LyrArc Article Gist
Huge losses sustained by sovereign wealth funds. Estimated $350 billion for Gulf foreign reserve funds and SWF's, according to RGE Monitor's Rachel Ziemba, or 27% of assets. Sovereign Wealth funds are either using their funds for supporting their local banks as in the Gulf areas, or buying back stakes of cash strapped western banks like RBS in the case of China. Russia, China and other countries are using their SWF's for stimulus spending. And Russia, Gulf economies that are dependent on oil prices, are looking at possible sale of foreign assets at oil prices between $50 and a deterioration to $25. Only China has a surplus that is sustained through the last quarter of 2008, but this is changing quickly as imports pick up after the stimulus kicks in, and exports drop precipitiously in 2010. South Korea and Russia have also learned of the need to have liquid safe investments preferably in dollars in the current crisis, as they have learned how large capital outflows can get in a short time. And the US is not looking at these large capital inflows from overseas as a benevolent thing, because it overvalues American assets, and leads to all sorts of distortions in liquidity and pricing of risk that contributed to the current crisis. In short the whole situation with SWF's has a suprising ending, as with everything in the current crisis, nothing worked out as expected or planned....

LyrArc Article Gist
Foreign demand for US manufacturing exports especially in emerging market economies such as China, India, Mexico, the Middle East and South America, will help cushion the US economy from the effects of the housing market deterioration and the credit squeeze. Some of the figures point to a vigorous demand for US exports that will sustain the US economy in the years ahead as poorer countries around the world industrialize, urbanize, build infrastructure, and improve the living standards of people in their countries. First the world is less sensitive to US slowdown. Cooper cites numbers to show that the US contributionto world growth has declined from 19% to 12%. And in the past 10 years USA growth declined from 3% to 2.6% annually but the global economy accelerated from 3.2% to 4.4%. (Statistics from IMF?) IMF in World Economic Outlook estimates global economic growth in 2008 to slow from 5.2% to 4.8%, and the US in 2008 to be 1.9% same as 2007. Excluding the US, growth in the world economy would be 5.5%. China's imports of US goods is up 25% annually over the past 5 years. The proportion of US goods going to emerging markets is up to 45% from 38% in the past 2 years. And economies of countries like India and Mexico are sustained by internal consumer demand so they are stronger than before. Another way to see this happening is the US corporate earnings from overseas being up 22% from last year, and domestic profits up only 1%. Over the past year profits from foreign sales have accounted for 80% of increase in overall profits. So foreign trade and its continued expansion will act as a stabilizing effect on the US economy and US products especially in infrastructure development and related areas will help the developing countries make major improvements to living standards and infrastructure. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
This self portrait by Vladimir Putin about his growing up years in Leningrad and the life of his father and mother during the siege of Leningrad by Germans may offer a better sense of the mind and thinking of the Russian president than the Dresden years when he was a junior Russian official in Communist East Germany (the GDR). It is an interview of the Russian president in 2000 by Nataliya Gevorkyan, Natalya Timakova, and Andrei Kolesnikov over twenty years back. Putin's father suffered severe injuries during the war in the fighting around Leningrad, twice being given up for dead and being dragged wounded across the frozen Neva river to a hospital by a neighbor. His mother was half dead from starvation and his father passed on his food given to him at the hospital. Having gone through the memories of this period affected Vladimir Putin's view of the world and no amount of US or German assurance about NATO's intentions may have erased these memories from childhood. The long period in power and the Covid isolation may have led to  perceptions that were less likely to change so that Putin did his own research and wrote a long paper on Ukraine in 2021 that reflected Russia and Ukraine's long history but did not reflect the changing national aspirations of Ukraine's people in 2022. This may have led to the miscalculation and the errors by both Putin and the leaders Merkel-Bush-Obama that the detailed WSJ report of 20 years of events show to have happened. The WSJ report of April 1, 2022, was titled "Vladimir Putin's 20 Year March to War in Ukraine and How the West Mishandled It." The Social Democrats in Germany under Schroeder and Steinmeier mishandled it by deepening economic integration with Russia as a way to make up for what had happened in the German invasion of Russia, and the Christian Democrats under Merkel with business interests never really grasped the different thinking of the Russian president relying solely on deep economic integration of the EU and Germany with Russia as well as China as an answer. Mr. Bush and Mr. Obama from a distance even less so.  This has led to the miscalculation by Russia under Putin leading to invasion of Ukraine, and the US and Germany being unprepared about taking action to prevent it.  Beyond the key participants and the war damage, there is the enormous damage that is taking place in the mental health around the world after Covid with constant barrage of images of war and refugees streaming into Poland. There is the problem of food imports, of food scarcity in the Middle East, and inflation in food prices for Africa and the Middle East. As Brendan Simms, a Cambridge historian has shown in his book "Europe The Struggle of Supremacy 1453 to the Present," which is now being read by German chancellor Scholz, this has happened before with the UK, Netherlands, Spain, Germany, Sweden, Denmark and Russia engaging in these conflicts that led to prolonged wars and eventually to only small shifts in power. Yet with huge effects for ordinary people caught in the wars such as today's refugees and people struggling to feed their families in Africa and Asia after the effects of Covid on income. Food prices have gone up by 50% to almost double in these countries.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Problems Russia faces in gaining entry into the WTO. This includes high import tariffs in Russia, arbitrary interpretation of rules, the customs union with Belarus and Kazakhstan, and corruption. Russia is the only major economy that is not part of the WTO. China was admitted in 2001. The WTO rules limit import tariffs and provides a legal system of dispute resolution for trade disputes. According to Business Europe, Russia increased tariffs for a range of factory products after the 2008 crisis. These tariffs alone cost EU companies $820 million a year. Russia's deputy prime minister Igor Shuvalov, says that without WTO access modernization and innovation for Russia will be very difficult. Companies like Boeing would be big winners with WTO entry for Russia. Tariffs on wide-body aircraft would then drop from 20% to 7.5%, and Russia expects to buy 1,000 new commercial aircraft in the next 20 years.

LyrArc Article Gist
Mitt Romney states the case for supporting free trade both in principles and practice. Acceptance of the staus quo allows China to game the world trading system, says Romney. In the end accepting the status quo may do more damage to the world's trading system than any efforts to correct the misalignment in currencies and failure to rebalance the world economy. He questions the passive approach of some members of Congress and the Obama administration on the grounds that starting a trade war makes them nervous. China with $273 billion more in exports than imports to the U.S. has reason to see this issue objectively, even with all the noise it is making about trade retaliation, suggests Romney. Other experts have pointed to the problems the misalignment creates for China's economy. A New York Times editorial on October 15, 2011, cites figures from the Peterson Institute of Economics showing this costs China $240 billion a year through trade surpluses in dollars that are declining in value. For years China's fears are that this would lead to higher unemployment. This New York Times editorial points out that jobs have increased by about 1% a year since 2004, even with 10%+growth, because many of the manufacturing jobs use advanced manufacturing technologies. A firm response today also makes it possible to avoid the kind of sudden response that could take place later on if public opinion overwhelmingly shifts away from trade with China under status quo conditions. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The Trump administration's early proposal for NAFTA moves away from campaign pledges to completely renegotiate the treaty, instead taking the approach of working to improve the U.S. trade position in relation to Mexico and Canada. It includes seven objectives for tougher rules for labor and the environment favored by Democrats in Congress, and it also has support from Republicans with its effort to update NAFTA for changes in technology and in other areas since the accord was signed during the Clinton administration. The area in which U.S. and Mexican business are wary is one in which the Trump administration still seeks to keep the option of imposing protective tariffs, and a border-adjusted tax to level playing field for differences in taxes, as well as other measures to protect American jobs and interests. Because any renegotiated NAFTA also has to pass both houses of Congress this proposal took into account the different constituencies and interests for this issue. Robert Lighthizer, trade representative under president Reagan is likely to become the next U.S. Trade Representative and lead negotiator. We first profiled Lighthizer in a group in Lyrarc for pointing to the need for a level playing field in trade. As early as 2010 Lighthizer argued in op-ed articles that globalization and trade practices should ensure a level playing field for the U.S., and was covered in Lyrarc. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
This story in the WSJ shows how the Phase 1 deal between the U.S. and China was negotiated in November and December 2019. As a bargaining chip for negotiations on a Phase 2 deal the U.S. has preserved tariffs of 25% on $250 billion in imports from China, and the reduced tariff  of 7.5% on $120 billion of imports. In Phase 1 Mr. Trump convinced the Chinese leadership that he was serious about going ahead with further tariffs to cover all of China's exports to the U.S.by a December deadline. This was also Mr. Kushner's message to the Chinese ambassador. In talks China gave easy concessions on agricultural imports and offered to buy twice the amount of soyabeans and other food imports- which helps Mr. Trump with farmers in the U.S. At the same time difficult concessions on enforcement to change subsidies to Chinese state owned companies were put off. China formally says it is an issue of Chinese sovereignty. It is also seen as a part of the Chinese business model that is working and China is in no hurry to change this. It has offered to step back from asking foreign companies to transfer technology in exchange for market access. On technology issues and subsidies the tough negotiating issues on which the U.S. has insisted for changes, China has held back. Phase Two is not likely to happen at least not till after the election, as China wants to be able to develop its own technology rivaling the U.S. and Europe, without the kind of formal enforcement the U.S. is demanding. In the long run it plans a shift to an economy that is less dependent on the U.S. for imports which may be in the interest of both countries, as U.S. manufacturing has shriveled over two decades hurting American jobs as a result.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Bernanke's defense of the action of the Fed's monetary policy making committee, on November 3, 2010, (with a vote of 10-1) to buy an additional $600 billion of Treasury securities over the next 8 months. His defense focusses on the prospects of deflation- how low inflation can morph into deflation (falling prices and wages), that can create a long period of economic stagnation. In addition, with low and falling inflation, Bernanke sees spare capacity in the US that can be utilized to reduce the number of jobless people. He points to the rise in stock prices and fall in long term interest rates in anticipation of the Fed's action, as evidence that this Fed move would improve financial conditions. Lower mortgage rates would make housing more affordable, higher stock prices would increase consumer wealth, confidence and spending. Spending would lead to higher incomes and profits for economic expansion, from this viewpoint. The situation in November 2010, was a deepening housing slump anticipated for 2011, gridlock after the 2010 midterm elections and no agreement on additional stimulus for 2011, the need to rebalance the global economy lacking cooperation from China (with China increasing imports and reducing exports and the US increasing exports and reducing imports). Fed's Bernanke does not mention these factors, and only hints at the gridlock towards the end of the statement. This Fed action will push the dollar lower, just as efforts to improve exports and the trade balance are underway. The Fed's committee sees the risks of commodities inflation as an acceptable risk in the current situation, and the use of a cautious approach assessing the purchase program regularly as sufficient measure of safety. As to difficulties of the unwinding of these policies, the Fed sees present danger outweighing the risks of no action. For emerging markets such as Turkey, India, Australia and other countries seeing even more inflows of capital, the risks are left to these countries to manage. The central banks of India and Australia moved to increase interest rates at the same time that the Fed made its move....

LyrArc Article Gist
Trade economists from Ivy League universities, are still peddling the old theories on trade from textbooks that make no sense and have got America in this huge mess that it is in where other countries are ripping America off with unfair trade practices. These economists have turned a blind eye, turned their backs to the great damage done to industrial towns and communities across America for two decades with the loss of manufacturing. Take Irwin's point that the US would have to monitor rates on 13000 tariff line items. This is ridiculous because the US simply needs to monitor the key products such as semiconductors, oil and gas, LNG. In just one negotiation with India the US having a trade deficit DJT states of $100 billion with India- terrible trade. By opening up supply of LNG and oil US can fill India's needs for Oil and LNG and cut the deficit to zero. Who came up with this idea. Indian PM Modi and his trade team. Once it was known that the status quo was unacceptable India came up with its own ideas lets import what we get from Russia from the US. Yes we had discounts from Russia but that was when oil prices were high. DJT's effort to get oil prices down by increasing US production will make it possible for India to get this oil at similar prices. India is a much bigger economy now than during Covid 5 years back India can do this. US and India win-win by doing joint aviation production deals and US gains with sale of F-35 stealth fighters. It is just common sense. Sadly, much of this is common sense that is beyond Ivy League Economics departments at American universities.  Reciprocal Tariffs make a lot of sense because this is how fairness is done- for China, for India. In the case of Mexico, Canada, China, on stopping flow of fentanyl- this reciprocal tariff is not a tariff it is as Commerce Secretarty Luttnick pointed out domestic policy of the United States. Which country would tolerate 490,000 deaths from fentanyl over 12 years and not take domesti policy action. It is not that the policy actions are taken it is that these action should have been taken a long time back. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
A second term Trump-Vance will face uphill risks and a mess in economics from a Trumpian Republican party and Congress, says WSJ. WSJ Editorial Board says a second Trump term is not without risks. Tariffs cost 1.1% in annual growth in the Trump first term says WSJ, and it did have an impact on inflation. It would have had greater impact on inflation with the supply chain crisis of Biden's first term, had this supply chain crisis happened in Trump's first term. A second term Trump-Vance support tariffs as high as 60% on Chinese imports which would have a bigger effect on inflation and economic growth than of the first term. The key difference is that with tax cuts a basic rule for Republican policies Trump-Vance second term would not invest in infrastructure the way Mr. Biden has done and Biden will do so in a second term. As a result the economic growth is likely to be greater and inflation smaller under a Biden administration. Trillions of dollars in investment in the economy and infrastructure under Biden in a second term will be missing in a Trump-Vance tax cuts administration policy. And with it hundreds of thousand of jobs created each quarter will be missing in Trump-Vance second term. Add to this the level of clarity of stable economic policy under a Biden second term and contrast it with some of the chaos in economic policy of a Trump-Vance second term. The basic contradiction between tax cuts policy and the nation's need for infrastructure spending/rebuilding under a Republican under Trump administration will not go away, present a huge stumbling block. Chaotic policy could come from Project 2025 that says consider abolishing the US central bank Federal Reserve. This kind of erratic and unwise policy proposals are clearly not happening under Biden and Yellen. Another key difference is the cost to the economy of delays of several years in doing nothing for climate in Trump-Vance 2024-2028. Severe effects on climate if nothing is done could cause acceleration of climate negative costs which a future economy under Democrats would face, in reality the Nation would face. America's Business has taken a short term approach to climate change, when the time comes to pay the costs of short term thinking it assumes it is somebody else's problem- this happened with supply chain concentration in China the burden falling on the middle and lower classes, it would happen again with missing climate change action under Trump-Vance second term. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
DJT 1.0 was led on the tariffs policy by USTR Robert Lighthizer, who had experience negotiating with the Japanese negotiators in the Reagan era. He is today respected by  Republicans, is seen in an important role in economic policy and to prepare the tariff policy actions of the new DJT administration. Lighthizer prefers to get Congress to take action with legislation. He also believes that domestic manufacturing will make gains with new and higher tariffs on Chinese imports. Lighthizer policy is falsely compared with Hoover Tariffs Act of 1930 when world trade was 9% of world GDP, today it is 63% of world GDP, and where under Hoover in 1930 the tariffs were across the board all countries 20,000 goods. Under Lighthizer on specific products where dumping is happening -steel, aluminium, autos, with Japan in 1960-70 or China 2000-2020 targeting American industries + technologies for takeover. And falsely when it comes to raising costs to each American family on average by $4000 a year by economists. The conventional view for business for 2000-2016 through Bush and Obama favoring free trade did not take into account the unusual experience of China which entered WTO in 1990, then expanded in a way unprecedented in history at 10-12% growth rates for 15 years destroying American manufacturing with dumping, having support of outshoring by companies in the US, and not giving reciprocal treatment for exports from the US to China. China also had unrestricted access to US technologies in this type of trade. Lighthizer's approach was to specifically address this problem not a general across the board tariffs on all goods (20,000 goods) on all countries as with the Hoover Tariffs Act in 1930. Lighthizer's approach adopted by DJT called for reciprocal trade response with China as the US had already done with Japan, not unilateral across the board tariffs, and when world trade had advanced to about zero tariff rates. And falsely compared to Hoover 1930 Act because under Hoover tariffs were 29-40%. raised to 60% when world trade was small, was 9% of GDP. The Biden administration has tacitly agreed with Lighthizer's vision by not reversing DJT tariffs. A new higher tariff will probably be selective based on the industry, country and what goals the US has set under the new administration for that industry. Some of the tariffs revenue may also be used for tax cuts. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
This New York Times editorial after the Senate passed a bill in October 2011 calling for action on the misaligned Chinese currency, points to ways a misaligned currrency is damaging for China. It cites the Peterson Institute for International Economics estimate that this is costing China $240 billion a year. This is a result of accumulating huge dollar reserves that have a declining value against the renminbi. Higher import prices lead to higher inflation. And low interest rates on savings, to the point that they are lower than the inflation rate, hurt the vast majority of Chinese and reduce domestic consumption. And perversely this leads to money pouring into speculative uses such as real estate, creating unsustainable bubbles in housing. The Times editorial says China is not generating jobs from this strategy, as the export strategy is relying on use of advanced technology in manufacturing and not creating many jobs. It cites a statistic showing employment has increased by only 1 percent a year from 2004 even with GDP growth above 10%. China is beginning to realize the cost of this strategy, and is planning a shift in its five year economic plan. But this rebalancing has many obstacles. The current system dominated by state run companies, banks, local and federal government, is biassed in favor of the old export led strategy, and experts are pessimistic about the possibilities for change. The Times suggests China may be falling back on the export led strategy as the global economy is slowing. The whole system would have to change after three decades of this kind of development, and would require new leadership and major changes....

LyrArc Article Gist
Geithner in written testimony to the Senate Finance Committee, stated that "President Obama - backed by the conclusions of a broad range of economists- believes that China is manipulating its currency." What is noteworthy is that experts are generally in agreement that something should be done about this in cooperative fashion, from Obama's economic team, Obama's own views on this, The National Association of Maufacturers, Labor and so on. The trade deficit with China has continued at high levels even with the current economic slowdown, so this issue remains as one that the Bush administration never really addressed. Simon Johnson, a MIT Professor, and former IMF Chief economist says that even the IMF has not addressed it, and that the Obama administration needs to call China to account. He says this could lead to a spat with China, and if the US does not back down to a row. The concern has been that China would not buy up Treasury debt the way it has in the past, at the same time the question is whether there is some point where the deficit is so large and the US so dependent on foreign buyers of Treasury debt, that it needs to be addressed on a number of levels. Including addressing currency and fair trade issues, a more rational balanced consumption of everything from oil to goods from lowcost Asian countries, to reduce the toll on the overextended American consumer and on the extent of US borrowing needed. From China's perspective there may also be the same concern about export led growth, which may come to be seen as undependable anyway, because with or without some currency advantage the overextended US consumer is not buying anyway, holding off on purchases of everying from cars to flatscreen televisions. With growth at 6.8% in 4th quarter 2008, according to the Chinese Government Statistics Bureau, and expected to drop to 5% in 2009, the export growth model is no longer the panacea for China's unemployed as it once was at 12-13% growth rates in 2006-2007. In fact it may now look to be a better wiser policy if China had increased the value of its currency even more than its slow gradual approach to slow the growth rate from 12-13% to a more sustainable 9-10%, and lower American imports and lower the American trade deficit. Part of the problem in China was the difficulty of applying any sort of brakes once the local governments were set free to expand as much as they could, and prevented any controls from being effective. Steel production continued to grow even after there was evidence of large overcapacity, and government direction failed. Buy some time to shift to domestic consumption based recovery, is what the Chinese policy may be now. Indications of this are evident with its grappling at the issues it has not tackled like giving ownership of land to farmers in rural areas, and to building a healthcare system for the country, both of which are part of a host of issues to shift to domestic consumption based recovery. So unlike the way the media and some experts portray it its not a tough line that the US is taking against Chinese unwillingness. China may want to cooperate.That may be true if China was missing out on 10-13% growth rates, but these were unsustainable anyway and bad policy. At growth rates below 5% as projected by analysts China may want to jettison the export model of growth and build an alternative one. In that case as China shifts to domestic consumption, currency adjustments may be seen quite differently than they were in the past....

LyrArc Article Gist
In a first at Davos World Economic Forum, China's president Xi Jinping uses the 2017 meeting to give a one hour long spirited defense of the world trading system, critical of U.S. president elect Trump's protectionist views without naming him. Xi pointed out that "no one will be winners in a trade war." And went on to add that restricting world trade was like "locking oneself in a dark room, keeping out wind and rain from outside but also light and air." For the first time Jinping stated that China would take the U.S. role of defending the world trading system from attack as needed. On climate change Xi defended the Paris accords, and gave China's commitment to pursue changes regardless of what the U.S. under president Trump does. This follows Chancellor Merkel of Germany's statements on the issue critical of the views of president elect Trump, and taking the lead to defend the world trading system. Xi also pointed out that many of the ills that led to voter discontent in the West were not really from the freeing up of trade but from the pursuit of excessive profit with the financial crisis of 2008.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The firing of John Bolton as National Security Adviser opens up the possibility of a meeting of Trump with President Rouhani of Iran. There is a need for both sides to begin talks on a nuclear deal that would replace the one Iran signed with president Obama to address issues raised by Mr. Trump and Republicans. Iran and countries that buy oil from Iran such as India, China and Japan have an interest in relief from sanctions imposed by the Trump administration on imports of Iranian oil. The European Union is keen to preserve aspects of the nuclear deal. Relief from sanctions is critical for Iran to develop its economy. The last two decades have seen Iran struggle to develop its economy with the sanctions imposed by  different U.S. administrations.   President Trump expressed flexibility on sanctions saying "we will see what happens. I think Iran has potential. They are incredible people." President Rouhani urged Mr. Trump "to put warmongers aside." Mr. Trump told reporters that he had resisted Mr. Bolton's opinions on issues and realized he had moderate views when compared to someone like Bolton.  Trump told Iran "We are not looking for regime change. We hope we can make a deal and if we can't make a deal thats fine too. But I think they have to make a deal." Helping the U.S. and Iran come to talks is president Macron of France who hopes to setup a meeting at the UN General Assembly which meets next week following his efforts at the G-7 meeting in France last month. In the past when tensions were high in the Straits of Hormuz President Trump refrained from aggravating this by saying actions that are "disproportionate" should not be taken and respected Iranian intentions. The tone of the conversation between the two sides has moderated to the point where both sides realize the need for coming to some compromise. This is in sharp contrast to the period a few months ago with rising tensions in the Straits of Hormuz and the seizure of an Iranian ship. Bolton's opinions were not the only issue for president Trump. He was also seen as the source of leaks including one that said Mike Pence, the Vice President, had opposed Mr. Trump's plan to bring the Taliban to Camp David. Also contributing to the new climate for talks is Mike Pompeo the Secretary of State, who has promoted the idea of talks with Iran. He told the media about such a meeting at the UN General Assembly in New York- "Sure. The president has made it very clear that he is prepared to meet with no pre-conditions." The willingness to try new ideas even contrary ones to policy pursued only a short while ago as long as the desired goal is reached is a feature of this presidency and key advisers. From the beginning of the Trump administration there is a firm sense of the need to end the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. and reduce foreign entanglements that have dragged on wasting resources and destroying priorities. With a willingness to try all sorts of approaches even ones that appear to be contradictory always keeping the end goal in sight. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The Bank of Japan reduced interest rates by 0.2 %, from 0.5 % to 0.3%, lowering the overnight lending rate. Citing higher energy prices and lower export demand it lowered the growth forecast to zero for 2008. This is the first time in 7 years that the Bank of Japan is doing this. Japan has never recovered from the real estate and stock market bubbles of the 1980's and interest rates in Japan have been at levels near zero for many years. With low interest rates and a huge deficit Japn has few options left. The small nature of the rate cut is unlikely to increase borrowing or stimulate the economy say experts, but is more of a symbolic move that Japan will coordinate its efforts with other global economies. Even so half of the governing board voted for and half against this cut with central bank governor Maasaki Shirakawa casting the deciding yes vote. Upto now Japn's significant help has been in the form of suppplying yen and dollars to money markets to ease the global credit crisis. Another move is a $51 billion stimulus package that will give income tax rebates to households. Japan would like to pick up the slack in global growth from USA's weakness but is unable to do so because like other Asian economies its growth is export based with low consumption spending at home. This is true also of China and China's need for infrastructure spending is not as great as it once was leaving imports of machinery at lower levels, which gives less support to export driven growth from Germany or the USA....

LyrArc Article Gist
Xi Jinping, president of China says at the Davos Forum that world leaders should "join hands and rise to the challenge" from protectionism coming from the new U.S. administration. He called on world leaders to support the Paris climate accords- "to stick to it instead of walking away from it."