Here’s how Trump can deal with the Paris Climate Accords the RIGHT way
05/03/2017 / By JD Heyes / Comments
Here’s how Trump can deal with the Paris Climate Accords the RIGHT way

President Donald J. Trump is often accused of being a climate change “denier” because he – like thousands of climatologists and scientists – is not convinced that 1) the climate is changing because of human activity, and 2) that the earth is warming for the same reason.

While Bill Nye the “Science Guy” would argue the point (with a climate scientist, no doubt), the fact remains the president is right: There is no hard evidence to prove that human activity is causing the climate to be altered in any way it would not normally be changed through normal earth activity. Oh, there are lots of “computer models” and lots of altering climate data, but not much in the way of hard, replicable, scientific evidence.

As such, Trump campaigned on withdrawing the United States from the Paris Climate Accords imposed by the Obama administration because a critical look at the accords’ requirements indicates that, as usual, American businesses, industries and workers would be dramatically impacted (as in harmed) by its provisions.

It’s important to note that I said the Obama regime “imposed” the accords on the U.S. That’s because in reality such international agreements are supposed to be treaties, and treaties are subject to the “advice and consent” of the U.S. Senate before the U.S. is obligated to abide by them. (RELATED: Latest Global Warming Scare: CO2 Said To Set “Record” Even As Latest Data Show NO Warming Taking Place)

But because the Senate was under Republican control when the Paris accord was finalized, and because a majority of GOP senators were opposed to the accord – which was panned by climatologists as doing nothing to curb warming – Obama deemed it simply an “agreement” and had it signed as though it were a treaty.


Well, Obama did that a lot – declared things to be something they aren’t – and so despite the fact that the U.S. is a “signatory” to the agreement, under our constitutional system we are not obligated to follow the accords’ provisions.

Trump knows this, but he’s been getting some heat (pardon the pun) over his campaign pledge to withdraw from the agreement (which he could do by just reversing Obama-era policy, which called for abiding by the accord’s provisions). It’s been said that daughter (and advisor) Ivanka is a supporter of the accords, as is her husband (and advisor) Jared Kushner. Also, there are some in the Senate who favor it as well.

So, as the Washington Times reports, it appears as though Trump will let the matter be decided constitutionally: By presenting the accords to the Senate for advice and consent – or not.

The Times noted:

As President Trump’s top advisers prepare to hash out a final policy on the Paris climate agreement dumped onto their laps by President Obama, another option has hit the table: Declare the deal a treaty and send it to the Senate to be killed.

The treaty option could emerge as the middle ground in the increasingly tense battle between “remainers” on the one hand, who say the president should abide by Mr. Obama’s global warming deal, and the Paris agreement’s detractors, who say Mr. Trump would be breaking a key campaign promise if he doesn’t withdraw from the pact.

Mr. Trump’s principal advisers are slated to meet Thursday to hash out a final set of recommendations for the president, with several deadlines looming next month.

One memo being circulated by the Competitive Enterprise Institute recommends that Trump should do just that – declare the executive agreement a treaty and send it to the Senate. (RELATED: OMB Director Mulvaney says climate change research ‘a waste of your money’)

“That option affirms we are a nation of laws, not men and, importantly, discourages both our negotiating partners and future U.S. officials against attempting to circumvent our system,” says the memo.

A separate briefing paper that was circulating among GOP senators this week said that the deal should never have been an “executive agreement” and instead should have been submitted as a treaty to the Senate in the first place.

If that becomes the option, the Senate could set it on a shelf somewhere or vote it down outright and be done with it.

J.D. Heyes is a senior writer for and, as well as editor of The National Sentinel.


Submit a correction >>

, , , , ,

This article may contain statements that reflect the opinion of the author
Get Our Free Email Newsletter
Get independent news alerts on natural cures, food lab tests, cannabis medicine, science, robotics, drones, privacy and more.
Your privacy is protected. Subscription confirmation required.

Get the world's best independent media newsletter delivered straight to your inbox.

By continuing to browse our site you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.