Paris Climate Agreement Argument

"There aren't 'two sides' to the science, nor to the policy response," Schmidt said. "This implies that the whole thing is just a matter of an opinion – it is not."

Bill Clinton signing the Kyoto Protocol and George W. Bush refusing to sign it (ignoring that the Senate refused to ratify the protocols both times) polarized the issue of global warming into a Republican and Democratic issue, where Republicans either downplayed or denied the issue of global warming and Democrats vied for it to be regarded as a problem (Dunlap & McCright 2010). In December 2007, the Christian Science Monitor (an international news organization without Christianity-related bias) revealed that George W. Bush actively suppressed climate scientists to maintain public opinion that global warming wasn’t an issue (Clayton, 2007). This study revealed a series of abuses dating as far back as within a month of him coming into office- the first being a contradiction between what the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) reported on global warming evidence found by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and what was released to the public. When the NAS affirmed that their findings were true and accurate, the Bush administration maintained the idea that global warming is

The argument about man’s role in climate change and the role of government, the role of industry and the role of citizens is a significant challenge that crosses all levels of government, crosses all geopolitical boundaries and crosses all sectors of business. National governments across the globe are dealing with the issue in different ways, but one overarching aspect of control and mitigation can be seen in the oversight and regulation of the electric energy industry. One significant challenge facing each nation is the cost to lower carbon emissions and the question of who will pay the additional cost for compliance. Though the cost issue is significant, a much more difficult question is whether any decision on lowering emissions can make

by 12.5% which was well above the goal of 4.7%. The downside is, when this was created it

The Paris agreement is effective because it ensures that countries are making a solid effort to prevent temperatures from rising. As one of the most powerful countries in the world, it should be our duty to take the lead in making our Earth a better place. 68% of Democrats strongly believe that the government should regulate the release of greenhouse gases from sources like power plants, cars, and factories in an effort to reduce global warming, compared to only 28% of Republicans (Washington Post 2017). The data show that Democrats have made reducing global warming a stronger priority than Republicans have. “The best science tells us that without ambitious, immediate action across our economy to cut carbon pollution and other greenhouse gases, all of these impacts will be far worse in the future (Democrats.org 2017)”. The majority of Democrats look to scientific facts that show that we have no time to waste for stopping climate change. Republicans believe that “information concerning a climate change, especially projections in the long-range future must be based on dispassionate analysis of hard data” (Republican Platform 2017). They don’t have the same urgency to take action to prevent climate change that is necessary.

With our modern technology, yes, we can burn our coal within the limits of the Clean Air Act” (Reagan,1980) and Reagans lack of policy regarding the environment while pushing for increased coal production seem to mirror his skepticism regarding the environmental issues of the time. The partisan nature of environmental policy spending can be shown most clearly when Reagan’s nonchalant approach to the environmental policy when they are compared to the new technologies that were put in to place during the presidency of Jimmy Carter. In an address to a joint session of congress in 1977, Carter outlined a national energy plan which included “We must start now to develop the new, unconventional sources of energy we will rely on in the next century” (Carter, 1977) and this included “In the long term, to develop renewable and essentially inexhaustible sources of energy for sustained economic growth” (Carter, 1977). This brings a different perspective to the policy changes that are now occurring in the government in a change from President Obama to President Trump. Just as Reagan followed Carter and the shift on environmental policy was moved from developing new technologies to returning to coal burning as a primary source of energy, the change from Obama’s policies to Trump’s may not be totally

The facts of this article is that a man named Myron Ebell was the leader of a foundation that persuaded Trump to pull out of the Accord. For nearly two decades, he worked for the Cooler Heads Coalition, a group centered around the purpose to put doubt into people’s minds about the dangers of global warming. From coal and oil companies, the group received $11 million in donations. Edell and several other members of the coalition were

Lastly, the most worrisome of all, there was no mention of global climate change within Trump’s speech. Not mentioning the issue of climate change means that he is not concerned with it, and therefore by association, neither is America. Furthermore, the neglect of mentioning climate change within the speech means that he has no future intentions of addressing the issue, and that we will have to wait for our next president to act. This is time that we do not have to

He ordered the head of the EPA to declare carbon dioxide as a pollutant. His signature air quality achievement imposes new restrictions on mercury and other emissions from power plants (America Magazine). At a United Nations meeting about climate change in Peru, Barack Obama engaged China to agree, for the first time to substantial carbon reduction goals. This one action is likely to have more of an effect in mitigating climate change than other symbolic actions taken to date (Star

“President Obama is responsible entirely for the closure of that mine and the loses of these jobs”, Robert Murray CEO of Murray Energy Corporation told CNN after 239 men were laid off because an Ohio mine had closed. The current war on coal is not one of just and fair reasons. Coal has several positive benefits that greatly outweigh the negative environmental effects that some say it causes. The main benefit of coal is the hundreds of thousands it employs annually. However, with the strict regulations being put on coal mines these days the tradition of coal mining may be one our children will never know. It is our responsibility as Americans to beat the Obama Administration and win the war on coal.

That same year, Obama reached a climate agreement in which China and the U.S. agreed to significantly reduce carbon emissions. That accord helped launch the United Nations Climate Change Conference in 2015, at which almost every country in the world agreed to control its emissions and create a plan to diminish them.

Now that Trump is about to be sworn in as the president, his tone has changed. He now states that the building of the wall

As stated before, the Trump administration ordered the climate change section of the EPA’s website to be removed. Why would he not want people informed on what climate change is and what we can do to solve this epidemic that is proven by scientists? According to (Griffin 2017), “It has led to worries that Mr Trump, who doesn't believe that climate change exists, will look to put a stop to scientific work that shows the effect of human activity on global warming. Mr Trump has claimed that global warming isn't real and was made up as a Chinese hoax to keep American companies uncompetitive.” This lastly leads to another issue. After reading this article, it became evident that Donald Trump is blacking out, and potentially removing the EPA because it hinders business. He did not stop at just the EPA, Donald Trump also blacked out the Department of Agriculture because of the voices of scientific researchers and others working for the federal

On June 1, 2017, from the White House Rose Garden, President Donald Trump announced that he will be withdrawing the US from the landmark Paris Climate Agreement. This could be a step back from the progress that was being made during the Obama administration. It was a very puzzling decision because the majority of Americans supported the agreement. Although some people think that the Paris Climate Agreement is not important, it was a poor decision to withdraw from the agreement because it has the potential to be a very important to Earth's future.

On December 12 of 2015, 195 countries made history by committing to the first truly global international climate change agreement (Paris Agreement, 2015). This agreement took place in Paris and was adopted under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The outcome of the Paris Conference on Climate Change was described as “revolutionary” (Venezuela) “marvelous act” (China) and as “a tremendous collective achievement” (European Union) that introduced a “new era of global climate governance” (Egypt) while “restoring the global community’s faith of accomplishing things multilaterally” (USA) (Paris Agreement, 2015).