Global carbon dioxide emissions by country
Has the American knowledge of natural law and sovereignty lost her way?
As currently constituted the Paris Accords were a good deal for foreign powers, but a notoriously bad deal for the American working class
As cited from Wikipedia, under Paris Agreements, the Paris Accord does not require an across the spectrum for every member nation to the Paris Accord, but rather, a built-in “flexibility mechanism” for certain nations to opt-out of the requirements of the Paris Accords.
“While the enhanced transparency framework is universal, along with the global stocktaking to occur every 5 years, the framework is meant to provide “built-in flexibility” to distinguish between developed and developing countries’ capacities. In conjunction with this, the Paris Agreement has provisions for an enhanced framework for capacity building. The agreement recognizes the varying circumstances of some countries, and specifically notes that the technical expert review for each country consider that country’s specific capacity for reporting. The agreement also develops a Capacity-Building Initiative for Transparency to assist developing countries in building the necessary institutions and processes for complying with the transparency framework.
There are several ways in which flexibility mechanisms can be incorporated into the enhanced transparency framework. The scope, level of detail, or frequency of reporting may all be adjusted and tiered based on a country’s capacity.”
In essence, the Paris Climate Accord has the “flexibility” for “developing nations”, such as China and India, to opt-out of climate toxic emissions requirements while the agreement requires the United States to fund “developing nations” shares.
Consider Christine Harbin opinion, in the Washington Examiner:
“Sticking with the deal could have cost 2.7 million lost jobs by 2025, according to a National Economic Research Associates study. And the effects would be widespread, including a loss of 440,000 manufacturing jobs, according to NERA’s numbers. Meanwhile, according to proponents’ own data, the agreement would have no discernible effect on global temperatures.And the longer the agreement ran, the worse it would get, according to NERA’s data. By 2040, production the agreement would have no discernible effect on global temperatures.
And the longer the agreement ran, the worse it would get, according to NERA’s data. By 2040, production (and thus employment) would be decimated in a host of industries, including a 38 percent cut in iron and steel, 31 percent in natural gas, and 86 percent for coal. At that point, the total economic cost to the U.S. would approach $3 trillion in lost gross domestic product and 6.5 million industrial jobs.
Speaking last week, Trump correctly noted that the damage is not spread evenly across the globe, noting that China and India can proceed with adding coal-fired capacity well into the future. “The agreement doesn’t eliminate coal jobs, it just transfers those jobs out of America and the United States and ships them to foreign countries,” he noted.”
Ms. Harbin cuts through the left-wing global responsibility mythos and illuminates the downside of the Paris Accords to the American people. The statistics infer the tremendous downside of the Paris Accord, such as three trillion in lost gross domestic product and the staggering loss of 6.5 million American working class jobs.
Moreover, astoundingly, nations such as India and China may continue to be involved in the coal-burning industry thus adding jobs to their economies while the American working class becomes greatly diminished in wealth and capacity.
The Obama Administration bypassed the Constitutional process required to enter a treaty. This process requires Senate support and the Paris Agreement was so detrimental to the American working class jobs that the Senate would not support such a detrimental treaty. Hence, the Obama Administration entered by Executive Agreement thereby circumventing American Congressional approval.
Obama acted in the best interests of China and India, but not in the best interest of the American working class. The Obama/Clinton globalist agenda is made manifest within the tenets of the Paris Accord. Reflect upon the following discourse in the National Review in an article entitled, “The Key Charade of the Paris Agreement”, by Oren Cass. Mr. Cass so aptly stated.
“But the critical dynamic underlying the 2015 Accord, willfully ignored by its advocates, is that major developing countries offered “commitments” for emissions reduction that only mirrored their economies’ existing trajectories. Thus, for instance, China committed to reaching peak emissions by 2030 — in line with the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory’s prior analysis. India committed to improving its emissions per unit of GDP — at a rate slower than that metric was already improving. President Obama, meanwhile, pledged America to concrete and aggressive emissions cuts that would require genuine and costly change. “
The Paris Agreement clearly elucidates a globalist socialist agenda at the enrichment of China and India and at the expense of working middle America. The core and fundamental doctrine of global socialism is well-stated in the VOX article, entitled, ”4 things to know about the Paris climate agreement, The Paris climate agreement, explained in 500 words” by Brian Resnick. Mr. Resnick made the following salient point.
“3) It asks richer countries to help out poorer countries
There’s a fundamental inequality when it comes to global emissions. Rich countries have plundered and burned huge amounts of fossil fuels, and gotten rich from them. Poor countries seeking to grow their economies are now shunned from using the same fuels. Many low-lying poor countries also will be among the first to bear the worst impacts of climate change.So as part of the Paris agreement, richer countries, like the US, are supposed to send $100 billion a year in aid by 2020 to the poorer countries. And that amount is set to increase over time. Again, like the other provisions of the agreement, this isn’t an absolute mandate.”
The above synopsis by author Resnick demonstrates the underlying dynamics behind the Paris Climate Accord, which is international globalism focused in wealth-shifting from more wealthy nations to developing nations. Both in the direct transference of wealth and the redistribution of labor and jobs. Of course, the fulfillment of these globalist tenets are to be at the American workers expense and sacrifice.In essence, down with the American worker; up with the Indian and Chinese worker.
This explains exactly why the contemptuous Obama/Clinton axis support the Paris climate accord. These are two globalist elitist politicians describing middle working America, to paraphrase, both statements together, as angry Bible-carrying; gun-toting deplorables. Their statements show utter disregard for the American working class.
Thus, one can reasonably infer that the Obama Administration’s intentional bypass of the Senate was an expression of their contempt for the American working class. The Obama Administration’s contempt for middle America fueled the administration’s desire to deprive middle America of wealth and jobs and redistribute such American wealth to people who they deemed more worthy. The excuse was greenhouse emissions, despite the fact, in comparison, to the tremendous and devastating loss of jobs and wealth to the advantages of the reduction of emissions, the Accord was more detrimental than beneficial.
The Paris Climate Accord was more suitable as a globalist leverage to maintain and obtain wealth transference and redistribution more than an effective means to reduce greenhouse emissions. In the end, it is just another mechanism, utilized by globalist to reduce the American working class to the globalist order of neo-feudalism.
The upscale Silicon Valley liberal and the urban liberal and trendy liberal college student, like sheep will bleep and baw to the sound of the Pied Pipers of globalism. Naturally, because they are not being asked to make the sacrifices! No, indeed, working class America will suffer the atrocities of the globalist agenda of redistribution of wealth and the reduction of middle America to neo-feudalism, including the insults and burdens of serfdom.
The Trump Administration’s decision to remove the American Republic from the Paris Accords will help the revitalization of American power and the rejuvenation of the American working class. The Trump Administration is attempting to halt the Obama/Clinton war against the American working class. The American working people which are so “deplorable” and “angry” to the elite globalists. The globalist seek to reduce the traditional American middle class to serfdom and slavery. The Trump Administration efforts to restore the American working class is timely and desperately required. The worldview of the Trump Administration is to put the American working class first; the Obama/Clinton Administration despise working America as deplorable and angry and wish to transfer wealth and jobs away from America’s working class and redistribute to India and China. As Pat Buchanan (see above Buchanan interview) has foreseen, the liberal globalists have continually allowed manufacturing jobs to be lost abroad to foreign nations. The Paris Climate Accords are a stark instrument in transferring American wealth and jobs to foreign nations. Thus, the Trump Administration is correct and has acted in the best America’s best interests and in American Economic Nationalism.
Add Your Comment