Climate Action Now Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. YOHO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 9, the Climate Action Now Act, not because we don't want clean water or clean air or deny a world-changing climate. H.R. 9 is a direct attack on this administration for withdrawing from the flawed agreement and is a purely political move by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle.

The Paris Agreement requires each signatory country to determine, plan, and regularly report on the contributions that it undertakes to mitigate global warming with no regard for American consumers; it places burdensome regulations on American businesses that are already employing environmentally friendly practices; and it places the cost of the Paris Agreement to supplement other nations on the backs of the moms, dads, and citizens of America.

In August 2016, President Obama unilaterally accepted the Paris Agreement under the United Nations climate change treaty. Rather than bringing it to this body, where it could be ratified with the advice and consent of the Senate, this was a blatant power grab by the executive branch encumbering America and future generations.

I had been opposed to President Obama's decision to circumvent congressional approval of the Paris Agreement from the beginning. It was a clear violation of the Constitution to leave Congress out of the approval process of an agreement that will have far-reaching implications on our economy and our citizens.

During the 114th Congress, I even introduced H.R. 544, expressing the sense of the House that the President should submit any binding international agreement on climate change to the Senate as a treaty. By accepting the Paris Agreement without congressional approval, the Obama administration made promises that are too expensive and too difficult and not science-based as far as the results. In fact, in a current hearing, it was stated that if the U.S. were to cut emissions to zero, it would not change global warming.

A report prepared by NERA Economic Consulting in 2017, found that meeting the commitments President Obama made could cost the U.S. economy $3 trillion and 6.5 million industrial-sector jobs by 2040. There are serious concerns surrounding costs, effectiveness, and feasibility of U.S. commitments made under the Paris Agreement.

Greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. fell by 14 percent from 2005 to 2017, our manufacturing output increased 4 percent, and our energy consumption went down 2 percent. That is American leadership done by the private sector, not by government mandates or encumbering agreements.

The United States is already leading around the world in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. This agreement does not address the world's largest carbon emission offenders, as you have heard--China and India. These countries are not held to any enforcement standards besides being required to provide a report to the United Nations every 5 years.

Again, the Paris Agreement ties the hands of the American consumers to pay for countries, like China and India, whose total commitment is, ``We will try to reduce greenhouse gas emissions''--not do it, but we will try--while they continue to increase our carbon footprints around the world, again at the cost of nearly $3 trillion to the American consumer.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. YOHO. China is building or planning to build over 700 coal-fired power plants around the world with one-fifth of these plants located in countries outside of China, making it virtually impossible for them to meet goals set in the Paris Agreement.

Additionally, of the 195 signatories, 13 countries have still not ratified the agreement, including Russia, Turkey, Yemen, Iraq, and Iran. Russia accounts for nearly 5 percent of the global greenhouse gas.

While I do believe that climate change should be addressed, I do not agree that forcing the President to remain in an agreement that had no oversight, cost-benefit analysis or stakeholder input is the right way to go.

As we continue to have discussions about how to address climate change, we should focus on solutions for the world body.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source