BEFORE YOU VOTE LOCALLY REPUBLICAN PLATFORM 2016

• R E P U B L I C A N P L A T F O R M 2 0 1 6 •
the-ground conservation in their states every day.
We support amending the Antiquities Act of 1906 to
establish Congress’ right to approve the designation
of national monuments and to further require the
approval of the state where a national monument is
designated or a national park is proposed.
There is certainly a need to protect certain
species threatened worldwide with extinction.
However, the Endangered Species Act (ESA) should
not include species such as gray wolves and other
species if these species exist elsewhere in healthy
numbers in another state or country. To upset the
economic viability of an area with an unneeded
designation costs jobs and hurts local communities.
We must ensure that this protection is done
effectively, reasonably, and without unnecessarily
impeding the development of lands and natural
resources. The ESA should ensure that the listing
of endangered species and the designation of
critical habitats are based upon sound science and
balance the protection of endangered species with
the costs of compliance and the rights of property
owners. Instead, over the last few decades, the
ESA has stunted economic development, halted the
construction of projects, burdened landowners, and
has been used to pursue policy goals inconsistent
with the ESA — all with little to no success in the
actual recovery of species. For example, we oppose
the listing of the lesser prairie chicken and the
potential listing of the sage grouse. Neither species
has been shown to be in actual danger and the
listings threaten to devastate farmers, ranchers, and
oil and gas production. While species threatened
with extinction must be protected under the ESA,
any such protection must be done in a reasonable
and transparent manner with stakeholder input and
in consideration of the impact on the development
of lands and natural resources.
Information concerning a changing climate,
especially projections into the long-range future,
must be based on dispassionate analysis of hard
data. We will enforce that standard throughout
the executive branch, among civil servants and
presidential appointees alike. The United Nations’
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is a
political mechanism, not an unbiased scientific
institution. Its unreliability is reflected in its
intolerance toward scientists and others who
dissent from its orthodoxy. We will evaluate its
recommendations accordingly. We reject the
agendas of both the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris
Agreement, which represent only the personal
commitments of their signatories; no such
agreement can be binding upon the United States
until it is submitted to and ratified by the Senate.
We demand an immediate halt to U.S. funding
for the U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate
Change (UNFCCC) in accordance with the 1994
Foreign Relations Authorization Act. That law prohibits
Washington from giving any money to “any
affiliated organization of the United Nations” which
grants Palestinians membership as a state. There is
no ambiguity in that language. It would be illegal
for the President to follow through on his intention
to provide millions in funding for the UNFCCC and
hundreds of millions for its Green Climate Fund.
We firmly believe environmental problems
are best solved by giving incentives for human
ingenuity and the development of new technologies,
not through top-down, command-and-control
regulations that stifle economic growth and cost
thousands of jobs.
22