Image 01 Image 03

Trump Announces America Will Withdraw From Paris Climate Agreement

Trump Announces America Will Withdraw From Paris Climate Agreement

He promised during the campaign to withdraw from the agreement.

President Donald Trump has announced from the Rose Garden that America will withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement. During the 2016 presidential campaign, Trump talked about withdrawing from the agreement.

However, the U.S. did not officially join the agreement as The Washington Post points out:

What he should say is that the United States never properly joined the accord: It is a treaty that requires the advice and consent of the Senate. Instead, President Barack Obama choose to “adopt” it with an executive order last September.

Politico has reported that Trump’s administration has already sent word out to officials that America “will pull out of the Paris climate agreement.”

Trump said he decided to withdraw since it’s his job to protect Americans and American jobs:

From Reuters:

“We’re getting out,” Trump said at a ceremony in the White House Rose Garden in which he decried the Paris accord’s “draconian” financial and economic burdens. He said American withdrawal “represents a reassertion of American sovereignty.”

Trump said the United States would begin negotiations either to re-enter the Paris accord or to have a new agreement “on terms that are fair to the United States, its businesses, its workers, its people, its taxpayers.”

With Trump’s action, the United States will walk away from nearly every nation in the world on one of the pressing global issues of the 21st century. The pullout will align the United States with Syria and Nicaragua as the world’s only non-participants in the accord.

Trump tapped into the “America First” message he used when he was elected president last year, saying, “I was elected to represent the citizens of Pittsburgh, not Paris.”

“We don’t want other leaders and other countries laughing at us any more. And they won’t be,” Trump added.

“In order to fulfill my solemn duty to protect America and its citizens, the United States will withdraw from the Paris climate accord,” Trump said.

Trump has come under pressure from world leaders and scientists to stay in the agreement, with the majority using DOOM AND GLOOM threats to keep America:

The Vatican, which under Pope Francis’ insistence has strongly backed the Paris accord, would see a U.S. exit as a “a huge slap in the face,” a senior Vatican official said on Thursday.

“It will be a disaster for everyone,” Bishop Marcelo Sanchez Sorondo told the Rome newspaper La Repubblica.

Scientists have said a U.S. withdrawal from the deal could speed up the effects of global climate change, leading to heat waves, floods, droughts, and more frequent violent storms.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


It sounds like a party with the music in the background. I bet the press will complain that Trump is late.

Wasn’t that one of those “T-rump promises to” thingies…

Why is there any question here?

Oh, and what in the wide, wide world of sports do conservative want from T-rump…???

    Rick in reply to Ragspierre. | June 1, 2017 at 3:23 pm

    It would be a surprising and pleasant change if Trump would simply say: “We are out of the Paris accord,” without equivocating or backsliding or promising to rework it.

      Tom Servo in reply to Rick. | June 1, 2017 at 5:09 pm

      Oh come on, what a way to grump on what was the greatest move of Trump’s Presidency so far! As far as the “renegotiate” line, it was a throwaway line, consider two relevant points:

      A) This is something he’s said from the beginning, which everyone who’s been paying attention has heard many times. If the deal was renegotiated in our favor, then we’d stay in. Duh, who wouldn’t?

      B) It will NEVER be renegotiated, and everyone on all sides knows that, because the EU is too butt-hurt about Trump’s move to even consider it. If they opened a renegotiate it would be admitting that Trump was right, he could get a better deal than Barkey got, and they would never, could never, allow that to happen! Even if it would be in their best interest, just like the EU refused to negotiate England’s ability to control its borders. And Trump knows that and the EU knows that and Everyone in the World knows that.

      So it’s Dead. We’re Out. The Paris Accord is Over! (and for those who are about to bravely maintain that the rest of the world will go ahead with it, they never read the part where Uncle Sugar was financing the entire thing. Without us, the money is gone, and that’s what everyone was there for)

        Tom Servo in reply to Tom Servo. | June 1, 2017 at 6:02 pm

        And Right on Cue (didn’t even take 3 hours)

        O/T: BREAKING: France, Germany, Italy issue joint statement saying Paris climate accord can’t be renegotiated

        Would it be crude to say I told you so? Because I TOLD YOU SO!!!

    Barry in reply to Ragspierre. | June 1, 2017 at 6:34 pm

    Ragspi-erre’s favorite, Mitt Romney is disappointed. You know, the Romney he claims is a true conservative unlike that dastardly collectivist Trump.

    True conservatism wins today. The faux conservatives keep taking hits.

    SDN in reply to Ragspierre. | June 2, 2017 at 8:15 am

    Well, Rags, you can rejoice to know you’re not the only #NeverTrump hypocrite:

    “THIS KIND OF THING KEEPS HAPPENING: Washington Post’s Fake Conservative Blogger Hated The Paris Deal…Until Trump Agreed With Her. Trump derangement syndrome is real, and is by no means limited to people on the left.”

      Barry in reply to SDN. | June 2, 2017 at 10:05 am

      “Rubin is proof that if Trumpism corrupts, unhinged anti-Trumpism corrupts absolutely.”

The lefties will be jumping into Henny Penny mode in 3… 2… 1…

notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital | June 1, 2017 at 3:34 pm


“Resorts World Hotel in Manila in Lockdown Following Gunfire and Explosions

In what may be an ISIS-related event, the Resorts World Hotel in Manila, the Philippines is in Lockdown Mode following gunfire and explosions.”

Agreed @Merlin.

The data shows that the AGWists have been wrong and have faked the data for quite some time. And that perhaps Mars has more to do with our climate cycles than anything else, according to some recent report.

But yep….The Lies of the Left will still be spewed. And given credence by their various propaganda outlets.

tarheelkate | June 1, 2017 at 3:47 pm

I enjoyed Trump’s referring to the Paris agreement as a “non-binding” one, which of course was accurate.

Dude sure can throw a punch.



georgia peach | June 1, 2017 at 4:40 pm

I think it’s brilliant to say that we are open to renegotiating if it is in our best interests.Then it seems like he is flexible and not closing any doors.I like that approach.Will tamp down some screaming but still keeps US interests as the most important.Bravo.

Oh darn it! Now it’s probably going to be hot in August. Wait, Texas is always hot in August. Barbeque and cold beer! Yyyeeehhaaaaa!

The welfare of our grandchildren & great grandchildren will be far better served by Trump’s wise decision. It is quite simply a global scam which will benefit only the scammers. Let them scam themselves – it will change nothing.

“He promised during the campaign to withdraw from the agreement.”

Great, a promise kept.

Now let’s see the special prosecutor go after Hillary like he promised.

No pol should be above the law; she clearly thinks she is.

    notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to Paul. | June 1, 2017 at 6:40 pm

    Remember vengeance is a dish best served cold – justice the same.

There are at least three distinct problems with the Paris Accord—

— The science—my own belief, based on my own fifty-year data set, is that the whole thing is a put-on. But my scientific evaluation is hardly the last word, even to me. In other words, the science is not settled. And Trump here isn’t claiming that it is.

— The politics—it’s not necessary that the science be settled in order to have some sort of accord. Reasons? Pure politics (which is not a scientific issue but is certainly real), or just pragmatic “yes but maybe”-ism. But there’s no reason for the US to participate in any Accord which is damaging or even disadvantageous. So come back with a good one, and maybe it will be worth joining, whether or not it does anything useful.

— The Constitution—Obama’s general reign of lawlessness is being dismantled; too slowly for some, but at least in an orderly and non-hysterical fashion. Barry’s “executive order” ploy was an outright fraud … but he got away with a lot of frauds. Now, a more honest man than Obama has undone the damage. Everybody on the planet seems to have his own formula for how Trump should have done it. But as we’ve seen from Trump’s ongoing attempts to stop the Dem’s “open borders” policies, the extent of Executive power is currently in dispute. Any plan which puts reliance on our current Federal legislative or judicial jungles involves delay and risk. The way Trump is doing it is a way which is under his control; not the control of the Court nor of Congress. Not even a Democrat can dispute that Trump can do this; if Obama could do anything by Executive order, then obviously Trump can undo it the same way.

Trump’s handling of all this seems—given the circumstances—impeccable. I hope some of our professional political slugs don’t learn any of his dance steps; a character with the malevolent motivations of an Obama or Clinton, melded with the political skill of Trump, would be a formidable menace.

Bjorn Lomborg’s projections of the costs and effectiveness of the Paris agreement. (Video dated mid-Jan 2017.)

The Kyoto Protocol set deadlines for signatory countries to meet their respective obligations under the protocol. No member country including the U.S. fulfilled its obligation by the deadline date.

The Doha Agreement amended the Kyoto Protocol to extend these deadlines into 2012. Again, no signatory country met its obligations. In fact only seven countries had even ratified the Doha Agreement.

The Paris Agreement is just a repackaging of the Doha Agreement. All of these agreements are under the auspices of the UN Conference on Climate Change. UN involvement alone makes these agreements suspect to US interests.

Science illiterate politicians and bureaucrats think they alone can control the earth, sun, moon and stars. They believe they can because in their own little echo chamber the tell each other that the science is settled. If they knew anything about real science they would realize how ridiculous that statement is.

They even think they can criminalize real scientific research that disproves their beliefs founded only upon an echo chamber consensu. Buried deep in the pages of this blog is a discussion of a bill introduced in the California senate that attempts to achieve that very result. Kamala Harris is a supporter of such criminalization.

Galileo was excommunicated because he challenged the unproven consensus of the time that the earth was the universal center. His research and the later research of others proved prevailing belief to be wrong. Criminalizing climate research that proves the politicians and bureaucrats wrong is at best medieval thinking.

    Ragspierre in reply to MadisonS. | June 1, 2017 at 7:26 pm

    Just FYI, Galileo was NEVER excommunicated. He did get in trouble because he couldn’t restrain his ego, and he went after the Pope personally. He was defended often by high-ranking members of the Church.

    Never a good idea to propagate myth.

      Daiwa in reply to Ragspierre. | June 1, 2017 at 9:46 pm

      True. He was just forced to ‘abjure’ his stated belief & kept under house arrest the remainder of his life.

      Kepler, on the other hand, was excommunicated, but by the Lutheran Church.

    Milhouse in reply to MadisonS. | June 1, 2017 at 11:46 pm

    Galileo was excommunicated because he challenged the unproven consensus of the time that the earth was the universal center. His research and the later research of others proved prevailing belief to be wrong

    1. He was not excommunicated.

    2. The consensus view of the time was not unproven; the weight of the evidence available at the time strongly supported it, which is why it was the consensus view. The Church had absolutely no problem with Copernicus proposing heliocentrism as an interesting theory that would resolve certain scientific questions, but that also had several serious problems of its own.

    Galileo, however, insisted that heliocentrism was not just a theory but the truth, even though he could not prove it and had no answer to the serious problems with it, the strongest of which was the lack of observable stellar parallax.

    Even worse than that, he presumed to reinterpret scripture to fit his theory; that was the Church’s realm, and he was trespassing on it. As Cardinal Bellarmine told him at his trial, he was quite willing to reinterpret scripture the moment he was convinced that the science made it necessary; but since the science did not make it necessary he saw no reason to mess with it. Which is pretty much what we are saying about the economic sacrifices the warmenists claim are necessary to prevent the warming they predict; if they could prove that these sacrifices are necessary then we’d accept them, but why should we without such proof?

    See here for more

      Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | June 1, 2017 at 11:49 pm

      “I say that if there were a true demonstration that the sun is at the centre of the world and the earth in the third heaven, and that the sun does not circle the earth but the earth circles the sun, then one would have to proceed with great care in explaining the Scriptures that appear contrary, and say rather that we do not understand them than that what is demonstrated is false. But I will not believe that there is such a demonstration, until it is shown me.” — Cardinal Bellarmine

I’ve read two articles in the past couple of days that claim that despite withdrawing, it will take four years to take effect and so the next president can choose to nix Trump’s action and so the agreement would proceed without interruption. But it seems to me that since the US opted in to the agreement by executive action thus doing an end-around of Congress, all it takes is for the next president (Trump) to reverse it by executive action. Why would this have to be approved by the Senate if there never was an agreement? Seems to me that this kills it.

    Daiwa in reply to Pasadena Phil. | June 1, 2017 at 8:46 pm

    They’ll find some effing judge somewhere who’ll buy off on the claim that his executive decision is void based on bad intentions – because he promised to do this during the campaign, ipso facto.

    Milhouse in reply to Pasadena Phil. | June 2, 2017 at 12:12 pm

    This is why I’m not happy with Trump for using the language of formal withdrawal. You don’t withdraw from something you were never a party to in the first place.

    Like the Iran deal, this was not an agreement between the USA and other countries, but between Mr 0bama and other leaders. The president is of course entitled to make agreements with whomever he likes, just like everyone else is. There’s nothing in the constitution that says he can’t, just because those other people happen to be foreign leaders. But Mr 0bama’s agreements don’t bind Mr Trump in any way. Trump seems to have decided to keep the terms of the Iran deal, but not those of the Paris deal; both these decisions are within his prerogative, but he can change them whenever he likes.

Perhaps Macron’s mocking of Trump with the handshake BS wasn’t such a wise move. 😉

A “science” based on computer models that can’t even accurately “predict” known climate conditions from the past, but we can be sure that they can accurately predict unknown climate conditions a hundred years in the future.

GMAFB. This isn’t about “science,” but about re-distributing the U.S.’s wealth, in the name of “social justice.”

Trump was right to pull out.

For some great laughs:

But with an aftertaste of sadness for how brainwashed so many people are. Buncha lemmings.

I’m so sick of the Dems lecturing Trump and the rest of us about ‘Leadership’. This *is* leadership. They just don’t recognize it as such because they’re ignorant and bad.