Climate activists demonstrate in Paris, Saturday, Dec.12, 2015 during the COP21, the United Nations Climate Change Conference. Several environmental and human rights groups are planning protests around Paris to call attention to populations threatened by man-made global warming and urge an end to human use of oil, gas and coal. (AP Photo/Thibault Camus)

A very important story went unreported by the mainstream media recently.  Angel Gurria, secretary-general of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) found it perplexing that the United States, despite our commitment to fossil fuels, is killing Canada when it comes to decreasing carbon dioxide emissions.  The OECD finds this perplexing on two grounds.

First, between Justin Trudeau and Donald Trump, there is obviously a greater commitment to decreasing carbon dioxide emissions north of the border.  This greater political commitment is not translating into actual action.  Second, Canada remains a signatory to the Paris Climate Accord agreement and has been critical of Trump’s decision to withdraw from the agreement.

According to the OECD, Canada’s emissions should have fallen 17% below 2005 levels, but they have actually fallen a paltry 2%.  Conversely, US carbon dioxide emissions have fallen about 12% below 2005 levels according to the OECD.  So why is the United States killing Canada in this area?

The answer is simple: natural gas, a fossil fuel.  Natural gas produces about half the carbon dioxide emissions as coal and the increased use of natural gas in the United States is the reason for the decreased emissions.  It is the technological advances of fracking that are spurring the increased use of natural gas in the United States proving that technology, not international agreements, will bring about a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions.

The Paris Climate Accord was a joke from the start.  It was simply a non-binding agreement upon the signatories that allowed career diplomats the opportunity to slap themselves on the back in the false atmosphere of believing they were saving the planet.  Consider this fact: IF (a big one) every country met their commitments under the agreement, it would have the effect of having a 0.02 degree Celsius effect on earth’s temperature.  Incidentally, that projection comes from Obama’s EPA.  Those figures were confirmed by an MIT study.

As concerns the US, in exchange for that negligible effect on earth’s temperature, it is estimated it would have cost the country $2.5 trillion in GDP by the year 2035.  By that same year, American families would have spent an additional $20,000 in electric costs which is nothing short of an unseen tax on family income.

Proponents of the Paris Accords claim it is a necessary insurance policy to save the planet.  They claim that given the momentum of green energy projects and usage worldwide, the phase out of fossil fuels is inevitable anyway.  If that is so, then why the need for the agreement?  If market forces are truly driving the tendency away from fossil fuels worldwide, why not just let those more reliable market forces do their thing?

Unfortunately, facts contradict these beliefs.  A December report by several institutes dedicated to climate change found that worldwide, more than 2,000 coal burning electrical plants were under construction or planned.  Coal remains cheap and efficient which is why there are so many plants planned worldwide.  As concerns the United States, coal burning plants today are not the dirty air producing ones your great grandparents knew.  They filter out 90% of mercury emissions and 99.8% of soot.

Furthermore, it is estimated that 1.3 billion humans on earth have absolutely NO access to electricity worldwide.  Throw in even more humans without access to cheap, reliable electricity and the numbers grow even higher.  That is a huge, untapped market for the electricity-generating sector.  The market for reliable energy is estimated at $6 trillion and expected to grow 33% by 2040.  Solar and wind energy alone will not meet those needs no matter how noble the goals.

As the United States has managed to decrease carbon dioxide emissions, worldwide emissions have increased.  Why?  Because other signatories to the Paris Accords are plowing along as planned with fossil fuel plants.  But that is not even the big news here.  The big news is that virtually every study conducted has shown that global warming has basically plateaued.  All but one of five studies has shown that global warming has taken a vacation.

Most of the evidence for global warming and climate change are based on computer models.  Most of those models have predicted far greater warming than has actually been measured.  In other words, if one is to follow these models, one is basing an energy policy on computer-driven false positives.

The Paris Accords, more ominously, created a $100 billion fund to assist poorer countries adjust to less fossil fuels.  This is international socialism where the rich transfer wealth to the poor instead of giving the poor the tools to lift themselves out of poverty.  Obama’s administration transferred over $1 billion to this fund without Congressional approval which has other ramifications.

To “mitigate” the effects of the specious proof of global warming, the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) suggests a phase-out of fossil fuels by 2100.  In short, the IPCC is all but guaranteeing that poor countries be chained to poverty.  That is where the $100 billion fund comes in.

By withdrawing from the Paris accords, some argue that the United States is ceding world leadership in this area.  They state that only two other countries- Syria and Nicaragua- failed to sign the treaty and we are now in bad company.  Well, North Korea, Iran, and Venezuela signed and remain in the accords and if that is “good company,” we need to reconsider the definition of “good.”  Besides, anyone is a fool if they think a country like China or India who have some of the dirtiest air on the planet are going to become international environmental leaders, and they are seriously mistaken.  As far as air quality goes, carbon dioxide emissions are the least of their worries.  This, of course, ignores the fact that a country like China has been caught fudging data on carbon dioxide emissions.

Getting back to Canada, it would appear that they will continue on their ill-advised policies while lecturing the United States.  In typical Al Gore doomsday fashion, Mark Johnson, a spokesman for Environment and Climate Change Canada, said: “Whether it’s forest fires in Canada, drought around the world or some of the most powerful hurricanes in history, climate change is all around us…”

Indeed it is since the climate has constantly been changing since there was a climate.  Likewise, there have been droughts, famines, forest fires and powerful hurricanes throughout the history of this planet.  To pin these natural events on carbon dioxide emissions does not explain their existence before the Industrial Revolution.

The question is whether you risk the health of the economy of a nation on such silliness.  Trump, by withdrawing from the Paris accords, made the right decision.  Perhaps if Canada stopped their pompous attitude, they too can join the United States in actually doing something tangible besides signing their name on a piece of paper.