Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Jan. 30, 2025 - The David Knight Show

15:09

Trump's Paris Agreement Exit: A Sham or a Masterstroke?

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	the Paris agreement this is an article from the daily skeptic was out of the UK and they said Trump dumps the Paris agreement Is it a big deal?
	What does it matter?
	And I think it gives us an insight into, you know, the importance of staying in it for four years when we were never in it.
	And of course, nowhere in this article from The Daily Skeptic do they point out the fact that it needs to be ratified by the Senate.
	It was in The Guardian, of all things.
	The Guardian, one of the biggest cheerleaders of the climate, MacGuffin, that said, it's kind of troublesome because, you know, with Trump getting out of this, it may require the Senate to get back into it.
	Why didn't it require the Senate to get into it in the first place?
	You know, as we were talking about it yesterday, and David Bonson said, yeah, the really troubling thing about it, one of the many troubling things about it, It's the fact that we got into it by executive order, we got out of it by executive order, we got back into it by executive order, and now we're getting out of it again by executive order.
	And the Senate doesn't care.
	They don't want to do anything about it.
	They have abdicated their responsibility, just like all of Congress has abdicated its responsibility to other agencies.
	Nobody wants the responsibility for doing any of this stuff.
	They'd rather hold show hearings.
	So according to the UK's Telegraph, just hours after Trump issued executive orders to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris Climate Agreement, Ed Miliband, the British Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero.
	Yeah, this guy is driving them nuts.
	Net Zero.
	That means that you're going to have...
	It's just insane.
	Why would anybody...
	Support these kind of absolutist pronouncements, just like COVID-0 and how they locked down Shanghai for that absurdity.
	And they're going to lock down everything for this net-zero emissions stuff.
	So Ed Miliband warned Mr. Trump that the rise of net-zero was unstoppable.
	And so that's right after he said, we're going to get out of it.
	But the Daily Skeptic says, just who is this mere department secretary to warn the chief executive of the world's leading economic and military power of anything?
	Evidently, the British secretary, Miliband, is deluded enough to take up the mantle of responsibility to warn Trump of ignorance in energy affairs.
	But Mr. Miliband has company.
	Ranging from leading academics to the senior global leaders, Conferring last week at the World Economic Forum in Davos, said simply dismissing his antics is another sign of Mad Ed Miliband's silly climate posturing, said it behooves us to take his warning at face value.
	Is the U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement really a big deal?
	Appearing before the House of Lords environment, Day after Trump's inauguration, Mr. Miliband sought to downplay the impact of America's planned withdrawal.
	The problem is, they keep talking about a withdrawal of something that we were never in.
	But he says, I think the transition with the climate stuff, he says, is unstoppable.
	It's not fast enough, but it is unstoppable.
	And that's a big part of what happened when Trump...
	Refused to take us out of something that we were never legitimately in.
	What he did was he kept the momentum going.
	In 2017, when Trump gave first notice of withdrawal from it, the thing that we were never in, a statutory delay of four years from the date of the agreement for anybody that was really in it, and even though we weren't in it, he played by that game.
	This time around, a statutory delay is one year.
	Thus, from 2026 onwards, at least to the end of Trump's second term, the U.S. will not participate in any of the Paris Agreement commitments, including any financial obligations.
	But we did the first time around.
	We stayed in it, pretending that we were in it, and there were financial obligations.
	U.S. remained a party to the Paris Agreement for almost the entirety of Trump's first term, during which its administrative staff continued participating in programs and initiatives that were pursued under the Obama presidency.
	It's just a change of flag or whoever is there, but not really reversing the policies.
	He just continued along with the thing that Obama declared that we were in, that we were not in.
	The U.S. State Department continued to participate in ongoing negotiations, including co-chairing with China the Enhanced Transparency Framework.
	That's why I say it was an absolute betrayal.
	They continued working with it, building it up, paying for the money the entire four years, something that we were never in.
	And so he says the ESG movement, which is a crucial pillar in the business sector's buy-in of the Paris Agreement, has had a series of reversals recently.
	We see by staying in it, what we did was we built This ESG stuff, right?
	These actions or these inactions have consequences.
	You can't just look the other way and say, well, yeah, he's pretending that we're in the Paris Climate Accord, which we're not in, and he's pretending that he's going to get out of it, but they didn't get out of it.
	And so the State Department and all these bureaucracies were working in it.
	They were creating all of this ESG stuff.
	That was being incubated by the Trump administration.
	I've said many times, you know, when When Reagan was running against Jimmy Carter in 1980, Jimmy Carter created the Department of Education, and Reagan said, I'm going to get rid of that thing, and he should have.
	But instead, he nursed it to maturity.
	And that was what was happening with all this ESG stuff under the Paris Climate Accord.
	He's nursing it to maturity.
	The Net Zero Asset Managers Initiative, the Climate Action 100 +, which pushed ESG goals and decarbonization of the American economy, Has now suffered a flurry of high-profile exits by companies such as BlackRock, but these things came about because Trump stayed in it.
	Remember, we got into this thing, supposedly, by Obama's executive order in 2015. You know, we barely had gotten into it.
	And so what Trump did, we were there for like, you know, one year.
	And then Trump comes in in 2017 and keeps it there for four years.
	That's where these things grew.
	And then Biden immediately says he's going to put us back in.
	So that's the second four years, right?
	The way that they should have done this, again, if we're going to do this by executive order, even if Trump had taken us out on day one, unless he pulled back the curtain and exposed the fact...
	That this is a treaty and that we were never legitimately in this treaty.
	The Senate didn't even bother to vote.
	But see, the Uni Party, all of the Republican senators, Rand Paul, Mike Lee, Ted Cruz, all of these guys, no matter how conservative you think they are, Josh Hawley, let's go down the list, all of these Republican senators pretended that we were in and still pretend.
	That we're legitimately in the Paris Climate Accord.
	And they will not assert and say, wait a minute, I'm a senator, and the Senate has a particular power, and that is to ratify treaties, and I'm not going to allow that to be taken away from us.
	None of them would say that.
	I expected that betrayal from Mitch McConnell.
	But when we look at these so-called conservative senators, understand they're fully on board, and they played along with this scheme just like Ed Miliband in the UK. It is a uniparty approach for the United Nations, is what this is.
	The Net Zero Banking Alliance was established in April of 2021 under the auspices of the UN and of its champion, Mark Carney, this other guy, who is going to be running to take the place of Justin Trudeau up in Canada.
	The guy who was the head of both the Bank of Canada and the Bank of England at one point in time, right?
	Different times.
	But he is a dyed-in-the-wool globalist.
	However, with the Uni Party, you see that Pierre Polyev says, I'm not going to get out of Paris.
	What's going on with that?
	You see?
	It's the same kind of thing.
	When it comes down to the big agenda, folks, there is no difference between these parties.
	They will fight over the...
	Other issues and their hot-button issues and their important issues that they'll fight over.
	But when it is the central plan for this fourth turning, and that is what the climate MacGuffin is, when it's that, when it's the pandemic stuff, they're not going to rock the boat.
	They're going to be either side.
	We saw Trump, Trudeau during the lockdowns doing the same stuff, all on the same team.
	And when it comes to the climate stuff, all on the same team.
	So the Net Zero Banking Alliance was dedicated to helping lenders reduce their carbon footprints.
	The group has now been abandoned in quick succession by Goldman Sachs, Wells Fargo, Citibank, Bank of America, and Morgan Stanley.
	But understand that they are not giving up on this.
	They're changing their tactics and their strategies.
	Just like with the digital ID, they will change it from a digital ID to a biometric ID. The CBDC, they'll ban it at the state level.
	Trump issued a banning of it at the federal level.
	But they're going to bring it in.
	It's already in, as Aaron Day says, we've already got it to a large degree in terms of the cooperation between the financial sectors and the tech sectors.
	They're merging together to give us a digital monetary financial system.
	And so they're still on the same path.
	And you think that you're winning because they're not going to call it a CBDC. You think that you're winning because they're not going to call it ESG. But it's going to be the same stuff in a different form.
	Trump's executive order for the U.S. to exit, something that we're not in, the Paris Climate Agreement is a huge deal, not the least in saving the nation hundreds of millions of dollars which would have been spent on climate boondoggles and which were spent.
	We stayed in it.
	And that's the key.
	It was a big deal.
	And we should get around.
	So, U.S. climate policy.
	Is this turnaround time for Trump?
	Writes, what's upwiththat.com.
	And quote here, many full-time climate activists like Mark Trexler need to get a real job in the private sector producing goods and services that people want rather than engaging in wealth redistribution.
	And net resource loss.
	And that's what the whole climate thing is about.
	It's about wealth redistribution, and it is about resource loss.
	That's why I call them watermelon environmentalists.
	You know, they have a thin veneer of green, but on the inside, it's all red communism, Marxism.
	Marx Trexler of the Climate Risk Red Team.
	Has compiled a list of Trump-related action items for the Consumer First, America First approach to climate and energy policy.
	He said, while I'd heard a lot about the Heritage Foundation's Project 2025 blueprint for a second Trump administration, I'd never seen a simple listing of specific things being proposed.
	And this is just a partial list, he said, that is limited to climate change.
	And so it's a long list that goes on for several pages.
	As a matter of fact, they listed...
	In this article, 47 items.
	The guy says, are there more?
	And it's things like this.
	Accelerate the review process for cross-border energy projects.
	Appoint more judges likely to be unfriendly to climate action.
	This is something that was in the Project 2025. Cut funding for international climate organizations.
	Get out of the thing that we were never in.
	Delay stricter fuel economy standards.
	Why delay them?
	Just get rid of them.
	It didn't say eliminate fuel economy standards.
	It said delay them.
	But it does say eliminate climate change clauses and future trade agreements.
	But again, we're not going to call this a treaty.
	Eliminate climate resilience requirements for housing projects.
	This is the problem, though, with the conservative approach, with the Republican approach.
	Well, let's delay the fuel economy stuff.
	Get rid of it.
	Support state rollback of zero-emission vehicle mandates.
	Tweak IRS regulations.
	Keep the IRS there, but let's arrange the deck chairs here.
	To make access to the tax benefits that were put in as part of the so-called Inflation Reduction Act.
	To make that more difficult.
	Withdraw from international climate agreements that we were never in.
	Okay?
	Anyway, the guy says, well, I count 47 items.
	Are there more?
	Yeah, there's two of them missing.
	In the EPA. No, that's not in there.
	In the Department of Energy.
	No, that's not in there either.
	You know, that would take care of most of these items.
	As a matter of fact, if the Congress would just repeal the authorization that they gave to the EPA to manage emissions, and if they would repeal the authorization that they gave to the Department of Energy, To regulate efficiency, that would take the teeth right out of everything that they're doing to us, out of this net zero thing.
	Hello, it's me, Volodymyr Zelensky.
	I'm so tired of wearing these same t-shirts everywhere for years.
	You'd think with all the billions I've skimmed off America, I could dress better.
	And I could, if only David Knight would send me one of his beautiful grey MacGuffin hoodies or a new black t-shirt with the MacGuffin logo in blue.
	But he told me to get lost.
	Maybe one of you American suckers can buy me some at thedavidknightshow.com.
	And David is giving a 10% discount to listeners from now until 2025. At that price, you should be able to buy me several hundred.
	Those amazing sand-colored microphone hoodies are so beautiful.
	I'd wear something other than green military cosplay to my various galas and social events.

▲