Greater Cheyenne Chamber of Commerce Business Journal and Other Publications Q1 2016 Business Journal | Page 21

This pact is as unnecessary as it will be damaging. America’s share
of world-wide greenhouse-gas emissions has been declining for
more than a decade, to 13% today from 24% in 2000. China pumps
out 23% of the world’s emissions. Emissions from India, which account for 6%, are expected to triple between 2010 and 2030.
In an agreement with China, President Obama has already pledged
to reduce America’s net greenhouse-gas emissions by more than
25% by 2025. In return, China has agreed to “peak” its carbon-dioxide emissions in 2030. In other words, the U.S. will have to make
drastic emissions reductions immediately, while China is allowed to
carry on for the next 15 years.
Todd Stern, the chief American negotiator heading to Paris, has tried
to justify the disconnect. Mr. Stern recently told the Senate that developing countries need to be allowed to keep emitting so that their
economies can continue to grow by 8%-9% a year. “If you’re an
economy which is growing at eight or nine percent a year because
that’s the stage of development you’re in,” he testified, “it’s pretty
hard to say you’re supposed to slam on the brakes and go negative
overnight.”
Why should the U.S. accept a plan—and pay to grease the deal—
that keeps its economy stuck at 2% growth while American taxpayers subsidize other countries’ economies growing at 9%?
Almost as bad is that President Obama will likely pledge $3 billion
of taxpayers’ money to the U.N.’s Green Climate Fund. Developing
nations are eager to accept this cash, which in theory they will use to
address the effects of extreme weather. It seems more likely that the
money will end up in the pockets of government officials in Africa,
Asia and elsewhere.
If President Obama and the experts in Paris want to help the developing world, they should focus on things that actually will do good,
rather than those that will make the negotiators feel good. They
could start by helping these countries tap their own energy resourc-

es. Building power plants would do more to lift people out of poverty
than the Green Climate Fund ever will.
The envoys in Paris should understand: Congress does not support
the president’s $3 billion promise. Earlier this year Mr. Obama requested in his budget the first $500 million installment. That budget
was voted down 98-1. Congress should continue to reject this
spending and insist that any agreement reached in Paris be subject
to Senate approval—regardless of whether or not the administration
formally calls it a treaty.
Whatever comes of the Paris talks, there is reason to be wary.
We’ve seen the Obama administration’s negotiating skills. Anyone
who watched the Iran nuclear agreement play out has good reason
to be nervous about the concessions this administration will make in
closed-door negotiations.
Consider that Russian President Vladimir Putin has reportedly
bankrolled environmental causes in Europe to stop fossil-fuel exploration. It is a cynical ploy to stifle competition so that he can continue
to hold Europe hostage to Russian energy exports. Yet President
Obama seems to be playing into Mr. Putin’s plans.
Other countries will gladly support a deal that transfers money to
them while weakening the U.S. They are sure to praise President
Obama’s “leadership” in the process. The question is whether the
American people—and Congress—will allow such a deal to slip by,
or whether they will stand up and be heard. M

BUSINESS JOURNAL | 21