Leaving Paris Accord makes sense for United States
James Hansen lit the fire of concern about climate change in a Congressional hearing in 1988.
He went on to head the global temperature analysis for NASA. The day the Paris Accord was signed he called it a fraud. He was right. Except for the United States, the commitments made were generally business-as-usual promises that, in the end, would lower global warming by two tenths of a degree by 2100. The United Nations Paris Climate Accord is specifically designed to end the use of coal, oil, and natural gas globally over time, in essence trapping billions in extreme poverty, for no real environmental gain.
The real commitment of the agreement was the transfer of wealth from rich countries to poor countries so they could invest in unreliable wind and solar power. Europe has already tried this by allowing carbon credits in exchange for investments in energy efficiency projects in Africa. The experiment was ended when the funds fell down a rat hole of graft, theft, and non-existent projects.
The United Nations Economic Development Index compares the development stage of countries to the amount of electricity available to its citizens. Access to cheap energy could free the 20 percent of the world’s population still living at subsistence levels to lower infant mortality and birth rates, and to increase income, education, health, and life expectancy. The age of cheap, abundant energy led to the industrial revolution in developed countries which saw global life expectancy double, and real personal income grow 25 fold. Morally, we cannot deny those advances to the world’s poorest countries.
Meeting the U.S. emission commitments would cost $3 trillion to our economy by 2040 according to a study by the National Economic Research Associates as quoted by the President Thursday. That would lead to the loss of 6.5 million jobs, and lower family income by $7,000 annually.
Contrast that future with how American innovation helped lead the world in carbon dioxide emissions reductions. Between 2005 and 2015 the U. S. has reduced emissions at twice the rate of all the other developed countries combined, 0.7 million tons, or a 12 percent reduction, compared to 0.5 million tons, or 6% for the rest of the Organization for Economic Cooperation & Development countries.
Meanwhile, the rest of the world has increased emissions by 7.4 million tons, or 45 percent. The combination of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing unleashed natural gas production that saw an 80 percent price drop which forced other fuels to follow saving the average American family $1500 a year.
The reality, based on actual satellite global temperature records, not failed computer models, is temperatures are only rising about one degree a century. Sea levels are rising about six inches a century, about double pre-industrial levels. That’s 1/33 of an inch a year of increase, and we can easily adapt. Even the latest assessment from the United Nations discounts any connection between severe weather events and that small a temperature rise which is consistent with global temperatures in past eras in the last 10,000 years.
Good stewardship requires we continue to become more efficient, and reduce emissions, but at a measured pace. The expansion of natural gas use will continue as coal-fired power plants close, and new pipelines bring natural gas to more homes and businesses. Beyond fuel switching, we need to shift federal expenditures to research on non-CO2 emitting power sources, such as on more efficient solar panels, better batteries, and small, modular nuclear generators. Non-emitting conventional nuclear power plants are closing at an alarming pace because of historically low natural gas prices. Some support may be needed to keep plants open.
President Trump has made the right decision pulling out of the Paris agreement to protect the American economy. We can continue to reduce carbon dioxide emissions without belonging to this harmful, one-sided agreement.
David T. Stevenson is director of the Center for Energy Competitiveness at the Caesar Rodney Institute in Newark.