Paris Climate Accord
Trump withdrew from Obama's non-binding agreement (either that unconstitutional treaty). And agreed to consider future ones, if there's a better deal. This was because anyone that glanced at it, knew it wasn't a good deal or about climate but wealth redistribution (from America and American businesses/jobs). And of course the left/media that disliked it under Obama, suddenly loves it, lies to its base about what it means, and their followers are in hysterics about something that did no good, a lot of bad, and since they can't argue on the merits, they use fallacies and lies to tell each other about what a big deal this is. This article covers the details.
- If the Paris Climate Accord (PCA) was important, then Obama would have worked on this to get it signed and ratified the right way, when he controlled super-majority in the Senate and had the house. Instead, this was only important as he was leaving office, and then not important enough to do right (get ratified)
- At the time it was passed, the left complained because it was toothless (non-binding) and didn't achieve anything, except costs.  They admitted the many flaws that I'll get into later.
- Then Donald Trump followed through on a campaign promise to get out of this disaster, and agreed to consider going back in, if we got terms less hostile to the U.S. It was actually reasonable, well laid out speech, that was logical.
- Our frenemies in France, Germany and so on, all said they wouldn't renegotiate terms: proving Trump was right to walk away. (They were not interested in making anything agreeable in an agreement: that's called extortion).
- Of course the LSM (Left-Stream fake-media), most of which had never read the actual agreement proved their bias by not explaining to their readers/viewers what this means in logical/scientific terms -- they went full melting snowflake. Discrediting themselves on objectivity (NPR, CNN, NYT, Wikipedia, and so on).
- This is the same scam that happened with the Kyoto protocol, was also "passed" without the U.S. -- then the U.S. refused to officially sign. No one cared during Clinton. Once George Bush walked away, they pretended he hated the environment and our kids. The results in the graph show that we outperformed countries that HAD ratified the agreement and ones like Russia, Japan, and Canada walked away, when they weren't able to achieve their more modest goals than ours. (Yes, Japan walked away from the Kyoto agreement). While we over-peroformed on the goals, without even being in the treaty any more.
- The conservatives, instead of appealing to emotion, explained the facts to those who wanted to get informed and not just submit to TDS. The mainstream media chose to ignore those facts as inconvenient to their agenda.
Remember, this has nothing to do with the environment. We know this because PCA does virtually nothing to slow global warming in any materially way. It does a lot to redistribute wealth (the stated objective of the IPCC and others). And UN Climate Economist admitted it already: it's about wealth redistribution. So the folks that fly to events like this on private jets, aren't angry about Climate, they're angry because Trump and the U.S. still opts out of their wealth redistribution guilt trips, or not being willing to give up our sovereignty and national interests to false flag efforts of "Environmentalism". They're mad because there's still non-gullible, skeptical thinkers left, after generations of attempted indoctrination.
In 1997 Bill Clinton wanted the U.S. to sign on to the Kyoto Protocol. Industrialised countries would be legally obliged to cut their greenhouse gas emissions 5% on 1990 levels by 2008-2012.
This precursor to Paris Climate Accord exempted 80% of the world, especially the emerging world (like China/India) where most growth in CO2 was going to come from, and would cause serious harm to the US economy. And of course countries that failed wouldn't be held accountable for failing, unless they were the U.S.
The Senate (including Democrats) realized what a bad idea this was, so Robert Byrd co-sponsored and the entire Senate unanimously passed the Byrd Hagel Resolution 95-0.. So back then Democrats felt the more modest cost and goals (over Paris) were still way too damaging to the economy, and grotesquely unfair to the U.S. So while Clinton signed the treaty, the U.S. never became a signatory.
After the U.S. pulled out, we continued to innovate without destroying our economy, and over-performed on the CO2 goals of the agreement anyways. Meanwhile countries like Canada, Japan and Russia all failed to achieve their goals, and pulled out of the agreement. And the environmentalists attacked the U.S. which did more to reduce pollution than the others they worshipped. This isn't about the environment.
What do we know?
If the left had the facts on their side, they'd lay out their arguments clearly and logically. Instead they used logical fallacies. That shows either: (a) they're all idiots (that don't know how to discuss the facts), or (b) they're smart, and know that since the facts aren't on their side, they'll use the arguments of emotion hoping their base isn't wise/logical enough to see through it:
- The appeal to pity fallacy ("what about the children?")
- The chicken little fallacy (cities will be destroyed)
- Appeal to popularity fallacy (everyone else is doing it)
- Appeal to celebrity fallacy (these famous people think it's a bad idea).
- Appeal to authority (but a few businesses/leaders are against leaving).
- Appeal to gullibility (fake economic/social damage that will happen because of this treaty that would have no impact on any of those things).
And other emotional distractions. Those aren't the arguments of those that care about the environment or the science. If they cared, they'd lay out the costs of the accord, and the benefits, like the President did, and just show why people should care.
How useless was it?
It was a non non-binding, unenforceable agreement that did nothing for the environment.
If every country had followed the agreement to the letter (something that wasn't going to happen, since there was no auditing, enforcement or consequences), it still wouldn't have made any measurable difference. We're talking .05°'s less warming, on 4° of total warming. (And rounding is .1°, so the positive difference is below the rounding error). And that's a BEST CASE scenario.
Whether you agree with AGW or not, just look at the facts/fairness:
- The U.S. has some of the most stringent emissions controls laws/regulations, and has made massive strides in the last 50 years, and was one of the only country to exceed their Kyoto goals, despite opting out of the agreement.
- Not only does the U.S. have the same goals as others who've done none of the low-cost cleanup (so it'll be far easier to hit their goals), the U.S. has much harder targets than any of the others. And while it's a non-binding agreement, meaning there's no consequences for the others missing their goals, the U.S. is always the world's whipping post, if we don't achieve the much harder goals set for us.
- For numbers: the U.S. was expected to cut emissions by 26% (CO2 by 18%), while China and India (which had no emission controls) just had to reduce by 20% and 4% respectively. Japan and Germany by 4% and 2.5% respectively.
So if it wasn't about the environment, and wasn't fair, what was it about?
- It was about wealth redistribution and paying $100B to poor countries <- follow the money
- In Europe, their green energy costs 3x as much as in America -- they wanted to drive up our costs to make themselves more competitive (or at less of a disadvantage).
- Europe and Japan are low growth 1st world economies, the U.S. is much more growth based -- so this was a way to burden that growth and "even the playing field". (Meaning we didn't have as many burdens on our economy as those liberal meccas, so they wanted to punish us, to make things more fair).
- It would cause an overall annual average shortfall of nearly 400,000 jobs; an aggregate gross domestic product (GDP) loss of over $2.5 trillion, and a total income loss of more than $20,000 for a family of four, and increases in household electricity expenditures of between 13 percent and 20 percent
INdustry Leaders 99% of the theoretical warming
Speed up climate change
This treaty does not have any significant climate impact even if ratified and complied with 100%. The chief climate economist of the United Nations acknowledged that this has very little to do with the environment. He said that they are de facto redistributing the worlds' wealth via climate policy. The EU Climate Minister said publicly that it's about "leveling the playing field." The fact is, the more wealthy people there are the cleaner our environment is. Wealthy folks have enough disposable income to worry about it. In 1990, America represented 24% of the world's total pollution. As of 2016 we produce just 16%. That's attributable to frakking and natural gas. The cost of solar is rapidly declining and is actually cheaper than natural gas and electricity and coal in some precincts. According to Christopher Horner just now on Fox News, fuel poverty (as it's called in England) is causing tens of thousands of premature deaths in England alone.
If Donald Trump found the cure to cancer, these FakeNews outlets would complain about how he put Hospitals and Healthcare workers out of jobs.
There was screaming about how we needed to sign the Paris Climate Accord, or how removing ourselves from it was the end of humanity. The facts are:
- it was a huge, economy destroying cost
- it would have had no significant impact on the Climate (or Climate Change) even if followed
- the U.S. had exceeded the objectives without ever being a ratifier of it.
- Before (Hated it):
- Trump Speech:
- Full Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3wE7MO1uSw
- Paris Climate Accord:
- After (Histrionics):
- Just the facts:
- Follow the money:
- Byrd Hagel: http://www.nationalcenter.org/KyotoSenate.html
- What difference does it make?
UnConstitional Treaty |}