What’s Wrong with the Paris Accord?

Five Reasons the Paris Accord is Bad for the United States

Could anything be wrong with the global agenda of the Paris Accord?

The Looney Left is having a melt-down over the possibility that Trump might mot play pied piper and join the climate agenda parade of those in Brussels who are hellbent on manufacturing a world government with a global tax on everything that breathes.

First, the term “accord” is synonymous with word “agreement.” The Constitution calls international agreements “treaties” (U.S. Constitution 2:3). Treaties require a 2/3 agreement vote in the Senate. You couldn’t get the U.S. senate to agree that 2 plus 2 is four much less to agree on a climate – tax agenda. To sign the agreement without senate approval is treason to the U.S. Constitution, is it not?

Second, the “accord” wants the richest nations like the United States, which is only 20 trillion in debt, to contribute 100 billion dollars to support the “Green Climate Fund.”  Save the world! Who can disagree with saving the planet?

This agreement is about one thing, and only one thing — getting the United States to pay for globalist’s pet projects. Can you say income redistribution to the detriment of the American family?

This is why Trump says, “This Agreement is less about climate and more about other countries gaining a financial advantage over the United States.”

It’s a tax in the form of a “voluntary contribution”–kinda like America’s “volunteer” tax system. If you don’t volunteer, you get a bill from the IRS.

When it comes time to pay the pied piper, France, Canada, and Brazil will leave the United States holding the bill.

Third, the agreement has no effect of law. There is no enforcement powers connected with it. It is nonbinding on flaky administrations. For those nations that don’t conform, there is no blame game to be played. Nations will be encouraged, but not shamed, into compliance. “Yes, you can do it, China!” “Think positive, India!” “Go for it Mexico!”

Fourth, the Paris accord places no burden on China or India to produce less green-house gases. This means India and China can go on producing monoxide-based widgets for the rest of the world with no throttle on their black-smoke factories.

Fifth, if you accept the huge presumption that there is such a thing as climate change . . . and that man is the cause of it, it is shear arrogance to think that more government and more taxes can actually reduce the world’s average temperature. How would you know? Who would you measure success world wide in both the northern and southern hemispheres?

Personally, I like the phrase, “Make America great again.”

Storm Brooks

6-1-2017