Is Trump correct in abandoning the Paris Treaty on Global Climate Change?

2017-06-02T13:20:03-04:00

Response by SGT Jim Arnold made Jun 2 at 2017 1:26 PM

2017-06-02T13:26:56-04:00

I believe it was in the US's best interest. the whole thing was 1 big welfare check to the world. China and India have free reign to do as they're doing while we have our hands tied. There is more to it than what I stated but I dont like typing books

Response by MSG Brad Sand made Jun 2 at 2017 1:30 PM

2017-06-02T13:30:59-04:00

Looked into the actual science and not what people say the science says...and it was absolutely the right thing to do.

Response by SPC David S. made Jun 2 at 2017 5:00 PM

2017-06-02T17:00:07-04:00

What about requiring carbon dioxide removal from carbon based energy producers as a concurrent approach in using less carbon based fuels. This additional cost of carbon based fuels will make carbon based energy more cost competitive with greener energy solutions forcing people and industry to seek lower cost alternatives. DOE should be driving this approach. As well the Paris Agreement goals do little in actually reducing CO2 to a meaningful level.

Response by MSgt Steven Holt, NRP, CCEMT-P made Jun 2 at 2017 5:04 PM

2017-06-02T17:04:54-04:00

To my knowledge, the Paris Climate boondoggle was an Accord, not a Treaty. A Treaty requires approval from the US Congress (which POTUS Obama did NOT receive). The President (so far as I know) has the authority to withdraw from agreements any time he/she sees fit. From what little research I've done on the Paris Accord, it looks like a colossal bad deal for the US who would be stuck with all the bills while the worst offenders (ie: China and India) were free to conduct business as usual.

Response by SSG Ronald Bloodworth made Jun 2 at 2017 8:28 PM

2017-06-02T20:28:45-04:00

I think the president was 100% correct in pulling out of the agreement. To begin with, that ridiculous thing was never a "treaty" between the U.S. and anybody else in the first place. Obama never submitted the agreement he signed to the U.S. Senate for ratification. Since only the Senate is constitutionally authorized to formally ratify any treaty whatsoever between our nation and a foreign state, the United States is not legally bound to submit ourselves to it. I'd Obama wanted a treat with Paris and all those other socialist states to have force of law, all he would have needed to do was submit what he agreed to for ratification. But being Obama, he instead decided that he could scuttle our constitutionally mandated treaty ratification process and do an end run around the U.S. Constitution by simply signing of on that piece of crap and then turning it over to his lackeys in those unaccountable agencies like EPA and BLM and others to have them write up unlegislated regulations and impose his will onto all Americans. In short, that "agreement" was between Obama and his marxist/socialist pallies around the world and the U.S. Was never bound even one syllable of the wording in it. Therefore, president Trump was completely within his own constitutional powers to walk away from it, in its entirety, and not look back. Obama chose the unconstitutional route he took with that agreement because he knew full well it would never be ratified in any case. It was a bad agreement by a weak and feckless president who habitually allowed almost every foreign power he dealt with to take advantage of any opportunity to screw us over. Anybody out there who actually took the time to read that agreement (I did) would know that it was bad for America from the first page to the last. It placed the vast majority of reponsibility, as well as the costs, of implementation onto the shoulders of Americans while simultaneously allowing other signatories to continue polluting their own countries at will far into the future. And if course, the president agree to fund those same polluters with hundreds of billions of dollars confiscated from taxpayers every year. Meanwhile, the agreement demanded that U.S. industries be hamstrung by regulations until they could no longer compete. We absolutely did the right thing by walking away.

Response by COL Charles Williams made Jun 3 at 2017 1:01 AM

2017-06-03T01:01:58-04:00

we pay others to reduce emissions....WTF... We are the leaders in environmental stewardship... We owe nothing to the rest of this crowd... They need to catch up to us... and without our money to do so...

Response by SSG Trevor S. made Jun 3 at 2017 1:49 PM

2017-06-03T13:49:42-04:00

I may not agree with this hole in the ozone, coming ice age, acid rain, raising sea levels, global warming, ermmmmmmmm climate change stuff, but I can agree with clean rivers mean better fishing. Less pollution means healthier wildlife. AND creating a society that is not dependent on fossil fuel imports is a great way to defund our enemies.
What I can't agree with is allowing other countries, even those that signed on, to go willy nilly and not have to do a hardly anything while we pony up the cost, lose jobs, ceding any part of our sovereignty, and intentionally recede our economies for .2 degrees temperature,,,,,maybe.

Response by SCPO Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 4 at 2017 12:15 AM

2017-06-04T00:15:01-04:00

Hell, yes, he is!!!

Response by COL Charles Williams made Jun 4 at 2017 1:33 AM

2017-06-04T01:33:14-04:00

Yes....

Response by COL Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 4 at 2017 4:03 PM

2017-06-04T16:03:01-04:00

Thx Steven Hold for the lesson in semantics... I was just using the common reference to the topic... you are correct.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 6 at 2017 12:57 PM

2017-06-06T12:57:37-04:00

If it was in fact a treaty, I would say no. Seeing as how it is a non-binding accord, it is basically a nothing burger that all signatories could summarily ignore without consequence. Thus, environmentally conscious countries put themselves at a distinct economic disadvantage as cheaters do as they will and profit while you strut about crowing about how virtuous you are in "saving the planet".
Poppycock.
This was a money transfer, plain and simple.
The Obama administration purposely did an end run around the Constitutionally required element of Senatorial advise and consent for treaty ratification because:
A. It would have failed spectacularly
B. If exposed to the light of day and rudimentary analysis, it would have been crippling to the union jobs in industry that (until 2016) reliably vote Democrat.
Remember the Kyoto Treaty? Failed in the Senate 95-0.
Can't have that.
To Trump's credit (and I am not a fan boy), he simply told the rest of the world we aren't going to play. However, should they wish to come up with something that is not to the disadvantage of the United States, let's talk.

Response by TSgt Kenneth Ellis made Jun 6 at 2017 5:46 PM

2017-06-06T17:46:39-04:00

Response by PFC Jonathan Albano made Jun 7 at 2017 1:32 AM

2017-06-07T01:32:30-04:00

We shouldn't have entered into it in the first place. Big bill on us with not enough global change to justify it. Too many big players who don't want to play by the rules for our participation to be very effective.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 3 at 2017 10:30 PM

2017-07-03T22:30:18-04:00

Absolutely not