Pirate's Cove

Throughout the campaign, Trump and his advisors promised to pull the U.S. out of the Paris Climate agreement time and time again. Were were told he would “cancel it” and “rip it up”, among others. At the end of January, his advisors were promising that he was going to do this “within days.” That hasn’t happened yet. We’re told that his advisors are split on the issue. But, we also saw, within days, that Trump had an “open mind” towards it, then was seeking quickest way out. Now we read

Trump advisers want concessions for coal if U.S. stays in climate pact

Trump administration officials have told lobbyists and European diplomats that the U.S. won’t stay in the nearly 200-nation Paris climate change agreement unless it can secure wins for the fossil fuel industry, according to three people familiar with the discussions.

In a series of recent conversations with industry groups and European officials, Trump advisers have said the White House decision on the Paris deal could hinge on international willingness to come up with a strategy to commercialize and deploy technologies that will reduce emissions from fossil fuels.

OK, so this is one of those “some people said something but we’re not going to say who they are nor will we tell you who they told it to, because trust us we’re the media we’ve never lied to you or distorted the truth and why are you asking so many questions?” type articles.

That said, Ivanka Trump and her husband Jared Kushner seem to both be Warmists, and have apparently been pushing Trump on this, according to reports over the months. And the article does mention Rep Kevin Cramer (R-ND), who has been advising Trump for a while on energy, who also wants to stay in the deal.

That may not sit well with Democrats and environmental groups, who have long argued against spending billions of dollars to reduce emissions from coal-fired power plants when the same money could help speed the transition to wind and solar power. But such a deal could avoid the enormous disruption that would result if the United States, the world’s second-largest greenhouse gas emitter, walked away from the most comprehensive international agreement ever crafted on global warming.

Yes, because nothing says awesome policy like watching all the “green” energy companies go out of business once the direct subsidies and loans dry up. Heck, this happens even with the subsidies and loans. As for being the “most conprehensive international agreement evah!!!!, well, if fully implemented it would reduce the temperature by a mere 0.05C by 2100. While costing the world a mere $100 trillion. And, heck, Warmists said immediately after it was passed that it was not enough. So, Democrats are never happy. Besides, why would Trump care if they’re happy?

Administration officials who want to stay in the 2015 Paris agreement believe that creating a future pathway for fuels like coal is the only way to win support from conservative and industry groups that want the U.S. to withdraw from the accord. And some fossil fuel supporters are beginning to come around, despite their overall skepticism toward the climate pact.

“If the world can’t go on without us in the Paris accord — that’s a bit of an overstatement, but to illustrate my point — then perhaps we ought to be in it,” said Rep. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.), a pro-oil lawmaker who advised the Trump campaign on energy issues. “And if we have that much influence, perhaps we have enough influence to moderate it.”

Even with concessions, there will be no support from Conservatives, only support from squishes like John McCain and Lindsay Graham. A promise was made. It’s time to complete it, not stay in a pact that will obligate the United States to pony up lots of taxpayer money in a leftist redistribution scheme, nor harm our economy, nor raise costs for our citizens.

Crossed at Right Wing News.