Jim Stimson writes companies would like the US administration under Trump to support ‘the accord as a codpiece, to be worn for public-relations purposes.’
Public relations exercises usually cover for some unpalatable facet or action. What exactly would the Paris agreement provide cover for?
According to Stimson it would be for the US ’embrace of coal and such massive oil projects.’
Here’s the deal: if you feel guilty about coal and oil projects, why do it? Why pretend you are against Paris, run campaigns against it and then fold? The point of opposing Paris is not about finding some loophole to continue to use fossil fuels, it’s about not needing to find such justifications. If your instincts are weak, you’re weak. If you need a codpiece for your very existence, you don’t deserve to.
We learn companies like Exxon, BP and Royal Dutch Shell support the Paris accord ‘likely because of the accord’s weakness.’
The whole purpose of the voluntary non-binding nature of the Paris agreement is to make political objections to it harder. If Paris presented a hard front as ‘Kyoto II,’ it would have been an easy target to take down. Todd Stern and his minions knew this going in.
I wrote about this earlier:
People don’t see it this way but one of the innovations of the Paris agreement is its non-binding nature, and it needs to be shot down for this very corrupting influence.
With things headed the way they are, I see this prediction from April last year coming true soon: