The caterwauling over President Trump’s decision to pull out of the Paris Climate Accord and renegotiate was quick, loud and anguished — including from Nevada’s usual Democratic suspects.
Freshman Nevada U.S. Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto fired off this prediction of doom and gloom: “Withdrawing from the deal would weaken efforts to combat one of humankind’s biggest threats, not only risking irreversible damage, but also harming our economy. President Trump’s decision to leave the Paris Agreement is the height of irresponsibility and an affront to our moral duty to protect our planet.”
Rep. Dina Titus of Clark County was equally over the top: “Any move to abandon this agreement will jeopardize our physical wellbeing, further undermine our standing as a world leader, and endanger our economic vitality for years to come.”
Freshman Congressman Ruben Kihuen, who presents much of Southern Nevada, chimed in by bemoaning: “Now is not the time for America to be stepping away from our leadership role on the world stage, especially when it comes to the future of the planet.”
Freshman Rep. Jacky Rosen of Clark County joined the chorus with this statement: “This decision not only places our country at an economic disadvantage relative to other countries in clean energy production and innovation, but it places us in harm’s way.”
At least Republican Sen. Dean Heller was realistic, while expressing his support for renewable energy development: “Our country will continue to move forward with the development of innovative new energy technologies that make our state and our nation’s energy supply cleaner, more affordable, and more reliable — with or without our participation in the Paris Agreement.”
Was anyone really listening to what Trump said?
Just what is the “irreversible damage?” What is the jeopardy to “our physical wellbeing” and the “future of the planet?” And how are we placed in “harm’s way?”
“Even if the Paris Agreement were implemented in full, with total compliance from all nations, it is estimated it would only produce a two-tenths of one degree — think of that; this much — Celsius reduction in global temperature by the year 2100. Tiny, tiny amount,” Trump said in his half-hour long Rose Garden speech this past week. “In fact, 14 days of carbon emissions from China alone would wipe out the gains from America — and this is an incredible statistic — would totally wipe out the gains from America’s expected reductions in the year 2030, after we have had to spend billions and billions of dollars, lost jobs, closed factories, and suffered much higher energy costs for our businesses and for our homes.”
(According to a Heritage Foundation report, if the entire industrialized world cut carbon emissions to zero, global warming would be reduced by four-tenths of a degree Celsius by 2100.)
Just how many jobs and dollars would it take to avert this impending climate cataclysm?
Citing an economic study, Trump stated that by 2040 the Paris Climate Accord would cost the economy $3 trillion in lost gross domestic product and 6.5 million in industrial jobs, as well as reduce the incomes of households by $7,000 each.
Then there is the fundamental unfairness of the deal negotiated by the Obama administration but never ratified by the Senate.
“Not only does this deal subject our citizens to harsh economic restrictions, it fails to live up to our environmental ideals,” Trump said. “As someone who cares deeply about the environment, which I do, I cannot in good conscience support a deal that punishes the United States — which is what it does — the world’s leader in environmental protection, while imposing no meaningful obligations on the world’s leading polluters.”
In fact, the United States over the past 14 years has already reduced carbon emissions by 10 percent, according to data from the U.S. Department of Energy, and that is not due to wind and solar power generation, which still accounts for only 3 percent of the nation’s energy output. It is largely due to fracking producing cheaper, clean-burning natural gas to replace coal-fired generation.
But under the Paris Accord, China will be allowed to increase its emissions for another 13 years. India’s participation is contingent upon receiving billions in foreign aid, largely from the United States.
“China will be allowed to build hundreds of additional coal plants,” Trump reported. “So we can’t build the plants, but they can, according to this agreement.”
Trump noted the agreement doesn’t eliminate coal jobs, it merely transfers them overseas.
A version of this column appeared this week in many of the Battle Born Media newspapers — The Ely Times, the Mesquite Local News, the Mineral County Independent-News, the Eureka Sentinel and the Lincoln County Record — and the Elko Daily Free Press.
I don’t understand why we aren’t dead yet! Liberals all said it would be the end of the World,
Hey, if you can’t trust the president of the United States to tell the truth, who can you trust right?
Oh wait, never mind.
Don’t conservatives around here realize that when this guy speaks it’s the “bad ole gov’ment” talking? Since when do they believe anything that comes out of that foul factory of lies?
I found Sen. Heller’s comments particularly interesting. If he is so supportive of clean, renewable energy, why is he so opposed to nuclear energy? It has been proven to be more reliable and more economical, and certainly no more dangerous than wind or solar. How many birds have been killed by nuclear energy? It also provides for more productive use of land than wind or solar. Jim F
Coal job numbers are figured the same way as so called “green job” numbers were figured.
Case in point, the guy who collects the plastic bag recycle at Walmart is an official “green job” never mind the fact that guy is also the guy who collects the garbage in the can right next to the bag recycle…..
You libby liars don’t like it when others use your racket, huh Patrick.
Oops, wrong thread.
“It has been proven to be more reliable and more economical, and certainly no more dangerous than wind or solar”
In the fantasy world of the Conservative, Chernobyl and Fukoshima were mere hiccups. And of course, it’s no big leap for a Conservative to say that nuclear is economical even though one of the greatest costs – disposal of the waste – is so difficult and expensive that we haven’t attempted to dispose of even a single ounce of waste on a permanent basis after more than 50 years of large scale nuclear power.
Now that I’ve railed against inaccuracy, I have to say I’m still not against nuclear power. It’s safer and cleaner than coal in particular.
Thomas, if you expect me to believe the drek put out by the Heritage foundation, then I want you to do the same for that produced by Greenpeace. They’re equivalent.
The Paris Climate Agreement, as with all those preceding it, is merely a statement. It is nonbinding with no penalties for inaction other than the scorn of the rest of the world. So let’s see how the world views us.
We’ve invaded and militarily attacked several nations in the Mideast while China just quietly plays the role of a good customer buying their oil. We, along with Nicaragua and Syria, refuse to sign the Paris Climate Agreement while China quietly takes the lead. They are now #1 in solar, wind and hydroelectric power generation, they have 2/3 of the world’s high speed rail lines, while we have less than 1,000 miles, consisting of only the Acela Express, which averages 63 mph on a 231 mile route and the Northeast Regional, which averages 53 mph over 664 miles. China has also constructed as of now, over 19,000 km of super efficient high voltage long distance DC power lines. We’re PLANNING an 1150 km line. We do have a few other lines as well that are all more than 20 years old.
We’ll see whose approach works best, China’s or ours. One thing is certain though; the approaches taken by the two countries has diverged greatly in recent years.
Rincon don’t forget, on behalf of conservatives, to forget Three mile island, and San Onofre, and Davis Besse, and Indian Point, and Hanford, and more nuclear plants than you can name just here in the US where disasters were barely (as far as the public knows) averted, and “merely” long term ecological disasters are now being faced by the communities surrounding those plants for as long as a half life of plutonium is.
And yeah, nuclear power is cheap, so long as the taxpayers are subsidizing the costs anyway. Which you’d think conservatives would hate, except they don’t. Odd.
Speaking of hysteria: https://www.thoughtco.com/humorous-memes-and-cartoons-immigration-reform-2734402