How Trump Can Completely Withdraw U.S. From UN 'Climate' Deals

Article 4 has been the foundation of all UN climate negotiations, and developing countries will not allow this to change. Chinese negotiator Su Wei made this clear when he explained his government’s position that the purpose of the Paris Agreement is to "reinforce and enhance" the FCCC, not rewrite it.

In 1997, the U.S. Senate voted 95-0 against accepting treaties like Kyoto and Paris in which developing countries are not held to similar standards as we are.

Led by the late Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV), congressional representatives from across the aisle agreed upon the Byrd-Hagel Resolution:

[The U.S.] should not be a signatory to any ... agreement regarding the FCCC … which would mandate new commitments to limit or reduce GHG emissions … unless the … agreement also mandates new specific scheduled commitments to limit or reduce GHG emissions for Developing Country Parties within the same compliance period.

That is why former President Bill Clinton never submitted Kyoto to the Senate for approval, a step required by the Constitution for international treaties.

It is also why Obama has not submitted the Paris Agreement to the Senate, attempting instead to convince Americans that it is not actually a treaty.

When announcing U.S. withdrawal from the FCCC, Trump should explain that, besides the dubious science underlying climate change concerns, no agreement based on the FCCC as currently written satisfies Byrd-Hagel.

He must make it clear that Paris, and indeed all UN climate agreements, are not in the best interests of the United States. It is time to focus on solving real problems that have real solutions.