Trump’s Pull Out from Paris Accords Puts America First and Multinational Banks and Corporations Last
As President Trump gets set to formally withdraw from the Paris Climate “Treaty,” it should be remembered that the people who will be hurt the most by this are multinational corporations and international banks.
Those who accept the “science” of global warming and feel that it is an imminent danger to the inhabitants of planet earth would probably argue this point, but to anyone else who critically analyzes this plan it becomes readily apparent that only global economic interests are being damaged by this.
As Danish statistician Dr. Bjorn Lomborg, the President of the Copenhagen Consensus Center, has said in his denouncement of the Paris Accords, even if followed through on, they would do little to stop global warming, and that at tremendous cost.
Using the same prediction model that the UN uses, I found that [Obama’s] power plan will accomplish almost nothing. Even if its cuts to carbon dioxide emissions are fully implemented – not just for the 14 years that the Paris agreement lasts, but for the rest of the century — the EPA’s Clean Power Plan would reduce the temperature increase in 2100 by just -.023 degrees Fahrenheit.
In the unlikely event that all of these extra cuts also happen, and are adhered to throughout the rest of the century, the combined reduction in temperatures would be 0.057 degrees. To put it another way, if the U.S. delivers for the whole century on the President Obama’s very ambitious rhetoric, it would postpone global warming by about eight months at the end of the century.
Now, let’s add in the rest of the world’s Paris promises. If we generously assume that the promised carbon cuts for 2030 are not only met — which itself would be a UN first — but sustained throughout the rest of the century, temperatures in 2100 would drop 0.3 degrees — the equivalent of postponing warming by less than four years. Again, that is using the UN’s own climate prediction model.
These miniscule benefits do not come free — quite the contrary. The cost of the UN Paris climate pact is likely to run 1 to 2 trillion dollars every year, based on estimates produced by the Stanford Energy Modeling Forum and the Asia Modeling Exercise. In other words, we will spend at least one hundred trillion dollars in order to reduce the temperature by the end of the century by a grand total of three tenths of one degree.
Then there is the fact there is nothing binding enforcement of the agreement on any country. It all operates on good will.
So why would there be such a push for this thing. Outside of the obvious “love for the planet,” and of course the optics for politicians to be viewed as “caring” about the plight of those in underdeveloped countries, there is also the huge monetary incentive for financial and industrial elites.
Factually, there are trillions of dollars at stake.
As reported by Reuters early in May, investors, from 214 institutions, with more than $15 trillion of assets under management, sent a letter to President Trump urging him to stay in the Accords.
As long-term institutional investors, we believe that the mitigation of climate change is essential for the safeguarding of our investments.
Signatories of the letter included the California Public Employees Retirement System and other pension funds from Sweden to Australia.
In a secret meeting in Sea Island Georgia in March of 2016 billionaire investors and leading GOP politicians met to discuss how they could stop then candidate Donald J Trump. As reported by Huffington Post:
Billionaires, tech CEOs and top members of the Republican establishment flew to a private island resort off the coast of Georgia this weekend for the American Enterprise Institute’s annual World Forum, according to sources familiar with the secretive gathering.
The forum was described by Judy Stecker, a spokeswoman for AEI as
an informal gathering of leading thinkers from all ideological backgrounds to discuss challenges that the United States and the free world face in economics, security and social welfare.
Elon Musk, billionaire owner of Tesla, specifically states that he attended the meeting to talk about “Mars and sustainable energy.” He has also threatened to withdraw from President Trump’s Business Advisory Council if the White House withdraws from the international agreement.
It is obvious that Trump’s ‘America First’ Doctrine is upsetting the entire construct of multinational export/control dynamic, as President Trump focuses trade deals aimed solely on the national interests of the United States.
This puts the multinational corporations, and bankers, especially those with heavy investments in “green” industry, at a considerable financial disadvantage, as international cap-and-trade schemes will not have the same money making capacity without the U.S.
President Trump’s decision has once again placed the interests of the American taxpayer above that of the global community.
Latest posts by Joseph Morgan (see all)
- Ha! EU Nations Write To Trump Admin Calling His Tax Plan Unfair To Them. - December 13, 2017
- DOJ Refuses To Explain Why Mueller Was Given a Waiver To Conduct Trump/Russia Probe - December 12, 2017
- Whistleblower: CFPB Guilty of Falsifying Documents To Get Money from Payday Lenders - December 12, 2017