President Donald Trump has announced that the U.S. will be pulling out of the Paris Climate Accord, and if you listened exclusively to the liberal media, you’d be forgiven for having the impression that the apocalypse is now right around the corner.
— Vicente Fox Quesada (@VicenteFoxQue) June 1, 2017
From the New York Daily News pic.twitter.com/3XJ9VJoeHM
— Jim Pickard (@PickardJE) June 1, 2017
Of course, the ACLU had the most INSANE take on the matter:
That disparity is only going to worsen in coming years, and it's why we must #ActOnClimate if we're serious about racial justice.
— ACLU National (@ACLU) June 1, 2017
Yes driving up electric rates to prevent a rise if 0.02 degrees in 20 years is good for poor people
— Gary Carlo (@GaryACarlo) June 1, 2017
But it was a local German newspaper, Berliner Kurier which takes the cake for the most obscene response, with the message “Earth to Trump: F*CK you!”
Despite all the hysteria, the Paris Accord is completely superficial. It’s not legally binding at all – it’s merely an agreement between nations. At any time they wish, a nation can simply announce their goals have changed and release a new, less ambitious plan to reduce emissions. Even if the U.S. were to remain in the Accord, we could simply do nothing and face no consequences for it. Those remaining in the Accord can do the same.
Roughly 15 percent of CO2 emissions come from the U.S., so we’re hardly the main offender (or even the largest – China emits twice as much as we do). The Accord also would put an enormous burden on the U.S. economy with little actual return on investment for the climate. As the Cato Institute noted, the Paris climate treaty is climatically insignificant. EPA’s own models show it would only lower global warming by an inconsequential two-tenths of a degree Celsius by 2100. The cost to the U.S.—in the form of required payments of $100 billion per year from the developed to the developing world—is too great for the inconsequential results. These very real expenses will consume money that could be used by the private sector to fund innovative new technologies that are economically sound and can power our society with little pollution.
Here’s the uselessness visualized….
Imagine for a second what you could do with $100 billion a year until 2100 – there’s about a zero percent chance it’ll be less impressive than reducing the global temperature two-tenths of a degree.