Talking Points on the Paris Climate Accords

Background: What are the Paris Climate Accords?

1. The Paris Climate Accords are a 2015 international agreement in which countries committed to specific short-term cuts in CO2 emissions along with the general goal of somehow eliminating almost all human-caused CO2 emissions by 2050.¹
2. These emissions cuts are allegedly necessary to keep the average temperature from increasing by more than 1 degree C or more (2 degrees since preindustrial times) which would allegedly be catastrophic.²
3. Temperatures have already increased 1 degree C since preindustrial times. That has been accompanied by the greatest increase in human well-being in human history, including a record low level of deaths from climate-related causes--which have decreased at a rate of 98% over the last century.^{3 4}
4. Countries that adopted the Accords can commit to as much or as little CO2 reduction as they choose. China, for example, vowed to continue increasing its CO2 emissions until 2030. The Paris Accords have no enforcement mechanism to ensure that countries deliver on their commitments.^{5 6}
5. Unlike many countries, which did little more than pledge CO2 reductions they were going to make anyway, the U.S. under the Obama-Biden administration committed the U.S. to major CO2 reductions—26% to 28% lower than 2005 levels by 2025.⁷
6. Even more significant, by signing the Paris Climate Accords, the Obama-Biden administration publicly committed the US--a country that, unlike most signees, takes its commitments seriously--to almost eliminating CO2 emissions by the year 2050.⁸
7. Finally, the Paris Climate Accords committed developed nations to pay $100 billion a year, indefinitely--with the US surely paying the biggest share--to a "green climate fund" to pay for projects in other countries that will allegedly help eliminate their CO2 emissions and cope with climate change.⁹
8. Most believers in climate catastrophe considered the commitments of the Paris Accords to be insufficient. One study found that “Almost 75% of 184 Paris Agreement pledges were judged insufficient to slow climate change.”¹⁰
9. International commitments to reduce CO2 emissions have a history of failing, and the Paris Accords are no exception. Most countries still aren’t meeting their CO2 reduction pledges, including Canada, Japan, and the European Union.¹¹
10. The most significant progress in meeting Paris Climate Accords commitments has been the economic devastation of 2020, which has included a dramatic decrease in energy use.¹²

Why Shouldn't the USA Rejoin the Paris Accords?

Unconstitutionality

Reason #1 why Biden should not rejoin Paris: to do so without Senate authorization is Unconstitutional.

• The Paris Accords, an unprecedented commitment to change our economy, is a treaty if there ever was one. Obama had no right to enter it unilaterally, and neither does Biden.
• Treaties require Senate ratification. The State Dept classifies something as a treaty using 8 criteria, including 1) it affects the whole nation, 2) it requires state law changes, and 3) it requires new federal legislation. These and the other 5 all apply to the Paris Accords.¹³

Anti-America

Reason #2 why Biden should not rejoin Paris: it goes against US interests.

• The Paris Climate Accords commit the US to emissions reductions that would make our energy uncompetitively expensive--while China committed to nothing. Joining it was being a sucker, not a leader.
• The nonpartisan National Economic Research Associates concluded that pursuing the Obama/Biden plan to achieve the Paris Climate Accords would cause rising economic damage reaching $2 trillion a year—about $15,000 a household—by 2040.¹⁴
• The nonpartisan National Economic Research Associates also concluded that pursuing the Obama/Biden plan to achieve the Paris Climate Accords would destroy 6.5 million American industrial jobs by 2040.¹⁵

Immoral

Reason #3 why Biden should not rejoin the Paris Climate Accords: it is immoral.

1. A moral international policy is one that expands human flourishing and human freedom. Paris is a path to outlawing fossil fuels, which means outlawing the only way to provide affordable, reliable energy for billions of people.¹⁶
2. When you hear scary claims about a “climate crisis,” keep in mind that climate catastrophists have been claiming climate crisis for 40 years. For example, Obama science advisor John Holdren predicted in the 1980s that we’d have up to 1 billion climate deaths today.¹⁷
3. After 40 years of “climate crisis” predictions by climate catastrophists, human beings are safer than ever from climate. The climate death rate has decreased by *98%* over the last century.¹⁸
4. Fossil fuels were supposed to make climate far more dangerous in the last 40 years but they have actually made it far safer by providing low-cost, reliable energy for the development that protects us against storms, protect us against extreme temperatures, and alleviate drought.¹⁹
5. Fossil fuels' CO2 emissions have contributed to the warming of the last 170 years, but that warming has been mild and manageable—1 degree Celsius, mostly in the colder parts of the world.²⁰
6. Fossil fuels' CO2 emissions have not only contributed to mild and manageable warming, they have also caused the benefit of significant global greening. Thanks to fossil fuels the Earth is far greener than it was just 40 years ago.²¹
7. If the world continues using fossil fuels to provide low-cost, reliable, global-scale energy, the result will not be a climate crisis but continued manageable warming, significant greening, and a far better life for billions who will have the power to develop and flourish.
8. If America tries to rapidly eliminate fossil fuel use by following the Paris Climate Accords we will not prevent a crisis, we will cause a crisis by making energy completely unreliable and unaffordable for American industry and American consumers.

Alternatives

If the US shouldn't rejoin the Paris Climate Accords, what should we do?

First, recognize reality: there is climate change but no climate crisis. Fossil fuels' overall impact is incredibly positive.

Second, liberate oppressed non-carbon alternatives, above all nuclear energy.

• The only way to lower CO2 emissions and benefit America is developing ways to produce low-carbon energy that are truly reliable and low-cost. Are China and India going to stop using fossil fuels so long as they are the lowest-cost option? They won’t and they shouldn’t.^{22 23}
• America can lower emissions and energy costs by decriminalizing nuclear energy. Nuclear is actually the safest source of energy and the only way to provide reliable non-carbon electricity anywhere in the world. Yet politicians are overregulating it to death.²⁴
• Ultra-clean, reliable nuclear plants are being shut down despite ultra-low fuel costs. Why? Because of policies like the PTC/ITC wind/solar subsidies, which force us to overpay for unreliable power and underpay for reliable power. And Congress just renewed these abominations!²⁵
• The fossil fuel bans and “renewables only” policies supported by most Democratic politicians will make American energy incredibly unreliable and expensive. That won’t stop CO2 emissions from rising but it will ruin the American economy.

Full cost

The Paris Climate Accords is an immoral, self-destructive agreement that on paper commits the US to huge productivity losses in the short term and total economic destruction in the long term. Unfortunately, Joe Biden’s plan to implement the Paris Accords is far worse.

1. In 2015 the Obama/Biden administration, without Senate authorization, committed the US to the Paris Climate Accords. The Accords called for a 28% cut in emissions by 2025 and at least an 80% cut by 2050.²⁶
2. The costs of Obama's Paris plan would have been enormous. The nonpartisan National Economic Research Associates concluded that Obama's plan would cause rising economic damage reaching $2 trillion a year—about $15,000 a household—by 2040.²⁷
3. The costs of Obama's Paris plan to industrial workers would have been particularly onerous. The nonpartisan National Economic Research Associates concluded that Obama's plan would destroy 6.5 million American industrial jobs by 2040.²⁸
4. Joe Biden's Paris plan is far more more onerous than Obama's: eliminating CO2 emissions from electricity by 2035 and eliminating all CO2 emissions by 2050. In fact, it's impossible because all energy uses a lot of fossil fuel for mining, transportation, and high-temp heat.²⁹
5. While Biden's emissions elimination goals cannot be achieved, period, the attempt to achieve them would be devastating. Just one of Biden's plans involves forcing Americans to pay $2 trillion--$15,000 a household--to begin a solar and wind-based grid that can’t possibly work.³⁰
6. No cost estimates are possible for the impossible "net zero by 2050" goal. But the only nation to even try an independent cost-estimate, New Zealand, calculated 16% of GDP--the equivalent of $5 trillion a year US. That's about $30,000 a household.³¹
7. Even $30K per household per year is an underestimate for Biden's Paris plan, because it assumes he will seek the most cost-effective ways to reduce emissions. But on Day 1 Biden *increased* emissions by stopping a pipeline that would have reduced emissions and created 10K+ jobs.³²
8. Any proper decision to enter an international agreement must pass 3 tests: 1) It must be Constitutional. 2) It must benefit the United States. 3) It must be moral. Joe Biden rejoining the Paris Climate Accords without Senate authorization fails all 3.

References