The climate change debate is too complex, agenda-driven, and politicized to be addressed adequately in these pages. But the hysteria and faux outrage over President Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Paris Climate Accord is enough to incite a bad case of the red-keister. So, if you are in need of ammo to repel those who are experiencing intense displeasure from the decision, here are a few well-considered reasons why the result just might be the correct one. You should read the articles themselves, and you aren’t being asked to agree.
It wasn’t such a big deal to begin with. Foreign Affairs
The US’s pledge is more burdensome relative to baseline projections then the pledges of the other major emitters. Three of the six can increase their emissions. This article is not one-sided, and suggests the best policy would have been to remain in the PCA but revise it so our goals are more consistent with other major emitters. American Action Forum
The agreement would have burdened the US with huge costs and no economic benefits. Americans for Tax Reform
Did I say huge costs? Washington Examiner
Stated another way, revival of America’s struggling economy can’t be done under the PCA because of the tremendous costs. TheHill
This is a twofer: Carbon emissions are best reduced by a private sector free to innovate and respond to market demands instead of central planning. That’s how the United States leads. The PCA was unconstitutional because it was never submitted to the Senate for approval, which never would have happened. National Review.
Another twofer: Climate change, with its big-government and globally-centered politics, is about a lot of talking and not a lot of doing. By pulling out Trump is saving the environmental movement from itself. The absence of enforcement mechanisms would put the U.S., who is more likely to adhere to the rules, at a political and economic disadvantage against those who will bend the rules. CNBC.
The agreement itself is climatically insignificant. It won’t make much difference in global warming, but would cost the US billions. Cato Institute
The entire premise of the PCA should be questioned. NoTrick Zone
By withdrawing we are not ceding “climate leadership” to China. Politico
Pulling out will strengthen our economy, while subsequently making economies of participating countries less effective, as it has in Germany. Power Line
The PCA built in advantages for China. Washington Post
There will be corruption in the billions in climate financing for developing nations. American Spectator
And it challenges the vanities of the “transnational progressives”, who would scratch their utopian itch with your prosperity.
[View source.]
