Hot air surrounds climate deal withdrawal
Urgent weather alert! That warming trend now sweeping the globe isn’t the result of climate change, but hot air from the hysterical, frantic reaction to the United States withdrawing from the Paris climate agreement.
These folks need to chill, because the only thing rising faster than sea levels is their blood pressure. And that’s too bad, since their mercurial reactions are woefully misguided. Pulling out of the Paris agreement isn’t the planet’s death knell. In fact, it may turn out to be the best motivator for combatting carbon emissions. Just as nature needs a severe weather disturbance every now and then to restore balance, the world community needed a jolting political disturbance to snap leaders – and their people – out of complacency, waking them up to the fact that action, not make-believe, gets results.
There are two distinct parts to this debate: America’s pullout from the climate agreement, and the issue of climate change itself, which is another column. Here’s a look: The Paris pullout: 1) People on both sides need to take a deep breath, step back and stick to the truth. Pushing agendas bereft of facts and demonizing the opposition isn’t helpful, and serves only to hinder progress in areas where we have common ground.
2) The accord is not a treaty, so is not legally binding. In fact, language in the agreement was changed several years ago, where “shall” was replaced with “should” – a monumentally important point. Even if the U.S. had signed on, the agreement would have been meaningless because the accord simply asks nations to do their part – what they think they “should” do. There is no enforcement, there is nothing to enforce. It is an agreement with no teeth – no mandates, no penalties, and quite frankly, no way to generate consequential outcomes.
3) It took a long time, but Democratic mayors and governors have finally seen the light on the states’ rights issue. They made proclamations criticizing the federal government’s decision to withdrawal, and, in true power-to-the-people spirit, pledged to, on their own, implement Paris-agreement standards for their cities and states. And that’s the way it should be – personal initiative trumping reliance on Washington. Maybe they’ll succeed, in which case they will attract more residents and businesses, increasing their tax bases. And maybe they won’t, prompting an exodus because onerous regulations strangled free enterprise. But either way, that’s the market at its best: improve and do well, or decline and face the consequences. So congrats to the Dems who now understand that paternalistic Big Government is not the solution, and that people on the state and local levels know best.
4) The Paris agreement allows every nation the luxury of arbitrarily setting its own limits for carbon emissions (none of which is verifiable, and as mentioned, enforceable). So, by definition, Country A can simply adjust its “targets,” whenever it wants, accruing economic benefits by doing so. So how is that fair to Country B and all the others who abide by the rules – assuming there will be any countries that actually play by the rules?
5) A study conducted last year by MIT researchers entitled, “How much of a difference will the Paris Agreement make?” showed that if countries abided by their pledges – and that’s a mighty big “if” – global warming would slow by between 0.6 degree and 1.1 degrees Celsius because by the year 2100, which is a far cry from stated targets. So if you know the agreement is doomed to fail from the start, why do it? Because it “sounds good?” Sorry, but that’s not acceptable, especially when livelihoods are at stake.
Common sense dictates that we should forge a better agreement that will produce real results. Yet many shortsighted critics, perhaps out of stubbornness or just a dislike for the president, refuse to see the Paris agreement as anything other than the be-all-and-end-all accord, and reject crafting an improved agreement – a classic “cutting off the nose to spite the face” mentality.
The problem isn’t global warming; it’s people’s inability to put aside petty and personal differences. Oil workers and coal miners shouldn’t be vilified for simply doing their jobs – jobs that, more than any other, provide America with its economic and physical security. And neither should “tree huggers” be demonized for their desire to put the environment at the forefront of political issues. Neither side is “wrong,” but trite as it sounds, nothing can be accomplished until we stop attacking and start listening.
6) If a do-nothing agreement wasn’t reason enough to reject the accord, the expectation that the United States should pay and do more – while polluting giants like China and India would enjoy vastly reduced thresholds – is salt in the wound. If proponents had their way, America would be tasked with shelling out the most money, and reducing emissions at a much greater level, than competitor nations. Such a grossly unfair agreement would jeopardize hundreds of thousands of jobs (far beyond the energy sector), as American companies would be unilaterally hamstrung with regulations.
So let’s get this straight: Many are screaming that the sky is falling because the U.S. pulled out of a climate change agreement that A) won’t come close to meeting its stated temperature reduction targets; B) relies on honesty from nations (good luck with that); C) allows less-developed countries to continue polluting while developed nations are punished for … being developed; D) is unenforceable; and E) is patently unfair to the world’s most benevolent nation, placing undue hardship on its citizens while the rest of the world makes gains at America’s expense. What are we missing here? People must stop mindlessly repeating the herd-mentality response that “we need the Paris agreement to save the planet,” while self-righteously sipping their lattes because somehow regurgitating that line makes them “environmentally conscious.”
It doesn’t. It makes them dangerously naïve.
Actions have consequences. And signing onto an accord that impacts millions – while accomplishing virtually nothing – would have severely detrimental consequences.
The Trump Team, as usual, made blunder after blunder in announcing the withdrawal. And because they took the wrong approach to the right decision, they are, once again, suffering in the court of public opinion. First, the fact that administration officials are scared to state: “Yes, we believe humans have contributed to global warming” makes their credibility plummet. It’s OK to follow that up with “we don’t know to what extent, but we will err on the side of caution by implementing policies that protect both the environment and American workers. And they are not mutually exclusive.” But by refusing to address that basic question, their job became that much harder.
And second, where was the multi-million dollar ad campaign explaining the president’s decision? Nonexistent, as always. You can’t tweet your justifications, nor can you rely on the so-called “fake news media” to articulate your message. So instead of using the gold mine of resources to write the narrative – America, as one of the world’s most environmentallyfriendly countries, continues to explore wider use of renewable and cleaner energies; that pulling out of a bad agreement in no way means the country will abandon its commitment to reduce carbon emissions; and that the administration will work toward a climate change agreement that actually changes the climate – the alternative was nothing but bad spin.
Perhaps the administration should change its own “climate” by hiring sharper people. That way, the world would understand the true facts about the doomed Paris agreement, and how the United States will always lead the fight against global warming.
Because, as Miquel de Cervantes said, “Truth will rise above falsehood, as oil above water.”