Publisher's notebook
Paris can wait
I am the original nature boy. Everybody who knows me is aware that is just who I am. I own a horse farm and prefer to be outside as much as possible. I love to hike and bike. I have editorialized in the past about how we should not let companies pollute our streams and lakes and use Ohio like a garbage dump. I have always thought that we should more vigorously monitor and enforce emission standards on vehicles, factories and power plants. I am in favor of tax credits to stimulate solar and wind energy.
The environment is an issue where I do not agree with many conservatives and Republicans. Years ago a column I wrote entitled "Obama is from the left but he is right on solar" garnered me my a national first place award for an opinion column. So my environmental bonfides have been long established.
The Paris climate accord? Sorry. I agree with Trump on that one. Paris can wait.
The mainstream media likes to make it sound like it is simply a question of whether you support the environment or not. Like so many things, it's not always quite that simple in real life.
For example, if you ask people whether they believe in NATO and supporting our European allies, the majority will say yes. But when we asked our readers the question last week - "Do you agree with Trump that Europe must pay for its own defense?" - nearly 80 percent of you felt either that our NATO allies shouldn’t lean so hard on America or that most European nations should be contributing more. Only 20.5 percent of you said "No, our current alliance helps keeps the region stable and more peaceful."
This week's online poll asks "Is the U.S. better off after withdrawing from the Paris Climate Agreement? Again, to me that is not the same as asking "are you against a better environment? Trump's detractors (and they are many, often for good reason) prefer to phrase things that way. It is kind of a "when did you stop beating your wife" question.
Trump has a history of saying stupid stuff but he does not have a history of being anti-environment. He campaigned on the belief that America has been making bad deals and is getting taken advantage of by our so-called friends.
“The Paris Agreement is very unfair at the highest level to the United States,” he said. “The cost to the economy at this time would be close to $3 trillion in lost GDP and 6.5 million industrial jobs, while households would have $7,000 less income, and in many cases much worse than that.”
Trump went on to say that this agreement was "less about the climate and more about other countries gaining a financial advantage over the United States." He cites the fact that "India makes its participation contingent on receiving billions and billions and billions of dollars in foreign aid from developed countries." He further points out that China will be allowed to build hundreds of additional coal plants. "So, we can't build the plants, but they can ... India will be allowed to double its coal production by 2020 ... We're supposed to get rid of ours. Even Europe is allowed to continue construction of coal plants."
Naturally, oil tycoon T. Boone Pickens agreed with Trump.
"We should pursue a new environmental agreement on the global stage that achieves a fair, balanced and achievable commitment by all nations. This will protect American jobs and create yet another opportunity to focus on utilizing everything American when it comes to energy," Pickens said.
Other energy companies, such as Exxon and Conoco believe that we should stick to the agreement. Even Trump's inner circle was deeply divided on this issue with Jared Kushner, Ivanka Trump, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Energy Secretary Rick Perry all reportedly against withdrawing from the accord. Mostly because it would look bad and get bad media coverage.
They are right on the media point. I agree with Trump, however, that getting the American economy going better and keeping us strong is the best way to fund environmental advances. Our European allies like to talk a good game about NATO as long as they don't have to pay for it. They also like to sign environmental accords as long as we are the ones paying the most for it.
That's my take what's yours? Go to your local Post website or our areawide thepostnewspapers.com this week to record your vote and comment.
The environment is an issue where I do not agree with many conservatives and Republicans. Years ago a column I wrote entitled "Obama is from the left but he is right on solar" garnered me my a national first place award for an opinion column. So my environmental bonfides have been long established.
The Paris climate accord? Sorry. I agree with Trump on that one. Paris can wait.
The mainstream media likes to make it sound like it is simply a question of whether you support the environment or not. Like so many things, it's not always quite that simple in real life.
For example, if you ask people whether they believe in NATO and supporting our European allies, the majority will say yes. But when we asked our readers the question last week - "Do you agree with Trump that Europe must pay for its own defense?" - nearly 80 percent of you felt either that our NATO allies shouldn’t lean so hard on America or that most European nations should be contributing more. Only 20.5 percent of you said "No, our current alliance helps keeps the region stable and more peaceful."
This week's online poll asks "Is the U.S. better off after withdrawing from the Paris Climate Agreement? Again, to me that is not the same as asking "are you against a better environment? Trump's detractors (and they are many, often for good reason) prefer to phrase things that way. It is kind of a "when did you stop beating your wife" question.
Trump has a history of saying stupid stuff but he does not have a history of being anti-environment. He campaigned on the belief that America has been making bad deals and is getting taken advantage of by our so-called friends.
“The Paris Agreement is very unfair at the highest level to the United States,” he said. “The cost to the economy at this time would be close to $3 trillion in lost GDP and 6.5 million industrial jobs, while households would have $7,000 less income, and in many cases much worse than that.”
Trump went on to say that this agreement was "less about the climate and more about other countries gaining a financial advantage over the United States." He cites the fact that "India makes its participation contingent on receiving billions and billions and billions of dollars in foreign aid from developed countries." He further points out that China will be allowed to build hundreds of additional coal plants. "So, we can't build the plants, but they can ... India will be allowed to double its coal production by 2020 ... We're supposed to get rid of ours. Even Europe is allowed to continue construction of coal plants."
Naturally, oil tycoon T. Boone Pickens agreed with Trump.
"We should pursue a new environmental agreement on the global stage that achieves a fair, balanced and achievable commitment by all nations. This will protect American jobs and create yet another opportunity to focus on utilizing everything American when it comes to energy," Pickens said.
Other energy companies, such as Exxon and Conoco believe that we should stick to the agreement. Even Trump's inner circle was deeply divided on this issue with Jared Kushner, Ivanka Trump, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Energy Secretary Rick Perry all reportedly against withdrawing from the accord. Mostly because it would look bad and get bad media coverage.
They are right on the media point. I agree with Trump, however, that getting the American economy going better and keeping us strong is the best way to fund environmental advances. Our European allies like to talk a good game about NATO as long as they don't have to pay for it. They also like to sign environmental accords as long as we are the ones paying the most for it.
That's my take what's yours? Go to your local Post website or our areawide thepostnewspapers.com this week to record your vote and comment.