ShareThis Page
Trump & the Paris climate accord: A cooler perspective |

Trump & the Paris climate accord: A cooler perspective

AFP/Getty Images
President Donald Trump announces his decision to withdraw the United States from the Paris climate accord. (AFP/Getty Images)

To hear the hue and cry from the global-warming chorus, one would think President Trump touched off Armageddon by backing out of the Paris climate agreement. Yet liberals’ shock and awe is more show than substance, given that this is exactly what candidate Trump said he would do if elected president.

Of course, going at it alone in typical Trump style, when he could have more logically defused this stink bomb, doesn’t help his case. More on that later.

To be clear, the decision to pull out of this international treaty —which the U.S. never legally pulled into — is the right one. While the pact is intended to keep the Earth below a 2-degree Celsius rise in preindustrial temperatures, scientific findings show a miniscule drop in temperature at best, even if every participating nation lived up to its obligation (which is questionable).

Even President Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Gina McCarthy told Congress, “there is not a single country that signed the Paris climate agreement expecting that the 2020 goals would get us where we need to be.” Yet by Mr. Trump’s estimate, the pact would cost the U.S. about $3 trillion in lost gross domestic product.

Instead of facing the fallacious fallout of withdrawing from the treaty, which is expected to take years, Trump should have done what Mr. Obama didn’t: Submit this odious pact for Senate review, as required by law, where it rightfully should be rejected.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.