Posted on 06/26/2017 4:34:16 AM PDT by Kaslin
Ronald Reagan removed Jimmy Carter’s solar panels from the White House roof as soon as he became president. Because Reagan understood the power of demonstrating that science is at the service of humans—not corporate interests and K Street lobbyists.
Like Reagan, one of President Trump’s first moves was undoing a far sillier executive action of his own puerile predecessor, Barack Obama. Specifically, Trump unraveled the Paris Climate Accord, which Obama unconstitutionally negotiated with the United Nations in Paris, France in December of 2015.
The Paris Accord was non-binding because it was a commitment to allocate U.S. taxpayer dollars to the environmental projects of other nations and subjugate U.S. sovereignty on domestic energy policy to the whims of an international panel of bureaucrats. Obama bypassed the U.S. Senate (which, per the U.S. Constitution, must ratify all treaties) and claimed the Paris Accord was an “agreement” rather than a treaty.
Thankfully, Trump read the fine print and pulled through as a great negotiator. Despite enormous pressure to sign the Paris Accord, Trump did his own research and stood his ground. “The cost to the economy at this time would be close to $3 trillion in lost GDP and 6.5 million industrial jobs, while households would have $7,000 less income and in many cases, much worse than that,” said Trump. “There are serious legal and constitutional issues as well.”
The Paris Accord, Trump learned by analyzing data from National Economic Research Associates, would reduce American production dramatically by 2040 (natural gas by a third; steel and iron by 38%; coal by 86%; cement by 25%; and paper by 12%).
It would be one thing if the United States’ participation in the Paris Accord would make a strong positive difference in the world. But it won’t. 86 million metric tons of plastics, for example, currently pollute our oceans—but the region of China, Indonesia, Thailand and the Philippines is responsible for 60% of this pollution. China is the world’s biggest polluter, yet the U.S. is always expected to foot the bill for the world’s problems—real or imagined.
Copenhagen Consensus Center president, Danish statistician Dr. Bjorn Lomborg, estimates that the Paris Accord would have the “grand total” impact of lowering temperatures by “three tenths of one degree” after 100 years. At the price of $100 trillion dollars. Not worth it.
As Trump points out, it would be completely unjust to subjugate the average American household to a $7,000 annual tax when so many Americans are struggling to meet their basic needs.
Fracking for natural gas, in contrast to environmental alarmism, helps keep energy prices low and reduces yearly energy costs of the average Texas household by $800, reports former Texas agriculture commissioner Todd Staples. A new study also finds no hard evidence between fracking and a rise in earthquakes or the pollution of drinking water.
Build Houses, Not Bird’s Nests
“Environmental extremists ... wouldn’t let you build a house unless it looked like a bird’s nest,” Reagan once joked.
Today, Reagan’s joke is more scary than funny in how close it is to the truth. Last week, we discussed how radical environmental policies are responsible for fires across the globe. Some 800 London homes, for example, have been evacuated due to fire hazard potential. These homes are insulated with the same “eco-friendly” cladding responsible for the severity of the recent—and fatal—fire at London’s Grenfell Tower.
Bottom line, politicians are great at writing legislation but not so great at ensuring that it’s affordable, ethical or beneficial.
Even as Trump is working to reduce red tape, cronies like former president Bill Clinton are feverishly working to undermine his progress. Specifically, Clinton is urging mayors across the country to defy President Trump and American sovereignty and sign their cities on to the Paris Accord.
This weekend, former president Bill Clinton bashed Trump’s decision as he spoke to dozens of mayors in Miami Beach, saying: “Politics has almost no influence on science, in case you haven’t noticed” and “You can get out of it or in it [the Paris Accord], but the water’s gonna keep rising.”
Clinton’s statement makes zero logical sense. If political action can’t alter the environment, why isn’t he in support of Trump’s decision to respect national sovereignty and extricate the U.S. from political red tape?
Because Clinton embraces Jimmy Carter’s style of chicanery where politicians do something that looks like they care about the little guy—while actually propping up already-rich and powerful politicians.
Let’s support President Trump in his “America First” energy policy that will make it possible for Americans to afford and achieve an American Dream that looks more like a house with a yard and picket fence than a tiny bird’s nest. You know The Gipper would approve.
I'm hoping that Kennedy will announce retirement today and Mr. Trump will appoint another Supreme Court Justice in the mold of Clarence Thomas and help MAGA.
Because Reagan understood the power of demonstrating that science is at the service of humans—not corporate interests and K Street lobbyists.
....
Great line!
Go. Trump! MAGA!
What was silly about solar panels? Unless they were highly visible and really ugly. But there is a large flat deck on the roof of the White Houser surrounded by architectural fencing.
At the time, the solar panels were probably very very inefficient and expensive.
Some contractor/company probably made a lot of money installing them and for little electrical contribution to the White House electrical needs.
Even though they were paid for and produced some electricity, I assume it was a symbolic move for Reagan.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.