Should U.S. back Paris climate accord?

Salisbury

U.S. leadership is declining under Trump

The United States should remain in the Paris climate accord. We have a reputation as a world leader that is slowly declining under the Trump administration.

The United States should be setting an example, as we are globally one of the highest polluters of our environment.

Not only are we not setting an example — we’re adding to the chaos.

Let’s hope we start setting a good example soon. Europe is so far ahead of this country in environmental issues, we should be ashamed.

Rose Carey

Delmar

We are the problem, not the leader here

As foot draggers, we should not be part of an accord on which the rest of the world has agreed.

We are not the leader, but the problem. We will never be a strong partner when we have a Republican-controlled government that denies the threat of manmade climate change.

One consoling factor is while we should want our government on board, the private sector will soldier on without government, with green investments in new technologies that support the continuing energy revolution.

If American companies want to be competitive globally, the concept of all types of energy sustainability is absolutely necessary.

It’s too bad we are not the world leader on this; we could be, but remember — we are the only industrialized country in the world where the principal measurement system is not metric.

Some think this is a point of pride. But along with our climate change position, it’s not.

George Timothy Mason

Salisbury

Viewed objectively, Paris accord is not a good plan

Out. This agreement is clearly bad for America and Americans. This agreement is more about increasing government control over almost every aspect of our daily lives, especially the economy and the energy sector.

This agreement would commit the U.S. to drastically reducing its carbon emissions — while allowing some other countries to increase theirs, all the while doing nothing to meaningfully decrease global temperatures.

Under the EPA’s own models, if the U.S. eliminated all carbon emissions, global temperatures would decrease by less than 0.2 degrees Celsius.

Meanwhile, a National Economic Research Associates Economic Consulting study concluded the Paris agreement could “obliterate $3 trillion of GDP, 6.5 million industrial sector jobs and $7,000 in per capita household income from the U.S. economy by 2040.”

Devastating our industrial base, driving up our energy prices (Obama did say under his plan energy prices would “necessarily skyrocket”), while bolstering our rivals does not sound like a good plan.

David R. Etheridge

Hebron

A more pressing problem involves recycling and trash

This agreement leaves too many questions unanswered

In my opinion, the Paris agreement has many business questions left unanswered.

On the surface, it appears to be financially challenging; especially for the U.S. The costs for our nation is in the billions of dollars.

Funding allegedly goes to dependent nations to help them prepare for the consequences of a warming planet. With that said, our environment is extremely important.

Some individuals have used “global warming” as a huge financial cash cow.

Yes, as one of the largest industrialized nations we have a big responsibility. Planet warming is but one issue. Pollution is the biggest enemy our Earth has to deal with — and it cannot wait.

Just trying to recycle responsibly has become a major issue right here on the Shore. Landfills are overflowing, streets are littered and debris is being dumped in our oceans.

Global warming is not the enemy; we are killing ourselves with an overabundance of throwaway things.

Carl Crumbacker Sr.

Eden

RELATED OPINION: Trump should keep climate deal promise

Will we stick to alternative facts or face reality?

U.S. leadership on all issues hinges on whether the Trump Republican Party is willing to move away from the alternative facts they cite when degrading the climate accord.

Few large businesses or scientists see the Trump view as realistic. But fawning and ignorance on the part of uninformed conservatives like Trump and Rep. Andy Harris damage not only the future of our world’s climate and our environment (including the Chesapeake Bay), but our leadership in the world on all issues.

Isolationism is dangerous. Ignorance of our historical role in post-World War II relationships is radically enhanced by withdrawing from the agreement.

Are Trump and Harris supporters willing to continue to support their mistaken belief they voted correctly in 2016 at all costs — to include endangering our future existence — or are they ready to assume a leadership role as required to preserve our world for future generations?

The Chesapeake Bay and its environs depend on abandoning Trump’s anti-world view.

Geoff Smoot

Hebron

U.S. should follow the lead of the rest of the world

Yes, the United States should remain a member of the Paris Climate Accord. Seventy percent of Americans support this agreement, according to the Sierra Club, and 195 nations continue to participate.

These countries have pledged to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson supports staying in, even though Scott Pruitt, the Environmental Protection Agency administrator, states it is a “bad deal” for the U.S.

Of course, big fossil fuel backers such as the Koch brothers are putting their massive amounts of money and influence to work to stop any restrictions on energy. The other countries in the accord are stating their intentions to stay — including China, which is one of the biggest emitters of greenhouse-gas.

If we don’t reduce emissions, the planet will continue to become warmer, causing extreme weather events and irreparable damage around the world.

Deborah Nissley

Fairmount

President Trump did the right thing by abandoning the Paris accord

I agree completely with President Trump that the Paris Agreement is a “bad deal” for the United States.

Trump has deep-sixed a unilateral promise made to the world by Obama that will cost our economy $3 trillion, according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Obama knew the agreement was such an abomination, he was afraid to submit it to the Senate for ratification — as required by the Constitution.

The restrictions in the agreement concerning carbon “output” puts America in a noncompetitive situation with our economic rivals: Red China, India, Europe, Russia, Japan and others.

America needs a robust economy to provide for well-being of its citizens and to assure its security. America should not compromise its economic well-being unless all other nations are willing and able to require their citizens to make the same sacrifices Obama wanted to impose on Americans.

I would further submit America’s nonparticipation in the Paris agreement will not add a single BTU to man-made global warming — if there is such a thing.

Ernest I. Cornbrooks III

Salisbury

Unequal treatment in agreement placed burden on U.S.

I am glad President Trump pulled America out of the Paris Accord. Unfortunately, as with another piece of legislation, we have to pass it to find out what’s in it.

Not all nations are treated equally. China and India do not have to make major improvements for almost another decade. They are worst offenders in creation of dirty air. Heavy industries in most non-European and northern American countries aren’t required to put scrubbers or other devices on their stacks for over a decade.

There are limitations on nongreen fuels America would be allowed to develop. We would have extreme limits on natural gas, coal, and oil we could pull out of our own ground.

Worst of all is the money America would have to contribute to a green fund for underdeveloped countries. Because we are considered an overdeveloped country, our contribution would amount to trillions during a 50-year span.

Arie Klapholz

Ocean Pines