Talking sense about the Paris Accords

A couple of years ago, we opposed The Paris Climate Accords for two reasons:

First, President Obama did not have the constitutional authority to commit the U.S.  In other words, the accord should have been sent to the U.S. Senate for ratification, as a treaty.  

Second, the "Accords" had no enforcement mechanism.  What's the point of agreeing to something that cannot be enforced?  Would you rent a property to a tenant without a clause to enforce the lease?

We learned this week that the agreement was a lot of hot air and not much more.   IBD has an excellent analysis of the current status:   

As we noted in this space recently, not one of the G20 countries is close to meeting the CO2 emissions targets they pledged to reach in the Paris deal.

This is all further evidence that whatever these leaders claim, and no matter how many end-of-the-world predictions environmentalists make, nobody is serious about drastically cutting CO2 emissions by anywhere near the levels climate scientists say is needed to prevent "global catastrophe."
Witness the retreat this week by climate-change champion and French President Emmanuel Macron, who suspended the country's relatively modest carbon tax plan — which would have raised gas prices by 12 cents a gallon — after violent protests broke out across the country.
Or look at liberal Washington state, whose voters overwhelmingly rejected a carbon tax in the midterm elections.
Or look at any poll that measures public priorities and see how low climate change ranks. The latest IBD/TIPP poll found that only 17% ranked dealing with climate change as a top priority for the new Congress.

Don't get me wrong.   I love clean air and water as much as the "greenest" of environmentalists.  At the same time, it makes no sense to sign agreements that cannot be enforced.  

Also, it's time to question the honesty of leaders who talk "climate change" and then do not do a darn thing beyond bashing President Trump.   Are you listening, Senator Sanders?

PS: You can listen to my show (Canto Talk) and follow me on Twitter.

 https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/12/talking_sense_about_the_paris_accords.html

Schumer's dystopia

Schumer a Steyer Puppet?  Is money talking for Chuckie?

Senator Schumer says he won’t work with President Trump on infrastructure until Trump addresses climate change.

Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer on Friday demanded that a deal for an infrastructure program include measures to combat climate change, throwing down the gauntlet on road and bridge projects that was one of the only areas of potential agreement between Capitol Hill Democrats and President Trump.
By tying infrastructure to climate change, which Mr. Trump has called a hoax, Mr. Schumer erased any doubts that the new Congress will grind to a halt on the president’s agenda.
“Any infrastructure package considered in 2019 must include policies and funding to transition to a clean energy economy and mitigate the risks that the United States is already facing due to climate change,” Mr. Schumer, New York Democrat, wrote in a letter to the president. “Climate change is real, caused by humans, and its impacts are already being felt in communities across the country

I think that is an excellent suggestion, because whenever we hear about addressing climate change we hear that we need to get away from fossil fuels and petroleum -based products.

If we get away from using crude oil, gasoline and other petroleum-based products that would save the taxpayers a lot of money.

We would stop building all concrete roads and bridges along with asphalt roads. We also would not but any road graders or other machines powered with fossil fuels. We could have people grade dirt roads with hand tools.

We would stop building all government buildings and schools, because as far as I can tell that takes a lot of machines that run on fossil fuels and where the products used to build the buildings are produced with fossil fuels.

We would stop building all airports because as far as I can tell the planes can’t be produced without fossil fuels and can’t certainly can’t fly without fossil fuels.

We also can cancel all wind and solar projects because we can’t mine the materials, produce the windmills and solar panels and can’t transport and install them without fossil fuels.

We can go back to wooden wheels and life before sewage and water treatment plants. Let’s get rid of  central air and heat and go back to burning wood. That would certainly help asthma and allergy sufferers. Life would be grand.     

So yes, Senator Schumer, let’s go back to life before fossil fuels where the Earth was so pristine. Let’s leave the natural resources in the ground where they don’t cause damage except for seeping out. Life would be wonderful and we could all die a lot younger. 

Maybe Schumer and other enlightened Democrats, including journalists, could give a list of all infrastructure projects which could be produced without petroleum- based projects. My guess is the list is very short. 

 https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/12/schumers_dystopia.html