Tillis signs on to Paris Accord withdrawal (Burr DOES NOT)

A group of Republican US senators sent a letter to President Trump in late May encouraging him to pull out of the Paris Accord on “climate change.”  Amazingly, only 22 of 52 Senate Republicans would sign their name to the letter:

U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), senior member of the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee, and Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) today sent a letter to President Trump calling for the United States to withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement.

The letter was also signed by Sens. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), John Cornyn (R-Texas),  Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.), Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), Jim Risch (R-Idaho), Thad Cochran (R-Miss.), Mike Rounds (R-S.D.), Rand Paul (R-Ky), John Boozman (R-Ark.), Richard Shelby (R-Ala.),  Luther Strange (R-Ala.), Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), Mike Lee (R-Utah), Ted Cruz (R-Texas), David Perdue (R-Ga.), Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), Tim Scott (R-S.C.), Pat Roberts (R-Kan.). […]

Thom Tillis is there, but no Richard Burr.  For our neighbors to the south, Tim Scott is there, but Lindsey Graham-nesty is NOT.


[…] In the letter, the Senators applaud President Trump for his executive actions to undo overreaching environmental regulations from the Obama administration, specifically the Clean Power Plan regulations. 

The Senators note that remaining in the Paris Agreement will be a serious hindrance to removing these burdensome regulations. “A key risk to fulfilling this objective is remaining in the Paris Agreement. Because of existing provisions within the Clean Air Act and others embedded in the Paris Agreement, remaining in it would subject the United States to significant litigation risk that could upend your administration’s ability to fulfill its goal of rescinding the Clean Power Plan.  Accordingly, we strongly encourage you to make a clean break from the Paris Agreement.”

The Senators also emphasize that remaining in the Paris Agreement could lead to continuous litigation regarding air regulations. “It is clear that those advocating for greenhouse gas regulations will use the Paris Agreement as a legal defense against your actions to rescind the Clean Power Plan if you decide to remain in the Paris Agreement. This is why it is so important for you to make a clean exit from the Agreement.”

The letter also highlights the fact that withdrawing from the Paris Agreement will not affect the United States’ ability to negotiate future environmental agreements. “We understand that some officials inside your administration want to remain in the Paris Agreement to keep a seat at the table so that the U.S. continues to have a voice in future discussions. Fortunately, a clean exit from the Paris Agreement will not take this away. The Senate gave its consent to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in 1992; this treaty provides a permanent seat at the table for the United States to engage with other countries each year at the Conferences of Parties (COP). In fact, it was through an annual COP meeting in Paris that the Paris Agreement was signed.” 

Here’s senator Burr being interviewed by Greensboro’s WXII.  He gets kind of mealy-mouthed and evasive when the reporter asks if it’s a good idea to leave the Paris Accord.  Burr appears to lend support to being part of international cooperative efforts to do things like reduce carbon emissions and other tenets of the radical environmental agenda.  

Here, Burr wins kudos on his Paris accord stance from Chris Fitzsimon and the rest of the folks at WRAL’s political wing.

12 thoughts on “Tillis signs on to Paris Accord withdrawal (Burr DOES NOT)

  1. Burr and Tillis have a tag team act to help each other through the six year cycle. I forget the specific legislation but a year or so back before his re-election, Burr took the high (conservative) road while Tillis, with five years left on his term voted with the liberals, Now safely re-elected, Burr is middlefingering his Party while Tillis starts up his conserva-phony posturing for 2020.

  2. Burr’s consultant is liberal Republican hack Paul Shumaker (the same Shumaker whose advice cost us our NC Supreme Court majority), and Civitas outed Shumaker as being in the pay of some really extreme environmental activists. Follow the money.

  3. Richard Burr is hip-deep in “the swamp” and LOVES every single perk of it.

    Would YOU sell out your supporters and your state for “free haircuts”.? Richard Burr would and does.

  4. The Paris accord was little to do about the environment and a lot to do about 1 – transferring wealth from capitalist countries to fund a central political planning organization and 2 – to promote a centralized form of socialism.


    Leftists like Eudy are part of the effort only because in a socialistic form of government some folks live very well indeed – and Eudy wasn’t too successful in the competitive market. Remember that Stalin had dozens of different (dachas) houses and concubines everywhere.

  5. This cost Tillis nothing from his core beliefs stand point. He is scared of conservative opposition when he runs again. This is just positioning strategy calculated to make us believe one thing while he actually does something else. Watch is votes in the Senate.

    1. . . . and Tillis is even worse.

      NC’s Senators are an embarassment.

      It is disgusting that Woodhouse gave Burr access to NCGOP internet protals throughout the primary and denied them to the other primary candidates. If this is not taking sides in a primary, then I do not know what is. There is no doubt that Woodhouse will do similar things to help Tillis, since Woodhouse ran a Karl Rove front group whose sole purpose was backing Tillis during Tillis’ last campaign. We have a mess at NCGOPe.

      1. No more disgusting than the all-too-obvious lie that he told at the convention when he assured delegates that the staff took no sides in the Chairman race.

  6. I’ve got four words for Sen. Burr: IT’S THE SUN, STUPID.

    Man-made CO2 plays NO ROLE in our climate. It didn’t during the Medieval Warming Period (abt. AD950-1250) and it didn’t during the Little Ice Age (16th-19th centuries)- which we are likely still in the last stages of leaving.

  7. A ‘burr’ under the saddle of North Carolina … begin the campaign to discredit and unseat him. It can be done.

  8. There was a time when NC Republicans had Senators we could be proud of – Jesse Helms, John East, Lauch Faircloth – or ones who voted right at least most of the time and we were not ashamed of – Jim Broyhill, Elizabeth Dole. Even Richard Burr in his first term and the very beginning of his second was much like Broyhill or Dole, not a great senator, but one who voted right most of the time; one you could hold your head up and say he was your senator. Even then, Burr sometimes waffled publicly on key issues before the vote,but when his office was swamped with constituent calls, he always responded and voted the right way.

    That all changed early in Burr’s second term, and calls from constituents no longer seemed to matter as Burr was listening only to the political class inside the beltway. His voting record took a sharp left turn. Now comes Tillis who has never cared what his constituents think and is enthralled with the positions of the Washington political class. Tillis’ voting record has never been conservative and approximates more the voting record of Democrat Terry Sanford.

    In evaluating future nominees, we must not just look at whether they talk the talk – all of them will likely do that – but whether they walk the walk. On the latter, the key is who they listen to – the voters, their constituents, or the power players like lobbyists and pressure groups. On this score, Phil Berger’s change of position on HB2 should send up red flags. Not only did Berger shift to the very liberal policy position of Roy Cooper, but he ignored the voters, whom polls showed liked HB2, and Berger instead went with the lobbyists and pressure groups. It is rumored that Berger wants to run for US Senate, and that is not the sort of character we want in a Senate nominee. Berger needs to be watched very carefully from here on. This may be a one-off, but it also may signal a change in who Berger listens to, and that would be a much bigger concern.

Comments are closed.