Document e7X8NqNy18ByaaRn49nDK3Lep

To: From: Sent: Subject: Myron Ebell[Myron.Ebell@cei.org] Dravis, Samantha Mon 4/17/2017 6:25:52 PM RE: Some talking points on the Paris Climate Treaty Thank you Myron. I hope you are doing well and we can visit soon! From: Myron Ebell [mailto:Myron.Ebell@cei.org] Sent: Monday, April 17, 2017 2:17 PM To: Myron Ebell <Myron.Ebell@cei.org> Subject: FW: Some talking points on the Paris Climate Treaty Talking Points on the Paris Climate Treaty President Trump campaigned on the promise to "cancel the Paris climate agreement and stop all payments of U.S. tax dollars to UN global warming programs." The agreement is designed to transfer wealth from the United States to developing countries, and would cost trillions of dollars to implement. The Paris Agreement is an unfair deal that allows countries like China and India - which have far fewer environmental protections in place than does the U.S. - to continue to increase their greenhouse gas emissions, while we take very costly steps to dramatically decrease ours. The promises made by the Obama administration in entering the agreement would cost American workers hundreds of thousands of jobs, and our economy hundreds of billions of dollars - harming America's competitiveness in the global marketplace, and handing an advantage to China and other nations. 17cv1906 Sierra Club v. EPA - 6/22 Production ED 001523 00008958-00001 o Because the Paris Agreement requires member countries to increase their emission reduction commitments every five years, staying in the agreement would mean even more harm to American workers, families, and the economy over time. o This stands in direct conflict with President Trump's plan to create 25 million new American jobs, re-establishing the United States as a global leader in manufacturing and an engine of economic growth. Some argue that we should remain in the Paris Agreement to keep our "seat at the table." However, the fundamental goal of the Paris Agreement is to drive participating nations toward emissions reductions that are mathematically incompatible with economic growth. o Furthermore, remaining in the agreement and reducing our Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) is inconsistent with the construct of the agreement itself. Provisions exist only for participating nations to strengthen their commitments, not weaken them. o Even providing for a rescission of our current NDC, continued U.S. participation in the agreement ensures a future administration will once again put forward unattainable, economically damaging NDCs. o It is also unrealistic to believe that the U.S. could extract concessions regarding the development and use of fossil fuels, particularly given the negative reaction by other members at the recent G7 Energy meeting to a proposal to include reference to fossil fuels in a joint statement of the G7 nations. 17cv1906 Sierra Club v. EPA - 6/22 Production ED 001523 00008958-00002  In stark contrast to the previous administration, President Trump has made clear that his priorities include energy policies that maximize the use of America's vast untapped resources; environmental policies that focus on protecting and preserving our air, water, and wildlife; and regulatory policies that put Americans back to work, unleashing our nation's full economic potential. The Paris Climate Treaty stands as an obstacle to each of those goals. Myron Ebell Director, Center for Energy and Environment Competitive Enterprise Institute 1310 L Street, N. W., Seventh Floor Washington, DC 20005, USA Tel direct: (202) 331-2256 Tel mobile: (202) 320-6685 E-mail: Mvron.Ebell@cej.org Stop continental drift! 17cv1906 Sierra Club v. EPA 6/22 Production ED 001523 00008958-00003