Political implications of Trump opting out of the Paris Agreement

While the political establishment were still busy patting themselves on the back over Macron snubbing Trump, POTUS stumped them all by taking the US out of the Paris Climate Agreement (“He wouldn’t!” – Yes. Yes, he would). In doing so, Trump singlehandedly raised global temperatures by 0.3 degrees Celsius, per climate alarmists (you know, the ones who haven’t gotten a single prediction right so far). But Trump’s move does have some interesting implications.

  1. An “agreement” with the establishment means “Agree, or else”

Just like one can “agree” to join the EU and is free to leave whenever one desires, one can also voluntarily enter into an environmental pact with pretty much the rest of the world. As the UK is now finding out, leaving the “voluntary” association with the EU means the EU will do whatever it can to ruin your economy and hurt your citizens. Much in the same vein, elites across the Western world were in shock over the US pulling out of “Paris”, accusing the President of “rejecting the future” (Barack Obama), and “turning his back on the wisdom of humanity” (Koichi Yamamoto, Japan) and threatening that “our relationship with the US is at a crossroads” (Bert Koenders, The Netherlands).

Voluntary agreements with the establishment are only voluntary as long as you agree to do their bidding. Dissent is forbidden and whoever should break from the pack can trust to be hunted down by the pack. Argumentation and debate are of secondary importance, as the sheer numbers of establishment henchmen in politics, media and entertainment will be sure to drown out any defense of their challenger to anyone who doesn’t actively look for it. They will poke endlessly at your armor until cracks start to form and they will not rest until a complete takedown of the “unbeliever” has been achieved.

2. The establishment lose one of their favorite power plays

Establishment lackeys love killing debates about subjects that they do not want to be addressed. One popular way of doing so is to hide behind international treaties. Those are treaties that they have entered into themselves, by choice and by design, and the existence of a treaty is no reflection of objective truth – existence of a treaty is no argument for a proposition, the treaty is the proposition to be debated.

Opting out of a treaty is always a possibility, but it is a possibility that the establishment doesn’t want us to remember. There are no taboos, everything is negotiable. It just takes balls. Trump being Trump he has casually exposed another weakness in the armor of the establishment, striking back at their petty tactics with decided, defiant action. No big deal.

3. Climate change is more a political issue than a scientific one

There are huge vested interests on both sides of the climate change debate. As a layman it is impossible to be sure about the facts. My take as a layman is: it doesn’t matter. Whether manmade climate change is real or not, we have to cherish the environment and take care of the planet we live on. That’s common sense, and I cannot think of many people who would disagree. The climate change debate is a distraction; it has us discussing whether the planet could handle temperatures rising by 1.5 degree Celsius or 2 degrees, and whether we should reduce carbon emissions by 30%, 40% or whatever imagined figure someone might come up with. All the while we should be focusing on reducing our dependence on fossil fuels, and transitioning safely to a more sustainable solution.

What makes a safe and stable transition? That should be up to each country for itself to decide. There is ample reason to expect the fastest runners to run into the biggest problems, like Germany which is heading for serious trouble if they continue their push to phase out nuclear energy completely by 2022 and shift to 95% renewable energy. Aside from the cost of such an untertaking, there is the enormous variation in wind and solar power generation, which is seeing prices turn negative at some times while at the other times a fossil fuel backup supply is essential to meet demands. Also, as Dr. Robert E. Buxbaum has calculated, for the amount of power generated by a nuclear plant a solar farm would require more than 300 times as much land and a wind farm almost 600 times.

But environmentalists insist that there is no Plan B. Elon Musk and Bob Iger have withdrawn from the presidential council over “Paris”. They could join Trump in looking for a functional alternative that could still put us all on a path to a cleaner, more sustainable future, but without the unsustainable economical damage of the Paris agreement. But instead, the environmentalists are just going to take the all-or-nothing approach? There is no middle ground that could benefit both the environment and the economy? Either the environmentalists get their way all the way, or it’s “Fine, bring on the apocalypse.” That’s either some high stakes bluffing or – I don’t know – maybe it’s not going to be as bad as they would have us believe.

The piece of paper drawn up in Paris calls on the world to go all-in on green energy, and heretic Trump will receive some backlash over this from the establishment leaders in the West. But as it turns out, only 3 out of the 27 EU member states are actually living up to Paris Treaty standards. The rest are not on track to meet the goals that have been set, and upon which the fate of the world apparently depends. But they signed the treaty, so mission accomplished, it seems.

Trump rightly stated that the US is put at an unfair disadvantage because of the Paris treaty, even if it was voluntary overzealousness on Obama’s part that set the standards impossibly high. The US has been leading the charge in investments in the Green Climate Fund, and the US would be shutting down its coal production while other countries would expand the production of cheap, but polluting energy. Obama may have believed in the goals he set out to achieve when he (unilaterally, without going through Congress – another point on which Trump is being attacked, but which was fine with the world as long as the outcome suited them) signed the US to these targets, but there is no way of telling. The environment and climate change are a dealbreaker for progressives. Hesitating was not an option for Obama – the US would have to lead by example, even if just on paper. Paradoxically enough, his credibility for the left depended on it. It is easier to explain to left-wing voters that the goals will not be met than that their leaders did not set the bar as high as (im)possible.

Signing the Paris Agreement in the first place was primarily a political act, not a scientific statement. This is true for both Obama and the EU leaders, who either were aware that their promises were unrealistic or didn’t give it much thought, because their political future depended on it.



One comment

Leave a Reply

Het e-mailadres wordt niet gepubliceerd. Vereiste velden zijn gemarkeerd met *