The Biden Administration has discussed declaring a “climate emergency,” which will be a pretext for engaging in the largest government assumption of power over the American economy in history. It also seeks to have the nation re-enter the Paris Climate “Accord,” which in reality is a treaty that was never presented to the U.S. Senate, and has more to do with enacting socialist economic ideals than improving the environment.
There has been a great of criticism over the unprecedented and expensive proposals agreed to as part of the Paris Climate Accord. An Investors.com review notes that even if climate change was as dire as advocates maintain, the economy-busting Paris Climate Accord would have little impact. “According to the latest annual UN report on the ‘emissions gap,’ the Paris agreement will provide only a third of the cuts in greenhouse gas that environmentalists claim is needed to prevent catastrophic warming. If every country involved in those accords abides by their pledges between now and 2030 — which is a dubious proposition — temperatures will still rise by 3 degrees C by 2100. The goal of the Paris agreement was to keep the global temperature increase to under 2 degrees.”
The American Enterprise Institute questions the viability of the Paris Climate Accord proposals. “If we apply the EPA climate model under a set of assumptions that strongly exaggerate the effectiveness of international emissions reductions, the Paris emissions cuts, if achieved by 2030 and maintained fully on an international basis through 2100, would reduce temperatures by that year by 0.17 of a degree. The US contribution to that dubious achievement—the Obama climate action plan—would be 0.015 of a degree. Add another 0.01 of a degree if you believe that the Obama pseudo-agreement with China is meaningful. (It is not.) This effort to reduce GHG emissions would impose costs of at least 1 percent of global GDP, or roughly $600 billion to $750 billion or more per year, inflicted disproportionately upon the world’s poor. Would those arguing that the US should preserve the Paris status quo please explain how it can be justified simply as a straightforward exercise in benefit-cost analysis?”
Climate change is also being used by some state officials as an excuse to raise taxes, taking advantage of, and essentially eliminating within their jurisdictions, the impact of the Trump tax cuts.
The current Biden-John Kerry arguments are based on absolute falsehoods.
Just like other areas in life when stress viagra generika our pharmacy levels are few ways of fighting ED. Sexual copulation is the most important part that develops the health of the person. buy cialis line Below is a list canadian pharmacy sildenafil of other factors and the one that happen as a result of mental disorders or stress related issues. Unfortunately, the likelihood that he sildenafil shop will come out of his control.Is the U.S. in the midst of a climate emergency? Not if you review the facts. Ellen Wald, an energy specialist writing in Forbes has reviewed the United Nations latest Emissions Gap Report. She notes that “for the United States, the real value in this report is as an advisory that it need not join the Paris Climate Accord. This report is evidence that, instead, the U.S. should just keep doing what it is doing to cut its own emissions. The U.S. is the most successful major country at mitigating its own pollution, and the U.N. shows this… over the last decade, the country’s GHG emissions have been in decline (0.4 per cent per year). Greenhouse gas emissions per capita in the U.S. are dropping precipitously while those of China, India and Russia continue to rise…And the U.S. is making these improvements while it refuses to participate in the Paris Climate Accord. In 2017, the [Trump] White House said, that if it remained a part of that agreement, ‘compliance with the terms of the Paris Accord and the onerous energy restrictions it has placed on the United States could cost America as much as 2.7 million lost jobs by 2025 according to the National Economic Research Associates.’ Instead, the U.S. continued decreasing its greenhouse gas emissions faster than any other major polluter, and it did so without the Paris agreement.”
One of Biden’s early targets has been the Keystone Pipeline, a particularly irrational move. Transporting oil using a pipeline is clearly safer and more environmentally friendly than any other method. The statistics prove this beyond a doubt. But opposing Keystone is actually a cover for the real objective: eliminating the use of oil altogether.
The Report concludes tomorrow
Illustration: Pixabay