What I Like About The Paris Climate Accord
I like the idea of taking care of our planet, that’s what I like about the Paris Climate Accord.
I think everyone besides people that are hell bent on destruction (such as terrorist) are at least a slight bit concerned about our precious planet.
BUT…….I’m not for the Paris Climate Accord.
Everybody’s got an opinion…..after all, they are told what to believe. Only a fool wouldn’t be interested in our planet’s climate if there were a clear and present danger. While I don’t see a ‘clear and present danger’, I believe one looms largely on the horizon of our future. Cautions need to be heeded.
Here’s what I see.
By 2020 it is expected that the accord will cost $100 billion dollars annually to implement http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/cnsnewscom-staff/paris-climate-deal-calls-international-transfer-wealth and the distribution of this wealth is not proportionally guaranteed. There are 195 countries (possibly) participating in some sort of way. Just some simple math. $100 billion dollars divided by 195 countries, that’s $512,820,512 (and 82 cents)……that’s the projected cost. Name a 3rd world country that can afford that, please. The U.S. is already sending aid monies to those 3rd world countries. The people of 3rd world countries are good people, it’s their governing officials that live in palaces and never miss a meal……I just had to throw that in there because I hate seeing these people abused.
Now that number $512 million plus is representative of 2 intentions. 1 is the cost to each country and 2 is the benefit to each country if all was equal. But as you can understand, not all things are equal. So, where does all this money come from? Safe to say that the U.S.’s share would greatly exceed $512 million dollars.
Clean air and water, please…
The Paris Climate accord is an agreement within the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) dealing with greenhouse gas emissions mitigation, adaptation and finance starting in the year 2020.
Needless to say, the monies are not contributed equally. They can’t be. A country such as Congo doesn’t have $512 plus million to afford for this cause. Nor do they have an emissions problem. There’s is a deforestation problem. Do you think they need $512 plus million to put in motion a reforestation program? Have you seen the homes in Congo? Sticks. And they’re not the reason for deforestation!! Here’s a list of their exported products (not necessarily in order of volume); petroleum, sugar, cacao, lumber and plywood. The last 2 are listed separately although they come from the same source. I’m not picking on Congo, they just popped in my mind. Research another if you’d like…..try Venezuela that’s a larger country with large problems.
In 2016 Congo received in excess of $340 million dollars https://explorer.usaid.gov/cd/COD in U.S. aid Venezuela received $4 million https://explorer.usaid.gov/cd/VEN. The dots on the graph represent each year from 2001 forward. Just point your cursor to each dot to see the amount per year. The large amount is our contribution to that country since 2001. Try Russia. Yes, the U.S. is providing foreign aid to Russia.
France doesn’t provide figures on foreign aid as it does not have a single ministry that is in charge of foreign aid. Germany does not list any countries that they provide foreign aid to. But Germany does report it’s exports to Congo…..https://tradingeconomics.com/germany/exports-to-republic-of-the-congo.
But back to this climate accord. Where is the money going to come from? Because this is about MONEY. Your’s and mine.
We need to be responsible for our home, Earth
Let’s look at the contribution part…….the vast funding that seems vague. I love the wording of this portion of the agreement….(you need to read this stuff folks!! Don’t listen to the media tell you what they want you to believe…..you’ll be misinformed.) This is politics and politics is more about money than probably anything.
Nationally determined contributions and their limits
The contributions that each individual country should make in order to achieve the worldwide goal are determined by all countries individually and called “nationally determined contributions” (NDCs). Article 3 requires them to be “ambitious”, “represent a progression over time” and set “with the view to achieving the purpose of this Agreement”. The contributions should be reported every five years and are to be registered by the UNFCCC Secretariat.Each further ambition should be more ambitious than the previous one, known as the principle of ‘progression’. Countries can cooperate and pool their nationally determined contributions. The Intended Nationally Determined Contributions pledged during the 2015 Climate Change Conference serve—unless provided otherwise—as the initial Nationally determined contribution.
It’s a pledge. Like when we call into a telethon with good intentions perhaps…….and for some unforeseen reason fail to follow thru.
Congo can pledge it’s fair share with good intentions but not be able to economically fulfill their pledge.
My apologies to Congo…..I’m not intending to single them out as if they were a bad country…..I like the word Congo (conga first came to mind and the ladies doing the conga around my pool……but that’s another story, hehehehehe).
Venezuela…….Venezuela owes the largest amount of arrears to the same U.N. that is the administrative arm of this climate accord. What’s their pledge to be? Highly, highly unlikely they will be able to follow thru……bankruptcy is knocking on their door.
Some countries don’t have clean water!
Everything I’m talking about regarding the Paris Climate Accord is about money. Do you know why? It can’t be accomplished without money, that’s one reason. And actually, the main reason is money.
Do these 3rd world countries need assistance? Yes. Are they the biggest culprits? No. Not even close. Will they get the adequate assistance? No. Even if the amount funded to that country is adequate……there’s more luxury that the country leaders require for themselves. Damn, I sound cynical!! Only slightly……because of the money.
The regulatory restrictions on emissions is a good thing.
Here’s what isn’t a good thing.
China and India are exempt from the restriction standards. Though they are encouraged to aggressively pursue….I’m assuming. Read it, look at paragraph 3 https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/13/world/europe/climate-change-accord-paris.html
China and India are the largest populated countries in the world. Bet you didn’t know that (folks, Europe is not a country, okay, neither is Africa, please….). Maybe some would have guessed China. Watch out China, India is humping along….http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats8.htm
The Paris Climate Accord
Here’s my simpleton approach. We each do our part with what we have and the larger economies help the smaller countries with their problems. Even put together a non-funded delegation that could cooridnate efforts and obtain reported results. BUT…….that’s not what is wanted. You can’t trust the big guys, can you? At least that’s the train of thought……unfounded. It’s a presumption based on the greed of few and the pursuit of fairness by those who see this that promotes this mentality.
Should the larger economies take care of their responsibilities for a healthy planet (and control the celebrities that boast of the need for environmental responsibility…and conduct themselves irresponsibly) the largest part of the ecological problem will be taken care of. It will. This is acceptable reasoning except to those who don’t like capitalism. Capitalism isn’t going to go away……that leaves socialism and socialism doesn’t work.
Innovation, not deprivation……
We don’t have to do without. This is a world of plenty and those who don’t have should be able to attain. I’m not suggesting welfare. Nor the coined cute word of ‘workfare’. Undeveloped countries need access to the innovations that would by-pass all the struggles of corruption and greed.
Starting at home…..redundant and punitive regulatory issues need to be addressed without compromising the goal of a clean environment. It’s to a large degree, these regulatory issues that don’t allow the afforability of these beneficial products to the majority of consumers. I know, I tried to outfit my home in Florida (The Sunshine State) with solar and environmentally friendly products. Too costly. Those costs are handed down……there’s your trickle down. The government puts a heavy weight of responsibility upon an industry financially for the benefit of government first and secondly a punitive regulation that in some cases will actually shut down a moderate size business.
All the costs of business are passed down to the consumer. That’s life. There’s your trickle down economics.
Are there bad and greedy businesses? Hell yeah! But not everyone should be held accountable for their inappropriate business practices!
I’m thinking a minimal progressive approach to an environmental healing. It didn’t get this way overnight and it’s not gonna clear up overnight.
The Paris Climate Accord
Understand…..carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. We, humans, emit carbon dioxide upon exhalation. The population is growing http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats8.htm. Legislate procreation? Ugh……
We need to remove the most stringent regulations that inhibit innovation and the affordable access to products and technologies that promote a clean and healthy environment.
I’m not sure how to handle the greed aspect of life. Socialism is not the answer though, too punitive.
I want clean air, clean water, and a healthy planet. But I don’t want to feed the financial monster known as the Paris Climate Accord.
The shame is that the Paris Climate Accord is more about money and control than its name is about climate.
p.s. I hate walking the beach and seeing the plastic bottles washed up on the shore and the plastic bags floating in the water…..that’s where my ‘hate’ lies.
Peace, love, and beaches,