One again, with one simple morning Tweet by POTUS, MSM is up-in-arms over speculation that the Trump Administration is set to back out of the Paris climate deal.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/869903459511918592?ref_src=twsrc% 5Etfw&ref_url=http% 3A% 2F% 2Fwww.nbcnews.com% 2Fpolitics% 2Fdonald-trump% 2Ftrump-leaning-toward-withdrawing-u-s-landmark-paris-climate-deal-n766536

Politico has railed that, the “decision could be a victory for the nationalist wing of Trump’s White House” but “would be certain to infuriate America’s allies across the globe” and “threaten to destabilize the most comprehensive pact ever negotiated to blunt the most devastating effects of climate change”.

Axios took a similar approach stating: “Pulling out of Paris is the biggest thing Trump could to do unravel Obama’s climate policies. It also sends a stark and combative signal to the rest of the world […]. And pulling out threatens to unravel the ambition of the entire deal, given how integral former President Obama was in making it come together in the first place.”

Reuters took a different approach asking the hippies what they thought: “The Sierra Club said a U.S. withdrawal from the Paris deal would be a “historic mistake.” Friends of the Earth said the action would “sacrifice our planet to the fossil fuel industry” and make America the world’s “foremost climate villain.”

TRENDING: Obama Statement on Ginsburg Demands GOP Senate Honors Her Dying 'Instructions' and Put Off Vote on Supreme Court Nominee Until New President Sworn In

The truth behind the Paris climate deal is far more (or less) complicated than that. The deal has been promoted as an end-all-be-all in the fight against climate change, but in actuality, it does very little to change the climate and costs between 1 and 2 trillion dollars annually to maintain.

In the following Prager University video listen to Bjor Lomborg, president of Copenhagen Consensus Centre, explain how the current plan would, at most, “would reduce the temperature increase in 2100 by just 0.023 degrees Fahrenheit.”

Should all countries comply there would only be a .3 degree decline in temperatures over the next hundred years. So, going off the UN climate model, that would only delay climate change by a few years. So, effectively, we would be spending 1-2 trillion every year, for a hundred years, to delay climate change by four years. And keep in mind that this is all based off a contested model of the actual effects and causes of climate change.

Bjor Lomborg argues against all of this, astutely observing that the true solutions to climate change do not lie in regulation and international agreements like the Paris climate deal, they lie in the private sector. Businesses opting to switch to efforts like hydraulic fracturing, or a larger corporate switch for nuclear power for the nation, would all do more good to combat current pollution than what Progressive European governments have proposed.

Should the Trump Administration pull out of the deal, while lifting the regulations that have stifled businesses and power plants from modernizing their systems, this administration is set to be more effective than any Democrat-lead administration on actual issues that effect the environment.