Clarifying Paris, Part 1

The popular narrative in the major media and coming from most public intellectuals is that President Trump's withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement represents a flat denial of basic science that threatens the survival of humanity itself. Furthermore--so the popular critique goes--Trump's official reasons for withdrawal make no sense, since the Agreement was non-binding and therefore didn't constrain US policy in any way. In a series of posts here at IER, I will document just how nonsensical this popular narrative is. As we will see, the Paris Climate Agreement was not integral to "saving the planet," even if we rely solely on the conventional computer forecasts of climate change and its impacts as codified by the UN's IPCC reports. Moreover, even if it were true that aggressive government action were needed to avert catastrophe, then the Paris Agreement wasn't the solution--as even its fans admit. In sum, whether one is relaxed or terrified at the prospect of climate change, US participation with the Paris Agreement is a red herring. It was a largely symbolic ritual, with the only guaranteed tangible result being hundreds of billions of dollars being transferred among governments.