NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
President Trump has pledged to once again withdraw the United States from the Paris climate agreement. Our entry (both times) is doubtful; but so do the impacts of the extensive contractual obligations imposed on treaty signatories.
The agreement does little to advance American interests and only serves to diminish our strength and national security. The removal process should start from day one.
The Paris Climate Agreement is an international treaty to limit global temperature rise to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and commit to reaching net zero emissions by mid-century .
Former President Obama and President-elect Trump (AP Images)
Adopted by 196 parties at the United Nations climate change conference (COP21) in Paris in December 2015, it entered into force the following November. Participating countries submit their national climate action plans, which are expected to become increasingly ambitious every five years.
THE SIMPLE SOLUTION TO THE “CALIFORNICATION” OF AMERICAN ENERGY POLICY
Under our constitutional form of government, treaties must be ratified by the Senate. President Obama, however, evaded such a review by simply calling it an executive agreement, because he would surely not have obtained the required two-thirds of the votes. But it is in fact a treaty; even the UN calls it that. President Biden simply followed in Obama’s footsteps with a reinstatement order.
A proposal of this magnitude deserves critical analysis and review before enlisting our entire nation as a participant. Foregoing Senate review undermines a critical element of the Constitution’s checks and balances.
The Paris Agreement threatens the United States’ ability to govern itself, something most Americans value and cherish. We should not submit to the whims of international leaders with political agendas. Our elected officials have responsibilities to their constituents, not to UN bureaucrats and foreign organizations.
TRUMP’S ENERGY AGENDA CAN MAKE AMERICA AFFORDABLE AGAIN
American energy policy must be made by legislators elected by American citizens. The climate deal instead requires our leaders to continually negotiate their national energy policy with a coalition of governments and external institutions, all demanding that cheap and abundant carbon-based fuels be replaced by so-called energy sources. green, expensive and unreliable, namely wind, solar and electric energy. vehicle technology.
Striking at the heart of federalism, individual states are also forced to cede their powers to the president who has taken control of their energy sectors. States should be free to choose and implement what best meets their energy needs.
Several decades of climate policy, here and abroad, have taught us a few things about the folly of such rash decisions.
I KNOW WHAT PRESIDENT TRUMP’S ENERGY POLICY WILL BE. I HEADED HIS ENERGY REGULATION AGENCY
Our European friends, who have implemented aggressive net-zero emissions policies and support the deal, are experiencing the world’s highest electricity prices, shortages and even deindustrialization.
German production peaked in 2017 and has been in decline ever since. High energy costs are often blamed. Britain also suffers from poorly designed climate initiatives. Some U.S. states that have individually adopted ambitious wind and solar portfolios are also seeing skyrocketing electricity prices, rolling blackouts and energy shortages.
The treaty assumes that renewable energy is cheap and reliable, but it is anything but. Wind and solar are not inexpensive substitutes for fossil fuels, nor can they provide the safe, stable energy that Americans expect to run their homes and businesses.
CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS REVIEWS
The treaty also serves as a transfer of wealth. Rich countries, widely held responsible as the main contributors to climate change, should mitigate their culpability by committing to a fund that helps developing countries mitigate its effects. But a serious lack of transparency, vague guidelines and lax reporting on financial donations raise questions. Some of the funds were used for fossil fuel projects, airport expansions, chocolate factories and other economic projects seemingly unrelated to climate issues.
Developing countries should be free to use the very resources that have allowed rich countries to prosper. No nation has ever become rich without the use of fossil fuels. We should partner with poor countries to ease their way out of poverty rather than pushing them further into it by demanding a so-called transition to renewable energy.
The energy produced on American soil is also among the cleanest in the world. Restricting production here encourages other countries with lax environmental standards and no interest in the treaty to step up theirs. The effort simply becomes wasted.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
The deal assumes that a massive push toward net zero will miraculously slow the rate of global warming, but it will produce no detectable climate benefits. Instead, trillions will have been diverted from productive investments and devoted to political ends.
How American consumers fuel their economy should not be subject to the whims of any foreign entity.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM KRISTEN WALKER
