OPINION | Corey Lewandowski: Obama’s Paris Climate Deal Was Bad for US Workers and American Jobs

The Hill covers a CEI study on the Paris Climate Agreement after President Trump’s decision to withdraw.

When President Donald Trump was on the campaign trail, he promised to reduce government interference in energy exploration, reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and cancel the Paris climate accord. Candidate Trump was quoted by NBC News on May 26, 2016, explaining that “my agenda is job creation,” while he ripped Hillary Clinton for supporting anti-energy policies that destroy jobs. President Obama’s agreement in Paris in 2015 was a bad idea then, and President Trump is certainly justified in following through by pulling out of this one-sided deal.

The Paris climate agreement violates President Trump’s campaign promise to the American people that he would create, not destroy, jobs for U.S. workers. An “America First” energy policy does not allow European bureaucrats to determine how much energy Americans can use. The Paris agreement was joined in haste by President Obama in a way that imposed hefty costs on Americans for the benefit of other countries. I remember Mr. Trump saying on the campaign trail that the United States pays billions of dollars while China, Russia and India will contribute nothing.

…

According to a study by The Heritage Foundation released in 2016, if the Obama Paris agreement were to be followed, “there would be 206,104 fewer manufacturing jobs between 2016 and 2040.” Heritage projects a loss of over $2.5 trillion in aggregate loss of gross domestic product by 2035.

The Competitive Enterprise Institute put out a similar report in May of 2017, which found that “the United States cannot comply with the Paris Agreement and pursue a pro-growth energy agenda.” The group concluded that the agreement’s “central goal is to make fossil fuels, America’s most plentiful and affordable energy source, more expensive across the board” and “would destroy U.S. manufacturing’s energy price edge.”

These numbers are hard to dispute, even for the most committed global warming alarmist.

Read the full article at The Hill.