I am a pretty unapologetic conservative environmentalist.  I drive an electric car, my house is powered, almost exclusively by solar power (and therefore, charges my electric car), I have a solar reflective roof, I have upgraded all of my appliances and HVAC system to the highest level of energy efficiency, and I use water-conserving devices.  If the left were to draw a model climate citizen, I would be it.  Now I did those things because of the money I will save — for instance, my summer electric bills were over $300 before solar.  This year, my highest was $9, and in the four years I have lived in this house (I literally closed escrow the day Trump won the White House), I have already saved more than half of the cost of the upgrades, all while still maintaining their value in the house.  Despite my efforts to virtually eliminate my family’s carbon footprint, I still would be “forced” to comply with further requirements based upon the “science” of people who don’t follow their own mandates.

There’s no bigger climate hypocrite in the world, in my opinion, than John Kerry.  The man with planes and yachts, funded largely by his sugar momma’s condiment empire, has recently been hired as Biden’s “Climate Czar,” allegedly in charge of spreading the news about climate change, while traveling the world on a private jet. I mean, was Tom Steyer not available?  At least he has some credibility on the Climate Change front!

A week ago, at a news conference highlighting Biden’s executive actions on Climate Change, Kerry said the quiet part out loud, which is something many of us have been saying but the left simply ignores.  Kerry said, “[Biden] knows Paris is not enough.  Not when almost 90 percent of all of the planet’s global emissions come from outside of US borders.”  In other words, this agreement to reduce carbon emissions relies on voluntary compliance from countries who, by the way, are largely responsible for their own reporting on the matter.

So, the question is, what happens when a country fails to meet its objectives?  What happens if a country decides to lie about its actual carbon emissions?  Worse yet, what happens if a country decides to ignore the agreement altogether and produce more carbon?

The answer is the Paris Accords have no enforcement mechanism, so even if the US completely eliminated all of our carbon output, it would likely have zero effect on the alleged connection between climate change and anthropogenic sources, while simultaneously cratering our economy in the quest of achieving it. If the US suddenly was able to completely eliminate carbon output, (we rank 16th in the world in output per capita currently, behind alleged climate warriors like Canada and Australia) we still wouldn’t fix a single thing about the alleged global climate crisis.  It also has to be recognized that these per capita figures don’t account for the consumers of products manufactured abroad. Sure, countries within the EU maintain a lower level of carbon output, but the products they consume are manufactured elsewhere, which counts for those manufacturing countries’ output.  If you thought the price of items was high now, just wait until the cost of carbon-neutral means of production is added to the cost of those products.  In other words, there’s a higher likelihood that conflict comes from the result of this, or at the very least a recalculation of how carbon output is measured placing additional pressure on countries that claim superiority in climate policy.

Despite the US efforts on Climate Change, which include an insignificant bump in carbon output since 1990 (0.4%), globally there has been a 63.5% increase in carbon emissions, including a 353% increase from China, a 305% increase from India, a 215% increase from Indonesia, and a 197% increase from Pakistan (top 5 countries by population).  Even countries like Norway, The Netherlands, Austria, Japan, Canada, and Australia have all increased their carbon emissions at a greater rate than did the US, since 1990.  When basing carbon emissions on the amount of land a country occupies,  the vast majority of countries including the UK, Switzerland, Denmark, and Italy, all pollute at a higher rate than does the US.

So the question remains, what does the US do to ensure that other countries comply with this alleged emergency?  Just how far is the US willing to go to enforce climate goals?  For instance, if the US did truly eliminate carbon emissions and China or Russia did not, within the specified timeline determined by various climate agreements, what could the US do about it?

The answer is absent force, literally nothing.  Is the US willing to engage in economic or conventional warfare in order to enforce its climate agenda?  We would have to believe that in the hands of the left, the answer is yes.  Either they would have to ignore the sovereignty of a country to enforce their mandates, or they would have to enlist the global community to do so.  Does that mean military action?  While this is obviously still hypothetical, we must believe that an option in that regard is still on the table.  For instance, how often do trade wars, or wars over those goods, lead to armed conflict?  Should China decide to ignore the requirements of the accords, it then becomes the burden of the US to censure China, place sanctions on them, and likely the countries that trade with China to really put the hurt on them.  Best of luck in that endeavor considering China’s reach throughout the globe.

When it comes to brass tacks, the US and other global partners, at some point, will have to take action against the violators of their climate agreements.  Let’s just remember that, no matter what happens, force is going to be necessary to do so, and that won’t end well.