France’s Macron shows Trump what’s what after Paris Accord announcement; urgent media UPDATE!

France’s Macron shows Trump what’s what after Paris Accord announcement; urgent media UPDATE!
France can have these bright minds. Protester trash outside the White House after Trump pulled U.S. out of Paris climate accord. (Image via Twitter, @TEN_GOP)

[See update at the bottom.]

I suppose you thought the leading European nations were going to take President Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris climate accord lying down.  (Of the accord, we are variously told that it imposes no mandates on anyone, you idiots, so Trump was lying about its inconvenient effects for America and there was no reason to withdraw; but it nevertheless must be remained in for global leadership’s sake lest the planet expire in a horrible way.  If we were still in the accord, I might care to explore this conundrum further.  But we’re not.  At any rate, some might have expected the leaders of Europe to react in an ineffective and entirely symbolic manner.)

Nothing doing.  President Emmanuel Macron of France weighed in immediately, making announcements of his own, and issuing a challenge to Americans, whom he felt comfortable appealing to directly.

Macron walked all over Trump by hijacking his “Make America Great Again” theme:

And he really trounced Trump by laying out the welcome mat for American researchers and innovators.

We’ll keep you abreast of developments in the stampede to research and innovate in France.

Meanwhile, the Indivisible “movement” promptly shifted ground from “climate accord” to “clean air,” and put out a typically deceptive tweet.

The climate accord isn’t about clean air — not even indirectly or obliquely.  It’s not about pollutants that are thought to harm humans or animal life.  Those are separate issues.

The climate accord is about a hypothetical effect of greenhouse gases on global climate patterns, with an obsessive focus on temperature.  “Pollution” and demonstrated “environmental harm” are not at issue here.  “Climate change,” even in theory, isn’t about dumping toxic substances in rivers, or human-manufactured chemicals weakening the ozone layer.  It’s about carbon dioxide emissions and greenhouse-gas effects.

The hoary old bait-and-switch tactic of shouting “climate change” while showing unsightly images of roadside litter is one of the most ridiculous theme packages going, but it always gets pulled out of the drawer.  That, of course, is because the whole thing isn’t about science or the climate or the environment to begin with; it’s about imposing collective solutions that must bring the entire globe under open-ended, unappealable mandates.

Never fear, however.  Indivisible’s comrades in arms promptly undid the “clean air/pollution” theme by leaving a big, hypocrimonious pile of non-degradable trash across from the White House with their protest signs reading “LESS POLLUTION MORE SOLUTIONS”:

Over on the other side of the debate, the accord’s critics, including Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, pointed out that it was also about transferring wealth from the U.S. to other countries:

Ross said that the pact, which aims to reduce fossil fuel emissions, is not about combating climate change, but instead about transferring wealth from the U.S. to other countries.

He said he expects that the global community will be upset with the U.S. withdrawing from the agreement.

“Anytime that people are taking money out of your pocket and you make them put it back in, they’re not going to be happy,” Ross said. “And that’s what’s happening here.”

The American Interest, in April, previewed how the other developed countries (besides the United States) were dragging their heels on the climate accord’s wealth transfer.  In theory, the climate fund — committed to in December 2015 — was supposed to receive contributions from all the developed nations.  In reality, it had reached only 40% of its goal by April 2017, and that only by relabeling previous forms of foreign aid as “climate assistance.”  Trump’s withdrawal puts any real “new money” contributions to the climate fund in grave doubt.  I don’t see France or Germany stepping up to that plate.

Fox News, meanwhile, put up some numbers on the accord’s ill consequences for the U.S. economy.

Breitbart put together some additional information on the bullets America is dodging.

But it’s not all about dodging bullets.  Some of it is just instant, positive good news.

One analytical note from here on what we’re dodging by pulling out of the climate accord.  There’s a lot of detail being parsed out there, but in terms of just how bad this deal has been from the get-go, we need to take a step back and look at a very important passage.  Here’s Article 2 Para 1(a) of the accord:

1. This Agreement, in enhancing the implementation of the Convention, including its objective, aims to strengthen the global response to the threat of climate change, in the context of sustainable development and efforts to eradicate poverty, including by:

(a) Holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, recognizing that this would significantly reduce the risks and impacts of climate change…

This is unverifiable, unmeasurable, unaccountable, and about 20 other things that make this what the president would call a terrible, terrible deal.  Do you know what “the global average temperature” was in “pre-industrial” times?  Does anyone?  What is the definition of “pre-industrial”?  Where does “pre-industrial” end on the calendar?

What’s to keep a Consensus of Scientists from deciding that the pre-industrial “levels” (how many were there?) of “the global average temperature” were lower than previously thought — and thus imply for political purposes that any compliance with the initial 1.5°C limit is real nice, people, but it simply isn’t good enough?

Only a fool would sign up to have his future held hostage to an unmeasurable standard like this.  Talk about meaningless and unenforceable.  The only point can be to ensure that there is always some pretext for continued global collectivization and wealth transfer.

But you knew that.  Which makes this final note about reactions to the Trump pull-out a subject for melancholy and timely reflection.

Would we really be better off, if Romney had been elected in 2012?  There are things a real leader doesn’t let himself be roped into leading.

*UPDATE*:  You can’t make this stuff up.  But you can anticipate it.  Sure enough, Quartz and team up to proclaim that Emmanuel Macron has succeeded in “skewering” Trump, with his invitation to Yanks and his “Make Our Planet Great Again” slogan.

You think I’m kidding.

J.E. Dyer

J.E. Dyer

J.E. Dyer is a retired Naval Intelligence officer who lives in Southern California, blogging as The Optimistic Conservative for domestic tranquility and world peace. Her articles have appeared at Hot Air, Commentary’s Contentions, Patheos, The Daily Caller, The Jewish Press, and The Weekly Standard.

Commenting Policy

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.

You may use HTML in your comments. Feel free to review the full list of allowed HTML here.