Nicolas Loris, deputy director of the Heritage Foundation’s Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies
Recently, some experts have said that rejoining the Paris Climate Accord would have devastating economic consequences for the United States and would have little impact on the actual environmental benefits. And Biden has signed the executive order to rejoin the Paris Climate Agreement on January 20.
According to the UN, developed countries that sign the agreement should “take the lead in providing financial assistance to under-resourced and more vulnerable countries,” while also encouraging other countries to make voluntary contributions. Two studies have confirmed that for the U.S., which is already reducing carbon emissions, the agreement does little for the climate and is self-destructive to the economy.
According to Nicolas Loris, deputy director of the Heritage Foundation’s Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Research, “It would be very expensive for American households and businesses, because 80 percent of our energy needs are met by traditional fuels that have carbon emissions.” Regulating them and subsidizing alternatives, he says, “would hurt American families and taxpayers.”
In 2016, Loris and other experts authored a Heritage Foundation report titled “The Consequences of the Paris Agreement: devastating economic costs, almost zero environmental benefits. He said, “Because the Paris Climate Agreement has no real power to require any country to do so, while developing countries are given a free pass on emissions, the Paris Agreement will hardly achieve its intended goals.”
And while, according to the UN, in order to achieve this long-term goal, countries “strive to reach a peak in global greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible before the middle of the century in order to achieve a climate-neutral (meaning climate-neutral) world,” “under the agreement, China is surprisingly allowed to keep increasing its carbon emissions for 13 years.” President Trump said, “China can do whatever it wants for 13 years and we can’t …… There are many other examples.”
China is the largest funder and builder of fossil fuel and renewable energy infrastructure globally, according to Climate Action Tracker. It is also the world’s largest emitter of carbon dioxide. Yet it is not regulated by the agreement.
“We estimate a total loss of $20,000 over a 15-year period for every Family of four in the U.S.,” says Loris, “If energy costs increase, Americans will not only pay more for electricity and water pumps, but spending on groceries, eating out or buying clothes will also go up because all of these require energy to make.”
Loris argues that the policies of the Paris Climate Agreement are highly anachronistic and will have a disproportionate impact on the poor. “They spend the highest percentage of their budget on energy costs.” He stressed, “This agreement really doesn’t deliver on either …… More importantly, from a global perspective, it will only bring economic pain with no real climate benefits.”
Another study shows that the U.S. would lose 2.7 million jobs in four years if it returned to the agreement. Anthony Watts, senior fellow for environment and climate at the Hartland Institute, said that according to their analysis, the agreement would cost the U.S. “about 2.7 million jobs by 2025 by scaling back some industries. Currently, we’re already on track to lose about 440,000 manufacturing jobs.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said Biden is going in the wrong direction. He said, “The United States is already reducing carbon emissions while China and other countries in the agreement are increasing them.”
McConnell said Jan. 21, “Biden wants to rejoin the failed Paris Climate Agreement. It’s a terrible agreement that will cause significant economic pain to our self-reliant American families, and there is no guarantee that China or Russia will meet their commitments.”
For her part, Heather Zichal, chief executive of the American Clean Energy Association, welcomed Biden’s action. In a statement, he said, “In order for the world to overcome this challenge, our country must do more than just play a role; we must take a leadership role.”
Recent Comments