Jim Geraghty of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America recoil at the Trump world sleaze revealed by former Trump attorney Michael Cohen in his testimony to Congress, but also realize he’s the least credible witness Congress could have called on the subject. They also worry about escalating tension between nuclear powers India and Pakistan after Pakistan claims to shoot down two Indian military planes. And they get a kick out of the House Democrats having to adjourn their own hearing on climate change denial because not enough of them attended.
climate
Green Deal or Con Job?
Listen to “Green Deal or Con Job?” on Spreaker.
On Friday, supporters of the Green New Deal released details that one conservative analyst says is proof that the “green agenda” is not about the climate at all but rather a major push for a bigger and more powerful government.
“There’s some real tells in here. It’s not about the climate. There’s no assertion (about) what the temperature would be or that the temperature would be any lower.
”
“It’s in the name of climate change but there’s something immoral about imposing policies in the name of averting a catastrophe that you don’t claim – and no one claims – would actually impact the alleged looming catastrophe,” said Competitive Enterprise Institute Senior Fellow Christopher C. Horner.
The Green New Deal calls for government-guaranteed jobs and health care for everyone, and safety net for those unable and even those unable to work.
The plan also calls for the end to fossil fuels by 2030 the hope that air travel would also be unnecessary by then. Supporters says paying for it up front is not critical because of the economic transformation resulting from an economy based on renewable fuels.
Listen to the full podcast to hear Horner discuss whether renewables can bring about an economic boom and why he believes just laughing off this proposal would be a very mistake.
Mitt vs. Trump, Warren Ready to Run, Climate Change & 2020
Listen to “Mitt vs. Trump, Warren Ready to Run, Climate Change & 2020” on Spreaker.
Happy New Year! Jim Geraghty of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America are back and ready to tackle 2019. Today, they blast incoming Utah Sen. Mitt Romney for heading to the Washington Post and CNN to discuss his concerns about President Trump on the eve of being sworn in, although they share many of his concerns. They also sigh as Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren launches her presidential exploratory committee by whipping up accusations of class warfare. And they discuss the strategy of Washington Gov. Jay Inslee to run for president on the single issue of climate change.
Is Trump Second-Guessing Decision to Ditch Climate Deal?
Key White House officials are denying any change in President Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Paris Climate Accords, but supporters of Trump’s position are increasingly concerned by the growing number of treaty supporters in the president’s inner circle and by he unwillingness to kill the treaty once and for all.
Over the weekend, the Wall Street Journal quoted European Union’s Commissioner for Climate Action and Energy Miguel Arias Canete as suggesting Trump may be mulling a change in policy.
“The U.S. has stated that they will not renegotiate the Paris accord, but they will try to review the terms on which they could be engaged under this agreement,” said Canete, according to the Wall Street Journal.
The Trump administration immediately sought to pour cold water on the report.
“Our position on the Paris agreement has not changed. @POTUS has been clear, US withdrawing unless we get pro-America terms,” tweeted White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders.
On Fox News Sunday, National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster called the speculation a “false report.”
“The president decided to pull out of the Paris accord because it was a bad deal for the American people and a bad deal for the environment,” said McMaster.
Trump’s top economic adviser also joined the chorus.
“Per the White House statement on Saturday and consistent with the president’s announcement in June, we are withdrawing from the Paris Agreement unless we can re-engage on terms more favorable to the United States,” said Cohn.
But that statement actually raises more questions than it answers for those concerned about Trump sticking with his decision to withdraw from the treaty.
“The position itself is inherently ambiguous. What President Trump announced June 1 in the Rose Garden was that he was going to withdraw in November 2019, taking effect the year after that, unless he found better terms. They have yet to define what those better terms are,” said Christopher C. Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute who served on Trump’s transition landing team at the Environmental Protection Agency.
Horner says the debate within the White House before Trump’s announcement in June was a battle royale and he says it still hasn’t stopped.
“The struggle that led up to the June 1 announcement and was particularly acute in May among administration staff, not just Obama administration holdovers and not just career resistance types at the State Department, but some Trump appointees at the White House in the National Security Council and elsewhere, who are fighting to reverse this,” said Horner.
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has consistently advocated for staying in the treaty. On CBS’s “Face the Nation” Sunday, Tillerson said remaining in the deal is still possible.
“The president said he is open to finding those conditions where we can remain engaged with others on what we all agree is still a challenging issue,” Tillerson said.
Horner says Tillerson’s position is not surprising because the State Department bureaucrats are licking their chops to implement this agreement.
“This is the biggest boon for the State Department, possibly ever. You’re talking about the creation of an enormous climate diplomatic corps,” said Horner. “They think, oddly enough, when you rob Peter to pay Paul, Paul thinks it’s a great idea.”
“The politicos they’ve brought on board are not the ones you’d want if you wanted to keep the president’s promise,” said Horner.
Horner says the issue is simple. On Trump’s present course, the debate could rage for another two years.
“The struggle continues. Until President Trump sends that letter on November 5, 2019, this fight goes on,” said Horner.
Trump’s decision to exit the treaty via letter in 2019 is what aggravates Horner most, pushing fiercely for Trump to declare the agreement a treaty and force the Senate to vote on and likely kill the agreement.
He says by taking unilateral executive action, Trump’s decision is only good for the remainder of his presidency.
“If he wants a durable withdrawal, meaning something that President Warren cannot turn the key on on January 20, 2021, you’re going to have to have the Senate vote,” said Horner.
Horner sees multiple options by which Trump can bring an end to the issue, whether by submitting the treaty to the Senate now or renegotiating the plan and then submitting the amended plan for a vote that would still likely fail, since ratification requires two-thirds of senators to approve.
But Horner says one reason Trump may not be taking that action is because the Senate doesn’t want to touch it.
“So far the Senate has not stirred. In fact, to my understanding, the Senate told President Trump they don’t want him to involve them,” said Horner.
The treaty is non-binding, leaving many to wonder why Horner and others are wringing their hands over a possible Trump reversal or his allowing his successor to rejoin the agreement. Horner points out the deal tightens the screws on emissions every five years, so the longer we’re attached to the deal the more pressure we’ll be under to comply.
Already, he says the Germans are desperately trying to keep the U.S. in the fold.
“We have obtained records from the State Department, a cable, saying the Germans are worried that if the rest of the world doesn’t do this to themselves too they will lose billions,” said Horner.
“In other words, ‘It’s not fair that we did this to ourselves. You’re mean if you don’t do it to yourself too,'” said Horner.
Horner also explained that the real strategy is for the climate change movement to enforce the plan – both at home and abroad – is to use the courts to their advantage.
“The United Nations, just before the president made his announcement, issued a report about how activists could use the Paris treaty to really put the screws to signatories who are claiming it’s not binding,” said Horner.
“The pointed to a decision out of the Hague that’s fairly recent, in which the court said, ‘I know you’ve got your agreement and you’ve got your number here and you’ve also got decades of saying I’m so awful. I’m so responsible, I’m so obligated,'” said Horner.
Horner says the court at the Hague assigned an even more aggressive plan for reducing carbon emissions and liberal activists in the U.S. are already trying to get federal judges in the Ninth Circuit to enforce the treaty and make the terms even more burdensome.
“So you can say non-binding, but the people behind this know what they’re up to and they know who occupies our judicial benches here,” said Horner.
Not only does Horner warn that failing to get the Senate to vote on the treaty allows the next president to reverse Trump’s decision, but he says keeping the Senate out of the fray will permanently damage the separation of powers.
“This is simply a beginning point for the courts. That’s a key reason why it’s so dangerous. The other is, of course, that you have outsourced policy making to this body instead of to our Senate as our Constitution dictates. You’ve gutted the treaty power, probably forever, if you just shrug at this usurpation of the Senate’s treaty role,” said Horner.
Paris Pullout and Panic, Georgia Nail-Biter, Griffin Plays the Victim
Jim Geraghty of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America discuss President Trump making good on his promise to withdraw from the Paris Climate Accord and the liberal hysteria that followed. They’re also analyzing the very close run-off election between John Ossoff and Karen Handel in a normally red district in Georgia. And they express their disgust with Kathy Griffin as she plays the victim following the fierce bipartisan backlash in response to her photo stunt depicting her holding President Trump’s bloody head.
‘I’m Glad Trump Had the Fortitude to Stick It Out’
President Trump officially withdrew the United States from the Paris Climate Accords, and one of the leading climate experts disputing the purported consensus on climate science is praising Trump for making the right decision for the American economy and for sound science.
“I’m glad that Trump had the fortitude to stick it out despite all the attempts to waylay him,” said Dr. Tim Ball, a retired climatologist at the University of Winnipeg and author of “The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science.”
“He didn’t have to rely on the false science. He relied strictly on the economics of it, that it’s a very very bad deal for the United States. In fact, it’s deliberately designed to punish the United States,” said Ball.
Ball says the Paris Climate Accords were simply the latest incarnation of the old Kyoto Protocol from the 1990’s which sought to redistribute wealth from the industrial nations. He contends the Green Climate Fund, which is part of the Paris agreement, is latest effort in that regard.
Ball points out the non-binding nature of the agreement – which is the only way the deal could be struck – means most nations have not contributed what they’ve pledged to the Green Climate Fund.
Nonetheless, Trump’s decision to withdraw the U.S. from the non-binding deal resulted in howls of protest from critics, with environmental activist Tom Steyer claiming the action was treasonous and CNN’s Fareed Zakaria insisting the move means the U.S. is surrendering its role as leader of the free world.
Ball says none of the criticism is based in actual science.
“They use the environment and they use the climate as a vehicle for a political agenda. All they can do when you say I’m not going along with the political agenda is invoke that the sky is falling,” said Ball.
Ball says many of the political opponents of Trump are simply led to their position by perpetrators of bad science. He says Pope Francis is the perfect example.
“One of the most egregious ones was the pope. The pope got co-opted by (Hans Joachim) Schellnhuber at the Potsdam Institute in Germany. He was the key author for the pope’s encyclical against global warming,” said Ball.
He says the notion that humans can dictate radical changes to the earth’s climate are the height of arrogance.
“The reality is that the levels of energy involved and the amount of energy that humans put in are so miniscule that it is actually laughable to think that we can control the climate in any way,” said Ball.
Trump did say he was open to renegotiating the Paris agreement or forging new deals with other nations that would be more beneficial to the United States. Ball says those talks should be done only after Trump gets a better handle on genuine climate science.
“What I hope will happen is that this will now allow a focus more on the science that is purportedly behind the claims that CO2 is a problem,” said Ball, noting every United National climate change prediction has been badly incorrect.
“It’s got to be real science, proven science. Their science has failed. We know that because their forecasts have failed. If your forecasts are wrong, your science is wrong,” said Ball.
Hillary’s Massive Blame Game, Trump Puzzling on Paris, Biden Back in the Game
Jim Geraghty of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America are once again relieved that Hillary Clinton is not president after she once again blames everyone and everything but herself for losing to Donald Trump. They are also puzzled as a flurry of lobbying in favor of the climate deal takes place after Turmp supposedly decided to withdraw from it. And they react to former Vice President Joe Biden starting a new Super PAC and fueling speculation that he may run for president in 2020 in a primary that could feature many elderly Democrats.
Missile Test Success, Clapper’s Collusion Clarity, Climate Deal Confusion
Jim Geraghty of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America cheer the successful test of a missile defense system targeting intercontinental ballistic missiles. They also appreciate former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper once again confirming that he saw no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. And they are excited by initial reports that President Trump plans to withdraw the US from the Paris climate agreement, but are confused after Trump himself suggests a decision has not yet been made.
‘Swamp’ Aligns Against Trump on Climate Treaty
President Trump is running out of time to make good on his promise to withdraw the United States from the Paris agreement on climate policy obligations, and the delay is largely due to many different interests imploring him to back away from his campaign pledges.
As Trump embarks on an ambitious eight-day trip to the Middle East and Europe, the pressure is only growing on him to keep the U.S. committed to the Paris deal. However, Competitive Enterprise Institute Senior Fellow Christopher C. Horner, who served on Trump’s transition landing team at the Environmental Protection Agency, says all Trump needs to do is make good on his word.
“We have to go back to the campaign and remember that a decision was made and it was to get out,” said Horner. “He gave reasons why. He said this would give others control over our energy use, how much we could use the things that are reliable and affordable, as well as the massive wealth transfer. He made the decision.”
The Competitive Enterprise Institute released an advertisement last month urging Trump to stay true to those campaign promises.
What has changed? Horner says a lot of different interests are pushing him to accept the status quo.
“The brakes were put on it because different influences came into play. There were what I’ll call swamp considerations, which were not obviously considerations in the campaign. In fact, he ran against the swamp. Once he got here, those interests are considerable,” said Horner.
Horner says there is a long list of people and interests looking pressuring Trump to keep the U.S. in the agreement.
“(There are) tremendous business lobbies, tremendous resistance among (the government) holdovers. I could tell you blow by blow about a lot of these officials as well as some Trump appointees. But as you also know, some family members are feeling and exerting what we’ll call Manhattan social pressures to not have to defend keeping this promise,” said Horner.
Some businesses and industries are at the forefront of protesting climate-inspired restrictions, but Horner says much of big business is on board with the climate agenda for multiple reasons. He says a lot of big companies are eager for the federal subsidies that come with compliance with the Paris accords.
“The reason is simple. When you rob Peter to pay Paul, you’re guaranteed Paul’s enthusiastic support and sometimes it was Paul’s idea. So you’ve got this base of industry support, the ones who would benefit,” said Horner.
He says those same businesses also see more restrictive policies as an advantage against the competition.
“They love instituting policies that are barriers to entry to new participants or that smaller competitors can’t handle as well. Some businesses were publicly saying in news reports that, ‘We’ve planned for this so we need this to happen,'” said Horner.
Even among Trump’s top diplomats, there is deep division on the issue.
“The UN Ambassador Nikki Haley is reportedly very strong on this, even though, as I’ve said before, State will do what’s in the State Department’s interest and (withdrawing from the accords) makes Rex Tillerson’s life more difficult and not easier,” said Horner.
Horner also expects Trump’s time in Europe to be one long lobbying effort to keep the U.S. in the agreement.
“The Group of Seven, the leading economic nations who want – as a State Department cable that I found in litigation shows – they want us to share the pain, to relieve the burden of our competition of not having this agenda saddle our economy,” said Horner.
Published reports suggest multiple deadlines to make a decision on U.S. involvement in the accords have come and gone. He says that’s largely because Trump is trying to resist the tide aligned against his instincts.
“We’ve got it on pretty good authority what the president still thinks. He wants out and wonders aloud why he can’t just keep his promise. He’s surrounded by influencers saying, ‘You can’t do it for the following reasons.’ But some people are saying, ‘You have to (withdraw) for these reasons, the same reasons you said you would,” said Horner.
If Trump relents, Horner says President Obama’s promise that our electricity rates will “necessarily skyrocket” will come true and the cost of everything related to energy costs will also shoot up.
“The price will go up, leaving you with less disposable income and a less resilient lifestyle, less healthy because you’re less wealthy. There’ll be more hypothermia, more of seniors and the vulnerable dying from energy poverty. That’s what it’s going to mean for you,” said Horner.
Horner fears that if Trump was going to withdraw the U.S. from the agreement, he would have done so already. However, he is not giving up hope given Trump’s adamant campaign promises.
If Trump doesn’t make good on that vow, Horner says it will be a strong example of how difficult it is to reverse the tides in Washington.
“It means the swamp isn’t as easily defeated as a lot of people hoped,” said Horner. “This is really, so far, the ultimate test of his battle against the swamp.”
Trump and the the EPA
A leading critic of the Environmental Protection Agency who served on President Trump’s transition team is very encouraged by the administration approach to the agency in policy and budget, but he says Trump must make good on his promise to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris climate change agreement.
Trump’s proposed budget made headlines this week, as it called for big cuts in many departments of the federal government. The blueprint calls for a 31 percent reduction in spending at the Environmental Protection Agency, or EPA. Trump plans to spend no more money on climate change projects.
“We’re not spending any more money on that,” said Budget Director Mick Mulvaney. “We consider that to be a waste of your money to go out and do that.”
Competitive Enterprise Institute Senior Fellow Christopher C. Horner served on Trump’s “landing team” at EPA. He is very encouraged by Trump’s fiscal approach to the EPA.
“It’s a complete departure from anything you might expect from any administration, which is usually, ‘We will just slow the rate of growth,’ no matter what they think if something. That’s sort of the worst thing they would ever consider doing,” said Horner.
He says Trump has no patience for EPA climate change policies that even Obama-era administrator Gina McCarthy admitted were more symbolic than substantive.
“He’s throwing this out the window, saying, ‘We’re trillions in debt. Symbolism is the first thing to go. This is a waste of your money.’ So I think that’s fantastic,” said Horner.
Horner says the trimming will allow the EPA do the job it’s supposed to do rather than burdening Americans with bureaucratic rules.
“They have statutory mandates. They have statutory deadlines. They’ve never met one they liked, but they go off on these very expensive, very harmful hobbies and ideological ax-grinding,” said Horner.
“What they’re saying is, ‘You seem to have an awful lot of time and other people’s money to do that. Why don’t you stick to your knitting and focus on actual environmental problems and actual environmental mandates from Congress,'” said Horner.
Horner says it’s not hard to find places to cut at EPA.
“This is an agency that has grown essentially from an executive order to, over time, consuming major parts of the economy, and tax revenues, and our debt. The expansion from the statutory mission is breathtaking,” said Horner.
Horner also says his experiences at EPA while serving on the landing team left him underwhelmed.
“The insistence by people, including those you might imagine, can’t even tell you how many people work there. But they need more money to do their job because the agency is so big. Yet, if you ask them, for example, ‘What is your role in the federal-state partnership, they will tell you it is ‘partnering.’ OK, well that’s a big flag that maybe this is a good place to save some money,” said Horner.
But while Horner is very pleased with the actions Trump is taking thus far at the EPA, he is pleading with the president to formally withdraw from the Paris climate change agreement signed by the Obama administration in its final months.
He says the consequences of not backing out soon will be very real.
“You’re going to see the pain of the sort that was pointed out in the presidential campaign of these policies but worse and worse every year with more and more promises to make it worse every five years,” said Horner.
While the tenets are effectively voluntary, Horner says every five years there will be immense international pressure and public shaming for the U.S. to keep lowering emissions levels and meeting other targets to keep up with the terms of the treaty, which Obama refused to call a treaty so as to dodge rejection of the deal in the U.S. Senate.
But because Obama took that strategic approach, Horner says Trump can exit the deal just as easily.
“For months before the terms were agreed, [the Obama administration] said, ‘I can’t tell you what it is, but I can tell you it’s not a treaty.’ In other words, whatever happens, we’re going to say it’s not a treaty. That is a ‘what are you going to do about it approach.’ If you live by the ‘what are you going to do about it’ approach, then it can also die by it. President Trump promised to cancel the Paris climate treaty,” said Horner.
Horner says the only argument being made against withdrawing is the international blowback that would come for the U.S. But he says the whole point of the treaty is to shame the U.S. for any reluctance to restrict emissions, so staying in the agreement would only make the criticism more intense.
However, despite Trump’s campaign promises, Horner suspects Trump won’t pull out of the agreement.
“I’m encouraged that the issue seems to be open again because I think the wrong answer was reached. So we have time, but I have to tell you I’m not very confident because people very close to the president are pushing for him to break this campaign promise,” said Horner.
He says time is of the essence.
“If President Trump doesn’t get out of this within the next two months, probably six weeks and certainly by the July G-20 meeting in Hamburg, July 7-8, then we’re probably in this forever,” said Horner.