Monday, June 5, 2017

The Paris Agreement - Just the Facts Ma'am

The Paris Agreement – Just the Facts, Ma’am
The View from the Middle

If you haven’t read the Paris Agreement, I recommend you do so. It’s only 25 pages long and the experience will allow you to cut through the hysterical rhetoric you’ve been hearing from the media and help you understand the upside and downside of our participation in it. There are very smart people on both sides of this issue so don’t let either side demonize you for your choice.

If you agree with Trump’s decision to withdraw from the agreement, “the left” will call you stupid, uncaring and greedy. They will probably accuse you of misogyny, homophobia, Islamaphobia, xenophobia and bigotry too, but I fail to see the connection. If you wanted to continue to participate in this agreement, “the right” (while less vocal) may accuse you of ignorance and blind loyalty. The truth is, as usual, somewhere in the middle. There are good reasons for withdrawal from or to support the agreement and Trump was going to get skewered no matter which way he went. If he decided to continue to support the Paris Accord, the media would have painted it as a broken campaign promise, but now he is just stupid, etc.

Make up your own mind, but let’s all deal with the facts, not apocalyptic projections. I’ve heard that the Marshall Islands will be underwater by 2070. Put that on your calendars for those of you who will still be alive by then. Of course the polar ice caps were supposed to be gone 10 years ago, but they stubbornly hang on, and millions of children are going to die of asthma attacks. Not that I am unsympathetic to asthma (my wife is a sufferer) but that is a claim that is easy to make but impossible to prove. Here is a fact – The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (some pretty smart folks) have projected that if all the provisions of the Paris Agreement are met, it will only result in a lowering of global temperatures by .2 degrees Celsius by 2100. That’s two tenths of one degree by 2100, and there are many assumptions built into that projection.

Let’s just deal with the facts. First fact – the Paris Agreement is non-binding. That means that all 175 countries can submit any grandiose plan they like, and if they don’t deliver on those plans there are NO consequences. In a group that includes Iran, Cuba and North Korea, I don’t have confidence in compliance. The United States, by contrast, does actually try to live up to it’s commitments, so let’s look at what exactly President Obama committed us to (remember, this was an executive action not passed through Congress. I wonder why?)

The first thing that the President committed us to is a 27% reduction in our greenhouse gas emissions by 2025. I don’t know about you, but that sounds like a lot, and how exactly are we going to do that? The short answer to that question is that we will have to convert energy we currently generate through fossil fuels to renewables. That sounds easy enough. Unfortunately, wind and solar combined only generate 3% of America’s energy today. Plus, when you take away government subsidies, they are much more expensive. This uncovers two problems. First, it is not practical to transition to renewables that quickly, AND if we tried, energy costs for the average American would “necessarily skyrocket”. Those are President Obama’s own words.

A side effect of this assault on our energy and manufacturing industries is going to be lost jobs. President Trump said that we could lose as many as 2.7 million jobs by 2025. That’s based on a study by insurance and risk management company NERA. I’m not sure if the job losses will be that great, but common sense should tell us that the disruption of our economy, increases in regulations and increased energy costs will kill jobs here.

The second thing Mr. Obama committed us to was money! By my count, the concept of transferring money from “developed” countries (us) to “developing” countries was mentioned 19 times in the Paris Agreement. Hillary Clinton said the US would coordinate a fund of $100 billion a year for this effort. The director of the Green Climate Fund, who would receive and distribute this money, suggested that the need would quickly rise to about $450 billion a year. BTW - I want the job of distributing that money. No threat of corruption there!! I looked at the leadership of that fund and you know what country is not represented? That’s right, The United States!! We’ll be the sugar daddy, of course, but will not be influential in the distribution of that sugar.

Since we are already running deficits here in the US, every penny of these new climate “goodie bags” will have to be borrowed. So, we will be borrowing money from China and giving it to – guess who? – China!! Another side note – of the 175 countries who signed the Paris Agreement, about 140 are considered “developing” countries that will receive funds from the “developed” countries, which I think means us. No wonder they received support from so many nations. BTW – Russia, India and China are all considered “developing” countries, thus eligible to receive these green funds.

I support Donald Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris Agreement. I’m not saying we should trash the environment. We should continue to research global warming to insure we understand the real causes and find solutions. I’m a big believer in solar power. Some day we will figure out how to harness it effectively and efficiently, but that day is not today. We don’t need the Paris Agreement to do that and we certainly don’t need to borrow any more money in the name of the American people. The other 174 countries can go ahead with their plans and America will do just fine, thank you. Or, they could come back and put together an agreement that will be better for the American people and pass it through Congress.

15 comments:

  1. The Paris Agreement is flawed, but doing nothing is no longer an option. One can/will find a flaw in any proposed solution for a problem of this magnitude. It's easy to make the perfect the enemy of the good on this, which is what tends to happen when partisanship is inserted.

    The cost argument falls flat when one considers the amount we subsidize the production of fossil fuels and subsidize fossil fuel rich nations to the tune of billions precisely because they have those fuels. Especially when you factor in we've traded in not only dollars but lives to support fossil fuel producing nations. Or for something more tangible, think about federally subsidized flood insurance in coastal areas - subsidized meaning our tax dollars are making it possible for people to live there. Think about the cost to virtually all of our low lying port cities from which hundreds of billions of goods flow in and out. You don't think we taxpayers are going to end up subsidizing the repairs and protections that will result from those ports dealing with rising sea levels? Of course we will because again - that's our link to the global economy.

    Arguing this is some sort of left wing conspiracy is certainly a simple response but follow the money. Those with the most money at risk, the insurance industry, are paying attention. Here's Warren Buffett, whose fortune is largely built on insurance:

    “I think you’ll have a reasonable time to move, but I would say, if you’re making a 50-year investment in low-lying properties, it’s probably a mistake. I actually said you may — as a homeowner in a low-lying area — you may wish to consider moving. And I would say that if you expect to be there for 10 years or so, I don’t think I would consider moving. But if I thought I was making a 100-year investment, I don’t think I would make it.”

    Here's more: https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights/latest-news-headlines/56621777

    They're not screaming yet, but nervous eyes are being cast, and don't think that doesn't factor into premium decisions on everything from crop insurance to housing.

    And then of course there are the national security benefits to an aggressive alternative fuels investment. Reducing our economy's dependence on oil lessens our need to be involved so deeply in many of the world's hot spots. Trump campaigned on getting us out of the Middle East. Instead, he's increased our total troop presence there, but it would certainly be easier for him to keep that promise if Kuwait and Saudi Arabia and Iraq were not so strategically important.

    What to do is certainly debatable. What's not debatable is the need to move away from X is good because my party's guy does it, or Y is bad because your party's guy does it. Ideas stand on their merits. Yes, each has costs and benefits. Building an interstate highway system allowed you and I to get goods from across the country cheaper and quicker, but maybe it killed our uncle's downtown general store when the town was bypassed. We make these decisions every day. Viewing them through partisan political lenses only makes them more difficult to address.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Matt,
      Congratulations. By admitting that The Paris Accord is a "flawed" agreement, you have taken a giant step towards the middle. My post was intended to just give the facts about that Accord and you can let me know if I mis-stated any of those facts, but If I was going to give an opinion, I would say that it was fatally flawed for three reasons:
      1. It starts out by stating that it is a non-binding agreement. That is actually all I should have to point out, but there are two other reasons for my opinion.
      2. Of the 175 (roughly) countries in the accord, 145 are receiving money as part of their participation, 29 are spectators and one country (the US) is the money provider. This is simply not a sustainable proposition. Cozy for 174 countries and untenable for us.
      3. We actually don't know if any of this will actually work. I believe that anyone who is guaranteeing that they know what is going to happen to anything, especially our climate, in 100 years is lying to us.

      There is nothing that prevents any of the 174 countries from pursuing their non-binding plans just because the US has pulled out, but I'm guessing that none will, especially China and India.

      And no one is suggesting that we do nothing. In fact, over the last three years America has led the world in carbon emissions reductions. You should go to my archive section (just to the right of any of my articles) and read one that I wrote in Sept. of 2015 called "Solar Power, Climate Change &Y Energy" and one written in April of 2014 entitled "Climate Change and Other Sure Things".

      I would also suggest that YOU follow the advice in your final paragraph and question your own party's direction as well as just opposing the other side no matter what. Follow Einstein's advice when he said, "A foolish faith in authority is the worst enemy of truth." He questioned everything. So should you.

      Delete
    2. There is no "middle." There really isn't a defined "conservative" or "liberal" anymore. They're just words people use to hit other people over the head with. If you believe in reduced deficits and limited government but don't really care if homosexuals get married, some will call you conservative, some will call you liberal. Depends on their goals, not some actual agreed definition.

      As to your points, if #1 is true, then why did we need to withdraw? It's non-binding.

      As to #2, of course we're the money provider. We have the most to gain ultimately. We as Americans, by the happy accident of birth for most of us, live better than 99.9% of all humans in history. Our coastal cities, and our ports, could create greater disruption in our lives than virtually anywhere else. So if we have to contribute to others to help stop that, it might just be worth it. Will it be any cheaper than building an experimental sea wall around the Port of Galveston, for just one example? Or relocating all of New Orleans and its ports? If we're going to complain about the costs of effort X, we have to at least acknowledge the costs of effort Y. And you also have to acknowledge ALL the costs of not making a plan or effort to wean from fossil fuels.

      You're right, we don't know if any of it will work. I don't really see that as an excuse for doing nothing. We as individuals, local communities, states and federal governments make decisions all the time.

      I don't have a party. I don't believe in big government enough to be part of either, and what would normally be my semi-home based on what they claimed to stand for, and the party I was a member of for most of my life, the Republican party, has shown itself of late to be an utter fraud with regard to spending and decency, among other things. I do question everything. And I start with obvious habitual liars like the President.

      Delete
    3. That should say the flooding of our coastal cities and ports.

      And it also should say "We as individuals . . . make decisions all the time without knowing if it will work."

      Delete
  2. "President Trump said that we could lose as many as 2.7 million jobs by 2025."

    It's hard to take the President seriously on these sorts of things without a citation to what he's talking about. Just a couple weeks ago he credited Ivanka alone with creating 14 million jobs. In 3 years, the entire economy has added only 6 million. That is of course one of many, many whoppers he's told.

    This is not a man who deals in truth, and has admitted that freely over the years, including when he is under oath. One should not expect anyone to believe them when they quote him without citation to his sources.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Matt,
      Do you really think the Democrats or the media are any better. Even the "lie counters" are lying. Do you even know what they call lies and how they "count" them? I do, and I can tell you that they are lying.

      Al Gore said the polar ice caps would be gone 10 years ago? Is that a lie? How many times did he say that? How many times did the media repeat it? Climate change fanatics said that New York would be underwater 10 years ago. They also said that we would have 50 million climate change refugees by 10 years ago. Polar bears were supposed to be extinct. Trump is an amateur liar compared to climate change fanatics, the media and the Democrats.

      Delete
    2. Do I really think they're better? Sure I do. I actually believe most people try not to lie. Even politicians. They don't take pride in lying, and they don't see it as "part of doing business" on the scale of Donald Trump.

      And I would say that if Trump weren't President. He has ALWAYS been this way, and not shy about it. 30 years ago he was calling up New York newspapers under the name John Barron pretending to be his own publicist so he could brag about fictional sexual exploits.

      You love sports - read books about the USFL collapse he was integrally part of in that same era. EVERYONE knows Trump to be a habitual liar about virtually everything. It's a feature, not a bug in his mind.

      Telling me other politicians lie tells me they're human. That's fine. But no one has ever lied like this on this scale. Ivanka 14 million jobs? What the heck? That's not even sane. The sharpie on the hurricane threat and then Trump completely unable to acknowledge it was a Sharpie? Again - why? It's not like his followers will care if he says "Hey, I misread that about Alabama, but everyone stay safe out there because these things can change direction rapidly." No, the man literally took a Sharpie to a weather map and the whole government had to scramble to pretend it was true so as not to offend him. He literally said to the American people he did not pay off Stormy Daniels and we have his signature on the checks to Cohen to do just that! Why not just say no comment? Because he can't help but lie.

      Your "the media" claim doesn't hold much water, because you're lumping thousands of people in there, and just picking this or that one. And that's false. I don't think Asa Hutchinson lies as a matter of course. I think writers at every newspaper from my little hometown one to the Wall Street Journal try and get it right. In fact, the WSJ, owned by Rupert Murdoch, has called out many of Trump's lies. The comparisons just don't work.

      Delete

  3. I missed the NERA reference, and my apologies. However, looking for it proves the point of the post. Here's NERA on Trump's claim:

    https://www.nera.com/news-events/press-releases/2017/nera-economic-consultings-study-of-us-emissions-reduction-polici.html

    "In a set of talking points distributed by the White House in conjunction with its announcement of the US withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, the Trump Administration selectively used results from a NERA Economic Consulting study, “Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Regulations on the Industrial Sector.”

    The lesson - don't trust, always verify when it comes to DJT.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "Since we are already running deficits here in the US, every penny of these new climate “goodie bags” will have to be borrowed. So, we will be borrowing money from China and giving it to – guess who? – China!!"

    One more - no one cares about deficits anymore. It's official:

    https://www.nationalreview.com/news/extraordinarily-disturbing-mulvaney-calls-out-republicans-for-hypocrisy-on-deficits/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I care about deficits, and my children and yours will curse us for our lack of discipline in spending when they have to pay the price.

      Delete
    2. Perhaps so, but if you do care about deficits why in the world would you support Donald Trump? The only time Republicans care about deficits is when there's a Democrat in the White House. The only meaningful spending caps/reduction in growth we've had in decades was the sequester, which came from one party having Congress and the other the White House. Before that it was Clinton in the White House and Repubs in Congress.
      Give the same party control of both and it's a nonstop spending spree. If deficits matter, divided government is what you should wish for.

      Plus, an added benefit is if Repubs keep Congress and Dems get the White House, we might at least slow the decline of the dignity of the Office of President.

      Delete
    3. And that's not me saying that the only time Republicans care about deficits is when Dems have the White House. MICK MULVANEY, Trump's acting Chief of Staff, co-founder of the Freedom Caucus, Tea Party darling (remember the Tea Party? When deficits were allegedly so bad under Obama?) said that.

      What incentive does he have to lie about it?

      Delete
  5. P.S. I'm not picking on you. I still believe in the seemingly lost art of disagreement without being disagreeable, and it should be practiced in politics above all places. I appreciate you giving us this form for the discussion and the polite and forthright manner in which you state your position. It's all too lacking in modern political discourse. So thank you.

    ReplyDelete