by Tilak Doshi
Another year, and another ‘Conference of the Parties’ (COP) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) will convene. The 29th COP is meeting in Baku, Azerbaijan. It started yesterday and will last for 11 days.
My view of the previous year’s UN climate jamboree, attended by a record-breaking 86,000 delegates, was realistically downbeat (some would say cynical):
It is likely that apart from grand-sounding communiques, more breast-beating by the climate NGOs and alarmist headlines by the legacy media, nothing much of practical significance will come out of the 28th Conference of the Parties in Dubai.
But the seismic change brought on by the election of Donald “drill baby drill” Trump on Tuesday as U.S. president-elect – an avowed ‘climate denier’ and whose campaign has already promised to withdraw from the Paris Agreement a second time – must leave the West’s faithful devotees of the Church of Climate aghast. A second Trump presidency together with a Republican senate majority will bring about what finance and energy consultant Doomberg calls a “whirlwind that is about to befall the progressive environmental Left [that] will reverberate for decades”.
Pragmatists vs. Alarmists at COP28
As important as Mr. Trump’s triumphant election win is to the outlook for the globalist climate change agenda, let’s step back a bit for context.
It will come as no surprise that over the past year since COP28, large developing countries such as China, India, Indonesia and Vietnam carried on with their ambitious schedules for growing coal mining capacity and building new fossil-fueled power plants needed by their growing economies.
Just as unsurprisingly, the Biden administration and the left-of-centre European and U.K. governments zealously continued their quest for ‘Net Zero (emissions) by 2050’, the mantra that has entranced Western governments since the 2015 Paris Agreement.
Many governments in the Global South struggle to have access to affordable fossil fuels. Meanwhile, with the relentless climate alarmist propaganda going on for three decades, Western policymakers continue to demonise fossil fuels and nurture (with taxpayers’ money) their favoured green technologies, such as electric vehicles, solar and wind power, “green” hydrogen, carbon capture and storage, many of which have yet to be proven commercially viable.
With their control over leading financial institutions such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, Western governments veto the development and use of fossil fuels in developing countries in the name of the “climate crisis”. Carbon colonialism hypocritically denies developing countries the means to scale the energy ladder that the now-developed West has exploited to obtain their industrial prosperity and high standards of living.
Last year’s COP28 served as a crossroad when the contradictions between the ‘energy pragmatist’ and the ‘climate alarmist’ camps – roughly matching the ‘Global South’ and the ‘collective West’ – broke out into the open. Dr. Sultan Al Jaber, the president of the COP28 climate summit and CEO of Abu Dhabi National Oil Company, said in an interview: “You’re asking for a phase-out of fossil fuels… Please, help me, show me the roadmap for a phase-out of fossil fuel that will allow for sustainable socio-economic development, unless you want to take the world back into caves.”
Al Jaber’s remarks were amplified by Saudi Energy Minister Prince Abdulaziz bin Salman who told Bloomberg that the world’s biggest oil exporter would not agree with Western demands to phase out fossil fuels. “Absolutely not,” he said in an interview in Riyadh. “And I assure you not a single person – I’m talking about governments – believes in that… If they believe that this is the highest moral ground issue, fantastic. Let them do that themselves. And we will see how much they can deliver.”
Enter President-elect Trump
Ah, what a difference a year – and an American presidential election – makes! Expectedly, the hyperventilating headlines of the mainstream media were out in full force within 48 hours of the election results being announced:
Bloomberg: “Trump Stranglehold Adds to Growing Doubts at Climate Talks”
Euronews: “Trump victory casts shadow over upcoming COP global climate talks”
Politico: “No leaders remain to check Trump’s climate wreckage”
MSN News: “Trump’s climate denial and green rollbacks poised to fuel warming”
BBC News: “Trump victory is a major setback for climate action, experts say”
Activist-journalists fulminating in the legacy media over what the Trump win means for the globalist climate agenda are among the less interesting aspects of this year’s UN climate fest in Baku.
The COP29 summit, in the shadow of Mr. Trump’s return as the 47th U.S. President, will be noteworthy for other, more durable reasons. When the U.S. first pulled out of the Paris Agreement with a formal notice in 2017 during President Trump’s first term, it was only three years later – as it happened, the day after the 2020 election – that the decision took effect under UN rules. Upon taking office, President Joe Biden promptly re-instituted U.S. participation in the UN agreement. This time around, it will take a year for a withdrawal to take effect under the terms of the pact once the Trump administration files its exit notice to the U.N. upon assuming office on January 20th 2025.
But more importantly than the formal details of UN bureaucratic rules, the expected second pullout by the incoming Trump administration next year from the (non-binding) Paris Agreement will happen at a time when other Western countries leading the global environmental agenda are themselves exhausted economically and politically.
Hours after the announcement of the results of the U.S. elections, the German three-party ruling coalition government collapsed after Chancellor Olaf Scholz announced the sacking of Finance Minister Christian Lindner over deadlocks on spending and economic reforms. The fiscal constraints brought on by years of irrational energy policies that de-industrialised and immiserated EU economies have come home to roost.
The imposition of sanctions on supplies of cheap Russian energy imports in the wake of the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, which boomeranged on Europe, effectively put paid to Europe’s climate leadership. Its farmers have revolted. Its working and middle classes, owing no allegiance to the luxury beliefs of Brussel bureaucrats and political elites in Berlin, Paris and London, have begun to support the populist right as a force in the European political order.
It’s all about the money
The U.N. climate summit in Baku has been dubbed the “climate finance COP” for its central goal: to agree on how much money should go each year to helping developing countries cope with “climate-related costs”. From the current climate finance commitment of $100 billion annually by wealthy nations (not achieved in most years), some negotiators hope to transfer $1 trillion a year for “climate mitigation and adaptation goals” to the developing countries.
But in the U.S., the UN’s biggest climate finance contributor, ‘Bidenomics’ and the duplicitously termed Inflation Reduction Act which promise massive subsidies for ‘green’ energy were comprehensively rejected at the ballot box last week.
Mr. Trump’s climate scepticism will once again encourage U.S. oil and gas dominance in global markets, continuing a strong theme of his first term in office. One would think that even the climate-obsessed European elites will be under no illusion about what a Trump administration would make of the U.N.’s push for transfers of vast financial resources to poor countries for what is essentially bad weather. As they might say in Main Street U.S.A., “that ain’t going to happen” on Mr. Trump’s watch.
Indeed, among Mr. Trump’s most enthusiastic supporters will likely be the host of COP29, Azeri President Ilham Aliyev, who described his country’s oil and gas resources as “a gift from God”. Trump’s election victory could not have been more nicely timed to put a nail in the coffin of the globalist environmental agenda.
Dr. Tilak K. Doshi is an economist, a former contributor to Forbes, and a member of the CO2 Coalition. Follow him at Substack and X.
Stop Press: Heather Mac Donald has written a wonderfully vituperative piece about COP29 for City Journal: “Any doubt regarding the wisdom of the next Trump administration’s likely pullout from such meetings should be dispelled by the conference photos alone.”
“. . . climate alarmist propaganda going on for three decades”
_____________________________________________
It’s almost 2025 and Hansen’s 1988 testimony gets you to more like 37 years.
And it’s already 45 years since the 1979 “Charney Report.”
They’ll just add 4 years to the doomsday clock..
The rule should be that the Tipping Point is always 30 years ahead.
The Department of Homeland Security published the first Global Catastrophic Risk Assessment two weeks ago.
Bi-partisan conclusion –
there is NO existential risk from climate change.
https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA2981-1.html
And this is from a Biden Democrat administration!
Story Tip.
It’s sort of buried as bullet point #3 of six:
Recommendations:
Develop plans and strategies when global catastrophic and existential
risk assessments are supported with adequate evidence.
In other words The Climate Crisis isn’t supported by any evidence.
Roger Pielke Jnr unpacks this report here –
https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/global-existential-risks
Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.
Winston Churchill
4 years can be reversed if Trumps replacement does not carry on in the same vein as Trump.
He’s got four years to force a fair debate.
Isn’t Vance being lined up to take it forward?
Yes, but that doesn’t mean MAGA wins in 2028.
He had 8 years to do this, 4 as POTUS and another 4 he could use to articulate his future policy. Instead, his major stance is that he will fix everything because he is Trump. Do not ask how and how long it is going to last, just elect him with a carte blanche because he is Trump.
I guess you were checked of politics from 2015 until now?
I can’t explain otherwise how you know so little about what Trump ran on in 2016, what he accomplished in his first administration and what he plans do to next.
No, I keep an eye on what is going around. Maybe, not having a Twitter account, I missed something but I got the gist of it.
In 2015 Trump ran on MAGA. That is, admitting that America was not great anymore, he pushed the idea that he knew how to make it great again. So, what did he really achieve except chattering in Twitter?
He started tariff wars in attempt to balance US trade deficit with China. Has he balanced the deficit? No.
His tariff wars destabilized markets, but had done little, if anything, to bring manufacturing back to US. I suspect, he really did not have a coherent plan to bring manufacturing back to US. At list, he has not shared such a plan with me.
As far as I am concerned, tariffs by themselves raise the prices driving up inflation. For example, tariffs on steel will make everything made from steel more expensive. But will they increase domestic steel production? No, not that easy. This requires investments in coal and ore production, building new steel plants, training a lot of people for these occupations (but all now want to be bloggers/influencers) … a lot of planning, a lot of public discussion. Does US need to become at least self sufficient for pig iron and steel? What are the costs, pros, cons, etc. Perhaps it was all there, I just missed it?
Another big point was protecting the border, building the wall, deporting illegal immigrants. Well, the wall was not built, but I doubt that building walls really solves the problem. I think the problem is the welfare state drawing poor people into the country. I am against illegal immigration, but also do not think his way of dealing with the problem will cure it. Anyway, it is long topic.
During his campaign he also focused on Muslims as terrorist threat. Not that I support Muslims in any way, but focusing on them indicates lack of creative agenda.
On the CCCGW scam and energy policy he was not consistent. He did little and nothing he did or said lasted beyond his term.
Trump has not started any hot wars, but he continued to antagonize Iran and Russia. He was fully in line with American elite’s paradigm of containing Russia, isolation Russia from European markets, which contributed to the escalation of the conflict with Ukraine. He did a little better with North Korea, but superficially.
Overall, he seeks unilateral advantages for USA with zero sum mentality. This is not going to hep USA or the world in the long run.
I hear people hope he is going to be different this time, perhaps surround himself by a team of people better than he is at least in subject matters.
Well, we shall see what we shall see.
US voters kicked the Obama / Biden agenda out rather than enthusiastically embracing the Trump agenda, in my opinion.
Their choice options were fairly binary imo –
I reckon the same outcomes are looming for both Canada and Australia too.
“US voters kicked the Obama / Biden agenda out rather than enthusiastically embracing the Trump agenda, in my opinion.”
I do not disagree.
Regarding his tariffs. Why in 2017 when he implemented them didn’t we see run away inflation? The main reason is the Chinese devalued their currency to offset those tariffs. Prices on products subject to tariffs really didn’t increase. What was cool is that when you devalue your currency, if reduces prices for products not subject to tariffs. In essence, you import deflation. This will happen again as they do not want to lose our markets. There is also a simple solution to avoid tariffs, move your manufacturing and operations back to the US and avoid the tariffs.
I never said the inflation driven by tariffs has to be runaway. They contribute to inflation.
Typically, there are no simple solutions to complex problems. Moving manufacturing back to US is desirable, but is hardly a simple solution. It requires tectonic shifts in US economy.
As far as I can see Trump failed to do anything that he ran on in 2016. He did not lock her up, build a wall or repeal and replace Obamacare. Instead all he achieved was a massive tax cut for the rich that added trillions to the national debt, preside over two government shutdowns while the Republicans controlled both the house and the senate and watch while hundreds of thousands of Americans died of COVID.
Irrespective of whether or not you like Trump’s policies the fact is that he failed to carry them out last time and shows no signs of being able to achieve this this time around.
I suspect you will get a lot of minuses from folks enamored with DT… I can only offset one 🙂
I would like to be more optimistic that he is going to be better second time around. But he has to give me reason to be.
You’re just mad the republicans freed your slaves
?? Freed my slaves?
Sorry, I missed the humor.
The Democrats were the party of slavery and the KKK. Lincoln was a Republican.
I know that and more, thanks (reading about history happens to be one of my pastimes). How does that apply to me? Particularly, when I never voted for Dems (never even considered) and, for the record, voted for DT and Reps?
And in the 4 years he held no elected office he was supposed to do this how?
As a politician aspiring to lead the country on the right path, he should have consistently articulated his position on many issues, arguing where the truth is vs lies, explaining how sticking with lies hurts the economy, and how sticking with truth will fixt it.
Instead he was absent until he reappeared for the campaign focusing more on his opponent personalities (Biden is a vegetable, Kamala is evil… as if he were full of virtues) than on solutions to problems. He did touch on problems (economy, inflation, wars), but explained little how he would be going about fixing them.
I do not think it is anywhere close to the final nail. They will consider this a 4 year setback and sabotage any changes they can. The scam is 40 + years old, it survived the first Trump term, and will survive the second, unless we see something drastically different. I believe that a lot of optimism about impending irreversible changes is unfounded, based on wishful thinking. Trump will effect half measures like more drilling or pipeline construction that he thinks are good for USA, but unlikely to take a principled position. Unfortunately, he is not a man of principle.
I see erstwhile accepters shrugging and moving on.
I think it’s about over when people reach thirty-ish and say “oh well I guess it wasn’t such a big deal”. That Gore movie HS kids were forced to watch was great for short term hype but now has to be hidden away like ethnic WW2 recruiting propaganda.
Some individuals with critical thinking skills may shrug it off, but for the whole society it is not that easy.
The vast majority of the population is made by several generations that have grown up completely indoctrinated. Everybody above 40 has grown up with it. People are known to be reluctant to challenge the ideas and paradigms they have grow up with.
In general people do not accept well the idea they were fooled.
Too much money and interests are at stake at many levels – bankers, climate industry companies, politicians, academia, press, celebrities etc.
It is possible that your thoughts are accurate in theory. PJDT will, however, try his best (as always) to put the American citizens FIRST. It is up to ‘the people’ to support his policies as best they can. Without the attempt, you will be right.
I do not insist on being right. I have more reservations than enthusiasm.
Hope for the best.
People react strongly to the idea they were cheated, however.
This may partially explain higher republican voter turnout this time (suspicions about 2020 vote count). This is one time action, however. Emotions hardly help when discussing boring things like country long-term investment goals, which is the core issue of democracy.
Trump’s first term delayed the insanity in the USA. USA still has viable industry. UK industry is dead and Germany’s industry is on life support.
Another 4 year delay in introducing the unilateral economic annihilation (in Kemi Badenoch’s words) in the USA will highlight the madness in the rest of the west.
Both UK and Australia are approaching the insanity abyss. Australia’s Blackout Bowen and UK’s Smarmer will be providing leadership at COP29. Neither country can create the global currency so they will not be offering any money.
USA under Trump has set itself apart. Look no further than electricity prices in any of the globalist regions versus those where sanity has remained.
How much carbon combustion reduction has all the previous 28 COPs achieved to date? How is madness/insanity defined?
At some point, efforts to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere that do not work must cease.
The only question then, is when. But how much economic damage has already been done, by preventing other initiatives?
The Bastiat “broken windows” economic theory comes to mind, so it’s not a new concept.
The first goal of the Trump Administration should be to plan for the next administration. The task is to drain the swamp and that will take at least two terms to complete. Thus planning for the next term is paramount. Then defund and depopulate the EPA. Next, gut the DOE down to those groups like EIA and NETL that provide some value to the country.
The EV mandates need to go to strengthen the automotive industry which means that the proposed 2027 EPA reduction in emissions from vehicles needs to be vacated. The current emissions standards are already lower than ambient air quality in cities such as LA, so there is no need to go lower than that.
The DOJ and Treasure need attention as well, along with the DOD.
Lots of work for the next administration to accomplish.
Let’s see if Congress can be persuaded to go along. Trump has many allies now in both houses. He didn’t have that in 2017.
The opposition party typically gains seats in the midterm elections. We might only have 2 years to make a difference.
Trump has many allies now in both houses
Let’s see how well Thune works with him.
The beggars’ banquets were great while they lasted.
Poor Two-tier missed the boat. That must really suck.
I am cautiously optimistic that the ‘climate fever’ is breaking, for a number of reasons. Germany experiencing Dunkelflaute. UK Miliband declaring clearly impossible stuff. Biden soundly rejected. EV demand no where near what proponents expected. Even green Washington state just rejected a proposed gas stove ban.
none of the predicted bad stuff has happened. Yet COP29 still has all the beggar nations demanding handouts.
Trump didn’t kill off warmunism, COP, or the Paris accords the last time around, even if he wanted to … because one leader can’t do that on his or her own. What the warmunists should worry about isn’t Trump per se, but that he represents a crashing wave of disgust from people all over the world with wasteful destructive warmunism who gained control of far too many governments. Conservative governments are coming in Europe and Canada, for instance, and possibly in other major nations around the world.
In every revolution there’s one man with a vision.
— Capt. James T. Kirk
Every revolution was first a thought in one man’s mind and when the same thought occurs in another man, it is the key to that era.
— Ralph Waldo Emerson.
Hopefully.
He didn’t give it attention soon enough. This time, it will be a Day 1 item. Probably followed by zeroing the US contribution to the IPCC. His appointees might reinforce things by giving grants to sceptics and denying them to the climerati. Musk will happily launch satellites to keep the UAH work going. etc.
I think what we’ve forgotten regarding the US and the Paris ‘accord’, is that the congress must ratify US participation for it to be ‘legal’-and that has not happened as yet. However and as we’ve seen 2 of the last 3 administrations have bypassed congress, adopting WEF/Agenda 21-30 climate crap and shoving it at the US populace. To make matters worse, up until the funding black hole that is the Ukraine/Russia conflict materialized, the sitting POTUS was throwing billions of ‘discretionary’ (read: Unappropriated by congress) USD at the UN for Climate Crap. So, there is no legal accord agreement for the US to dissolve as it never existed. I believe it is more the US populace that has been duped for years and somehow believes that the US is legally bound, as others have said. It is not, period. All Trump needs to do is put up his palm and say NO!, as he has before. The grinding machine of windmills, photovoltaic, etc. might take awhile to stop. Can’t happen soon enough.
Regards
MCR
It’s like the decision to put up a stoplight at a local intersection. We were told it could not happen until x number of fatalities occurred.
This climate nonsense will continue until an unacceptable number of people die from the “cure” rather than the “disease.”
It will continue indefinitely, the question is only the scale of carbon tax relative to the scale of real, value producing economy that has to feed the parasitic climate-industrial complex.
I disagree that it will continue indefinitely. If enough people die from this nonsense, then the “carbon tax” will go to zero or the cities will be in flames.
Study history. Lots of relevant examples of people taking action to change their country. Get enough people fed up and a high death toll will do that and things will change and sometimes those changes are violent.
The course of the Viet Nam was (aka police action, undeclared war) was changed by widespread demonstrations that were fueled primarily by the death tolls.
Heather Mac Donald, City Journal:
Close but no cigar, on a lifetime basis maybe a century or more nuclear energy is the only low-to-no emission technology available, whether its wholesale global adoption would make any discernible difference to the weather anywhere is doubtful.
The real problem is that they assume “a warming planet” is a problem. It is not.
A COOLING planet IS a problem.
A warming planet IS GOOD NEWS.
That message needs to be tattooed backwards on their heads so they have to see it every time the look into the mirror, so it will sink in.
That’s not the point. Of course more nuclear power won’t change the weather. Fossil fuels aren’t changing the weather so replacing them with anything won’t make a difference.
The point is, it’s not about the weather and neither is it about the climate. The lack of green support for nukes is one of many signs that tells us this.
Nuclear makes great sense because eventually fossil fuel production will peak and then what? Between uranium and thorium fuels we can produce power for thousands of years. And nuclear is extremely reliable.
Every time the projections on the hydrocarbon reserves being depleted, new discoveries and technologies belie those projections.
The question is not whether nuclear is the answer. Anyone seeking a simple binary answer to a complex problem is going to get the wrong answer.
It’s not what we know we don’t know that is key. It is what we don’t know we don’t know.
I just read an article that some study shows we have exceeded the 1.5 degree boogy man AS COMPARED TO 1700. Nowhere in the article did it mention just how cold it was at the end of the Little Ice Age. Ridiculous to think we should shoot for this kind of temperature.
Ridiculous is to think that we have any ability to effect global temperatures. People basing real world polices on this premise should be locked in a madhouse.
how many final nails are there?
That’s a question for TheFinalNail…
ChatGPT says the final nail is the final nail. And then goes on about finding shit in the last place you look because you quit looking when you find it.
I hate google-anything.
“BBC News: “Trump victory is a major setback for climate action, experts say””
experts say?
Why not go with “Trump says”?
Weird fallback on habitually attributing opinions to unnamed experts.
Just mentally insert the word “idiots” every time the “media” says “experts.”
These “experts” are no idiots. They protect their own interests.
Very nice. We are winning, now is the time to push back and push back hard.
Premature cheerleading for Trump
17 US states have stricter CAFE and net zero requirements than federal standards or Biden executive orders. Trump can’t fix that. The 17 states account for 40% of new US car and light truck sales.
Almost 50 years of propaganda that CO2 emissions are dangerous, and CO2 is a pollutant will take a long time to refute.
According to recent global surveys, a significant majority of people, often exceeding 75%, believe that CO2 emissions are dangerous and consider climate change a serious problem,
It is not yet clear than a majority of the House or Senate will oppose all current climate and energy regulations, There are too many RINO Republicans who are not loyal to Trump or MAGA positions.
The division of power and inter-state competition is one of the great things about the United States federal system.
There’s the supremacy clause in the US Constitution and there is also a clause about regulating interstate commerce. The EPA let California and other far-left states dictate climate policy because it suited the EPA and other agencies to do so. Trump can put an end to this as the regulatory agencies are under the executive branch.
Congress needs to step up, too. Whatever Trump does with executive actions can be undone with an executive action when a future administration changes course. That’s what Biden/Harris did with border security and immigration.
I am in favor of all EOs being submitted to Congress for an equivalent to Advise and Consent. I am in favor of any Presidential declaration of a national emergency being submitted to Congress to validate or cancel it (the declaration is in effect until Congress votes).
Too many de facto laws are created by executive orders and bureaucratic regulations. Too many regulations go beyond the Congressional mandates embedded in the laws..
Shutter the EPA. Each state can decide their environmental standards
States that do not regulate CO₂ will become more prosperous than states that do regulate CO₂. The lesson will be visible to all.
There are a few elements in the EPA that need to be kept. Whether they are moved to a different department or a very much streamlined EPA is the answer, we shall see.
What needs to happen immediately is command the EPA to remove CO2 from its list of pollutants. Anyone who claims CO2 is a pollutant needs to stop exhaling.
“The Clean Air Act waiver is a provision under CAA Sections 209(b) and 209(e) that allows states to request a waiver or authorization20 from federal preemption of state-level regulatory programs for emissions from new motor vehicles or their engines or new nonroad vehicles or their engines.”
Repeal that section and the problem ends. Those states would have to follow federal regulations. If a repeal by Congress doesn’t look likely, the regulatory body (EPA) can end the wavers (subject to seventeen lawsuits!).
Given there is no means of preventing interstate travel by automobiles, it falls under the Commerce amendment. Point is, I agree.
California is trying to ban over-the-road diesel trucking, this is like playing Russian roulette with 5 of 6 chambers loaded.
And it will all have nil effect on the meaningless GAT.
CORRECTION
There is only one CAFE standard
As of December 2023, 12 states have formally adopted California’s Advanced Clean Cars II (ACC II) regulations, and three more are in the rulemaking process:
Technically the point is correct. The counterpoint is that each State enacts its own laws and those are not necessarily identical to California’s version of insanity.
“Trump victory is a major setback for climate action, experts say”
Excellent News !
A setback, even a major one, is a setback, nothing more. When loosing a game by a huge score you score to pull closer with a hope of getting tied, it is just a revived hope of the fight becoming more competitive, not the victory itself.
That a cup 5% full is an excellent news, shows how low our expectations are.
What does “loosing a game” mean? Is that somewhere between “losing’ and winning?
The climate-industrial complex based on CCCGW scare has already been created and has become an integral part of American and world economy. True win would amount only to dismantling its ideological foundations and the complex itself. Just slowing it down is not a win.
True. But we can still hope and cheer for the win.
We can only hope a second Trump administration breaks the Climate Government industrial Complex.
There’s a big fight brewing. I hope we win.
3 letter agencies control all the power, hopefully Trump can take it back. Firing a lot of people in those agencies would certainly help, but they know all the loopholes.
and they hate us.
Tom Homan (Border Czar)
Elise Stefanik (U.N. Ambassador)
Michael Waltz (WH National Security Adviser)
Mike Huckabee (Ambassador to Israel)
John Ratcliffe (CIA)
Elon & Vivek (Department of Government Efficiency)
Pete Hegseth (Department Of Defense)
Tulsi Gabbard (DNI)
Matt Gaetz (AG)
If the only thing we can do is HOPE, most likely the results of DT second stint will not be profoundly different or longer lasting than that of the first.
Moreover, if we put our hopes in personalities, we lose the big picture. The climate industrial complex based on lies and amounting to a big Lie itself will be slowed down by laws of Nature and Economics, i.e. by Truth. Those on the wrong side of Truth will get results like Germany and Sri Lanka. While Truth will prevail in the long run, there is no guarantee of the insanity not persisting for generations, as long as it is profitable for those exploiting it.
Require ALL science to be red team/blue team. Consensus science is not science.
Who makes the rules?
Who enforces them?
Who decides the winner?
Congress makes the rules.
Congress enforces the rules.
The American people decide the winner at the ballot box.
The solution to this whole quandary is so simple. Just submit the Paris Climate Treaty (yes, it is a treaty, not some extension of something else, remember we never ratified Kyoto) to the U.S. Senate for approval. When it’s rejected 85-15, into the trash heap it goes, never to be heard from again. DJT’s biggest error in his first term was not to do this and instead treat it as a dictatorship with each president decreeing what treaties we’ll honor. That is for the Senate.
Dictator 😉
That a President accepted the International Paris Climate Treaty without submitting it to Congress for ratification is abuse of office and impeachable.
no he is not. not even close. That is like thinking that Nick Stokes has been convinced that AGW based upon CO2 is just a big grift
For COP, it’s not about the climate, it’s about grubbing for other people’s money.
IPCC and UN alphabets all have publicly stated in clear and no uncertain terms that the climate movement is not about the environment, it is about transforming the world, policaly, economically, and socially.
The goals: One World Order, socialist command economy, and depopulation.
You will have nothing (unless one of the entitled elite) and you will be happy (the beatings will continue until moral improves).
Judging what three decades of these climate conferences have achieved during the last thirty years, they were on life support almost from the outset. Trump’s election will drive the final nail in their coffin.
Go, Trump, go. He is one of the few politicians with principles.
DIsagree. Trump is not a politician. In many areas associating principles with Trump’s action are questionable.
Trump is a businessman who was elected then and again recently because the American voters were tired of the same old DC politics that did nothing for the common American.
A businessman, who repeatedly bankrupted his business (6 times).
When he was first elected, I was curios if his destiny was to bankrupt the whole US. After one term, not much different. He promised to cut national debt, but ran it up, pretty much like any other POTUS would do.
For a change, I wish he would at least achieve a balanced budget, like his friend Javier Milei.
story tip: Taliban to attend UN climate conference
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/taliban-will-attend-un-climate-conference-first-time-rcna179539
Of course they are. Stand on a street corner and start handing out $20 bills and see how long the line grows.
“…
manynone of which have yet to be proven commercially viable.”Fixed.