Many people were very upset when Trump backed out of the Paris Accord. Any freedom minded person should reconsider their first impressions. The truth is that it was all about money and power more than anything to do with the environment. It is a good idea to be skeptical of anything that comes from the top down. If you only judge ideas by the title, you will make big mistakes. Even if we followed the agreement, nothing would change in regards to the environment and the pollution in any significant manner to justify the imposition of these draconian rules that also conveniently omits the real major polluters. It doesn't matter what your opinion is about anthropogenic climate change or political party affiliation, the Paris Accord is a waste of money and resources that doesn't do anything beneficial either way.

Simply making things illegal or adding enormous 'sin' taxes to traditional fossil fuels is a dangerous and destructive idea that only kicks the can to the other side of the world while at the same time causing enormous economic harm here at home. When you just shut off the power because people can't afford it, then the environment will definitely go downhill fast. Prosperity of humans is the best thing for the environment because it gives you time to even consider protecting it versus only thinking about your next meal and warming your shelter on a cold night. Places with the most poverty also have the most extensive environmental damage occurring. Wealth and prosperity is a product of having abundant and cheap sources of energy which leads to guys in tie-dye shirts with the free time to walk down the road giving each tree a personal hug--nothing wrong with that. Without lots of cheap energy, that same guy would be using a bow and arrow to shoot deer in the woods for food after he chopped down a few trees for firewood. The answer is a more economical substitute being invented and that is the only real solution to this problem. Something that produces more power for cheaper would end the use of fossil fuels very quickly and it would be done willingly without hesitation. It would cause a net economic boom rather than harm and it will actually change our emissions which is what the purpose of the Paris Accord is supposedly all about.

While we do have a few alternative technologies such as nuclear, wind, hydroelectric, and solar; the problem is that these technologies are generally more expensive, restricted to certain geographical areas, and have their own harmful effects on the environment and wildlife. It is currently not feasible to replace all our energy needs with these technologies and it doesn't even come close. Current nuclear technologies have many problems that they face. It is quite dangerous if anything ever goes wrong because of how they operate with extremely high pressures. If they ever lose power for any reason, they will meltdown and explode and have devastating effects on the environment. Fukashima and the rest of the well known meltdowns are a prime example of what can and will happen. Even the best safety procedures and systems can't stop Murphy's Law. Reactors must always be placed near large bodies of water which creates problems for places that don't have that available. The cost of transporting electricity to these areas would be absolutely enormous.

The cost of nuclear power is generally more expensive than other alternatives especially when the government subsidizes everything which hides the true costs in taxes. Nuclear projects are infamous for going over budget and over schedule and the government ends up absorbing those costs. If anything ever goes wrong, the costs shoot to the moon and back many times over. The spent fuel is piling up everywhere and nobody really knows what to do with it. There have already been countless scandals of local governments taking money to dump it on their inhabitants. Nobody wants to be around the stuff and for good reason.

Another problem is that only a very small fraction of the available Uranium ore is usable because a certain isotope is required. Uranium is nowhere near a renewable energy source for the long term. Extracting Uranium from seawater is an incredibly expensive prospect and the only way to avoid fossil fuels is to have cheaper alternatives. If we massively scale up current nuclear technologies, we will run out of Uranium fuel incredibly soon and we will be up to our eyeballs in toxic waste. In my next few posts, I will discuss some potential game changers in the energy market that have been blatantly hampered by government intervention and various regulations. I encourage all who disagree to start a dialog in the comments, please do teach me something. I'm looking forward to a lively discussion especially with those who disagree. Have a great day everyone! -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ![Footer](http://i.imgur.com/zVmtmaZ.png) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- - GIF Sources: - http://gizmodo.com/no-now-this-is-officially-the-hottest-earth-has-ever-b-1763550051 - http://www.reddit.com/r/gifs/comments/24e6zc/never_before_has_pollution_been_so_adorable/ - http://imgur.com/gallery/YPWhffA - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p87yDgGCFIA (Probably NSFW Music Video) - http://photobucket.com/gifs/toxic%20waste