But do they even know what the deal is all about?
Here are seven reasons the deal sucks both for the world, and especially for the United States.
1. The agreement is just that--an agreement. It was meant to be a treaty but in order for the U.S. to sign a treaty it must be passed by two-thirds of Congress. Former President Obama knew he had a snowflake's chance in hell of that happening, so he went ahead using his executive powers and circumvented Congress. Thus, President Trump can unilaterally get rid of it like a bad rash.
The agreement, as such, is more like a "handshake." It is unenforceable and non-binding, which means that you can count on countries like China, India, Russia and Iran, just for starters, to do what's in their own best interests in terms of industrial growth . . . because they can.
President Trump said of the deal: "China will be allowed to build hundreds of additional coal plants. So we can't build the plants but they can, according to this agreement. India will be allowed to double its coal production by 2020."
The Washington Post countered Trump's statement saying: "This is False. The agreement is non-binding and each nation sets its own targets. There is nothing in the agreement that stops the United States from building coal plants or gives China or India to build coal plants . . . "
But The Washington Post can't have it both ways. If, as they say, it wouldn't stop the United States from building coal plants, then what's the point of the agreement if nobody is required to go along with it?
And what can be done if a country doesn't meet its goals or even increases greenhouse gases?
As Mr. Trump says, the agreement gives a lopsided advantage to China and India. In fact, it gives an advantage to any country that does what it wants to do in its own best interests in terms of industrial/manufacturing growth.
2. The major premise of the agreement is to reach the goal of holding global temperatures to 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial revolution levels. But this number is based on unproven and currently unknown future technology.
We know that humans contribute to global warming but we haven't a clue as to what extent that is.
3. We will need more, not less, energy in the future. The International Energy Agency predicts that by 2040, our energy demands will grow by 37 percent as the world population approaches 9 billion.
4. The wording of the Paris climate deal is often ambiguous. For example, it says that "All parties should cooperate to enhance the capacity of develop country Parties to implement this agreement." And, "Parties shall cooperate in taking measures as appropriate, to enhance climate change education, training, public awareness, public participation and public access to information."
How must countries cooperate? What are appropriate measures?
5. So far, since it was signed, not a single country has done anything in the form of environmental action to comply with the deal.
Every action has already begun before the accord was signed. The West will continue to work on reducing emissions and greenhouse gases while countries like China and India will continue to do all they can to grow.
6. There is scant evidence Obama's proposed actions would have caused us to meet the goals of the accord.
In fact, there's clear evidence that the United States will be in compliance with the accord without even being part of it. The fact is, our emissions continue to decrease nationally and are less than they were ten years ago.
Let's be honest--the left is angry because President Trump has shown the accord to be meaningless on one level, and destructive to our country, on another.
7. None of the countries actually intend to comply with the agreement and the West will meet the emissions goals set by the accord anyway, without taking further action.
The process was psychological. It helps us feel good about ourselves. If we signed the accord, we were the good guys; those who didn't were science deniers because "the science is settled."
How totally unscientific.
Anyone who really looks at the science does not doubt the planet is warming and humans do play some role. But let's face it, when scientists told us the world was cooling, they came up with solutions for fix it. But they haven't changed their proposed fixes on global warming, and that's disconcerting.
If the problem changes but the solutions remain the same, that's screwed up.
As Erick Erickson explains in The Daily Wire:
In every case, the environmentalist left insists on a highly regulated command and control economy with abortion on demand and other measures to institute population control. Large families are a blight on the planet as is capitalism. There is a reason so much of the environment movement is referred to as a watermelon movement. They are green on the outside, but still red from their days of communist activism on the inside. Much of the modern environmentalist movement derives from Soviet era funded leftwing movements. Western communists turned into environmentalists after the Soviet Union collapsed. Now, instead of seeking to destroy capitalism in the name of equality, they seek to destroy it in the name of the environment. Instead of targeting large Christian families or ideas, they target them for resource consumption . . . "
" . . . All of us are supposed to be good stewards of our planet. We should conserve our resources and raise our children to appreciate God's creation. No one wants to see the world uninhabitable. But you'll have to forgive me for not caring about global warming. I trust the science. I just do not trust the supposed scientists."
And I trust that President Trump absolutely made the right decision to pull us out of the mud.