Kyoto protocol departure similar to that of Paris.

Where have we heard this before?

THE NEW president of the United States decides the global framework for rolling back climate change isn’t exactly fair to the United States. The new president decides this country’s strategic interests lie within the country’s own borders, and it’s not going to do much good for U.S. businesses to scale back on building, making, producing and hiring if developing countries are left out of the deal. Why should American businesses be punished if developing countries are going to continue to pump greenhouse gases into the atmosphere? With all that going on, this “climate deal” isn’t much of one.

The deal might lead to higher energy prices in the United States, too, and if you don’t believe that, look at how much Europeans pay when their light bills come due. This American economy isn’t so grand just now, so why put a chokehold on it? Besides, the president has told his Cabinet to come up with some different ideas to roll back emissions, and it’s possible, even likely, that technology will improve in the coming years that will make all of this moot.

Cue our friends on the left to go nuts. Why, 192 nations have signed on to this thing, and the United States pulls out? How’s that for leading? How’s that for a preposterous second-place president? How’s that for ending the world as we know it?

The president of the United States, in this case, was named George W. Bush. The time was spring of 2001.

When President Bush pulled out of the Kyoto Protocol in the first few weeks of his first term, the Michael Moores of the country went apoplectic. Again. The Michael Moores of the world tend to do that. Why, the Kyoto Protocol would save the world. Everybody knew it. Without it, the oceans would rise to drown New Orleans and Miami. Drought would destroy every place that doesn’t flood. Doesn’t this new second-place president know that 192 nations have already signed on to this deal?

The more things change, the more the left sounds the same. When the current new president, Donald Trump, pulled out of what’s known as the Paris Accord last week, we began hearing echoes from 2001.

The good news is, once again, all the right people have gone overboard:

“President Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement is a devastating failure of historic proportions.”—U.S. Sen. Chuck Schumer.

“California will resist this misguided and insane course of action. Trump is AWOL, but California is on the field, ready for battle.”—Governor Jerry Brown.

“How is [the president] going to explain to his grandchildren what he did to the air they breathe—assuming they breathe air.”—U.S. Rep. Nancy Pelosi.

“Trump just committed a crime against humanity.”—Michael Moore.

For the record, Rosie O’Donnell’s Tweet was unprintable.

THE WALL Street Journal reports that, since Kyoto, the United States has reduced emissions faster than Europe due to, yes, those technology improvements that George W. Bush mentioned all those years ago. This time in the form of fracking, which frees up clean natural gas and keeps coal in the ground. The next technology improvement is coming. Bank on it.

The Paris Accord, for its part, was always more about momentum than anything else. To accomplish its goals— one of which is to limit global warming to just 2 degrees by 2100—countries are supposed to volunteer to reduce their carbon outputs “as soon as possible.” That means the United States. Here, we have the Sierra Club and Greenpeace and the Environmental Defense Fund and Ocean Conservancy and the League of Conservation Voters to keep courts and lobbyists busy with adhering to agreements. China, India, Russia, not so much.

As the president noted in his speech Thursday, these climate agreements call for developed countries to send billions of dollars to developing countries on top of what America already sends in foreign aid. Have our friends on the port side of American politics forgotten about the $20 trillion debt still on this nation’s credit card?

And for what? Our withdrawal from the Paris Accord won’t have much effect on the climate. China plans to build more coal plants immediately, and its deadline to reduce its greenhouse output is about 2030 or so. If then. And if, in 2030, China says it is reducing emissions, could we believe it?

What this nation’s withdrawal from the Paris Accord might do is keep American business humming along, without the obstacles these agreements set out. Until a more realistic, fair and effective carbon treaty can be negotiated.

Which might explain a lot of the gnashing of teeth around the globe— and from the American left.