Thoughts on Backing out of Paris Treaty

So my Facebook feed has been loaded up with a lot of my friends railing the fact that we withdrew from the Paris deal. Many, are simply stuck on the fact that the deal was to "help the climate." So why in the world would we even think to back out due to anyone not wanting to help the climate? Too many just follow based on the title of a bill or treaty and do not even consider "how" they were thinking of imposing such a treaty and that it might be awful for us - and for that matter, not even do much actually to help the climate. This blog post is my response.

What do you think would have been the impact to federalism and the republic if we would have entered into the Paris deal? Interested in your observations.

The Problem

The Paris deal had less to do with climate change than it did other items which caused us not to want to enter into it. Many people agree that the climate has changed. It was as early as the early 1900's that warming reports first started surfacing in northern European newspapers, citing the changes to the environment they were witnessing. Headlines even read of "Global Warming." Regardless of what is causing it, we can certainly all do better to make our world better. And in fact, in our country, we have regulations which amount to over $1.9 trillion spent annually as a part of our GDP to supposedly make our nation better and safer.

Just because a treaty has "prevent climate change" in its text, doesn't mean it will.

Very specifically, the Paris deal aims to solve the problem of climate by entitling the federal government to even greater power, and even more centralization. If you know anything about history and the last 100 years of progressive movements which have grabbed and centralized authority and power, then you might understand how this is not good for our country. But also how it more than likely will not help anything but lead us down a path of not solving the climate issues we face.

The creators of the Paris Accord, mostly here in the USA, aimed to centralize law making and commerce decision making. The proposed method of so-called improving the climate and cost to our economy, for what was not very much regarding climate gains was just too much for us to bear as a country.

The aim of the Paris climate deal was wealth redistribution. I want to underscore the wealth redistribution point. The progressive statist arm sought to leverage the might and wealth of countries like ours, to subsidize countries like China and India, both countries which are taking a back seat on the deal.

The U.S. agreed to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 26-28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025, but China agreed only to reach its peak carbon dioxide emissions by 2030 and then begin scaling back.

Thus, the agreement gave China an enormous economic advantage over the U.S., because China could continue to produce cheap coal-fired electricity while the U.S. must regulate this type of energy to keep its commitment.

Moreover, China did not state a carbon dioxide reduction target and only mentioned a date more than a decade away when it would begin to cut emissions.

We need to look underneath the positive spin naming convention of the treaty and try to understand just how they were going to accomplish only an estimated 0.2-degree improvement and what that would have meant for both economics, commerce as well as liberty and federalism.

If you want an understanding of how grabbing power like this, as well as the progressive statist agenda of wealth redistribution, hurts everyone, I can give you some books to read which are very enlightening. Just DM me on Twitter @antifragileer. I have also embedded some books into this blog post which are relevant to this topic as it pertains to the breakdown of our constitutional structure, judicial review and the mechanisms used for bypassing our representative form of government with social reforms, which I do insist would be leveraged to unroll the treaty.

The reason why Trump did not agree to the Paris deal, is not because he doesn't think the climate is changing. He did so because he knows the solution to the problem is not bigger more centralized government - and especially not a central authority from outside the US regulating our economy and laws, which I think would have been the inevitable path for the creation of a body for governance over the treaty. In full disclosure, I am not a fan of Donald Trump. But the decision made, I feel, was the best for our country. At least, for the time being, until we come up with a better plan than what was being proposed by the EPA and others.

How can we adopt a treaty without the consent of Congress or ability to pay for it?

Obama and the Democratic party pulled a fast one over the American public and therefore The Congress. The Paris Accord is a treaty, yet, Congress gave no approval. By simple decree of Barack Obama, he declared that it was not a treaty. According to the actual definition of "treaty", it most certainly is.

  1. a formally concluded and ratified agreement between countries.
    synonyms: agreement, settlement, pact, deal, entente, concordat, accord, protocol, convention, contract, covenant, bargain, pledge; More

Let's not forget that the law of the land states that treaty power lay with the Congress, and not the President.

Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, includes the Treaty Clause, which empowers the president of the United States to propose and chiefly negotiate agreements, which must be confirmed by the Senate, between the United States and other countries, which become treaties between the United States and other countries after the advice and consent of a supermajority of the United States Senate.

In some reports, it is estimated that this global treaty would cost $750 billion and six million American jobs without even the consent of Congress. Even if those numbers are wrong, the number and effect are certainly going to be dramatic and substantial. How can we afford to adopt this treaty, when we cannot even afford to pay for the Affordable Care Act, Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare? Some of those programs themselves are either just about to be insolvent or will soon be. With just about 20 trillion in fiscal operating debt and over 200 trillion in unfunded financial liabilities, the United States cannot bear such an endeavor without its peril. We are already on a roadmap to insolvency, just based on our existing liabilities.

Who wants the power grab?

In reality, much of the power grab and centralization of power effort comes from within our own country. The progressive statists have it set, that to accomplish the social justice and social reforms in our society, it must be done with an all-powerful, benevolent centralized government that can decide what is best for all of the society. That statement comes from 100 years of progressive statist elected officials and their quotes, and their positions on the welfare of the populous and their ideological view of what kind of society we should be. And I might say, which completely ignores the fundamental human characteristics of what it means to be human and live in civil society as people.

From Woodrow Wilson to Franklin D. Roosevelt and Barack Obama, they have made their ideology trump any notion of federalism and republicanism, let alone the constitution itself. The progressive statist uses our fourth branch of government and judicial review to wield social change on a level which our constitutional and federal infrastructure has no balance or checks.

Since 1913, when the Congress amended the constitution with the 17th Amendment to remove the States from the representative government, judicial review has knocked out the balance that kept the harmony. "The New Deal" sealed it in with a shift in tone from individualism to collectivism with the dramatic expansion of the welfare state and regulation of the economy as well as the broad economic interventionism policies.

Quite simply, this treaty would have been rolled out exclusively through our fourth branch of government and through judicial activism to perform the regulation of the economy as well as the extensive economic interventionism.

The Congress was bypassed for the treaty itself, and we would have to be fools if we thought that the unrolling of the treaty's terms and conditions would have been rolled out in any other fashion. Over the last several decades, we have seen this time and time again. The Congress and the States are completely removed from our representative government in many regards.

If the Paris Accord would have been accepted by the US, we would have seen trillions of dollars of additional burden on our economy by the decree of never seen before regulation from unelected officials. Laws with both civil and criminal penalties, not passed with any form of representative government would have crushed us. The American and its industry would have been smothered by trillions more GDP regulation, burying our economy and involving the Federal government in even more of our day to day lives.

If we look at the effect that today's $1.9T financial liabilities have on our economy, then we can try to deduce what something like this treaty would do. If those have at least the minimum effect, then why would we expect something better from the regulation of the economy as well as the broad economic interventionism policies inevitably coming from this treaty? However, this interventionism would be even far more overreaching, and therefore much more disastrous.

And even worse, the Federal Government would have seized immense power and further centralized its authority to do so. Quite possibly completely eviscerating what's left of the balance of power in this country.

One thing is for sure though. If we tackle issues that face us so we can breathe cleaner air and reduce Co2 emissions; and therefore live healthier and longer lives, we will have to sacrifice. My argument is not that we do nothing. My argument is that we embrace economic principles that have shown to produce positive human experiences and results. Big government programs rarely yield anything but stagnation. But embracing the human condition and working with that; well that is free market capitalism. And let's not confuse free market capitalism with a "free for all." There is a distinction between "free market" and "capitalism" as a whole. By nature, capitalism by itself is not very successful when there is a central authority mandating commerce. But when free trade can occur between parties, history has shown that innovation is drastically improved.

Capitalism is an economic system based on ownership of the factors of production. Some key features of capitalism are competition between companies and owners, private ownership and motivation to generate a profit. The production and pricing of goods and services are determined by the free market, or the supply and demand.

A free market system is an economic system based solely on demand and supply, and there is little or no government regulation. In a free market system, a buyer and a seller transact freely only when they voluntarily agree on the price of a good or a service. For example, suppose a seller wants to sell a toy for $5, and a buyer wants to buy that toy for $3. A transaction will occur when the buyer and the seller agree on a price.

Some people cringe at the mere utterance of the word "capitalism, " and they think of the monopoly or big banker. But if you create policies around "free market capitalism" and set up an ecosystem by which innovation, technologies, and the process can overtake outdated industry, the entire human industry can transform without breaking the back of the country.

The solution?

The reality is, some regulation will have to occur. But that regulation need be passed by the  Congress. That regulation also needs to not be focused on economic interventionism, and instead embrace free market principles to drive the innovation. More carrot, less stick.

Our form of government is broken. The entire infrastructure that made our government work so well has been fractured beyond the repair that any elected president or partisan party can fix. There is absolutely no way to fix our representative form of government, except by calling a Convention of States, under Article V of the Constitution. President Trump cannot fix it, nor will anyone else who comes after him. This treaty is just another example of just how dangerous of a path we are on, due to our lack of federal infrastructure to protect the people and the republic from harm.

In 15 years, our countries finances will be in a state of irreversible care. Our people will be on the streets, begging for food, seeking shelter and overall, out civil society will erode. You don't have to believe me, just read some of the books that I posted on this page. Or forget that, just look at what has happened to Venezuela in just 10 short years. From the wealthiest country in South America to people starving and killing each other. All because the civil society collapsed due to the government taking hold of all power and centralizing the economy, industry and more. Venezuela is a perfect example of how a society said "oh, that will never happen here", to it actually happening in just a decade. This is not doomsday, but a reflection of history and the path laid forward by those that came before us. And we shall leave a worse place for our children, just as our fathers before us left us.

12 states so far have passed resolutions calling for n Article V convention. Four of them, just this year, including Arizona. Next year, we shall have even more. Article V is the best path forward. And with Article V, we can finally rebalance this republic to restore federalism and republicanism; and tackle serious issues such as climate change, our deficit and more. Until then, regardless of how positive or spirited our intention, we will fail because we do not have a government capable of supporting such an endeavor.

We dodged a bullet...

No Comments Yet.

Leave a comment

You must be Logged in to post a comment.