By law, I’m only allowed to use “or something” once a day, especially when it is the same news outlet and the same Climaidiot, John D. Sutter at CNN
Among the many (many, many, many) differences between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, one of the most consequential is this: Clinton says she would support the terms of the landmark UN Paris Agreement on climate change; Trump says he would “cancel” it.
That agreement, which this week was ratified by enough countries to become international law, calls for the world to become carbon neutral this century. Basically that means no fossil fuel pollution, or none we don’t figure out how to slurp out of the atmosphere. That’s a lofty and critical goal if we want cities like New York and New Orleans to survive the onslaught of rising seas, and if we want future generations to inherit a habitable planet.
What follows is a lot of bitching about Trump and saying that he couldn’t really pull the U.S. out of the Paris accord, which is a bunch of hogwash. We’ve been through this, but, essentially, since it is a) voluntary and b) not subject to force of U.S. law since it was designed to avoid Congressional approval, Trump could simply write a presidential directive saying “nope, we’re done.” We wouldn’t have to wait 3 years, and Sutter writes, or 4 years, as others write.
The true strength of the Paris Agreement, in my view, is that it sets a tangible goal for climate policy: Limit warming “well below” 2 degrees Celsius, which is measured as a temperature increase since the industrial revolution.
Actually, no. First, the world hasn’t warmed 2C since 1850. Less than half that. It was actually designed to limit the rise to 2C overall since 1850 by 2100, a number Warmists say is still too high. And most committed (meaning Barking Moonbat Unhinged) Warmists say the Paris accord will not achieve any goals.
And underlying that goal: Eliminate all net carbon pollution by 2100. (The legalese in the the text of the agreement says the goal is “to achieve a balance between anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of greenhouse gases in the second half of this century.” But that essentially means zero net carbon emissions.)
OK. We can start by all Warmists giving up their own use of fossil fuels and making their lives carbon neutral.
The fact that the world agrees on that bold goal should be cause for celebration.
Most agreed on the Kyoto Protocol, and virtually every single one of them utterly failed to keep their pledges, and Kyoto was much stronger in terms of necessary ratifaction by countries.. Think they’ll keep their pledges with Paris, when is mostly voluntary?