Thursday, June 1, 2017

4 Reasons The Paris Accords Are Not Right For The US


  1. The Paris Accords Treaty represents more needless signatories with EU. The dangers of becoming mired in a treatise whose body assumes that a global community exists, as defined in the party/signatory options for keeping the accords, clashes against the factual reality that this is merely an abstraction from reality as a concept. It cannot account for very real cultural differences, as well as absolute differences faced by small business as well as larger industries whom would be placing their existences under the terms of what is essentially a foreign power, and this violates the US Constitution. Although it also violates the UN Charter, which states that only the Security Council can award such powers to the UN when the topic is "enforcement", the condition of accepting the accord places those protections into limbo, while accomplishment of goals has neither been proven to be a result of participation, nor has any standard of quantification been agreed upon as of yet. The Paris Accord, therefore, is more typical EU nonsense, oratory prone, top heavy with ineffective regulation, and created to EU perspectives which are legendarily wrong.                                                                         
  2. Emissions Laws were pioneered in the US, and the rest of the world's laws are based on the laws as they first began in the US. The US passed the very first emissions and conservation laws in the early twentieth century. The State of California led the way, and it would be more than fifty years later before Europeans would adapt the concept for their nations. Although the US laws were slowly embraced, and took nearly thirty years to become a set of national guidelines and enforceable standards, these standards are still sufficient. It is ignorant to sign onto an enforceable treaty when these standards remain superior, and certainly can never be used as enforcement negotiations to explain international debts or grievances.                                                                  
  3. The apparent consent implied by the US's involvement in this treaty is merely a bargaining tool which grants any composition of the UN Sec Council's temporary members, whom may be hostile to the US, a magnitude of power to use as leverage in further international conflict. This is self-explanatory. This could place the country at the end of a litany of charges during the times unfriendlies might hold the Security Council of the UN. This isn't necessary. These accords are typical blowhard Euro Politician-nonsense, and offer nothing in the way of advantage to the people of either Europe or the United States. Instead, it is a "let's buy a horse and share it" plan. In these types of plans, it is often the working class who pay for the details, as well as find their lives to which they are accustomed under regulatory financial fire in terms of enforcement. Their resulting expense to the auto manufacture industry, for example, could result in the mandating of unnecessary modifications by as of yet to be invented technologies. This will only burden the middle class. And this is a huge concern, as these accords are a declaration in bold print stating that EU doesn't object to doing that to Europeans, so how could they object to doing that in the US? Any inflating role by EU in terms of such agreements should rightly provoke first suspicion, then revulsion, then EU should politely be told to stick it.                                                                          
  4. Until EU falls, the US should act in any way necessary that will advance the cause to end Globalism. While EU tries to recast the size of the globe, and call it smaller, the US has historically left their opiate-inspired shiny bolts of idealism over there. If China signs on, literally they do so in order to get the money they are owed via using participation as a bargaining chip, and again, not the US's business. None of this is the business of the US.                                                                                                                                           

No comments:

Post a Comment

Why Loudwire Is Full of S--t

In December of 2017, the bloodthirsty American Enterprise Institute  was giddy with anticipation for the coming year. This think tank, ...