Share this...



One of the founders of Germany’s modern environmental movement and a former renewable energies executive has publicly announced that President Donald Trump’s rejection of the Paris Accord is the right thing to do.



Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt, a founder of Germany’s modern environmental movement, supports rejection of Paris Accord. Photo credit: Die kalte Sonne.

At his climate science critical website, Die kalte Sonne, Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt says the USA has de facto “begun the exit out of the Paris Climate Accord“, or CLEXIT, and that among world leaders at least Donald Trump comprehends that natural factors are at play in climate.

Moreover, Vahrenholt notes that upon really reading the Paris Accord for the first time, it is only now that the media have become surprised that it is not even a binding agreement, but instead one that only involves intentions by the rich countries to transfer cash to developing nations to the tune of $100 billion annually beginning in 2020.

He wonders why “neither Obama nor Merkel, Juncker or Macron have found it necessary so far to explain to their citizens the agreement burdens their own citizens to the benefit of no. 1 emitters China, and India“.

Vahrenholt calculated the 2030 per capita emissions China would be allowed by the Paris Accord: In 2030 Europeans would have to lower their emissions to 4 tonnes per capita, while China’s would be allowed to rise to 14 onnes per capita and the USA would have to fall to 10 tonnes per capita. One has to ask, who signed, cheered and celebrated such an agreement and welcome it with tears of joy?” Vahrenholt describes an agreement that is totally in favor of China, a country that plans to construct 368 coal power plants by 2020 while India plans to build 370. In his view the Paris Accord is a free ride for China. Overall the Paris Accord will hardly have any effect on total emissions. We can be happy that the American President Trump has seen this anachronism, and what on earth moved his predecessor to such a disadvantageous agreement?” In Vahrenholt’s view the agreement is neither about the climate nor the environment, and that its real intention was made clear by Prof. Ottmar Edenhofer of the Potsdam Institute in 2010: Through climate policy we will de facto redistribute global wealth… One has to free himself of the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy.” Also the German professor of chemistry writes that European leaders cannot expect Trump to simply defraud his voters by not keeping his campaign promises, as controversial as some may be. Vahrenholt, a member of the SPD socialist party, says Trump’s decision is nothing to criticize, and those who do criticize “either do not understand the mechanism of Paris, or have an interest in deindustrializing Germany and the bad USA.” Vahrenholt also questions Germany’s Ministry of Environment (UBA) proposals to tax privately driven kilometers so that German citizens will finally stop driving and ride their bicycles more often, remarking: “There was once such a society: China 25 years ago.” Overall Vahrenholt sees the Paris Accord as “practically dead” because “Trump’s most important announcement is a stop of all finances to the green climate fund, which was to be supplied with $100 billion beginning in 2020.” The USA’s share is 22%. Vahrenholt also blasts the IPCC climate conference circuses of Cancun, Bali, Durban, etc.. The USA gave $55 million annually for this travelling climate circus to go to the most exotic locations of the world so that the Schellnhubers and Edenhofers of the globe could act like they were doing important things on the taxpayers’ dime.” He cites Prof. Judith Curry. She wrote earlier this year (2017) that the IPCC climate models are not suitable to explain the causes of the 20th century warming or to forecast regional and global climate changes over decades, let alone a hundred years, and that they are not adequate for acting as a base for policymaking. Curry adds: There’s growing evidence that the climate models are running too warm.” Prof. Vahrenholt concludes his piece by advising EPA chief Scott Pruit to heed Curry’s recommendations.