I believe it was Russell Kirk was arguing in the 1970s that most environmentalism was nothing more that wealth redistribution from rich countries to poor countries. Been that way for decades. Also, the environmental agreements have always been so ridiculous cause they are non-binding.
Billions are given to third world countries who have no obligation to achieve anything (the bottom is from the library of International Law). Not to mention the money laundering component. I believe the US and Europe had to agree to give India like a $150-200 billion over the course of a few years just to get them to agree to a stupid non-binding agreement.
The Trump Doctrine is the revolution of common sense, thus f-ck the Paris Agreement.
"This might imply that every country is signing up to the same thing, but they aren’t. A developed western country like the U.S. might be asked to stop driving cars or heating our homes in the winter while a country like Liberia is asked to not dump quite so much trash into their water ways.
There’s also a foreign aid component, where the U.S. would be required to funnels billions to countries like Liberia to help their efforts in not dumping raw sewage into their rivers. So of course every third world country signed up for the free money accord, why wouldn’t they?"
• | Legal form – Like the Kyoto Protocol and unlike the Copenhagen Accord, the Paris Agreement is a treaty within the meaning of international law, but not all its provisions establish legal obligations. Most importantly, parties do not have an obligation to achieve their nationally determined contributions (NDCs) to address climate change – thus, in that respect, NDCs are not legally binding. |