Finally, we may have solved the mystery of how former President Obama managed to drag the U.S. into the Paris Climate Accord – effectively a form of binding international treaty – without the necessary Congressional ratification.
According to a lawsuit filed Monday, the Obama administration fudged the issue by misrepresenting U.S. Senate instructions set forth in 1992 to pretend that what was a treaty somehow wasn’t a treaty. The implication is that the Obama administration lied in order to railroad through a policy that it feared might get vetoed by Congress.
The case, brought by the public interest law firm Government Accountability & Oversight, centres on an Obama-era State Department Circular 175 memo.
The following countries are Europe’s biggest climate bedwetters: Netherlands, Sweden, Luxembourg, Denmark, and Finland.
And the most sensible climate realists: Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, and Bulgaria.
But just wait till you discover the identity of the biggest climate bedwetter of the lot…
We learn this from the alarmist publication Climate Change News, which is very worried about the future of European climate policy. Apparently, it has been thrown in doubt both by Brexit and by Germany’s increasing reluctance to hamstring its economy with its disastrous Energiewende renewable energy suicide programme.
A proposal for bringing international environmental law under one legally binding treaty at the United Nations will be up for a preliminary vote later this week at the U.N. General Assembly. The United States U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley tells Fox News in a statement that the U.S. won’t support the measure.
The Global Pact for the environment has the backing of French President Emmanuel Macron and the United Nations Secretary General António Guterres, and is being sponsored by France at the world body. It seeks to consolidate what it calls the “fragmented nature of environmental law,” and “codify” it, and make it accessible to all citizens.
In a statement to Fox News, Haley said that, “When international bodies attempt to force America into vague environmental commitments, it’s a sure sign that American citizens and businesses will get stuck paying a large bill without getting large benefits. The proposed global compact is not in our interests, and we oppose it.”
According to Marc Morano, bestselling author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change, the proposed treaty is far more dangerous than the Paris Climate Accord from which President Trump extricated the U.S. last year.
Yay! Be proud, America and relish your splendid isolation! You are, officially, the only nation among the thousands of air-mile-collecting delegates at this year’s U.N. climate conference in Bonn, Germany which hasn’t signed up to the Paris Climate Accord.
You and I might think that this a good thing: America, Land of the Free – the last bastion of common sense, the final redoubt of Western Civilization in a world all but overwhelmed by the green lunacy of the Climate Industrial Complex.
But there are plenty of enemies within still seeking to undermine U.S. independence.
It doesn’t matter that President Trump pulled the U.S. out of the Paris Climate Accord, these quislings are now claiming: individual U.S. cities and states can go ahead and decarbonize their economies, for all the world as if it were that crooked uranium saleswoman sitting in the Oval Office instead of the Donald.
Among the Green Blobbers leading the green insurgency, according to the Washington Examiner, are Michael Bloomberg, Sen. Ed Markey and California Governor Jerry Brown.
The United Nations has officially confirmed what many of us, including President Trump, knew already: the Paris climate accord was a complete waste of space.
As UN Environment admits in its latest Emissions Shortfall report, even when you add up all the CO2 reduction pledges made by all the signatory nations at Paris, it still comes to only a third of what is supposedly necessary to stop the world warming by more than 2 degrees C by the end of this century.
According to UN Environment’s head Eric Solheim, the world is heading for disaster:
“One year after the Paris Agreement entered into force, we still find ourselves in a situation where we are not doing nearly enough to save hundreds of millions of people from a miserable future. Governments, the private sector and civil society must bridge this catastrophic climate gap.”
Another way of looking at it, though, is that President Trump’s decision to pull out of the Paris accord is now fully vindicated. Had the Agreement been ratified, the U.S. would have handed countries like China and India a huge competitive advantage over the American economy. But – as even the UN now admits – it would have made no discernible difference to the alleged problem of “global warming.” So what, exactly would have been the point?
Some economically-illiterate moron just hijacked Joseph Stiglitz’s email, submitted a really embarrassing article on the economics of Trump’s departure from the Paris Agreement, and actually got it published under his name.
Under President Donald Trump’s leadership, the United States took another major step toward establishing itself as a rogue state on June 1, when it withdrew from the Paris climate agreement. For years, Trump has indulged the strange conspiracy theory that, as he put it in 2012, “The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make US manufacturing non-competitive.” But this was not the reason Trump advanced for withdrawing the US from the Paris accord. Rather, the agreement, he alleged, was bad for the US and implicitly unfair to it.
While fairness, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder, Trump’s claim is difficult to justify. On the contrary, the Paris accord is very good for America, and it is the US that continues to impose an unfair burden on others.
Clearly only a sub-literate political activist could have written such hysterical, tendentious, reality-denying drivel.
But if I’m wrong and it really is the work of yer actual Professor Joseph Stiglitz then I think it’s time the Nobel academy asked for the return of the prize they gave him for economics in 2001. I’m not an economics major myself, let alone a feted, Nobel prizewinning professor at Columbia University, but even I can see his line of argument is nonsense.
Where it really falls down is when Stiglitz attempts to make the claim that the Paris Agreement was good for America.
In fact, far more jobs are being created in solar panel installation than are being lost in coal. More generally, moving to a green economy would increase US income today and economic growth in the future. In this, as in so many things, Trump is hopelessly mired in the past.
Truly it is astonishing to read a Nobel-prize-winning economist make such an obviously specious point.
Yes, it’s true – as Paul Homewood notes – that the “solar now bigger than coal” has become a popular meme circulated ad nauseam by climate alarmists and green activists — and celebrated by the credulous: