WaPo Accidentally Unmasks The Liberal Climate Change Scam by Seth Connell
The Left is still figuring out how to deal with the fact that President Trump has withdrawn the United States from the 2015 Paris Climate Accords. The fear-mongering about our impending doom at the hands of climate change gone out of our (very limited) control is simply over the top.
The basic argument goes something like this: the need to do something about climate change is so severe that if we do not act now, then global temperatures will continue to rise and will cause more starvation in areas susceptible to climate change (much of it on the African continent, and in other developing nations).
So the best solution is to, apparently, to take hundreds of billions of dollars from industrialized countries’ respective economies, then enact massive new environmental legislation that binds almost the entire globe to standards of efficiency that are difficult for many businesses to maintain while also operating at a sustainable profit margin. But that’s not so much their concern.
With the sense of urgency about the issue, you’d think that all nations signed up for the treaty would do everything they could to get the plan enacted. However, since the United States will not be a part of the treaty for the foreseeable future, it appears that their dedication to the plan may not be as sincere as we thought it, and a recent report in the Washington Post indicates as much.
The headline reads: Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris agreement means other countries will spend less to fight climate change
Immediately, there’s a question that comes to mind. If the U.S. is not a part of the plan, it means that there is a budget shortfall. If there’s a shortfall, more is needed for the plan. So should the other nations signing up for the treaty not be contributing more money to the treaty to make up for that shortage? If the need is so great, the time to step up is now, is it not?
Apparently, the answer is no, as they will be spending less money on the plan since the U.S. is not there. See the disconnect here?
If the United States refuses to finance climate mitigation and adaptation in developing countries, then industrialized countries will have a hard time keeping their promise to offer $100 billion in climate finance every year from 2020.
These funds would support renewable energy, energy efficiency, forest conservation and other projects that reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The money would also help poorer countries adapt to the consequences of climate change. For example, climate finance could fund levees to protect cities from flooding.
In 2014, the United States offered about $2.7 billion in climate finance, a sum comparable with contributions from Germany and France. With the Trump administration refusing to contribute, other industrialized countries will face great difficulties in putting together enough funds.
If these other nations put together money they had pillaged from their populace’s wallets before Trump, why can they not continue to do so without Trump? If anything, shouldn’t they be aiming to take more of their own constituents’ money in order to fund the scheme?
Apparently, the answer is no. But why is that? If the fund is getting smaller because of American non-participation, that provides all the more imperative to act to stop climate change, does it not?
Or does it?
Everything in these kinds of treaties must be done by force. If it’s done voluntarily through cooperation, it seems to take the fun out of it (for the Left, at least). If they cannot forcibly take money from all countries and then send it to third world dictators who “promise” to enact better climate policies, then apparently there is no point.
Nevermind the fact that many companies have already improved their efficiency and reduced emissions because of the cultural shift in the West. Nope, that’s not good enough; we must do everything by force, by stealing people’s earnings and sending it to dictators (who will then just use it to enrich their own coffers, as they always do).
As Don Surber notes, “We’re the Sugar Daddy.” If the United States is not the Sugar Daddy, other nations seem reluctant to be sending money to the treaty.
What gives here?
from The Federalist Papers http://bitly.com/2nQvk9P
via IFTTT Exactly Why You Can Never Trust a Hysterical Liberal on Climate http://bitly.com/2nQvk9P