Donald Trump looks as if he is preparing to pull out of the Paris Agreement. After months of delayed and rescheduled meetings on the topic, the administration has suggested it will make its official decision this week about whether or not to stay in the global pact, which encourages almost 200 nations to cut their climate-change causing emissions. Reports indicate that things aren’t looking good for team “stay.”
I would be surprised past the point of astonishment if he didn't "pull out"; since he elbowed and blabbed his way into the top tier of our mainstream political lives he's been adamant about being a climate change denier. He has switched back and forth on every other public stance he has taken, flip flopping like a fish just yanked up out out of its natural waters,
But as to climate change or global warming, his views have not changed except to harden. The mule-like stubbornness that underpins his views on this issue are the immovable object that even the purportedly irresistsble force of overwhelming evidence and public opinion can't budge even a millimicron.
What's up with that? Why is that one, probably the one issue other than possible nuclear war, that must be faced up to and try to be dealt with somehow, Why is that The Donald's single biggest sticking point?
His theory: global warming is a hoax contrived by China to mess up US trade -- what?!?! Can any of his spokespersons. Sean Spicer, Kellyanne Conway (who has been off camera for quite awhile), Sarah Huffington Sanders (who has her plate full dealing with the president's "Obama wiretapped me" fake news scandal), Vice President Pence (who no doubt would offer praying to Jesus as the certain solution just as he did with the health care issue.). Is there anyone willing to try to offer up a coherent explanation as to how this Chinese hoax plot is supposed to have worked?
Regular human US citizens do not have the resources to deal with the problem. We can try to "go green" and "make better choices" and pay close attention to our "carbon footprint" but these are small scale conscience salving actions: the world is going down the tubes but here's a list of things I did to not contribute, everyone who didn't do theses things is to blame, but I did those things so it's not my fault.
When the sea levels rise and drown the suburbs, and the very air we breathe turns putrid with chemical contamination, and food crops stop being able to grow, and disease organisms spread faster than the forest wildfires from all the starved corpses laying around undisposed of --- yes it is that serious I'm sorry to say and assigning degrees of blame will be of little or no help.
The effort to have protesters go through Trump Tower raising alarms in an effort to wake this president up to the dangers he will be in charge of responding to no matter what he wants to believe or disbelieve.
Can it work? That may be the question of the century so far. Those who shout about global warming are crying out "Fire!" in a crowded worldwide theater of the dangerously absurd.
Reporting emissions in the Paris Climate Agreement is legally binding but not meeting emissions targets. If Trump provided false emissions data then probably there would be a penalty. But in any case he can't reverse his views on climate change without losing much of his political support.
What a sorry commentary from a typical journalist for bourgeois liberal rags this is!
So, to summarize, Mr. Light is arguing for Trump to stay in the Paris Agreement because he does not have to reduce GHG emissions under it anyway. Hooray!
Yunzer (with whom I occasionally disagree) had the exact same reaction as I did to this strange article, which offers the expert opinion: the US can revise its emissions-cutting promise at any time, upward or downward, and nothing will happen.
So whether the US rejects the Paris Accord or not, nothing will happen (aside from continuing ecocide, that is). This might be why James Hansen denounced the Paris Accord as "just bullshit."
Robert Parry has observed that international agencies have gotten nearly as corrupt as the United States. (My exhibit A: the utterly callous treatment of Haiti by the UN, which refuses to mitigate the cholera epidemic it caused.) The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) may be another example, spawned by Reagan's EPA (headed by Anne Gorsuch Burford, mother of the latest Supreme Court creep) as a means of dominating the discourse. From the Wikipedia article (emphasis added):
The United States Environmental Protection Agency and State Department wanted an international convention to agree restrictions on greenhouse gases, and the conservative Reagan Administration was concerned about unrestrained influence from independent scientists or from United Nations bodies including UNEP and the WMO. The U.S. government was the main force in forming the IPCC as an autonomous intergovernmental body in which scientists took part both as experts on the science and as official representatives of their governments, to produce reports which had the firm backing of all the leading scientists worldwide researching the topic, and which then had to gain consensus agreement from every one of the participating governments.