Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

President Trump Delays Paris Climate Agreement Decision

President Trump Delays Paris Climate Agreement Decision

Will he #ClimExit, or won’t he?

It is being reported that President Donald Trump is delaying a decision on withdrawing from the landmark Paris climate accord until after the conclusion of a key international meeting.

“Trump had originally aimed to announce his intentions before traveling to the summit, held in Sicily at the end of this month. Instead, he will wait until after the G7 to make a decision, according to White House press secretary Sean Spicer.

I think it’s simply a sign that the President wants to continue to meet with his team,” Spicer told reporters at the White House.

Spicer said Trump has been meeting with his team “extensively” to discuss the issue, which has divided his top advisers as they weigh the ramifications of withdrawing from the carbon reduction agreement.

…A meeting scheduled for Tuesday between top Trump advisers was postponed, according to a White House official. The official said the delay came amid scheduling conflicts.

The factions that have Trump’s ear in this matter seem to have very different ideas on how to proceed.

Steve Bannon, Trump’s top strategist, favors withdrawal, as does Scott Pruitt, the EPA administrator, who has called it a “bad business deal for this country”. Rick Perry, the energy secretary, said last month “we probably need to renegotiate” the agreement.

Meanwhile, Rex Tillerson, the secretary of state, and Trump’s family members and advisers Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner, are understood to favor remaining in the deal. Ivanka Trump is set to meet separately with Pruitt on Tuesday to discuss the Paris pact and according to the Associated Press has been handed the task of reviewing US climate policy.

I suspect the key to understanding this decision can be found in “The Art of the Deal”. The G7 Meeting is slated for May 26-27 at Taormina in Sicily. Trump has already refused to sign a joint statement ahead of the meeting endorsing the Obama-led agreement.

The U.S. refused to sign onto a statement with other G7 countries to commit to the implementation of the Paris climate agreement, which President Donald Trump promised to withdraw from on the campaign trail.

Secretary of Energy Rick Perry said the U.S. “is in the process of reviewing many of its policies and reserves its position on this issue, which will be communicated at a future date,” Italy’s industry and energy minister Carlo Calenda said in a statement.

The President might like to have all his negotiating options open when he arrives for this important summit as America’s leader. Therefore, nobody is quite sure of the #ClimExit status at this point.

I would like to see the agreement jettisoned, based on the fact it is a climate alarmist fantasy blended with anti-capitalist wealth redistribution schemes. However, I am thrilled that our regulating agencies have substantially fewer eco-activists in their ranks today than they did a week ago. I do not think the key implementors of American environmental and interior policies will readily embrace the climate change inanity of their predecessors.

Will Trump #Climexit, or won’t he? I still feel that ultimately the Paris Climate Agreement, one of Obama’s most significant legacy projects, will either be terminated quickly or allowed to wither away on the vine. It will be ended at some point by President Trump. I suspect the ultimate timing will depend on the deal.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

I suspect, like you, that Trump thinks he can get some concessions for staying in the Paris Agreement. Knowing the arrogance of the EU leaders, I suspect that the EU is going to tell him to go pound sand, take it or leave it.

If Trump is making a consistent error, it’s thinking he can negotiate with idealogues who have no interest in negotiating anything.

    notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to Tom Servo. | May 10, 2017 at 11:55 am

    Good point.

    Those Paris Climate Agreement Decision would rather blow up planet earth – rather than admit they are wrong.

    Liz in reply to Tom Servo. | May 10, 2017 at 12:20 pm

    Trump made promises during the election process – they all do. But, once elected, it is necessary to really look at the pros and cons, listen to a variety of people, work out the best plan of action and then implement that plan. Oh, and it would help him if he communicates the why of his plan to the nation.

    If he can work out some changes, then he can tell part of the country that he is trying, If not, then he bails out of the plan and continue on his game plan.

    However, it would be very sweet if he refuses to “contribute” any funds and explain that he needs it to first fix the problems within the US, such as water pollution and infrastructure issues, deal with the supersites, etc.

    Another item in the news is that Obama took a private plane, used a 14 car entourage, and accepted a $2.5 million payday to give a speech in Italy to tell us to decrease our polluting way.

    To paraphrase Instapudit… “I’ll believe in the problem
    when the people who tell me its a problem start acting like it is a problem.”

I think he’s made up his mind to let it wither away.

We are ramping up coal production
EPA regs are being reduced
The pipeline in South Dakota (whose name is eluding me right now) was approved.

Be very strange if he were to reverse course and suddenly want a job-killing treaty

buckeyeminuteman | May 10, 2017 at 12:49 pm

You can’t argue with #hashtagscience. The planet is obviously dying. Bill Nye the Mechanical Engineer told me so on twitter.

    4th armored div in reply to buckeyeminuteman. | May 10, 2017 at 1:11 pm

    when Lib-Rules start living in grass shacks and only use solar power /no electric grid backup/ then i will believe them.
    only hot air balloons for transportation.

      only hot air balloons for transportation

      Small problem
      A typical balloon flight lasts 45 minutes to 1 hour, and consumes about 20 to 30 gallons of liquid propane(LPG) refined from those stinkin’ hydrocarbons

      Probably ought to wait until they figure out how to capture all the hot air coming out of Washington….especially Schumer’s office

Walker Evans | May 10, 2017 at 2:21 pm

“Bill Nye the Mechanical Engineer told me so on twitter.”

A twit communicating via Twitter … how appropriate!

Great summary, Leslie.

I keep dreaming that if I had Ivanka alone for a while…. Well, as the old song goes, “I can dream, can’t I?”.

And, as you’ve written, climate change ain’t the only thing rotten in Denmark.

Re. your piece yesterday about Trump’s firing Comey, despicable would be a vast understatement regarding Chuck (The Consummate Liar) Schumer’s statements. Chuck, when it appeared Hillary’s emails might be investigated, demanded that Comey be fired. Comments being made by the MSM and Dems (of course) are equally reprehensible.

notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital | May 10, 2017 at 3:45 pm

In other Demcrat Party upsetting news….

Just call me Natasha!

“Lavrov trolls NBC before Trump meeting as US media, Democrats lose it over Russia”

“The visit of Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov to Washington sent Democrats and US mainstream media into a renewed frenzy, with many seeing a sinister connection with President Donald Trump firing FBI Director James Comey the day before….

This was not the first time Mitchell ran afoul of Lavrov. During Tillerson’s visit to Moscow in April, the NBC News chief foreign correspondent likewise shouted out a question before the diplomats had even sat down for a press conference, only to be berated by the Russian foreign minister for her lack of decorum.

“Who was bringing you up? Who was giving you your manners?” Lavrov asked, with the remarks making it into the official State Department transcript of the event….

Andrew Patti @AndrewPatti3
Lavrov when asked by Andrea Mitchell about Comey firing wasn’t making fun about Comey, he was making fun of Mitchell. Not 1st time.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C_d9PZIXsAAkzgc.jpg

The problem here is that Trump promised his constituents that he would withdrawn from the Paris Agreement. Now he is saying that maybe he will withdraw from the Paris Agreement. So, is he lying to his constituents and we will continue in the Paris Agreement? Or is he lying to the rest of the world and going to withdraw? At the moment, most of his constituency is giving him the benefit of the doubt that he spoke the truth on the campaign trail. However, every time he reneges, he loses a little more credibility with his supporters. At some point, he will begin to lose significant support. And, once that begins to happen, he will likely never regain that support. Then the Establishment politicians will be free to do whatever they want.

Realistically, there is NOTHING in the Paris Agreements which is beneficial to the interests of the people of the US. Nothing. So, stop the foolishness already.

    tom swift in reply to Mac45. | May 10, 2017 at 5:46 pm

    However, every time he reneges, he loses a little more credibility with his supporters.

    No risk at all. It still comes down to Trump vs. Hillary … or some other Democrat just as bad. No matter what Trump does—or fails to do—he’s not Hillary. And that earns him all the support he needs.

      Mac45 in reply to tom swift. | May 10, 2017 at 11:01 pm

      *sigh*. You do not understand at all.

      The 2016 Presidential election was NOT Trump v Hillary. It was Trump v the Establishment. It was a single battle in an ongoing war. Most of Trump’s voters did not elect Trump. Trump is a singularly unlikable man. They elected a champion to lead the fight against the establishment. When Trump does that, they support him. If does not do that, then they begin to doubt. They begin to fear that, rather than being a sincere, honest man, Trump is just another politician who says one thing on the campaign trail and does something else after he is elected. At the moment, they are willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, But every time he allies himself with the Establishment in Washington, they begin to doubt. If that doubt turns to certainty, they will abandon him.

      This is not a single four year war, in which we can afford to settle for 180 days of minor victories, only to have nothing significant accomplished for the remaining 1240 days. If that happens, then Trump will not be reelected and the next President will be a Progressive Establishment hack, possibly even a Democrat, supported by the current crop of Establishment hack politicians now in office. Then, the war will be over. Because the Establishment will never let another Trump arise. Trump won this time because he was under estimated. No one saw him coming, until it was too late. That will not happen again. In order for the attack on the Establishment to succeed, Trump has to continue to attack the Establishment. He has to push his agenda an, when it is not advanced by Congress, to blame it all on Congress. When the Congress cmoes up with action which is counter to his agenda, he has to point that out and refuse to support it. He has to keep everyone else in Congress and the state governments on defense. If he doesn’t, he does not have the resources to bring any effective pressure to bear, except through his supported in the electorate.

Trump could make a step towards restoring the proper balance of power and Constitutional order by submitting this to the Senate for approval. Let them kill it and subject the shrieking millennial idiots to a civics lesson in the process.

    Liz in reply to Paul. | May 11, 2017 at 9:16 am

    The only problem with that idea is there were 3 Rs who voted no to do a CRA bill concerning methane releases from wells. So, there are some establishment Rs (McCain) who will try to take down Trump.

    If Trump can’t negotiate a better deal – like having China start reducing their pollution instead of increasing it through 2030 – then by all means, get out and gut the EPA down to its original purpose of dealing with water and air pollution as well as supersites. We still have enough problems here. And spend the money in the US to deal with these problems, do not give it to the UN to waste.

    Here is an idea – the OK Energy Resources Board got the current producers and royalty owners to kick in a small percentage (.1%) to fund the board as well as do restoration on abandoned well sites. How about if the same happens with winds and solar producers since there will be a time when those companies go belly up and we’ll have a bunch of abandoned sites that are just as dangerous as the old well sites. http://www.oerb.com/

      Paul in reply to Liz. | May 11, 2017 at 2:35 pm

      The Constitution says foreign treaties are approved by the Senate with a 2/3 vote. There is no way this asinine agreement would get a 2/3 vote.

The delay comes down to the fact that daughter Ivanka is a Warmer and now Donald has put her in charge of the Climate Change review. She probably cried so he gave into her opinion.

I predict we will stay in the very expensive time-wasting Paris Accords.

It’s not a treaty. It’s another of Tyrant Obama the Liar’s “Presidential Agreements” that he rammed down our throats. The wise solution would be for him to submit it to the Senate for ratification and have them reject it.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend