Paris Climate Accords: The UN and All Those Special Nations

So, Trump is going to pull out ... the way the headlines express it, we must be leaving something sacrosanct ... like abandoning baby Jesus.

Yeah, nothing that simple or unimportant - this is colossal - with the US pulling out, the world will collapse.  With the US exiting the climate accords Obama just unilaterally forced us into less than a couple years ago ... and suddenly the fact Trump is canceling our involvement will make the world less safe.

I often wonder if writers truly believe the rubbish they publish, or do they try to convince themselves they are actually making the world a better placed.

So the following have ratified it -

AFGHANISTAN  - I can only wonder how they ratified!

ALBANIA - I can only wonder how they ratified!

ALGERIA - I can only wonder how they ratified!

ANDORRA

ANGOLA - I can only wonder how they ratified!

ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA

ARGENTINA

ARMENIA

AUSTRALIA

AUSTRIA

AZERBAIJAN - I can only wonder how they ratified!

BAHAMAS

BAHRAIN

BANGLADESH

BARBADOS

BELARUS

BELGIUM

BELIZE

BENIN

BHUTAN

BOLIVIA - I can only wonder how they ratified!

BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

BOTSWANA - I can only wonder how they ratified!

BRAZIL

BRUNEI DARUSSALAM - I can only wonder how they ratified!

BULGARIA

BURKINA FASO

BURUNDI

CABO VERDE

CAMBODIA

CAMEROON

CANADA

CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC

CHAD

CHILE

CHINA

COLOMBIA

COMOROS

CONGO - I can only wonder how they ratified!

COOK ISLANDS

COSTA RICA

COTE D'IVOIRE

CROATIA

CUBA

CYPRUS

CZECH REPUBLIC

DEMOCRATIC PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF KOREA

DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO

DENMARK

DJIBOUTI

DOMINICA

DOMINICAN REPUBLIC

ECUADOR

EGYPT

EL SALVADOR

EQUATORIAL GUINEA

ERITREA

ESTONIA

ETHIOPIA

EUROPEAN UNION*

FIJI

FINLAND

FRANCE

GABON

GAMBIA

GEORGIA

GERMANY

GHANA

GREECE

GRENADA

GUATEMALA

GUINEA

GUINEA-BISSAU

GUYANA

HAITI

HONDURAS

HUNGARY

ICELAND

INDIA*

INDONESIA

IRAN (ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF)

IRAQ

IRELAND

ISRAEL

ITALY

JAMAICA

JAPAN

JORDAN

KAZAKHASTAN

KENYA

KIRIBATI

KUWAIT

KYRGYZSTAN

LAO PEOPLE'S DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC

LATVIA

LEBANON

LESOTHO

LIBERIA

LIBYA

LIECHTENSTEIN

LITHUANIA

LUXEMBOURG

MADAGASCAR

MALAWI

MALAYSIA

MALDIVES

MALI

MALTA

MARSHALL ISLANDS*

MAURITANIA

MAURITIUS

MEXICO*

MICRONESIA* (FEDERATED STATES OF)

MONACO

MONGOLIA

MONTENEGRO

MOROCCO

MOZAMBIQUE

MYANMAR

NAMIBIA

NAURU*

NEPAL

NETHERLANDS

NEW ZEALAND (2)

NIGER

NIGERIA

NIUE*

NORWAY

OMAN

PAKISTAN

PALAU

PANAMA

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

PARAGUAY

PERU

PHILIPPINES*

POLAND*

PORTUGAL

QATAR

REPUBLIC OF KOREA

REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

ROMANIA

RUSSIAN FEDERATION

RWANDA

SAINT KITTS AND NEVIS

SAINT LUCIA

SAINT VINCENT AND THE GRENADINES

SAMOA

SAN MARINO

SAO TOME AND PRINCIPE

SAUDI ARABIA

SENEGAL

SERBIA

SEYCHELLES

SIERRA LEONE

SINGAPORE

SLOVAKIA

SLOVENIA

SOLOMON ISLANDS*

SOMALIA

SOUTH AFRICA

SOUTH SUDAN

SPAIN*

SRI LANKA

STATE OF PALESTINE

SUDAN

SURINAME

SWAZILAND

SWEDEN

SWITZERLAND

TAJIKISTAN

THAILAND

THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA

TIMOR-LESTE

TOGO

TONGA

TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO

TUNISIA - I can only wonder how they ratified!

TURKEY - I can only wonder how they ratified!

TURKMENISTAN - I can only wonder how they ratified!

TUVALU*

UGANDA - I can only wonder how they ratified!

UKRAINE

UNITED ARAB EMIRATES - I can only wonder how they ratified!

UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND

UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

URUGUAY

UZBEKISTAN - I can only wonder how they ratified!

VANUATU

VENEZUELA (BOLIVARIAN REPUBLIC OF)

VIET NAM

YEMEN - I can only wonder how they ratified!

ZAMBIA - I can only wonder how they ratified!

ZIMBABWE  - I can only wonder how they ratified! So ... how does it work.  Well, caps and limits.  Everyone will reduce their emissions by X amount %. For say, Zimbabwe, it must reduce by 20% ... but Zimbabwe doesnt have much to reduce.  If they reduce anything, it will not dramatically affect anything in Zimbabwe. If they reduce, $$ is available.  So everyone goes into this treaty with X amount of emissions permissible as determined by the average overall emission levels ... Some countries will come in a little under and others way way under (Afghanistan).  Some countries will produce a lot ... say Russia, which could then buy the credits to balance out.  This is a transfer of wealth from Russia to Afghanistan or Zimbabwe or any one of the multitude who signed on to get some free money. But if you are part of a larger unit ... say the EU, you have to average out the total .. between countries who have little production and those who have a great deal (Denmark, Norway and say Germany).  The US meanwhile has to reduce its output by 20-30% ... which means production and industry suffer, unemployment increases, and our GNP drops, our wealth drops ... while the EU thrives even while Germany could in theory be exceeding its limits, overall it will average within the EU. The same would go for China - the worst polluter.  1st world countries as measured by limits defined in the treaty, would be required to reduce and cut, while growing nations would receive $$$ paid by nations who exceed their limits.  Again, redistribution of wealth from US to the UN and then to THEM.  And the worst polluters would not stop - China would be given a great deal of leeway to pollute and receive $$ to modernize. Would all of this make the world less polluted?  VERY SLIGHTLY. What then is the point?  To weaken the US as it permits other countries to utilize money we are forced to provide to cut emissions while our economy is catastrophically changed to one where we all produce solar panels or end up jobless paid with benefits derived from an increasing tax base because we have to fund NATO without equal assistance from all involved, fund the global climate accord because no one else will ... And they wonder why many Americans want to pull out?  And why so many other Americans want to stay in, and don't understand why they support it other than it sounds good! [While the exact specifics are not exactly what I have listed above, I have generalized and simplified a lot.  I do however, believe everything is accurate.] The LEFT has become unhinged The link above is a fantasmic buffet of the delusional democrats on display. Lunacy.  Do they even know what the document says??? Billions - that is ALL they are interested in.  And political types who want to sign on ... are twats. From NPR: Under the Paris accord, the U.S. sent some $1 billion to the Green Climate Fund that is guided by the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change — the body that coordinates international climate policy. The U.S. was supposed to provide an additional $2 billion, but Trump has balked at that idea, and his proposed budget includes cuts to international climate programs.

The LEFT is melting down! Just like a nuclear reactor.

It was the latest example of Haley, a former South Carolina governor with no prior foreign policy experience, acting as a tough-talking bellwether of President Trump’s foreign policy. 


 Samantha Power, the woman who called Hillary 'a monster' was the 28th Ambassador to the UN, under Obama.  One of her best writings, in my opinion, was 'A Problem from Hell' which I recommend to everyone.  She was a journalist, and then served on a Human Rights program at Harvard where she was a professor.  This far in our story, her total experience in foreign policy is living in Ireland and as a journalist.  She is probably par for Obama, given his abject lack of experience.  She went to work for Obama, then quit after her comment about Hillary, and then got back on and became a senior foreign policy expert, among the experts Obama had in the White House that served the US so well.  She said Obama would always "call a spade a spade, and speak the truth about it" when it came to genocide (reference to Armenian) - and that went well, I believe we have made it clear the US believes it was genocide, yes?

Prior to Power was Rice.  A woman who clearly was prepared for foreign policy matters -  I won't bother relating the resume but will link to wikipedia.  The point is, she began having no experience - she did research in graduate school on Zimbabwe and the UK peacekeeping.  THAT got her into Dukakis' campaign where she had no experience and that transitioned into a job with Clinton, again, that position was based upon Zimbabwe and whatever peacekeeping the UK did.  Then she went to "(NSC) from 1993 to 1997; as director for international organizations and peacekeeping from 1993 to 1995; and as special assistant to the president and senior director for African affairs from 1995 to 1997."  Again, by 97 I am sure she was more aware internationally but she is clearly an example of someone who began with no international experience and she just ... plopped into each position through luck.  And then during the Rwandan genocide, she was as active as a comatose patient - like the rest of the most experienced staff at State and the WH.

Now, she has no experience on the level Rice or Power did when they finally landed the job, but we saw how much of a mess their experience brought us - from N Africa to Rwanda to Syria and Iran ... chaos, death, destruction, and a significant lack of respect for the US in the world.

She also made a fool of herself and the office she held - she appeared on several Sunday news shows to defend the adminstration's later debunked claim that the Sept. 11, 2012 attacks on a U.S. consulate in Libya was triggered by an Internet video.

Rice also told ABC News in 2014 that Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl "served the United States with honor and distinction" and that he "wasn't simply a hostage; he was an American prisoner of war captured on the battlefield."

Bergdahl is currently facing court-martial on charges of desertion and misbehavior before the enemy for allegedly walking off his post in Afghanistan.

I think I will take someone with character and little experience to the 'experience' of Obama and his entourage.

Having values and character makes any job much easier.  Let Haley have a go.  And stop talking-down, condescending, speaking so poorly of her ... it is an ongoing effort to disparage everyone associated with Trump and this administration, no matter the cost, or how much of your soul you have to give up to attack the people with innuendo and lies.








  

Reason #137: Why we don't like the EU

EU could BREAK UP the US: Juncker in jaw-droppingthreat to Trump over support for Brexit

EUROPEAN Union boss Jean-Claude Juncker this afternoon issued a jaw-dropping threat to the United States, saying he could campaign to break up the country in revenge for Donald Trump’s supportive comments about Brexit. 

By Nick Gutteridge, Brussels Correspondent

 

UPDATED: 16:52, Thu, Mar 30, 2017

In an extraordinary speech the EU Commission president said he would push for Ohio and Texas to split from the rest of America if the Republican president does not change his tune and become more supportive of the EU. 

The remarks are diplomatic dynamite at a time when relations between Washington and Brussels are already strained over Europe’s meagre contributions to NATO and the US leader’s open preference for dealing with national governments. 

They are by far the most outspoken intervention any senior EU figure has made about Mr Trump and are likely to dismay some European leaders who were hoping to seek a policy of rapprochement with their most important ally. 

Speaking at the centre-right European People Party’s (EPP) annual conference in Malta this afternoon, the EU Commission boss did not hold back in his disdain for the White House chief’s eurosceptic views. 

He said: “Brexit isn’t the end. A lot of people would like it that way, even people on another continent where the newly elected US President was happy that the Brexit was taking place and has asked other countries to do the same. 

“If he goes on like that I am going to promote the independence of Ohio and Austin, Texas in the US.” 

Mr Juncker's comments did not appear to be made in jest and were delivered in a serious tone, although one journalist did report some "chuckles" in the audience and hinted the EU boss may have been joking. The remarks came in the middle of an angry speech in which the top eurocrat railed widely against critics of the EU Commission. 

They will be seen as totally inexplicable at a time when EU-US relations appeared to be on the mend, with Vice-President Mike Pence having completed a largely successful trip to Brussels and the commander-in-chief himself significantly softening his tone towards the EU project. 

Mr Juncker did not criticise Britain at all during his speech, and only made reference to Brexit in relation to Mr Trump and the opportunities it presents for Europe to reform itself. 

#Juncker: if President #Trump will continue to praise #Brexit, I will call for independence of #Ohio and exit of #Texas from US.

 — Siegfried Muresan (@SMuresan) March 30, 2017

If he goes on like that I am going to promote the independence of Ohio and Austin, Texas in the US

He told the audience in Malta: “Brexit isn’t the end of everything. We must consider it to be a new beginning, something that is stronger, something that is better.” 

Speaking before him, EU Council president Donald Tusk was less reserved in his remarks about the UK vote as he tore into the populist politics which led to Brexit. 

The Polish eurocrat said the argument over sovereignty - epitomised by the Vote Leave slogan ‘take back control’ - was “a view that is both foolish and dangerous” and that the EU guaranteed countries’ strength of the world stage.

He also accused populist politicians, such as the Netherlands’ Geert Wilders and France’s Marine Le Pen, of promoting “organised hatred” with their views on immigration. 

However his conservative colleague Antonio Tajani, the EU Parliament president, received a rapturous ovation as he launched an impassioned defence of Europe’s “Christian values”. 

In a series of thinly veiled comments about immigration, a major political issue in his homeland and Malta, the Italian official said Europe should do more to defend its historic identity. 

He said: “We shouldn’t be ashamed of saying we’re Christian. We’re Christian, it is our history. 

“If we leave our identity we will have in Europe all identities but not European identities. For this we need to strengthen our identity. 

“It is impossible to win without identity, without our values. Of course we are different, many languages, many ideas, but we are united on the values and this is the most important content.”