NEWSZENTS: The first part of this article examined the politics and economic reasons of the United States of America pull out from the Paris agreement, it also took side with the plights of American coal workers as against global or futurist ideology of an industry facing the end of the product life cycle.
Late Peter Drucker a Canadian world marketing management guru wrote on the need to examine the end of a product life cycle to determine when to drop it or apply product modifications, meaning sentiment must never be a yardstick in keeping a product.
In the light of the above from Peter Drucker analysis, Is it possible to demand what is guiding US in holding to the coal industry? Is it sentiment or there is hope for the clean Coal?
This writer says, if Europe is indeed and still the market for US coal with 15% total market share, how can the industry survive without Europe if they are moving towards clean energy without America?
Is US Coal cheaper than those from other nations? Or it is time for US to examine the future of Coal industry itself and possibly channel the 25 coal producing states towards the realization of clean energy?
Furthermore, Is it reasonable for US 15% Coal production to Europe to increase the negotiation ground for Paris agreement?
Or the negative pull out, if any, is an advantage for India and China to cash on the absence of US at the dinner table to eat more?
The world seems to have hastily concluded that emissions of the carbon into the atmosphere may be the reasons for global warming and US as a result of 100 years advantage over other nations may see the Paris agreement as a technical way to hold down the progress of America, since its own contributions and sacrifices may be more than others with zero sacrifice.
Can we now at least, take a look at the positive and negative sides of global warming, as much as the Scientists may want the innocent world to be scared of what may not happen in the next 100 years and may intact be nothing but scientific speculation and creation of fake adventurous jobs for the liberal scientists at the expense of American tax payers.
In Agriculture, in some green and high latitude there will be an increase in growing seasons, however, it may lead to decrease in water supplies and production of rice will be affected due to warmer climate, it will lead to more people living longer during winter and death increase during summer, including heatwave, increase in stress and air borne diseases, expect increase in Malaria in West Africa on the long run coastal areas will be swallowed with water.
Furthermore, the good news is the shortcut route that will be created between the Pacific and atlantic oceans for the shipping industry, though the result is not good for the bears as 70% of them will die.
When Al Gore the former US Vice President to Bill Clinton, who lost 2000 elections to President George Bush was asked on Fox News if all the 194 nations religiously follow the Paris Agreement, if it will change anything, he had no assurance, despite the fact Global warning was infact more like a baby to the ” lock box” hero and his movies and one can wonder why his movie is coming out now.
As much as the world is moving towards clean energy like solar power, it is still not a matter of urgency for US to abandon a working system for unknown future.
This Oracle says, we have enough problems at home here in the States to find jobs for 94 million unemployed Americans, honestly, global warming and the speculative dreams of liberal scientists is not a priority now.
Will President Trump change his mind on Paris agreement?
To be continued
Dr. Zents Sowunmi. A New York based writer, author and a member Presidential Advisory Board.