Trump expected to pull out of Paris Climate Agreement

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/05/31/trump-expected-to-pull-out-paris-climate-agreement.html

We are already at pre 1994 emissions output without this agreement. This agreement reduces our GDP by 2.5 Billion Dollars and a loss of up to 400,000 jobs per year. Too bad, so sad. Good riddens to a bad agreement.

Trump expected to pull out of Paris Climate Agreement

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/05/31/trump-expected-to-pull-out-paris-climate-agreement.html

We are already at pre 1994 emissions output without this agreement. This agreement reduces our GDP by 2.5 Billion Dollars and a loss of up to 400,000 jobs per year. Too bad, so sad. Good riddens to a bad agreement.

Who needs jobs? Once Zuckerberg accumulates a few more dozen billions he'll have the political clout to institute his recently announced necessity of "guaranteed annual income" which, no, he won't provide, but the "government" will "somehow" (confiscate other people's money) to provide.

What could be more important than stopping the [not] receding polar ice caps stopping the [not] catastrophic rise in ocean levels stopping [no] global warming stopping...? Oh never mind.

BOOOOOOOO
We will be the laughing stock of the world if we leave and will ruin all future agreements cause the US will lose credibility and trust.
This is basically one more step to giving the world power away to china.

What idiots don't get is we already are meeting most of the guidelines to the paris accord.  The hardest hit are countries like China.  We are just fucking ourselves.

[I'm double posting this on both "climate change" threads... they both deserve it...]

Multinational Banks and Corporations Trigger Immediate Angst Over Trump Withdrawal From Paris Treaty…

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2017/05/31/multinational-banks-and-corporations-trigger-immediate-angst-over-trump-withdrawal-from-paris-treaty/

Excerpt:

Every word we read, every corporate broadcast, every espoused punditry opinion, every angle that’s visible, everything surrounding the Paris Climate “Treaty”, All.Of.It., is driven by multinational banks and corporations who have a vested financial interest.

The Paris Climate Treaty has nothing to do with “climate” and everything possible to do with economics, globalism and the controlled redistribution of economic wealth as constructed through decades of advanced policies of multinational financial interests.

There are factually TRILLIONS of dollars at stake.

When you consider the pontificating pearl-clutching from the financial and industrial elites, ask yourself this very basic question:

If Elon Musk (Tesla), Tim Cook (Apple), Larry Page (google), Mark Zuckerberg (facebook), or any of the myriad of multinational executives really cared about “climate change”, then why are they doing business in China?

The primary concern for every affiliated entity surrounds economics, not climate.  “Climate” issues are the Trojan horse, the false ruse, the talking point, the scheme to get economic systems in place -yes, political systems- to control the distributive flow of larger economic wealth within all nations.  Period.

What ObamaCare was to your loss of healthcare individualism, so too is the Paris Treaty a political tool to deconstruct national economic individualism.  FULL-STOP.

The hardest hit are countries like China.

that would assume that china is going to follow the accords...

that would assume that china is going to follow the accords...

Well nicaragua and syria are the only countries who are not.   So yes they are bound to follow it....that's how treaties work lol.

Trump Will Withdraw from the Paris Agreement. Good.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/448133/paris-climate-agreement-iran-nuclear-deal-unratified-treaties-trump-should-leave?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Daily%20Trending%20Email%20Reoccurring-%20Monday%20to%20Thursday%202017-05-31&utm_term=NR5PM%20Actives

"Meanwhile, the Paris Agreement has come under strong criticism as a costly, ineffective, and economically harmful approach to addressing alleged global warming. But there’s something else these agreements have in common: Both are treaties, but were deliberately negotiated by the Obama administration in a way that enabled it to evade the U.S. Constitution’s requirement that treaties be ratified by the Senate.

America’s Founding Fathers placed a high threshold to ratify treaties: two-thirds of the Senate must vote in favor. The reason is that treaties are major international agreements that legally bind our nation and its presidents long into the future. No president should have the power to make such commitments with just the stroke of his pen.

Meanwhile, the Paris Agreement has come under strong criticism as a costly, ineffective, and economically harmful approach to addressing alleged global warming. But there’s something else these agreements have in common: Both are treaties, but were deliberately negotiated by the Obama administration in a way that enabled it to evade the U.S. Constitution’s requirement that treaties be ratified by the Senate. America’s Founding Fathers placed a high threshold to ratify treaties: two-thirds of the Senate must vote in favor. The reason is that treaties are major international agreements that legally bind our nation and its presidents long into the future. No president should have the power to make such commitments with just the stroke of his pen.

National Review’s Andrew McCarthy explained this in an April 2015 NRO article, writing that the Constitution “does not empower the president to make binding agreements with foreign countries all on his own — on the theory that the American people should not take on enforceable international obligations or see their sovereignty compromised absent approval by the elected representatives most directly accountable to them.”

Supporters of the JCPOA and the Paris Agreement argue that there is no clear definition of what constitutes a treaty. They also note that presidents frequently enter into major international agreements without submitting them for ratification by the Senate.

While these arguments have merit, they do not apply to the JCPOA and the Paris Agreement, because these are important pacts that have been treated like treaties by most other states. The Iranian Parliament ratified the JCPOA. The legislatures of over 128 Paris Agreement signatories have ratified that agreement, including those of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Mexico, and the U.K."