PHIL KERPEN, American Commitment:

Well, I think the key point to understand is that the Paris treaty has no discernible impact on global average temperature, and, therefore, the alleged climate benefits are illusory.

This is an agreement that, if every country met its obligations, according to the conventional EPA model, it would reduce global average temperature less than two-tenths of a degree in the year 2100. But, of course, these countries are mostly not meeting their obligations.

We just heard from Germany their emissions are up in each of the last two years. The Philippines have already withdrawn from this agreement. And India, which is allowed to increase emissions under this agreement, is building too many coal plants to even meet their target. They are going to go well above it.

The U.S. commitment would only avert an increase in temperature of about 15/1,000 of a degree by the year 2100. So, there is really not much upside here, but there is tremendous downside, because this agreement locks in those EPA regulations you were just talking about in the introduction, the Clean Power Plan, which increase electricity prices about 25 to 30 percent.

That has a very negative impact on consumers across this country with no benefit to show for it. And it also commits the American taxpayer to pay the lion's share of the $100-billion-per-year Green Climate Fund, a direct wealth transfer to the rest of the world.

And so I think the reason the rest of the world likes this deal so much is that the United States cripples itself economically with regulations, and then it pays the rest of the world for the privilege of doing so in increased foreign aid.

To me, that is not leadership. That is American losership. And the president is right to…

(CROSSTALK)