And he made it sound so right and good.
I heard enough of President Trump’s speech on why he decided to withdraw the U.S. from the so-called Paris Climate Agreement to get the message that his justification is that it put an unfair burden on the U.S. while allowing other nations to continue on their polluting ways.
(Is this true? I don’t know.)
He further contended, I think I heard him say (I was cooking dinner and my computer audio is on the fritz — it goes in and out), that even so the U.S. will continue to be a leader in a clean environment, or something like that.
Is that why I see all the trash up and down the roadways? I just usually figure it was left by Trump voters and supporters (and probably liberals and all to be fair).
It does seem to me that the mainstream press has not done much to explain the Paris accords, or maybe that is just my lazy excuse for not becoming more informed.
Ultimately we cannot ignore environmental concerns just because we think taking corrective measures would eat into profits. For one thing, if we destroy our environment, profits will no longer be an issue. And for another, could it be the rest of the world will move beyond us in adapting to the environment and leave us behind, choking from our own inability to adapt?
And if those Paris accords are really unfair to us, why so? And could we take the lead or take back the lead we are about to abrogate or squander and renegotiate?
If I thought Trump et al. knew what they were doing I might say hooray!
I doubt that is the case.
For congressmen and all politicians it is easier to simply go along with lobbyists protecting their interests than to balance the good of the people as a whole and the concerns of certain sectors of the economy and job market. But real statesmen defer to the good of the people as a whole.
Statesmen are nearly extinct. They are an endangered species.
Still searching for a story to explain this all to me, not in a partisan way, but in an objective manner.