During his campaign, US President-elect Donald Trump called climate change "a hoax" and promised to cancel the Paris agreement of 2015. Parties to the agreement now insist that he renege, saying US credibility is at stake.
Following are remarks the president-elect might offer in response.
One side
What I know about climate change I didn't learn from the news media, which ignore a lot of scientific discussion and only cover one side of the political issue. The media only listen to scientists and activists who say we have to stop using affordable energy and start using expensive substitutes because burning fossil fuels threatens the planet.
While I was getting elected, world leaders who think that way were in Marrakech figuring out how to keep promises countries made last year to cut emissions of greenhouse gases. They want to discourage the use of coal, oil, and eventually natural gas and subsidize alternatives like solar and wind. They say that can happen without hurting the economy. I don't believe it. Look at the European countries that tried to make that strategy work. Huge electricity bills. Huge!
I have advisers-smart people, good people-who tell me science isn't clear about all this. Sure, there are scientists worried like crazy about global warming. And there are scientists who think the problem isn't that urgent and who wonder if we can do much about it anyway.
Scientists who think we're headed for catastrophe use computer models that assume rising levels of greenhouse gases-and they're rising, I know they're rising-create a whole lot of warming. But the climate's complex, complex like crazy. And if you look at real temperatures, they're like half or less what the computer models predict. It looks to me like the problem's not so huge. It looks to me like the models assume people affect temperature more than we really do.
And you know what? If every country in that Paris deal met its commitments, the effect on warming would be small-really, really small. That's science. But what the newspapers call "the science" is a lot different. The media don't cover the science I just described. But they didn't think I could get elected, either.
Anyway, the Paris deal is just a first step toward what has to happen to make a difference-if we really can make a difference that matters, which maybe we can't. After Paris, people would pay a lot for energy. And when that turned out not to be enough they'd have to pay even more and make other changes, like eating less meat. Will Americans do that? I don't think so.
The Paris agreement is a bad deal-really bad. All cost and no payoff, unless you make solar panels or electric cars. Americans know that. If they wanted to run computers and telephones all on solar and wind and turn into vegetarians, Hillary Clinton would have won.
My predecessor knows what Americans think. That's why he wouldn't call the Paris deal a treaty and let the Senate vote on it. He made a legally flimsy deal Americans don't support. Once I'm president, all I have to do is say, "No deal." I look forward to it.
The hoax
When I called climate change a hoax, the news media said I was denying science. I know warming happens. I know people are part of the reason. I also know we might not be able to do much about a problem that's probably not so huge. To the media, though, you're either a believer or a denier. There's no middle ground, no room for argument. Now believers want to turn people who disagree with them into criminals. That's bad. Really bad.
So there's pressure-huge pressure-to force people to make expensive changes and even bigger pressure to keep them from asking why. To me, that's a hoax. It's just not the one that gets reported.
