The Paris Climate Accord

I am not a scientist.  I have no special training in the science of climate change.  I have spent a lot of time out of doors, and I can observe.  From what I have seen, I believe that the climate is changing.

As far as I know, change is a universal constant.  There are very few things that apply to all times, places and things.  Change does.

Consequently, it is not surprising to me that the climate is changing.  Evidence from the sampling of tree rings, soil, the effects of solar flares, and the ice from glaciers and the polar ice caps indicates that the climate of earth has always been in flux.

There is some evidence that records from the last half of the 19^th century forward show a positive correlation between the increasing amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and the increasing temperature of the atmosphere.  Any statistician will point out that this does not establish causality.

It took medical science a generation to be willing to say with scientific certainty that smoking causes lung cancer.  When they did, it was not based on correlational analysis.

An example from Critical Thinking (Logic) comes to mind.  If “B” always follows “A” when stated in alphabetical order, does that mean that “A” causes “B?”  A correlation shows that where one variable is present, a second variable tends to be present.  This can be stated with varying degrees of certainty, depending on the closeness of the association.  It is not, however, necessarily a proof of causality.

Personally, I think it is simplistic to attribute any change to a single cause.  Usually, more than one change agent involved.

It may be inadequate to say that the current change in climate is due solely to human activity, like air pollution.  Some years ago, I recall reports that ozone depletion was being caused by too much methane from animal farts; and this was because human overpopulation had created the need for more animal husbandry.  How true.  Anyone who has lived near a feed lot can attest to that.  (I’m joking.)

Anyway, it does not appear that even the most draconian measures to control carbon dioxide emissions can lower the temperature of the earth’s atmosphere.  The reports I am familiar with suggest that we can only stop its progress.

So, why should the United States accept the unfair terms imposed by the Paris Climate Accord?  It is a huge reflection of President Obama’s naiveté to assume that leading by example would have any impact on major polluters like the Chinese and the Indians.  It will only give them more reason to believe that we are fools.

I think that President Trump’s decision to withdraw from the agreement was the correct one.  As he puts it, we must to stop making “bad deals.”  The Paris Climate Accord places a disproportionate burden on the United States, and it gives the Europeans, Chinese, and Indians an unfair economic advantage over us.  Furthermore, it will cost us the opportunity to create more jobs by choking off growth in our economy.  By the way, Jerry Brown’s argument that the Paris agreement will create jobs by developing opportunities in alternative energy sources has not proven to be true, during the Obama administration.  Why should we believe it now?

I think the United States must be responsible for its share of the effort to preserve and improve the environment.  The nations who have approved the agreement say they will not renegotiate.  I think that is a bargaining ploy.  However, if it is not, then we should do what is reasonable to reduce pollution on our own.  I think we can agree that clean air and water benefit everyone.