And it seems Trump has backed out of the recent climate deal.
You can't back out of a deal that you weren't actually in in the first place. Like the Kyoto Accords, this agreement was yet another feel good piece of paper that had no actual value except for people to pat themselves on the backs and claim it did. And, like the Kyoto Accords, had the US actually ever complied with the terms, would have actually resulted in increased total global pollution (greenhouse gasses in this case).
And (once again, since this is like a freaking broken record for such silly agreements/accords/whatever), it did not measure pollution in terms of units of productive output, but rather lumped countries into categories based on perceived size, industrial level, wealth, etc, and applied different rules to each category (well, except for China, by far the worst offender, which got a pass because... well... no reason I guess except the feel good need to get them to sign on, so we can all congratulate ourselves for "doing something" about climate change).
And, like the Kyoto Accords, it's yet another such silly thing that was "agreed to" by a Democrat president, knowing full well he had no authority or power to actually comply with the agreement due to the whole "no chance this will ever be ratified" problem, but so he can collect accolades for being so environmentally conscious regardless of the absolute absence of tangible benefits, and leaving it to the next GOP administration to be the "bad guy" and be a rational adult about the whole thing and call it what it is (a complete BS waste of paper and time). And yeah, calling Trump "rational" is painful to start with, but that's where we're kinda at here.
Seriously. It's the same freaking thing we went through nearly 20 years ago, just with a different label. The world demand for "widgets" doesn't change if you demand that the US reduce its domestic pollution generation by X percent. Thus, the most likely way to meet such a demand is for widget production to move from the US, where the pollution per widget rate is very very low, to some other country, most likely one where the rate is very very high. Ergo, more global pollution, not less.
It's always amazing to me how people who claim to be thinking globally fall into this same trap every single time. If you want to actually do something about global pollution (of whatever pollutant we're talking about), the only way to do this is to apply the same rules to every country, everywhere. Same rate of pollution per unit of production must exist, or the system will not work. Yet, despite this very obvious fact, we still get the same ridiculous cherry picked accords/agreements instead. And the same numskulls rave about how great it is, and how important it is for global cleanliness or whatever, and the same horrified response when the adults in the room tell them that it wont actually work.
I'll say the same thing about this agreement that I said about Kyoto. It had nothing at all to do with global pollution, the climate, saving the earth, or green anything. It had everything to do with using those things to push for economic outcomes that those involved wanted. It's a global form of class warfare, where the "rich" must pay to help the "poor". The US is "rich", so it must suffer penalties. It's as simple as that. If you think it's at all about the environment, then you've been totally snowed. Edited, Jun 2nd 2017 5:08pm by gbaji