Paris didn’t hold India, China accountable on CO2 emissions, so withdrew: White House     

"As you know, China did not have to take any steps of compliance until 2030. India had no obligations until USD 2.5 trillion of aid was provided," Scott Pruitt, administrator of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) told reporters at a White House news conference.

By: Reuters | Washington | Published:June 3, 2017 9:52 am
donald trump, trump climate agreement, paris climate agreement, us paris climate agreement, climate change, trump news, world news, indian express news U.S. President Donald Trump pauses as he announces his decision that the United States will withdraw from the landmark Paris Climate Agreement, in the Rose Garden of the White House in Washington, U.S., June 1, 2017. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque

The Paris climate pact did not hold countries like India and China accountable on greenhouse emissions, the White House has said as it defended President Donald Trump’s decision to withdraw from the landmark accord.

“As you know, China did not have to take any steps of compliance until 2030. India had no obligations until USD 2.5 trillion of aid was provided,” Scott Pruitt, administrator of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) told reporters at a White House news conference. The White House reaction comes a day after Trump announced his decision to withdraw from the Paris Agreement on Climate Change and said the US would renegotiate.

“And Russia, when they set their targets, they set 1990 as their baseline, which allowed them to continue emitting more CO2,” Pruitt said. “It (Paris accord) did not hold nations like China and India accountable,” he said.

The pact was agreed upon by more than 150 countries a year and a half ago. “In this country, we had to have a 26 to 28 per cent reduction in greenhouse gases, which represented the Clean Power Plan and the entire climate action agenda of the past administration,” he told reporters.

Pruitt said Trump made a very courageous decision by pulling out of the Paris Agreement. “He put America’s interests first with respect to environmental agreements and international discussions,” he said.

“The discussion over the last several weeks has been one of a thoughtful deliberation. He heard many voices, voices across a wide spectrum of vantage points. The president made a very informed, and I think thoughtful and important decision for the country’s benefit.

“What we have to remember when it comes to environmental agreements and international agreements with respect to things like the Paris Agreement is we have nothing to be apologetic about as a country. We had reduced our CO2 footprint to levels of the early 1990s,” he asserted.

Pulling out of Paris does not mean disengagement, he said. “In fact, the president said yesterday that Paris represents a bad deal for this country. It doesn’t mean that we’re not going to continue the discussion. “To export our innovation, to export our technology to the rest of the world, to demonstrate how we do it better here is I think a very important message to send,” he said. He indicated that he’s going to either reenter Paris or engage in a discussion around a new deal with a commitment to putting America first.

The president has said routinely he’s going to put the interest of American citizens at the head of this administration, he said. “That’s in trade policy, that’s in national security, that’s in border security, that’s in right-sizing Washington, DC, and he did that with respect to his decision yesterday on Paris,” the top Trump official said. Noting that the US has significant steps to reduce its CO2 footprint to levels of the pre-1990s, Pruitt said this was achieved largely because of technology, hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling, that has allowed a conversion to and natural gas and the generation of electricity.

“You won’t hear that from the environmental left. So we need to export clean coal technology, we need to export the technology in natural gas to those around the globe — India and China — and help them learn from us on what we’ve done to achieve good outcomes. We’ve led with action, not words,” Pruitt said. “Paris, at its core, was a bunch of words committed to very, very minimal environmental benefits and — cost the country a substantial amount of money and put us at an economic disadvantage,” Pruitt said in response to a question.

According to the EPA Administrator, if nations around the globe want to learn from the US on what it is doing to reduce its CO2 footprint, it is going to share that with them. “That’s something that should occur and will occur in the future. We will reach out and reciprocate with nations who seek to achieve that,” he asserted.

For all the latest World News, download Indian Express App

  1. R
    Ravishankar
    Jun 4, 2017 at 4:22 pm
    Looks like Trump is now trying to sell his own b of 'Fake News' to other countries!
    Reply
  2. S
    Sham
    Jun 4, 2017 at 12:20 pm
    The US government has become a "factory of lies" or of the "alternative facts" as they call it. India is not getting US$ 2.5 TRILLION, as Scott Pruitt, administrator of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) says. US is forgetting one important basic point: Per capita CO2 emmission in 2016 were: USA 16,39 Tons & India 1,59 Tons. Therefore, they should stop India bashing & first do their own home wok.
    Reply
  3. L
    l s
    Jun 4, 2017 at 10:00 am
    This no good President is turning out to be anti India in all matters. He is even seen to be giving more and more funds to terrorist nation stan. Is he fit to be President of the biggest nation U S A. He should be checked by an psychiatrist.
    Reply
  4. M
    Mohan Tvm
    Jun 3, 2017 at 4:03 pm
    Industrial Carbon emission is directly related to consumption. The supply demand ratio should be one always. China is suffering from industrial overcapacity. Chinese steel can be sold only when others are not producing. The people behind the Paris accord never talks about (1) Reducing consumerism (2) Protection of Biodiversity and endangered species (3) Rain Water harvesting (4) Afforestation or Planting more trees (5) Elimination of GM crops
    Reply