THE CLIMATE ACCORD: GOOD OR BAD DEAL?

Posted on June 10, 2017 by

1,352



Make America Think Again
Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Share on LinkedInPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

print
By: Christian Rogers

Today’s Quote

“The overwhelming majority of climate-research funding comes from the federal government and left-wing foundations. And while the energy industry funds both sides of the climate debate, the government/foundation monies go only toward research that advances the warming regulatory agenda. With a clear public-policy outcome in mind, the government/foundation gravy train is a much greater threat to scientific integrity.” – HENRY PAYNE

 

Time Check

June 10, 1898 – US Marines land in Cuba during Spanish-American War.

June 10, – US Equal Pay Act signed into law by Presiden JFK.

June 10, – 1977 Apple Computer ships its first Apple II computers.

 

 

 

real time

Iss. 62

June 10, 2017

 

Dear Thinkers,

As you know, last week President Trump announced the withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord. Since then, many on both sides of the aisle have erupted into a panic, acting as if the sky is actually falling and the ocean rising. In accordance, one of those may not be a mere figure of speech.  

 

Climate science aside* , this deal—like any deal—deserves fair examination. In other words, the basis that this particular deal covers climate science does not somehow excuse it from the same scrutiny that every other must pass. Therefore, allow us to zoom in past the misinformation and take a look at the Paris Accord itself.

 

*  Which in my opinion happens to support Trump’s decision. More on that later…

 

WHAT’S IN THE DEAL?

For some reason I think I should reiterate: Even the staunchest believer in Man Made Climate Change, can and should determine whether or not they like the attributes of this particular deal. Instead of blindly stating that Trump is out to turn the Globe into a massive exhaust pipe, we should hold our tongues and do at least the minimal amount of research necessary…lest we spew some unnecessary CO2 into the atmosphere. In short: save your breath unless you have something wise to say.

HOW WAS IT PASSED?

For the duration of the past week, we were constantly reminded (from pundits, journalists, politicians, actors, and all of the above who often pose as journalists) that Trump had no right to abolish the agreement that was made in Paris.

 

There are two errors cloaked within this narrative:

 

  1. The U.S. recanning on the arrangement does not void the deal. These same mouthpieces in the media keep reminding us that the rest of the world is going along with it and therefore it is lunacy not to abide. “Get in line,” they say, “everyone’s doing it.”

Aside from the obvious dilemmas like, “If everyone else is doing it therefore it is must be a good idea” and with it the violation of every mother’s parenting, the major inconsistency here is that my detractors are, in essence, proving my point! If the U.S. is instrumental to the deal’s success and the deal (as noted will go on but), will have no positive global effect without the U.S. participation, then it is obvious that the deal is unjust. Yes, the United States is a major polluter. both the Prius driver with the Bernie sticker and I can agree on that. Global warming/cooling/climate change aside (that’s right, the first Earth Day was founded on the premise of ‘Global Cooling’ and the fear of a giant ice age, not to mention the original ‘Global Warming’ rhetoric has now been downgraded to ‘Climate Change’ which literally means anything, and if you deny that the climate changes then you either live in Southern California, or you’re an idiot… I have entertained the possibility that I may well be both) But my point is that India and China are getting away with Environmental BLOODY MURDER. And the Left, who should agree with this and condemn these major polluters, is instead turning a blind eye, all in the name of some fuzzy, cuddly, wasted deal, that only puts the planet on the fast track toward the popsicle apocalypse… also known as the, “aPopsicleypse,” don’t laugh lest you be called a denier…which in that case you will get no Popsicles… (if you work in the science industry you will be granted no government funding which is the essential equivalent… *See below for more info). So which is it? The deal sucks and the only good part was that the U.S. set fairly good goals and nobody else did? Or that the deal is great, and therefore the U.S. leaving the table will not change the dinner plans? I think the first.

 

The deal was bad, and we can still set goals to curb (or even eliminate through technological advances, awareness, and sacrifices) pollution here at home. We are afterall a nation, the Climate Summit was made up of nations. As noted, there is no enforcement mechanism. And without such teeth, I remind you that we can still devote ourself to green energy goals here at home—without Paris, without the bullshit—and we may have the potential to have greater environmental impact and success in doing so. For instance, rather than handing 3 billion dollars to other corrupt governments (in addition to the foreign aid that we currently deliver voluntarily), why not invest that $3B into clean energy here at home? And that is just one simple solution I thought of while sitting here at a coffee shop, can’t we expect the (so called) great minds like politicians and Climate Science Professors to do better? But at the very least, such a solution is one that both sides of the aisle should entertain (assuming some of us aren’t hypocrites). Cough Cough… Wait, don’t cough with me, CO2 is a pollutant.

 

*Think about it… Why do you think so many scientists agree that Man-Made Climate Change is a real disaster. If you dissent, your funds will be pulled. There is no point in paying a hefty dollar for a situation that is not dire… for more on that read this article.

 

  1.   The Deal wasn’t voted upon

President Obama, lacking support in Congress, rammed this deal through unilaterally (which is the softball version of tyrannically). I could mention the Constitutional concerns that I have with this, but since President Obama and the Left prefer to refer to the Constitution as a dusty old document, I’ll refrain from the rant about how Congress should have approved such an action (after all, the whole rule-of-law ideology is sooo outdated). But that said, If President Obama has the ability to start such a deal, why then is it “illegal,” for President Trump to stop it? Did the Presidency change in the last year? Did Obama poses super powers granted by the electorate that all other Presidents lack?

 

Well, that case can be made, and it has been made by Obama himself as he mentions his “pen and a phone” that he used to single handedly legislate from Pennsylvania Avenue with. (If you know the separation of powers doctrine—or for that matter watched School House Rock—you know that the President has NO BUSINESS writing laws. That makes him a despot, but I digress.

 

Was his pen and phone bigger than Trump’s? …wait don’t answer that, you know what they say about Trump’s hands

 

But laughably, President Obama DID possess these powers at one point, and come as it may, he obtained them legally! Yet, he failed to do anything with them? Why?

 

In a Seattle Times piece from a few years back,

Sen. Harry Reid, the Senate Democratic minority leader, said climate change poses one of the greatest threats the world has ever known, and that no country acting alone can stem the tide.

 

“The time to act is now,” the Nevada lawmaker said.

 

Obama, Pelosi, Sanders, and the rest of the Democrats have all said the same thing. They are not shy about voicing that Climate Change is the GREATEST threat to the modern world. An immediate threat. Not ISIS, not Russia, not the Economy, not China, not Iran, not even N. Korea.

 

But if the time to act is now, then why DIDN’T THEY ACT???

 

That’s correct, with all branches of government in his pocket, Obama and the Democrats ignored the greatest threat to humanity and instead opted that the usurpation of ⅕ of the economy, The Affordable Care Act, was instead of utmost importance. Just think, we could have saved the world. Instead, we’ve co-signed our children to poverty, to dirty air, dirty water, and a planet with such extreme weather that the earth won’t be livable (not my words, theirs), and if they truly believe this, wouldn’t you ask, “Why the hell didn’t you do anything?”     

 

Maybe, they’re cruel. But maybe (and more likely) they don’t believe in it. That is the only other rational answer. And here is where you begin to see that the Democrat’s leadership can only be one of two things: Manipulative or Insane. Which is it? I think you know the answer to that, these are smart people we’re talking about.

 

Either way, you begin to realize that Trump’s motion to withdraw from the Paris Accord (even if you still believe it was a poor choice) was not an evil decision, will not devastate the world overnight, and was not morally wrong. Nor will it make much of a difference… And if it was good in principle and good for the planet (which I’m not sure is true)  it was undoubtedly a bad deal for the nation of the United States. And when you think about it, Trump was elected to run a nation, not an atmosphere. To do that, it would require super powers.

Can we at least appreciate that he was looking out for our own interest? That is, after all, his job.

 

Keep it Real.

Christian Rogers

 

 

The Real Times- a degree in common sense…

 

~Intellectual Entertainment~

E-mail the author at: christianrogers@realtimesblog.com

Or Leave a Comment below and let us know what you think

A special thanks to everyone for reading. Please forward this issue to anyone who you think could benefit. Or sign up for your free weekly issues. Help us spread Common Sense.

Make America Think Again
Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Share on LinkedInPin on PinterestEmail this to someone
Posted in: Climate, Politics