(National Sentinel) Climate hysteria: When President Donald J. Trump announced a week ago he would pull the United States out of the non-binding Paris Climate Accords because, in part, the agreement was little more than a transfer of American wealth, he was exactly right.

As noted by the Washington Times, developing nations are now saying they won’t participate in the agreement they, too, have signed unless their paid to do so:

Yemen has promised a whopping 1 percent cut in greenhouse gas emissions as part of the global Paris climate agreement.

North Korea, meanwhile, has said its pollution will double by 2030 compared with 2000 levels — but only if the rest of the world writes a sizable check. Otherwise, its emissions will rise even further.

Peru says it can cut emissions by 30 percent by 2030 compared with its “business as usual” projections, though that would be a net pollution increase of 22 percent and is contingent on billions of dollars in funding.

India, Iran, South Sudan, Niger, the Central African Republic, Cuba, Egypt, Paraguay and a host of other countries have similar demands: Pay up, or else they will have to keep polluting.

When Trump pulled the U.S. out of the agreement last week, he was deluged with freak-out-like criticism from the far-Left that the end of the world as we know it had begun. But it sounds like the one way we can avoid that is not through real cutbacks in pollution, but real payments of real money from American taxpayers.

In other words, signatories to the agreement completely understand that unless they can fully develop their own industries and infrastructure, which will boost their gross domestic product, they will have to be compensated instead.

“Claiming that 193 countries signed on is a meaningless statement, which is likely why it’s made. The meaningful way to view it is that 193 countries agreed that the U.S. should harm itself and to gladly pay on Tuesday for the U.S. to harm itself today,” said Chris Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and a leading critic of the Paris pact. “There’s a stark difference between agreeing to sign on to Paris and agreeing to do something, to undertake pain. In essence, they rented their signature for the promise of Paris-related wealth transfers. But for them to promise to do anything beyond take our money and impose the agenda, too, would really cost us.”

If climate change/global warming was a real thing actually caused by human activity, then the cuts would gladly be made by all countries involved; their emissions would not be subjected to ransom payments.


Would love your thoughts, please comment.x