The private sector is already shifting to low carbon energy in red states — see the explosive growth of solar power in Arizona, Nevada, and Utah and wind power in Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Iowa.

Yep. Making the entire matter of the Paris Accords moot, from the standpoint of emissions.

But, it always was moot from the standpoint of emissions, which is why so many environmental groups criticized it when signed, calling it simply “kicking the can down the road.” The Paris Accords were always about….something else, as you point out in your first paragraph.

The news that President Donald J. Trump has decided to withdraw the United States from the Paris Agreement on climate change is an unmitigated disaster for the climate security movement

I’d like to know how you come to this conclusion. The exit of the US has no effect on reduction plans of any of the signatories, and as you have eloquently shown, no effect on the inevitable movement to renewables that is already baked in here domestically. Our per capita carbon footprint has been on a steep downhill slope for ten years now, and is projected to accelerate.

When you have all of the blue states going apoplectic and swearing to keep to the Accord standards, AND you have the largest red state of all being the national leader in wind power generation and, by the end of next year (I believe) the leader in solar power generation, I’d say that all is pretty good here, deal or no deal.

and, moreover, for America’s reputation as an honest broker.

How’s that? The agreement was written in a specific way, in order to skirt US treaty law. Every nation in the world knew that Obama couldn’t get it through Congress as a treaty, therefore it was (unless he lied to them about it) nonbinding on the US, and could thus disappear in a moment’s notice.

The entire purpose of international treaties, conventions, and protocols is for sovereign nations to commit to courses of conduct which will endure regardless of a change in government.

Granted. Which is why this document should have been presented to Congress, and the fact that it attempted to do something illegal under US law (which is to obligate future administrations without ever having the agreement of the people) was governmental malfeasance on the part of the Obama administration, ESPECIALLY if he led any of the other signatories to believe that the US was obligated.

Like the Iran agreement, these were blatant attempts to subvert the US democratic process as outlined by the Constitution by agreeing to something outside the democratic process that would be difficult to extricate ourselves from. As a lawyer, why didn’t that appall you? Simply because you agreed with the end result?

By unilaterally withdrawing from the Paris Agreement, Trump has committed a breach of diplomacy which has tarnished our credibility among nations and diminished America’s standing in the world.

Hm.

Well, that’s so incredibly intangible it’s impossible to comment on it, really. If that translates into substantial amounts of money, I’d become interested then, I guess.

But in general, I support decisions that benefit me, and I don’t become overly concerned with what my neighbors think.

Written by

Data Driven Econophile. Muslim, USA born. Been “woke” 2x: 1st, when I realized the world isn’t fair; 2nd, when I realized the “woke” people are full of shit.

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store