Monday marked the opening of the United Nations climate change conference in Paris, with leaders from nearly 150 countries in attendance. Much has been made of the irony that global leaders are gathering in France — just weeks after a massive terror attack — to discuss the threat of greenhouse gas emissions. One would think that Europe would be promoting a “Paris Agreement” as a world consensus on battling the rise of radical Islamic jihadism rather than battling the rise of the world’s temperature.
Imagine how radically different the world would be if the discussion in Morocco in 1943 at the Casablanca Conference had been centered on the weather rather than the doctrine of unconditional surrender.
Last week, President Obama confidently stated that the conference would be a “rebuke” to the terrorists — as if jihadists will somehow be shamed into stopping their malicious acts because the world’s peddlers of eco-guilt are holding a conference to ease their collective conscience.
Can any rational world leader actually believe that climate change is the worst problem this world is facing? How is that even possible? ISIS runs amok, and the refugee crisis in Syria has reached epic proportions; but apparently, this pales in comparison to the focus on carbon dioxide emissions.
What should frighten thinking Americans everywhere is that the goal of the conference is to achieve a “binding and universal” agreement from all nations to work to reduce emissions. It is assumed that about 20 nations, including the U.S., will agree to double the amount of spending related to “clean” energy over a five-year period. For us, that would represent billions of dollars. Billions. And that’s of course in addition to the billions we have already spent.
In the period from 2010-13 alone, the U.S. Treasury almost doubled spending on renewable energy grants from $4.5 billion to $8.2 billion; and tax subsidies for “green energy” grew from $1.9 billion to $3.8 billion during the same time, according the EIA.
Mr. Obama said he was “optimistic about what we can achieve because I’ve already seen America take incredible strides these past seven years.” As our dependence on renewable energy is estimated to have grown a paltry 1.7% over that period of time, one could only imagine he is referring to the strides in spending.
Reality check: Sunday night’s debt clock stood at $18.7 trillion. What will be the source of this money?
The most recent jobs report showed absolutely no growth in the manufacturing sector. But instead of a focused effort to rebuild this crucial sector of our economy, the president is likely to agree to a pledge of cutting emissions from 28 percent to 26 percent in the next 15 years.
And don’t forget a $3 billion pledge to the U.N. Green Climate Fund to help poorer countries deal with climate change.
Dare I be so bold as to ask for the page and verse citation of the U.S. Constitution that gives the authority to the U.S. president to spend any of this money or sign on to these types of agreements? Congressional Republicans, along with a number of their Democrat counterparts, have sent a clear signal that any agreement signed onto by the president will be non-binding. Mr. Obama himself has steered clear of using the phrase “treaty”, presumably demonstrating enough respect for the Constitution to know that a president only has the power to make treaties “by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate … provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur.” (Article II, Section 2.)
Who will come to defense of America on this issue? Why must we agree to shoulder so much of the financial load of this agreement? According to an EU database, the facts show that the U.S. carbon dioxide emissions have grown only slightly from 1990 to 2013, and our per capita emissions have actually decreased in the same period! Compare that to China, whose emissions have nearly tripled in both categories.
It has become quite obvious that any world discussion on climate change advances becomes synonymous with what can only be seen as economic sanctions for the United States. For once, global leaders have found a morally acceptable and universally popular way to level the world’s economic playing field. With chants of “Save the Planet” they assume the moral high ground to make financial demands on producing nations in the forms of carbon tax and funding for underdeveloped nations.
In few ways has the epic struggle between the makers and the takers played out more obviously on a world stage.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.