A moment with the Congressman
The Paris Agreement
Last Thursday, President Trump announced the United States would be leaving the Paris Agreement. As someone who has consistently opposed this international agreement – which was never voted on by the Senate due to President Obama’s attempts to circumvent Congress – I applaud this decision.
While I am not opposed to environmental agreements between nations or attempts to limit greenhouse gas emissions, the simple truth is that the Paris Agreement puts the United States at a significant disadvantage. If you are not familiar with the terms of our commitment, President Obama pledged to lower U.S. greenhouse gas emissions 26-28 percent by 2025. This pledge was not uniform across the planet, creating an unfair stage for competition in the global economy.
By contrast, other nations like China and Russia will actually be able to increase their emissions, often under the pretense that it’s essential for their economic growth and well-being. For example, China will let its emissions grow until 2030. Only then will it attempt to rein them in. Russia pledged to limit its emissions 25-30 percent compared to its 1990 levels, glossing over the fact that their emissions have already fallen 50 percent below that point. This means Russia will actually be able to increase its emissions 40-50 percent above current levels by 2030.
What we see here is the inherent unfairness of the Paris Agreement. Rather than treat all nations the same, the Paris Agreement creates an inequitable system for lowering greenhouse emissions. This disparity will allow our economic and geopolitical rivals to grow and expand their influence around the world and threatens our economic and national security. Studies by the Heritage Foundation, National Economic Research Associates and others have all projected GDP losses in the trillions of dollars, job losses from several hundred thousand to several million, lower household income and higher electricity prices. For example, Ohio receives 59 percent of its electricity from coal and has over 33,000 jobs tied to the industry. The abrupt abandonment of this crucial energy source would affect families all over Ohio and across the country.
Again, I am all for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but we can’t take steps that restrict our economic growth and ability to compete in the world economy. Regulations that seek to mitigate our global footprint have the real potential to impact nearly every sector of our economy throughout the country. As the federal government focuses on climate change, I believe it is important that we find an appropriate balance between environmentally responsible development of our energy resources and our national security, economic growth and energy independence.
I will continue working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support policies that promote an “all of the above” energy approach. This includes natural gas, clean coal and American-made oil, as well as alternative energy sources such as wind, solar, hydropower and nuclear. The United States does not have to be a part of the Paris Agreement to meaningfully invest in alternative energy resources and reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. We were doing that before the Paris Agreement and will continue to do so without it.
While I am not opposed to environmental agreements between nations or attempts to limit greenhouse gas emissions, the simple truth is that the Paris Agreement puts the United States at a significant disadvantage. If you are not familiar with the terms of our commitment, President Obama pledged to lower U.S. greenhouse gas emissions 26-28 percent by 2025. This pledge was not uniform across the planet, creating an unfair stage for competition in the global economy.
By contrast, other nations like China and Russia will actually be able to increase their emissions, often under the pretense that it’s essential for their economic growth and well-being. For example, China will let its emissions grow until 2030. Only then will it attempt to rein them in. Russia pledged to limit its emissions 25-30 percent compared to its 1990 levels, glossing over the fact that their emissions have already fallen 50 percent below that point. This means Russia will actually be able to increase its emissions 40-50 percent above current levels by 2030.
What we see here is the inherent unfairness of the Paris Agreement. Rather than treat all nations the same, the Paris Agreement creates an inequitable system for lowering greenhouse emissions. This disparity will allow our economic and geopolitical rivals to grow and expand their influence around the world and threatens our economic and national security. Studies by the Heritage Foundation, National Economic Research Associates and others have all projected GDP losses in the trillions of dollars, job losses from several hundred thousand to several million, lower household income and higher electricity prices. For example, Ohio receives 59 percent of its electricity from coal and has over 33,000 jobs tied to the industry. The abrupt abandonment of this crucial energy source would affect families all over Ohio and across the country.
Again, I am all for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but we can’t take steps that restrict our economic growth and ability to compete in the world economy. Regulations that seek to mitigate our global footprint have the real potential to impact nearly every sector of our economy throughout the country. As the federal government focuses on climate change, I believe it is important that we find an appropriate balance between environmentally responsible development of our energy resources and our national security, economic growth and energy independence.
I will continue working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support policies that promote an “all of the above” energy approach. This includes natural gas, clean coal and American-made oil, as well as alternative energy sources such as wind, solar, hydropower and nuclear. The United States does not have to be a part of the Paris Agreement to meaningfully invest in alternative energy resources and reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. We were doing that before the Paris Agreement and will continue to do so without it.