Donald Trump had an interesting presidential campaign to say the least. He made groundbreaking statements, harsh claims, and some say he made some grasping promises if he ever made it to the Oval Office. Slashing DACA, threatening to kill TPS, building a border wall, exiting out of NAFTA, Trans-Pacific Partnership, and what this editorial is about, the Paris Climate Accord.
It began when 195 world leaders put a pen to their name to be in the agreement. The aim of the agreement is to “Keep a long-term goal of keeping the increase in global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels”. Sure, all of the signatories have different reasons for joining, but their goal is to prevent the global temperature from drastically increasing.
Now, by 2100, the global population is set to reach 11 billion, which means basic needs like food production, housing, and nonrenewable resources such as fossil fuels, will all be a reliance contributing to the rising temperature. The accord suggests that the signatories and their countries will shift from “bad” fossil energy to “good” renewable resources. Realistically, no form of energy is “good” nor “bad”. Sure, fossil fuels discharge carbon dioxide when used for public transportation and power plants, while renewable energy, such as wind and solar, do not. Every form of energy “at scale” have a bad environmental impact. In doing so, a large amount of land and mining would be required to install wind turbines and solar panels to affect the global demand.
The Paris Climate Accord is expensive and ineffective. The energy regulations would: strip away hundreds of thousands of jobs and hurt President Trump’s campaign promise and harm American manufacturing. In addition, it would destroy $2.5T in GDP by the year 2035. If President Trump had not submitted his withdrawal notice, there would’ve been a barrier obstructing the 3% economic growth rates from June-September of 2017.
The agreement would be a taxpayer’s fiscal burden. In negotiations leading up before the Paris Agreement, signatories called for a “Green Climate Fund” that would accumulate $100B by 2020. Furthermore, the Obama Administration ended up shipping over $1B in taxpayer dollars to fund WITHOUT authorization from Congress, adding to the list of the unconstitutional accomplishments he made while in office.
While the majority believe President Trump is wrong about this action, it shows leadership. With China having incredible air quality issues (not from Carbon Dioxide) and China’s third largest city, Bejing, has repeatedly fabricated its air monitoring and coal consumption, EVEN with China participating in the Paris Agreement, yet there is not environmental comparison between the United States and China.
Exiting out of the climate changing committee helps American energy enterprises compete. In June of 2017, the market for energy was a little over $6T. By 2040, it is set to grow by $113T.
The Federal government and international communities should stop abusing taxpayers wallets to subsidize energy technologies while regulating reliable, affordable, and valid energy sources out of its existence. The move by President Trump is a huge market incentive for the private sector to continue researching and developing the next innovative technology without stealing taxpayer money, just as then- President Obama did during his eight years.
Article 28 of the Paris Climate Accord states that, as the agreement entered into force in the United States on 4 November 2016, the earliest possible effective withdrawal date for the United States is 4 November 2020.
If you have any questions or concerns, email me at email@example.com, follow me on Twitter @JorgeVelasco71, and Facebook at Georgie Velasco.
Jorge Velasco is a Political Analyst at Nova News Breaking and theDailyWire.