June 06, 2017

Paris Climate Accord is "smug liberal virtue signalling"

Candice MalcolmRebel Contributor

Donald Trump did exactly what he said he was going to do. He pulled the United States out of the multilateral treaty on climate change, also known as the Paris Agreement.

Trump did the right thing for American workers, and perhaps counter-intuitively he did the right thing for the environment. Let’s be clear: the Paris Agreement was never about the environment.

The framework for Paris is based on an alarmist interpretation of climate data, and focuses not on the largest emitters of carbon dioxide but instead on the richest emitters.

The scheme uses an invented conceptcarbon intensity – meaning carbon emissions as a percentage of GDP.

It therefore disproportionately punishes wealthy emitters, like Canada and the United States, while allowing China and India to continue emitting more carbon dioxide each year until at least 2030 – the year they chose for their commitment to kick in.

As Trump rightly acknowledged, this scheme would specifically and disproportionately punish the United States. It was a bad deal for American workers and American companies.

Good for Donald Trump for standing up to this nonsense.


You must be logged in to comment. Click here to log in.
commented 2017-06-07 21:11:26 -0400
Hey liberal d!(k heads…the truth about this horse sh!t is being published again by other means..it was published before ..but buried by the msm.
commented 2017-06-07 14:16:34 -0400
To American law, it wasn`t worth the paper it was printed on anyway, only Congress can approve it. Oh sure, the government could have moved ahead on implementing it but it would have been categorically illegal to force any business or lower government to implement it without Congressional approval. All Obama did was negotiate it, then put it on the shelf (while giving all of the big businesses and governments a chance to virtue signal) until some unknown time in the future when Congress would have had enough votes to pass it. Frankly, there should be a class action lawsuit on behalf of consumers against any state, municipality or business that charged one red, American penny on behalf of the Paris agreement. But then again America has made an art of fighting wars without Congressional approval either (thus why they got the EPA to list Co2 as a ``pollutant``. Viola! Pesky Constitution dodged yet again by the progressive war machine).
commented 2017-06-07 11:26:13 -0400
It amuses me that the House of Commons voted 288-1 to reaffirm support for Paris yesterday.
commented 2017-06-07 11:25:02 -0400
“Vizi Lo commented 3 hours ago
Anyone who uses the “per capita” argument is inherently dishonest. China has 4 times the population as the United States in a smaller country, so of course their “per capita” CO2 numbers look better. Why would Earth care how many people live on a piece of land? It only matters how much pollution that piece of land emits. "

The reason you use ‘per capita" is because it can’t be gerrymandered. Let’s use your per-area argument What variables determine that? It’s a product of how many people live on the land times how much each of those people emit…. population times per capita emissions divided by area.

Sounds great, doesn’t it?

Until… let’s say China annexes Mongolia. Their emissions per area just went down, since the country’s now quite a bit larger. But … the only thing that’s changed is an arbitrary line in the sand, the same amount of carbon’s being emitted and the total amount of global land hasn’t changed, just some local accounting.

So, area’s out as a variable. What about population? Generally this refers to total population … but let’s say you quantify national numbers. Take China again … split off a chunk of it, and presto! You’ve reduced Chinese emissions… except you haven’t. It changes the accounting but not total emissions.

So, that leaves one final variable in that little equation. Which is … how much each person emits. By definition, this is “emissions per capita”.

ps – China’s land area is slightly greater than that of the US.
commented 2017-06-07 09:23:30 -0400
@All of the leftard trolls……..so we cannot control illegal immigration with a physical barricade but we can control the Heavens with a tax……what a strange and wonderfull religion you all have.
commented 2017-06-07 08:38:29 -0400
Anyone who uses the “per capita” argument is inherently dishonest. China has 4 times the population as the United States in a smaller country, so of course their “per capita” CO2 numbers look better. Why would Earth care how many people live on a piece of land? It only matters how much pollution that piece of land emits. China is by far the worst polluter. Excusing China but punishing the US is a farce. Trump was 100% correct about leaving this charade. Now if we could just get rid of that clown, Baby T, and get someone with a brain to lead this country, we could (most definitely should) do the same.

Also, CO2 is not a pollutant. It’s plant food. Plants create oxygen. We are a carbon based life form. Carbon is about 18% of our bodies. This ridiculous climate scientology nonsense needs to be exposed and shut down. Lock them all up, the sooner the better.
commented 2017-06-07 03:56:40 -0400
This is the only place to have explained the numbers. Damn the Americans are lucky to have Trump.
commented 2017-06-07 02:58:10 -0400
We don’t live in China and neither does Trump, and China will do what they are told to by Trump because they are more economically vulnerable to US sanctions than Europe. Ten bucks says Trump will sell them grade a cleaned coal and they will drop importing the dirty stuff from North Korea.

We can all be thankful Trump is in charge and not the globalist climate profiteers who drain tax reveues and provide no solutions.
commented 2017-06-07 01:49:50 -0400
Jay Kelly go to China and take a deep breath , see how much better they are.
commented 2017-06-07 01:48:50 -0400
Jay Kelly China was going to get money from the US under the agreement, and how will they have more say? It is non binding.
commented 2017-06-07 00:17:44 -0400
Jan…I can’t stand Obama & his phony crap & so happy I don’t have to look at him or listen to his blather, so I just scrolled past the article on the CTV app. Not interested in hearing his BS.
commented 2017-06-06 22:28:12 -0400
Americans were being used. Same as Canadians now will be.
Let’s see what D. Trump comes up with. He’ll create a new approach others will want to follow and then watch how other countries will want to ‘clexit’.
Brick by brick.
ps…did you catch CBC and CTV’s live coverage of Obama’s speech in Montreal? Right at dinner time too…how unappetizing.
commented 2017-06-06 21:45:46 -0400
It is hard for the author to argue what the Paris agreement is really about when they don’t even understand what it is. It is not a Treaty as the author claims. Also, yes carbon intensity is an “invented concept” as is every unit of measurement. And the author claims the US is disproportionately penalized under the agreement…yet the US is massively disproportionately responsible for carbon emissions on a per capita basis. No real substance to this “article” at all
commented 2017-06-06 20:39:27 -0400
It’s so obvious that the Paris Climate Change Accord is all about the money. The billions that the govts are going to expunge from taxpayers so they can redistribute it to developing countries & only God will know where that money goes after that. BTW! When are these developing countries going to stand on their own two feet, it seems like this give away free money has been ongoing forever, yet nothing changes, but I bet the politicians are living very well. We have become global socialist suckers. If carbon emissions are going to kill everyone from an extra degree 100 yrs from now, how come China & India have been given a pass for the next 13 yrs? This climate change scam makes me so angry I want to scream everytime I hear Trudeau or McKenna or Gore,etc, rant about it. Why is this debate only one sided, with the Conservatives always being shut down & that what the Liberals say is God’s truth, there I want to scream again.
Keep the fight going Candice & Trump did the right thing. They’re all angry because it’s $3B less they won’t be spending without the USA in there.
commented 2017-06-06 20:27:39 -0400
Jay says he’s moving to Beijing.
The yellow air you can bite is so much better than the shit here.
commented 2017-06-06 20:03:48 -0400
Thanks for the “in a nutshell” report Candice.
commented 2017-06-06 19:49:25 -0400
The Paris accord was a group of venal Euro-socialist voting to make America pay for their infrastructure upgrades. Trump did the right thing for Americans – Euros should pay for their own energy infrastructure.

China was the first to opt out of this con job and now agrees in principle ONLY, to buy market access in cucked Europe. China is NOT going to abandon large scale coal fired electric generation projects which they just finished building under the direction and deal broking of the UN’s own Mo Strong.
commented 2017-06-06 19:31:38 -0400
@Jay Kelly…the Chinese and the Japanese in Kyoto have not even applied modern stack scrubbing to suppress nitrous and sulpur emissions. If you actually care about polution make the Chinese and the Japanese and the Indians do more. They are the big polluters…..but these agreements give them the pussy pass….it is BULLSHIT Jay…so go tell Gerald Butts and Justin that the deal is BULLSHIT. What we do here in Canada would get eaten by the trees without even making them burp.
commented 2017-06-06 19:21:30 -0400
Jay Kelly, explain your word salad please!
commented 2017-06-06 19:08:17 -0400
It will seem weird to have China as the global leader on such a major issue. I guess it was inevitable that China would move ahead, but I did not expect it so soon.