Trump’s “Shithole Countries” Remark

January 17, 2018

I’ve been torn about whether or not to comment on this controversy since, by its nature, the topic violates my own site rules about the use of profanity.  Since it has now become so central to the debate over immigration, however, it’s impossible for me to ignore, since immigration is one of a few topics that lies at the core of my campaign against destructive population growth.

Let’s back up a bit and examine what it was that elicited such an angry response from Trump.  In exchange for generously offering to not just change the temporary status of DACA immigrants (“deferred action childhood arrivals” – kids brought here by illegal aliens) to permanent status, but to even grant them a path to citizenship, Trump insisted on three additional things:

  • an end to “chain migration,” the visa program that allows immigrants to apply for visas for family members, who then are eligible to bring in more family members – creating an endless and exponentially expanding flow of immigration,
  • an end to the “diversity visa lottery” program, which brings in another 50,000 immigrants per year from countries who are “under-represented” in the general U.S. population,
  • funding for the border wall, currently estimated at $18 billion.

These are reasonable immigration reforms that most Americans agree with.  He had said that he was willing to sign any bill that met these criteria.

So here’s the bill that senators Dick Durbin (D) and Lindsey Graham (R) brought to him:

  • DACA immigrants would be barred from the chain migration process.  The 690,000 DACA “kids” would not be able to apply for re-entry for their parents.  Otherwise, chain migration continues as usual for other immigrants, probably numbering somewhere around 25-30 million.
  • The “diversity visa lottery” program would end, but the 50,000 immigrants would be reallocated to other visa programs.
  • Only about 10% of the border wall funding was included, plus a little more funding for other “non-wall” border security.
  • Extending “temporary protected status” to 437,000 immigrants from El Salvador, Honduras, Haiti, Nicaragua, Sudan, Somalia and Yemen.

In other words, Durbin and Graham tried to play Trump for a fool, offering him a bill that did absolutely nothing to rein in our out-of-control immigration, if anything making it worse.  It’s no wonder that he was incensed enough to lapse into the use of a vulgarity in a “behind the doors” meeting.  Most people would in that situation.

Durbin saw an opportunity to stir up hysteria, characterizing Trump’s remark as “racist.”  It was nothing of the sort.  While there is no formal definition of the word “shithole,” it’s clearly a vulgar term used to describe a foul place, not a person or people.  In terms of poverty, political corruption, violence, extremism, a failure to meet basic human needs and a denial of human rights, these are foul places.  Places like El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Sudan, Somalia, Yemen and others (unfortunately disproportionately represented by Africa) are, in fact, “shitholes.”  That’s not meant to demean the people of those countries, but their unfortunate circumstances.  If a country is so bad that no one – not even its own citizens – wants to live there, then it is a shithole.

Trump then reportedly went on to ask, “why don’t we bring in more people from places like Norway?”  (Trump had just visited with the prime minister of Norway and, reportedly, was highly impressed.)  It’s this contrasting of Norway with the aforementioned places that may have hinted at racism, a suspicion that has dogged Trump beginning with this comments about Mexican immigrants early in his campaign.  Is Trump a racist?  I don’t know.  What I do know for sure is that Trump is a “money-ist.”  He’s been all about money his whole life.  So while African countries are black and Norway is snow-white, it’s also true that African countries generally rank right at the bottom in terms of GDP (gross domestic product) per capita while Norway ranks at the very top – well above the U.S.  So was he really expressing a preference for wealthy, merit-based based immigrants or a preference for white immigrants over black immigrants?  He has said all along that he wants a more merit-based immigration system.  (By the way, just as an aside, Norway is one of many countries that does not have birthright citizenship, unlike the U.S.  Just being born there doesn’t make you a citizen.  Birthright citizenship is something else I’d like to see Trump address.)

Since the hysteria erupted over the “shithole” epithet, Lindsey Graham has characterized it as a “shithole show,” and has blamed Trump and his staff.  Baloney.  Graham and Durbin are to blame for pushing him over the edge when they tried to sucker him and play him for a fool.  They tried to play the American people for fools, like they always do.  They believe that if you polish a turd shiny enough to make it look like an apple, the American people will swallow anything.  The American people elected Trump to put an end to this crap.

Now they’re trying to back Trump into a corner, threatening a government shutdown if he doesn’t agree to this immigration sham.  I hope he doesn’t.  It’s time to stand firm and force a real change in our out-of-control immigration policy.  Let the government shut down.  If Congress doesn’t want to reform immigration in exchange for Trump’s generous offer to give the DACA kids a path to citizenship, then they don’t really care about the DACA kids.

Advertisements

December Jobs Report Weaker than It Looks

January 12, 2018

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

The headline number from the December employment report (link above) was a bit disappointing.  The economy added only 148,000 jobs vs. expectations for approximately 191,000 and vs. 252,000 added in November – especially disappointing considering that this was the peak of the retail shopping season.  Unemployment held steady at 4.1%.  (But not really.)

Look into the details and the report is even weaker.  The employment level, a figure taken from the household survey (vs. the establishment survey, which is where the 148,000 jobs figure comes from) rose by only 103,000.  But that’s not the worst part.  Employment and job creation numbers are meaningless without the context of population.  December is the month when the Census Bureau updates its estimate of population (during non-census years).  This time around it boosted the population by 549,000 (to just under 327 million people) vs. a normal monthly increase of about 170,000.  Of course, the population didn’t jump by that much in December.  It just means that the Census Bureau discovered that it has been underestimating population growth during 2017.  That means that growth in the labor force has been underestimated for the purposes of calculating unemployment.  If the actual size of the labor force was used in the calculation, instead of estimating it based on how many people were looking for work, unemployment actually rose in December by 0.1% to 7.2%, the third consecutive increase in that number.  And per capita employment has fallen for the third consecutive month.  Check the chart:  Per Capita Employment.  And the number of unemployed Americans rose for the third consecutive month to over 12 million.  Here’s the chart:  Unemployed Americans.

Enthusiasm over the Trump administration’s policies will only carry the economy so far.  Without the kind of meaningful trade policy reform that Trump promised during his campaign, it’s going to stall out.  This data may be an indication that that’s beginning to happen.


Family immigration plunged in 2017

January 5, 2018

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-trump-effect-immigration/fewer-family-visas-approved-as-trump-toughens-vetting-of-immigrants-reuters-review-idUSKBN1ET15I

The above-linked article appeared on Reuters yesterday, reporting that in 2017, family-based immigration dropped dramatically.  But it’s not as though few visas are being approved.  The charts embedded in the article also paint a picture of just how out-of-control immigration had gotten since 2000.  Virtually all U.S. population growth is due to immigration, both legal and illegal, and family-based immigration accounts for at least half of that growth.  In 2015, over one million family, fiance and “other relative” visas were approved.  But in 2017:

  1. Family visas fell to 541,000 vs. 755,000 in 2015, a drop of 28%.
  2. “Other relative” visas fell to 62,000 in 2017 vs. 254,000 in 2015, a drop of 76%.
  3. Fiance visas fell to 33,000 in 2017 vs. 54,000 in 2015, a drop of 39%.

In addition, the Trump administration is seeking even more drastic cuts as a condition for allowing DACA immigrants (children brought here illegally by their parents) to remain permanently in the U.S.

And, based upon monthly border arrest data, illegal immigration declined in 2017 by about 40% – roughly equivalent to 400,000 people.

Add all this up and U.S. immigration in 2017 was cut almost in half, by over one million people.

It’s also important to note that, contrary to the dire predictions of economic decline by immigration advocates who claim that immigration is critical to providing needed skills and entrepreneurship, the decline in immigration in 2017 has been accompanied by a surging economy.

Trump should be applauded for doing a fantastic job of following through on his campaign promise to rein in out-of-control immigration.


Economy adds 228,000 jobs in November, unemployment holds at 17-year-low rate of 4.1%, but wages are stagnant. Why?

December 9, 2017

Yesterday morning the Labor Department announced that the economy added another 228,000 jobs in November and the unemployment rate held steady at 4.1% – the lowest rate in 17 years.  Yet, wages remain stagnant.  Everyone – economists, the Federal Reserve, business analysts – everyone, seems totally baffled by this phenomenon.  Why isn’t this supposedly strong demand for labor beginning to drive up wages as employers compete for workers?

The answer is that the unemployment rate isn’t really 4.1%.  It’s 7.1%.  The Labor Department would like you to forget that the rapid drop in unemployment following the “Great Recession” in 2008 was fueled in large part by its “mysteriously vanishing labor force” trick, claiming that vast swaths of workers were simply dropping out of the labor force, so they were no longer included in the unemployment calculation.  Take a look at the following chart.  It’s a little confusing, so I’ll explain.

Labor Backlog

Look first at the blue and orange lines.  The blue line tracks the actual growth in the labor force due to growth in the overall population.  The orange line tracks the labor force growth as reported by the Labor Department.  Note that in all but three of the past ten years did the Labor Department’s reported growth in the labor force exceed the actual growth.  It usually significantly under-reports that growth.  The result is a growing “backlog” of unreported workers, represented by the yellow line on the chart.  That backlog peaked at 6.4 million workers in 2014 and fell to 5.1 million in 2016 but, so far this year, has actually begun to rise again, hitting 5.2 million workers in November.

Now, look at the green line, which is the growth in the employment level.  If that growth matches the growth in the labor force, then unemployment will hold steady.  If it exceeds that growth, then unemployment will fall.  Compared to the blue line – the real growth in the labor force – it has consistently exceeded that blue line by a small amount each year, beginning in 2011 – the start of the recovery from the “Great Recession.”  But if you compare the green line to the orange line – the fake growth in the labor force reported by the Labor Department – it has beaten that growth by a significant amount every year beginning in 2010.  The result of that growth in the employment level relative to the fake growth in the labor force is the Labor Department’s reported unemployment rate, represented by the purple line.  Note that it has fallen precipitously to its current bogus level of 4.1%.

That’s why wages are stagnant, because there is a huge, unreported backlog of labor force which eagerly snatches up any extra jobs that are created each month.  The labor force is still pretty grossly out of balance with the demand for labor.  Until that backlog of workers is employed, wages will remain stagnant.

Just to drive home the point about how phony the official unemployment rate is, take a look at these next two charts:

Per Capita Employment

Unemployed Americans

The first chart tracks the employment level relative to the total population.  It’s analogous to what the Labor Department reports as the “participation rate.”  As yo can see, it’s been very slowly recovering from the 2008 recession, but still hasn’t gotten back to its pre-recession level in 2007.  (You can see that, even then, it was already plummeting.  I can’t tell you what it was before that since I didn’t begin tracking it until then.)  In November of 2007, per capita employment was at 48.4% and the unemployment rate was 4.7%.  Last month, per capita employment was at 47.2%, but the unemployment rate was 4.1%.  How in the world could unemployment have fallen at the same time that per capita employment fell?  Sounds pretty bogus, doesn’t it?

The second chart above shows a similar phenomenon.  It tracks the number of unemployed, assuming that the labor force grew along with the population.  In November of 2007 there were 7.2 million unemployed workers.  Last month there were 11.8 million.  And yet the unemployment rate fell?  Baloney.

While some see nothing but good news in yesterday’s employment report, I see some warning signs.

  • The employment level grew by only 57,000, far less than the reported growth of 228,ooo jobs.
  • Per capita employment fell slightly for the 2nd month in a row.
  • An honest accounting of unemployment (one that’s honest about growth in the labor force) finds that unemployment rose for the 2nd month in a row to almost 7.2% after reaching a low of 6.8% in September.  That’s a notable jump.

So now you know why wages are stagnant.  The demand for labor hasn’t caught up to the backlog of unreported growth in the labor market.


How’s Trump Doing?

October 3, 2017

With some slack time on a rainy day in the north woods, I thought I’d take a few moments to share some thoughts about Trump and his policies to date, as they relate to the economic problems wrought by worsening overpopulation: falling per capita consumption and the inevitable trade deficits caused by attempting to trade freely with badly overpopulated nations. So here goes:

Immigration:
Still no border wall. Other than that, I’ve been quite pleased with his other actions – the travel ban, the dramatic slowdown in visa processing, going after sanctuary cities, deporting illegal aliens, and so on. I also applaud him for his stance on the “dreamers,” those brought here as young children by their illegal alien parents. It may surprise you to learn that I’m actually in favor of allowing them to stay, even providing them a path to full citizenship. By all accounts, we’re talking about 800,000 people here. But it needs to be a one-time program. And it needs to be part of a bigger immigration reform that includes dramatic cuts in legal immigration – at least 50% (including student visas), and an end to the pyramid scheme of “family preferences” that, within a few generations, would make virtually every person on earth a candidate to become a permanent legal resident in the U.S. Trump is right to kick this issue back to congress and to demand action, but I don’t understand why he’s “selling it” so cheap. By demanding the above reforms, he could put an end to our out-of-control immigration. No senator or congressman would dare vote against it because all anyone would ever remember is that they voted against the “dreamer act” and in favor of deporting the dreamers.

Trade:
Here I have to say that I’m “hugely” disappointed in Trump’s failure to deliver on his promise to raise tariffs and/or border taxes in order to rebalance trade. But perhaps I’m impatient for action on this issue. His administration has taken some tough stances and is in the process of renegotiating NAFTA while also trying to reform the World Trade Organization. Last week it was revealed that the U.S. has been quietly blocking the filling of vacancies on the panel of appeals judges at the WTO and is now trying to assume a veto power if judges aren’t available. Reportedly, Trump told John Kelly, his new chief-of-staff, that he wants someone to bring him some tariffs. And most recently, when Boeing complained of Bombardier “dumping” planes on the U.S. market, the Trump administration promptly levied a 216% tariff on Bombardier planes. So there’s still reason for optimism.

Tax Reform:
Though this is the issue that excites the business community, the media and maybe even average Americans the most, for me it’s a non-issue unless a border tax is included as part of the reform. Dramatic cuts to corporate taxes, combined with some minimal cuts for average taxpayers, will blow a huge hole in the budget, just like it did when Reagan did the same thing back in the ‘80s. Sure, it’ll stimulate economic growth just a little, but no more than the amount of tax reductions that are plowed back into the economy. To expect a trillion dollar tax cut to generate economic growth of $4 trillion (the amount of growth it’d take to make it revenue-neutral) is a hocus-pocus fairy tale. And cutting corporate taxes that much will simply leave corporations with more money to invest in more job-killing manufacturing overseas. But all of that would change if a border tax were part of the package. Then it would truly be revenue-neutral and would fuel an explosion in economic growth. Trump is missing a huge opportunity by not insisting that a border tax be part of the package.

Paris Climate Accord:
Trump was 100% right to pull out of this agreement. Ask anyone and everyone the purpose of that agreement and every single person will tell you that its goal is to stop climate change. And every one of them would be wrong, because they haven’t read the stated mission of the accord, which is to merely slow climate change to a pace that would allow “sustainable development” to continue and, by the way, would essentially “tax” Americans to help fund that development in the rest of the world. “Sustainable development” is the very reason the world now finds itself in this global warming fix – because what world leaders thought was “sustainable” has proven not to be. So if global warming is slowed so that “sustainable development” can continue unabated, then every other problem associated with our exploding population – environmental and otherwise – will worsen, including mass extinction as habitat loss accelerates, more landfills, more trash in the ocean, more underground disposal of various hazardous wastes (including nuclear), and now a new one – the underground disposal of CO2 removed from exhaust streams. Where does it end? It needs to end now, and just maybe mother nature is doing us a favor by using climate change to wake us up. With all of that said, it disturbs me to hear that Trump may consider re-entering a renegotiated climate accord.

Repeal and replace “Obamacare”:
For me, this is another non-issue. The unaffordability of health care is a symptom of a deeper underlying problem, namely that every year the U.S. economy is drained of about $800 billion through the trade deficit, making everyone poorer and more dependent on deficit spending by the federal government to maintain an illusion of prosperity. Fix the trade deficit and the whole health care issue will go away.

So that’s it. Although I never really liked Donald Trump very much, and cringe at a lot of his “tweets” and some of the things he says, overall I’ve been pretty pleased with where the country is headed under his direction. But the trade/tariff/border tax issue is critical. If we don’t see action on reducing the trade deficit in manufactured goods, I fear that all will be lost. Like you told John Kelly, Mr. Trump, “we want tariffs and we want them now!”


Thank you Sheriff Joe. Thank you President Trump

August 27, 2017

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-arpaio-idUSKCN1B600O

As reported in the above-linked Reuters article, President Trump has pardoned Joe Arpaio, former sheriff of Maricopa County in Arizona.  Sheriff Joe was famous for his relentless round-up of illegal aliens and for his tough, but not brutal, treatment of all criminals.  As reported in the article:

He reinstated chain gangs, made inmates wear uniforms that were pink or old-fashioned black and white stripes and forbade them coffee, salt and pepper.

That’s it?  No beatings or torture?  He just made them wear uniforms, do real work and took away their coffee?  What an animal!  Seriously, we need a lot more sheriffs like this.  The sight of chain gangs when I was a kid helped me decide early on that I wanted to stay on the right side of the law.

To the chagrin of the globalist, open border advocates, Joe Arpaio took his job seriously and did what he could to protect our border and enforce our immigration laws.  His crime?  Focusing on Hispanics in his search for illegal immigrants in a state that borders Mexico.  Who else would he go after?  The notion that this somehow constituted illegal racial profiling is ridiculous.  If another sheriff were to focus on whites while searching for a group of murderous white supremacists, would a judge declare this racial profiling and insist that they include blacks, Hispanics and Asians in their search?  If the victim of a crime describes the perpetrator as black man, is it racial profiling to include only blacks in the police line-up?  Arpaio’s conviction was exactly the kind of overboard political-correctness-run-amok, common-sense-be-damned nonsense that propelled Trump to victory.  Just look at some of the quotes in this article:

“Once again, the president has acted in support of illegal, failed immigration enforcement practices that target people of color and that have been struck down by the courts,” said American Civil Liberties Union Deputy Legal Director Cecillia Wang, who sought the court injunction against Arpaio.

Alejandra Gomez, co-executive director of Living United for Change in Arizona (LUCHA), said: “President Trump pardoned a terrorist tonight. Joe Arpaio intentionally terrorized immigrant communities across Arizona for decades and traumatized an entire generation of Arizonans…  The only proper place for him is in a jail cell,” Gomez said in a statement.

“Illegal, failed immigration enforcement practices?”  How about Obama’s illegal refusal to enforce immigration laws at all?  Somebody had to do something, and Sheriff Joe stepped up.  And then this Gomez character from some obscure, fringe group in Arizona goes so far as to call him a “terrorist.”  It’s truly over the top.

As I said in Five Short Blasts, my concern with illegal immigration isn’t rooted in racism.  It wouldn’t matter to me if it was Ireland on the other side of our southern border and if every illegal alien was named Murphy.  The world faces no greater threat than worsening overpopulation, and illegal immigration is a major contributor to that threat in the U.S.

Unlike Obama, who pardoned hundreds of real criminals, Trump has pardoned an American hero who stood up for all Americans by enforcing our immigration laws.  Thank you for your work, Sheriff Joe.  And thank you for correcting this injustice, President Trump.


Trump was right to pull out of the Paris Climate Agreement

June 3, 2017

Let me begin by making clear that I am an environmentalist.  It was my concern for the environment – especially my little piece of the environment that I enjoy in the north woods – that was the genesis of my discovery of the inverse relationship between population density and per capita consumption, which I presented and explained in Five Short Blasts.  It’s a clear-eyed look at just where unending population growth will take us.  Few have devoted as much of their time to trying to save the planet.

Let me also make clear that I’m neither a GOP conservative nor a Democrat.  As I stated in Five Short Blasts, the platforms of both parties – both of which embrace and promote population growth – produce nothing more than weaving left and right along a path to ruin.  So this post isn’t politically motivated.

“Climate change,” the now-politically correct term for global warming, is real.  The link to human activity is undeniable.  I’ve watched Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth”  and agree with its premise.  Greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane are building up in the atmosphere and trapping solar heat.  The science is clear.  Kudos to the scientists.

But shame on environmentalists.  The environmental movement has been a colossal failure.  If it weren’t, we wouldn’t now find ourselves in the fix that we’re in.  We wouldn’t be in the midst of a mass extinction.  The dire consequences of global warming are now inevitable.  Environmentalists admit as much.  And who is to blame for all of this?  There’s plenty of blame to go around but it could be argued that no one is more to blame than the leaders of the environmental movement themselves.  There may be a special place in hell for these people for what they’ve done.

Why do I say such a thing?  A little history is in order.  Going back decades, to the ’80s, if my memory serves me correctly, the environmental movement was in trouble.  The Vietnam war was over and young, impatient activists seized upon the environment as a new cause.  Their approach was radical and intolerant.  Industry, the civilian half of the “military industrial complex” that was the object of so much scorn by young radicals during the Vietnam era, was demonized as the enemy of humanity by the environmental movement.  The environmental movement was anti-industry, anti-development anti-everything to the point where they were perceived as being anti-humanity.

At the same time, as a result of new trade policies ushered in by GATT (the Global Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, enacted in 1947), the de-industrialization of America was underway.  Factories were closing.  People were losing their jobs.  And the country was being flooded with imports from Japan.  Eager to find a scapegoat, industry successfully blamed the environmental movement for making it impossible to continue manufacturing in America.  People began to despise these young, impatient, intolerant and uncompromising environmentalist radicals.

Industry had its own image problems.  Both sides saw an opportunity and began to collaborate.   The environmental movement softened its approach to development and, in return for the environmentalists’ endorsement of new development projects, industry began to embrace some of their more reasonable demands and causes.  The environmental movement made a deal with the devil and the concept of “sustainable development” was born.

Soon after, the company I worked for served up an example.  They announced plans to build a new plant on a pristine “green field” site – a piece of undeveloped property they owned.  At the same time, they also announced that another such piece of property was being set aside as a sort of wildlife refuge, never to be developed.  This, they proudly proclaimed, was a prime example of “sustainable development.”  “How the hell is that sustainable?” I wondered.  Half of the property in question was now gone.  It didn’t take a genius to figure out where that will ultimately lead if such “development” is “sustained.”

The term is an oxymoron and there is no such thing as “sustainable development.”  It makes me bristle every time I hear it.  By it’s very definition, “development” means putting natural resources to work to enhance the lives of human-kind.  There’s nothing wrong with that, as long as you recognize that, in a finite world, the process has to stop at some point.  It can’t be sustained forever. A finite resource can only sustain a certain number of people at a high standard of living.  Even a child should be able to understand this.  Yet, that is exactly what corporate leaders and their environmentalist lackeys would have you believe – that we can continue growing our population and continue to consume more and more, and thus grow their profits – “sustainably.” Forever.

Of course, the leaders of the environmental movement responsible for this mess won’t find themselves alone.  If there’s a hotter place in hell, it’s occupied by economists – those people who, in the wake of their Malthusian black eye, proclaimed that there is no limit to man’s ability to overcome all obstacles to growth, and vowed never again to even consider that population growth could present challenges.  It is yet another claim unable to stand up to even the most rudimentary scrutiny, but is the foundation upon which the concept of “sustainable development” is built. Incredibly, the environmental movement has bought into this.

With all of this said, I decided to do my own objective evaluation of the Paris Climate Agreement to decide for myself the wisdom of Trump’s move.  I started with Wikipedia’s take on the agreement, but then decided to go right to the United Nations’ web site that documents the whole thing.  I wanted to read the agreement for myself.  But, try as I might, I’ll be darned if I can find it.  There’s lots of explanation from the UN about the agreement, but I couldn’t find the agreement itself.  That kind of thing always makes me a little suspicious.

Anyway, here’s some key aspects of the agreement:

  • Certain few developed countries – most notably the U.S. – are targeted to generate all of the reduction in greenhouse gases.  Many undeveloped nations are actually allowed to increase their emissions in order to allow them to develop.  China, the world’s worst polluter, committed to only 25% of the reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, in per capita terms, that the U.S. committed to achieving.
  • Aid, beginning at a minimum of $100 billion per year above and beyond aid that nations are already receiving, must be provided by developed nations to help undeveloped nations develop faster and to help them deal with the effects of climate change.
  • Each nation sets its own goals, consistent with the overall goal to limit global temperature rise to 2 degrees Celsius or less, but then must report annually on their progress toward meeting their goals.

Already, I was beginning to have my doubts.  Forcing dramatic emissions cuts on the U.S. while allowing other nations to increase their emissions seems to preclude the U.S. from ever re-balancing trade and rebuilding the manufacturing sector of the economy, even if it meant producing products in plants that operated under strict environmental regulations as opposed to the filthy factories spewing smog in China.  This feels like some sort of “eco-trade barrier.”

Secondly, the requirement that wealthy nations boost their aid to developing nations by a minimum of another $100 billion per year to help them develop seems like a money grab.  We all know where the vast majority of funding would come from – the U.S. – just as the U.S. funds a disproportionate share of the U.N., the World Trade Organization, the World Bank, NATO, and virtually every other multi-national organization.

Finally, as I scanned through the many web pages that the UN serves up, I found the real goal of the agreement.  In the UN’s own words, here it is:

  • The ultimate objective of the Convention is to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations “at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic (human induced) interference with the climate system.” It states that “such a level should be achieved within a time-frame sufficient to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, to ensure that food production is not threatened, and to enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner.”

And there it is!  “… enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner.”  This agreement isn’t about saving the planet or the environment.  It’s about keeping environmental degradation just tolerable enough that we can continue to pack the planet with more corporate customers.

If climate change is the result of human activity, then isn’t it logical that any effort to combat it should begin with a focus on limiting the number of humans or their activity?  What is gained if we all cut our greenhouse gas emissions per capita by 50% but then double the population?  Absolutely nothing!

The U.S. has already made strides in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. But it isn’t even close to being enough.  To achieve the cuts that President Obama committed to in the Kyoto protocol – cuts of 80% or more – the plan relies heavily on “carbon capture.”  That is, CO2 would be extracted from exhaust stacks and stored in tanks or underground.  Essentially, it’s a process of creating a CO2 “landfill” which, if we all cross our fingers and toes and hope real hard, maybe it’ll never leak and create such a catastrophic jump in atmospheric CO2 levels that the planet is almost instantly cooked!

Any approach to the climate change problem that doesn’t begin with a plan to stabilize and gradually reduce the human population to a level where we can all enjoy a high standard of living without threatening the planet is a hoax.  Climate change is real, but this Paris agreement is just that – a hoax.  It has little to nothing to do with fighting climate change.  Instead, it’s globalization and “sustainable development” on steroids.  There is an old saying that goes something like this:  “If you can’t bewilder them with brilliance, then baffle them with bullshit.”  That’s exactly what “sustainable development” does.

Critics have mocked President Trump, saying that he is incapable of grasping the complexities of the Paris agreement.  It could be argued that perhaps it was President Obama who didn’t understand that the agreement he proclaimed to be such an accomplishment actually does nothing for the climate and simply suckered the U.S. into yet another self-destructive deal.  And it’s time for all people who are concerned about climate change and the environment to wake up to the fact that the environmental movement has been hijacked by those who profit from plundering the planet and that they, too, are being suckered by the concept of “sustainable development.”

I’m not terribly concerned.  I believe that if the world doesn’t wake up to the inverse relationship between population density and per capita consumption, then the unemployment, poverty and rising death rate that it fosters are going to do more to put a lid on greenhouse gas emissions than the Paris agreement could have ever hoped to achieve.

In the meantime, other world leaders have rushed to the defense of the Paris agreement.  No surprise.  They can kiss goodbye the $100 billion (per year!) they were counting on.  Plus, championing the Paris agreement is all upside for politicians with no downside.  Everyone loves them for their concern for the planet and they can never be held accountable, since it’s impossible to gauge success under the agreement.  It’s like a campaign promise that never has to be kept because no one can tell whether or not you’ve delivered.

Americans have been fleeced far too much in the name of globalization.  Clearly, Trump wasn’t baffled by this BS.  I applaud him for having the guts to walk away from this deal and for being willing to take the political heat for doing so.