Burnett: White House Faction Pushing Trump to Stay in Paris Climate Deal Despite Campaign Promise
Environment and Energy Policy research fellow at the Heartland Institute, H. Sterling Burnett, spoke with Breitbart News Daily SiriusXM host Alex Marlow on Tuesday regarding President Trump’s position on the Paris Climate Agreement. The Heartland Institute has called for the United States to withdraw.
The press release reads in part:
The Paris Climate Treaty puts America last, the exact opposite of what candidate Trump and now President Trump has promised. The treaty would require the United States to make massive reductions in emissions and pay billions of dollars in ‘climate reparations’ to Third World dictators, while requiring no emission cuts from developing countries including India and China. Why should the United States pay hundreds of billions of dollars to developing countries at a time when the U.S. government is running massive debts, when economic growth is slower for a longer period of time than at any time since the Great Depression, and when American workers are losing out to lower-paid workers in China and India?
Burnett said Wednesday, “Trump rightly said he was going to withdraw from this, but … there are two factions in the White House. There are those like Scott Pruitt, head of the EPA, like Steve Bannon, his adviser, that say keep your campaign promise. Withdraw from the Paris Climate agreement. Let America grow.”
“But then there’s the other faction,” he continued, “that’s led by Rex Tillerson, who has a lot of influence … as secretary of state, who said we should stay in the agreement. It’s led by his daughter and son-in-law, Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner. … She wants to make climate change her signature issue. So he’s got powerful interests trying to keep him in the agreement, saying not [to] leave it as it is, but renegotiate it. Cut a better deal.”
“Problem is, there are no terms within the treaty to cut a better deal. You’re not allowed within the treaty to cut a better deal. And the worst problem is, is there’s no better deal to be had, in the sense that if you’re forcing America to cut its emissions, you’re having big government intervene in the economy,” he concluded.