Renewable Farming

Victory for agriculture: No entangling alliances under the “Paris climate agreement”

May 31, 2017 — Several news sources anticipate that President Trump will announce that the U.S. intends to withdraw from the UN’s Paris climate agreement. 

Update June 1, 2017 — The preliminary reports are correct: The U.S. has opted out of the Paris agreement as it stands. This points to major long-term benefits to U.S. agriculture and the U.S. economy, especially when reinforced by a new political will to expand sources of less expensive hydrocarbon energy such as natural gas, now in abundance.  Media performers and globalist elites were predictably horrified.  The general public was much less concerned.  Here are some followup observations.

Commentary by Jerry Carlson

Because of “green” constraints, many European Union nations pay as much as three times the cost per kilowatt hour of electrical energy compared to the United States. Here’s a recent summary with maps of the differences. European governments mask part of this cost to households with tax subsidies. 

Marc Morano, founder of the Climate Depot website, has a comprehensive roundup of the current climate announcements from the White House and elsewhere at this link.

Since the early 1980s, we’ve challenged “global warming” and then “climate change” dogma as one of the most costly government swindles in history based on a pretext of pre-ordained models and manipulated data.  Our sources have consistently been independent climatologists and data analysts, not those dependent on government salaries and grants.  This dates back to longtime friend Iben Browning, author of several books on this subject such as “Climate and the Affairs of Men.”

The Paris constrictions suffer a constitutional flaw too: Any such binding multi-nation agreement with massive financial consequences should be ratified by Congress as a formal treaty. Apparently, some 22 Senators have affirmed this point to President Trump, signing a letter to him asking for U.S. withdrawal from the pact.

Many farmers are taking the lead in fending off “wind farms” despite the heavily taxpayer-subsidized rental payments for turbine sites. Over the long run, they anticipate that the sites will become expensive antiques in the path of farming requirements like aerial spraying.  For an overview of the actual economics of wind energy, Matt Ridley wrote an analysis now posted on To The Point news, originated by Jack Wheeler.  We picked up a PDF of that report and you can read it by downloading it here.

— A June 1 editorial in the Wall Street Journal observes:  “Meeting the goals would require the Environmental Protection Agency to impose stringent emissions controls on vast stretches of the economy including steel production, farm soil management and enteric fermentation (i.e., cow flatulence). Don’t laugh—California’s Air Resources Board is issuing regulations to curb bovine burping to meet its climate goals.”

— An analysis by John Carney on Brietbart details six major negative constraints the U.S. will avoid by bowing out of the ‘agreement.’

— Writer/analyst Jon Rappaport reveals at this link how former VP Al Gore has personally profited from his global-warming crusade.

June 5 update — Brietbart writer James Delinpole came up with the most colorful description of the “real reason” Trump left the Paris agreement. Click here.