Rhetoric Over Climate Accord Exit Nothing But Hot Air

Urgent weather alert! That warming trend isn’t climate change, but hot air blowing from those condemning the U.S. for the withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord.

These folks need to chill, because the only thing rising faster than sea level is their blood pressure. And that’s too bad, since their mercurial reactions are woefully misguided.

Just as nature needs a severe weather disturbance every now and then to restore ecological balance, the world community needed a jolting political disturbance to snap people out of complacency; awakening them to the fact that action, not make-believe, gets results.

Here’s a look at the Paris Climate Accord exit:

1. People on both sides need to take a deep breath and stick to the truth. Pushing agendas bereft of facts and demonizing the opposition isn’t helpful. This only serves to hinder progress in areas where there is already common ground.

2. The accord is not a treaty and is not legally binding. The agreement is meaningless because the accord simply asks nations to do their part — what they think they "should" do. There is no enforcement, because there is nothing to enforce: no mandates, no penalties, and no way to generate consequential outcomes.

3. Democratic mayors and governors have finally seen the light on states’ rights. They criticized the federal government’s decision to withdraw and, in true power to the people spirit, pledged, on their own, to implement Paris accord standards. And that’s the way it should be — personal initiative trumping reliance on Washington, D.C. Maybe they’ll succeed, attracting more residents and businesses, maybe they won’t, prompting an exodus — because free enterprise was strangled. Either way, that’s the market at its best: improve and do well, or — decline and face the consequences. So congratulations to the Democrats who now comprehend that paternalistic big government is not the solution. It is the people who know best.

4. Nations arbitrarily set emission limits. So country A can simply adjust its "targets," whenever it wants, accruing economic benefits. How is that fair to country B that abides by the rules?

5. An MIT study showed that if countries abided by their pledges (and that’s a mighty big "if"), global warming would slow by between 0.6 and 1.1 degrees Celsius by the year 2100, which is a far cry from the stated targets. So if you know the agreement is doomed to fail from the start, why do it? Because it "sounds good"? Sorry, that’s not acceptable, especially when livelihoods are at stake.

A better agreement should be forged. Yet many shortsighted critics refuse to see the Paris Climate Accord as anything other than the be all and end all agreement. They reject crafting an improved agreement; this is a classic cutting off one's nose to spite one's face mentality.

The problem isn’t global warming; it’s people’s inability to put aside petty differences. Oil labor shouldn’t be vilified for doing jobs that provide America with economic and physical security. And neither should "tree huggers" be demonized for their desire to prioritize the environment. Neither side is "wrong,"but nothing can be accomplished until we stop attacking and start listening.

6) The expectation that the U.S. should pay and do more, while polluting giants like China and India would enjoy vastly reduced thresholds, is salt in the wound. Such a grossly unfair agreement would jeopardize thousands of jobs, as American companies would be unilaterally hamstrung with regulations.

So let’s get all of this straight. Many are screaming because the U.S. pulled out of a climate change agreement that: 1. Won’t come close to meeting its stated temperature reduction targets. 2. Relies on honesty from nations. 3. Allows less developed countries to continue polluting while developed nations are punished for . . . being developed. 4. Is unenforceable; and 5. Is patently unfair to the world’s most benevolent nation, placing undue hardship on its citizens while the rest of the world makes gains at America’s expense.

So, what are we missing here? People must cease the herd-mentality response that "we need the Paris Climate Accord to save the planet," while self-righteously sipping their lattes because somehow regurgitating that line makes them "environmentally conscious."

It doesn’t. It makes them dangerously naïve.

Team Trump made many blunders in announcing the withdrawal. And because they took the wrong approach to the right decision, they are suffering in the court of public opinion.

And where was the multi-million dollar ad campaign explaining the president’s decision? Nonexistent. You can’t tweet your justifications, nor can you rely on "fake news" to articulate your message.

The administration should have used its gold mine of resources to write the narrative, that America continues to explore wider use of renewable and cleaner energies; that pulling out of a bad agreement in no way means the country will abandon its commitment to reduce carbon emissions; and that, the administration will work towards a climate change agreement that actually changes climate.

But because they failed to do so, there was nothing but bad spin.

Perhaps the administration should change its own "climate" by hiring sharper personnel. That way, the world will come to understand the true facts about the doomed Paris accord, and how the U.S. will always lead the fight against global warming.

Chris Freind is an independent columnist, television commentator, and investigative reporter who operates his own news bureau, Freindly Fire Zone Media. Read more reports from Chris Freind — Click Here Now.