Trump Says Paris Climate Accord ‘Isn’t Working Out So Well For Paris’ As Riots Engulf The City

From The Daily Caller

Michael Bastasch | Energy Editor

President Donald Trump said France’s new round of violent protests showed the Paris climate accord “isn’t working out so well” as thousands of “yellow vests” clashed with police Saturday.

“The Paris Agreement isn’t working out so well for Paris,” Trump tweeted Saturday morning as France prepared for another wave of violent protests in Paris over President Emmanuel Macron’s policies.

“Protests and riots all over France. People do not want to pay large sums of money, much to third world countries (that are questionably run), in order to maybe protect the environment. Chanting ‘We Want Trump!’ Love France,” Trump tweeted.

For weeks, tens of thousands of French have risen up to oppose planned hikes to carbon taxes on diesel and gasoline as part of Macron’s climate agenda. Carbon taxes provided the spark for what’s morphed into protests against Macron’s attempts to revamp France’s economy.

Thousands of protesters, called “yellow vests” for the safety jackets European law mandates all drivers have on hand, stormed the Champs-Elysées for another round of protests. The entire city is basically shut down, including major tourist attractions.

Youths and high school students attend a demonstration to protest against the French government’s reform plan, in Paris, France, December 7, 2018. REUTERS/Benoit Tessier.

French riot police face off with youth and high school students during a protest against the French government's reform plan, in Bordeaux

French riot police face off with youth and high school students during a protest against the French government’s reform plan, in Bordeaux, France, December 6, 2018. REUTERS/Regis Duvignau.

The government deployed thousands of police officers in preparation for Saturday’s protests. Paris protesters clashed with police on Saturday, who used tear gas and water cannons to corral protesters and arrest hundreds.

Macron initially resisted compromise, saying increased fuel taxes were needed to cut France’s reliance on oil, which is part of his plan to comply with the Paris climate accord. Macron wants to reduce France’s use of nuclear power and fossil fuels in exchange for solar and wind.

The French government caved to protesters’ demands Wednesday, opting to scrap the carbon tax hikes entirely. (RELATED: France May Be Ahead Of The Curve When It Comes To Global Warming Policy Backlash)

Trump claimed the protests showed the problems with the Paris climate accord, which the president said he would withdraw from in 2020 — the earliest available date to do so.

However, several media outlets said Trump was wrong to claim that protesters chanted “we want Trump” as they marched. AFP and The Associated Press rated the claim as false, saying it stemmed from a video of a protest in the U.K. in June, not France.

Follow Michael on Facebook and Twitter

 

Advertisements

123 thoughts on “Trump Says Paris Climate Accord ‘Isn’t Working Out So Well For Paris’ As Riots Engulf The City

      • How to turn a gentleman into a terrorist?

        Make the gentleman go without12 meals.

        How to unmask Macron as a globalist?

        Levy a $2 fuel tax!

    • It’s amazing that the one country in the world that enjoyed a dominance of nuclear energy has decided to screw the good, reliable energy and replace it with unreliable, expensive, over-rated wind and solar energy. How bloody stupid can one be? Suicide wish? An agenda with another goal, like Agenda 2030?

      • Refuses to believe reports a out South Australia of just how unreliable renewable can be. Maybe he just thinks that SA is simply making mistakes that he will not make

      • Charles, you got the point, the main point there , nuclear is very very expensive,
        especially when at 60-70% penetration of the whole energy production…
        Very very expensive to upgrade it, quite impossible under any circumstances, let alone
        considering to maintain it at that high penetration.
        Impossible to maintain it,,,too, too far expensive to carry on with upgrades on that path….

        Needs a lot of extra tax “harvesting” to get through with it, especially when the government
        under the deep vamping extra parasitic special interest that flourish and grow due to extra and ever growing of silly stupid red tape and ever inflating bureaucracy.

        I think President of France knows this, but he seems not so sure about if he has to go or not “Full Roman” in all this, for the best of his country, and properly consider the most right thing by trying to implement the most efficient path forward for the best of France… which still very painful and hard to consider, but the only one way propagating some possible success…under the circumstances…

        Anyhow,depending in ~70% nuclear power for energy production, over time is very very difficult to deal with, a monster in its own…not easy or a joke to consider… very very expensive… immensely impossible to deal with, in the meaning and prospect of upgrades.

        Even when considering a curtailing, reduction or backpedaling on it, it is still expensive, hard and very difficult to achieve…especially for modern developed countries

        cheers

  1. The tax is just a misdirection ruse to fund the 80 billion a year cost on migrants. Finally some people are waking up to the globalist scam.

  2. The proposed French fuel taxes aren’t specifically mandated by
    France’s part in the Paris Accords.

    The taxes were supposed to pay for alternative energy sources as time goes by.

    Ah… we’ll always have Paris.

    • I say the taxes were going to pay for “climate reparations” to the UN and distributed to “developing” countries like China and India. Wealth redistribution plain and simple. Truth is no one, including the people of France, would know where the money actually goes. Just like the $500 million that Obama surreptitiously gave to the UN on one of his last days in office. Where did it go?

        • No, actually that $500M went to Solyndra, unless your talking about the $500M that went to Iran…

          This is so CONFUSING! We ought to have a law that says the President can’t do this (actually, these)!.

          • He’s talking about the first $500 million that was embezzled from the U.S. coffers (in March of 2016, from money that congress appropriated for combating international infectious diseases, specifically the Zika virus) and sent it to the Green climate fund as part of Obama’s participation in the Paris accords in comparison to the second $500 million he embezzled from the U.S. coffers (days before leaving office).

            What’s worse, Obama funneled this money to the UN Green climate fund which is connected to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC). The UNFCCC accepted the “State of Palestine” as a signatory, which legally should trigger a U.S. funding prohibition as U.S. law forbids any taxpayer dollars to fund international organizations that recognize “Palestine” as a sovereign state.

        • But were we not told that migrants are of economic benefit and increase our GDP. Permitting Germany to have the full “benefit” of all the migramts Merkel invited should mean that Germany pays all the other countries for permitting Germany have the full benefit provided by all the migrants.

          • LOL. Yeah, Germany should be thanking those countries for letting Germany have all the “benefits” that those migrants bring to the economy.

        • And those countries should tell Germany/France/the EU where they can shove that document and if Germany/France/the EU doesn’t like it, then those countries will initiate there own version of “brexit”.

      • “Where did it go?”

        This is where the World Bank fits in. It’s effectively a money laundering agency to redistribute wealth without any accountability for where it goes and what it’s spent on.

        • The very reason why the Copenhagen 2009 “conference” failed was because the beneficiaries of the wealth redistribution didn’t want to spend it on what the Western Lefties wanted them tospend it on, but line a few back pockets instead!!!! That’s why under Tony Socialist Blair the UK “gave” £2 Billion to India for their “girls & women” education programme, because India had spent wads of loot on re-equiping its airfoce with state of the art fighter-boombers instead!!! Go figure!!!

          • I am now starting to look at this from the perspective of illegal economic migration (which I am vehemently against), especially as climate change impact countries in the Southern Hemisphere.

            If droughts and other extreme weather events are exacerbated by AGW then there are going to be increased cases of droughts, leading to famines leading to forced migration – and we all know where illegal economic migrants want to head to.

            At some point, to avert mass migration movements, the developed countries who, after all, have benefitted considerably from fossil fuel extraction, will have to mitigate the effects of climate change on developing nations if they do not want to be flooded. The US is already experiencing this with the Central American carvans (Europe the same with North Africans/Middle Easterners), and there will only be more to come if the status quo remains the same.

            https://mankindsdegradationofplanetearth.com/2018/12/11/one-suspected-driver-of-the-caravan-climate-change-cnnpolitics/

          • That’s sarcasm Ivan i take it ?.

            Or you are on the wrong blog son.

            Sophistical science and jonnies place is that way >.

          • Nope, Gary, 100% serious. Diesel = urban atmospheric pollution = related heatlth diseases. Couldn’t be simpler.

          • As always, Ivanksi reveals that he doesn’t actually do science.
            If it’s obvious to him, it’s considered proven. Actual data be damned.

          • Ivan,

            “If droughts and other extreme weather events are exacerbated by AGW …”

            This is a big ‘if’ that is demonstrably false, so there’s no need to worry as all the fears are based on a presumed effect caused by man that opposes the laws of physics.

            Besides, even if it were true, a 1 W/m^2 increase in emissions starting from 30C arises from only an 0.16C increase in the temperature, while 1 W/m^2 more emissions starting from 0C, arises from an 0.22C (38% more) increase in the temperature. Clearly, as forcing uniformly increases, as it always does, cold regions warm proportionally more than warm regions reducing the difference between hot and cold reducing the severity of weather. The IPCC hides this reality from its disciples with their inappropriate linearization of W/m^2 and temperature.

            The future migration we need to worry about is when km’s of ice bear down on a large fraction of the land occupied by the industrialized world as the next inevitable ice age arrives.

          • “..cold regions warm proportionally more than warm regions reducing the difference between hot and cold reducing the severity of weather.”?

            Where did you read that? Can you explain how there would be less severe weather?

          • meteorologist,

            What part of this don’t you accept?

            1) As the planet warms, colder regions warm more than warm regions.
            2) The greater the difference between hot and cold, the more extreme the weather will be.

            1) Is a consequence of the Stefan-Boltzmann Law
            2) Is a consequence of the laws of thermodynamics, where the available energy driving a heat engine is proportional to a temperature difference. Evidence is that the most severe weather fronts are those with the largest differences in temperature. Hurricanes are somewhat similar, except that the pool of cold is high up in the clouds and not on the surface and as the surface warms, cloud tops warm as well.

          • It’s interesting, if it was just simple physics and not fluid dynamics – computers could make better forecasts. It’s counterintuitive how planetary wave patterns are affected by the north-south gradient.

          • meteorologist,

            You need fluid dynamics to predict the weather, but predicting the climate by extrapolating weather is absolutely wrong. What is required is to deterministically establish how the steady state will change. For the case of establishing a climate change metric, the steady state response can be quantified as the radiant behavior at the top and bottom of the atmosphere averaged over a whole number of years. The complexities within the atmosphere and even its coupling to the oceans are only involved with the chaotic transitions from one steady state to another, i.e. weather, and have no bearing on what the next steady state, i.e. climate, must be.

            The next steady state is a consequence of the laws of physics applied to changes in the solar forcing profile and/or changes to the system by considering the atmosphere a black box whose only constraint is that it is conforming to and will continue to conform to the laws of physics at its boundaries. Changes to the system, for example doubling Co2, while technically not forcing, can be properly considered as an equivalent change to the solar forcing while keeping the system unchanged.

          • Ivan, having proven himself ignorant about science has now proven his ignorance about world events.

            The US is already experiencing this with the Central American carvans (Europe the same with North Africans/Middle Easterners),

            Climate has nothing to do with the Central American caravans or the North Africans/Middle Easterners. Both of those situations are completely down to corrupt governments, excessively violent gangs/crime/drug cartels and massive unemployment in those countries that are governed by corrupt governments. If you were living in those countries you’d want out too, and not because of the weather/climate. (heck if the only thing at issue was the climate, you’d see caravan’s heading to central America, not away from it).

          • co2isnotevil – thanks for the reply. I missed it, sorry.

            I doubt you can measure what you’re talking about, so the best indicator is the change in the long wave patterns, if we can confidently quantify all the parameters. It’s complicated.

            So far it’s just been educational, nothing to worry about. But the trend is up slightly. We’re living in good times.

        • meteorologist,

          “I doubt you can measure …”

          Actually, I can predict and measure exactly what I’m talking about. Many of the relationships I’ve discovered are from analyzing satellite data, some of the relevant plots are in the page you land on by clicking on my handle.

          The main prediction of my hypothesis is that from space, the bulk behavior of the planet must behave as a gray body in order to be compliant with first principles physics. The effective emissivity becomes the ratio between planet emissions and surface emissions, or about 0.62. The analytical prediction is that the steady state solution is that Po = eoT^4, where Po are the average emissions, T is the average surface temperature, o is the SB constant and e is 0.62.

          When I plot surface temperature vs. planet emissions for 2.5 degree slices of latitude (or in fact any width slice up to a hemisphere), the relative relationship of averages as short as 1 month are within 2% of the predicted gray body behavior and long term averages are within 0.5%. Note that a gray body is not ideal, but represents a non ideal black body, which the Earth surely is. None the less, any non ideal BB can be exactly quantified as a gray body.

          The only thing that can change for any matter absorbing and emitting energy is the effective emissivity. The 4 in the T^4 relationship between temperature and W/m^2 is immutable as there’s no known physics that can alter this exponent.

  3. Turnabout is fair play. Macron mocked and taunted Trump for his stance on climate. Oh the ironing. Chickens coming home to roost, and all that.

  4. Chanting “We Want Trump!” Love France.

    Reminds me of the Blackadder scene:

    Hearing the people shouting in the streets, he thinks they’re calling ‘We hail Prince George’, and his butler, Edmund Blackadder, corrects him: “‘We hate Prince George’, sir. ‘We hate Prince George’.”

      • Yes, I agree with that label.

        It’s too bad Americans can’t see the tax rates in France and other parts of the EU in factual reporting from the press instead of pictures and downplaying the riots.

  5. We Want Trump!

    I just re-listened to an interview with Gwynne Dyer. link

    Dyer will aggravate most of us because he believes in global warming. If you can get past that he does make one very important and valid point. If you kick a large portion of the population under the bus, those people will be susceptible to the appeal of some kind of populist. It could be left wing or right wing. It doesn’t matter.

    My pet theory has been that the threat of communism forced America to treat its workers well. The 1940s thru the end of the 1960s were glory times for the American worker.

    Once communism collapsed, the powers-that-be decided they could afford to kick America’s workers under the bus.

    The thing the powerful ignored is that the specter of communism has been replaced with the specter of populism. Dwyer points out that populism isn’t an ideology, it’s a technique. It can be used by the right or the left or by something else as in the case of President Trump.

    According to Dwyer, the solution to populism is to make sure the workers haven’t been kicked under the bus. Amen.

    If the French don’t actually want Trump, it could well be that they want someone like him.

      • Yep. My guess is that, if Bernie hadn’t been cheated out of the nomination, he could have beat Donald. At least nobody hated him like they hated Hillary.

        • You underestimate the knowledge and dislike of Socialism in America. You can’t hide the failures. Just because and MSM continually pushes Socialism doesn’t mean people are buying it.

          • What people underestimated before Trump was the pain being felt by the forgotten people. When people feel that betrayed by the system, they’re willing to bring the whole thing crashing down around their own ears. What the heck do they have to lose?

            When the forgotten people were still prosperous, Trump would have been unelectable, ditto for Sanders. Now, on the other hand, I think a Sanders-Trump contest would have been real interesting.

          • Both Sanders and the Donald agreed on various points – especially Glass-Steagall bank regulation.
            Still I think Sanders does not dig coal and getting a little lesson in French right now.

          • What you are underestimating markl, is that both Trump and Sanders tapped into a part of the electorate that felt left out, forgotten, and/or abused by the mainstream political entities. And those people were open to anyone who could show that they were listening to their problems.

            And while Trump is liked by a vocal minority, he’s also greatly disliked by a large vocal minority. Hillary had a similar problem. Those on the left liked (or at least tolerated) her while those on the right very much hated her. Hence why it was so close between the two. Trump won because those that liked him/hated her were better placed electorally than those who liked her/hated him.

            Sanders has a vocal minority that really liked him (Bernie Bros) but he really didn’t have any group that outright hated him. That could have been enough to make the difference in a match-up with Trump. He’d get the never-Trumpers by default (same as Hillary did), but there was no never-Bernie faction like there was a never-Hillary one. so those who were on the Trump train because they hated Hillary wouldn’t necessarily be on the Trump-train if it was Bernie that was the alternative. Meaning those voters would have been up for grabs (perhaps not those who lean right, but certainly the Hillary haters in the middle and those that lean-left and yes there were some on the left that despise Hillary as much as anyone on the right just as there are those on the right who hate Trump every bit as much as the most rabid lefty).

    • “The 1940s thru the end of the 1960s were glory times for the American worker.”

      That wasn’t because of the threat of Communism. It was because America had destroyed all its industrial competitors in WWII and the aftermath. Most of Europe had been devastated by warfare. Britain had been bankrupted by borrowing to pay for the war. And China and Russia were failing Communist states.

      As the rest of the world recovered, competition increased.

      • As the rest of the world recovered, competition increased.

        another factor, seldom noticed.
        Those decades of “non-competiton” spelled the doom of most rust-belt industries. Car-making got lazy = Sending out poorly-built, too heavy cars loads with glitter but not lasting long. Japan learned how to turn out quality cars cheaper that WOULD last 120,000 – 220,000 miles while US cars were lucky to get 100,000 miles. US Steel and its foundries failed to upgrade equipment, to build new plants with better quality furnaces yielding better grades of steel. Coal mines, railroads, buildings, electrical and generators were “same ole, same ole” . And the unions bought into the competitve attitude against steel, cars, electrical, shipping etc so THEY lost jobs due to greed, complacency, corruption.

        • After the WWII, the US had pretty much the only intact first world economy on the planet.
          (Yes, the Norwegian countries had intact first world economies, but they were too small to provide the products the rest of the world needed.)
          This led to huge profits for US companies as the rest of the world had to buy from us while they were rebuilding their economies.

          The owners of the companies choose to use these profits to buy labor peace rather than invest in new equipment. This made sense in the 50’s as there was no competition to worry about, and a loss of production meant a loss in profits for that year.
          By the time the 60’s rolled around, Europe and Japan were getting back on their feet economically. Worse still, from a US perspective, the brand new factories that they had built used all of the latest technology, while the US was still using technology from the 40’s and 50’s.
          By the time the 70’s rolled around, US companies could no longer compete. The union reaction was to demand that the US close our borders to imports.

          • Labor productivity is basically a function of automation. More automation means each worker produces more.

            American productivity has been steadily increasing since 1947. link As far as I can tell, American industry has been steadily automating at least since the end of WW2 but actually for much longer than that. Do you have different evidence?

    • Populism is a meaningless term. All politicians want to be populist. Hillary wanted to be populist, but she could not make a connection, especially after her “deplorables” gaffe.
      It is now used as a pejorative by the left to sneer at the blue collar workers that have been left in the cold by the globalist agenda of both parties. Free trade is a good thing, as long as people have time to adjust to the changes, and their is “fair trade” on both sides. When the reality is an American worker has to out produce 2 or 3 foreign workers in order to justify his higher cost of living, those workers are going to feel betrayed by who ever is in power. And politician that says they will do something about it, will get their support, as long as they actually do something about it.
      Most of us vote based on our philosophy about the effectiveness of government programs. A large segment of labor feels like they are voting to keep their job, or watch it get shipped overseas.

  6. Amazing how slow the media in Australia has been in reporting the reasons behind the Paris riots, they are all so geared up with the climate change meme, hoping for our hot summer to produce California like bush fires to reinforce their message that Australia must keep paying into the Paris Accord!

    The reason behind the Paris riots runs counter to the heavily reported and organized children’s day off school strike/protest, emotionally calling on politicians to “save the planet” a desperate echo of the left wing brainwashing of that generation.

    When will the Media abandon this crusade against carbon?, some say when Hell freezes over and our economy is completely ruined.

    • >When will the Media abandon this crusade against carbon?, some say when Hell freezes over and our economy is completely ruined.

      No- they’ll blame that on AGW somehow.

      • Quite possibly. But I also think that most of the lame-stream media have never really had it explained to them that deliberately making energy more expensive, year-on-year, is to set an official government policy of negative economic growth (and thus, misery).

        Now while that is what the greens explicitly want, I think most people, including the media, do not really want that when they are honest with themselves. Humans are very capable of completely changing what they believe to be true when it becomes obvious what the circumstances require them to believe.

        While it does sometimes seem we may well have to wait until we are in a state that resembles a scene from Steinbeck’s Grapes of Wrath before subsidies and homage for green projects are abandoned because they are simply no longer affordable, there is still scope for optimism. Before we see widespread civil unrest in the streets I think a sensible politician could make an early start by explicitly abandoning all funding for projects that use the words “climate” or “global-warming” anywhere in the application for funds.

  7. Governments in France are notoriously susceptible to the influence of the ‘Paris mob’. Napoleon once made an observation to the effect that, if he wished to remain in power, he needed to keep the price of bread in Paris below two sous per loaf.
    It seems possible that liquid fuel is the new ‘bread’ and the French (at least, those in Paris) have had enough. I very much doubt that this minor setback on the road to renewable Paradise(?) can reasonably be attributed to people waking up to the Global Warming scam. The people are simply not prepared to make the sacrifices deemed necessary by their government. The short-term solution is for the government to rapidly backtrack. The long-term solution is to do more preparation work on the people so that they will ultimately accept the Green rip-offs.
    The battle is nowhere near over.

    • Unfortunately, I think you are correct. This group wants control of the world and will do anything to get it. I thought it was dead with Climategate, “wrong”. I’m not sure what will stop it.

        • Gary Ashe – UN is a great force for the good (accept on illegal economic migration where it is completely useless). Why are you not at COP24 here in Poland where I live – you would learn a thing or two: https://cop24.gov.pl/

          • Looks like you should be joining him Andrew. Poland is a great country to visit so combine it with some R&R…

          • The UN is a festering sewer of bureaucrats who want to rule the world using American and Western power and wealth.

            The sooner we end it’s sick charade as a force for good, disband the charter, implode the HQ bldg in NYC, send it’s delegates home permanently, the better off the world will be. And the sooner and more realistically can national governments recover some sense of true markets and power sharing and international coalition building for solving specific problems, one of which will not and cannot be CO2 in the air, the most favorable and beneficial compound available anywhere for the living things of this planet.

    • Any democratic governments is susceptible to mobs if in enough numbers, look at the list of countries with governments tettering on the edge of being unworkable

      USA, UK, Germany, France, Italy, Brazil, Australia, Sweden and probably a dozen more

  8. I just hope it gives pause to crazy policy proposals in the works from the Great Society Party. Marketing consultants don’t make the best riot control squad members and water cannon operators.

  9. Maron: Has that much office time opportunity to ensure dividends and benefits from a set of imposed by law friendly businesses.
    Trump: Had what it takes before stepping into office, no need to desperately rob the nation for more.

    [Macron ? .mod]

  10. Climate Science:
    400 parts per million dominate the energy budget of the world’s atmosphere. The other 999,600 parts per million have no say.

    Political Science:
    400 parts per million of the population dominate the political budget of the world. The other 999,600 parts per million have no say.

  11. Governments love to expand what they do because of all the good they see themselves doing. Government naturally wants to expand its regulatory reach along with its tax base. It should be no surprise to anyone that they are all-in with alarmism regarding global warming.

    The surprise is that any political entity is against it.

  12. “The French government caved to protesters’ demands Wednesday, opting to scrap the carbon tax hikes entirely.”

    Merely a tactical move. The traitor class will squeeze elsewhere.

    Trust is ALL gone.

  13. I hope Justin Trudeau is paying attention. Canadians will only be pushed so far. I sure the masses don’t wait until the hordes descend as they already have in europe.

    • Interesting how the MSM media in Canada has poor coverage of the events in France. That 500,000$ carrot on a string our dear leader has offered to the MSM seems to be working.

  14. “We do not take domestic American politics into account and we want that to be reciprocated,” Jean-Yves Le Drian told LCI television.

    “I say this to Donald Trump and the French president says it too: leave our nation be.”

  15. Trump being smug on Global Warming is an encouraging sign.

    I wonder how many US citizens feel they are lucky to have seen the light on the Global Warming scam or is there a greater leaning to the view that the inmates are in charge of the asylum?

  16. When the French people complained about rising fuel taxes, Macron reportedly said the people should carpool.

    Instead of “Let Them Eat Cake!” it is now “Let Them Carpool!”

    I guess Macron didn’t realize that the French people don’t like their concerns to be dismissed with such a flippant remark. It makes them feel like Macro doesn’t really care and doesn’t really understand their situation.

    • Macron crapped his own bed by reducing taxation on companies and high-earners.
      Then tried raising taxation on consumption and lower-earners.
      Nothing (much) to do with “climate change”, which is just another closet-excuse now.
      Macron in the quite common neoliberal who pretends to be “man of the people”.
      The UK is another story entirely; having voted to leave the EU, it now finds that it has no idea how to do so, without sinking the economy. In fact, every way of leaving has serious downsides.
      Eventually, we may get around to staying, if the entrenched financial interests that are looking forward to the brexit fire-sale can be sufficiently subdued, or eliminated.
      Like everything, it all comes down to money: Who has it. Who spends it. Where they get it from. Who pays taxes on it.

  17. If the French government really things that the use of fossil fuels is bad then they should make it illegal to make use of any goods and services that have made use of fossil fuels and that includes all goods moved by truck or motorized ships. They should first try that in the government sector before they unleash it on the general population. Taxation is not necessary to get this done.

    • True, they could limit every vehicle to a certain number of kilometers every day then the vehicle just turns off. That might work.
      /s

    • Nuts. Migration is caused by the imperial slaughter of various countries, the IMF’s debt enslavement being the other side of the coin.
      Now the very same crowd that caused the 2008 crash warn of an even bigger crash caused by climate, not them!

      You really could’nt make this flatulence up.

      • What on earth are you dribbling on about?

        Macron may have misread the situation with the yellow vests who might be justified in protesting rising living costs- but on one thing he is right and that is the increase in diesel fuel prices. About 20% of French vehicles run on diesel which, given the very large health care costs resulting from atmospheric pollution in cities and towns, is completely absurd. He is right to want to wean the French driver off diesel – the sooner the better. In fact all diesel cars need to be eventually banned in Europe.

        • Straight from Keynes who wrote in his original preface that his brilliant ideas could only be undertaken in total state – namely Germany in the 1930’s.

          Imposing fascism in the name of CO2 is the game, a losers game.

        • The socalled climate disasters have one thing in common: unsustainable population growth. In Africa for instance it still exceeds economic growth. Can not end well.

          • Dr. John Schellnhuber awarded his CBE personally by QE in 2004 for loudly touting an optimum population of 2 billion. Remember he is the Royally decorated decarbonizer , the Great Transformer.
            The inconvenient 5 billion people to be erased would make Goering blush.

          • Surely does not mean that the consequences of adding 5 billion desperately poor people should be blamed on climate change?

        • The government forced them to use diesel to reduce CO2 emissions from petrol, now you blame the people for using diesel. They are mad because they were told to use diesel to save the planet from CO2 and now the government is taxing the very diesel they have to use (plus the car manufacturers fiddled the emissions testing)

        • Ivan

          What healthcare costs? Already shown to be nonsense in the UK after medics complained of 40,000 deaths caused by diesel particulates. Not one single death certificate of those noted were recorded as dying from diesel particulates.

          The deaths were all caused by recognised medical conditions but the subjective judgement of some medics was that particulates hastened death from minutes to a few days earlier than expected.

          An impossible assessment to substantiate.

    • Ivan

      Not that garbage again. Go and do some proper research instead of taking the easy option and finding yet another alarmist echo chamber.

  18. It’s fun to watch the Left and the alarmists try to spin the reason for the French riots.
    It’s about “ cost of living” pressures.
    Nothing to do with an emissions reducing diesel tax, or climate change issues.

    • The Donald takes great delight in bypassing CNN, MSM, WaPo… People notice that. Anything they get their grubby keyboards on is false
      Meanwhile back at the UK Ranch – The Gov’t funded “Integrity Initiative” has been caught red-handed attacking Corbyn as a Putin agent.
      The UK has it’s very own Deep State!

  19. A telling bit of graffiti in Paris: “Macron Antionette”, reflecting his detachment from the ordinary citizenry.

  20. According to the website of the Automobile Association (AA), ‘reflective jacket/waistcoat’ is a compulsory requirement in Austria, Belgium, Croatia, France, Italy and Spain. It adds the following additional information:
    Wearing, compulsory if driver and/or passenger(s) exits vehicle immobilised on carriageway, in Italy at night or in poor visibility, in Spain on all motorways and busy roads, it must be kept within the vehicle. In Croatia the wearing is compulsory whenever you have to get out of the vehicle at the roadside in an emergency. In Portugal and Norway the actual law applies to residents; however, regardless of the regulations local officials may impose an on-the-spot fine. In Belgium the wearing of the reflective jacket only applies to the driver, it must be worn should you be stranded on a Belgian motorway or on a major road or should you stop at a place where parking is not allowed. In France drivers must have one warning triangle and one reflective jacket in their vehicle. Motorcycle helmets must have retroreflective material fitted (see touring tip for further information). From January 2016 it will be compulsory for all motorcyclists (two or three wheels) to wear a reflective jacket in the event of an emergency. In Austria the regulation applies only to the driver.
    This does not sound like a European Law. It sounds more like laws which have been enacted by individual countries.

Comments are closed.