All Episodes
Previous Next
July 13, 2019 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
11:41
The Sad Truth About The Paris Climate Accord
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi everybody, Stefan Molyneux from Freedom Aid Radio here to help you calm down.
To chill, dare I say, because in a few short hours President Trump is going to talk about whether he's staying in or enacting CLEXIT, the climate exit from the UN Paris Agreement.
And there will of course be a huge amount of chicken little sky is falling stuff that's going to go on and I'm just here to give you a sanity check.
A calm down reality check.
So what is this agreement?
Well, it's supposed to, of course, reduce the amount of CO2 in the air and prevent runaway Venus-style, as it is described, global warming.
So does it do that?
Well, using the UN's own climate prediction model, It really doesn't.
So, it will cost a huge amount.
It will cost at least 100 trillion dollars.
100 trillion dollars.
And what do you get?
That's quite a hefty price tag.
I sure hope you get something where the door's open to the side.
Well, this Paris Climate Accord might potentially reduce the Earth's temperature At the end of the century, 2100 by three tenths of one degree.
This is using the UN's own climate models.
Yes, that's 86 one thousandth of a degree.
Is that worth a hundred trillion dollars that the UN globalists want to spend?
I would pretty much say no.
So according to the UN's own calculations, this Paris Treaty achieves less than 1% of the emission cuts that are actually needed to meet its target temperatures.
So as is usually the case, hey, would you like some free old age pensions?
Don't worry, we'll have future generations long after we've left office, pay for the bill, it'll be just fine.
So they kick the can down the road.
So 99% of what the UN claims is necessary to control the Earth's climate, 99% of the reductions and the problems are left for the leaders in the 2030s who will Well, try and wrestle with it.
So it is, in fact, probably one of the most expensive treaties in the history of the world, and the world has seen some expensive treaties in the past.
Heck, just look at alimony and British divorces.
Now, of course, the US is a subset of the Paris Climate Accord.
So the U.S.
promises alone on the promises that came in under Obama to cut greenhouse gas emissions between 26 and 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025.
Well, that's going to have a significant hit on the U.S.
economy reduces gross domestic product more than 150 billion dollars.
Annually, right?
So these pretty crazy pledges to cut these greenhouse emissions will also cost not just a hundred and fifty billion dollars a year, but six million jobs.
And it really is quite astounding.
Now the U.S.
component of the Paris Climate Agreement, six million jobs, a hundred and fifty billion dollars a year, minimum, minimum, huge increases, twenty to thirty percent in the cost of electricity.
What is the net result?
Well, it postpones global warming, by one-fifteenth thousands of a degree by 2100.
And let's just say President Obama's pretty ambitious numbers and rhetoric.
Let's say that the US spends the entire century delivering on what President Obama promised.
It postpones global warming by the year 2100 by about eight Months.
Eight months.
Eight years would be tragic.
Eight months is beyond ridiculous.
So, why is everyone pushing for it if it does almost nothing?
Again, according to the UN's own calculations, according to the UN's own climate models.
Well, one of the things that has a little bit more of an immediate effect, which just conceivably might be why a lot of people are pushing for it in the UN, well the US taxpayers are forced to fund most of this hundred billion dollar a year Green Climate Fund, which basically is a transfer to third world countries.
See, Foreign aid has, well it's lost a little bit of its stellar reputation of late because foreign aid appears to be basically the process of transferring money from poor people in rich countries to rich people in poor countries and it seems to have the effect pretty much of producing enormous population explosions that then seem to spill over to Western countries.
So foreign aid has taken a little bit of a PR hit of late.
And so they need another way to justify massive transfers of money to the third world.
So this is $100 billion green climate fund, which US taxpayers will be forced to pay for.
And so if you are a UN third world or globalist or whatever, and $100 billion is on the table to be transferred to your country, maybe you just might find the future climate of the planet so terrifying that you must act now to save the world.
Oh, and by the way, get that $100 billion a year.
Now the Germans.
President Juncker, when he was told that Trump was considering, it was a campaign promise of Trump to pull out of this ridiculous accord, When he was told that this might happen, he said, that's not how it works.
The Americans can't just leave the climate protection agreement.
Mr. Trump believes that because he doesn't get close enough to the dossiers to fully understand them, it would take three to four years after the agreement came into force in November 2016 to leave the agreement.
So this notion, I am Trump, I am American, America first, and I'm going to get out of it, that won't happen.
We tried to explain that to Mr. Trump in clear German sentences.
It seems our attempt failed.
But the law is the law.
And it must be obeyed.
Not everything which is law and not everything in international agreements is fake news.
And we have to comply with it.
Ah, Germany.
Don't you have another comedian to deliver to Turkish dictator Ödoyen?
Oh, maybe you can prosecute more people for questioning immigration policy.
Now Germany, of course, lecturing Trump on all of this stuff.
German emissions have gone up!
over the last two years.
So good job guys.
Excellent.
I'm sure it has nothing to do with bringing a million migrants in and throwing them on thousands of dollars worth of environmental destroying welfare checks every single month.
Ah, you must obey the law, says Germany.
You know, like having borders.
Oh, it's tragic.
Now, even somebody who is a fairly significant, could be conceived as a fairly significant alarmist, this is NASA's former lead global warming scientist, Dr. James Hansen.
When he looked at the details of the UN Paris Accord, he said, quote, the Paris Agreement is a fraud, really a fake.
It's just bull peep for them to say, we'll have a two degree warming target.
And then try to do a little better every five years.
It's just worthless words.
There's no action, just promises.
As long as fossil fuels appear to be the cheapest fuels out there, they will be continued to be burned.
So, there's that.
Now, of course, what is the point of all of this?
Well, alarmism when it comes to this environmental stuff.
Of course we can do things to improve the environment, and I'm going to make a couple of suggestions.
I actually was a software entrepreneur in the environmental field, know a little bit about it.
But the idea, the general idea, is the alarmism is there to provoke anxiety.
We're doomed!
The world's going to burst into flames by the fact that CO2 levels were ten times higher during the last global ice age.
Well, that's a topic for another time.
So it's there to provoke anxiety.
You feel bad, you feel anxious, you're worried.
And then If you pay them, they will mouth words to reduce your anxiety.
Don't worry, the problem's taken care of.
We've got one 15,000th of a degree change in 75 years.
Right, so, they want to provoke anxiety, and then if you pay them money, they will say magic words to reduce your anxiety.
It's exactly like the concept of, you know, paying a priest to absolve you of sin.
They provoke anxiety.
You've sinned!
And then you give them money, and then they speak magic words to reduce anxiety.
It is, well, just a secular form.
of religion and the goal, of course, is massive increases in state control over, well, you and your children.
So what can we do that's sort of productive when it comes to helping the environment?
Well, a couple of good things.
First of all, keep manufacturing in first world countries.
See, you can do all you want to block and stymie manufacturing and we're going to destroy the coal industry.
Well, that doesn't diminish people's need.
for energy and so what happens is production goes from first world countries to third world countries and they don't have environmental regulations a lot of them there's not a lot of controls over what goes into the groundwater what goes into the earth what goes into the air so just if it's out of sight it doesn't exist now if it goes from first world countries to third world countries the environmental standards are much lower and you end up with more pollution so keep your manufacturing in first world countries make it easier for manufacturers to do business and keep their factories in the first world where you can keep an eye on them
And keep their emissions relatively low.
Here's another one.
Drill for oil locally.
Stop using ships which founder and crack apart and seem to get attacked by armored seals on a regular basis.
Drill locally.
Not only does this mean less money going to theocratic dictatorships in the Middle East, but fewer ships traversing the ocean, less energy to spend moving this stuff all over the world.
So drill locally.
That would be a good way to reduce damage to the environment.
Now, when it comes to some not necessarily intuitive but very powerful things about how to help the environment, you know, it's funny, just look at a simple one.
Like Trump wants to simplify taxes.
You know, taxes on the back of a postage stamp.
Think how much electricity, computer power, time, energy, paperwork and so on is spent on complying with a ridiculously Byzantine tax code in the United States.
If you simplify taxes it takes far less time, far less energy, far less paperwork just to pay your taxes.
Very good for the environment.
Another key one, reduce government spending.
Every dollar that the government spends is a dollar that is used to consume some part of nature's scarce and precious resources.
Deficit financing, deficit spending, the national debt is consuming extra stuff in the here and now.
Right?
Like if you run up your visa to $5,000, you get to buy $5,000 more of stuff, which impacts the environment.
And then at some point down the road, what happens?
Well, you're going to have to contract your spending and so on.
So no government deficits and reducing government spending is a very, very key part to reduce human impact on the environment.
Stopping illegal immigration.
If you look at the environmental footprint of somebody in Mexico versus somebody who's an illegal immigrant who's come to America, well their energy consumption goes up enormously, their use of scarce resources goes up enormously and so when you have illegal immigration you're basically burdening mother nature with higher Usage carbon-based life form.
Who are going to pray further on mother nature?
So there's lots of other things to talk about.
These are just a couple of points.
Of course, the Paris Accord is just another bit of forced socialism, which is going to do more to wreck the third world and thus the first world.
It's unsustainable.
It's ridiculous, ridiculously expensive.
It's a massive cash grab.
▲
Export Selection