You are here:   Features > Trump prefers energy dominance to Paris
 

Emmanuel Macron and Donald Trump in April (©Cheriss May/NurPhoto via Getty Images)


Donald J. Trump has made many decisions since becoming President of the United States that have offended the permanent political establishment in Washington; and in foreign policy, he has also shocked political elites in Britain and Europe by doing things that are simply not done.  To take a recent notable example, in May Trump stopped pretending that payoffs to Iran would slow the ayatollahs from developing nuclear weapons.  Before that, he angered pro-Arabists everywhere by moving the American embassy to Israel’s capital, Jerusalem. But perhaps the foreign policy decision most upsetting to politically correct sensibilities everywhere occurred on June 1, 2017 when the President announced that the US would withdraw from the Paris climate treaty.

In the months leading up to the announcement, intense pressure was put on Trump to stay in Paris from every direction — environmental pressure groups, Democrats in Congress, mainstream media, Hollywood celebrities, countless CEOs of international corporations, and several members of his own administration, including Secretary of State Rex Tillerson. The push by world leaders peaked at the G7 summit meeting in May 2017 in Sicily, but in the end all the cajoling and coaxing from Prime Minister May, Chancellor Merkel, President Macron, and EU Commission President Juncker did not convince Trump to break his campaign promise.

Although Trump made clear in his Rose Garden speech why undertaking international commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is not in America’s national interest, he created confusion when he added: “I’m willing to immediately work with Democratic leaders to either negotiate our way back into Paris, under terms that are fair to the United States and its workers, or to negotiate a new deal that protects our country and its taxpayers . . . And we’ll make it good, and we won’t be closing up our factories, and we won’t be losing our jobs.” He added to the confusion in January when, as the BBC reported, he said, “we could conceivably get back in”.

Perhaps these comments were made to show, not least to his daughter and son-in-law Ivanka and Jared Kushner, that he was not unreasonable. Or perhaps Trump is deliberately creating confusion because he thinks it is in his political interest.

Whatever the motive, his comments have led many political leaders and informed observers in London and other European capitals to a serious misunderstanding. Here is just one example: the French President Emmanuel Macron said in his address to Congress in April, “I’m sure, one day, the United States will come back and join the Paris agreement.”

It’s not going to happen. It’s not going to happen in the first Trump administration or in a possible second Trump administration. And it will be very difficult for a future president — Democrat or Republican — to get the US back into Paris or any other UN agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from burning coal, oil, and gas.
View Full Article
Tags:
 
Share/Save
 
 
 
 
Michael Spencer
June 8th, 2018
11:06 AM
The REAL solution is to get on with "Generation IV" nuclear power generation; and "The Donald" has already released the shackles on this development in the United States after year of "greentape" during the Obama regime. It seems that the first production line units due to start rolling out this year - from China - surprise! surprise! Quite apart from cheap, clean, and totally safe electricity production (with almost zero waste - indeed, all the present 'waste' is not waste and can be recycled) because of the excess heat that will be available there are a number of side benefits: one of these is to desalinate sea water, virtually for nothing. Run some pipelines inland; imagine what this could mean for inland rivers in countries like mine, Australia, just for starters! And then there's the availability of a continuous supply of medical isotopes, such as Alpha particle Bismuth 213 - absolutely deadly for the targeted killing of cancers, even diffuse ones such as leukaemia, up until now virtually impossible to get because of the structure of the present Light Water Reactors. And then, to address the nonsense about electric cars and carbon-taxing fuel with higher-than-allowable "carbon emissions": the cheap electricity can be used to extract carbonic acid from water - sea water will do because there's lots of that. Using the high temperatures that will be available this can be cracked to extract the hydrogen and the carbon and these can be strung together to produce what the Americans call GASOLINE! "Fantasy!" I hear some think. No; it's been done already on a small scale at a US naval base. Take a look at this brief video, just for starters: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_0ftKqQ9XE. And then, there's the surprise that these new reactors will be able to run on a far cheaper and much more common element, using only a little uranium to trigger things off. And this common element is available at the moment as a nuisance-value waste from rare earth mining operations - just by way of example! If anyone would like to learn about this some more, I've sorted information into an order so people can start to wrap their minds around it with "blowing their brains" in the first instance. Download this interactive PDF about the climate http://www.galileomovement.com.au/.../ShouldYouReallyBeAl... and go to page 4 (Although page 3 rather sets the scene), and follow the links in sequence to page 7. Most interestingly, on page 5, you will find videos featuring internationally-renowned environmentalists who have learned of this new technology, and who have changed their minds from being "anti-" to "pro-" nuclear. An instructive lesson for some of out local (Australian)"Green" zealots perhaps? And a final comment: because this new nuclear technology does not use water either for a coolant or to drive turbines to generate electricity, the units will be much smaller and far more efficient, operate at normal atmospheric pressures (so for example huge containment domes are no longer necessary, etc. thus much cheaper to start with), and Outer Woop Woop* could have its own unit. Minimal land space will be needed - in stark contrast to inefficient wind-farms and solar arrays - and also this will obviate the need for expensive power lines with the resultant "line drop". This technology makes the present enthusiasm for so-called "renewables" and "carbon taxes" nothing more than a sick joke! * For the education of those not Australian, "Woop Woop" is a mythical out-back town. Get educated here http://www.koalanet.com.au/australian-slang.html#W!

James Rust
June 7th, 2018
12:06 AM
This charade has gone on long enough. The U.S. is the most blessed nation in the world with vast coal, oil, and natural gas resources, one million square miles of good farmland, and the people with skills and ambition to exploit those assets. With President Trump the U. S. will be the most powerful economic power the world has ever seen. It is foolish to go back to the Democrats attempts to hobble the country by preventing use of our assets.

Roger Graves
June 6th, 2018
1:06 PM
However it started out, the climate industrial complex is today largely driven by the wind and solar energy business. Since the year 2000, some 3 trillion dollars US has been spent on wind and solar energy, yet even this is dwarfed by estimates in excess of 20 trillion if all energy sources worldwide were to be replaced by wind and solar. Ally yourself to expenditures of this size and you can become rich beyond dreams of avarice, at the expense, of course, of the rest of us who will be paying bloated energy bills. With this amount of money sloshing around, you can buy yourself no end of politicians, academics, and fading Hollywood stars. Money talks, and this amount of money screams. Don't expect the climate industrial complex to tuck its tail between its legs and slink off without a whimper. If it goes at all it will go kicking and screaming the whole way.

Gordon J. Fulks, PhD (Physics)
June 1st, 2018
11:06 PM
Excellent analysis Mr Ebell. I would only take issue with your supposition that global warming "could be right." Covering all bases is not the way that we do science. As Nobel Laureate in Physics Richard Feynman explains here: http://www.richardfeynman.com/ we guess a new theory, compute the consequences, and compare those computations against the real world. If the comparison fails, the theory fails. As you mention, the Climate Models run far too hot when compared against robust empirical data. Since the models are the computations that incorporate what proponents of the theory claim it to be, a failure to match observations (by a long ways) dooms the theory. In science, we do not continue to give any credence to an old theory that has failed, even if doing so creates some sort of tautology that cannot be questioned because it covers all possibilities. We do not continue to talk about static continents instead of Continental Drift. We do not continue to talk about stress causing peptic ulcers instead of a bacterium. Etc. etc. Science gives us a method to evaluate theories. And we need to use it. Superstitions need to be discarded. By the way, last month marked the 100th anniversary of Richard Feynman's birth.

Hans Schreuder
May 31st, 2018
5:05 PM
Once you realise that there is no such phenomenon as a greenhouse effect in our atmosphere and that the so-called greenhouse gases in fact are the biggest coolers of the atmosphere, it is obvious that no amount of emission reductions is going to work. It is physically impossible for atmospheric carbon dioxide to make the world warmer than the sunlight makes it, no matter how many times that heat is recirculated. Does a thermos make the coffee warmer than it was when you put it in? Check http://ilovemycarbondioxide.com/ for all the facts you'll ever need to come to the right conclusion: man-made climate change is indeed a hoax and a huge one at that.

Post your comment

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.