Average working familieswould be hurt by Paris accord

The Paris climate accord mainly and subjectively is a gentleman’s agreement and really has no bearing on reality — right now.

I refer you back to the previous Kigali deal on hydrofluorocarbons, which then-Secretary of State John Kerry was a party to. It was a disaster.

Am I debating climate change? No. The climate has been changing for, what, 4.543 billion years or something like that? If you take a look at Phanerozoic temperature swings, the following were the scientists’ “guesstimate” for temperatures from 500 million years ago forward. So, 500 million years ago the average earth temperature was 71 degrees; 350 million years ago, 57 degrees; 200 million years ago, 59; 100 million years ago, 68; 50 million years ago, 50; and currently we are at 61 degrees. (“The Resilient Earth” by scientist Doug Hoffman)

The only ones who will prosper from the climate accord would be big corporate America. Some of those who have publicly spoken are Facebook, Microsoft, Morgan Stanley, General Mills, Apple, DuPont, Google, Johnson & Johnson, among others.

Who would be the big loser? Well, let me introduce you to Joe and Jane America.

This is the couple that is having to work two or three jobs just to try and find, and keep, “affordable housing.” They struggle at times to put money away for critical emergencies, should a washer or dryer break; a water heater break; or the HVAC system need replacement. They would like to one day be able to put braces on their kids, but they cannot. They cannot because over-regulation by the U.S. government has skyrocketed the cost of living.

HVAC equipment is regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency as to its minimally-accepted energy efficiency standards. For air conditioning, that is called SEER. The EPA says the minimum efficiency allowed to be made is 14 SEER. Cost increases with higher SEER numbers.

Let’s again be hypothetical with Joe and Jane and assume they find themselves needing to replace an aging 3-ton HVAC system. Currently, the average price for a 3-ton, 14-SEER heat pump system is (ballpark) $6,500. By signing the Paris climate accord, and according the requirements of the former Kigali accord, minimum efficiency ratings would rise to 17 or 18 SEER here in the U.S., first in the world. That same 18-SEER, 3-ton heat pump system (again approximate) will cost $11,300. It was a struggle enough to come up with $6,500, but now they have to do without to try and find another $4,800 because “the rest of the world says so.”

Is this Paris accord something the American public really wants? Is this something the American public can really afford?

I stand with U.S. Sens. Tim Scott (S.C.), Ted Cruz (Texas), Rand Paul (Ky.) and David Perdue (Ga.), among more than 20 others, who have said the Paris accord is a bad deal for America.

I care about the environment, and I care deeply about what my grandkids will be inheriting. The fault lies herein: to overburden the taxpayers is not conducive to a strong economy.

The Paris accord is suspect, with some deep flaws. That’s mainly because of politics, not science. This promulgation would wreak havoc on small businesses across this nation, but Wall Street would fall in love.

According to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Michigan’s GDP would shrink by .08 percent and jobs would drop by 74,000; Missouri’s GDP drops by 1 percent; Ohio’s GDP would contract by 1.2 percent; Pennsylvania would see a decline of the GDP by 1.8 percent and that state could lose 140,000 jobs.

A Heritage Foundation study found that the Paris agreement would have increased the electricity costs of an American family of four by between 13 percent and 20 percent annually, and forecasts income loss of an average of $20,000 by 2035.

This is a prime example of the “pay more and get less” syndrome.

This story was originally published June 28, 2017 at 6:00 AM with the headline "Average working familieswould be hurt by Paris accord."