Trump Will Use Art of the Deal to Kill Paris Climate Treaty

paris agreement
Gabriel Bouys/AFP/Getty

President Trump’s latest moves on the Paris agreement are – depending on your point of view – either a masterstroke of realpolitik by a consummate dealmaker or a shameful fudge: he has decided to kick the can down the road by leaving the decision up to the Senate.

This isn’t, of course, what he promised on the campaign trail.

In May last year in North Dakota he was quite explicit:

We’re going to cancel the Paris Climate Agreement and stop all payments of U.S. tax dollars to UN global warming programs.

What he probably wasn’t banking on, though, when he made that commitment was that it wouldn’t just be the liberals and greenies he’d be battling – but also a significant chunk of his own administration.

Though his EPA chief Scott Pruitt and his advisor Steve Bannon were all for pulling out, everyone else in his inner circle – not just the inevitable Jared Kushner and Ivanka, but also Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and even Energy Secretary Rick Perry – were keen to stay in.

The compromise – declare the agreement a treaty then send it to the senate to be killed – was in the event, probably the best skeptics could have hoped for.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Climate Realists Urge President Trump to Pull out of Suicidal, Expensive and Pointless Paris Agreement

The Competitive Enterprise Institute has released a video urging President Trump to keep his campaign promise and withdraw the U.S. from the Paris climate agreement.

It features a speech President Trump gave in May 2016 explaining exactly why he wanted to pull out:

“This agreement gives foreign bureaucrats control over our energy and how much we use right here in America. No way!”

He adds:

“We’re going to cancel the Paris Climate Agreement and stop all payments of the United States’ tax dollars to UN global warming programs”.

The video concludes:

Mr President. Don’t listen to the Swamp. Keep your promise. Withdraw from the Paris climate treaty. Send it to the Senate.

Now, however, he appears to be having second thoughts. His administration is reportedly divided on the issue, with White House insiders including Jared Kushner and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson arguing for the U.S. to remain inside the UN Paris agreement, supposedly in order to keep a “seat at the table.”

That would make it more expensive than a solid gold, diamond-encrusted seat at the table of King Croesus then. In fact, it would make it – at $65 trillion – the most expensive seat at the table in the history of the world.

And the $65 trillion, by the way, is a conservative estimate. This – according to calculations by Bjorn Lomborg – is the lower end estimate of how much it would cost the world if all the signatories of the Paris climate agreement stuck to their CO2 reduction commitments.

First, Bjorn Lomborg, accepting climate-change advocates’ assumptions about how much warming comes from carbon dioxide, showed in a peer-reviewed study that implementing all provisions of all signers to Paris would prevent only 0.306 degrees Fahrenheit of global warming by 2100.

What would it cost? Unofficial estimates by the United States, European Union, Mexico and China amount to $739-$757 billion per year.

Those parties account for about 80 percent of signatories’ emissions reduction pledges. Other pledges would have similar costs per unit, implying something in the range of $185-$189 billion.

All told, $924-$946 billion. Per year. Every year from 2030 to the end of the century. “And that’s if the politicians do everything right. If not, the real cost could double,” Mr. Lomborg said.

So, for $65-$132 trillion, we might — if the alarmists are right — reduce global average temperature by a third of one degree by 2100. That’s $212-$431 billion per thousandth of a degree of cooling.

But if you think things just couldn’t any more stupid, wait till you hear what the effect of pouring all that money down the drain on futile carbon-dioxide reductions schemes will have on the state of the Earth’s climate.

Here is what a peer-reviewed study by Bjorn Lomborg says.

It will, by 2030, reduce “global warming” by the almost immeasurable 0.048 degrees C.

And by the end of the century, it will reduce “global warming” by 0.17 degrees C.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Why I Totally Hate Big Oil – And Why You Should Too…


Did you hear the speech that Al Gore gave in Texas the other day saying that the oil industry should take climate change more seriously, that oil could peak in the next decade, that the “social acceptance” for oil was disappearing, that there needed to be a meaningful tax on carbon emissions and that he “strongly supported” the Paris climate agreement?
Oh no, wait. It wasn’t Al Gore. My bad. It was actually Ben van Beurden, chief executive of Shell speaking at an oil industry gathering at the U.S. oil capital of Houston.

Now do you see why I so hate Big Oil?

Well, partly it’s bitterness. For many years now, I – and many sceptics like me – have been accused by climate alarmists of being “in the pay of Big Oil”. But even though we deserve it for promoting fossil fuels so enthusiastically and fighting their critics so heroically, few of us have ever received even a penny for our troubles. That’s because Big Oil is far too busy trying to greenwash its image – as Shell itself did by sponsoring the Guardian’s environment pages for many years – to waste time on the plucky, outspoken heroes who do a better job for Big Oil’s PR than the Big Oil’s paid PR departments do.

Mainly, though it’s disgust. Big Oil has this public image of being an industry for fearless, no-nonsense manly men who aren’t afraid of getting their hands dirty or braving the environmentalists’ wrath in order to do their ugly but important work supplying the world with much-needed energy.

Yet it’s an image almost entirely undeserved.

Almost everyone at a senior level in Big Oil is a craven, simpering, politically correct, spineless, surrender-monkey corporate shill. They’re cowards who are scared of free markets, won’t speak up for capitalism, won’t even defend their core business. Typical of this attitude was the current Secretary of State Rex Tillerson.

One of his first moves on becoming CEO of Exxon in 2006 was to announce it would stop funding organisations like the Competitive Enterprise Institute “whose position on climate change could divert attention from the important discussion on how the world will secure the energy required for economic growth in an environmentally responsible manner.” Unlike his punchier predecessor Lee Raymond, Tillerson clearly decided that discretion being the better part of valor, he would throw his industry’s supporters to the wolves.

One of the first big energy stories I covered for Breitbart was the incredible true story of how Chevron Oil fought off a $9.5 billion damages case filed on behalf of Ecuadorean natives whose lands had supposedly been polluted as a result of Chevron’s negligence.

The truly incredible part of the story was that Chevron decided to defend the case. The more usual position of Big Oil is to surrender as soon as possible and settle out of court.

If Big Oil won’t speak out for the oil industry, who will?

Sadly, the burden invariably falls to that small group of maverick believers in free markets and honest science who don’t care about all the brickbats they get for being defenders of “dirty fuel” because they’d rather speak the truth than be popular.

Among them is Steve Milloy who, May 2008, intervened in an Exxon shareholder meeting on behalf of all those shareholders who think that Exxon’s core business should be drilling oil and creating value for shareholders – not getting distracted by trying to make themselves look cuter for their Watermelon (green on the outside, red on the inside) critics. Follow this link and you can hear the huge round applause Milloy won from shareholders when he proposed that Exxon should amend its bye-laws so that it no longer had to waste time on politicised interventions from “nuisance shareholders”.

Stock ownership has become politicized. Many shareholders own stock in publicly-owned corporations for the sole purpose of advancing the shareholders’ own social or political agendas, while simultaneously assailing the corporations’ legitimate business operations. These activist shareholders are “nuisance shareholders.”

A primary tool of nuisance shareholders is the submission of non-binding precatory (advisory) proposals for discussion and vote at annual meetings of shareholders. Proposals from nuisance shareholders can coerce management into making decisions not in the best interests of the Company and its bona fide shareholders, and turn the annual meeting into a media-activist circus.

You’d think Exxon would have been grateful for this fire support from their public. Not one bit. We can see this from Exxon’s response to a submission from Milloy that he intends to make a similar proposal at Exxon’s next shareholder meeting this May. They applied to the SEC to try to get Milloy’s proposal excluded.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Trump Is Definitely Going to Pull the U.S. out of the UN Paris Climate Agreement

Chip Somodevilla/Getty

President Trump is definitely going to pull the U.S. out of the Paris climate agreement, the head of his Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) transition team has confirmed.

At a press conference in London – the one where the media delegates’ heads all exploded – Myron Ebell told his appalled audience that Trump would certainly be honouring his campaign promise to pull out of the UN Paris agreement. The fact that incoming Secretary of State Rex Tillerson disagrees with this is, Ebell suggested, an irrelevance.

An apparent contradiction emerged in recent weeks between Trump’s position and that of his incoming secretary of state Rex Tillerson, who said the US will “remain part” of UN climate discussions. When asked about these contrasting positions, Ebell said it is impossible for him to predict the outcome, but “in a disagreement with the president, who do you think will win?”

Read the rest at Breitbart.