bodyType

customContents

entityId

entityUuid

articlePageQuery

filter

article

articleBaseAdvertisingInfoArticle

articleListArticle

articleSeoArticle

hooksArticleAcknowledgementGateOverlayArticle

hooksTrackPageViewArticle

hooksContentInterestArticle

articleLinkingDataContent

hooksAmpRedirectArticle

articleSchemaContent

liveArticle

advertZone

sentiment

contentLock

topics

types

sections

paywallTypes

createdDate

publishedDate

urlAlias

moreOnThisArticles

sponsorType

commentCount

authorLocations

authors

corrections

displaySlideShow

multimediaEmbed

printHeadline

seriesContainer

articleSpeeches

socialHeadline

headline

images

flag

firstTopic

glossary

flattenTypeIds

image

relatedLinks

relatedNewsletters

__typename

sponsor

pdfFiles

seriesReverseOrder

series

disableOffPlatformContent

published

updatedDate

summary

subHeadline

body

keywords

readingTime

customTimezone

liveContents

Tribune News Service

US President Donald Trump’s decision to withdraw the US from the Paris climate agreement has unleashed a predictable firestorm of criticism. But it was the right move.
The Paris agreement, which committed the US to drastically reducing greenhouse gas emissions, was a truly bad deal – bad for American taxpayers, American energy companies, and every American who depends on affordable, reliable energy.
Here are four reasons Trump was right to withdraw:

Paris is costly and ineffective
The Paris Agreement is highly costly and would do close to nothing to address climate change. If carried out, the energy regulations agreed to in Paris by the Obama administration would destroy hundreds of thousands of jobs, harm American manufacturing, and destroy US$2.5 trillion in gross domestic product by the year 2035.
Even if every country met its commitments – a big if, considering China has already underreported its carbon dioxide emissions and there are no repercussions for failing to meet the pledges – the changes in Earth’s temperature would be almost undetectable.

Paris wasted taxpayer money
In negotiations leading up to the Paris conference, participants created the Green Climate Fund, designed to collect US$100 billion per year by 2020. The goal of this fund is to subsidise green energy and pay for other climate adaptation and mitigation programmes in poorer nations. It was also created to get buy-in (literally) from poorer nations for the final Paris Agreement.
The Obama administration ended up shipping US$1 billion in taxpayer dollars to this fund without authorisation from Congress.
Some of the nations that will receive these government-funded climate programmes have in the past been among the most corrupt, meaning corrupt governments will collect the funds, not those who actually need it. No amount of transparency negotiated in the Paris Agreement is going to change this.

Withdrawal is a demonstration of leadership
The media is making a big to-do about the fact that the only countries not participating in Paris besides the US are Syria and Nicaragua. That doesn’t change the fact that it’s still a bad deal. Misery loves company, including North Korea and Iran, who are signatories of the deal.
Some have argued that it is an embarrassment for the US to cede leadership on global warming to countries like China. But to draw a moral equivalency between the US and China on this issue is absurd.
China has serious air quality issues but they are not caused by carbon dioxide. Beijing has repeatedly falsified its coal consumption and air monitoring data, even as it participated in the Paris Agreement.

There is no environmental comparison between the US and China.
Other countries have a multitude of security, economic and diplomatic reasons to work with America to address issues of mutual concern. Withdrawal from Paris will not change that.
Certainly, withdrawing from the Paris Agreement will be met with consternation from foreign leaders, as was the case when the US withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol. However, it could very well help future negotiations if other governments know that the US is willing and able to resist diplomatic pressure in order to protect American interests.

Withdrawal is good for American energy competitiveness
Some proponents of Paris are saying that withdrawing presents a missed opportunity for energy companies. Others are saying that it doesn’t matter what Trump does because the momentum of green energy is too strong. Neither argument is a compelling case for remaining in Paris.
Whether conventional or focused on renewables, the best way for American energy companies to be competitive is to be innovative in the marketplace, not build their business model around international agreements.

There is nothing about leaving Paris that prevents Americans from continuing to invest in new energy technologies. The market for energy is US$6 trillion and projected to grow by a third by 2040.
Roughly 1.3 billion people do not yet have access to electricity, let alone reliable, affordable energy. That’s a big market incentive for the private sector to pursue the next energy technology without the aid of taxpayer money.
Paris was the open door for future US administrations to regulate and spend hundreds of millions of dollars on international climate programmes, just as the Obama administration did without any input from Congress.
Now, fortunately, that door has been shut.
Watch: Anger as Trump announces US withdrawal from global climate deal 

About the writers: Nicolas Loris is the Morgan Research Fellow in Energy and Environmental Policy at The Heritage Foundation, where Katie Tubb is a policy analyst for the Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies.


Opinion: Why Trump was smart to dump Paris climate pact

The Eiffel tower is illuminated in green with the words ‘Paris agreement is done’. Photo: Reuters

Passengers wearing face masks walk through a subway station in Beijing, China, on Friday, Jan. 6, 2017. Toxic haze that settled over much of China during the last three weeks has triggered a flight reflex among residents, leading to the rising popularity of smog avoidance travel packages to far-flung locations such as Iceland and Antarctica. Photographer: Qilai Shen/Bloomberg

A woman carries tapioca seeds next to a gas flare fire, 20 April 2007, near Warri. Nigeria's opposition parties said 19 April 2007 they will participate in Saturday's presidential election despite a boycott threat, but the spectre of political violence still hangs over the ballot. AFP PHOTO / LIONEL HEALING

US President Donald Trump announces his decision to withdraw the US from the Paris Climate Accords in the Rose Garden of the White House in Washington, DC, on June 1, 2017. Trump complained that the deal, which was signed under his predecessor President Barack Obama, gives other countries an unfair advantage over US industry and destroys American jobs. / AFP PHOTO / Brendan Smialowski

Buildings are seen in smog during a polluted day in Beijing, China, January 26, 2017. Picture taken January 26, 2017. REUTERS/Stringer ATTENTION EDITORS - THIS PICTURE WAS PROVIDED BY A THIRD PARTY. EDITORIAL USE ONLY. CHINA OUT. NO COMMERCIAL OR EDITORIAL SALES IN CHINA. TPX IMAGES OF THE DAY

Former President Barack Obama speaks about civic engagement on Monday, April 24, 2017 at the Logan Center for the Arts on the University of Chicago campus. (Zbigniew Bzdak/Chicago Tribune/TNS)

TO GO WITH AFP STORY BY Romaric Ollo Hien A solar panel lies on the roof of Pierre Guissou's home on September 6, 2008 in Ouagadougou, feeding power to his water heater and allowing his family to take precious hot showers in a country where most homes lack electricity. The 42-year-old electrician is among a growing number of residents in this west African country turning to the sun to heat their water, helping them save money on utility bills and the environment along the way. AFP PHOTO / AHMED OUOBA

epa05272810 United Nations diplomats plant a Dogwood tree at Tree Planting Ceremony in the UN Food Garden on the occasion of Earth Day and the signing of the Paris agreement on climate change the Paris Agreement on climate change at the United Nations Headquarters in New York, New York USA, 22 April 2016. The Paris Agreement was adopted in Paris, France, on 12 December 2015 to limit global temperature rise to well below 2 degrees Celsius. EPA/PETER FOLEY

News

World

United States & Canada

Expresses the views, ideas and conclusions of the author. (Eg. Enough of Crazy Rich Asians, think of crazy poor Hongkongers.)


Column

Opinion | Opinion: Why Trump was smart to dump Paris climate pact