In my career as a blogger, I have touched on many issues. I like to think that these not only interest me but are important, but also I feel I know something that can add value to what I write. As a follower of Trump’s rise to and taking on the Presidency of the USA, many of these issues have been touched on in my blogging. Perhaps the exception has been the environment and maybe it is one area (particularly) where he fails to “get it”. Some cynics claim he is in the pocket of anti-environmentalists and carbon based energy moguls. Following his historical speech yesterday, I have no such excuse. I am grateful for friends, particularly from the Green Party of the UK, for awakening my conscience and informing me.

The Paris agreement is not something I know a lot about when it comes to the detail (I suspect that is so for most). While Wikipedia can be skewed it is helpful to set the scene: “The Paris Agreement … is an agreement within the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) dealing with greenhouse gas emissions mitigation, adaptation and finance starting in the year 2020. The language of the agreement was negotiated by representatives of 195 countries at the 21st Conference of the Parties of the UNFCCC in Paris and adopted by consensus on 12 December 2015. As of June 2017, 195 UNFCCC members have signed the agreement, 148 of which have ratified it. In the Paris Agreement, each country determines its own contribution it should make in order to mitigate global warming. There is no mechanism to force a country to set a specific target by a specific date. On 1 June 2017, U.S. President Donald Trump announced that the United States would withdraw from the agreement. 10 U.S. states joined the United States Climate Alliance in response”.

Trump’s announcement came as no surprise given earlier rhetoric and according to where you stand this was either a brave and inspired decision when it comes to making America great again or a disaster given the threat to the planet now that America, allegedly the greatest contributor to climate change, has withdrawn from an agreement that could go some way to prevent catastrophe to the planet. In one report (and there are many) the headline is: “I represent the people of Pittsburgh NOT Paris: Trump pulls U.S. out of climate accord saying it is a foreign attempt to seize American jobs and American wealth – and is immediately attacked by Obama (and no doubt by many others)”. I look at Trump in mostly good but quite a bit of bad thrown in terms and his reluctance to follow the environmentalist leanings of his predecessor and many around him (including his own daughter) has made me wonder if this is an example of the bad. Other friends, who see Trump in more bad than good terms, are disgusted by his decision. Given reticence to follow the environmentalist agenda and moving away from the use of fossil fuels, it was only a matter of time when he would lay his cards on the table regarding this significant agreement.

I admit to not having made up my mind fully on the matter, but having just listened to his speech again (see here) I am more inclined to the view that his decision was the correct one. Whether reducing CO2 emissions worldwide (and understandably there needs to be a global consensus for this to be effective) will have a significant effect on reducing global warming and preventing environmental calamity (linked to levels of CO2 emission and the correlation between CO2 and global temperature rise) is not a subject I am particularly qualified to pontificate on. While I understand the consensus is that something urgently and significantly needs to be done, I am also aware of dissenting voices who argue that the emission of greenhouse gases, mainly CO2, is not such a big factor claimed, and is why I need to study the science.

I quite get Trump’s argument that concerning the Paris accord it disproportionately discriminates against America, even taking into account that America is responsible for the most CO2 emissions and to sign up to this will add a heavy cost to the economy, far more than its rivals. I have to accept, albeit with customary skepticism, he is not anti-environment, and while America does use fossil fuels as opposed to non fossil alternatives more than many a first world economy, the aim is never to unduly pollute and in this regard America does better than its competitors by taking necessary measures. I also note he is not unmindful of the concerns of those who argue the “environmentalist” case and he is prepared to keep channels of communications open, for all he is looking for is a fair deal for America in line with his America first agenda. I note too there is other monetary commitments America under the previous administration was prepared to give, which was not altogether wise and prudent, and that he is mindful of a globalist agenda that is more concerned with profiting the few as opposed to benefitting the many, but instead to tyrannically subjugate them.

As I repeat ad nauseam, I am no Trump apologist, but given the flak flying around concerning what is a momentous decision, and most of it is directed at Trump and fails to understand why he has acted thus, I feel I need to add in my two penneth, mindful there is much I do not know and, I daresay, in the months to come we will continue to witness many developments as Trump continues to rock the boat. And I reaffirm my commitment to study the science and consider the issues, knowing people’s lives are at stake, just as they are with the at least as significant terrorist threat and many other dangers.

Addendum: Upon first posting this, I was taken to task by a number of “friends” who were in no doubt Trump had acted wrongly and should be condemned out of hand. It was interesting to note I am not alone as an article titled “What You’re Not Being Told About the Paris Climate Agreement” argues. I suppose I could argue my case better e.g. we need a deal but it mustn’t be a bad deal, which as far as Trump and America is concerned the Paris Climate Agreement was. Of course climate change is an issue as is protecting future generations from its worst effects, but so is global tyranny whereby a powerful elite controls the lives of the “little people”.