On Exaggerations, Agreements, Treaties and a Chris Farley Reference

I think people are exaggerating the impact the Paris Agreement actually has or had. Anyone want to take a stab as to why it is called an "agreement" rather than a "treaty?" They aren't the same thing. A treaty is usually formed by an overseeing or governing party, which writes strict terms or conditions that the members of the party need to follow lest they face consequences for breaking the conditions of that treaty. An agreement doesn't necessarily have to follow these principles at all. They aren't equitable with each other. For instance, one could argue that all treaties are agreements, but one cannot argue that all agreements are treaties. There are of course degrees of agreements in how binding they are to the members of that agreement. With the Paris Agreement, it actually has no power and nations like India only are a part of it on a "we'll see" contingency. Basically, if they get billions of dollars of aid from other nations they will become a part of it. "Give us billions of dollars and we will throw our support behind your largely symbolic agreement." More or less.

Despite, or in spite of, what various fact-checkers are saying, In October 2016, "The Guardian" reported:

"Money will be a big challenge for India, which says it will require over $2.5tn (£1.9tn) to meet all its targets. It says it will achieve the targets only if other countries give it money and discounts on new technology."

Countries set their own terms and there is no official treaty or enforcement measures. Let us say that a country breaks the terms of their agreement. What happens to them? Well, the consequence amounts to:

Although there is an effective false dichotomy being peddled, I am all for alternative energies. Whatever you think about the state of global warming, there is nothing wrong with wanting to be good stewards of the planet. I think that is something we should all strive for regardless of bickering on the data. I choose to bypass this argument because it generally goes nowhere. The citation of one study will lead one to cite a study which says opposite and this goes on in a never-ending loop. I simplify it by making it a moral question. 

In the end, the Paris Agreement is like a bunch of people getting together, clapping each other on the back, while criticizing others in such a way which implies that principle is not the standard cannon by which one is praised and another criticized. In short, national burdens aren't equal to pollution output. Now, is Trump the one to lead us into a more environmentally conscious future? I am not so sure about that, but concerning the decision to leave the Paris Agreement, I believe it was the right call.

On An Article Rebuke, Why I Actually Agree With Leaving The Paris Agreement and Some Notes on the Fabian’s Marxist Globalism.

After abandoning the environmental Paris Agreement, the world has once again resorted to its standard “freak-out mode” for anything Trump does or doesn’t do. This, of course, is expected by now, but I would say this is one of the few where at least some discussion is warranted. That is, while many other examples of media and social freak-out are completely manufactured, and I would say the reaction about this is over the top, behind are it are things that beg a rational discussion, if that were possible. This would require an in depth examination, which many today don’t want to do. No, it is much easier to oversimplify the problems and promote a false dichotomy saying, that either you are for the Paris Agreement or you hate the environment, are anti-science and want nothing more than to watch people suffer and the world burn. In fact, you may have already reached that conclusion simply from the title of this blog, which goes to show how well that false dichotomy is being peddled.

People are quick to point out, however, that the matter is settled? Concerning that and before we continue, I would like to cite the words of the great author Michael Crichton, the writer of “Jurassic Park”:

“I want to . . . talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.”

The website iflscience.com provides a rather unscientific analysis of Trump's speech after deciding to depart the Paris Agreement. It is entitled, "Trump Just Said Some Truly Crazy Things During His Paris Exit Announcement," and can be found here. Let's go through these crazy things real quick and see if they are as crazy as iflscience.com promotes them to be.

“The world went crazy when the Paris agreement was signed. They went wild. This was because it placed America at a serious economic disadvantage.” —Trump

Though the article says this is a conspiracy theory, it really isn’t. When one looks over the implementation of regulations and demands made by the Paris agreement, the USA is held to a much higher standard beyond countries that pollute way more than us. China for instance. The only part that I would question about the statement is that the world went crazy and for the cited reasons they did so.

“China can do whatever they want. They can build coal plants, and we can’t.” —Trump

Again, pretty true. While regulations bind the hands of Americans other (not all) countries remain free to do what they want. The article states that China is “gradually” moving away from coal. Its fuel and carbon consumption is expected to peak in 2025 and it is not until 2050 that they want alternative energy implemented to a large degree. Yet, it is not only until 2030 where any implimation is stated to take place. We will all be under water by then according to science.

The Financial Times reported:

"China is for the first time emitting more carbon pollution per person than the EU, birthplace of the industrial revolution. In a notable turning point for the worlds's most populous nation, China produced 7.2 tonnes of planet-warming carbon dioxide a head last year, compared with 6.8 tonnes in the EU. Its total CO2 emissions outstrip those of both the EU and US combined."

The Guardian reports:

"People in the UK are 64 times as likely to die of air pollution as those in Sweden and twice as likely as those in the US, figures form the World Health Organization reveal."

Numbers also reflect that China produced approximately 1.8 kilo tonnes of CO2 and currently are at 10m tonnes and rising. The USA was around 4.7 in 1980 and peaked around 2006 at 7m tonnes. We now produce 7m tonnes. Now I can't say for certain that numbers are being manufactured, on either side, but it seems that countries like India who have toxic air warnings and "air emergencies" rank to a lesser degree than the US.

Though people bicker over the numbers, and it is relevant to discuss these numbers, there is another point. I once heard it metaphorically put like this, that for every one regulation passed upon other countries, the USA gets five, despite being relatively and comparatively clean especially if one considers the mortality rate as reported by The Guardian. To continue:

“This agreement is less about the climate and more countries gaining a financial advantage to the United States.” —Trump

This is also true. It follows from what has been stated above. If you hinder one country from producing industry and allow the others to do so without regulation, at least relatively, then obviously one is going to have an economic advantage over the other. If we add certain trade agreements into the mix, it does put the US at a disadvantage.

The article in iflscience.com goes on to say:

“Well, ironically, by pulling out of the pact, other countries will gain a financial advantage. Their clean energy markets will continue to produce new jobs, increase efficiency, and save money on climate change prevention measures.”

This isn’t accurate. One of the greatest issues with alternative energies is that they are neither efficient enough in many cases and not economically viable enough in others. The history of alternative energy as an economic powerhouse, with the exception of hydro-electric, is riddled with companies that have failed and sent many people home without jobs. One huge example is the failure of Solyndra under the Obama administration. The Obama administration also gave 2 billion to Abengoa, a green energy company in Spain. Depite the government pouring money into these businesses, they failed miserably. Further, Spain is 27 billion dollars in debt from failed green energy projects.

“So we’re getting out, but we’ll start to negotiate, to see if we can make a deal that’s fair. If we can that’s great, if we can’t that’s fine.” —Trump

I think this is fair. If the Paris Agreement wanted to say, we will hold countries accountable according to their pollution output and use that for the judge of how we regulate, then I think it is something we should be a part of. They don’t however, and I will attempt to give a brief explanation why that is after we explore these quotes. Their current position about the US being part of the agreement and renegotiation shows that the environment may not be their primary concern, for they just essentially told the US to buzz off.

“In order to fulfill my solemn duty to protect America and its citizens, the US will withdraw from the Paris climate accord.” —Trump

This is a simple premise. Trump is saying that he was elected to ensure the sovereignty of the United States of America, and what Paris wants isn’t as important in his mind as to what the people of America want. Now the Paris Agreement isn’t the only ways in which the sovereignty of the United States is threatened, in that other countries have a huge say in how we run our nation. The UN is one of the biggest examples and our involvement suffers from a lot of the same issues. A couple of these, which have some huge corporate money behind them, courtesy of the Rockefeller’s (conspiracy theory, hello!), is the Trilateral Commission, the Council on Foreign Relations, and the G30 (this was founded by Geoffry Bell, who was “invited” to do so by, you guessed it, the Rockefeller Foundation). Further, guess which foundation is involved in the Paris agreement?

“I was elected to represent the citizens of Pittsburgh, not Paris.” —Trump

This, is, of course, related to the former quote. Let us consider our own households. When we run our houses, raise our children, reflect on and utilize our finances, it's obviously better that we take this role, while being a member of that household, because we relate to and are conscious of all the concerns of that household, the members, their needs, so on and so forth. We, for instance, wouldn't want the electric company telling us and demanding how we run our house. Likewise, why should a group in Paris determine how we run our country? Now, not all micro-examples can apply to the whole, obviously, but some principles do apply to a macro level and I believe it can be utilized here.

The article goes on to say that Trump declares it threatens the development of clean coal. The article follows this by saying:

“Clean coal does not exist. (Clean coal is a form of low-carbon coal. He might as well have said that the Paris agreement is preventing America from researching ghosts and pixies.)”

This is nitpicking. Clean coal is a term used even by the government and in 2008 Obama supported clean coal technologies. To be so rigid and technical when one obviously understands what is meant is a little illogical. The ghost and pixies comparison is ridiculous since the government talks about it and leaders as well. It is well established that clean coal as a technology exists, whether the term is accurate or not.

The process of something that doesn't exist...

“Even if the Paris agreement was implemented in full, it is estimated that it would implement two-tenths of a degree of temperature reduction by 2100.” —Trump

I am not a mathematician and can’t speak to it, nor can I say if he means it being implemented across the globe or simply in the US. If we consider the latter, his numbers become a little more reasonable to believe. Think about it. If China has a free pass, is going to peak in 2025 and is only shooting for 2050, if they produce more pollution than the US and Canada combined, then who is making the greater impact? If it is accurate that the Paris Agreement only supposes to slow down global warming for an 8 month period out of 80 years, this would mean our impact would be relatively minuscule at best.  The main question is why would countries with less environmental impact be held to a higher standard than those with greater impact? If alternative energy is such a viable option why isn’t it implemented equally?

Here is my conspiracy theory. You knew it was coming.

In 1884, the Fabian Society was founded. Wikipedia states:

“The Fabian Society is a British socialist organization whose purpose is to advance the principles of democratic socialism [just plain socialism] via gradualist and reformist effort in democracies, rather than by revolutionary overthrow.” —Wikipedia

Note the wolf in sheep's clothing on their coat-of-arms.

Basically, the Fabianists were a group of socialists who sought or rather seek to implement global socialist reform by taking over democracy. However, their method is reformist, that is they understood that socialism couldn’t overtake democracy because, more or less, people enjoyed their freedoms too much. Thus, not daunted from their goal, they proposed that this overtaking would be gradual. Like the proverbial frog in a boiling pot that doesn’t understand it is being cooked to death when you gradually turn up the heat, as opposed to directly applying intense heat all at once, they thought they could find ways to scheme and take over democracy, replacing democracies tenets with socialist ones, over time, so that Marxism could take over without any being the wiser. One method is of course fear. A person who is scared can be convinced to give up their freedoms and rights under the guise of their protection so to speak.

That face you make when you see someone giving up their freedoms willingly.

The Fabianist goal (yes it is a real organization, they even have a website), is not just limited to Britain where they were founded, but concerns the world, and implies a centralized government and banks in a system commonly known as the New World Order. So what in the world does this have to do with climate change?

Climate change and the Paris agreement are examples of the implication of social and economic socialism on a world stage. Climate change is the means and the Paris agreement a body bringing it about, so to speak. So with this in mind, let us ask the question again, why are greater polluting countries like China less regulated then countries like the USA despite the fact that they produce so much more pollution? Well, if you wanted to bring about Marxism through Fabianism then why would you go after countries that are already Marxist, to begin with? They represent a lesser threat to the Fabian new world order. Democracies are the greater threat and are focused on, which explains why pounds of volumes of pollution in China isn’t as important as ounces in terms of America. I can’t say that Trump has all this figured out, but two large tools of the Fabian Marxist goal that is evident today are the current P.C. movement and social justice as a whole and climate change. Their tools are media and academia. I just posted a video on my Facebook where Dr. Jordan Peterson declares that 1 out of 5 college professors identifies as Marxist. Those are the only ones that are honest enough to declare it. Through climate change, we are giving up are jobs, freedoms and inviting this New World Order willingly, and it used to be something that America was afraid of. Prior to WWII we passed on the UN’s predecessor the League of Nations for this very reason.

Maybe it is a conspiracy theory and maybe world banks and governments don’t want to bring about a New World Order. Yet, guess what foundation is involved with the Fabians? You guessed it. The Rockefeller’s. George Soros is also involved. Anyway, consider the following quote:

“The Rockefeller Brothers Fund is proud to support the Paris climate agreement as a monumental step forward for the world.”

I echo the words of Crichton:

“Reach for your wallet, because you are being had.”