Three sources told Axios that President Trump has privately told multiple people, including EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, that he plans to leave the Paris agreement on climate change.
Publicly, Trump tweeted that he will make a decision this week.
Leaving the climate agreement will be the biggest blow to Obama’s suffocating climate policies.
The Europeans, including the Pope, have put tremendous pressure on Trump this week to keep to the deal. They aren’t our friends necessarily, allies yes, but they don’t always have our best interests at heart.
The contribution by the U.S. to the Paris agreement would have been the largest. It’s another redistribution gimmick. It would be an endless tax drain with global rulers ins the U.N. overseeing the operation.
Europeans, particularly Angela Merkel, were very frustrated when they couldn’t have the climate change conversation they wanted with Trump. The word is that they have put a great deal in place and will be very upset if Trump doesn’t follow through on Obama’s promises.
However, that deal was pushed through at the end of Obama’s term and written to force Trump to stay in it. It was a treaty snaked through Congress in an unorthodox manner.
This decision could change. The Kushners and Gary Cohn, basically Democrats, want the climate deal, and Trump has been known to change his mind abruptly.
Trump’s EPA senior staff are cautiously optimistic, Axios writes, but they won’t be publicly lobbying as it would take away from Trump’s announcement. This has to be Trump’s win. Supporters are said to be quietly placing op-eds favoring withdrawal from Paris.
Prior to this, Pruitt has gone on TV to say the U.S. needs to quit Paris.
Pruitt’s aides told associates they believed the President would leave the deal but they were concerned about the pressures from European leaders and the Jivankas and Cohn.
Axios reported that top EPA staff were relieved when Trump refused to join the other six nations of the G7 in reaffirming “strong commitment” to the Paris agreement.
An administration official said there are three ways he might withdraw.
He could announce the withdrawal but the withdrawal process will take at least until November 2020. The deal requires a three year notice thanks to the conniving by Obama and his European partners though the process will only take one year. Trump could change his mind during the year.
A second approach would be to declare the Paris deal is a legal treaty which requires a Senate vote. It would fail in the Senate. A letter from 22 Senate Republicans and Majority Leader Mitch McConnell sent to Trump urged him to withdraw from the deal.
In a variation to the first two approaches, Trump could choose a combination of the first and second options.
Another possibility would involve a withdrawal from the treaty that underpins the Paris deal, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. It would take the U.S. out of all global climate diplomacy. That would also take a year.
It’s hard to extricate from this deal because of the clauses Obama’s team worked into it – deliberately.
To make the agreement happen, Obama colluded with the U.N. to distort and manipulate the prior treaty so he could say they were just fixing an old treaty. In this way, it would not be a new treaty and he could bypass the Senate and our Constitutional requirement of ratification by 2/3rds of the Senate. Obama circumvented the Senate on what was obviously a treaty and the Senate allowed him to do it, even passing a law giving their treaty powers away.
At the time he made the agreement, Barack Obama said we must make sure underdeveloped countries that want to DUMP FOSSIL FUELS have the resources they need. The resources of course are tax dollars from the “rich” countries. These dollars, about 21% of the total funding, will flow from the U.S. to dictators in poor countries where the people will still be treated badly and will continue to receive few of the benefits.
It’s the opposite of capitalism in that it would allow global government to control the economy through climate change.
Obama promised global governance though it would be “transparent”. Transparent and global government are a bit of a conundrum, aren’t they?