Category Archives: Virtue Signalling

A Quick Overview of the Paris Agreement

The Paris Agreement entered into force on November 4th, 2016. It was adopted on December 12th, 2015. One hundred and ninety-five  UNFCCC members have signed the agreement and one hundred and forty-eight members have ratified it.

The agreement calls for each signing member to contribute to the reduction of carbon, making economies “low carbon”.

Carbon is not a pollutant:

CO2 is in our every breath, in the carbonated sodas and waters that we drink and in the dry ice that helps us keep our food cold and safe. We breathe in 400 parts per million and then exhale 40,000 parts per million with no ill effects.

We breathe the 40,000 ppm into victims needing CPR and it does not cause them to die! 

The monitoring systems in U.S. submarines do not provide an alert until CO2 levels reach 8,000 ppm which is higher that natural CO2 levels have been on Earth in the last 540 million years.

CO2 is a great airborne fertilizer which, as its concentrations rise, causes additional plant growth and causes plants to need less water. Without CO2 there would be no life (food) on Earth. The 120 ppm of CO2 added to the atmosphere since the start of the industrial revolution has caused an average increase in worldwide plant growth of over 12 percent and of 18 percent for trees.

 

There is no way to compel each member to accomplish this by a certain date:

The agreement is meant to be “legally binding” on the parties, at least the regular monitoring and assessment of national carbon-reduction plans. But it does not impose specific emission-reduction requirements on governments or even require them to meet their own “nationally determined” commitments. The administration of U.S. president Barack Obama has adamantly opposed any binding language in those areas, arguing such requirements would require ratification from the Republican-led Congress.

But even the “binding” aspects of accords have no enforcement mechanism or penalties for failing to meet them.

**

Some of it is legally binding within the United Nations framework. The regular review and submission of emission reduction targets will be binding.

So too will the $100bn fund from developed economies to help emerging and developing nations decarbonise their energy mix – which means moving away from burning fossil fuels to clean energy sources, such as renewables and nuclear.

What won’t be legally binding will be the emission targets. These will be determined by nations themselves.

Not everyone believes that the American withdrawal from the agreement is a bad thing:

There are positive opportunities that could arise from US withdrawal. One is the re-emergence of climate trade measures, such as border carbon adjustments. …

Withdrawal could embolden other great powers to show more effective climate leadership. Despite having some internal problems , neither China nor the EU face the same institutional hurdles as the US and can offer far more decisive and ambitious leadership.

Considering the above facts, would anyone care about the sanctimonious bluster of wasteful governments and the lack of criticism of genuine polluters like China, India and Russia?

 

Share

Trump as the first post-modern president?

From David Ernst at the  Federalist:

If politics flows downwards from culture, then it was only a matter of time before a politician mastered the role. Love him or hate him, Donald Trump cracked that code.

Tony Soprano, Walter White, and Frank Underwood: The fascinating antihero who has no illusions about the elite virtue signallers who deplore him:

At least I don’t pretend to be decent; you people, on the other hand, have the gall to pretend that you’re any better than I am. Let’s dispense with the fiction that you would have treated me with any less contempt if I had bothered to live up to any of your standards of decency in the first place, and acknowledge that they have nothing to do with decency per se, and everything to do with power. Your presumption of any moral superiority is a willful, bald-faced lie, and I’m going to keep calling you on that crap until it puts me in the White House.

Post-modernist ethics is merely consumer choice on steroids:

Provided that the postmodern man believes in nothing and values nothing, one wouldn’t be unreasonable in concluding that he cares about nothing. But anyone who knows postmodern man also knows that nothing could be farther from the truth.

The striking contrast of Melissa Harris Perry and other commentators mocking Mitt Romney’s family for adopting a black baby, then tearfully apologizing for it shortly thereafter, smacks of a person who isn’t so much contrite as she is ashamed: she and her colleagues weren’t really thinking when they made fun of the Romneys, and let their true sentiments show. How else could someone who unmasks the implicit racism in something so trivial as Darth Vader’s character make a mistake like that? It shows that all the righteous fury that these folks direct at other people for doing things just like this is an affectation: a contrived performance put on for other purposes.

And those purposes are?

The answer is that the postmodern man ultimately finds satisfaction in the only thing that is left for him: power. Moral superiority is an undeniable source of power over other people, and postmodernism’s moral imperative offers it cheaply to anyone who accepts its premises. The power to shut others up by merely insinuating that they are a bigot is subtle, but its potency is difficult to overstate.

But that potency is difficult to overstate only if, like the RINO squishes, one agrees to be the sucker.

Most importantly of all, Trump understood that postmodern America loathes nothing more than a self-righteous fraud. Hence his reputation for “counterpunching” when confronted with breathless expressions of “offense.” Such was evident in his response to Clinton’s “penchant for sexism” remark by bringing up her husband’s history of sexual assault. Rather than doing what was expected and taking the high road, apologizing, and moving on, Trump opted to call his accusers out for the most certain fact that their professions of moral outrage are cynical power grab and nothing more. More.

Reality check: This sounds about right. It helps explain Trump derangement syndrome. The derangees thought they owned the antihero brand but it is Public Domain. More troublingly, Ernst’s analysis shows that their fanaticism can only grow and seek new targets until their reign of terror is halted. It will not stop by itself. It can’t.

See also: Is Trump derangement syndrome about something bigger?

Share

Trudeau’s Reckless Refugee Tweet Hurt Manitoba


The tweet received an overwhelming response, with over 427,000 retweets and 779,000 likes. It helped establish Trudeau as the “nice” guy, in contrast to the “mean” Donald Trump.

There’s only one problem:

Simply put, our immigration system does not welcome everyone. If that were the case, we wouldn’t have border guards and we wouldn’t have a border services agency. The whole idea behind the existence of an immigration department is to decide who can enter our country and who cannot.

The facts are that some people will be welcomed, and some people won’t be. No country can afford to just let everyone in.

That’s why Trudeau’s tweet was an example of virtue-signalling. He got to show how “open” and “kind” he was, without taking real actions.

Share

Thai professor appointed as UN LGBT expert

vitit-muntarbhorn-940x580

The United Nations (UN) Human Rights Council has named Thailand’s Vitit Muntarbhorn, an international human rights expert, as its first independent expert to investigate the violence and discrimination faced by the LGBT community.

In his newest role, Vitit will have a three-year mandate to look into abuses against lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex (LGBTI) people.

But there’s no reason to look into Christian genocide.

Share

Can ‘SNL’ take down Donald Trump? Is it going to try?

baldwin_trump_snl_1080_31475252641

SNL, now in its 42nd season, has frequently shaped how voters see their presidential candidates. In 2000, the show turned Al Gore’s focus-grouped phrases into punch lines; in 2008, some voters were left thinking that Sarah Palin, not Tina Fey, said “I can see Russia from my house.”

But this year may be different, and not just because of the well-documented entertainment value of Trump. The season opens at a time when the comedy world is engulfed in an angry debate about how to make fun of Trump — and whether some practitioners have given him a pass on his more objectionable stances. For some, Donald Trump isn’t funny anymore. And that has prompted some writers, actors and producers behind SNL to ask this question: What if he wins? And will anyone blame them if he does?

Share