As I began browsing research for an up-to-date climate change essay, I reflected first upon President Trump. Why is he opting out of the Paris Agreement? Unconvinced I’d find anything of substance there, I shifted my gaze to more familiar ground. Empirical evidence.
Empirical evidence? Facts, the result of observation and documentation. Once known as scientific method. Now replaced by feelings and baseless utterings. But I digress.
In earlier climate change essays, I wrote of glacial ice covering New York. It melted. Global warming. Then I added that our planet has experienced at least five major “ice ages” followed by melting. But that didn’t “feel right” to the climate crowd.
So, for this article I considered drawing attention to more recent discovery. What I call dirty-fingernail science to set it apart from computer modeling. I was all set to factually report on the ANDRILL project. This multinational initiative has been investigating the climate and tectonic history of Antarctica. Drilling. Ice cores. Dirt. Mud. Living creatures long frozen.
Had I pursued that story, readers would have learned of drill cores telling a story of Antarctic ice sheets advancing and retreating more than 50 times during the last 5 million years. Our planet was at times warmer than it is today. Global sea levels rose and fell leaving behind a trail of evidence.
But then, I realized empirical data doesn’t weigh much in the minds of today’s liberals. So, I returned to thinking about Paris Accords and Trump. What I found astonished me.
At the heart of the Paris agreement are “nationally determined contributions.” This is akin to asking the hungry wolf to guard the hen house. “The Paris Agreement requests each country to outline and communicate their post-2020 climate actions, known as their NDCs.” These actions become “contributions.”
With reference to cash contributions, I found only this. “The Agreement reaffirms that developed countries must continue to provide public funding for developing countries.”
Aha! Now we’re getting somewhere. This is beginning to “feel good.” At least for liberals.
Then I went looking for financial facts. Where would I go but to the Standing Committee on Finance whose 2018 report might show Paris Agreement revenue and expenditures? In the absence of actual fund-flow, I found only plans, summaries, recommendations and such.
But I did not come away empty-handed. I did find a plan to “integrate gender considerations into its work, emphasizing the relevance of gender-responsive access to finance in the implementation of climate action.”
Now there is a sure-fire way to combat global climate change! Gender considerations!
That’s when I reminded myself. This is a United Nations project!
Back to President Trump. Had he discovered that public funding from developed countries was to be so used?
Or did he read the other report? The one that reveals that only the United States had reduced its 2017 carbon emissions by 0.5 percent, the most of all major countries! And that without the Paris Agreement!
Gosh! Is it possible? Trump did something right!