Trump is wrong on Paris in many different ways: here are just a few

Creative Commons: David Everett Strickler

Immediately after President Donald Trump announced his decision to  begin the process of removing the United States from the Paris  Agreement, fact checkers began pointing out the many things he got  wrong. The AP, Washington Post, New York Times, and many others published stories correcting inaccuracies. Here’s a sample of the biggest points Trump got wrong.

Trump  opposes the agreement on the grounds that it’s a bad deal that’s unfair  for the U.S.. This is false. The agreement is “bottom-up,” in that each  country provides its own domestic policies- each country is only bound  to its own laws. By undoing the Clean Power Plan and other regulations,  Trump is already dismantling the U.S. commitment made in Paris. But  Trump knows and admitted this, noting that the agreement is  “non-binding” directly before calling it “draconian.”

More importantly, the agreement would not hurt job growth or the economy- the study Trump cited has been widely debunked  for its out of date and unrealistic assumptions by counting only jobs  lost, in a worst-case scenario, and not accounting for clean energy jobs  created. But clean energy jobs are already booming. Solar jobs are growing 17 times faster than the overall economy and there are 1.2 million clean energy jobs in the states Trump won.

Trump also claimed the deal was unfair because it lets China “do  whatever they want for 13 years.” This too is false in its meaning,  because to meet its 2030 goal, China needs to build as much clean energy  as the U.S. currently uses. To imply, as Trump does, that they don’t  need to do anything until 2030 is to assume that they will build that  much renewable capacity overnight. Obviously, that’s unrealistic. Trump  also called out India making “its participation contingent on receiving  billions and billions and billions of dollars in foreign aid” but in  reality, both China and India are already ahead of schedule in meeting their 2030 goals.

In  pointing to an MIT study and claiming the impact of the agreement on  global temperatures would be negligible, Trump is pointing to an  outdated report and taking it out of context in what the co-founder of  the MIT program cited told the AP was“kind  of a debate trick.” The reality is that even though it was meant as a  starting point, the global commitments that make up the Paris agreement  would reduce temperatures by more like 1°C, or 1.8°F- substantially more  than the 0.2°C Trump mentioned.

Most importantly, Trump insisted  that he’s open to renegotiating to get a better deal for the U.S.. This  is not how it works- an agreement of nearly 200 countries isn’t sent  back to the drawing board over a single nation’s objections. Foreign  leaders immediately made this clear, as did a George W. Bush environmental advisor, who said that  “There’s nothing left to negotiate in Paris. This is where folks don’t  read the Paris Agreement. The Paris Agreement is now set for a  generation.” But Trump likely already knows this, and is merely using  the renegotiation line as cover- according to one of his own transition team members, who said that “no progress will ever be made.”

While  that may be true in the sense of Trump’s negotiations, progress on  climate will absolutely continue despite Trump (and perhaps to spite  him.) Local action from cities, states and countries are ramping up to  counter Trump’s pull-out, with a group of local leaders working together to replace the U.S.’s commitment with their own efforts on the city and state level.

The  reports Trump relies on are outdated and debunked or taken out of  context. His statements about fairness and renegotiation seem to imply  that he does not understand the conditions of the deal at all. His  decision to pull us out goes against the wishes of the majority of the U.S. business community, the majority of the American public and even the majority of constituents in states Trump won (and the ones he lost as well). Globally the reaction of world leaders and others has been consistently negative, with one exception: Vladimir Putin.

Last updated July 2, 2018

Through collaborative partnerships, we support innovative projects that protect vulnerable wildlife from extinction, while restoring balance to threatened ecosystems and communities. Our work is divided into six main program areas – Wildlands Conservation, Oceans Conservation, Climate Change, Indigenous Rights, Transforming California, and Innovative Solutions.

Explore Our Programs

Check out our privacy policy for details on how we protect and manage your submitted data.