We are living on borrowed time if you can remember the dire warning from the United Nations and other more scientific publications. In 1989 the San Jose Mercury published a story quoting a senior environmental official at the United Nations, Noel Brown; said entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels if global warming is not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create political chaos. He further stated we have only 10 years to solve the problem.
In 1992, The Union of concerned Scientists warned us that we were on the verge of environmental collapse. This year the same group has authored a new, dire “warning to humanity” about the dangers to all of us. The New Yorker Magazine published in the 1990s that stated global warming could make Earth “uninhabitable” by “the end of this century.” The article warned of terrors, like “Heat Death,” “Climate Plagues,” “Permanent Economic Collapse” and “Poisoned Oceans.” It also stated “Absent a significant adjustment to how billions of humans conduct their lives, parts of the Earth will likely become close to uninhabitable, and other parts horrifically inhospitable, as soon as the end of this century,”
Prince Charles warned in July 2009 that humanity had only 96 months to save the world from “irretrievable climate and ecosystem collapse, and all that goes with it.” Obviously that deadline has long passed. His prophecies have been joined by such notable figures as the Pope Francis and our own Barack Obama who got us into the Paris Accords.
Should we be worried about climate change, of course the climate is changing and will continue to change long after we are gone. If so should we not be involved in agreements like the Paris Accords? We should be involved and participate in climate change research and reasonable regulations and controls, but not giving away our taxpayer money to other countries and curtailing our economy to give others an advantage. And that was what the Paris Accords did.
So what did the Paris Accords really mean? It was an agreement that rich nations would subsidize poorer nations with money and cut their own production of Greenhouse gases. For the United States the agreement was that we would give 3 billion dollars by 2020 to a fund to help poorer nations. These countries would then have access to a fund of 100 billion dollars a year after 2020. That fund would be funded by the rich nations (read USA). Those poorer countries also want a further review to raise that 100 billion dollars amount after five years.
Additionally, we would cut our output of these so called greenhouse gases by 35%. Yet the Paris Climate Agreement allows China to increase their emissions for 13 years. India made its participation in the Paris Accord contingent on receiving billions and billions and billions of dollars in foreign aid from developed countries. (read USA). Both China and India are allowed to add massive numbers of coal plants under the Paris Agreement.
All of these details let us understand why Obama signed the agreement but would not take it to the Senate, which has to approve any and all treaties. Because the Senate did not approve it, it was just another Executive Order and could be vacated by the next President. Protecting the environment is important but destroying American jobs based on shaky science is not the direction we should be going. Giving other countries taxpayer money to help them take American jobs is not the direction we should be going. Giving a hand up should not require cutting off your hand.