Thread: Trump Refuses To Sign G7 Statement Endorsing Paris Climate Agreement

Trump Refuses To Sign G7 Statement Endorsing Paris Climate Agreement

MICHAEL BASTASCH
9:46 AM 04/11/2017


The U.S. refused to sign onto a statement with other G7 countries to commit to the implementation of the Paris climate agreement, which President Donald Trump promised to withdraw from on the campaign trail.

Secretary of Energy Rick Perry said the U.S. “is in the process of reviewing many of its policies and reserves its position on this issue, which will be communicated at a future date,” Italy’s industry and energy minister Carlo Calenda said in a statement.

Calenda said other G7 members “reaffirmed their commitment towards the implementation of the Paris Agreement to effectively limit the increase in global temperature well below 2°C above pre-industrial level.”

The Trump administration would not sign onto a statement mentioning Paris, since the president is still deciding whether or not to keep his campaign pledge. Perry also wanted the G7 to include support for coal and natural gas in its statement.

“Therefore, we believe it is wise for countries to use and pursue highly efficient energy resources,” Perry said in a statement after his meeting in Rome with energy ministers from Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the UK and the European Union.

Perry specifically pushed for a commitment to “[h]igh efficiency, low-emission coal and natural gas with adequate financing from multi-lateral development banks and private sector investment.”

Perry also advocated for “[a]dvanced civil-nuclear technologies that are proliferation resistant, produce little to no waste and ensure safety.”

“Innovation is also a top priority for the Trump Administration,” Perry said. “We are committed to developing, deploying and commercializing breakthrough technologies and developing the necessary policies that will help renewables become competitive with traditional sources of energy.”

Italy, which hosted this year’s G7 meeting, pushed to include the Paris agreement in a policy statement member countries typically sign after these meetings end. No statement was signed since Perry couldn’t commit to backing Paris.

The Paris agreement went into effect in 2016, committing United Nations members to reduce greenhouse gas emissions blamed for global warming. President Barack Obama committed the U.S. to cut emissions 26 to 28 percent by 2025.

Trump promised to withdraw from the Paris agreement on the campaign trail, and the president has already issued executive orders to dismantle the regulatory regime Obama relied on to meet his Paris pledge.

The White house is split on whether or not to keep Trump’s campaign pledge. On one side, Ivanka Trump, White House aide Jared Kushner and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson support remaining in Paris.

White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon and Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt oppose the Paris agreement.

European diplomats have been lobbying the Trump administration to stay in the Paris agreement, touting the potential jobs created by expanded green energy use.

Most Republicans oppose the Paris agreement, but at least one GOP lawmakers suggested Trump should stay in the agreement in exchange for more subsidies for clean coal technology.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2017/04/11/tr...#ixzz4dxIUSqV6

GREAT!!! LOVE THIS PRESIDENT!!

EXCLUSIVE: EPA Asked To Invalidate A Pillar Of Obama’s Climate Agenda
MICHAEL BASTASCH
12:11 AM 04/10/2017
40
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has received two petitions asking for official review of a regulatory document that served as critical leverage for the Obama administration to issue global warming regulations.

Two groups — Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) and the Concerned Household Electricity Consumers Council (CHECC) — claim EPA’s 2009 “endangerment finding” should be updated with new evidence invalidating the agency’s previous claim greenhouse gasses threatened public health.

CEI filed its petition in late February, but did not publicize it. Sam Kazman, CEI’s general counsel, told The Daily Caller News Foundation that Trump will have a difficult time rolling back EPA’s global warming regulations without invalidating the “endangerment finding.”

“I think they’re going to have a lot of trouble on the other things they want to get done without addressing the endangerment finding,” Kazman said.

CHECC sent its petition to EPA Jan. 20, during Trump’s inauguration. CHECC is only now publicizing this, along with CEI, to urge the Trump administration to re-examine the endangerment finding now that the president issued an executive order to rolling back Obama-era global warming policies.

CHECC’s petition relies on a 2016 study that “failed to find that the steadily rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations have had a statistically significant impact on any of the 13 critically important temperature time series data analyzed.”

“In sum, all three of the lines of evidence relied upon by EPA to attribute warming to human GHG emissions are invalid,” reads CHCC’s petition. “The Endangerment Finding itself is therefore invalid and should be reconsidered.”

One of EPA’s lines of evidence was predicated on the existence of a “tropical hotspot” where global warming would be most apparent. Climate models predicted there’d be enhanced warming in the tropical troposphere.

CHECC’s 2016 study — by economist James Wallace, climatologist John Christy and meteorologist Joseph D’Aleo — found the tropical hotspot “simply does not exist in the real world.”

The co-authors found that once El Ninos and other natural factors were taken into account, “there is no ‘record setting’ warming to be concerned about.”

“These analysis results would appear to leave very, very little doubt but that EPA’s claim of a Tropical Hot Spot (THS), caused by rising atmospheric CO2 levels, simply does not exist in the real world,” according to CHECC’s 2016 study.

EPA issued its endangerment finding for six greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, in 2009, citing three lines of evidence to claim such emissions from vehicles “endanger both the public health and the public welfare of current and future generations.”

That finding allowed the Obama administration to move forward with an aggressive agenda to clamp down on greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles, power plants and other industrial facilities.
Obama’s “Climate Action Plan” culminated in the EPA’s Clean Power Plan (CPP), which limits carbon dioxide emissions from new and existing power plants. The rule is expected to force more coal plants and mines to close their doors.

Twenty-eight states and dozens of business and conservative groups sued EPA to have the CPP overturned. The Supreme Court issued a stay on the CPP in 2016, but federal courts have not ruled on the regulation’s legality.

Trump issued an executive order in March to roll back a slew of Obama global warming policies, including the CPP. Trump’s order also dissolved federal regulations on fracking and Obama climate directives.

EPA’s already started the process of reviewing the CPP, which could take months or even years. Without addressing the underlying endangerment finding, Kazman said EPA would still be legally required to issue some sort of greenhouse gas rule.

Environmentalists could sue EPA to force them to replace the CPP if the Trump administration successfully ousts the rule. Same goes for other EPA regulations that rely on the endangerment finding.

“Claims like that rest entirely on the endangerment finding,” Kazman said.Kazman did not say what actions CEI would take if EPA decided to let the current endangerment finding stand, but did say the group would “look at our options.”

EPA has not said whether or not it will review the endangerment finding, but Administrator Scott Pruitt was part of the state coalition to have the CPP overturned while Oklahoma attorney general.
Pruitt recently came under fire for saying carbon dioxide was not the primary culprit behind modern global warming.

“So, no, I would not agree that [CO2] is a primary contributor to the global warming that we see,” Pruitt told CNBC in early March.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2017/04/10/ex...#ixzz4dxJi3n88

It was all fixed science to justify itself. There is global warming and there is climate change. They just haven't figured out as yet what is really causing it, by how much and how many American Lives have to be ruined in the meantime until they find out they were wrong and it either didn't make any difference or it was actually something else, like the radiation leak into the oceans from the Japanese Nuclear Power Plant or the radiation leaks into the environment from Russia's Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant.

Personally, I'd rather "err on the side of caution" where our environment is concerned. It is very possible that many future generations of people may be thankful we did.

Originally Posted by MW

Personally, I'd rather "err on the side of caution" where our environment is concerned. It is very possible that many future generations of people may be thankful we did.

What electric car are you driving?

Originally Posted by MW

Personally, I'd rather "err on the side of caution" where our environment is concerned. It is very possible that many future generations of people may be thankful we did.

I'm with you on that statement.

So should we embrace some ethereal maybe true - maybe not idea that in many, many generations to come, something is going to happen?

Maybe the best way to protect future generations is to look at the dangers we can see. We can see the pollution in our air, water and soil? The very things that are causing the pollution could be the solution to global warming - if it exists. The thing is we could do something about the pollution - beginning now.

Now that is something that is here now and is getting worse everyday. That is something we can get our teeth into and begin to fix - right now.

Our food supply is laced with pesticides, herbicides, antibiotics and chemicals. This has produced a lot of health problems in this country. Why don't we really look at why these are in our food supply and find out the real consequences.

Well, the obvious and clear answer is it would cost corporations a lot of money to clean up their act. It would take away a lot of profit from healthcare organizations.

This would, in turn, cut waaaaaaaaay back on the 'donations' to the various politicians and bureaucrats and scientists that are keeping it under wraps while screaming 'global warming'.

So they keep everyone focused on that 'far away maybe', and trying to figure out how to make money from that lie - like carbon credits, while they ignore the clear and present danger of pollution.

In short, it's a money making scam - and it's a smokescreen to keep them from having to go after the reals problems and solve them.