Connect with others across the political spectrum

Sign in / Sign up

National & World Issue

Should the U.S. be part of the #Paris Agreement on #Climate Change?

Score for this "No" opinion :
Score is TBD

"No benefits to agreement, it just hurts U.S. jobs" Jul 21, 2024

The Paris Agreement was one of the hallmarks and legacies of former President Barack Obama. He prided himself on the fact that he had taken part this significant step to curb climate change. While it is admirable in rhetoric, the policies were disastrous in practice. 

#Trump was derided and criticized by the political left for his withdrawal from the #ParisClimateChangeAccord signed by President Obama in 2015. What many people didn't realize was that Trump did American taxpayers a huge favor. Unfortunately, President Biden has brought us back into the agreement...which was a mistake.

Like most proposals on tackling climate change, there's always the lingering elephant in the room - whether a climate change plan would harm American jobs. This is a legitimate concern as oil remains the bedrock of American energy and the coal plants have thousands of Americans on their payroll.

But beyond that, the cost of such a plan is concerning. People like Al Gore and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez have proposed trillion-dollar programs that would balloon the already enormous national debt.

The Agreement threatens thousands of American jobs, a shrink in economic growth by 2%, and a GDP loss of $2.5 trillion by 2035. These are no small numbers. They would have seismic consequences on the US economy beyond what analysts would be able to project.

It's no surprise that after the Trump administration pulled out, the stock market experienced some of the largest gains in modern history, and the nation experienced record-low unemployment. This economic growth would not have been possible if the U.S. had been bound by the Paris Agreement.

One of the clauses within the Paris Agreement is the Green Climate Fund. This Green Climate Fund would take $100 Billion yearly from the US to subsidize green energy and fund climate-friendly infrastructure in other countries. This cuts right at the heart of the climate debate: Green energy is expensive, and liberals have no plans of making it cheap, so they'll raise taxes to fund it, thereby crippling the economy and stagnating growth.

Part of the Green Climate Fund would go to poorer countries to help in their fight against climate change. However, there's a lack of transparency and accountability on what these funds will be used for. The corrupt countries will most likely pocket the money and not put any green policy in place to cap carbon emissions. The US will be wasting money.

It should be remembered also that the U.S. entered this deal without permission from Congress. Such unilateral moves do not deserve to be rewarded by continuing commitment, especially seeing its disastrous effects on the US economy.

Also, the question of the trustworthiness of our contemporaries is one worth contemplating. China has been underreporting air pollution data, and carbon emission levels. The U.S. has no assurance whatsoever that China won't use this opportunity to outpace the U.S. significantly while the U.S. is bound to such a bad deal.

All in all, we should be out of this climate agreement, and continue to push for climate change on our own terms, without it being dictated by other countries.

This website uses cookies
ViewExchange uses cookies to improve performance of the website, to personalize content and advertisements, and to overall provide you with a better experience. By clicking “Accept” or by continuing to use ViewExchange, you accept the use of cookies. You can control your data settings including opting out by clicking here.