Trump is right about #ParisAgreement and it’s high time liberals stop crying about it

It’s time to hug trees and cry into your quinoa, that if you too are aghast at what President Donald Trump promised to always do during his campaign. That pledge is now reality amidst his announcing that the U.S. will withdraw from the Paris climate agreement.

And it’s a decision that was correct to do. Here’s why.

The Paris Agreement is an extremely burdensome set of regulations that does about as much to address climate change as one of Leonardo Di Caprio’s lear jets. If they were carried out as per Obama and Al Gore’s fantasy, they would destroy hundreds of thousands of jobs, dent American manufacturing and cut swathes into GDP to the tune of trillions. The U.S. demands economic growth rates in the region of 3% and by taking this step, Trump has ensured a massive barrier to this has been lifted.

And what about the essence of the matter, addressing climate change itself? What are the regulations worth when China continues to underreport its carbon dioxide emissions with impunity? What about the fact that even if every country met its commitments, detecting changes in the earth’s temperature would be impossible to do in any case.

Of course this is about the bottom line and the bottom line is cutting holes in the pockets of taxpayers, something Obama agreed to do without authorization from Congress. Remember that the Green Climate Fund is looking to collect $100 billion per year by 2020 and in the case of the U.S. it whistled over $1bn over this money from the taxpayer without so much as an A OK from congressional heads. Also factor in that the fund is a way of ensuring the poorer countries get involved and who just happen to be some of the most corrupt, collecting the funds and ensuring sources of renewable energy and businesses with a stake in an improved carbon footprint get zero.

And what about the U.S. being the villain in the piece? Compared to China in terms of its air quality issues, the U.S. is as clean as a whistle. China’s issues with carbon dioxide are the least of its problems, given its falsification of coal consumption and the way its air monitoring data, even while it participates in the Paris Agreement.

I don’t see people in the U.S. walking around with masks on their faces because the air pollution is so bad that the air is unhealthy to breathe.

Neither does this shut the U.S. out from increased bilateral negotiations going forward since all the other countries need America when addressing mutual issues relating to economic, diplomatic and security measures. What Trump’s decision does show is that the U.S. can and will resist diplomatic pressures put upon it in order to look after its citizens.

What about the energy companies and how they will modulate plans going forward after Trump’s decision? It doesn’t matter if they are fuel or renewable based companies, if they want to remain competitive they have to be innovative and not jump to the decrees of international agreements. That’s capitalism folks. Trump is NOT saying to Americans that they cannot invest in new energy technologies.

The U.S. federal government and the international community should cease to utilise taxpayer money to subsidize energy technologies whilst simultaneously regulating affordable, reliable energy sources out of existence.

The great part for the future of the human race is that now the green energy industry will have to concentrate on cost effective solutions and not live off of subsidies. The demand for financial discipline will help, not hurt, the industry.

Re-distribution of wealth, should be voluntary, not arbitrarily decided by a group of people with an agenda that has been proven false. Pulling out of this benign treaty shows American leadership and will change the

course of energy production, while allowing the falsehoods of global warming to be seen.
We can still be allies with these nations, but we don’t have to agree with everything, lest we want to devolve into a one world government.

The agreement was nothing more than a power grab by the green movement, which would take totalitarianism to enforce and was a big sucking sound of US money and raw natural resources out of the country. Why sell coal to China so that they can pollute their environment while our electric bills soar because we are barred from using coal — the cheapest form of energy available? If you want to clean up coal, what better way to do it than to make it a national initiative the same thing that put a man on the moon and is now developing soil methods that make organic food competitively priced, thus making it affordable to those on food stamps? Police states with controlled economies don’t implement innovations like this.

Hoodwinking Americans is the essential part of the environmentalist agenda. Environmental activist Stephen Schneider told Discover magazine in 1989: “We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. … Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”

In closing I’ll quote then-Sen. Timothy Wirth, D-Colo who said in 1988: “We’ve got to … try to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong … we will be doing the right thing anyway in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.”



Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store
Saurav Dutt

Saurav Dutt

@GuardianBooks @latimesbooks short-listed Author of 'The Butterfly Room'| Political Columnist @IBTimes @AHTribune @timesofisrael | Featured on @SkyNews @BBC @RT