Optics versus reality. Oftentimes, the most newsworthy stories that make the headlines come across as cold hard truth. But when there is a disconnect between reality and what a headline may imply, broad misconceptions among the public are bound to occur.
Case in point is the recent climate deal negotiated in Paris and signed in New York Friday among more than 150 countries. At first glance, you would assume that the world has the bureaucrats to profusely thank for making progress towards ending the climate ‘crisis’. But since when have all the arguments concerning the climate debate been settled to the point where the status quo is to assume the world is in climate crisis mode? Can it safely be said that there are no longer those that would refute such a claim? It does seems worthy of consideration as to why the climate crisis narrative has become the standard with which all other lines of logic are measured against.
However there are still people out there willing to offer a fresh perspective on the matter. You just have to look.
The Wall Street Journal’s Holmer W. Jenkins Jr. wrote a insightful critique of the agreement noting “like all such international agreements, it’s a giant PR exercise designed to put a global imprimatur on what domestic politicians want to do anyway.”
Jenkins is right in saying the climate deal is not a treaty and thus unenforceable against Canada or any of the other signatories. As Jenkins says, “[the climate deal] waves vaguely at the idea of a $100 billion adjustment fund for poorer countries, to be filled in later by somebody else, maybe.”
Hard pressed, you would be, to find a similar Jenkins style skepticism in any mainstream media outlet when discussing the climate deal. And for that reason, why would the casual observer have any reason not to believe the constant stream of green fluff being propagated?
“Having ginned up a climate ‘crisis’ in the first place,” Jenkins writes, “it’s almost as if the movement has ginned up a fake victory to keep the game going. This week’s signing was preceded by an outpouring of fishy studies in the press about how renewable energy is on the verge of solving the problem.”
Here in Alberta, the climate crisis narrative was given stronger legs when the Alberta NDP won a provincial majority almost a year ago. Already, Albertans have heard Premier Rachel Notley promise renewables to make up an ever greater share of provincial power generation. Already, Albertans have had to stomach the prospect of a carbon tax and a cap on oilsands emissions. And Already, Albertans who rely on the coal industry for their livelihood, have had to face the looming prospect that their career is in dire jeopardy thanks to a handful of self-righteous bureaucrats.
Worth noting also is that these climate events are nothing new. They have been going on for decades. As Lorrie Goldstein wrote in the Toronto Sun, “there was ‘The Rio Earth Summit’ in 1992; ‘The Berlin Mandate”’ in 1995; ‘The Kyoto Protocol’ in 1997; ‘The Buenos Aires Plan of Action’ in 1998; ‘The Montreal Action Plan’ in 2005; ‘The Bali Action Plan’ in 2007; ‘The Doha Climate Gateway’ in 2012 and, now, ‘The Paris Agreement’ in December 2015.”
But as Jenkins concludes, “whatever the truth of man’s impact on global warming, the outcome will be shaped more by the unregulated evolution of technology than by any master plan from the bureaucracy. Meanwhile, the ecstatic burble accompanying the Paris deal is just another layer of fraudulence of the kind that has become too much mixed in with the climate cause.”
Depending upon which climate narrative you chose to believe, the recent climate deal may come across as either a step in the right direction or merely an attempt by a bunch of politicians to add to their climate legacies and maybe win some votes down the road. Either way, what a great opportunity for Justin Trudeau, John Kerry, Francois Hollande & Co. to get their pictures plastered throughout the world’s media.