3 Things You Need To Know About The Paris Climate Agreement

The Paris Agreement on climate change has been unjustifiably heralded by leftists and environmentalists alike for quite some time now. In October of 2016, President Obama delivered a self-aggrandizing speech in which he congratulated himself for the advocation of the Paris Agreement on climate change, in his typical egotistical way. “History may judge today as the turning point for the planet,” the former president said regarding the agreement’s goal of dealing with the effects of climate change.

President Trump is now considering tearing up and retreating from the Paris Agreement after campaigning on it for over a year; an undoubtedly good decision. He fired off a silly tweet on Saturday:

President Trump needs to recognize the utter disgrace the Paris Agreement embodies and subsequently withdraw from it.

Let’s break it down.

1. Restrictions, Restrictions, Restrictions. The proposed restrictions on things like carbon dioxide emissions are a foolish way of combatting the so-called effects of climate change. It only takes one to think about it for a second to realize that putting arbitrary limits on carbon dioxide emissions only hinders the economic development of a country as well as kills jobs. Of course, if we were on the brink of an immediate total disaster due to the effects of climate change, suppressing economic growth and killing off jobs is a small price to pay for our lives. However, the fact is that the immediacy of climate change simply is not there. If Trump is genuinely in favor of the advancement of America’s economy, then he’d realize the cost factor that restrictions like the ones proposed in the Paris Agreement mean for us economically. The Heritage Foundation predicts a total income loss of more than $20,000 for a family of four, an overall average shortfall of nearly 400,000 jobs, and an aggregate GDP loss of over $2.5 trillion. Increased electricity prices are also predicted.

2. It’s Estimated To Be Ineffective. As mentioned previously, there is an argument to be made for this agreement if two factors are met: there is an immediate problem, and these proposed actions are guaranteed to serve as immediate solutions. In today’s current world, both requirements have not been met.

According to the president of the Copenhagen Consensus Centre Bjorn Lomborg, the world would see a minuscule decline of 0.3 degrees Fahrenheit. This prediction assumes an unlikely continuity: that the world would adhere to and sustain the proposed carbon cuts. I say the 0.3 degree number is minuscule because it is. If countries observed and maintained the cuts from 2030 to 2100 and the combined temperature went down by 0.3 degrees, global warming would be postponed for “less than four years.”

It is likely that at least one hundred trillion dollars will be spent in order to lessen the effects of global warming by an irrelevant amount; a high price to pay for a substandard outcome.

3. We Joined Because Of Obama Overreach. The Paris Climate Accord has 175 signees on it; highly developed like Sweden, Norway, and the United Kingdom. The only reason that the United States of America joined the Paris Climate Agreement is because of Obama administration overreach. White House press secretary Josh Earnest made a remark about wanting to sign onto the agreement by disearnestly bypassing Congress when he said that individual Members of Congress “deny the fact that climate change exists.”

The accord is distinctly a treaty. As such, according to Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution, “two-thirds of the Senators present [must] concur,” in order for the ratification of a treaty to be approved. Obama instead evaded the Senate because he simply disagreed with their viewpoints. You don’t get to do that. However, executive overreach and the evasion of Congress is something that we’ve become accustomed to after living under eight years of the Obama administration, so it was an unsurprising decision.

The solution to our climate change woes can be found in the free market. The solution to climate change hysterics can be found in the brains of rational thinkers. Unfortunately, we are dealing with some of the most irrational people who claim membership to the Democratic party who only recognize overbearing big government actions that kill jobs and stifle economic growth for all as viable solutions. Even when they’re not solutions.

Greg Matusow

Author: Greg Matusow

Greg Matusow is a conservative writer and founder of Matusow.net