FACT CHECKING TRUMP ABOUT PULLING OUT OF THE PARIS CLIMATE ACCORD

…One example of WaPo Fact Checkers that also got 4 Pinocchio's

 

Trump was awarded Four Pinocchio's for saying he was a “very big person when it comes to the environment”.

 

How many of you are aware that since Donald J. Trump became our Commander-in-Chief, the Washington Post has assigned a team of Fact Checkers, just for fact checking all of President Trump’s statements?  Trump has such a reputation for lying, (Analysist say ~5 lies per hour is not unusual for coming out of the White House), that made this a real necessity for publishing the truth on a regular basis.  In other words, if Trump or the White House said it, you’d better check it out before repeating it.

 

As usual, in Trump’s speech announcing the US withdrawal from the Paris Accord on Climate Change, the Trumpster frequently relied on questionable facts and unsubstantiated claims to make his case that the agreement would hurt the US economy.  This is definitely not true.

 

He falsely claimed that the agreement left the United States at a competitive disadvantage,  That it harmed US industries and he totally ignored the benefits that could come from tackling climate change, including all the potential green jobs.  (There are 200 Green jobs for every coal miner or oil drilling job.)

 

Trump suggested that the United States was treated unfairly under the agreement. But each of the nation’s that signed the agreement agreed to help lower emissions, based on the plans they each had submitted.  They were not told to meet any goals by anyone else.  Therefore, the US target was set by the Obama administration as they were by the other nation’s administrations.

 

The plans are not legally binding to any nation, but both developing and developed countries are treated differently because developed nations, on a per capita basis, often produce more greenhouse gases than developing countries. For instance, on a per capita basis, the United States in 2015 produced more than double the carbon dioxide emissions of China, and eight times more than India.

 

OK, here are a few of the various statements made by the president during his White House Rose Garden address of the withdrawal.

 

Per Trump: “We’re getting out, but we will start to negotiate, and we will see if we can make a deal that’s fair.”

 

Since each country set its own commitments under the Paris Accord, Trump’s comment is quit bizarre. He could at any time change the commitments offered by President Barack Obama, which is technically allowed under the Accord’s rules.  There is absolutely no desire within the member countries to renegotiate the entire agreement, as was made clear by various statements from a number of world leaders after Trump’s withdrawal announcement.

 

Trump: “China will be allowed to build hundreds of additional coal plants. So, we can’t build the plants, but they can, according to this agreement. India will be allowed to double its coal production by 2020.”

 

More Trump B.S.!  This is totally false and deserves 4 Pinocchio’s. The agreement is a nonbinding deal and each nation sets its own targets. There is nothing in the agreement that stops the United States from building coal plants and it gives the permission to China or India to build coal plants. In fact, it is the market forces that Trump always lauds, such as the reduction of the costs for natural gas, that is what has forced the closure of so many coal plants. In fact, China announced this year that it would cancel plans to build more than 100 coal-fired plants.

 

Gary Cohn, the chairman of Trump’s own National Economic Council, recently told reporters that “coal doesn’t even make that much sense anymore as a feedstock. Natural gas, which we have become an abundant producer, and which we’re going to become a major exporter of, is such a cleaner fuel.”  DUH!!!!!

Trump: “Compliance with the terms of the Paris accord and the onerous energy restrictions it has placed on the United States could cost America as much as 2.7 million lost jobs by 2025, according to the National Economic Research Associates. This includes 440,000 fewer manufacturing jobs — not what we need.”

 

Trump cited a slew of statistics from a questionable study that was funded by the US Chamber of Commerce and the American Council for Capital Formation, both are serious foes of the Paris Accord. So, the figures must be viewed with a jaundiced eye.

 

Moreover, the study did not consider possible benefits from reducing climate change. A footnote says: The study “does not take into account potential benefits from avoided emissions. … The model does not take into consideration yet-to-be developed technologies that might influence the long-term cost.”  You should recall, many of today’s new technologies were not available 10-20 years ago.

 

Trump also cited the impact by 2040, including a “cost to the economy” of nearly $3 trillion in lost Gross Domestic Product (GDP).  That number must be viewed in context over more than two decades, so “$3 trillion” amounts to a reduction of 6%. The same study concludes that coal usage will almost disappear by 2040.

 

Environmentalists say greater investment in clean energy will lower all costs and spur innovation.  But that demonstrates how the outcomes in models of economic activity decades from now depend on many different assumptions.

 

Trump: “Even if the Paris Agreement were implemented in full, with total compliance from all nations, it is estimated it would only produce a two-tenths of one degree — think of that, this much — Celsius reduction in global temperature by the year 2100. Tiny, tiny amount.”

 

Trump is referring to research by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, in a 2015 report. Researchers found that proposed emissions cuts in the Paris plan would result in about 0.2 degrees (Celsius) less warming by 2100, if the cuts were not extended further.

John Reilly, lead author of the report, said he “disagrees completely” with Trump’s characterization that the 0.2 degree cut is a “tiny, tiny” amount that is not worth pursuing. As a part of the deal, countries reexamine their commitments and can exceed or extend their pledges beyond 2030.

 

“The logic that, ‘This isn’t making much progress on a serious problem, therefore we’re going to do nothing,’ just doesn’t make sense to me. The conclusion should be — and our intended implication for people was — not to overly celebrate Paris, because you still have a long journey in front of you. So carb up for the rest of the trip,” Reilly said.

 

The point is today that if we did what Trump wants, it not only would not offer a small improvement, we would be further down the hole with zero improvement.  Everyone has to contribute, especially a major contributing carbon nation like the US.

 

Trump: “The green fund would likely obligate the United States to commit potentially tens of billions of dollars of which the United States has already handed over $1 billion. Nobody else is even close. Most of them haven’t even paid anything — including funds raided out of America’s budget for the war against terrorism. That’s where they came.”

 

It is totally false that other countries have not contributed to the Green Climate Fund. In fact, 43 different governments have pledged money to the fund, including nine developing countries. The countries have pledged to pay $10.13 billion collectively, and the US share as the main contributor is $3 billion. As of May 2017, the United States has contributed $1 billion of the $3 billion it pledged.

 

Trump also falsely  implies that the money was taken out of US defense funds.  The US contributions were paid out of the State Department’s Economic Support Fund, one of the foreign assistance programs to promote economic or political stability based on US strategic interests. 

 

Republican lawmakers have criticized the use of this fund, saying Congress designated the money to prioritize security, human rights and other efforts unrelated to climate change. However, the payments were made with congressional notification and meetings with congressional staff.  Trump also claimed in the speech that the Green Climate Fund “calls for developed countries to send $100 billion to developing countries.” But, as usual, that is once again totally incorrect.  It’s not $100 billion, it’s actually only $10 billion.

 

Trump: “China will be able to increase these emissions by a staggering number of years, 13. They can do whatever they want for 13 years. India makes its participation contingent on receiving billions and billions and billions of dollars in foreign aid from developed countries.”

 

China, in its Paris Accord commitment, said that, compared to 2005 levels, it would seek to cut its carbon emissions by 60 to 65% per unit of GDP by 2030. India said it would reduce its emissions per unit of economic output by 33 to 35% below 2005 by 2030; the submission does seek foreign aid to meet its goals and mitigate the costs.

 

Both countries pledge to reach these goals by 2030, meaning they are taking steps now to meet their commitments. India, for instance, seeks to have renewable power make up 40% of its power base by 2030, so it is investing heavily in solar energy. The country is now on track to become the world’s third-largest solar power market in 2018, after China and the United States. China is also investing heavily in renewable energy.

 

Trump: “Believe me, we have massive legal liability if we stay in.”

 

Trump is referring to concerns raised by White House counsel Don McGahn that staying in the Paris agreement would bolster legal arguments of climate advocates challenging Trump’s decision to roll back the Clean Power Plan.

 

The Clean Power Plan is a flagship environmental regulatory rule of the Obama administration, and proposes to cut carbon emissions from existing power plants 30% below 2005 levels by 2030. It is crucial to the United States meeting its carbon emissions reductions pledge in the Paris agreement. But it has been placed on hold while under litigation.

According to Politico, McGahn raised concerns that the Paris agreement “could be cited in court challenges to Trump’s efforts to kill Obama’s climate rules. McGahn’s comments shocked State Department lawyers, who strongly reject both of those contentions, the sources said.”

 

Trump: “As someone who cares deeply about the environment, which I do, I cannot in good conscience support a deal that punishes the United States, which is what it does.”

 

For years, Trump has touted his strong record on the environment. But the evidence is non-existent.  He was awarded Four Pinocchios for his claim that he is a “very big person when it comes to the environment,” who has “received awards on the environment.”

 

Environmentalists have criticized many of Trump’s projects, particularly for his plans to build a golf course on protected sand dunes and chopping down hundreds of trees for a golf course renovation. As a businessman, Trump or his property did win two environmental awards. In 2007, the Trump National Golf Club in Bedminster, N.J., received an award for “environmental stewardship through golf course maintenance, construction, education and research.” But three years later, the golf course was cited for a series of environmental violations.

 

In 2007, Trump won a “Green Space Award” for donating 435 acres of land to the state of New York. He had purchased the land to build a golf course, but withdrew plans after opposition from local residents and environmental restrictions. The land was never developed into a park, and New York closed it after budget cuts in 2010.

 

This is why the Washington Post has a group whose sole responsibility is to Fact Check our president.  It pretty disgusting when our commander-in-chief has to be continually checked to see if he’s telling us the truth.  But that's the truth about Donald J. Trump.

 

Copyright G.Ater 2017