Last week, President Donald Trump pulled the U.S. out of the Paris Accord on Climate Change. And predictably, the left lost their minds. The Accord, an economic disaster by almost any measure, made sure that Western nations paid billions and billions in “carbon taxes” while other developing nations, including major powers like China and India, paid nothing. It was a scheme, cloaked in “science,” by which to redistribute the wealth of the West, and nothing more. It was the right decision, at the right time, by a leader who put his nations interests above those which relied solely on a future unknown.
If the reports about the Accord are accurate, the changes made to emissions by the signatories would decrease global temperatures by 0.17 degrees by the year 2100. It would cost untold trillions of dollars to do so over that time; dollars that would be taken from the prosperous nations and given to the poorest in the form of a Carbon Tax. Notice they do not even try and hide this fact:
A group of 14 economists published a report Tuesday claiming that the world needs a $4 trillion tax on carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions to stop global warming.
The study suggests that a tax should be levied on fossil fuel use, taxing between $50 to $100 per ton of CO2 emitted. Proceeds could support green energy, given out as aid to poor countries, or be redistributed back to the population. The World Bank and French government financed the study.
Is the earth warming? Sure, but almost negligibly; and the dire predictions made over the last few decades haven’t been close to coming true. Should we do what we can to reduce CO2 emissions? Yes, it certainly sounds like it would be good for the environment. Should we stand for the globalists extracting wealth from certain nations and giving it to others as a means to help “solve” the problem? Absolutely not. The US is a sovereign nation and should never enter into any agreements to its detriment; it would be economic suicide. A nation, first and foremost, should have the prosperity of its own citizens as its goal, not the world.
Climate science, as a science, has an abysmal track record of accuracy. As a predictive model, it is a failure. Science is about repeatable, predictable results and climate science models to date have given us anything but accurate results.
Human CO2 emission is such a small part of the overall climate picture that we should not cripple nations from economic advancements. But at the same time, we should also be encouraging them to adopt strategies to reduce harmful environmental agents. That seems sensible. The science around climate change could be more right than wrong; time will tell. Until it is, it hardly seems worth the alarmist proclamations we often read.
The problem really lies in the economic models put forward to tackle this problem. It should never be used as a reason for one nation to fund another. At best, they are unworkable. At worst, they are a Marxist redistribution of wealth between nations.
Bowing to the histrionics of those for whom the topic of Climate Change has become an immutable religious doctrine is not the solution for a countries economic prosperity, nor is it the right way to affect change for the good of the planet. Why is it that celebrities and the wealthy want to lecture us on what must be done, yet live with carbon footprints 10 to 20 times that of the average person? Actions are the best indication of what one truly believes, not words. At times, humanity thinks a little too much of itself and its ability to do what is right.