Connect with us

BREAKING: Donald Trump Pulls US Out of Historic Paris Climate Agreement

Published

on

  • Trump Claims Exiting Agreement Is ‘Putting American Workers First’ – Which Is False

  • Steve Bannon Wing of Trump White House Pushed for Exit

  • GOP Only Major Political Party in the World That Denies Climate Change

Nearly eight months ago President Barack Obama stood in the White House Rose Garden to announce the United States would sign the historic Paris Agreement to battle climate change. To date, 195 nations have joined together to agree to reduce greenhouse gases, the chief cause of what used to be called global warming. 

Minutes ago, President Donald Trump, standing on the same spot as his predecessor, called the Paris Agreement “a BAD deal for Americans,” announcing he is pulling the U.S. out of the historic accord.

Exiting the Paris Agreement is not popular.

No action was required; the agreement was already signed and took effect last November. But the action was expected. Now, the U.S. Stands nearly alone, joining just the embattled nation of Syria, led by war-crimes committing president Bashar al-Assad, and Nicaragua, which didn’t sign because it wanted the agreement to be stronger.

Russia signed onto the deal, then also exited.

Trump told supporters assembled in the Rose Garden that the Paris Agreement “was negotiated poorly by the Obama Administration and signed out of desperation.”

“The U.S. is already leading the world in energy production and doesn’t need a bad deal that will harm American workers,” Trump said, according to prepared remarks.

194 other countries signed the agreement.

“Abandoning the Paris pact would isolate the U.S. from a raft of international allies who spent years negotiating the 2015 agreement to fight global warming and pollution by reducing carbon emissions in nearly 200 nations,” the AP reports. “While traveling abroad last week, Trump was repeatedly pressed to stay in the deal by European leaders and the pope. Withdrawing would leave the United States aligned only with Russia among the world’s industrialized economies.”

American corporate leaders have also appealed to the businessman-turned-president to stay in the pact. They include Apple, Google and Walmart. Even fossil fuel companies such as Exxon Mobil, BP and Shell say the United States should abide by the deal.

Exiting the Paris Agreement actually violates core tenets of Trump’s campaign promises, to improve the economy and “jobs, jobs, jobs!”

In short, it’s just bad business. It also, naturally, devastating for the planet, and all life on it.

“A U.S. exit from the Paris accord would be a rupture in policy, a dramatic departure from the record of the last four U.S. administrations, both Democratic and Republican,” Bloomberg Businessweek reported earlier Thursday. 

Voters who elected Donald Trump president often cite their (provably false) belief that he is a good businessman. Pulling out of the Paris Agreement negates that, bigly.

“Solar power is projected to be the least-expensive electricity technology in most of the world by 2030,” the Bloomberg report continues, “and onshore wind costs will fall an additional 40 percent by 2040, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance.”

“It’s all part of what may become the greatest opportunity for wealth creation of the 21st century. If Trump decides to pull out of the agreement, the U.S. would be giving a gift to the rest of the world. A climate-renegade U.S. will only empower and encourage China, Europe, India, and virtually everyone else to focus on these increasingly profitable technologies and markets.”

Trump has just given China and every other nation in the world not only America’s leadership role, but our economic future.

It’s almost as if Trump decided to invest America’s money in to dial-up internet access. Or, horse-drawn carriages. Or Palm Pilots. Or 8-track tapes. The list is endless, because this is the 21st Century, and our president doesn’t get it. 

Some responses to the expected announcement:

To comment on this article and other NCRM content, visit our Facebook page.

Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

RIGHT WING EXTREMISM

AOC Slams McCarthy and His GOP ‘Ku Klux Klan Caucus’ for Allowing ‘Violent Targeting’ of Women of Color in Congress

Published

on

U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) is criticizing House Republican Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy for refusing to deal with the members of his “Ku Klux Klan” caucus who are ignoring and allowing the “violent targeting” of women of color members of Congress.

The Democratic Congresswoman from New York, herself the frequent target of violent threats, pointed to this video of U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar playing a death threat received after she was targeted by GOP Congresswoman Lauren Boebert:

“People truly don’t understand the scale, intensity, & volume of threats targeting” Congresswoman Omar, Ocasio-Cortez says.

“Kevin McCarthy is so desperate to be speaker that he is working with his Ku Klux Klan caucus to look aside & allow violent targeting of woc members of Congress. This cannot be ignored,” she warns.

Congresswoman Boebert over the past week was exposed – on video – suggesting Rep. Omar is a terrorist three times, including in one video she herself posted to social media.

McCarthy has refused to take any action against Boebert.

 

 

Continue Reading

'BLAZING POSITIVE'

‘Massive, Dangerous, Likely Intentional’: Immunologist Blasts Trump for Ignoring Positive COVID Test Before Biden Debate

Published

on

A Harvard epidemiologist, immunologist and physician is blasting Donald Trump‘s decision to continue his activities as normal in September 2020, not go public with the results of his positive COVID test result, and continue business as usual – including participating in a debate against Joe Biden – revelations made in a new book by Trump’s White House chief of staff Mark Meadows on Wednesday.

Dr. Michael Mina says if Trump had been given a rapid COVID test the day of the first presidential debate against Joe Biden, President Trump “would have been blazing positive,” and calls the decision to not test “massive, dangerous and likely intentional.”

“The decision to continue to not test on [the] day of the Rose Garden superspreader event and on [the] day of the debate with now @POTUS Biden was a massive, dangerous and likely intentional decision,” says Michael Mina, an Assistant Professor of Epidemiology and Immunology and Infectious Diseases at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, and an Assistant Professor of Pathology at Harvard Medical School’s Brigham and Women’s Hospital.

“Was Trump the superspreader? For a year, I’ve suggested Trump was the likely superspreader at White House Rose Garden on 9/28/20,” Mina posits. “All were supposedly tested, so how would a superspreader enter? Now we know Trump tested COVID positive 2 days earlier.”

Citing Meadows’ new book, The Guardian reported Wednesday morning that Trump tested positive on Sept. 26, and shortly thereafter, before the Sept. 29 presidential debate, tested negative – but three days after the debate, on Oct. 2, again tested positive, and was rushed to Walter Reed hospital hours later.

Because Trump “was testing so frequently, he was [likely] detected using a molecular test at the earliest time, before becoming infectious,” says Mina.

“So when he immediately tested again with a rapid Ag test, it did not yet register positive because he was not YET infectious,” Mina explains. “Had he used a rapid test later that day or next day though, once he was becoming slightly infectious, he almost certainly would have been positive.”

 

 

 

Continue Reading

News

Listen Live: US Supreme Court Arguments in Case That Will Decide Future of Abortion in America

Published

on

The U.S. Supreme Court Wednesday morning will hear oral arguments in what will be a decisive case for the future of abortion in America.

Justices will hear arguments in the case, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health, over a Mississippi abortion ban designed to overturn the nearly 50-year old precedent-setting ruling in Roe v. Wade.

Listen live starting at 10 AM ET below via C-SPAN or a Reuters feed:

 

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.