President Trump announced America’s withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accords on June 1, 2017:
“…as of today the United States will cease all implementation of the non-binding Paris Accord and the draconian financial and economic burdens the agreement imposes on our country. This includes ending the implementation of the nationally determined contribution and, very importantly, the Green Climate Fund, which is costing the United States a vast fortune.”
But in 2017, the United States was the world-leader in decreasing carbon emissions:
Not surprisingly, Senator “Jeannie” left that out of her twitter-rant.
Unlike “Jeannie” I will note that carbon emissions increased in 2018. But that was a world-wide phenomenon and in the United States it was the result of a colder than usual winter and a warmer than usual summer:
For the U.S., it was a combination of a hot summer and cold winter that required more electricity use for heating and cooling. For China, it was an economic stimulus that pushed coal-powered manufacturing, Le Quere said.
In other words, 2018 appears to be an anomaly.
The reason that carbon emissions decreased in 2017 was fracking – natural gas replacing coal- not the Paris Accord:
AEI reported that in 2017, U.S. carbon emissions decreased by more than 42 million tons. Despite departing from the Paris agreement, the U.S. significantly reduced its carbon footprint this year. This remarkable success can be attributed to substituting natural gas for coal.
In sum, Senator Jeannie’s claim that the President’s withdrawal from the Paris Accord “unravels significant progress” is not true. As shown above, the United States decreased carbon emissions AFTER the withdrawal.
And as for the connection between “climate change” and “extreme weather” claimed by Shaheen, it’s speculative:
Even if we assume that warming is accelerating to some extent and that carbon emissions are part of the reason, the notion that slight increases in temperature will set off catastrophes is based on computer models, not proven facts. Doubts about the veracity of their assumptions frustrate climate scientists and their publicists, but their furious resistance to even the most reasonable questions about their recommendations, such as those put forward by Danish skeptic Bjorn Lomborg, undermine trust in their thesis.
The effort to silence critics strikes those being asked to pay the bill for their conclusions as suspicious. The same applies to the hysteria attached to their predictions and the intellectually sloppy way they attempt to associate normal weather events such as hurricanes with theories about rising temperatures.
As even the New York Times noted in a remarkably candid report published in August 2017 as last year’s storm season began, the connection between hurricanes and global warming is far from certain. While computer models predict increased storms in the future, as of now, there is no evidence that this is the case.
It remains a matter of dispute whether “[t]he climate crisis is real and it is here.” Personally -and this may surprise some people- I do worry about the record amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. But -to be clear- I think the real objectives of the Paris Accord are to virtue signal, to replace free-market economies with command-and-control economies, and to redistribute America’s wealth to the rest of the world.
What “is real and .. here” is that Senator “Jeannie” is facing reelection in 2020 and likely will not be able to rely on out-of-State college students to carry her over the finish-line -as happened with Senator “Mags”- because the new residency rule will go into effect this year. This is all about firing up her radical Leftist base without alienating centrist voters.