Paris Agreement is Fundamentally Flawed
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to lead a Western Caucus Special Order to voice our vehement opposition to H.R. 9, which aims to prevent President Trump from withdrawing from the fundamentally flawed Paris Agreement.
In 2015, more than 170 countries signed a nonbinding agreement at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in Paris. While most countries set a target reduction of carbon emissions below its 2005 level, the Obama administration sought to dramatically reduce the United States' carbon emissions by between 26 and 28 percent below its 2005 level by 2025.
Before I proceed any further, I yield to my good friend, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Biggs). He is a tireless advocate for small businesses in his district, many of whom have been harmed by this type of legislation.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Biggs for his comments.
H.R. 9 seeks to mandate implementations of those same technically implausible and unrealistic emissions goals in order to appease extremists. The bill also seeks to prevent Federal funds from being used to withdraw from the flawed Paris Agreement.
Americans for Tax Reform estimates the Paris Agreement will cost the U.S. an estimated 6.5 million jobs by 2040 and reduce our gross domestic product by over $2.5 trillion.
NERA Consulting estimates those numbers are even higher and that the Paris Agreement will cost the U.S. an estimated 31.6 million jobs by 2040 and reduce our GDP by over $3 trillion.
In June of 2017, President Trump announced he will withdraw the United States from the Paris Agreement, stating: ``The Paris climate accord is simply the latest example of Washington entering into an agreement that disadvantages the United States to the exclusive benefit of other countries, leaving the American workers and taxpayers to absorb the costs in terms of lost jobs, lower wages, shuttering factories, and vastly diminishing economic production.''
There are other significant flaws of the Paris Agreement. MIT found the Paris Agreement will only result in a global temperature reduction of 0.2 degrees Celsius by 2100. Under the Paris climate agreement, China and India will actually increase emissions until at least 2030.
The Climate Action Tracker, a group of European research organizations, found that participating parties will not meet their commitments, and those are the goals of the Paris Agreement.
The European Climate Action Network reported that no single country in Europe is performing sufficiently to meet Paris Agreement goals, and those that have been making the most progress on their promises did not make large commitments in the first place.
A recent United Nations Emissions Gap report found all participating countries will have to at least triple their efforts in order to meet the Paris Agreement's basic goals.
Given how unrealistic and illogical the Paris Agreement is, the U.S. should not inflict monumental harm on our economy chasing a white unicorn.
Fortunately, there is an alternative. Members of the Western Caucus support personal responsibility, less government intervention in our daily lives, and freedom. They defend property rights and believe that private ownership of property is a fundamental right in America. Our vision encourages innovation and less burdensome mandates.
Members of the caucus support local control and believe that stewardship of our environment and natural resources is best accomplished by empowering local stakeholders, not victimizing them.
The people who depend on the land to provide security for their families and communities understand these resources best. States and municipalities are best suited to deal with local issues than the distant, out-of-touch Washington bureaucrats.
The caucus seeks to promote access to our Nation's energy and resource potential while pursuing a truly all-of-the-above energy approach that aims to ensure the U.S. is a global energy leader.
Our vision utilizes the current energy renaissance and the American energy dominant policies currently being implemented by the Trump administration. America's energy renaissance is the backbone of our economy; it is a story of freedom, prosperity, and opportunity.
After decades of reliance on other countries to meet our energy needs, the U.S. Energy Information Administration projects that America will export more energy than it imports starting in 2020. We are no longer dependent on volatile foreign sources produced in Russia and Saudi Arabia.
Recent innovations and technology improvements associated with hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling have allowed shale resources previously deemed uneconomical to be developed and the main reason the U.S. was the world's leader in carbon emissions reductions in 2015, 2016, and 2017.
That is right. Fracking, demonized by environmental extremists without justification, has proven to be the best energy solution for our environment.
Abundant oil and natural gas have reduced electricity bills, kept gas prices low, and provided the largest share of U.S. electric power generation in recent years.
The United States is the world's top energy producer, and the American Dream is thriving. Passing H.R. 9 and staying in the Paris Agreement threatens that dream.
This is not a partisan issue. This is about doing what is right for America and about protecting freedom and opportunity for our children and grandchildren. I urge all Members on both sides of the aisle to reject H.R. 9.
Now, with that, I yield to my friend from Utah (Mr. Bishop). As the Republican leader on the Natural Resources Committee and previously as its chairman, he has been one of the biggest leaders in promoting American energy dominance.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Speaker, to the Member, to the gentleman, we are also getting another benefit because the catastrophic wildfires that we are seeing out West are a contributor. There is more carbon and pollution that occurs during these catastrophic wildfires in one day than in a year of exhaust from cars.
What we do is we get a benefit there because we have a much more dynamic forest, much more dynamic interfaces. The fires are smaller. They are not as catastrophic, so we don't go further in debt.
This is something that the Natural Resources Committee has been pushing under Mr. Bishop's watch, and I thank the gentleman. There is plenty of benefit in regard to understanding the natural cycle of plants and trees.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Speaker, I also want to bring up the point that the Western Caucus was dynamic in going to Houston to see Petra Nova in Texas. It is the only carbon sequestration coal plant in the United States, one of only two in the world.
Basically, what they do is they capture the carbon sequestration and pressurize it into pipes. They pipe it down to their oil fields. Once they frack the oil fields, they take this pressurized carbon and force it into the oil field. What it does is it forces out the rest of the gas and oil with it that is still remaining and then solidifies in the ground.
What amazing technology. Once again, going back to the whole application that technology, innovation, the private sector is right there to answer the call.
Mr. LaMalfa knows firsthand the negative effects that policies like H.R. 9 can have, given the proposals that have gone into effect in California.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. GOSAR. With his background in the technology industry, he knows firsthand how businesses in his district and across the country are already innovating and helping to reduce our carbon emissions.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Idaho for those remarks. You can see where this is going. The right way is not this Paris accord, but through technology and through innovation.
Mr. Speaker, a point that has been brought up multiple times by my colleagues is how the Paris Agreement is a direct violation of our Nation's sovereignty. I could not agree more. Article II, section 2 of the Constitution states that the President ``shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur.''
President Obama took unilateral action when he signed the Paris Agreement back in 2015 and failed to consult Congress. There were no committee hearings leading up to the adoption of the agreement and no vote was held by the Senate, as mandated by our Constitution.
Members on the other side will say that the Paris Agreement does not constitute a treaty. But when the Foreign Affairs Committee held a hearing on this very bill, every witness believed the agreement was a treaty. This included multiple Democratic witnesses.
The practice of avoiding congressional approval was nothing new for the Obama administration when it came to natural resources and energy policy.
Fortunately, Members will have a chance to correct this unconstitutional action by voting for my amendment that was made in order this week instructing the Senate to take a vote as to whether the Paris Agreement is a treaty or not.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Griffith), my good friend. He has some background on this information.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. GOSAR. Russia.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. GOSAR. Absolutely. The one road initiative. They are taking and leveraging resources across the world and, at the same time, being paid for it. And I dare you not keep up with your payments because it rescinds right back to them.
Going back to your first point, the gentleman from Virginia, what you are telling me is that this body will have that opportunity, with my amendment, to get this right, instructing the Senate to take a vote on the Paris accord to actually see if it can become a treaty, would you agree?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. GOSAR. So, what you are really telling me is when you have good process, you build good policy, which builds good politics. It is kind of that simple, isn't it?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. GOSAR. The gentleman brings up that when we look at coal, the separation of rare earths, that is the technology that is so important. This is the technology that is driving this renaissance of technology in our country, that plethora of energy where we can geopolitically decide to help other countries become more independent, away from China's and from Russia's jurisdiction.
The entrepreneurial spirit is bred with having energy independence. This H.R. 9 kills jobs.
I also want to bring up to the gentleman, with technology, there is another technology at the same time that takes up pulverized coal and infuses it into oil. When they burn it, they get a 50 percent additional Btu factor and a cleaner burning application, once again reducing the carbon footprint.
Once again, talking about new technologies is what saves us. It is that entrepreneurial spirit making things better. The infusion of new technology helps us get an advancement of cleaner technology.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. GOSAR. That is right.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. GOSAR. The gentleman brings up a great point, along with the former chairman of the Natural Resources Committee, not only in the grazing application but in the stewardship of our natural resources called our forests, dynamic forests. Instead of being victims of these catastrophic wildfires that put so much of the emissions and pollution into the air, we then relegate it, so when we do have fires, it is relegated to low-level type fires that are not as devastating and catastrophic.
I want to bring up one other point. Included in the Paris Agreement was the creation of a slush fund called the Green Climate Fund, which the Obama administration unconstitutionally utilized to shift $1 billion in taxpayer funds without authorization from Congress. Once again, we were imposed upon by having the money, Uncle Sam Warbucks.
The Green Climate Fund was a goal of raising $100 billion a year through voluntary contributions from countries that signed the Paris Agreement. While developed countries are expected to finance their respective agreements under the Paris Agreement, the Green Climate Fund aims to subsidize the agreements of developing countries that cannot afford the commitments they made when signing the Paris Agreement.
In fact, since the United States ratified the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in 1992, the United States has given hundreds of millions of dollars to developing countries to help them mitigate climate change. Amazing.
We know that much of the money we have given over the years has gone to some of the most corrupt countries in the world. My question is, how can we rely on these countries to spend the money properly? When you look, for example, in 2014, the top recipients for climate funds all received failing grades in Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index. Amazing.
What has been the return on investment for the money that we were giving to these countries? It is nice to be able to fund this, but what are the results? What are we getting from that?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. GOSAR. The facts are that carbon emissions from the developing countries have gone up. We know that much of the money was not used to reduce carbon emissions.
Once again, we are not solving it.
It is clear that H.R. 9, that is what it will do. It will put the country back on the road to job losses, higher electric bills, and more government regulations while wasting significant amounts of taxpayer money in the process.
We become victims in this economy. We should be leading the way. Freedom comes with technology and opportunity, and that is what the American people want.
This is something where we should show the way by leadership, by saying: Listen, follow us by the way that we do things.
That seems like a better approach, doesn't it, to the gentleman from Virginia?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. GOSAR. Right, the carrot versus the whip. What you are looking at is the opportunity for solutions, that incentivization to find a new opportunity. I think that is the value. We are protecting 6.5 million jobs here.
It scraps the unconstitutional application of the treaty, and it ensures safe, reliable, affordable energy.
Everybody has to have energy. When we start looking at this Paris accord, it is accomplished in so many different ways that H.R. 9 is not something that is a valid or constitutional agreement.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. GOSAR. Having said that, the Paris Agreement may have been their most egregious breach of constitutional authority. Many Members on the other side have stated in the past that President Trump does not have the authority to unilaterally withdraw the United States without the consent of Congress.
By virtue of the executive's role as the sole organ of the government charged with making official communications with foreign states, it is responsible for communicating the United States' intention to withdraw from international agreements and political commitments.
In the case of this executive agreement, President Obama had independent authority to enter into an executive agreement. President Trump may also independently terminate the agreement without congressional approval.
In addition to there being no congressional input on the agreement, there was no congressional input when drafting the agreement. This is not the way an agreement as wide-reaching as the Paris Agreement should have been agreed upon.
Passage of H.R. 9 will bring us back to the foreign policy of President Obama and the practice of putting other countries' interests above our own. This is the same foreign policy that brought us Benghazi, the rise of ISIS, and the disastrous Iran nuclear agreement.
President Trump's promise to withdraw the United States from the Paris Agreement marked a dramatic change in America's foreign policy-- for the better, I might add. The Paris Agreement fails to put America first, and President Trump is right to withdraw us from this sovereignty-sacrificing agreement.
Mr. Speaker, the facts are becoming clearer about the realities and failures of the Paris climate agreement.
First of all, let's talk about the good news. The United States reduced its carbon emissions by 40 million metric tons in 2017. Yes, our emissions did rise slightly in 2018 due to increased domestic manufacturing, but the U.S. Energy Information Administration projects that our carbon emissions will continue to fall in 2019 and 2020.
Now for some bad news. The United States' reductions in carbon emissions are totally erased when you account for China's dramatic increase in carbon emissions. Several speakers have talked about that. In fact, China's increase in emissions is three times larger than the U.S.'s decrease in emissions.
Mr. Speaker, this highlights two of the fundamental failures in the framework of the Paris Agreement, which is the fact that there are no mechanisms in place to hold countries accountable for not reaching their emissions reduction targets, and there are no requirements or required countries to establish equitable emissions reductions over the same period.
It is not just China, either. India, for example, saw its emissions rise 4.8 percent in 2017. Forty-seven of the 50 most polluted cities in the world are located in either China or in India.
Well, you may say, let's look to Europe. They are probably on the forefront of following the standards set forth in the agreement.
People would think that, but that would be wrong, as all EU countries are off-target in reaching the goals set forth by the Paris Agreement. Germany, for example, has spent almost $600 billion in renewable energy subsidies and has seen no meaningful decrease in carbon emissions.
Mr. Speaker, the United States was already a leader in reducing carbon emissions before the Paris Agreement was signed. Since 1970, the United States has reduced six key air pollutants by 73 percent and has seen the largest absolute reduction of CO
Instead of focusing on bringing us back to the past, we should focus on encouraging innovations that we are already seeing in the energy sector today. Whether it be carbon capture technology, clean coal, or taking advantage of the liquid natural gas revolution that is taking place across the country, the private sector is leading the way in creating a cleaner energy future for this country.
That is the way it should be, not through a heavy-handed government imposing unrealistic, top-down mandates.
Requiring the U.S. to follow the requirements of the Paris Agreement will stifle innovations and return us to the policies of the past when energy was more expensive and economic growth was abysmal.
It appears that I am running out of time, so what I will do is implore my folks to, first, relook at this.
I thank all the Western Caucus members who contributed to the Special Order. It is truly a privilege to be chair of the caucus, which is now 74 bipartisan members strong.
Mr. Speaker, we will continue to lead the fight against the extreme agenda, which is why we organized the Special Order in opposition to H.R. 9.
Mr. Speaker, I will close with a quote from the National Federation of Independent Business, who oppose this legislation.
Under this legislation,
Small businesses would face significant future government mandates, additional regulatory and legal burdens, and unworkable government policies that would result in skyrocketing energy prices.
At a time when the small business economy is booming with small business owners reporting record hiring of new employees and historically strong compensation increases for their employees, Congress should be considering policies that will allow this economic boom to continue, not bring it to a halt.
I hope this legislation is voted down by the House this week and we get serious as a Congress about promoting energy dominance for the betterment of our economy, energy consumers, the environment, and geopolitically across the world.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source