Unpolitically Correct
The US Doesn’t Need Paris to be Green

We’ve had a “Green Deal” for 30 plus years now.

The “new green deal” is a good new of extension but it needs 100 years or more to complete.  This end of the world in 12 years projection is as ridiculous as thinking the US can greatly influence it.  But still, the US doesn’t need Paris to be green.

The US is doing its part by itself and is leading by example.  What we need is for China and India and other countries to get onboard with us to really see some effective movement on our global carbon imprint, but they are not cooperating with us or the Paris Climate Accord. The President did the right thing taking us out of it.  He saved us billions of American dollars and we are still keeping our word with continued reduced CO2 emissions.

I don’t think anybody is going to accuse the Trump administration of being overly environmentally proactive, but he is doing a good job. He’s kept the momentum going on what was started back with the Bush administration, and then the Obama administration who both did a good job.

The article “U.S. Achieves Largest Decrease in Carbon Emissions…Without the Paris Climate Accord” written by Caroline Downey explains it perfectly. I highly encourage you to click on the link and read her article.

Americans are doing a good job of improving our environment, of doing our share of reducing our carbon imprint.  On top of this, with Trump approving the pipelines that reduces our carbon imprint to the equivalent of removing 58,000 cars a day the moment it’s effectively online.

No one is giving Trump credit for that.  The environmentalists approved the pipeline  and once it got approved, then all the people who didn’t want it, like those who run the railroads, and all the others, hired people under blind funds to try and stop it. They did while Obama was in session, but Trump saw right through the fallacy of all of that and he signed it.

Trump signed it to improve the carbon imprint on the environment by greatly reducing a lot of trucks and railways who are major polluters.

The pipelines are the safest way to move any kind of energy.  They are the safest and best way to do it without a doubt.

Ships would be the next least expensive, then the railroads (not necessarily the least environmental carbon imprint) and then trucks.  That’s the three ways you move oil.  Ships are definitely the second least expensive, but obviously you can’t run those in the middle of the country.

The article I mentioned earlier is by far the best that I’ve seen of the true story about the Paris Climate Accord, which was absolutely a rip-off for the United States.  We were going to put out billions or trillions of dollars to other countries.  None of it was going to our country.  It was going to countries that had no idea what to do with the money, even if they got it.

There are two places we really need to go right now that have the biggest negative impact; China and India.

India is not developed nearly like China is yet.  Look at the scale provided by AEI.

The best in the world at lowering the carbon imprint, is the U.S, and the worst is China.  The US is still the world’s environmental leader. We should take the best countries in the world and have them work directly, (no corrupt United Nations or any of those agencies in between,) to help them lower their emissions.

In China, we could show them how to build better coal plants for now, then develop nuclear energy.  It would lower their emissions. That would have three times the impact of anything we could do.

They are building old-style coal plants.  Our success in substituting natural gas with coal has been great but we should be looking at safe nuclear energy in our future.  It is so safe now, it’s not even a measurable risk. The stop gaps  they have are unbelievable.

If we looked at building 30 nuclear energy plants in the United States over the next 40 or 50 years, we’d have no coal plants.  We’d have no natural gas plants.  We would cut our emissions because 60% of our carbon emissions is for electricity.

We need to continue helping the automobile industry.

Everybody jumps up and down about cars.  Cars are only 20% and I think they are down to 18% right now.  Electric cars aren’t causing that to go to 18%, its cars getting better gas mileage.  We’ve got to get our foot off the pedal on the gas mileage requirement and keep raising it.

That’s one thing I disagree with President Trump about. We allowed Detroit off the hook on some of the mileage requirements.  I think we should keep it going.  You can still have a special extra cost for that souped up car that gets bad mileage but you’re going to pay more for it. But if we get the average mileage in this country up to 40 miles per gallon I think, only 10% of our carbon footprint would be cars, with no electric car input.  Electric car influence on the total carbon imprint is going to take 25 years to really show up and anyone who thinks differently is not doing their homework.

Again, please read this article on the Paris Climate Accord.  The author has done a great job of encapsulating the fallacies of the Paris accord.