An American President in Paris

Trump doesn't get much right, but he's right on the Paris Accord. Before you all grab your pitchforks and light your torches, I want to stress that people who don't support the Paris Climate Accord specifically aren't anti-environment shills for billionaires and don’t support grabbing any pussies without consent. There are many reasons why Liberals of both the classical and modern varieties should join forces to work towards environmental policies that would truly benefit the poor of our nation and those around the globe. If we do not, the poorest Americans will bear the costs, I guarantee you. 

The requirements in the Paris Accord would have a direct negative impact on poor people in the United States in the forms of fewer jobs and increased costs of living on nearly every level. 400,000 job losses could be expected in the oil, gas and coal mining, manufacturing, and construction industries. If that weren’t bad enough, an average family could expect to pay $3000 more per year for electricity.

I’m sure that this analysis doesn’t account for any jobs that would be created when opportunistic entrepreneurs rush to fill the void created by artificially high energy prices, however any new innovations would be subject to higher fixed costs, such as research, development, facilities, licensure, etc, as those businesses got off the ground and as already established green energy firms pushed to expand quickly. Traditional energy companies that have already undergone these expenses would be subject to mostly marginal costs and would have an easier time providing lower prices to customers.

Additionally, considering the billions of dollars that would be paid by the US to energy contractors, plenty of the 1%, both inside and outside of the US, would stand to make enormous gains if the current plan stays in place. 
Denial of Economics is Science Denial.
By now we’ve had time to watch all of the computer generated climate simulations turn out to be very wrong. We’ve had time to see many of the climate predictions turn out to be just as misguided. That doesn’t mean that the climate isn’t changing and that doesn’t mean that mankind and specifically mankind’s pollution isn’t contributing to that phenomenon.
You don’t need computer models to think that pumping gigatons of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere might result in a greenhouse effect. 
Quite the opposite, actually. You would be quite negligent in your thinking were you to ignore this possibility. Certainly, there are adamant climate change deniers out there, but I think it’s far too convenient just to jump to the conclusion that the majority of people who don’t support committing the United States to aggressive and potentially unrealistic carbon emission output targets fall into this camp. 
If we look at climate change as a negative force, as of course, we should, we have to examine what makes it so, and why exactly we need to combat it. That may seem obvious, but have you actually ever taken the time to articulate it into words? Humor me just a bit while we break it down. Shouldn’t the reason that it’s in our best interest to combat both climate and climate change be the impact these things have on human life? All life should be considered to a degree, certainly, and it would be in our own best interest to consider the entirety of the ecosystem, but really... should human life not be the metric by which we decide what is and what is not a threat? Would it not also be fair to say that in most, if not all, cases that the poorest among us would be the most vulnerable and susceptible to nearly any threat?
As a species and a society, we are interested in continuing to exist and rightly so. If we accept that as a fact, we have to critically examine what the most significant environmental threats are to human life, especially poor people. Throughout history, the bulk of those big threats has simply been cold winters, hot summers, storms, etc. People need to have resources and energy to warm them up when they're cold, cool them down when it's hot, and structures to keep them safe. They need food to nourish their bodies and that same food needs to be within their economic means to obtain. 
In a column in center-left leaning website “The Hill” appeared these words: 
“In the decade from 2004 to 2013, worldwide climate-related deaths (including droughts, floods, extreme temperatures, wildfires, and storms) plummeted to a level 88.6 percent below that of the peak decade, 1930 to 1939.2 The year 2013, with 29,404 reported deaths, had 99.4 percent fewer climate-related deaths than the historic record year of 1932, which had 5,073,283 reported deaths for the same category.”
Additionally, deaths related to climate factors have decreased 98% over the last 80 years, which was when major C02 emissions began. The climate is changing. But the reason that fewer people than ever are suffering or dying due to climate is that there is a supply chain of readily available, inexpensive, energy to keep people warm, build safe housing, grow food, etc. It not a good thing that climate change may be a side effect of this, but we've never been more prepared to combat weather events and it isn't fair to pull the rug out from under poor people and tell them that we’ve signed an agreement that lets Germany, France, and other nations get to dictate to them how much energy they can use at 3 times the price. That would have a much more significant impact on poor people than the projected atmospheric conditions and I think that could be quantified in actual deaths of actual people.
The fair-minded, and scientifically literate among us already know this. 
But because we are fair minded and scientifically literate, we look at the big picture and see that the effects on human life (especially poor people) due to climate change are real, the effects on human life (especially poor people) due to economic factors are also real. Then we ask ourselves which one presents the most significant threat to human life, especially poor people? 
When we examine this question with a fair-minded, scientifically literate approach, we see that the pre-industrial climate was a killer. Extreme heat, extreme cold, tornadoes, hurricanes, malnutrition, etc. And, as previously stated, we also see that deaths due to climate have dropped dramatically since industrialization. That's not because the emissions are good, certainly, they are not. It is simply due to the fact that more people than ever, even poor people, have greater access to inexpensive, abundant and reliable energy sources. The emissions are a problem, but a less critical one than would be created by removing access to inexpensive and abundant energy from people, especially poor people. 
Personally, I believe that if the US government would butt out of the marketplace, stop subsidizing BOTH fossil files AND green energy, and let the two Duke it out in the marketplace, green energy would quickly become the cheapest, most reliable source. 
I am not arguing that we should not take environmental protection measures, just that the Paris Accord in its current form is not a good deal for the US. President Trump, however, is a climate change denier and an egotistical showboat.. but a broken clock is right twice a day, as they say.
All the best,

-Clyde -