Commentary: Exit from climate accord saves money, jobs - The Buffalo News

Share this article

print logo

Commentary: Exit from climate accord saves money, jobs

On June 1, President Trump withdrew the United States from the Paris Climate Accord, sending shock waves throughout the world. The president reiterated his "America First" policy, which protects our economy and the jobs of millions of American citizens.

The goal of the Paris Climate Accord is to reduce carbon emissions in each nation in the hopes of decreasing global temperatures by 1.5 degrees. For certain countries, the deal permits the increase of carbon particles, defeating the whole purpose of the bill. For example, Russia is allowed to enlarge its emissions by 50 percent, while China and India have no set limit until the year 2030.

According to the parameters of the Paris Climate Accord, China will be able to build hundreds of additional coal plants and India will have the ability to double its production by 2020. Even Europe, a liberal-leaning continent, is allowed to construct more fossil fuel plants.

However, the United States would be forced to cut production for numerous plants and factories. It would require Trump to stop any new projects from opening, eliminating more than 40,000 factories and the jobs that go with them.

The projected statistics are staggering. By the year 2025, the US would have eliminated 2.7 million jobs, including 440,000 manufacturing positions.

An article written by Senator Ted Cruz states that if the president had not exited the Paris Climate Accord, the cement, iron/steel, and petroleum industries could have seen their production cut by 21 percent, 19 percent and 11 percent, respectively.

The president has recently added that the natural gas industry’s production could have been slashed by 31 percent and the coal industry by 82 percent, leaving the U.S. at a permanent disadvantage with the rest of the world.

The United States has made significant progress on eliminating carbon emissions without government intrusion and the heavy regulations that have stunted the growth of our economy.

Environmental Protection Agency Secretary Scott Pruitt proclaimed that between the years 2000 and 2014 the United States reduced carbon emissions by more than 18 percent. He explained this was done not through government mandate, but through the innovation and technology of the private sector. A hands-off approach creates vibrant ideas and allows the free market system to function as it was originally intended.

The Environmental Protection Agency’s own models reveal that if all carbon emissions located in the United States were eradicated, it would only decrease global temperatures by less than two-tenths of a degree Celsius. Overall, the Paris Climate Accord would shave a minuscule .2 degrees off warming by the year 2100 – a far cry from the 1.5 degree Fahrenheit goal it is hoping to accomplish.

According to the National Economic Research Associates, the Paris Climate Accord would have cost the United States $3 trillion in GDP and $7,000 in per capita household income by 2040, reducing American job growth and wages, thereby increasing monthly utility costs for families nationwide. Costly regulations would also need to be rolled out, ultimately wasting the taxpayers’ money on something that is currently unfixable.

As Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe said, "It’d be very, very expensive. It’d constitute probably the largest tax increase in the history of America."

America’s exit from the climate accord removed us from any obligation to pay $3 billion to the Green Climate fund. The world’s top polluters have no part in this fund and get a free pass on payment, serving as a clear indication of how the world perceives the United States – as a country whose obligation is first to global issues rather than national interests.

Fortunately, our president’s agenda does not in any way prescribe to those perceptions. The previous administration, without Congress’ authorization, paid a total of $1 billion to the fund. By the year 2020, The Green Climate Fund would have collected $ 100 billion per year.

President Barack Obama put America in a position to be bullied and shamed into paying unnecessary amounts to the world’s agenda.

President Trump took a stand and said that he was going to keep a signature campaign promise which saved the land of the free $2 billion.

The United States has among the most abundant energy reserves on the planet, making new advancements virtually every day.

Staying in the Paris Climate Accord would have been a devastating blow to the industrial sector and the progress our country has made creating jobs this past year.

In the words of the president, "I was elected to represent the citizens of Pittsburgh, not Paris.

Julia Bauer is a sophomore at Mount St. Mary Academy.

 

There are no comments - be the first to comment