FRAMINGHAM, Mass. -- The United States’ withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement is a positive move for the United States.
There are several reasons for this, many that reflect on energy use and the way it's delivered. They include:
- The agreement was always nonbinding. China, which, at 11 million tons of greenhouse gas emissions, is the highest emitter in the world, and Russia (3 million tons) are professionals in breaching binding agreements, so a nonbinding agreement gives them incredible latitude.
- The agreement never captured methane, which is 10 times more heat-trapping than carbon dioxide, or other pollutants such as sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and particulates.
- The agreement committed the United States to $3 billion in aid to “developing countries,” of which we have already sent $1 billion.
- We as a country can still transition to a less-carbon-generating activity basis with technology and cost incentives.
- We can craft a new agreement that has teeth and enforcement provisions.
- Natural gas, which is less of a carbon generator, is already displacing coal and petroleum by the strongest incentive there is: cost. Coal costs $8 per million BTUs, while natural gas costs half of that.
- The argument that we lose green jobs by exiting the agreement is simply wrong. We currently export $2.2 trillion in goods. If there is a market for green technology, U.S. businesses can fill it without a domestic demand base. Much of our exports of medical technology and goods and capital goods are only in demand in other countries. Our ability to capture export markets is a function of their relative cost of production (especially labor and energy), tax policy and currency differentials.
- The decision to remain in the Paris climate agreement is not about the United States being green or innovative. It is about whether the United States has sovereignty over its decisions or lets others determine the course, and whether we are guided by price and technology or international bureaucrats.
- The Stone Age did not end when we ran out of stones or mandated we use other materials. Instead, it ended when we innovated, responded to results on an ad hoc basis and used technology and market incentives to improve results.
- The United States will move forward and create the businesses of the future as it always has, no matter who is president and without French, Italian and German assistance.
Members help make our journalism possible. Become a CSP member today and unlock exclusive benefits, including unlimited access to all of our content. Sign up here.