Globalists and Climate Accords

By Hal Lindsey
Did Donald Trump single-handedly destroy humanity’s future by announcing that he would begin the process of pulling the U.S. out of the Paris Climate Agreement?  Nancy Pelosi seems to think so.  She asked, “How is he ever going to explain to his grandchildren what he did to the air they breathe — assuming they breathe air?”
No air for the grandkids?  That’s a pretty extreme response.  She also said that with this action, he was “dishonoring” God.  As you can see, for her, global warming is a tenant of faith.
Hysteria breeds hysteria.  CNN ran an opinion piece with the headline, “Trump to Planet: Drop Dead.”  The New York Daily News ran similar words in a massive headline, “Trump to World: Drop Dead.”  The Washington Post said that Trump’s action “left the United States a global outlier.”  The ultra-liberal filmmaker, Michael Moore, tweeted, “Trump just committed a crime against humanity.”
They’re playing up the politics, but not the science.  The shocking truth is that, even if you believe all the dogma regarding climate change, the Paris Agreement is little more than a symbol.  
In the first place, it is voluntary.  Popular Science said, “The agreement amounts to little more than a gentleman’s handshake.  The terms are entirely unenforceable.”
In Article 3 of the agreement, the nations promise to make “ambitious efforts” to reduce greenhouse gases.  Who decides if their efforts are “ambitious” enough?  Each country decides for itself.  In other words, each one does what it wants.  Also, countries choose for themselves when they will take these actions.  That’s because the agreement does not specify a timetable for each country’s “ambitious efforts.”
I use the word “agreement” because in the United States, this is not a treaty.  The U.S. Constitution allows presidents broad latitude in making agreements, but for such agreements to become treaties — and therefore binding on future Presidents — the Constitution requires that they be ratified by a two-thirds majority of the Senate.  President Obama knew he had no chance of getting this deal ratified, so he never even tried to make it a treaty.  Therefore, it is not binding on President Trump.
Second, the accord as written, can have little impact on the environment.  James Hansen, known as the “father of climate change awareness,” called the Paris agreement “a fraud.”  Al Gore acknowledged the accord’s weaknesses, but promised that it is only the beginning.  He said, “No agreement is perfect, and this one must be strengthened over time.”
Third, the agreement has no teeth.  There is no mechanism to punish countries that do nothing.  The World Pensions Council said that the Paris objectives are “predicated upon an assumption — that member states of the United Nations, including high polluters such as China, the US, India, Brazil, Canada, Russia, Indonesia and Australia, which generate more than half the world’s greenhouse gas emissions, will somehow drive down their carbon pollution voluntarily and assiduously without any binding enforcement mechanism to measure and control CO2 emissions at any level from factory to state, and without any specific penalty gradation or fiscal pressure (for example a carbon tax) to discourage bad behavior.”
Last September, London’s liberal Guardian newspaper warned, “Although the Paris agreement is an important step… following through on the goal of limiting climate change will require much more.”
To environmentalists worried that the pact had little meaning, PBS explained at the time of the signing, “The Paris Agreement… is the first step.”  NPR’s Adam Frank called the accord a “first step in developing a new set of behaviors for human civilization.”
The United Nations Research Institute for Social Development ran an article in 2015 calling the Paris Agreement, “The first step in the long road ahead.”
Right after President Trump began the lengthy process of pulling the U.S. out of the agreement, the New York Times ran an opinion piece by Brad Plumer.  He wrote, “The 2015 Paris agreement was meant to be a first step in the long, grinding process of slowing climate change.”
They repeatedly call Paris a “first step.”  Shouldn’t that raise an important question?  When someone tries to sell you a big, fabulously expensive “first step,” isn’t it prudent to ask, “What about the steps after that?  Where does this lead?”
Obviously, the next steps must include enforcement.  And that will change everything.  When nations submit themselves to such enforcement, they will be taking the largest step yet toward ceding their sovereignty to a global entity.
The Paris Climate Agreement does not solve anything environmental.  But it is a significant step toward global political control for European elites.  That means, it is a step toward Antichrist.
The United States pulling out of the agreement seems to represent a brief reprieve.  Believers in Jesus should see this time as an opportunity to spread the Gospel.  We must work while it is yet day.  Because night is quickly coming.
Back to Top