Paris is Burning

1926d3031e8c36dad742371697681991

It is impossible to tell if the Trump administration pulled out of the Paris Agreement for the right reasons, but this is not bad news. Of course, the US pullout (on the surface good news) could be part of a larger and longer game, one in which Trump is slowly transformed into a comic-book villain in world opinion. He remains in character. He is returning to character, after spending these previous months as a consumate globalist.

The problem with the Paris Agreement is that it moves the international system towards the carbon trading scam originally invented by Enron. It also strengthens the capacity for global tax collection. The Agreement works well for the hedge-fund crowd, for self-righteous politicians, and for entrenched environmental interests.

I am of the view that the deepest and most underlying environmental problem is the industrialization of agriculture generally and the livestock industry specifically. Entire states are dedicated to farming corn, just to feed cows, for Fast Food Nation. This system is very energy intensive, wasteful, and the real costs are not factored into food. The environmental groups are mostly forbidden to talk about all this. Talk about sacred cows…

And there is the ethical matter of slaughtering mammals by the millions. Maybe I’m unenlightened, but I don’t feel the same way about chickens and fish.

A shift to urban gardening, and a shift away from using large mammals for protein (oh, the methane!) would do infinitely more to reduce pollution than the Paris Agreement.

The Paris Agreement would do absolutely nothing for the environment. Why would it? The same people who wrote it are part of the problem. After all, if they really wanted to solve the problem, the powers that be would have retained the pollution paradigm, as opposed to inventing the global warming and climate change paradigm. Pollution is obvious and real. Many cities have terrible air quality, and there are vortexes of plastic in the oceans. however, climate change is questionable at best.

So of course the paradigm shifted from the concrete to the abstract, in order to conform to the exigencies of financialization, speculation, and taxation.

Comments are closed.

Post Navigation