How Can Taxpayers Evaluate the UN Paris Climate Agreement?

A streamlined approach to the lesser-known elements of the purposes, costs, benefits, and downside of the Paris Agreement President Donald Trump rejects.

The mainstream news media’s ablaze with urgings and warnings regarding the United Nation’s Paris Climate Agreement. Globalists recoiled en mass when President Trump pulled the United States out of Obama’s promises. How can taxpayers evaluate the UN Paris Climate Agreement?

First step: Stop and take a deep breath. There’s no need to panic. Alarmists prey on the fear of the citizenry, expecting the rapid flow of unfamiliar words to freeze our minds into submission. We can’t possibly understand the complicated climate change issues, can we? Yes, we can! The Paris Agreement isn’t that complex.

Summer landscape in the Alps re:

Summer landscape in the alps (Courtesy of 123 RF Stock Photo/jakobradlgruber)



When the paragraphs of the Paris Climate Agreement are boiled down to basics, we’re left with the following dual purpose:

  • Reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the air
  • Prevent runaway global warming

If we assume the globalists are correct in pronouncing the planet has a problem, we’re left with two major questions. Will their plan fix the problem? How much will it cost?

Beginning with the question burning a hole in my mental bank account, let’s see how much the Paris attendees believe their plan will cost.



This section of the Paris Agreement should overwhelm the regular taxpayers. Maybe all those zeros blurred the vision of the Paris conference participants, as well. Or, maybe they reckoned it wasn’t coming out of their pockets, so…

The regular Jane and Joe Taxpayer will pay for it and never know the difference, right? If the news media hadn’t harped on it so long and hard, it might have passed my attention. What a shocker!

The UN’s plan will cost $100 Trillion. That’s a cool $100,000,000,000,000. Fourteen zeros!

Having trouble grasping how much that is, I checked with a helpful website: Grasping Large Numbers.

If you spread dollar bills on the ground, $100 trillion would fully-carpet an area roughly the size of the States of Texas and California—combined.

Since we’re talking money, though, let’s consider the length of time we would need to spend $100 trillion if we participated in a special shopping spree. If we spend $20 every second, it would take us 1,585 centuries to spend $100 trillion.

“But, that’s the total cost to the nearly 200 nations signing on to the Agreement. What’s it going to cost the American taxpayer?” Good question.

In the final year of his presidency, Barak Obama promised America would contribute $150 Billion, annually.

Young couple shopping

(Courtesy of 123RF Stock Photo/dotshock)

If you laid dollar bills end-to-end, $150 billion would encircle the earth 580 times—every year.

Or, that $20 per second shopping spree would last more than 238 years.

In addition to the financial outlay, implementing the Agreement’s imposed changes would cost Americans the following:

  • Loss of six million jobs and
  • A 20-30% increase over current electricity bills.

After recovering from the sticker-shock, I searched for just what we would get for that ginormous amount. Is this a good deal, ultimately?



Stack of money

(Courtesy of 123RF Stock Photo/Fabian19 Schmidt)

If all goes to plan, the UN model is set to reduce the earth’s temperature by 86/1000 of a degree by the year 2100.

The calculations by the UN indicate the Paris Agreement will achieve less than 1% of the CO2 emission cuts needed to hit their target temperature. The remaining 99% of the reductions the UN claims is necessary to control climate changes will be left to the leaders coming on the scene in 2030.

If the original plan, including the annual infusion of American greenbacks, is allowed to play out, global warming will have been delayed by eight months at the turn of the next century.

Doesn’t sound like much bang for all those bucks. Will the plan work?


Friendly opposition

Naturally, the America-First folks celebrate President Trump’s withdrawal of their tax dollars, but even Dr. James Hansen, the man touted as the father of climate change awareness, has his concerns for the Paris Climate Agreement.

Dr. Hansen functioned as Nasa’s lead global warming scientist in recent years and voiced strong opposition: “The Paris Agreement is a fraud. A fake. It’s (bleep!) for them to say we’ll have a two-degree warming target and then try to do a little better every five years. It’s just worthless words.”

Studying the UN’s own model and calculations, one must concur with Dr. Hansen—the Paris Agreement plan won’t work.

Back to the global climate change drawing board? Does the earth need another plan?


Earth climate facts

Carbon dioxide is earth’s friend, not a toxic emission that needs to be stifled. The gases emitted from fossil fuel combustion that do harm the atmosphere are oxides of sulfur, nitrogen and fly ash. All of these are well controlled using cost-effective technology.

At the current rate, it will take a century for the CO2 level to double, warming the earth by less than one degree Celsius. If the CO2 levels doubled, the global result would be celebrated. The Farmers would enjoy a better yield of their crops, as well as a longer growing season.

There is no dangerous rise in sea levels with such a modest level of warming, as history confirms. Many reputable physicists point out the indisputable geological records showing the earth’s climate has been changing since its existence.

These changes happened from factors totally unrelated to humans. It’s just the way the dynamic planet was made.



Since there are hundreds of scientists who believe that the Paris Climate Agreement will do nothing for Planet Earth, the American President is correct in removing his taxpayers from the enormous financial obligation.

One can find comfort in the knowledge that brilliant minds have studied the issue of climate change/global warming and conclude all is well on Planet Earth, as far as the climate is concerned, at least. Our grandchildren’s grandchildren will still find the planet much as it is today.

The “why” of the Paris Climate Agreement is a story for another day. It’s not hard to ferret out why the world’s richest people insist $100 trillion must be given to them to save our planet.

Go ahead. Take another deep breath and give thanks to the God Who created Planet Earth for our habitation. Indeed, God does all things well.



Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone.

Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes.

Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm.

Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared.

Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.

Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt the sea will rise and make most coast cities uninhabitable.

                             * * * * * * * * *

I must apologize. I neglected to mention that this report was from November 2, 1922 , as reported by the AP and published in The Washington Post 95 years ago.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

4 thoughts on “How Can Taxpayers Evaluate the UN Paris Climate Agreement?

  1. What an eye-opening post, Dannie! Thanks for explaining so that a layperson like me can understand.
    Funny how coast cities are thriving after all this time…

    • Thanks for your comment, Glenda. If only the main stream news folks would offer both sides of this important issue, more people would support the US pulling out. Definitively in our best interest!