Trump's move on Paris climate agreement raises 2020 stakes

I worked for over a decade in environmental tech, so here's my take. When it comes to the "truth" about environmentalism... there's a lot of misinformation, more unqualified opinion, and even more misapplication. I've been to AQMD meetings where the smartest people in the room likely had no concept of what is scientifically achievable... only very passionate feelings regarding what "should" be achievable. A "zero emissions" mindset is impractical... and sub 1-5 ppm emissions are possible, but often prohibitively expensive. Comparing coal to natural gas, or either to nuclear is preposterous. "Renewable Sources" are not the answer to supporting major grids... and come with their own list of negative environmental impacts. Truth be told, industry has done more to improve air and water quality over the last thirty years than anyone seems capable of crediting them for... and yes, we owe almost all of that to regulation; most of which was put in place decades before President Obama or the Paris Climate Agreement.

Here's why I think it's important to pull out of the Paris accord... it's aims are ambiguous and broad, as are its potential impacts on socio-economics. It's trying to leverage a political solution to a technical problem... and weakening the sovereign power of the member nations in the effort (again, in my opinion). You can pass a law stating that CO, VOC, and NOx emissions must be at sub parts per million... or even sub parts per billion (which generally can't even be measured for monitoring and regulation); that doesn't mean the technology is available to do either. That means you would need alternative means of producing energy (as of yet unavailable or unreliable)... or you would need to curtail energy consumption. Now, think of what that means at the ground level... is that even feasible?

At the end of the day, I'm an advocate for some environmental regulation-it works, and makes "good sense" for the future. What I'm opposed to is allowing politics to drive energy policy to the extent that the goals are unachievable-at least without risking significant negative impacts to a society driven and dependent on energy.

I think that the President should propose that we plant one trillion trees in federal lands - and elsewhere if landowners or foreign powers agree.
This solves the CO2 problem.
Your move, socialist money grabbers.