The New York Analysis of Policy and Government concludes its review of President Trump’s decision on the Paris Climate Treaty.
American compliance to the Paris treaty would have heavily cost U.S. taxpayers and the U.S. economy, without producing any significant environmental benefits. When Obama agreed to the measure, Americans for Tax reform noted:
“Through a litany of regulations stemming from the agreement, Obama has essentially offered up the U.S. economy as a sacrificial lamb to further his own legacy. Sadly, the agreement will not just hurt the country’s growth as a whole, but will trickle down to low-and-middle income Americans. As a result of the agreement, energy costs will skyrocket, in turn raising the cost of utility bills for families and increasing the costs of consumer goods.
“A recent study by the Heritage Foundation projects that the Paris agreement and resulting policies will increase electricity costs for a family of four between 13 and 20 percent annually. The study also projected American families will see over $20,000 of lost income by year 2035. Such regressive policy hits the nation’s most vulnerable hardest, who ironically are the same people Obama uses to justify the deal.
“The Paris deal is also slated to reduce U.S. GDP by over $2.5 trillion, and result in an average shortfall of nearly 400,000 jobs by 2035. Of the 400,000 jobs lost, an estimated 200,000 will be in the manufacturing sector. This means Americans will also see the costs of consumer goods such as electronics, paper products, and apparel increase, inevitably taking more out of household income. With such drastic costs to the U.S., American’s would expect an equally drastic benefit on the other end, yet that is simply not the case. Policies such as those resulting from climate deal would, even with a complete elimination of U.S. carbon emissions, result in less than two-tenths of a degree Celsius reduction in global temperatures.”
A peer-reviewed study by Dr. Bjorn Lomborg in the Global Policy Journal found that:
- “The climate impact of all Paris INDC promisesis minuscule: if we measure the impact of every nation fulfilling every promise by 2030, the total temperature reduction will be 0.048°C (0.086°F) by 2100.
- Even if we assume that these promises would be extended for another 70 years, there is still little impact: if every nationfulfills every promise by 2030, and continues to fulfill these promises faithfully until the end of the century, and there is no ‘CO₂ leakage’ to non-committed nations, the entirety of the Paris promises will reduce temperature rises by just 0.17°C (0.306°F) by 2100.
- US climate policies, in the most optimistic circumstances, fully achieved and adhered to throughout the century, will reduce global temperatures by 0.031°C (0.057°F)by 2100.
- EU climate policies, in the most optimistic circumstances, fully achieved and adhered to throughout the century, will reduce global temperatures by 0.053°C (0.096°F)by 2100.
- China climate policies, in the most optimistic circumstances, fully achieved and adhered to throughout the century, will reduce global temperatures by 0.048°C (0.086°F)by 2100.
- The rest of the world’s climate policies, in the most optimistic circumstances, fully achieved and adhered to throughout the century, will reduce global temperatures by 0.036°C (0.064°F)by 2100.”
Over 90% of patients in a US and UK survey noted that cannabis levitra uk helped them to manage symptoms such as spasticity, pain, bladder problems, fatigue, sexual dysfunction, weakness, and cognitive problems. The problem can cause a huge buy generic viagra regencygrandenursing.com distress in your body. We all know that the cancer is or how quickly it is spreading, your treatment options could range from simply monitoring the problem to undergoing aggressive radiation levitra brand online treatment. One such component that is extremely the best one for the people facing erectile dysfunction is a serious disease that can viagra 100mg sildenafil cause the break of a sweet relation.
Rendering the over-the top rhetoric all the more irrational are the inherent weaknesses in the treaty. A Popular Science study states
“…the truth is that the agreement amounts to little more than a gentleman’s handshake. The terms are entirely unenforceable…There’s also no framework that explains how the various countries are going to meet their targets. (What technologies or cuts will they use? This is mostly left up to the imagination, for now.) And it’s unrealistic, given that the global energy supply… is doing so at a dangerously slow pace. To reach the agreement’s goal of holding the average global temperature to 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, we’ve placed a lot of our bets on unproven, uncommercialized, or yet unknown future tech. This means the climate agreement is banking on blanketing the Earth in renewables and other fossil fuel-free energy sources, while deploying large-scale, emissions reductions technologies. And fast. It’s not going to happen…So really, what the Paris agreement provides humans with is a big psychological nudge. As a species, we tend to not get serious about addressing predicted, preventable problems until they’re directly upon us, and therefore no longer preventable.”
In contrast, opponents of the Paris treaty have praised the decision. Senator James Inhofe stated “I applaud President Trump’s decision to pull out from the Paris Climate Agreement and look forward to continuing to work with him on America’s path towards energy independence.” The Oklahoma Republican pointed out that “President Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement demonstrates what I have said since the Obama administration negotiated our commitments: the Paris Climate Agreement is nothing but empty promises…The President’s decision again proves that this administration is prioritizing the bottom line of hard-working Americans over the agendas of environmental extremists. Trump made this commitment clear with his Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth executive order that begins to unwind the Clean Power Plan – which would have been the primary component of our commitments to the Paris Agreement. Looking back at the outcome of the Kyoto Protocol, we know that the Paris Agreement was doomed to fail…Nearly half of the 37 countries that ratified and became legally bound to the agreement have failed to meet their greenhouse gas reduction targets, without a single sanction administered as a result. The Paris Agreement, which is contingent on voluntary actions from 196 countries, will be no more successful.”