The Paris Agreement to “Fight Climate Change”
Updated: Nov 14, 2020
What you need to know… and why it’s a terrible deal for America which accomplishes nothing -- except shoveling wads of cash to China and India.
We all are aware of a changing climate. No one alive for more than 10 minutes “denies” this. Let’s be clear, so no one can take anything out of context --
The Earth’s climate is changing.
The fact I need to report on, or highlight this seems unnecessary but within minutes of publication of any article regarding this phenomenon it seems that people “in the know” i.e. main stream media, feel the need to immediately file this type of information into one of two camps -- (by design, more on this later), of either climate change denier or “following the science” by parroting the MSM “approved message” that doesn’t immediately get one thrown into the information industries’ version of gulag of kooks, nutjobs, and crazies… Essentially, people who had the audacity to vote for Trump.
FUN FACT: This is not how science works.
Beating people down doesn’t make what you’re saying a true statement, any more than getting beaten down doesn’t make you correct either. Science is what science is -- following evidence, coming up with hypotheses, and replicating things until they can’t be disproven.
Politics is the wrench in this formula that has a tendency to make multiple variant analysis into a single hot button issue that forces people into their ideological camps, in the US this is extremely evident in the complete partisanship of an issue that really isn’t partisan … at all.
No one wants to destroy the environment.
Not the Republicans
OR the Democrats.
This should not be controversial or an inflammatory statement, but in today’s current political environment, it is. Democrats have literally labelled people who disagree with their “solutions” as people who want the world to burn and don’t care about anything. On its’ face this is a ridiculous statement but years of propaganda have made millions of people believe it to be an axiomatic truth.
The facts are: the Paris agreement, is essentially an agreement to voluntarily reduce carbon emissions… which I believe most people, Republicans included, are happy to go along with; its the next part that makes them uncomfortable, the redistribution of money to other countries, with no guarantees on how they use this “funding” or any clear way to monitor the compliance of these countries which are historically known to ignore their own obligations.
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt said that the Paris Climate Agreement "Did not hold China and India accountable," and that "India didn't have to take any steps in the agreement to reduce CO2 emissions until they received $2.5 trillion in aid. China didn't have to take any steps until the year 2030."
Under the Paris agreement, developed countries such as the United States pledge to provide funding and technical support to developing countries such as India and China to assist with emissions reductions.
Americans will be funding the countries who produce 80% of the emissions while having no way to enforce any aspect of the way funds are spent.
This is beyond “problematic”, this is simply a bad deal for Americans who have already maintained their own emissions levels to be in line with the standards proposed -- they just have no obligation to fund the other countries in the Paris agreement, some of whom, as I type this, are drilling new coal mines and refineries.
The end result of all this "trust and love" country relations policy, is that if by some divine miracle all countries did in fact comply we "might" reduce the global temperature 1.x Celsius degree in a hundred years... To the tune of trillions of dollars spent, with the majority of that financing coming from the good ol' U.S. of A.
Of course the rest of the world was critical when we pulled out of this agreement, being the cash cow makes you the bad guy when you decide to rethink things, but we are now on the cusp of re entry and we need to ask ourselves
Do the interests of the American citizens matter? Or is being "liked" the most important part of American foreign relations?
The answer to these questions are the Republican and Democrat party platforms. Thinking this facts through and voting accordingly should be a no-brainer, but virtue signalling as policy is more emotionally satisfying, albeit far more expensive with little to no result.
All for now.