In short, the agreement does not eliminate coal jobs, it only transfers those jobs from the United States and the United States and ships them overseas. This agreement is not so much about climate as it is about other countries gaining a financial advantage over the United States. The rest of the world applauded when we signed the Paris Agreement — they went wild; they were so happy – for the simple reason that it put our country, the United States of America, which we all love, in a very, very great economic disadvantage. A cynic would say that the obvious reason for the economic competitors and their desire to stay in the agreement is that we continue to suffer this great self-inflicted economic injury. It would be very difficult to compete with other countries in other parts of the world. China will be allowed to build hundreds of other coal-fired power plants. Therefore, we cannot build the facilities, but they can, in accordance with this agreement. India can double its coal production by 2020. Remember: India can double its coal production. We have to get rid of it.
Europe can also continue to build coal-fired power plants. As you know, Ronald Dworkin has criticized the fact that a hypothetical (double) agreement cannot engage a real person. For the hypothetical analysis to be sound, it must be shown that the hypothetical people of the treaty may agree to be bound by a principle that governs social rules. Suppose it can be shown that your replacement (a better informed and more impartial version of you) would accept a principle. What does this have to do with you? If this hypothetical analysis of the second step is used, it seems that you may be bound by agreements that others would have entered into, unlike you. While it is reasonable (even if not necessary) to assume that you could be bound by agreements that you could have entered into if you had had the opportunity to do so, it seems crazy to think that you may be bound by agreements that you would not have made, even if you had been asked. However, this criticism is only decisive if the hypothetical social contract must assert your normative power of self-engagement by consent. The fact that your deputy uses their power to engage does not mean that you have used your power.