RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://amgreatness.com/2020/11/21/the-green-end-game-runs-through-biden/

Environmentalist policies are likely to produce is an increasingly static and hierarchical society. But we may not have to choose between a better economy and a better environment.

With the election of Joe Biden, the environmental movement has now established suzerainty over global economics. Gone is not only the troublesome Donald Trump but also the Canadian skeptic Steven Harper. Outside of those dismissed as far-Right, there is virtually no serious debate about how to address climate change in the United States or Western Europe outside the parameters suggested by mainstream green groups.

In reality, though, few electorates anywhere are ready for extreme policies such as the Green New Deal, which, as its widely acknowledged architect, Saikat Chakrabarti, has acknowledged, is really a redder, more openly anti-capitalist version of the Great Depression-era original.

Yet getting hysterical about the likes of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is a waste of emotional energy. The environmental movement’s real power derives from those who occupy “the commanding heights” of our society—at the corporate, media, and academic realms. Though arguably not holding views as economically ludicrous as AOC’s, mainstream corporate greens are far more likely to successfully impose their version of environmental justice on the rest of us.

A Finer Shade of Green

https://issuesinsights.com/2020/11/10/a-trump-legacy-that-deserves-to-last-he-withdrew-us-from-the-paris-climate-scam/

It’s still unclear if Donald Trump will remain in the White House come Jan. 21, 2021. But if he doesn’t, at least he pulled America out of the United Nations’ Paris Climate Agreement. It’s an international con, far more harmful than helpful.

The day after the election, the U.S. formally withdrew from the 2015 pact that was sold to the world as a means to shut down global warming. In September 2016, when this country officially joined the agreement, President Barack Obama said it “will ultimately prove to be a turning point for our planet,” and called it an “enduring framework,” the “full implementation” of which “will help delay or avoid some of the worst consequences of climate change, and pave the way for more progress in the coming years.”

Meaningless words, but a fine opportunity for virtue signaling. And a great moment for the climate alarmists who, as we’ve said before, are more interested in controlling “every aspect of our lives than they are preventing slight planetary warming.”

The timing of America’s withdrawal virtually coincided with a finding of science that showed just how hollow the agreement is. Recent research by physicists William Happer and William van Wijngaarden has “determined that the present levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide and water vapor are almost completely saturated,” the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow reported in late October.

“In plain language this means that from now on our emissions from burning fossil fuels could have little or no further impact on global warming,” David Wojick, a civil engineer who has a doctorate in the philosophy of science and mathematical logic, wrote for CFACT.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/the-desire-for-power-hiding-behind-health-and-clim

There is a threat of creeping totalitarianism in western societies that comes from health and climate activists. Who (except unfeeling monsters) could possibly be against the saving of human life or the preservation of the planet from future catastrophe? Often the two strands of redemptive enthusiasm go together: after all, environmental degradation is hardly good for health.

Since almost all human activities have health or environmental consequences, especially bad ones, it follows that those who want to preserve either human health or the environment, or both, have an almost infinitely expansible justification for interfering in our lives, indeed they have it to the nth degree.

These days, much medical research that is published in the general medical journals such as the Lancet or the New England Journal of Medicine is epidemiological rather than experimental. It finds associations between factor a (shall we say, the consumption of bananas) and illness x (shall we say, Alzheimer’s disease).

Once an association is found that is unlikely to have arisen by chance (unlikely, that is, but not impossible), an hypothesis is put forward as to why the eating of bananas should conduce to the development of Alzheimer’s disease. Before long, the statistical association and its alleged explanation leaks out into the press or social media, and people start to be afraid of bananas. The more enthusiastic and less sceptical of the epidemiologists begin to call for banana controls: anti-banana propaganda, extra taxes on bananas, no bananas on sale within a hundred yards of anywhere there might be a child, and so on.

And of course, a reduction in the demand for bananas will assist those tropical countries large parts of which are given over to environmentally-degrading banana monoculture. Banana republics are not called bananas republics for nothing.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/us-formally-exits-paris-accord-a-global-pact-aiming-at-climate-change_3565268.html

BERLIN—The United States on Wednesday formally left the Paris Agreement, fulfilling an old promise by President Donald Trump. The global pact was forged five years ago aimed at curbing the potential threat of climate change.

The move, announced by President Donald Trump and triggered by his administration a year ago, has no immediate impact on international efforts to curb the threat.

There are 189 countries that remain committed to the 2015 Paris accord, which aims to keep the increase in average temperatures worldwide below 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit), ideally no more than 1.5C (2.7 F).

Many scientists claim that any rise beyond 2 degrees Celsius could have a devastating impact on large parts of the world, raising sea levels, stoking tropical storms, and worsening droughts and floods.

The Paris accord requires countries to set their own voluntary targets for reducing greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide. The only binding requirement is that nations have to accurately report on their efforts.

The United States and China are the world’s largest emitters of heat-trapping gases such as carbon dioxide and its contribution to cutting emissions is seen as important, but it is not alone in the effort.

Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden has said he favors signing the United States back up to the Paris accord if he turns out the winner for the 2020 presidential election