My take on the whole thing is probably a bit off from everyone else's. I'm less interested in whether all this is good policy than the process and what it actually means for our governance going forward. Part of that is that I don't really believe Trump's decision is going to make all that much of an actual real world difference in the end on the climate, but the greater part of it is that it seems to me that Obama and liberals believe that a Democrat president has the power to tie the hands of future presidents, indeed give up a piece of our national sovereignty, by writing up a treaty, calling it something else, and then not bothering to give it to Congress for ratification.
The two biggest examples of this were the climate treaty, which I believe would have been mostly an excuse for increased regulations and more lawsuits being brought. Environmentalists would be doing that anyway, so who cares? The second was the Iran deal which Obama pushed into place over the strong objections of the country and a majority of the Senate and which no one has been able to explain to me how it hasn't given the store away to Iran for a promise of a temporary pause in nuke development. Obama had an odd love for temporary restrictions, he handed terrorists we had in Gitmo to other countries to watch for a few years and let them go free after that. Considering that treaties require a super-majority to pass, this was a major breach of our government pact.
And this is important because a large strain of the Democrat party is becoming increasingly autocratic in terms of finding ways around the actual government and doing whatever they want. Domestically, they've tried using the courts, but it looks like that avenue will be going away for a generation. Here it's literally bringing in other countries as allies in forcing future presidents to honor extra-legal deals they make. While Trump was abroad, he was told time and again that it wasn't legal for him to pull out of the Paris Agreement because the law in the agreement was that you had to wait a few years.
Just based on that, I think that it was good policy to rip it up and withdraw immediately. It tells the rest of the world that they can't play mommy against daddy in the United States. They can't get a president that they agree with, sign a document together and restrict United States sovereignty. Obama never had that power because no president has that power. It was a power grab that future Democrat presidents would surely have used to get what they want.
It's being portrayed that America is losing power because other nations can't trust that they'll stick to its agreements. In this case, that's not only fine and proper, but a huge win for the United States. Instructing the world that we are a nation that requires treaties to be backed by our legislature and not worked out between presidents and the Secretary of State is a positive.
Finally, the idea that the United States is going to be isolated by this is a theme going around. We can't let China take the lead on climate change. If the United States drops out China, India, and Europe will just drop emissions themselves. Umm, good. I really don't give a rip who takes credit for all this. I've noted before around here that I figure that technology and efficiency will go further to lower carbon emissions than all the virtue signalling politicians put together. In 20 years, we'll all be in electric-powered driverless vehicles that will make carbon emissions nosedive and it'll have nothing to do with government regulations. If some politicians who signed a piece of paper wish to take credit because they needed to "do something", that's just what they do.
I think it's much more important to restore our government's checks and balances than to stay within this treaty.