Tag Archives: Paris Climate Accord

Will Paris Riots Scuttle Climate Accord? by Patrick J. Buchanan

Environmentalism is great until somebody has to pay for it. From Patrick J. Buchanan at buchanan.org:

In Katowice, Poland, all the signers of the 2015 Paris climate accord are gathered to assess how the world’s nations are meeting their goals to cut carbon emissions.

Certainly, the communications strategy in the run-up was impressive.

In October came that apocalyptic U.N. report warning that the world is warming faster than we thought and the disasters coming sooner than we thought.

What disasters? More and worse hurricanes, uncontrollable fires, floods, the erosion of coastlines, typhoons, drought, tsunamis, the sinking of islands into the sea.

In November, a scientific report issued by 13 U.S. agencies warned that if greater measures are not taken to reduce global warming, the damage could knock 10 percent off the size of the U.S. economy by century’s end.

At the G-20 meeting in Buenos Aires, 19 of the attending nations recommitted to the Paris accord. Only President Trump’s America did not.

Yet, though confidence may abound in Katowice that the world will meet the goals set down in Paris in 2015, the global environmentalists seem to be losing momentum and losing ground.

Consider what happened this weekend in France.

Saturday, rage over a fuel tax President Emmanuel Macron has proposed to cut carbon emissions brought mobs into the heart of Paris, where they battled police, burned cars, looted, smashed show windows of elite stores such as Dior and Chanel, and desecrated the Arc de Triomphe.

In solidarity with the Paris rioters, protests in other French cities erupted.

Virulently anti-elite, the protesters say they cannot make ends meet with the present burdens on the working and middle class.

Continue reading

Advertisements

Berkeley Scholar Admits “Climate Change Has Run Its Course”, by Stephen Hayward

Climate change may or may not be real, and if it is, it may or may not be man made, but as an issue that moves the masses, it’s fizzled. From Stephen Hayward at The Wall Street Journal via zerohedge.com:

Blasphemy!!

Its descent into social-justice identity politics is the last gasp of a cause that has lost its vitality…

Climate change is over. No, I’m not saying the climate will not change in the future, or that human influence on the climate is negligible. I mean simply that climate change is no longer a pre-eminent policy issue. All that remains is boilerplate rhetoric from the political class, frivolous nuisance lawsuits, and bureaucratic mandates on behalf of special-interest renewable-energy rent seekers.

Judged by deeds rather than words, most national governments are backing away from forced-marched decarbonization. You can date the arc of climate change as a policy priority from 1988, when highly publicized congressional hearings first elevated the issue, to 2018. President Trump’s ostentatious withdrawal from the Paris Agreement merely ratified a trend long becoming evident.

A good indicator of why climate change as an issue is over can be found early in the text of the Paris Agreement. The “nonbinding” pact declares that climate action must include concern for “gender equality, empowerment of women, and intergenerational equity” as well as “the importance for some of the concept of ‘climate justice.’ ” Another is Sarah Myhre’s address at the most recent meeting of the American Geophysical Union, in which she proclaimed that climate change cannot fully be addressed without also grappling with the misogyny and social injustice that have perpetuated the problem for decades.

The descent of climate change into the abyss of social-justice identity politics represents the last gasp of a cause that has lost its vitality. Climate alarm is like a car alarm – a blaring noise people are tuning out.

This outcome was predictable. Political scientist Anthony Downs described the downward trajectory of many political movements in an article for the Public Interest, “Up and Down With Ecology: The ‘Issue-Attention Cycle,’ ” published in 1972, long before the climate-change campaign began. Observing the movements that had arisen to address issues like crime, poverty and even the U.S.-Soviet space race, Mr. Downs discerned a five-stage cycle through which political issues pass regularly.

To continue reading: Berkeley Scholar Admits “Climate Change Has Run Its Course”

Climate Exit, by John Stossel

Somebody has something nice to say about Mike Pompeo…and SLL agrees with it! From John Stossel at theburningplatform.com:

Climate Exit

President Trump’s pick to be the new secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, is not a fan of the Paris climate agreement, the treaty that claims it will slow global warning by reducing the world’s carbon dioxide emissions. Politicians from most of the world’s nations signed the deal, and President Obama said “we may see this as the moment that we finally decided to save our planet.”

That’s dubious.

Trump wisely said he will pull America out of the deal. He called it a “massive redistribution of United States wealth to other countries.”

Unfortunately, Trump often reverses himself.

The climate change lobby has been trying to change Trump’s mind. Al Gore called his stance “reckless and indefensible.” Most of the media agree. So do most of my neighbors in New York.

That’s why it’s good that Pompeo opposes the Paris deal. Such treaties are State Department responsibilities. Pompeo is more likely to hold Trump to his word than his soon-to-be predecessor Rex Tillerson, who liked the agreement.

The Paris accord is a bad deal because even if greenhouse gases really are a huge threat, this treaty wouldn’t do much about them.

I’ll bet Al Gore and most of the media don’t even know what’s in the accord. I didn’t until I researched it for this week’s YouTube video.

Manhattan Institute senior fellow Oren Cass is the rare person who actually read the Paris accord.

Cass tells me it’s “somewhere between a farce and a fraud.” I interviewed him for a video project I am doing with City Journal, a smart policy magazine that often makes the case for smaller government. “You don’t even have to mention greenhouse gases in your commitment if you don’t want to. You send in any piece of paper you want.”

The Paris accord was just political theater, he says. “They stapled it together and held it up and said, ‘This is amazing!’”

To continue reading: Climate Exit

Withdrawing From Paris Accord Helps America’s Most Vulnerable, by Blaine Conzatti

If the economy is impaired by regulations and taxes, it’s axiomatic that those on the economy’s bottom rungs will bear some of the costs, a fact rarely acknowledged by those pushing for regulations and taxes. In fact, they often perpetuate the canard that regulations and taxes somehow help the poor. From Blaine Conzatti at mises.org:

Are you concerned about the poor’s economic welfare? If so, you should celebrate President Trump’s announcement that the United States will withdraw itself from the Paris Agreement.

The Paris climate accord, which was ratified last year, attempts to “brings all nations into a common cause to undertake ambitious efforts to combat climate change and adapt to its effects.” Supporters of the agreement claim it is necessary to avert the disastrous consequences of climate change.

Regrettably, the plan’s supporters are committing the greatest economic fallacy, which Henry Hazlitt, the acclaimed economics writer, warned about in his most prominent work, Economics in One Lesson(1946):

The bad economist sees only what immediately strikes the eye; the good economist also looks beyond. The bad economist sees only the direct consequences of the proposed course; the good economist looks also at the longer and indirect consequences.

While laypeople, pundits, scientists, and economists have focused their attention on what Trump’s decision might mean for climate change, these groups have largely ignored the effect of the agreement on poorer American households. Here are three reasons why withdrawing from the Paris Agreement is good for the poor:

The Paris Agreement raises energy costs for hardworking American households.

Under the agreement, the United States pledged to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 26-28% below its 2005 level by 2025. This would be accomplished by transitioning from fossil fuels to renewable sources of energy.

Although renewable energy will likely become the technology of the future, prematurely transitioning to “greener” sources creates a problem for Americans struggling to make ends meet.

Right now, these alternative sources of energy are far more expensive (and less reliable) than traditional sources. A study published last year found that “electricity from new wind and solar power is 2.5 to 5 times more expensive than electricity from existing coal and nuclear power.”

To continue reading: Withdrawing From Paris Accord Helps America’s Most Vulnerable

Bravo! Trump’s Climate Haymaker Is The Greatest Blow To Statism Ever, Part 1, by David Stockman

The Paris Climate Change Agreement was just another statist monstrosity, and David Stockman applauds President Trump’s withdrawal of the US from it. He also provides valuable historical and prehistorical perspective on the earth’s temperature. From Stockman at lewrockwell.com:

Who would have thunk it? The most statist GOP President of modern times—-and he’s got considerable company—-just delivered one of the greatest blows to statism ever.

We have welcomed the Donald all along as the Great Disrupter, but yesterday’s Rose Garden haymaker was above and beyond the call of duty. It was vintage Trump—no double-talking mainstream speech-crafter slipped in even a hint of equivocation. Not a single olive branch of accommodation was offered to the ruling elites anywhere on the planet.

To be sure, the whole thing was done in the name of a pugnacious “America First” narrative; and it was delivered by a forceful but unprincipled occupant of the Oval Office who has appointed himself America’s jobs czar.

Needless to say, that’s not the same thing at all as liberating the free market to generate jobs, economic value and true prosperity—-or even to leave the people at liberty to fish, hunt, hike, drink and be merry if they wish. But the Donald’s motivation was a whole lot better than that of the legions of government apparatchiks, liberals, environmental scolds, regulators, globalists, crony capitalists, lobbyists, media megaphones, etc. who were cringing and harrumphing at every word of his magnificent Rose Garden rebuke.

Now more than ever, we are sure that the Donald will be carried out on his shield. But what a glorious battle he promises to give on the way out!

After all, exiting the Paris Accord had nothing much to do with genuine environmental policy; nor was it even really about American jobs for that matter.

Those kinds of policy wonk debates—about parts per million of C02 and the relative number of coal-miner versus solar panel installer jobs—-the ruling elites thrive upon.

To continue reading: Bravo! Trump’s Climate Haymaker Is The Greatest Blow To Statism Ever, Part 1

 

A Pat on His Orange Head, by Eric Peters

Eric Peters applauds President Trump’s decision to pull the US out of the Paris Climate Change Agreement. From Peters at theburningplatform.com:

At last, something.

Trump “pulled out” of the Paris Climate Change Agreement – agreed to by his predecessor back in 2015 and awaiting a majoritarian 55 of the earth’s nations to agree before it becomes binding within those countries.

That is to say upon the people within those countries – who had no say in the matter whatsoever beyond the gauzy connection between a Dear Leader, who may have received the electoral support of a minority of the citizenry at some distant election, claiming to “represent” them when he says Aye.

Trump’s saying Nay – regardless of the reasons why – is (yes) huge.

Especially as regards your car.

New – and old.

This has not been much discussed but ought to be.

Both, you see, “emit” carbon dioxide. Not much – the total atmospheric concentration of C02 is less than half a percent of the “air” we breath. Which is mostly nitrogen – almost 80 percent – the remaining almost 20 percent being oxygen and lesser gases.

There is much more Argon in the “air” – almost one full percent of the total! – than C02. But because Argon does not come out of the tailpipes of cars, it is not regarded as an agent of “climate change.”

But C02 is, we’re told – and the Paris Agreement would have cemented its regulation as a “pollutant,” just like gasses you can smell and which make you sick or even kill you – none of which carbon dioxide, in the fractional amounts produced by motor vehicles, could even possibly do to you.

Keep in mind that the grand total of all the carbon dioxide from every source, natural as well as man-made, that is floating around in the “air” is less than half of one percent of the total.

What percentage of that less-than-half-a-percent do you suppose is produced by motor vehicles?

To continue reading: A Pat on His Orange Head

Studying the Climate Doesn’t Make You an Expert on Economics and Politics, by Ryan McMaken

Pure science may yield the conclusion that the earth is warming. However, pure science neither offers the most efficacious solution, if a solution is either desirable or possible, nor can it endorse present attempts at a solution, such as the Paris Climate Accord. From Ryan McMaken at mises.org:

n response to the Trump administration’s announcement that it was pulling out of the Paris Climate Accord, some of his critics declared that anyone who likes “science” would have supported the accord.

Not surprisingly, Neil deGrasse Tyson rushed to declare that Trump supported the withdrawal because his administration “never learned what Science is or how and why it works.”

But what does “Science” (which Tyson capitalizes for some reason) have to do with it? 

We know that Tyson is of the opinion that there is global warming. We also know that many other physical scientists agree with him.

40FB8A7E00000578-4561928-Astrophysicist_Neil_deGrasse_Tyson_suggested_that_Trump_didn_t_u-a-19_1496330408968_0.jpg

But, it does not follow logically that agreeing with Tyson on the matter of climate change must necessarily mean supporting the Paris Climate Agreement.

After all, the Paris Climate Agreement isn’t a scientific study. It’s a political document that lays out a specific public-policy agenda. 

Agreement or disagreement with the accord might hint at one’s opinions about climate science. Or it might not. One can agree that climate change exists and that human beings have a large role in the phenomenon. Agreement on this matter, however, does not dictate that one must also agree with the political policies outlined in the Paris document.

The two are totally independent phenomena.

Science and Politics Are Not the Same Thing

An analogy might help illustrate further:

Scientific inquiry tells us that obesity is bad for one’s health. Let’s imagine then, that in response to rising obesity rates, a large number of politicians gather and sign an agreement — let’s call it the London Obesity Avoidance Deal (LOAD). The supporting politicians claim that the deal will reduce obesity and that failure to abide by the agreement will spell a health crisis for humanity.

Does this mean, then, that any politician who doesn’t sign onto the agreement is an “obesity denier”? Does a failure to approve of the agreement prove that the dissenters believe that obesity is not a real thing? 

Obviously not. 

To continue reading: Studying the Climate Doesn’t Make You an Expert on Economics and Politics