In a week that included plenty of speculation on Jared Kushner and Russia, and a tweet typo called “covfefe”, you might not expect much of anything on the positive side coming out of the White House.

If you’re a member of the hand-wringing Left, you’re still feeling that way. If you’re on the Right side of the aisle, though, you should be pleased with President Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Paris Climate Accord.

Contrary to popular belief, the world did not come to an end on Thursday afternoon in the Rose Garden. The TV pundits and Hollywood elite are busy spreading that narrative as they tweet from their yachts, but this is just not the case.

Part of the liberal disgust at the president’s announcement surely has to do with his supposed attack on the legacy of one Barack Obama. President Trump continues to chip away at his mantelpiece of achievement, if that’s what you want to call it. As all voters uninterested in tribalism should do, I’ll continue to praise the good President Trump does and call out the bad.

Withdrawing from the Paris Climate Accord? This is a good move.

Before Trump’s announcement on Thursday, Rich Lowry at National Review argued for pulling out the agreement.

No U.S. interest is served by remaining part of the accord, which even its supporters say is mostly an exercise in window dressing — that is, when they aren’t insisting that the fate of the planet depends on it.

According to Benjamin Zycher of the American Enterprise Institute, even if Paris is fully implemented and you accept the Environmental Protection Agency’s model for how emissions affect warming, it will produce a rounding error’s worth of decline in the global temperature by 2100 — .17 of a degree Celsius.

Witness how hard it is to pull out of the Paris accord now, when it went into effect only last November.

President Barack Obama pretended that the treaty was an executive agreement — even though it involves 195 countries, and purports to bind future U.S. presidents — precisely so he could do an end run around the Senate.

After Trump’s announcement, David French, also of National Review, commended the president.

…before any president attempts to bind the United States to an enduring multinational accord, it’s his duty to convince the American people — through constitutional processes — that the agreement is in the best interests of the United States. Barack Obama failed to do this in 2015. Trump is right to reject his actions today.

If the consequences of climate change will be as catastrophic as alarmists fear, then the constitutional process becomes more important, not less.

Nonbinding pacts like the Paris Agreement, by contrast, are easily fractured and easily exploited. By definition, violating “voluntary” arrangements doesn’t breach international law, and the result is an international arrangement that will exist precisely as long as any country believes it remains in their best interests — and no longer. It’s inherently unstable.

American presidents have gotten into the disturbing habit of discarding constitutional process when they find it inconvenient.

All Americans should applaud the president’s move to reject the precarious piece of propaganda known as the climate accord. Supporting the withdrawal does not mean one is uninterested in maintaining an appropriate level of stewardship over the planet. In fact, it reveals a desire to address the issue at hand in the best manner possible: constitutionally.

This is where some members of the NeverTrump movement may feel less than enthusiastic. I readily admit I was a card-carrying member of the NT cause. However, my unmoving stance only lasted through election day. Currently, I am a cautious observer withholding applause until it’s due. The (R) next to any politician’s name doesn’t elicit automatic approval from me, nor should it.

President Donald Trump is not yet through the first half of his first year as president. In that short amount of time, little has been accomplished, despite broad proclamations on the campaign trail. It should be noted, however, when our leader makes a choice that is best for the country as a whole, despite what some, including other world leaders, say.

Breaking from the flimsy Paris Climate Accord, entered into by a legacy-seeking predecessor, is such a choice.