The Wall Street Journal and New York Times issued dueling editorials following President Trump's decision to withdraw from the Paris climate agreement—one pro and one con, but both using the economy to make their points. After accusing the agreement of being toothless and ineffective, the Journal argues the best way to protect future generations from the effects of climate change is by making sure the economy is so good they "can afford to adapt to whatever they may confront." The Journal states a stronger economy will spur progress on making the creation of wealth less energy-intensive. "Private economies that can innovate and provide cost-effective energy alternatives will always beat meaningless international agreements," it concludes.
The Times calls that a "bogus argument." Under Obama-era regulations, emissions fell 12% while the economy added more than 11.3 million jobs. Leaving the agreement says a lot of things about Trump, none of them good. "Perhaps most astonishing of all ... [he] seems blind to the damage this will do to America's own economic interests," the Times states. Renewable fuels are expected to be a $6 trillion global market by 2030, and leaving the agreement hurts the US' ability to grow in those industries. Instead, Trump has signaled he wants to invest in dwindling coal and oil resources, whose economic benefits are already being outpaced by natural gas and green energy. Not for nothing did business leaders overwhelmingly advocate for remaining in the Paris agreement. Read the full Journal piece or Times piece. (Read more Paris Agreement stories.)