Western Caucus Members Praise Paris Climate Agreement Withdrawal by POTUS

June 1, 2017
Press Release
Courtesy of the Congressional Western Caucus

WASHINGTON – Today, Congressional Western Caucus Chairman Paul A. Gosar D.D.S. (AZ-04), Chief Infrastructure and Forestry Officer Rep. Bruce Westerman (AR-04), Chairman Emeritus Rep. Steve Pearce (NM-02), Chief Defense and Interior Officer Rep. Chris Stewart (UT-02), and Western Caucus members Rep. Tom Emmer (MN-06), Rep. Brian Babin (TX-36), Rep. Louie Gohmert (TX-01), Rep. Andy Biggs (AZ-05), Rep. Doug Lamborn (CO-05), Rep. Liz Cheney (WY-At Large) and Rep. Ralph Abraham M.D. (LA-05) released the following statements in response to President Donald J. Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement:

“I am thrilled by President Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement. It is high time that we do away with this unconstitutional treaty negotiated by former President Obama,” said Chairman Gosar. “Withdrawing from the agreement shows the American people and the world that he means business, follows through on his promises, and puts America first. From the American Energy Independence Executive Order to repealing a multitude of onerous rules and regulations, President Trump and his Administration have already made excellent progress to roll back Obama’s attack on affordable energy. Ringing up with a price tag of nearly a trillion dollars a year to reduce the average global temperature by one third of one degree, this bad investment defied commonsense with embarrassing returns. I don’t care what shade of lipstick you put on this pig, at the end of the day it’s still a pig and I’m glad to see this out of touch pipedream put out to pasture once and for all.”

“I applaud the Administration's decision to lead like America has historically led...by example. The United States can be more effective illustrating to the rest of the world what sound environmental stewardship looks like by innovating and continuing to be the best when we lead and set the standard versus signing agreements with foreign governments and allowing others to direct how we operate,” said Congressman Westerman.

Congressman Pearce remarked, "Since day one, the Paris Climate agreement has been unattainable for New Mexico and our nation. This Agreement will force American energy producers to dramatically change their business or shut down, ultimately limiting options for families across New Mexico and the nation, while allowing some of the worst global actors to take action as they see fit. Any agreement the United States enters into regarding climate or emissions must ensure affordable and reliable energy is available to everyone. We all agree that we want clean air and clean water, but the United States cannot saddle the global burden of change on the backs of the American people."

“President Trump made the right call,” said Congressman Stewart. “The heroic claims of the Paris Agreement do not match reality. At best, the agreement is a feel-good measure that will have nearly zero benefit. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which organized the Paris Agreement, calculates that if every nation abides by the agreement for the next 15 years global temperature rise would be slowed by a mere .07 degrees Fahrenheit. Adding insult to injury, researchers at Stanford peg the cost of compliance at $154 billion to the U.S. economy per year and a trillion dollars globally. The Paris Agreement is a boat anchor that will increase the cost of energy and make it harder to get poor people around the world out of poverty."

Congressman Emmer remarked, “A one-size-fits-all carbon emission reduction policy simply doesn’t work. Thankfully, Minnesota has already taken great strides in addressing this issue and has recently reduced emissions by nearly 15 percent over ten years. Minnesota is continuing its efforts of reducing carbon emissions, including steps taken by a coal fired power plant in my district to convert to natural gas. I support states implementing changes to do what works for them to reform our energy system with environmentally friendly policies that maintain our beautiful land and streams for future generations, while still allowing for maximum economic benefit.”

“I applaud President Trump for standing up for the interests of the American worker and withdrawing from the United Nations’ Paris Climate Change Agreement. This agreement was poorly negotiated by the Obama Administration and is simply a bad deal for the American people. It punishes hardworking Americans with higher energy costs, fewer jobs and smaller paychecks while providing virtually no meaningful benefit to the environment and doing very little to hold the world’s top polluters, like China, accountable,” stated Congressman Babin. “Furthermore, it would uniquely hurt the people of the 36th District of Texas by threatening the many good-paying jobs provided by our area’s petrochemical and refining facilities. While this decision will not sit well with out-of-touch liberal politicians and pro-U.N. globalists, President Trump was elected to put American workers first and turn back such bad deals that undermine U.S. competitiveness and jobs.”

Congressman Gohmert said, "The reason that over a hundred nations around the world are demanding that we be part of the Accord as with Kyoto and others, and that these agreements don't work without the U.S. being a party, is because the U.S. is the main country required to send checks to all the others. It is grossly unfair to American citizens and businesses and intentionally makes them far less competitive. In other words, it is the typical leftist agenda of punishing the most innovative and productive."

Congressman Biggs said, “This afternoon, President Trump followed through on another significant promise to the American people by removing the nation from the Paris Climate Agreement. This agreement was the capstone of the Obama Administration’s attempt to circumvent the constitutional powers of Congress and the antithesis of job creation and American energy production. By withdrawing from the agreement, President Trump has signaled to foreign powers and bureaucrats that the United States will not be subject to unattainable and unproductive environmental standards that will have a detrimental effect on hard-working Americans and do not come with a guarantee of compliance from other nations. I applaud President Trump for his forward thinking, commitment to his promises, and protection of American sovereignty.”

Congressman Lamborn said, “The President has every right to withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement, and I applaud this decision which keeps the United States from being beholden to an international organization. The Paris Climate Agreement, which was never ratified by the Senate, is a non-binding agreement that has proven expensive to taxpayers without improving environmental practices.  I support the sovereignty of the United States on environmental issues, and I believe that we can chart our own course with an all-of-the above energy strategy that includes renewables for responsible energy development.”

“I strongly support President Trump's decision to withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement. This agreement imposed emissions standards that would have devastated America's fossil fuel industry with no measurable impact on the climate. The agreement was based on flawed science and its purpose was to kill our coal industry. President Trump  was right to pull out of this damaging agreement," said Congresswoman Cheney "While the benefits of today's decision will continue to be felt in Wyoming in the form of increased energy development, exploration and job creation our work is not finished. We must continue our efforts to roll back disastrous policies such as the Clean Power Plan, and other components of the Obama-era war on fossil fuels that have resulted in more regulation, higher costs, and government control of our energy sector in Wyoming and across America.” 

“I applaud President Trump’s decision to withdraw from this bad deal. I agree with him that we need to put the well-being of American workers and our economy first,” said Congressman Abraham.


Chairman Gosar and various members of the Congressional Western Caucus previously called on President Trump to completely withdraw from the Paris Agreement. One of those signed letters can be found HERE.

(Courtesy of the White House)

The Paris Accord is a bad deal for Americans, and the President’s action today is keeping his campaign promise to put American workers first. The Accord was negotiated poorly by the Obama Administration and signed out of desperation. It frontloads costs on the American people to the detriment of our economy and job growth while extracting meaningless commitments from the world’s top global emitters, like China. The U.S. is already leading the world in energy production and doesn’t need a bad deal that will harm American workers.

Undermines U.S. Competitiveness and Jobs

  • According to a study by NERA Consulting, meeting the Obama Administration’s requirements in the Paris Accord would cost the U.S. economy nearly $3 trillion over the next several decades.
  • By 2040, our economy would lose 6.5 million industrial sector jobs – including 3.1 million manufacturing sector jobs
    • It would effectively decapitate our coal industry, which now supplies about one-third of our electric power

The deal was negotiated badly, and extracts meaningless commitments from the world’s top polluters

  • The Obama-negotiated Accord imposes unrealistic targets on the U.S. for reducing our carbon emissions, while giving countries like China a free pass for years to come.
    • Under the Accord, China will actually increase emissions until 2030

The U.S. is already a Clean Energy and Oil & Gas Energy Leader; we can reduce our emissions and continue to produce American energy without the Paris Accord

  • America has already reduced its carbon-dioxide emissions dramatically.
    • Since 2006, CO2 emissions have declined by 12 percent, and are expected to continue to decline.
    • According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA), the U.S. is the leader in oil & gas production.

The agreement funds a UN Climate Slush Fund underwritten by American taxpayers

  • President Obama committed $3 billion to the Green Climate Fund - which is about 30 percent of the initial funding – without authorization from Congress
  • With $20 trillion in debt, the U.S. taxpayers should not be paying to subsidize other countries’ energy needs.

The deal also accomplishes little for the climate

According to researchers at MIT, if all member nations met their obligations, the impact on the climate would be negligible.  The impacts have been estimated to be likely to reduce global temperature rise by less than .2 degrees Celsius in 2100.

(Courtesy of the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service)
The Paris Agreement to address climate change internationally entered into force on November 4, 2016 and has been accepted by 147 parties.

The Paris Agreement is a subsidiary to the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), a broader, framework treaty entered into during the George. H. W. Bush Administration. Unlike the UNFCCC, which received the Senate’s advice and consent in 1992, President Obama never submitted the Paris Agreement to the Senate for approval. Instead, the Obama Administration appears to have treated the Paris Agreement as an executive agreement, which the President may unilaterally execute, rather than a treaty, which requires the advice and consent of the Senate. (The key distinctions are analyzed in this report and infographic). No legislation implementing the UNFCCC or the Paris Agreement into domestic law has been enacted, nor has the executive branch asserted that the provisions in either are self-executing, a term used to describe international obligations that have the force of domestic law without subsequent congressional action. Rather, the commitments made by the United States under the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement have been carried out domestically through pre-existing legislation, including the Intermodal Surface Transportation Energy Efficiency Act of 1991 and the Clean Air Act.

Under domestic law, the requirements for withdrawal depend on the type of agreement. For executive agreements, the President has generally terminated such agreements without authorization from the legislative branch, and this practice has not been challenged by Congress or the Senate.

(Courtesy of the Washington Times)
A peer-reviewed study [found] that implementing all provisions of all signers to the Paris Agreement would prevent only 0.306 degrees Fahrenheit of global warming by 2100.

What would it cost? Unofficial estimates by the United States, European Union, Mexico and China amount to $739-$757 billion per year.

Those parties account for about 80 percent of signatories’ emissions reduction pledges. Other pledges would have similar costs per unit, implying something in the range of $185-$189 billion.

All told, $924-$946 billion. Per year. Every year from 2030 to the end of the century. “And that’s if the politicians do everything right. If not, the real cost could double.”

So, for $65-$132 trillion, we might — if the alarmists are right — reduce global average temperature by a third of one degree by 2100. That is $212-$431 billion per thousandth of a degree of cooling.