Withdrawing From Paris Accord Helps America's Most Vulnerable

Authored by Blaine Conzatti via The Mises Institute,

Are you concerned about the poor’s economic welfare? If so, you should celebrate President Trump’s announcement that the United States will withdraw itself from the Paris Agreement.

The Paris climate accord, which was ratified last year, attempts to “brings all nations into a common cause to undertake ambitious efforts to combat climate change and adapt to its effects.” Supporters of the agreement claim it is necessary to avert the disastrous consequences of climate change.

Regrettably, the plan’s supporters are committing the greatest economic fallacy, which Henry Hazlitt, the acclaimed economics writer, warned about in his most prominent work, Economics in One Lesson (1946):

The bad economist sees only what immediately strikes the eye; the good economist also looks beyond. The bad economist sees only the direct consequences of the proposed course; the good economist looks also at the longer and indirect consequences.

While laypeople, pundits, scientists, and economists have focused their attention on what Trump’s decision might mean for climate change, these groups have largely ignored the effect of the agreement on poorer American households. Here are three reasons why withdrawing from the Paris Agreement is good for the poor:

The Paris Agreement raises energy costs for hardworking American households.

Under the agreement, the United States pledged to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 26-28% below its 2005 level by 2025. This would be accomplished by transitioning from fossil fuels to renewable sources of energy.

Although renewable energy will likely become the technology of the future, prematurely transitioning to “greener” sources creates a problem for Americans struggling to make ends meet.

Right now, these alternative sources of energy are far more expensive (and less reliable) than traditional sources. A study published last year found that “electricity from new wind and solar power is 2.5 to 5 times more expensive than electricity from existing coal and nuclear power.”

Until the cost of green energy declines through technological advances and increases in productivity, transitioning to renewable energy too hastily will necessarily cause energy prices to skyrocket. Rising energy prices disproportionately affect those who already have the hardest time affording energy.

Every additional dollar that lower-income families spend on lighting and heating their homes is a dollar that is now no longer available to pay for housing, food, clothes, and books. By raising energy prices, the Paris Agreement would make it harder for these families to afford the things they need.

Regulations promulgated under the aegis of the Paris Agreement increase prices and harm the economy.

The Paris Agreement saddles producers with burdensome regulations that increase the cost of doing business. Ultimately, these costs are either passed to consumers or are absorbed by businesses, resulting in lower employment and less investment for the capital goods necessary to produce the goods consumers need.

Furthermore, developed economies like the United States rely on affordable, accessible, and reliable energy. Machines on the assembly line and the trucks transporting goods alike require energy to produce and deliver products to consumers.

Most affected by onerous environmental regulations are energy, manufacturing, and shipping firms. Imagine the mom and pop machining shop that would have to pay tens of thousands of dollars to comply with increased regulations originating from the Paris accord. That’s tens of thousands of dollars that now cannot be used to raise wages for their workers, hire new employees, purchase more inventory, or invest in capital (think: technology and machines) to produce tomorrow’s goods.

In the long run, total production will decrease, employees will make less money in wages and benefits, and consumers will face higher prices at the market. There will be less wealth, less prosperity, and fewer opportunities, especially for those struggling to find jobs or climb the economic ladder.

The Paris Agreement redistributes wealth from American taxpayers to international corporations and less developed nations.

The Paris Agreement also initiates a massive redistribution of wealth from developed countries to less developed countries. This will be orchestrated through the United Nations Green Climate Fund, which seeks to help developing countries purchase and construct alternative energy infrastructure.

The Green Climate Fund is the worst form of crony capitalism, guaranteed to benefit politically connected firms, especially those that stand to make millions of dollars in selling green energy technology. Like all government infrastructure programs, it will likely be highly inefficient and rife with corruption.

To make matters worse, the Paris Agreement assures that a significant portion of the multi-billion dollar budget for the Green Climate Fund will be financed by American taxpayers. Astoundingly, the agreement places American taxpayers on the hook for bankrolling pricey green energy technologies for other nations.

Where do supporters of the agreement think this money will come from? Have they forgotten that the United States is already $20 trillion in debt with unfunded liabilities (promises of future services) totaling over $200 trillion?

Remember that every dollar taxed by government is a dollar that American families and businesses cannot use to purchase the things they need. Taxes divert money and resources from the private sector, where it is spent more efficiently and according to the needs of consumers, to the public sector, where it is spent inefficiently on programs (like green energy) deemed “worthy” by central planners (in this case, the international community) without concern for the needs of the people in these different countries.

The eventual result of increasing taxes will be less capital available to meet the future needs of producers and consumers. There will be fewer total goods produced and fewer jobs. Prices will rise, and families and small businesses will find it harder to get the credit they need for mortgages and small business loans.

Decades ago, Henry Hazlitt alerted his contemporaries about the error of ignoring unintended consequences when analyzing policies. His warning still rings true today:

The long-run consequences of some economic policies may become evident in a few months. Others may not become evident for several years. Still others may not become evident for decades. But in every case those long-run consequences are contained in the policy as surely as the hen was in the egg, the flower in the seed.

Regardless of the truthfulness of claims made by climate alarmists, it is important to look beyond good intentions to see how policies, like those springing from the Paris Agreement, would affect the most vulnerable people in society in unintended ways. It is tragic that government policies designed to alleviate one problem create further problems that end up harming people.

It is indisputable that the Paris Agreement would have negatively affected lower-income American families. Fortunately for them, the United States is no longer beholden to the agreement, and it can now pursue environmental policies it considers to be in the best interests of Americans.

Comments

Pinto Currency SafelyGraze Fri, 06/09/2017 - 14:55 Permalink

Data From 58 New (2017) Peer-Reviewed Studies Show Claims of Climate Change are False

http://notrickszone.com/2017/05/29/80-graphs-from-58-new-2017-papers-in…

Taxing individuals based on activity as opposed to actual profit generation will impoverish citizens and cripple the economy - and do nothing for the environment.

It's just a massive tax scheme and carbon creditas are a huge trading platform for the big banks - thus Blankfein's tears for the 'environment'.

In reply to by SafelyGraze

Slack Jack Pinto Currency Fri, 06/09/2017 - 14:58 Permalink

So, why is the global 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

In reply to by Pinto Currency

Pinto Currency Slack Jack Fri, 06/09/2017 - 15:01 Permalink

Terrible. If the temps were actually rising precipitously. They're not and the temp data is being fraudulently manipulated.

“Massively Altered” …German Professor Examines NASA GISS Temperature Datasets
http://notrickszone.com/2015/11/20/german-professor-examines-nasa-giss-…

NOAA whistleblower scientist says National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Agency faked climate data
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-02-05/climategate-2-noaa-whistleblow…

U.N. Official Admits Global Warming Agenda Is Really About Destroying Capitalism
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-02-03/un-official-admits-global-warm…

In reply to by Slack Jack

Slack Jack Slack Jack Fri, 06/09/2017 - 15:29 Permalink

Pinto Currency @ Jun 9, 2017 3:01 PM says: "Terrible. If the temps were actually rising precipitously. They're not"

Well actually, they are.

2016 was the hottest year for global land temperatures on record.

It was 0.0963 degrees hotter than the previous record which was in 2015.

0.0963 is a large increase in just one year.

2015 was the hottest year for global land temperatures on record (at that time).

It was 0.2415 degrees hotter than the previous record which was in 2014.

0.2415 is a huge increase in just one year.

2014 was the hottest year for global land temperatures on record (at that time).

It was 0.0139 degrees hotter than the previous record which was in 2010.

In reply to by Slack Jack

HuskerGirl Fri, 06/09/2017 - 14:30 Permalink

The only agenda that matters to these people is the agenda of growing government control over as much of society as possible.  They'll give lip service to a cause, but only as an excuse to grow power for the political elite.That's why we have the Paris Accord.  Another example is the call to censor the Internet after the London attacks last weekend.  Terrorists will communicate without the internet.  Limiting our communication will keep anti-government speech from happening, but it'll not hinder terrorism.Their agenda is paramount.  

crazybob369 Fri, 06/09/2017 - 14:42 Permalink

There is no such thing as a free lunch. There are consequences to alternative energy. Electricity, for instance, is not all that green. Think of where it comes from (hydro-electric dams, burning coal, nuclear). Solar power would require covering thousands of square miles of land to power even a small city (that can't be environmentally friendly). Wind power kills thousands of birds and disrupts their migratory patterns. Geo-thermal is an environmental disaster waiting to happen. Even super clean hydrogen has a problem. Even though it's the most abundant element in the universe, here on planet Earth you still need to rip the hydrogen atom away from the oxygen, which requires...drum roll please...energy. So, pick your poison: global warming (something I am not convinced is a man-made occurrence), or various other detriments to the environment and bio system. There is no such thing as a free lunch, and currently there is no such thing as clean energy.  

Adaman Fri, 06/09/2017 - 14:43 Permalink

Withdrawing from Paris was the only sensible thing to do. These idiots who think climate change or climate buillshit is real are the biggest losers ON THE PLANET!

bluez Fri, 06/09/2017 - 14:44 Permalink

I am convinced that it is already too late to stop global warming, and the dreaded methane clathrate gun is right now firing away in Siberia and Alaska. I would suggest balloons filled with ammonia to reflect sunlight back, and infrared sideways. It's going to take something drastic like that, not some silly political solution.

Slack Jack bluez Fri, 06/09/2017 - 14:54 Permalink

So, why is the global 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

In reply to by bluez

In.Sip.ient bluez Fri, 06/09/2017 - 15:38 Permalink

Join a Petition________________________________________________Petition to the President of the United States We the undersigned request and require that the Presidentof the United States call upon the Secretary-General of theUnited Nations to call upon all world leaders to assembleat the United nations at a time poste haste from this self same call,for the purpose of Immediately Dealing with this threat. 1)  To terminate ALL stratospheric aircraft flights for a period offive (5) days to verify scientific reports regarding theamelioration of climate change threats from doing so. 2) Upon confirmation of these scientific reports, produce a planto reduce and finally terminate all flights above 12,000ft and speedsin excess of 250knots. Such plan to eliminate 50% of ALL such flightswithin 3 years. Petition Signed by;Your name hereCitizen of USofA ( or any other country for that matter )________________________________________________Cut/Paste/propagate and forward to the WH. Problem solved... if YOU really mean business!!! And I MEAN YOU... never mind the politicians...  

In reply to by bluez

Slack Jack Fri, 06/09/2017 - 14:52 Permalink

So, why is the global 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

SRV Slack Jack Fri, 06/09/2017 - 15:27 Permalink

The question is the solution...The Paris Agreement forces renewable energy investment, and you can be sure all involved have been busy investing in the sector darlings... when Lloyd Blankfein comes out swinging against Trumps move, does anyone really believe it's about the environment? It also forces US taxpayers to pay for renewable investment for poorer countries.In other words, the usual suspects make out like bandits (Gore has gone from a regular guy to net worth of over $200M... how much more would he stand to make).And the working stiff... they get higher taxes and much higher energy costs with zero potential for income increases to cover it! And... fewer jobs as energy cost increases hit corporate profits.Snowflakes never discuss nuts and bolts... just butt hurt angst, but I'm sure the pink bunny ears look great on you Jack! 

In reply to by Slack Jack

Slack Jack SRV Fri, 06/09/2017 - 15:49 Permalink

SRV @ Jun 9, 2017 3:27 PM says: "And the working stiff... they get higher taxes"

The working stiff... they get higher taxes and the savers get no interest on their saving just because stupid American working stiff has to pay multiple trillions to kill a few million Arabs in the middle-east.

I hope you are against all war in the middle-east.

In reply to by SRV

abgary1 Fri, 06/09/2017 - 15:01 Permalink

The US pulling out of Paris agreement will help all the world's poor. Renewables cannot provide affodable electricity because they only produce elelctricity less than 30% of the time and have to be backed up 100% percent which makes them financially unviable.As for saving us from global warming, it is not true.Co2 does not cause global warming. GHG's are 2% of the atmosphere. Co2 is 4% of the GHG's and manmade Co2 is 3.4% of all the Co2. That small amount of gas cannot impact our climate.To fully understand the climate debate read books by Dr. Tim Ball who has his doctorate in Historical Climatology which means he is qualified to comment.I applaud Trump for actually doing something that will benefit the average person and the economy as a whole.The book titles are: The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science (includes all sources & references) and Human Caused Global Warming: The Biggest Deception in History (readers digest version of his first book; fewers references).Contact your politicians and put an end to the green policies.