J4 - Observations re: The Paris Agreement

I suppose that, since I’m doing a research project on a topic that relates to the environment, I should comment on President Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement. I really don’t want to. And that’s one of the best things about this program: I don’t have to do anything I don’t want to do. So, in commenting, I’m not going to really talk about the Paris Agreement, its scientific ramifications, or whether Trump’s decision to pull out was good or bad. I will, however, offer some commentary on the responses I’ve seen.

First, briefly, I just want to say that I very much enjoyed Trump’s Rose Garden speech. It was not only well-written but also accurately portrayed the decision that he was making. When I taught economics to college students, I dedicated half of an entire class to explaining why economics is known as “the dismal science.” The reason is because economists are painfully aware of scarcity, and therefore painfully aware of the cost of any action. I always explained it like this: “Economists might seem like jerks because they don’t favor free healthcare. But we don’t favor free healthcare because we know that nothing is free; providing free healthcare to everyone will cost someone an extra trillion dollars. And so we’re never choosing between free healthcare for everyone and nothing. We’re choosing between many different uses of that trillion dollars.” 

The Paris Agreement is the same. The President was not choosing between slowing down global warming and nothing. He was choosing between slowing down global warming and supporting the U.S. economy. And he chose the U.S. economy. He chose cheap energy for everyone and jobs for the coal sector and less regulations for manufacturers. And, from a Wertfrei perspective, there’s nothing wrong with that decision. It’s simply a value judgment that one may or may not agree with. And Trump’s speech on Thursday made that clear. He made clear that he was not choosing to hurt the environment for the sake of it; he was choosing to support industry over the environment.

Now, reading some of the responses to Trump’s decision, it’s clear that many people are terribly confused. Hillary Clinton, for example, tweeted that “Paris withdrawal leaves American workers and families behind.” This is the opposite of the truth. While the other 200 countries that remain committed to the Paris Agreement cripple their economies in an effort to reduce carbon emissions, the United States will be free to allocate resources economically and thereby become comparatively wealthier than we would be if we hadn’t withdrawn. Draconian regulations can never help workers; by refusing to implement the regulations that the Paris Agreement would require, President Trump has actually helped American workers and made American families wealthier. Clinton is exactly wrong.

The ACLU said that “Pulling out of the Paris Agreement would be a massive step back for racial justice, and an assault on communities of color across the U.S.” I must ask: Does the ACLU know what the Paris Agreement is, or is it simply joining in on the liberal condemnation campaign? Pulling out of the Paris Agreement ensures that energy for Americans will be cheaper than it would have been, and this energy fuels all types of American industry. Withdrawing from the Paris Agreement will cause goods to be cheaper than they would have been had we remained in the pact, which means that every American will be able to afford more goods. This especially helps the poorer Americans, for whom every dollar counts. I therefore fail to see how President Trump’s decision could be considered “an assault on communities of color.” If anything, this is a boon to them.

Finally, Senator Tim Kaine, echoing President Obama, said that the “U.S. private sector, researchers, cities, towns, and states will lead clean energy revolution despite lack of leadership from the White House and President.” I think that this is true, and I hope that they make amazing progress in developing new technologies and implementing cleaner manufacturing processes. This will be much easier to do now that American taxpayers are no longer on the hook for trillions of dollars as required by the Paris Agreement. This extra capital that American businesses will get to hold onto will allow them to innovate and upgrade much more economically than they would have been forced to under the Paris Agreement. I do think it’s amusing how the Democrats are coming out in support of private and state efforts to fight climate change when they are the ones who are always stressing the need for centralized, top-down solutions. Hopefully Trump’s presidency continues to dispel their belief in the State.