What You’re Not Being Told About the Paris Climate Agreement

| |

Top Tier Gear USA


President Trump’s decision to withdraw the United States from the Paris Climate Accord has thrown the world into a blazing furnace full of weeping and gnashing of teeth—or the political world, at least, has been thrown into a fiery tizzy.

The front page of the New York Daily News reads “TRUMP TO WORLD: DROP DEAD, Decides to hell with science, Earth’s future.”

Former President Barack Obama broke his silence, saying, in part, that with this decision the Trump administration “joins a small handful of nations that reject the future.

Former Secretary of State John Kerry lambasted Trump’s decision as “an ignorant, cynical appeal to an anti-science, special-interest faction,” as well as saying, “This choice will rightly be remembered as one of the most shameful any president has made.”

And the list goes on and on and on.

To hear these people talk, apparently, the human race can only progress into the future and create new industries and technologies if we are flogged into it begrudgingly by our ‘wise’ government and corporate leaders.

Are we really ready to presume what human society will look like several decades from now? Are we seriously expected to believe that government action is the only way to tackle the problem of climate change? If we fail to use the heavy hand of government to brave the future, why should we assume the human race will fail to innovate and adapt to complex challenges on its own?

Imagine, if you will, a world where you cannot turn to governments to solve problems such as climate change.

How would you achieve your righteous ends? Would you simply do nothing if you could not turn to government?

I ask because too often, noble goals serve as a Trojan Horse for political control.

Governments often present us with grand solutions as gifts for our real and perceived problems, but once inside the gates, they proceed to saddle our communities with a slew of regulations, mandates, taxes, diktats, quotas, subsidies, penalties and the like. The cursed gift of government, it seems, is always a central plan that conflates voluntary cooperation, collective action, and even community itself with centralized political control.

But we do not need the trappings of central planning to solve our collective problems. Society can run itself, thank you very much; it needs no single creator or director.

Society already has great gifts for solving complex human issues—individual liberty, initiative, and ingenuity, along with the free and open exchange of goods and ideas—and we need not sacrifice these liberal benefactors of the modern world to dream impossible dreams and fight unbeatable foes. The greatest achievements of the human race have not come from government committees and accords, but from intrepid yet everyday individuals working in concert to tackle the unknown and implacable through innovation and persuasion.

Yet, rather than allowing people to freely choose and coordinate their own plans in our common struggle against nature, too many people first brand other people as the problem. Too many would rather rely on commanding and controlling others to fix humanity’s wicked problems than freely solve the problem themselves. Too many conflate the government’s failure to act as society signaling we are resigned to do nothing—thus, the weeping and gnashing of teeth over Donald Trump’s recent decision.

I find all the hysterics and tears of hubris laughable. This mindset deserves to be mocked for its lack of imagination and obsequious acceptance of corporate cronyism and global governance as the only path to the future; it deserves to be mocked for claiming the singular appearance of “doing something” (without much effect) is better than actually tackling the problem from many different directions; it deserves to be mocked even on environmental activist grounds as a list of empty promises and half-measures, as a perversion of the cause, just as a free trader may mock NAFTA or an anti-war activist may mock Barack Obama receiving the Nobel Peace Prize; and it deserves to be mocked for how little it respects the ability of average people to change their station and adapt to the changing world on their own without the pretentious prodding of government leaders.

I’m willing to bet the existence of the entire human race that without the Paris Climate Accord, we will rise to meet the challenge of climate change successfully. Further, if we would shrink government generally—i.e. give average people the freedom to think and trade as they wish in the energy sector or any other industry—then by the accord’s own target year of 2100, the market (which is simply free people trading and producing as they wish based on their own enlightenment) will have reduced carbon emissions and given us new technologies beyond the wildest dreams of those now bemoaning the U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord.

In fact, the U.S. clean energy sector has grown leaps and bounds in only the last few years despite the lack of a robust central plan. Coal is already giving way to cleaner forms of energy and will continue to do so no matter what Donald Trump promises the miners of West Virginia. And the fact that there is this burgeoning clean energy industry does not mean we should engage in crony capitalism and wealth redistribution between nations to “prime the pump.” Picking winners and losers in the clean energy sector is just as bad as doing so in any other sector (including the fossil fuels industry.). Must we really kowtow to corporations and their client states by granting them government privileges and sweetheart deals to create new technologies they already have enough incentive to create anyway?

No, if we wish to solve the climate change problem, I suggest we try, first and foremost, to create products and services that will actually make people’s lives better immediately rather than imposing immense costs upfront with no clear time horizon wherein we reap the benefits. Just as one need not convince people of evolution before they take vaccines or life-saving drugs, there’s no need to convince people of the science of climate change if you can sell them a better, cheaper, cleaner, and more practical way to power their lives. Shaming, lecturing, and trying to control people’s behavior through the political process for unclear results and opaque benefits is not serving this cause well, as sound as the science and as noble as the cause may be.

Ironically enough, Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris accord may very well usher in a new era of initiative absent the federal government. After Trump’s decision, many industry leaders, mayors, and governors pledged to pursue solutions to climate change absent the federal government. As the CEO of General Electric Jeff Immelt tweeted, “Climate change is real. Industry must now lead and not depend on government.

That’s the spirit, Jeff, but my only question is: what the hell have you been waiting for?

Industry and the people of the United States should have been saying this long ago. It’s time to stop looking to central governments and global committees—whether the issue is climate change or poverty or education or whatever—to make our world a better place.

The time for us to pursue the future ourselves is long overdue, and it would be a shame to sell ourselves and the future short because we’re too busy bickering over political power.

Delivered by The Daily Sheeple

We encourage you to share and republish our reports, analyses, breaking news and videos (Click for details).

Contributed by Joey Clark of theantimedia.org.

The “Anti” in our name does not mean we are against the media, we are simply against the current mainstream paradigm. The current media, influenced by the industrial complex, is a top-down authoritarian system of distribution—the opposite of what Anti-Media aims to be. At Anti-Media, we want to offer a new paradigm—a bottom-up approach for real and diverse reporting. We seek to establish a space where the people are the journalists and a venue where independent journalism moves forward on a larger and more truthful scale.

Wake The Flock Up! Please Share With Sheeple Far & Wide:
  • Irate Pirate

    It’s all about control through taxation, similar to Obamacare. They force you to spend your hard earn money on something you don’t need or want. If I want to buy healthcare, it’s my choice. And if I want to buy clean air, I’ll buy an oxygen tank with a mask. And if it’s too hot outside because you say there’s global warming or change. I’ll stay inside my house sitting in front of my AC. See, there’s are different ways at looking at all things, but separated into 2 category. Truth and Lies, Choose wisely

  • Lewie Paine

    ‘…looking to central governments and global committees…to make our world a better place.’
    The very definition of progressivism – both left and right.

    • Irenerdavis

      Google is paying 97$ per hour! Work for few hours & have longer with friends and family! !dp355c:
      On tuesday I got a great new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $8752 this last four weeks.. Its the most-financialy rewarding I’ve had.. Follow this link for more information
      ➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleFinancialCashJobs645DirectPlusGetPaid$97/Hour ★★★✫★★★✫★★★✫★★★✫★★★✫★★★✫★★★✫★★★✫★★★✫★★★✫★★★✫★★★✫★★★✫::::::!dp355c:….,….

  • Cynical Old Bastard

    See that NYT headline and those subcations, Ms Luger?

    That’s Bob.

    Don’t be like him.

  • Clementine

    I find it interesting that this article does not mention the real reason Trump backed out of this accord…
    China and India,the two biggest environmental polluters are allowed to pollute under this agreement yet America is to foot the bill for the world! This bill is complete bullsh*t and if people would actually use their technological devices for doing some research, instead of grand standing on facebook and twitter, then they just might get a clearer picture of this fiasco!
    Even though this guy leaves out the India and China of it, he explains the financial aspect of it rather well…

  • SP_88

    This climate agreement is not about saving the environment or stopping climate change. It’s about redistribution of wealth. It’s about taking money from the working class and the poor and giving it to the already extremely wealthy so they can have more control over us.
    The very idea of stopping the climate from changing is utterly ridiculous. And anyone who believes that by giving your hard earned money to the government you can stop climate change is just brain dead. You might as well be trying to stop the tide from rising or the moon from orbiting the earth. It’s not gonna happen. But you will be relieved of your money.
    So thanks, but no thanks. I’m tired of getting screwed over by these ridiculous agreements that I never would have agreed to in the first place.
    Basically, this agreement was for us to give trillions of dollars to other countries to reduce carbon emissions, but we are the ones who have to spend billions of dollars to reduce our carbon emissions while they get to continue to spew as much pollution into the atmosphere as they want for the next several decades. Did I miss anything? Who the hell would ever agree to that? That plan is ludicrous and it makes no sense whatsoever.
    But what else would you expect from a bunch of crooked politicians.

    • Angelswatchingoverme

      To remove Carbon to a plant would be like removing oxygen from human…it is to suffocate our plants…they’ll die and we will have nothing to eat…suffocate the plants and starve us to death at the same time.


    “Noble goals serve as a Trojan Horse for political control”! Like the Noble
    goal of “Gun Control”! We must save the 35,000 people needlessly killed
    by firearms each year, ( While completely IGNORING the 800,000 the

    medical industrial complex needlessly kills each year)! Not sure how
    saving 35,000 souls outweighs saving 800,000 souls? Maybe this is the ONE
    use for that “common core math” they’ve been pushing…perhaps?

  • Marian Baghor

    The dramatically presented concept “Climate change” as it is promoted nowadays, is a model for profit. Weather is a product on the Stock Market Exchange in sync with the human tinkering with weather-conditions, as a tool to manipulate and even measures of retribution. Than the results are used to prove that the climate is changing. I like that expression “Wake the flock up”. Yes ladies and gentlemen, we are waking up fast now, for the madness of man made creations has gone too far.

  • Major Payne

    Great commentary thanks.

  • bsroon

    Interesting article about how the algorithms used to present the ‘WARMER’S’ climate data are hacked, or designed to ALWAYS make global warming increase. Even when you data points are literally white noise…
    Aside from the heavily weighted tree rings who REALLY can’t be used for temperature modeling since they grow SEASONALLY, and aside from the known times that NASA lied about and changed data to make global warming look real, – their system made hockey stick graphs about 999 X of a 1,000.

    When the inaccurate tree ring growth was measured – the Bristlecone Pine data was given (by the program) about 390X more weight compared to the other tree rings which didn’t indicate any global warming…

    The whole thing got rid of the MWP – medieval warm period – you know, where the Vikings actually farmed the southern tip of Greenland? From about 800 AD to a bit after 1200 AD when the (shock) CLIMATE CHANGED (!!!) and got colder…

    Global warming “hockey stick” data founded on FRAUD… computer models “hacked” to produce warming trend from any data set – NaturalNews.com

    • reagangs

      I wouldn’t trust ice or ocean bottom core samples was far as I could throw them.

      • bsroon

        LOL – i’m picturing throwing the ocean bottom….

        i’m guessing you mean in terms of climate change?

        • reagangs

          No. Just the physical cores cut with a hollow circular saw, probably several inches in diameter and several feel long.
          They are used to physically see and study what might have happened eons ago.

          • bsroon

            Oh i understand what core samples are – have a light familiarity with them as they are used in Clear Lake California which is about 2 million years old – and the western rift is on an active fault line. It keeps filling with debris from the lake and sinking so they have taken cores at least 1500 feet deep – and not reached bottom…

            But what do you not trust about them? Relevance to climate temperatures – because that would seem to be quite a reach to me, with temperature swings not changing the ocean at depth (temperature gradients) probably ever.

  • Jim Estes

    With no kids of my own, I don’t give a rats ass about the climate. Get rid of everything protecting us from the big corps and turn them loose!!! With any luck, Adolf’s son-barron von Omen will be the first with melanoma and cant get enough air to breathe!!!!

  • reagangs

    Groucho Marx Quotes


    Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.

    • reagangs

      And when the S**T hits the fan, they deny, deny, deny and eventually fade into the sunset to rise later as a lobbyist or political consultant.

  • Angelswatchingoverme

    To remove the carbon from the air for a plant, would be like removing the oxygen from the air of a human…they want to starve us to death…and what better way to do it than to suffocate all plant life on planet earth?

  • Paul Rice

    The real problem with the Paris agreement is that it did nothing to stop the pollution from the marine transport sector , which produces more than all the vehicles on the planet . And the reason for this is that any plan to reduce marine air pollution will mean a massive change in the business and financial models across the world , and a massive reduction in world trade as countries will have to rely more on local production . World leaders and the business and financial sector do not want this as it will effect income , and taxes , and they do not know how to change the system .