Can you mount a factual argument in support of the Paris agreement? Can you explain the fossil fuel industry's support of it?

All I have heard is (a) empty platitudes: "USA leaving is bad for the world", usually from people that fly private jets– and (b) extreme coercion in support of a deal whose stated outcome is to spend a lot of money and accomplish very little.

Fossil fuel industry support is likely explained by promotion of methane hydrates - an opportunity that Japan is pursuing with vigor. I personally am less enthusiastic about an undersea landslide enveloping us in a gigaton methane plume, however.

Consider too that the net impact of increasing EPA emissions standards has been to increase global emissions as industry is forced offshore to China with a grid that is several multiples dirtier than the US, and with 8,000 miles of round trip shipping added on. A disaster for the environment. Emissions targets in the Paris agreement perform a similar function.

The UN's green climate fund does not preclude investment in coal-fired plants, and green group's have already condemned their plans.In general I am skeptical that shipping boatloads of cash to unaccountable bureaucrats will fix anything. A feeling that is not assisted by knowledge that the UN's WHO spends more on travel (including first class flights) than it spends on Aids and Malaria.

Climate change is a problem that can only be solved by the invention and industrialisation of technology. I'm putting my money where my mouth is - I'm substantially overweight Tesla and am privately invested in promising battery and solar tech R&D. Deregulation of the energy grid, as voted for in Nevada, will provide room for these technologies to be adopted. Dismantling the petrodollar would help too.





Speak your mind


Resources & Links