Talking sense about the Paris Accords
A couple of years ago, we opposed The Paris Climate Accords for two reasons:
First, President Obama did not have the constitutional authority to commit the U.S. In other words, the accord should have been sent to the U.S. Senate for ratification, as a treaty.
Second, the "Accords" had no enforcement mechanism. What's the point of agreeing to something that cannot be enforced? Would you rent a property to a tenant without a clause to enforce the lease?
We learned this week that the agreement was a lot of hot air and not much more. IBD has an excellent analysis of the current status:
As we noted in this space recently, not one of the G20 countries is close to meeting the CO2 emissions targets they pledged to reach in the Paris deal.
This is all further evidence that whatever these leaders claim, and no matter how many end-of-the-world predictions environmentalists make, nobody is serious about drastically cutting CO2 emissions by anywhere near the levels climate scientists say is needed to prevent "global catastrophe."
Witness the retreat this week by climate-change champion and French President Emmanuel Macron, who suspended the country's relatively modest carbon tax plan — which would have raised gas prices by 12 cents a gallon — after violent protests broke out across the country.
Or look at liberal Washington state, whose voters overwhelmingly rejected a carbon tax in the midterm elections.
Or look at any poll that measures public priorities and see how low climate change ranks. The latest IBD/TIPP poll found that only 17% ranked dealing with climate change as a top priority for the new Congress.
Don't get me wrong. I love clean air and water as much as the "greenest" of environmentalists. At the same time, it makes no sense to sign agreements that cannot be enforced.
Also, it's time to question the honesty of leaders who talk "climate change" and then do not do a darn thing beyond bashing President Trump. Are you listening, Senator Sanders?