The cost of the US’ contribution to the

The United States Federal Government
should reenter the Paris agreement: Negative


On December 12th, 2015,
the Paris Agreement was created based on negotiations and pledges from
countries that keeps the earth below 2 degrees Cesius. The National Public
Radio describes the event that took place stating, “Representatives from 196
nations made a historic pact to adopt green energy sources,
cut down on climate change emissions and limit the rise of global
temperatures — while also cooperating to cope with the impact of unavoidable
climate change”. Although the US was the leader in establishing the Paris
Agreement, that was not enough for Trump to keep the US in the accord. In 2017,
President Donald Trump pulled the United States out of the Paris Agreement due
to multiple factors including the adaptation on fossil fuels, the cost of the
US’ contribution to the accord, and speculation of global warming. In this
research paper, I will discuss each of the previous points mentioned and why
President Trump’s decision to pull out of the Paris Agreement was the best
choice for the country.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

Removing ourselves from the Paris
agreement works best for the job economy in the United States, considering that
the contribution of coal mine jobs will be saved, and other jobs will not be
shifted overseas (Troy, 2010). To better understand this, we must first
understand how this works. Dozolme explains that massive organic materials get
buried and result in the making of fossil fuels. Those organic materials help
create the fossil fuels through heat, pressure, and time (2017). Coal became of
use for many different things at its peak. Coal was and still is America’s most
abundant resource for producing affordable energy (Troy, 2010). The National
Public Radio states that one of the most notable places fueled by coal was
Thomas Edison’s coal-fired power plant (2016). This brought tremendous growth
and increased quality of life for the following century. Although bad for the
environment, fossil fuels such as coal are cheap and easy to use. The Paris
Agreement wanted countries to shy away from using coal; however, clean coal was
little explored as an option. While transitioning to cleaner coal would be
better for the environment, it would also save tens of thousands of jobs (Miliband,

The cost of being in the Paris
Agreement is too expensive and ineffective, which leaves nations wondering what
the next step towards a green planet is. Unfortunately, the agreement will cost
a fortune, but will do little to reduce global warming (Loris & Tubb, 2017).

Since there is no punishment for this regulation, it’s not a big deal to not
follow through with it, because there are no penalties. Because of this, the
treaty encourages countries to reduce emissions and to take it on themselves to
find alternatives. In essence, the Paris Agreement is more of an investment in
its own way, since it does implement costs that aren’t even known, thus proving
that we don’t actually know if we will be better off if we keep the
temperatures from rising (Smith 2017). We also don’t know how much we need to
reduce gas emissions to meet our global goal. The cost of the Paris Agreement
is likely to run to 1 to 2 trillion dollars every year based on estimates
produced by the Stanford Energy Modeling Forum and the Asia Modeling Exercise
(Cass, 2016). Also, by the end of the agreement we will spend at least 100
trillion dollars in order to reduce the temperature by the end of the century
by .3 degrees Fahrenheit (Smith, 2017). In addition to this, the United
Nation’s climate prediction model assures to only postpone global warming by
less than four years. All-together, the Paris Agreement is the wrong solution
to a real problem, and all countries must work together to find an alternative
to help achieve the goals.

Misinformation about Global Warming
is another contributing factor as to why exiting the Paris Agreement has been
beneficial to the United States. Johnson points out that the media is more focused
on scaring the public and throwing attention getting information their way than
actually providing them with facts (2013).  The media will do anything to grab the
attention of anyone slightly gullible. “Countdown to Armageddon” was a title
used for an article about the dangers of global warming. Without concrete
information and facts, every news and media outlet have jumped on the global
warming bandwagon and are constantly feeding the same information to the public
(Johnson 2013). The nation’s foremost hurricane expert Dr. William Grey has
gone against alarmist claims about global warming affecting hurricanes (Johnson
2013). In reality, humans don’t actually know the effects of global warming,
it’s more of a probability of what will happen supported by statistics (Bast
& Spencer, 2014).  EPA chief Scott
Pruitt supports this claim by stating, that the “degree of human contribution”
to global warming remains uncertain (Leber & Schulman, 2017).  In addition to this, Maxwell Boykoff, published
a study in the journal Climatic Change,
which uncovers that 70 percent of the networks’ global warming stories
“perpetuated an informational bias” by including the unscientific views of
climate skeptics (Leber & Schulman, 2017). Many are quick to call out a
skeptic of climate change, yet despite 30 years of efforts by scientists, nearly
two-thirds of Americans are either indifferent to or only somewhat bothered by
the prospect of planetary calamity (Stephens, 2017). One question that is
hardly ever asked is: While everyone is worrying our planet is heating up, is
any part of it cooling down? The answer is yes. In the South Pole, ice has been
accumulating for 50 years (Johnson, 2013). Facts such as the previous one are
rarely pointed out allowing people to think the entire planet is heating up as
a whole, when in reality while certain parts are heating up, others are cooling
down. It’s true, most people have a fear of leaving a carbon footprint, but
without all the evidence to back up facts, people should not immediately jump
on the global warming bandwagon.

In December of 2015,
representatives from 196 nations, including the United States, came together to
form the Paris Agreement. It was created based on negotiations and pledges from
countries that they would work together to keep the earth below 2 degrees
Celsius. Besides limiting the rise of global temperatures, the nations made a historic
pact to adopt green energy sources and cut down on climate change emissions. In
2017, President Trump pulled the United States out of the Paris Agreement
leaving a majority of the country worrying about what that meant for the future
of the United States. Due to multiple factors including the adaptation on
fossil fuels, the cost of the US’ contribution to the accord, and speculation
of global warming, Trump thought it was best for the Paris Agreement to
continue without the United States. In this research paper, I discussed and
debated the points previously mentioned as well as proved why pulling out of
the Paris Agreement was the best decision for our country.