The Paris treaty Is Just Another Progressive Climate Con

by Steve MacDonald

pariscartoonThe G20 is over, and the G19 has recognized America’s departure both on paper and as it relates to the cost. The US will not be paying into a multi-trillion dollar swindle, to which prominent Warmists have long openly admitted.

In actual intent and practice, the Paris Agreement is a political tool for suppressing growth, instituting global governance over energy use and economic growth, and redistributing wealth.

Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, former chairman of the IPCC, clearly spelled out that aim. Ms. Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change until last year, openly stated that it was not about climate but that, for the first time, it gave them the tools to replace capitalism. Former UNFCCC section director Ottmar Edenhofer bluntly said climate agreements are actually about how “we de facto redistribute the world’s wealth by climate policy.”

Join the New Media Militia

In the past, both Senator John Kerry and Senator Barack Obama (among others) proposed legislation in Congress that would do what Paris does; tax America and redistribute those dollars overseas. It’s an item on the Progressive bucket list. So when President Obama rubber-stamped the Paris Accords and created that ‘tax’ without ever having to run it past the elected legislature the political class gave a collectivist sigh of relief. No one would be held to account for taking trillions out of the US economy (in real cash and lost growth) for decades under the guise of mitigating a trace gas whose primary purpose is as an airborne fertilizer.

No, Paris was never technically “approved” but procedurally speaking few in DC gave a damn. Mr. Phone and Pen just added it to his list of things a certain Executive could and should and left it at that.  So no vote no foul.

It was much like all that Secretay Shall language in ObamCare by which massive amounts of power had been redistributed by legislators to unaccountable bureaucrats. HHS and scores of mutant offspring could create hundreds of thousands of pages of rules and enforce them as law, and if no one liked the result, nobody subject to the will of voters was at serious risk. Legislators could nod with concern and promise to look into it. They might even propose bills no one would ever take seriously, but that would make for great press releases, the shiny objects of the corruptocracy meant to feed the biased media with column inches piled high like shields to protect the politically connected.

In the case of Paris, unelected and unaccountable despots at the UN along with its red-headed committee and commission step children would redirect hundreds of billions into the right globalist pockets for all the wrong reasons under the aegis of the Climate Cult. It was for the good of humanity. And sure, the climate would change, but no more or less than it would without the pomp and circumstance of global agreements disguised as graft. An old game refinanced by rich Western Democracies run by guilt-ridden progressive experts paying for their guilt complexes (private jets, weekend retreats, and lavish lifestyles) with other people’s money.

Mr. Trump, no progressive on this issue, has the sense to see the Paris Agreement for what it is. The most expensive waste of time and money in world history. A treaty that spends much for little to no gain in real terms. Or maybe he’s just poking Mr. Obama in his third eye.

Whatever the thinking, Europe, Australia, and Canada are clinging bitterly to the idea that Paris has something to do with puny humans changing the weather. (Everyone else that’s in has their hand out.)

They can all meet next year in Califonia where Gov. Jerry Brown–who is as good at spending other people’s money as the best of them, says Mr. Trump doesn’t speak “for the rest of America.” Words are cheap, and Jerry Brown’s California is broke.

Talk about ironic.

Leave a Comment

  • Herb

    I have a question for you. If California is so bad off how do you explain the following information from CNS News (1/6/16), hardly a “Progressive news service”

    The 10 states most dependent on Federal funds in order:
    1. Mississippi
    2. Louisiana
    3. Tennessee
    4. South Dakota
    5. Missouri
    6. Montana
    7. Georgia
    8. New Mexico
    9. Alabama
    10, Maine

    While the other end of the spectrum is:

    40. Illinois
    41. New Jersey
    42. California
    43. Nevada
    44. Kansas
    45. Delaware
    46. Connecticut
    47. Virginia
    48. Alaska
    49. Hawaii
    50. North Dakota

    • Catherine

      I can’t answer for every state, but a good place to start is looking at exactly what federal funds are being used. For example in lower density populations, a lot of federal funding is going to go towards infrastructure. New Mexico is going to depend on federal funds for border protection.
      Meanwhile High density populations can depend on local taxes.
      Hawaii, may take in few federal funds, probably because of all the tourism dollars, but they have a very high poverty rate. California has an 8% sales tax rate. 8. Percent. and yet CA is falling apart. Taxing the locals into the ground is obviously not working for them as they hoped.

Previous post:

Next post: