President Trump Announces US Withdrawal From The Paris Climate Accord

Tyler Durden's picture

It's done. Bannon 1 - 0 Kushner.

President Donald Trump announced the U.S. would withdraw from the Paris climate pact and that he will seek to renegotiate the international agreement in a way that treats American workers better.

"So we are getting out, but we will start to negotiate and we will see if we can make a deal, and if we can, that’s great. And if we can’t, that’s fine," Trump said Thursday, citing terms that he says benefit China’s economy at the expense of the U.S.

 

"In order to fulfill my solemn duty to protect America and its citizens, the United States will withdraw from the Paris climate accord, but begin negotiations to re-enter either the Paris accord or really an entirely new transaction on terms that are fair to the United States, its businesses" and its taxpayers, Trump said.

As Bloomberg reports, Trump’s announcement, delivered to cabinet members, supporters and conservative activists in the White House Rose Garden, spurns pleas from corporate executives, world leaders and even Pope Francis who warned the move imperils a global fight against climate change.

As we noted earlier, we should prepare for the establishment to begin its mourning and fearmongering of the disaster about to befall the world.

 

Pulling out means the U.S. joins Russia, Iran, North Korea and a string of Third World countries in not putting the agreement into action. Just two countries are not in the deal at all - one of them war-torn Syria, the other Nicaragua.

The Hill notes that many Republicans on Capitol Hill are likely to support pulling out of the Paris deal - 20 leading Senate Republicans, including Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) asked Trump to do just that last week. Withdrawing from Paris would greatly please conservative groups, which have orchestrated an all-out push in opposition to the pact.

“Without any impact on global temperatures, Paris is the open door for egregious regulation, cronyism, and government spending that would be disastrous for the American economy as it is proving to be for those in Europe,” said Nick Loris, a fellow at the Heritage Foundation.

 

"It is time for the U.S. to say ‘au revoir’ to the Paris agreement,” he said.

Trump wants his presidency to be about jobs and his decision to be viewed as an economic win for the United States.

A recent report commissioned by the oil industry-backed American Council for Capital Formation found that the deal would eliminate $3 trillion in GDP and 6.5 million jobs by 2040.

 

A Heritage Foundation paper last year didn’t go quite as far. It predicted that the agreement would prevent 400,000 jobs and cause a GDP loss of $2.5 trillion.

As Bloomberg notes, although cast as a final decision, the announcement only prolongs uncertainty over the U.S. role in an agreement among almost 200 nations to address global warming. Trump is kicking off a withdrawal process that will take until November 2020 to unfold -- creating an opening for him to reverse course and injecting it as an issue in the next presidential election.

Under the terms of the deal, the earliest the U.S. can formally extricate itself from the accord is Nov. 4, 2020 -- the day after the next presidential election. And Trump would have wide latitude to change his mind up until that point.

Conservative groups quickly applauded Trump’s decision.

“By not succumbing to pressure from special interests and cosmopolitan elites, the president demonstrated he is truly committed to putting America’s economy first,” Michael Needham, the chief executive officer of Heritage Action, said in a statement.

Environmentalists blasted the decision, saying it would turn the U.S. into an international pariah on climate change, even though it would not halt a global clean-energy revolution.

"The world has already resolved to act on climate, the renewable-energy industry is growing exponentially, and people all over the globe are becoming part of the clean energy future," said Greenpeace USA Executive Director Annie Leonard. "Progress will continue with or without Donald Trump, but he is making it as painful as possible for people around the world."

Finally, we notes that U.S. climate efforts won’t completely cease just because Trump is walking away from Paris. States including California, New York and Massachusetts continue to move forward with aggressive policies to cut carbon emissions.

Al Gore has spoken up...

And Bernie...

And so has President Obama...

And most of Europe...

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
BabaLooey's picture

FUCK THIS PARIS SHIT.

TELL US - HOLLYWHACK AND THE COVEN OF DOUCHEBAGS THAT WANT THIS SMOKING TURD....

ARE CHINA AND INDIA ONBOARD?

NO?

...THEN I SAY AGAIN..........FUCK THIS SHIT.

economicmorphine's picture

China and India are actually on board, Einstein. That said, I would never suggest doing something just because China and India have done it.

Mercury's picture

The withdrawal will take three years

 

Why?

baldknobber's picture

Because we have one giant dick

Creepy_Azz_Crackaah's picture

It's FREE $HIT FOR EVERYBODY(!!!), wealth transfers from the U.S. to fucked up, tin hat dictator, Obama origin-like, countries.

GET OUT!

Handful of Dust's picture

Pulling out of the Paris thingy is so.................raycist, microaggressive, islamophic, homophobic, hateful, and with hints of right wing neo-nazism!

Where's my Safe Space!


BaBaBouy's picture

Building HighRises & Bombs AND Environmentalism Don't Mix ...

The_Juggernaut's picture

The pope is sad that the US won't be footing the bill.  As an alternative, maybe the Vatican can pay our "share" with all the gold they looted from the world for hundreds of years.  It's all stolen anyway, what better way to atone?

TahoeBilly2012's picture

Liberals and their Elite leaders know what's good for your grand children, lotsa unpayable debt!

FrozenGoodz's picture

Please don't talk about crowd-size

 

Please don't talk about crowd-size

 

Please don't talk about crowd-size

 

Please don't talk about crowd-size

 

Please don't talk about crowd-size

 

Please don't talk about crowd-size

Shocker's picture

Time to start winning again, Great Great

Companies bring back Jobs - http://www.dailyjobfix.com

-

The_Juggernaut's picture

Nice.  He's kicking them right in the nuts.

mdr attitude's picture

Trump, please also mention a special prosecutor.

We need so many of them..most of them for inestigating the DC scum.

Hours Before Seth Rich Murder FBI Guns Were Stolen from a Nearby Vehicle


Chuck-Norris's picture

Trump is our man.

Lets hope he'll make it 8 years.

 

Slack Jack's picture

So, why exactly is the rise in temperatures so worrisome?

For one thing, as temperatures rise good farmland will become desert (e.g., dust-bowl conditions will probably return to the American Midwest).

Another major problem is sea-level rise.

Have a look at http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs2-00/

The U.S. Geological Survey people claim that;

The Greenland ice sheet melting will raise sea-level 6.55 meters (21.5 feet),
the West Antarctica ice sheet melting will raise sea-level 8.06 meters (26.4 feet),
the East Antarctica ice sheet melting will raise sea-level 64.8 meters (212.6 feet),
and all other ice melting will raise sea-level 0.91 meters (3 feet).

For a grand total of 80.32 meters (263.5 feet).

So, what does an 80 meter (263 feet) rise in sea-level mean. Have a look at the following map of the world after an 80 meter rise. It means that over one billion people will have to be resettled to higher ground and that much of the most productive agricultural land will be under water. Fortunately, at current rates, the Greenland ice sheet will take over a thousand years to melt and the Antarctica ice sheet, much longer. However, the greater the temperature rise the faster the ice sheets will melt, bringing the problem much closer. Remember, the huge ice sheet that recently covered much of North America, almost completely melted in only 15,000 years (today, only the Greenland ice sheet, and some other small patches of it, remain). Since then (15,000 years ago), sea-levels have risen about 125 meters (410 feet), only 80 meters to go.

For HUGE detailed maps of the "World after the Melt" go to:

http://www.preearth.net/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=23

Lurk Skywatcher's picture

Yeah, because periods of high temperatures in EVERY SINGLE GEOLOGICAL RECORD show a complete breakdown of life and massive extiction events... wait, no they don't, they all show exactly the opposite - massive increases in the number and type of lifeforms, including plant life.

Take your "dust bowl desert farmland apocalyse" and shove it up your ass.

The AGW scare is like every globalist scam - it is all about control.

 

 

 

Schlump's picture

Can't talk now, my mouth is full of Koch.

I'm a Kochsucker.

luky luke's picture

"President Trump Announces US Withdrawal From The HoloHoax Code Of Silence"

http://biblicisminstitute.wordpress.com/2016/01/05/jews-and-history-lies...

Schlump's picture

kihnlkhn mmnhnnhn hnhnmdmg!

Gotta get this Koch outta my mouth to say: I have just made the biggest strategic blunder any American preznit has ever made. Bad! Sad! And all the single-digit IQ drones at ZH are glad!

SICK!

nightshiftsucks's picture

I told you not to eat Hitlery's pussy,look what happened to Bill.Now you've become a psychotic moron and the only cure is to kill yourself.

Dormouse's picture

Sea level has been rising at an extraordinary rate since November 9, 2016 due to an excess of lunatic liberal tears. Please, if you care about coastal communities around the world put a sock in it.

JRobby's picture

What time is your electro scock treatment? 

Midas's picture

5 weeks 6 days.  I hope they are paying you well.  Next time at least make it appear non-automated by typing something related to the article.

youarelost's picture

You do know they believe in AGW

 

Or do you just read left wing crap..

Chris88's picture

I hate leftist Donny, but anyone who makes their name based on a politician is a faggot - meaning you.  BTW, plenty to imsult the clown on, can you at least come up with something you didn't take from CNN?  Loser.

new game's picture

if somehow the money incentive could be removed then we can have a discussion. and at that tyme, plez bring records detailing the last 200 million years and then i'll lend ya an ear...

greenskeeper carl's picture

Don't forget politics. That has to be be removed as well. But I suppose they are the same.

Disprove whatever imminent climate catastrophe du jeur they are peddling will just be replaced by another. The end goal is some kind of supra-national taxing authority that stifles all economic activity. No matter what they call it, that's the goal.

GoingBig's picture

 you people are the same people that disagreed with having air polution controls put on your cars. 30 years later you can actually see the mountains in LA. Its a success. Pollution does us all harm. Go to China and see why they are so eager the sign on. Its an environmental disaster and they all know it. What I don't get is why all you can't see that reduction of pollution is a good thing. The right is so mired in their BS "it will cost jobs". No it won't, it hasn't in the past. Get with it.

ThuleNord's picture

If you want to worry about a real environmental disaster start talking about Fukushima. You want to cry about baseless theories on "climate change" but not one word when an actual life changing disaster occurs.

You're what we call a useful idiot.

GoingBig's picture

you don't believe in science do you?

ThuleNord's picture

And still, not one word about Fukushima.

I love when people say "you don't believe science", do you even comprehend the definition of the term and the endless amount of hard-data and hypotheses scientific study undergoes?

You take your "scientific facts" from Al Gore. FYI, he's not a scientist and the propaganda piece on the BBC wasn't "science" either.

HardAssets's picture

They're the same ones who said 'the science is settled' and 'deniers' should be locked up.

Brainwashed useful idiots who were never taught any critical thinking skills, watermelons (green on the outside, red on the inside) and con men (billion dollar scammer Al Gore).

The carbon credit scam was gonna be the basis for a new global financial system & the foundation of world government. Too bad for them, the fraud is exposed.

MEFOBILLS's picture

The carbon credit scam reminds me of David Ricardo.  He was a Jew Banker agent.  He was both good and bad.  But, he always shilled for the takings that finance gets on international trade deals.  In other words, something like the carbon credit scheming, where the manipulators in finance get a take of every deal.  They always push for supranational merchant organs.

Schachts trading banks in Nazi Gemany were simple, and they worked.  Each country just posted money in trading bank denominated in their national unit. For example when raw materials passed to Germany, the local economy was paid in its money.  When the finished goods passed from Germany to the raw material country, German's were paid in their reichsmark money.  

It was a matter of simply posting money, which is ledger mechanics.  This money was a form of credit, and then the ledger erased after the goods passed.  Simple and it worked.

Ricardo was one of these people that wanted bankers instead to make deals and be the beneficiaries of transactions.  In the Nazi scheme, the beneficiaries of transactions were laboring people within respective economies.

And of course, we look closer and Ricardo is  a Jew.  Always it seems - the tribe is maneuvering.   Todays Chicago school monetarists are also Jew infested (see below).  

I would imagine this carbon credit scam is also infested.  I haven't looked, but it has their fingerprints.

Excerpt from Hudson.

Ricardo, David (1772-1823): A bond broker, Member of Parliament and political lobby for Britain’s financial sector, his Principles of Political Economy and taxation (1817) defined economic rent as rising as crop prices rose as a result of diminishing returns, providing a windfall to farmers on existing lands with higher fertility. This rent was expected to rise as population grew, raising subsistence wage costs and hence channeling revenue from industrialists to landlords. The way to make Britain the workshop of the world, Ricardo explained, was to repeal its Corn Laws (agricultural tariffs) and adopt free trade so as to buy its food and raw materials in the cheapest markets, in exchange for other countries removing their own tariffs against Britain’s industrial exports.

As a Bullionist (an early equivalent of today’s Chicago School monetarists), Ricardo claimed that a balance-of-payments deficit would set in motion self-stabilizing reciprocal flows that would prevent any financial crisis from resulting from a general inability to pay. Hence, neither money nor the balance of payments could cause a serious debt problem, as economies would settle at a new equilibrium permitting domestic and international debts to be paid.

Yukon Cornholius's picture

Hjalmar Schacht's best friend was Montagu Norman, head of the (((BOE))). Neither were friends of the common German.

Hitler was also a Jew. Look at his beak.

All were selected by Red Shield Inc.

Cruel Joke's picture

If somebody should slide in this in a conversation: "climate change is real" (which is true, the climate has always changed) and then accuse you with their classic "are you a climate (or science) denier?" (which is a pretty moronic question) - Fire right back with "Fukushima is real" and "Are you a Fukushima Denier?" ... fill in with how bad the situation is regarding radioactive leakage around Fukushima. Winning.

JRobby's picture

But his film won an Oscar!

petar's picture

The dumpest mofo in the history of the world. 195 countries signed this agreement.. NY, WA and CA not gonna follow him. Pittsburgh mayor said he is not going to let Trump's shit in his town. No other country supports him! 

nightshiftsucks's picture

Yeah lets get rid of all of the jobs,the skys will be clear but by then everyone will have starved to death.

I went to Disneyland when I was 5 which was 1968,going into LA I had a hard time breathing.But due to the smog control on cars and with even more cars I have no problem breathing there.

Glassport's picture

Well, I didn't complain.  That being said, the big thing was the catalytic converter which took the emissions and catalyzed them into....wait for it....Carbon fucking Dioxide and Water.  So, if indeed it is true that CO2 is a prime driver of global warming, I hope all of the politicians who pushed for it are exposed for their shallow thinking and decide to do their part by just shutting up.  Hell, each politician probably produces as much CO2 as 1 or 2 thousand automobiles when they start bloviating.  Especially tools like that dumbass Mayor of Pittsburgh.  If they were that stupid then, they're probably just as stupid now.  

HardAssets's picture

Strawman argument.

There are real environmental issues. 'Man made global warming' isn't one of them. It is a scam.

Korogaro's picture

If China is so eager to clean up their act, then they should do so. Whether the US is in this deal should have no bearing on their actions.

OverTheHedge's picture

There are two distinct things here, and they are not connected. Firstly, there is "global warming / climate change /buzzword-du-jour", and secondly, there is the Paris Climate Agreement, which doesn't actually seem to be related to anything climate oriented. There are some vague ideas about how it would be nice to reduce carbon emissions, but each country would proceed on its own, at its own pace, with the target set by that individual country. WTF? It's not an agreement, it's a pile of bureaucratic jargon to pretend to do something, at some point, in the future, if it turns out to be necessary, and doesn't interfere with the economy, or puppies, or kittens on the internet.

Nothing will change with the US in, or out, of this agreement. It's a pile of nonsense.

Now, seeing the mountains from downtown LA is nice, but not relevant to carbon emissions in the future, as per Paris agreement. Pollution and carbon emissions are not the same. In fact CO2 is pretty irrelevant when it comes to global warming, but for some reason that is the metric that everyone works to. God knows why they don't look at methane, which is 10x more greenhouse gassy than CO2 (because it would be a nightmare to reduce methane emissions, and would cause beef producers much problems).

There are other things we need to look at more urgently than this, but no-one has a good answer for those, so we are left with this nonsense. Hey ho.

Here is a list of less than accurate climate predictions (there are HUNDREDS of them!) https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/02/the-big-list-of-failed-climate-pr...

 

Vendetta's picture

yes.. the 57,000 homeless in LA can see the mountains around LA while the jobs are IN China... yay!  Why does China have to 'sign up' for this, why don't they just do it like the US did 30 years ago?

Bring the jobs back here then we won't have

"Shipping is by far the biggest transport polluter in the world. There are 760 million cars in the world today emitting approx 78,599 tons of Sulphur Oxides (SOx) annually. The world's 90,000 vessels burn approx 370 million tons of fuel per year emitting 20 million tons of Sulphur Oxides. That equates to 260 times more Sulphur Oxides being emitted by ships than the worlds entire car fleet. One large ship alone can generate approx 5,200 tonnes of sulphur oxide pollution in a year, meaning that 15 of the largest ships now emit as much SOx as the worlds 760 million cars."

http://newatlas.com/shipping-pollution/11526/

Don't let science or logic hit you in the head, I'm sure you'll be trying to dodge it

Amicus Curiae's picture

and youre aware that the catalytic converters on cars take so long to heat to working temp that most short trip theyre more toxic than without

or that they need replacing?

and no garage or person ive ever met has had that done to their car.

its not  hard to retrofit scrubbers to old coal plants

or to mandate fitting to new ones

no prob with that

but stopping power supplies for crappy  birdshredders n burners that do NOT produce enough to do the expensively paid for job?

nope!

youre also aware thet the rare earths are  some of  the most polluting n toxic crap on the planet?

and ALL the  wind turbines and electric cars use  huge volumes?

 

Rusty Shorts's picture

@Slack Jack

 

by- Tallest Skil   _RRR_ May 5, 2017 12:20 PM

You're retarded. You have no argument. Genetic fallacies and appeals to authority are literally the only way that liberalism exists. Go fuck yourself, you stupid motherfucking piece of shit. I'm sick and fucking tired of dealing with you mental defectives. You get no kindness anymore. FUCK THE HELL OFF and hopefully just kill yourself, because you're going to be executed for complicity in crimes agianst humanity anyway. Get fucking bent.

Yes, climate changes. But there is absolutely no evidence that humans are having any impact on the climate whatsoever. In order to establish an actual human impact in a statistically significant way, you must show a modern trend that deviates from a baseline of appropriate duration. Because geologic processes spanning millions of years are responsible for tremendous amounts of variation in global temperatures, an appropriate baseline must necessarily include millions of years of data to account for this variation. Not only are we not in a period of “record high temperatures,” we are in one of the coldest periods in the past 65 million years.

 

http://i.imgur.com/kcQnmYF.png

 

There is absolutely no evidence that current temperatures are outside the trend of totally natural variation, and all attempts to make it appear that way are misleading you by truncating the data to a sample of statistically insignificant size. And then they apply their misleading, exponential curve-fits and smoothing effects for dramatic purposes. The earth had had ice caps for maybe about half of the time over the past 500 million years. The picture shows rapid periods of melting and re-glaciation over periods of a few thousand years. There is nothing abnormal about current melting rates.

 

http://i.imgur.com/NfSDp1Y.png

 

The sea level has been rising at a very steady and predictable rate over the past 8-10,000 years since the emergence from the last major glacial period with no deviation at all from this trend even as humans began industrializing. When environmentalists show you graphs going back 50-100 years of rising sea level data, they omit the fact that this is both on-trend and completely expected.

 

http://i.imgur.com/JzjDP5v.png

 

We have no actual data that indicates that climate is in any way behaving abnormally, much less due to human impact. The only thing we have is a hypothesis that CO2 affects climate in a meaningful way, which is what climatologists attempt to model. But those models make terrible predictions.

 

http://i.imgur.com/uVtD4Ch.png

 

If your hypothesis consistently churns out inaccurate predictions–no matter how many times you tweak the knobs and change little fudge-factors here and there–then your hypothesis isshit and must be discarded. Morons who believe in this garbage have no understanding of basic epistemology, let alone science–and that goes for the so-called “scientists” peddling this mystical bullshit. 

CO2 is only hypothesized to have the impact on global climate that the alarmists claim. But this has failed to be demonstrated in two major (but related) ways. First, carbon dioxide levels are currently being measured at several hundred ppm higher than measured from ice core samples. Now, it must also be cautioned that you can’t necessarily compare these two sets of data because they represent two different methods of measurement, and have other potential biases. However, even assuming that its true that CO2 levels are much higher–and that they’re caused by human activity–current temperatures are not deviating from the normal historical trends in line with CO2.

A doubling of preindustrial CO2, absent any feedbacks, would result in a maximum forcing of +1.2 ºC. Everyone agrees on this point because it’s a simple computation given the physical characteristics of CO2 which is well mixed in the atmosphere. Actual warming, again absent feedbacks, would likely be much less due to bandwidth overlap between CO2 and H2O, something that we understand but find difficult to model (H2O levels vary dramatically day to day and even hour to hour with regional weather).

 

http://i.imgur.com/3JzLrS4.jpg

 

The General Circulation Models, and the IPCC, predict 2-8 ºC of warming because AGW theory assumes a positive H2O feedback. They assume that if CO2 causes a little warming, the atmosphere will hold more water vapor which will lead to a lot of warming until a new equilibrium point is reached. The warming predictions cover such a large range because everyone assumes a different average feedback rate. Again, modeling H2O in the atmosphere is extremely difficult because it varies so much with weather. Every GCM based on this assumption has failed to model temperatures for the past 15 years. They are all trending too high. In the late 1990s, the modelers themselves stated that if they missed their predictions for more then a decade that would falsify AGW theory.

There is no data to suggest a positive H2O feedback either now or in Earth’s past. Indeed, we cannot model some periods in Earth’s history with an assumed positive H2O feedback. It would appear that Earth’s atmosphere is remarkably adept at dampening forcings from either direction and does not amplify them. If there is no positive H2O feedback, we literally have nothing to worry about. The average climate change believer knows none of this. Politicians, citizens, activists, and surprisingly even a lot of scientists are literally ignorant of the theory and the math. In their mind, it’s simply “CO2 = bad” and “experts say we’re warming faster then ever.” The more you know.

 

http://i.imgur.com/AJXwGoj.png

 

Not only are current temperatures not outside the normal trend, we are in one of the coldest periods in the past 65 million years. Also, current temperatures (at the peak of the current 100ky cycle) are actually lower than past 100ky cycles, meaning that we are expected to either warm further just by way of natural variation or we are in an unusually cold peak period.

 

Second, climate models that use CO2 as a major driver for global temperatures are not producing accurate predictions for global temperatures. This is at least good initial evidence that the alarmist stance on the CO2/climate hypothesis is false. Notice that current temperatures are in no way deviating from normal trends. and that the two “scary red dots” are not observed data, but “predictions.” But, as we already know, the observed data is wildly lower than the predictions. These people are completely full of shit.

 

OverTheHedge's picture

Thank you for keeping that - I mislaid my copy, and was bereft.

NotAmerican's picture

Calling somebody retarded for disagreeing with you says far more about you than anything else and completely destroys the rest of your argument. A pure projection, as is your comment that "These people are completely full of shit." If you are alive, your intestines are full of it too.

New_Meat's picture

Yo, Jack, you worried about 0.4 DegC temperature rise over the next 89 years or so?

I'm not.

I do like the world after the melt info-maps.  Reminds me of those Hillary wins counties maps, you know the ones with the two-dozen islands across the US?