“Well, first you wouldn’t lose 6 million American jobs,” Paul responded.Doomsday is not around the corner...
“I think one of the reasons President Trump was elected is that he promised that he would defend American workers and American jobs,” he said. “There are estimates that this agreement, which is unfair, and punishes America in a much greater fashion than other countries, that we would lose 6 and a half million jobs. Meanwhile, countries like India and countries like Iran, we would have to pay them to reduce their carbon emissions.”
“I can’t imagine a worse agreement than this thing for the American worker,” he continued. “But I think this is something that President Trump promised the voters.
“So if America, under this accord, has to reduce her carbon footprint by 20 percent, but China doesn’t have to reduce their carbon footprint at all,” he said, “how could that possibly be fair? Who in their right mind would sign something that says China doesn’t have to do anything? When you reduce your carbon footprint it means you have to reduce your energy output, or you have to convert to other sources, but there may not be enough energy from the other sources. So then we’re talking about going without energy.”
“How much should the U.S. reduce its carbon footprint?” Tapper then asked.
“Under the accord, it’s about a 20 percent reduction, but China doesn’t have to reduce it’s footprint at all,” Paul answered. “I don’t think anybody could tell you right off the number. I think we should try to constrain pollution. We should try to control pollution and I think we have been doing that for about 50 to 60 years. And I think we should continue, but you know your previous guest sounded like, oh my goodness, the sky is falling, ‘mass extinction’? Really?”
“So I don’t think we should be alarmist about this,” Paul continued. “I mean the planet’s 4.5 billion years old, we have gone through great extremes of climate change, natural, and now we may have a man-made influence as well. But these people, the question I always ask these alarmists is, ‘how much is nature, and how much is man?’ They act as if it’s a given that man is the only source of climate change.
“Well my goodness,” he said, “the great climate changes in our history all happened before the industrial revolution. So is there climate change, can man have an impact? Yes, but let’s don’t be so alarmist as to say such outrageous things that if we don’t sign the Paris Accords, there’s going to be ‘mass extinction’? That is a ridiculous statement!”
Friday, June 02, 2017
Taking Down Change
Rand Paul is not impressed by the hysteria:
There's gold in them stars: The colliding stars spewed bright blue, super-hot debris that was dense and unstable. Some of it coalesced i...
The regulators are still at it: Using the "altFEC" twitter account, one of several "alt" sites set up by government work...
Were they the ancestors of piano players? The brain circuits that led to two-sided tools and weapons such as hand-axes and cleavers are the ...
They really are after everyone's job: The study found that 42 percent of UK consumers believe their job is likely to be replaced by a ro...