Ardent environmentalists were aghast when the US announced that it would pull out of the Paris Climate Accord a couple (and you have to call it an ‘Accord’ because it wasn’t a ‘treaty’, otherwise President Obama would have had to get approval from Congress and he didn’t do that).
Despite significant flaws, such as having absolutely no restrictions on China or India for their release of greenhouse gases or carbon emissions, environmentalists said that the US pulling out was ‘an existential crisis’, a crisis that literally put human existence at risk.
Well, in another one of those situations where things boil down to talk vs. actions, the World Meteorological Organization released annual data for 2019 on greenhouse gas emissions. And, among the findings was that the US reduced its emissions in 2019 from the previous year. Yes, without any treaty or ‘accord’, the United States reduced emissions ‘voluntarily’.
As it turns out, all the talk about how bad things would be if the US no longer was part of the Paris agreement didn’t actually play out in actions and results. (Actually, that’s a good example of capitalism at work: when enough people, of their own free will, decide they want something and are willing to pay for it, it happens without the need to require it by law or by force. The ‘invisible hand’ at work.)
In another finding of the report, China significantly increased its emissions over the previous year, as did India. Yet, you don’t hear the outrage over that like you do for the US, which actually reduced its carbon emissions. And the Paris Climate Accord says that is perfectly acceptable. Can someone explain that environmental logic?