of the USA from coal to Natural Gas. Rather the switch is purely driven by economics; natural gas power generation is cheaper. So please, spare us from this “carbon” reduction leadership nonsense.
What purpose is served by staying in the UNFCCC? (UN Framework Convention on Climate Change) Those buggers already have their mind made up, there is a crisis and the west needs to pay for it. Reasoning with them is like talking to a sidewalk. Nope we need out. Our money, time and resources are better spent building safe, affordable and reliable energy sources. CO2 is not dirty, it is a greenhouse gas but not powerful enough to do us harm.
Carbon emissions = soot. Soot is easily removed from coal-fired power stations by filters in the flues.
Carbon ≠ carbon dioxide.
Clean energy ≠ no CO2 – there is nothing dirty about CO2.
Ecce – how deeply rooted is the climate change propaganda and its slogans, distortions and mid-use of terminology.
I think you mean mis-use of terminology.
I call it hijacking, redefining, and repurposing of words. Doing so creates sufficient confusion that a debate is impossible due to not truly grokking what “they” are saying.
America is leading the world in the climate debate. Project fear that man has altered the climate is plain wrong. De-carbonisation achieves nothing but poverty. Carbon dioxide is only a good gas and essential to life. The tiny amount of man made CO2 is insignificant compared with by far the most prolific green house gas- Water vapour and clouds.
I still do not comprehend how they think the “greenhouse effect” works beyond a tonnage of word salads and non-scientific techno-babble.
I am clear on how a greenhouse works. It is an environmental control system that is totally different that the chaotic, non-linear, coupled ocean/atmosphere/land energy system the envelops the planet.
When do we get our reparations payments from the Paris Climate Agreement for the damage done to science, energy policy, and over the top media bias down to the small-town newspaper level (political advertising as news)?