Saturday, June 10, 2017

President Trump, climate change and the coalfields [feedly]

President Trump, climate change and the coalfields
http://blogs.wvgazettemail.com/coaltattoo/2017/06/01/president-trump-climate-change-and-the-coalfields/

 

Well, Rep. David McKinley, R-W.Va., was the first into my email inbox with a statement praising President Donald Trump for abandoning any global leadership by the United States in fighting the climate crisis. Here's what the congressman had to say:

President Trump's decision to withdraw is a bold statement that he will put America first even in the face of intense international pressure. The Paris Climate Agreement is a flawed deal that puts America's energy needs and economic growth on the back burner, while transferring money and power to unelected international bureaucrats.

Moving forward, the best way to lead on this issue is to prioritize energy research and promote new technologies that will allow countries around the world to use all their resources – including fossil fuels – in the cleanest and most efficient manner.

I urge President Trump to seize this opportunity and champion technology to provide affordable, efficient and reliable energy. This alternative approach will not only benefit America, but will help the billions around the globe who remain in energy poverty.

Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., wasn't far behind with this statement:

While I believe that the United States and the world should continue to pursue a cleaner energy future, I do not believe that the Paris Agreement ensures a balance between our environment and the economy.  To find that balance, we should seek agreements that prioritize the protection of the American consumer as well as energy-producing states like West Virginia, while also incentivizing the development of advanced fossil energy technologies.

To be fair, though, I think Attorney General Patrick Morrisey's statement hit Twitter before I saw either of those emails:

Today's announcement is a major victory for working West Virginia families. My mission is to continue to fight against unlawful regulations that pose a threat to jobs and the success of the Mountain State.

I'm sure other West Virginia political leaders will follow with similar political pandering about the president's decision to pull out of the Paris climate agreement. And they can talk all they want about how this is going to help the coal industry, and throw around phrases like "prioritize energy research" and "incentivize the development of advanced fossil energy technologies." But the fact is that the Trump administration wants to gut government spending needed to make "clean coal" — whatever that is, exactly — any sort of reality.

Tons of journalists and scientists — and business people — who are way smarter than me have provided lots of discussion about the very real dangers that this move by President Trump poses to our society (see here, here and here for example).  There are also indications from some that the clean energy revolution is far from over, and that all hope for dealing with climate change isn't yet totally lost.

But if you're here in West Virginia and were watching the president's Rose Garden speech, you no doubt noticed repeated reference to coal miners, and coal communities, and how much we are apparently loved by this administration. That seems as hard to believe as it ever has been, if you can remember back a little more than a week ago, when we reported how the administration is looking to settle with the coal industry in a lawsuit brought to block one of the key federal mine safety protections put in place after the Upper Big Branch Mine Disaster.  The final wording of that eventual settlement might be educational in how much President Trump really loves coal miners.

And what about the rest of President Trump's budget? What about plans to help struggling coal communities get back on their feet economically? Anyone who is really paying attention knows that the key programs coalfield residents rely on both just to get by — and more importantly to try to grow and lift themselves up — are being targeted for major cuts by the administration.

While coal markets have seen some improvements, there's no indication that those are long-term changes or that the industry's structural decline will be reversed. Most analysts tell us not to buy into the notion that the president's action this afternoon will help generate jobs in other industries either.

It's difficult for many political leaders, let alone average West Virginians, to really stomach all of this. It's hard to be honest about it. But here's how Paul Krugman of the New York Times explained the other day the place that West Virginians find themselves in right now:

So many of the people who voted for Donald Trump were the victims of an epic scam by a man who has built his life around scamming. In the case of West Virginians, this scam could end up pretty much destroying their state.


 -- via my feedly newsfeed

The Return of Workplace Immigration Raids [feedly]

The Return of Workplace Immigration Raids
https://talkingunion.wordpress.com/2017/06/04/the-return-of-workplace-immigration-raids/

SAN FRANCISCO, CA – David Huerta, President of United Service Workers West, SEIU, speaks at a meeting of San Francisco janitors and other workers supporting AB 450, a bill protecting workers during immigration raids and enforcement actions. 

David Bacon

At the end of February immigration agents descended on a handful of Japanese and Chinese restaurants in the suburbs of Jackson, Mississippi, and in nearby Meridian. Fifty-five immigrant cooks, dishwashers, servers and bussers were loaded into vans and taken to a detention center about 160 miles away in Jena, Louisiana.

Their arrests and subsequent treatment did more than provoke outrage among Jackson's immigrant rights activists. Labor advocates in California also took note of the incident, fearing that it marked the beginning of a new wave of immigrant raids and enforcement actions in workplaces. In response, California legislators have written a bill providing legal protections for workers, to keep the Mississippi experience from being duplicated in the Golden State.

Once the Mississippi restaurant workers had been arrested, they essentially fell off the radar screen for several days. Jackson lawyer Jeremy Litton, who represented three Guatemalan workers picked up in the raid, could not get the government to schedule hearing dates for them.  He was unable to verify that the other detained immigrants were being held in the same center, or even who they were. 

The Geo Corporation, formerly known as the Wackenhut Corporation, operates the LaSalle Detention Facility in Jena. Geo's roots go back to the Pinkerton Detective Agency, which became notorious in the nineteenth and first half of the 20th century for violent assaults on unions and strikers.

Today Geo operates 16 immigrant detention centers around the country, according to its 2015 annual report. It runs privatized prisons as well, some of which have been investigated by the federal government after allegations of bad conditions and understaffing. The LaSalle facility has 1,160 beds. Litton says it is normally full, so taking in an additional 55 detainees would result in severe overcrowding.

The use of Jena's immigrant jail to hold workers detained in workplace raids has a bitter history in Mississippi. In 2008 481 workers were arrested at a Howard Industries electrical equipment factory, in Laurel, Mississippi, in the middle of union negotiations. They, too, were taken to the LaSalle detention center. There they were fed peanut butter sandwiches at mealtimes, and according to Patricia Ice, attorney for the Mississippi Immigrant Rights Alliance (MIRA), "There weren't even enough beds and people were sleeping on the floor." Eight workers detained in that raid were charged with aggravated identity theft in federal court, for having given a false Social Security number to the employer when they were hired.

"This latest raid is causing a lot of fear in our community," says MIRA director Bill Chandler.  "There's fear everywhere now because of the threats from Trump, but here in Mississippi our history of racism makes fear even stronger."

Agustin Ramirez, an organizer for the International Longshore and Warehouse Union in California, told me that the Mississippi raids have heightened fear among West Coast immigrants, too. "What we have seen in the past, and the threats from Trump, tell us this is coming. We may not have had a raid like this here yet, but we can see the sky is dark, and we know it's going to rain. We just don't know when."

In California, with many times the immigrant population of Mississippi, the potential impact of workplace raids is enormous. Of the nation's estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants, over 2.6 million live in this state—almost one in every 10 California workers is undocumented. They make up almost half of its farm workers, and over 20 percent of its construction workers. The National Restaurant Association says that of the country's 12 million restaurant workers, 9 percent are undocumented, while the Restaurant Opportunities Center estimates that in large cities they make up almost half of that industry's workforce.

The legislative response in California came from United Service Workers West (USWW), the union for janitors, security guards and airport workers affiliated with the Service Employees International Union. "We want to lead the nation with the strongest resistance efforts to protect workers, not just in the community, but in the workplace," explained David Huerta, USWW's president.

In cooperation with labor attorney Monica Guizar, USWW worked with San Francisco Assemblymember David Chiu to craft Assembly Bill 450. The bill, called the Immigrant Worker Protection Act and introduced March 24, addresses workplace immigration raids in four ways:

·AB 450 requires employers to ask for a judicial warrant before granting access to a workplace by agents of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)

·The bill prohibits employers from sharing confidential information, like Social Security numbers, without a court order.

·If there is an immigration raid, or if an employer is told by ICE to hand over information that employees provide on I-9 immigration-status forms, the bill requires the employer to notify the state labor commissioner, the workers themselves and their union representatives.

·AB 450 authorizes the labor commissioner to certify workers who report claims against their employers, prohibiting employers from retaliating against them, and helping them to gain visa status as witnesses in legal proceedings.

Assembly Bill 450 was co-authored by Bay Area Assemblymembers Phil Ting and Rob Bonta, and State Senator Scott Weiner. "Trump's threats of massive deportations are spreading fear among California workers, families and employers," Chiu told a news conference, adding that the bill "goes beyond California's existing defense of immigrants to offer new legal protections for individuals in our workplaces."

In a highly publicized April 11 event on the Arizona-Mexico border, Attorney General Jeff Sessions emphasized the Trump administration's hard line on enforcement.

In a highly publicized April 11 event on the Arizona-Mexico border, Attorney General Jeff Sessions emphasized the Trump administration's hard line on enforcement. Chiu cited Sessions's previous statements and orders as a reason for the bill's new measures of protection. Sessions told the press in Arizona that enforcement would now prioritize identity theft among other factors. "And it is here that criminal aliens, and the coyotes, and the document-forgers seek to overthrow our system of lawful immigration," he announced.

By using phrases like "identity theft" and "document-forgers," Sessions is treating as a criminal offense the means used by every undocumented worker to get a job. Like all other workers, undocumented immigrants must supply Social Security numbers to employers to get hired. But since the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act, they have been prevented from applying for them. Workers therefore invent Social Security numbers or use numbers belonging to others.

In the past, the federal government has occasionally interpreted this as not only as a reason for deportation, but as a federal crime. Sessions is threatening to make these occasional charges mandatory in every case. The irony is that undocumented workers, using those bad numbers, contribute about $13 billion annually to the Social Security Trust Fund, and are disqualified from receiving any benefits that those contributions are supposed to pay for.

Heavy immigration enforcement against workers is hardly new. Under President George W. Bush, large-scale raids led to the detention and deportation of thousands of workers, especially in meatpacking plants. At Smithfield Foods in North Carolina and Agriprocessors in Iowa, 389 immigrants were jailed, charged with felonies for using bad Social Security numbers. Under President Obama, ICE agents audited the information provided by workers on I-9 forms, comparing it with the Social Security database. ICE then told employers to fire those immigrants whose information didn't pass muster. The government developed an enormous database, called E-Verify, for rooting out undocumented workers. Thousands were fired, and in 2010 alone ICE audited about 2,000 employers.

Anger over these enforcement actions has a long history in California. Los Angeles janitors, members of USWW, sat down in city intersections to protest firings by Able Building Maintenance in 2011. The union fought similar firings in Stanford University cafeterias, and among custodians in the buildings of Apple and Hewlett-Packard. Two thousand seamstresses protested their firings at Los Angeles's American Apparel. Members of UNITE HERE, the union for hotel workers, mounted a hunger strike outside the Hyatt in San Diego over the same issue. In the Bay Area, 214 workers at the Pacific Steel foundry fought firings for almost a year, while at the Alameda County Industries recycling plant in San Leandro, they even went on strike to try to stop them.

Over the years, unions have charged that employers use the firings when workers try to organize, or when they are negotiating contracts. Marielena HincapiĆ©, executive director of the National Immigration Law Center, says, "raids drive down wages because they intimidate workers—even citizens and legal residents. The employer brings in another batch of employees and continues business as usual, while people who protest get targeted and workers get deported. Raids really demonstrate the employer's power."

To help workers protect themselves in the workplace, the ILWU, Filipino Advocates for Justice and several other groups organized a training session about actions workers can take on the job, in the face of a raid or I-9 firings. Workers from Alameda County Industries acted out a teatro-based sketch on their own strike to stop the company from terminating them for not having papers. In another skit, they dramatized the way workers might demand that their boss bar ICE agents from the workplace if the latter have no court order. Other unions described their experiences over the past decade in organizing workers to fight off raids and firings.

"Our experience tells us that workers can resist raids at work, and the more they do that the better off they are," Agustin Ramirez says. "We are getting prepared, trying to give people as much information as possible. We're trying to spread this idea that in addition to AB 450, workers can take action on the job to protect themselves."


 -- via my feedly newsfeed

Profiting from the Working Class: How the Opioid Epidemic Echoes the Mortgage Crisis [feedly]

Profiting from the Working Class: How the Opioid Epidemic Echoes the Mortgage Crisis
https://workingclassstudies.wordpress.com/2017/06/05/profiting-from-the-working-class-how-the-opioid-epidemic-echoes-the-mortgage-crisis/

For the second time in a decade, a group of Fortune 500 companies are engaged in a con game that is devastating working-class families and the communities in which they live. The first scam, which involved predatory lending and the sale of worthless mortgage-backed securities, led to the collapse of the U.S. housing market and the near-meltdown of global financial markets in 2008. In its wake, nearly ten million American families lost their homes, millions more lost billions in equity and were left broke and hopeless. Many of the victims are still struggling to rebuild their lives today.

NBC News photo

As with predatory mortgage lending, the ongoing opioid and heroin abuse epidemic began quietly and went undetected by regulators and law enforcement officials until evidence of the carnage it was causing began piling up at their feet. One of the most widely-discussed reports came from economists Anne Case and Angus Deaton, who identified rising death rates among middle-aged whites, especially those from the working class, tied in part to overdoses. And while the housing crisis and the opioid/heroin epidemic were both spawned by corporate greed, there's one significant difference: the victims of the drug epidemic aren't attempting to rebuild their lives. They're dead.

The similarities between the two scams are striking and disturbing. Like the bankers who created the mortgage crisis by marketing unsustainable investment tools that exploited homebuyers, the pharmaceutical companies that manufacture opioids engaged in a concerted and highly successful effort to convince physicians and pharmacists to hand out dangerous and highly addictive drugs, including OxyContin and Vicodin, as if they were jelly beans.

How successful was that marketing campaign? Very. As the Charleston Gazette-Mail noted in an explosive report on the epidemic, between 2007 and 2012 pharmaceutical companies sold 780,000,000 hydrocodone and oxycodone pills in West Virginia. That's 433 pills for every man, woman, and child living there. Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Florida, and New York have also been flooded with these drugs.

The drive to convince doctors that opioids could be safely prescribed for the long-term treatment of chronic pain without substantial risk of addiction was led by Purdue Pharmaceutical, the manufacturer of OxyContin. As reported in the American Journal of Public Health,  Purdue funded self-serving studies that produced fudged data, distributed that data to thousands of physicians, pharmacists, and nurses during conferences held at luxury resorts, more than doubled its sales force, and paid reps who produced increased OxyContin sales $40 million in bonuses. As a result, Purdue's owners, the Sackler family, jumped to Forbes Magazine's list of America's wealthiest families with a net worth of over $14 Billion at the end of 2015.

Two other factors also contributed to the exponential growth in opioid sales. First, Purdue concentrated its efforts in regions of the country populated by blue-collar workers and the economically disadvantaged because they assumed that patients in those areas were less educated and more likely to place blind faith in medical providers. The Gazette-Mail series on the epidemic demonstrated the companies were correct. While opioid addiction has increased in all demographic groups, the Centers for Disease Control reports the largest increase among whites who earn between $20,000 and $50,000 a year.

But the epidemic was also made possible by the total failure of regulators to recognize what was happening. Despite rules requiring drug distributors and pharmacists to report unusual orders of controlled substances to regulators, billions of pills continued to flood markets across the U.S. for years. No one said a word until the bodies began to pile up and the evidence began to show growing addiction rates among middle-class whites. When regulators did finally act by cracking down on doctors who were over-prescribing pain meds, many addicted patients turned to heroin dealers.

Anyone who has read The Big Short or seen the movie that chronicled the mortgage lending scam will recognize the tactics used by Purdue and the other pharmaceutical manufacturers: create a market for a faulty product, pay once-responsible people lots of money to foist it off on unsuspecting customers, and sit back and reap billions in profit. But the consequences are quite different: victims of the former lose their homes, victims of the latter lose their lives.

It is possible, however, that the U.S. Justice Department will treat this scam differently. In the aftermath of the 2008 housing meltdown, not a single senior banking executive was indicted, convicted, or jailed for the massive fraud committed on the American public. Instead, the feds spent billions to bail out the finance industry and offered only slight assistance to the millions of Americans who lost their homes, their savings, and their dreams.

State attorneys general filled the vacuum by launching investigations and filing civil lawsuits that the U.S. Department of Justice eventually, albeit reluctantly, joined.  While many of the largest banks paid billions in fines and penalties using bailout money supplied by the very taxpayers who had been defrauded and funds that should have been distributed to shareholders, the Obama Justice Department and Attorney General Eric Holder declined to prosecute anyone.  The cozy relationship between Wall Street fraudsters, regulators, and prosecutors, symbolized by Holder's post-AG work at the white shoe law firm of Covington and Burling, discouraged criminal enforcement efforts that many legal observers say should have been initiated. As a former Senate investigator put it, "Everything's fucked up, and nobody goes to jail."

Not surprisingly, homeowners were stunned and outraged when they learned that the billionaires who had stolen their houses were allowed to walk — or Lear Jet or yacht — away scot free.  It's also not surprising that many of these historically Democratic voters were excited by Donald Trump's promise to hold Wall Street accountable for raping Main Street.

The Trump administration and AG Jeff Sessions have the opportunity to do better. As evidence of a major corporate fraud piles up and as overdose rates increase in big cities and rural communities in Ohio and other states, Sessions must decide whether to prosecute the corporations whose actions caused the epidemic. So far, despite a professed desire to reignite the war on drugs, the president and his AG have been silent on the matter.

That is why we were encouraged when Republican Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine, at the urging of Democratic elected officials and the plaintiff's bar, recently filed suit against the pharmaceutical companies responsible for Ohio's severe opioid crisis and resultant deaths. The theory of the case is obvious: drug companies, led by Purdue, systematically and intentionally used fraud and deception to convince doctors, third party payers including the state's Medicaid program and Worker's Compensation System, and patients that opioids were safe and effective.  As a result, patients became addicted to opioid medications that contain the same active ingredient as heroin, which put their lives in danger.

While we applaud DeWine's decision, and we're glad he included a Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) claim in the suit, the foreclosure crisis taught us that the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the United States Department of Justice are the only law enforcement agencies with the resources and power to pursue and prosecute a case that involves a massive fraud that impacts the entire nation.

Unfortunately, Sessions and the DOJ appear to be focused on prosecuting and jailing street-level heroin dealers and users rather than the executives at Purdue and the other opioid manufacturers who knowingly touched off the deadly heroin epidemic. This strategy isn't just doomed to fail, it echoes the Obama administration's decision to lockup low-level mortgage brokers but allow Wall Street executives to cash million-dollar bonus checks and head to the Hamptons for the summer.

We remain hopeful that Sessions will surprise us all by deciding to criminally prosecute the pharmaceutical executives who created the opioid crisis. If he does, a clear and for once positive distinction will be drawn between the Trump and Obama administrations. But if he doesn't, if he instead prosecutes the men and women in blue jeans and plaid shirts who are buying and dealing heroin rather than the bespoke suit-clad executives who set them up to become drug addicts, the Trump administration will be repeating the mistake made by Obama's with one stark distinction: they'll be letting murderers off the hook.

And that's certainly not the way to make America great again.

Marc Dann and Leo Jennings III

Marc Dann served as Attorney General of the State of Ohio and now leads the Dann Law Firm, which specializes in protecting consumers from various forms of predatory financing. Leo Jennings III is a leading Northeast Ohio political consultant and media specialist.


 -- via my feedly newsfeed

The big banks may get to keep their risky investments after all [feedly]

Reich: Trump’s Infrastructure Scam [feedly]

Trump's Infrastructure Scam
http://robertreich.org/post/161642260795

Trump's Infrastructure Scam


FRIDAY, JUNE 9, 2017

At a roundtable discussion with state transportation officials on Friday, Donald Trump said America's aging roads, bridges, railways, and water systems were being "scoffed at and laughed" at. He pledged that they "will once again be the envy of the world."

This seems to be a core theme for Trump: America's greatness depends on others envying us rather than scoffing and laughing at us.

He said much the same thing last week when he announced his decision to withdraw from the Paris climate agreement. "At what point does America get demeaned? At what point do they start laughing at us, as a country? We don't want other leaders and other countries laughing at us anymore. And they won't be. They won't be."

To be sure, America is in dire need of massive investments in infrastructure. The nation suffers from overflowing sewage drains, crumbling bridges, rusting railroad tracks, outworn roads, and public transportation systems rivaling those of third-world nations.  

The American Society of Civil Engineers, giving America's over-all infrastructure a grade of D-plus, says we would need to spend $3.6 trillion by 2020 to bring it up to par.

The problem isn't that we're being laughed at. It's that we're spending hours in traffic jams, disrupted flights, and slow-moving trains. And we're sacrificing billions in lost productivity, avoidable public health problems, and increased carbon emissions. 

But what Donald Trump is proposing won't help. It's nothing but a huge and unnecessary tax giveaway to the rich.

His "$1 trillion infrastructure plan," unveiled last week, doesn't amount to $1 trillion of new federal investment in infrastructure. It would commit $200 billion of federal dollars over ten years, combined with about $800 billion of assorted tax breaks to get developers to build things instead of the federal government doing it.

And it's hardly a plan. It's not much more than a page of talking points.

Worse, its underlying principle is deeply flawed.  It boils down to a giant public subsidy to developers and investors, who would receive tax generous tax credits in return for taking on the job. 

Which means the rest of us would have to pay higher taxes or get fewer services in order to make up for the taxes the developers and investors would no longer pay.

For example (in one version of the plan I've come across), for every dollar developers put into a project, they'd actually pay only 18 cents – after tax credits – and taxpayers would contribute the other 82 cents through their tax dollars.

No one should be surprised at this scheme. It's what Trump knows best. After all, he was a developer who made billions, often off sweeteners like generous tax credits and other subsidies.  

The public would also pay a second time. The developers would own the roads and bridges and other pieces of infrastructure they finance. They'd then charge members of the public tolls and fees to use them.

In place of public roads and bridges, we'd have private roads and bridges. Think of America turning into giant, horizontal-like Trump Tower wherever you looked.   

These tolls and fees won't come cheap. They'd have to be set high in order to satisfy the profit margins demanded by the developers and the investors who back them.

Worst of all, we'd get the wrong kind of infrastructure. Projects that will be most attractive to developers and investors are those whose tolls and fees bring in the biggest bucks – giant mega-projects like major new throughways and new bridges.

Developers and investors won't be interested in the thousands of smaller bridges, airports, pipes, and water treatment facilities across the country that are most in need of repair.

They're not likely to respond to the needs of rural communities and smaller cities and towns that are too small to generate the tolls and other user fees equity developers and investors seek.

They won't be attracted to the most important first priority for our nation's infrastructure: Better maintenance of what we already have. With improved maintenance, it wouldn't be necessary to completely rebuild.

But investors and developers want to build anew. They can't reap big rewards from maintenance.

Nor will they want to put their efforts and money into projects that don't yet have proven financial track records, like many clean energy innovations – which, not incidentally, might have enabled us to meet our targets under the Paris climate accords, were we still part of the Paris accords.

We shouldn't have to pay twice over for the wrong infrastructure.

To really make America great again we need the correct infrastructure in the right places – infrastructure that's for the public, not for big developers and investors.

Sorry, Donald. The only way we get this is if big corporations and the wealthy pay their fair share of taxes to support it.


 -- via my feedly newsfeed

After Coal, a Small Kentucky Town Builds a Healthier, More Creative Economy [feedly]

After Coal, a Small Kentucky Town Builds a Healthier, More Creative Economy
http://www.yesmagazine.org/new-economy/after-coal-a-small-kentucky-town-builds-a-healthier-more-creative-economy-20170606

A complex network of local organizations helps neighbors support one another as they rebound from a dying industry.
VI
 -- via my feedly newsfeed

I never imagined a White House ‘right of Exxon’ on climate, says Larry Summers [feedly]

I never imagined a White House 'right of Exxon' on climate, says Larry Summers
http://larrysummers.com/2017/06/01/i-never-imagined-a-white-house-right-of-exxon-on-climate-says-larry-summers/

Published by Matthew J. Belvedere, CNBC

June 1, 2017

In an interview, Former Clinton Treasury Secretary Larry Summers told CNBC on Thursday the U.S. would benefit economically and on the world stage by staying in the Paris climate accord.

Summers said on "Squawk Box" he "never imagined" an administration that's "way to the right of Exxon on a fossil fuel issue."

The oil giant has reiterated its support of the Paris deal ahead of President Donald Trump's expected announcement Thursday afternoon to pull out of the climate agreement.

Secretary of State and former Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson has advocated staying in the agreement, which involves nearly 200 countries. Only Syria and Nicaragua are not part of the accord.

"How can it be the right thing for the United States to create a world where there are two clubs: Everybody else and the United States, Syria, and Nicaragua?" Summers asked.

During the 2016 presidential race, Trump had campaigned against the accord, which was fashioned under Barack Obama's administration. The former president committed the U.S. to reducing its greenhouse gas emissions by 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025, and pledged $3 billion to a fund to help developing nations meet their Paris agreement goals.

Summers, a former Obama economic advisor, said the Paris deal is not perfect. "It's not the agreement I would have written." He said he favors "more emphasis on just raising the price of carbon and less emphasis on command and control regulation."

He said he would support amending the deal, but abandoning it without anything in its place would put the U.S. in the position to just "take our chances with the climate lottery."

"That seems to me to be profoundly irresponsible," he said.

"The right way to understand the Paris agreement is that it's not the once-and-for-all resolution forever," Summers said. "This is the first stage in a process to global commitment to address what the vast majority of scientists think is one of the most pressing security problems facing mankind."

In addition to political pressure, more than two dozen CEOs signed a letter that appeared in full-page ads Thursday in The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal.

On CNBC's "Squawk on the Street" on Thursday, Hewlett Packard Enterprise CEO Meg Whitman, a signatory on the letter, said leaving the Paris agreement would put the United States behind in jobs in the future. The tech billionaire, who ran an unsuccessful 2010 GOP gubernatorial bid in California, ended up supporting Democrat Hillary Clinton for president in the 2016 election.

Another signatory, Salesforce co-founder and Clinton supporter Marc Benioff tweeted out the letter on Wednesday evening.

Tesla co-founder Elon Musk didn't sign the letter but threatened on Wednesday to stop advising Trump if he were to announce a withdrawal. Musk, founder of SpaceX, is on Trump's manufacturing jobs council, strategic and policy forum and infrastructure council.

The White House was not immediately available to respond to CNBC's request for comment.

(Source: Matthew J. Belvedere, CNBC)


 -- via my feedly newsfeed