Trump Betrays Humanity, Isolates & Weakens US


[Editor’s note: By pulling out of the Paris climate deal, Trump has not only betrayed the whole of humanity including future generations, he has also isolated and weakened the US.

Denying that human activities have damaged and are further damaging the environment is akin to believing the world is 4000 years old and was created in a few days by a mythical super being – utterly ludicrous insanity.

While the rest of the world pushes ahead with developing new, cleaner and less environmentally harmful technologies, Trump’s America will still be mining and burning coal, destroying it’s ecosystem by fracking anywhere they get a sniff of oil and driving around in ludicrous gas guzzling cars. Trump has consigned the future of the US to the past, destroying it’s hopes for progress by shackling it to obsolete, dirty and damaging industries.

Make no mistake, Trump isn’t smart enough to work out for himself what is what when it comes to the planet’s ecosystem and the negative impact of human activity; he has made this decision based purely on the simple fact that he is a creature of the monied elite and serves that elite, regardless of the consequences for everyone else.

When he appointed Exxon chief Rex Tillerson, the writing was on the wall – Trump was for big business, big oil, big banking, big criminality and big profits for his cronies; the losers would be the people of this world, in particular those in the US.

While Trump’s presidency is unlikely to survive 2017, a sinking ship being blown towards the sharp rocks of impeachment, the damage he can do to the international standing of the US before he is brought down is all too obvious, made only moreso by this lunatic move to withdraw from the Paris climate deal.

The sooner this orange buffoon is no longer criminal-in-chief the better for everyone, especially those in the US. Ian]

Opinion: Trump’s betrayal of humankind

It’s a blow to emission reduction efforts: Donald Trump has pulled the US out of the Paris Agreement. But climate protection will carry on – there may even be a bright side.

It’s official – Donald Trump has withdrawn the United States from the Paris Climate Agreement.

Even though I’m not surprised, I am still shocked.

With this move, the US president has turned his back on the rest of the world – and on future generations of humankind.

The stranger part of the story is that, in pulling out of the Paris Agreement, Trump has also gone against fossil fuel firms, hundreds of major businesses and investors, a large number of Republicans and half of his own cabinet.

With the move, Trump has catered to a small but vocal extreme-right constituency – one that is overrepresented among his cabinet and advisors.

In essence, he’s sealed his own fate as isolated – and cemented the decline of the US.

And although this is in fact very bad news for the global effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, there are possible advantages – even for the climate.

Climate protection will carry on

Since the US generates about a fifth of all global greenhouse gas emissions, the country stepping out of the treaty is indeed a blow to efforts to reduce them. According to analyses, America could add around half a degree Celsius to global warming by the end of this century, if it does nothing to reduce emissions.

Half a degree in global climatic terms is a big deal – we’re talking more severe storms, sea level rise and accelerated species extinction, among the impacts – not all of them even known.

But the US pulling out of the Paris Agreement is far from the end of it. Other nations – most notably China, European Union countries and India – are already taking the lead in showing the way to a clean energy future.

Climate protection and the transition to renewable energy will carry on, regardless of the whims of one powerful – though clueless – man.

Making America weak

In pulling the US out of the Paris Agreement, Trump is not only betraying humankind – he is betraying America.

China, India and the EU will take over on developing renewable energies, including benefiting from the jobs and business opportunities this offers.

The US will be left behind; it will be disadvantaged economically in the long run. Pulling the US out of the Paris Agreement makes America weak.

And diplomatic fallout will be extensive. Germany has already said that the US is no longer a reliable partner, due among other things to Trump’s stance on climate change.

Free to be ambitious

The Paris Agreement foresees limiting global temperature rise to 2 degrees Celsius, preferably 1.5 degrees Celsius.

Although not everyone knows it, there is broad understanding that unless greenhouse gas emission reductions are dramatically scaled up over the next five to 10 years, we are already on a path to surpass the 1.5 degree goal within a decade or so.

Luckily, the Paris Agreement has a built-in “ambition mechanism” that requires countries to review their targets every five years.

If the US had stayed in the Paris Agreement, there was concern that Trump and his fossil fuel cronies would have watered down any such aspirations.

Without the US, other countries are free to ramp up their goals free from the climate deniers dragging them down. In this context, some argue that the Paris Agreement would actually be stronger if the US did not participate.

But none of that makes Trump’s betrayal any less significant. It will stand as a folly throughout the ages.

All content herein is owned by author exclusively.  Expressed opinions are NOT necessarily the views of VT, authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors, partners, technicians or Veterans Today Network (VT).  Some content may be satirical in nature. 
All images within are full responsibility of author and NOT VT.
About VT - Read Full Policy Notice - Comment Policy


  1. From what I have read, global warming is not just confined to Earth, but is taking place on every planet and moon throughout the whole solar system. The sun and its entire solar system is hurtling through space into a hotter part of the galaxy. This is a lot more than just cows belching and people driving cars.

    If the countries at the Paris agreement were serious about counteracting global warming, then why has the technology for clean and free energy developed by Nikola Tesla never been released? And why do inventors of cars powered by water die mysteriously under suspicious circumstances while their patents are no longer available?

    If these people are worried about too many trees being cut down, then why not just legalize industrial hemp which is a rapidly growing renewable resource and makes great paper, oil, cloth, rope etc. thereby saving old growth forests?

    I don’t like Donald Trump, never voted for him, and am nauseated by his weapons sale to Saudi Arabia and the Dakota Pipeline, but I have to admit that I do agree with him pulling out of the Paris agreement.

  2. I live in a state that has 17,000,000 acres of hardwood trees removed from it’s 23,000,000 acres total and there was NOTHING in this accord that addressed the change that is caused by denuding my state of it’s forests…the best dam carbon sink that exists. I’m with Trump on this one.

  3. How loud must I shout. “CLIMATE CHANGE IS A BOGUS DEBATE”? First of all both sides of this issue have proved their corruption with fabricated science. But there is a reason for that. Climate change is too difficult to measure and likely its causes are not necessarily manmade. There always has been climate change and there always will be. To paraphrase Clinton “It’s the pollution stupid”.
    Air earth and water pollution are in fact measurable and have been for years. Control pollution and let the climate take care of itself.

  4. DT is portraying humanity by not nuking Israel and by not putting the FEMA camps and its coffins to good use by solving the Jewish question once and for all.

  5. I think it’s time to revisit the “Report from Iron Mountain” wherin the threat of a polluted ecolgy is mentioned as a means to channel the peoples attention once the USSR was no longer a theeat. Well the threat went away biut fighting pollution doesn’t generate the revenue that war does. Not even close. So it’s back to Russia as the enemy. Yeh, it’s time for us to take a sober look at the blue prints.

  6. Jim, you a smart, and talented man. I agree the earth isn’t 4,000 years old, i don’t believe anyone knows the true answer. As far as creation vs the big bang theory goes I think the odds for either are equally astronomical, and will remain a mystery. Somewhere in our past efforts began to turn science into the religion by shouting eureka God is dead. To do this mathmatics and physical law were turned upside down, most recently evidenced by the official 911 report. Which keeps being reported as truth while ignoring physical laws. Personally I need to believe there is one God.

  7. From “The First Global Revolution- a Report by the Council of the Club of Rome”: “The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. …The real enemy then is humanity itself.”

    N.B.: “In searching for a new enemy to unite us, WE CAME UP WITH THE IDEA….”

    Read more on PP 71-75 of the above mentioned report here:

  8. It is simple enough. The only science needed is observation. If you cannot eat the fish, or drink the water, the trees deforested, the animals disappearing, the air is filthy, and the ground covered in fly ash, then we might have a problem. The only people who think the earth is clean enough is timber and oil companies and the victims of their rhetoric. Monoculture, war mentality, and greed have stretched the ability of the creatures in nature to survive. Things are getting cleaner, and Trump will be a catalyst that energizes this.
    Those who think there is no problem, let them eat the fish from Lake Erie. Let them drink the water from the Mississippi. Let them own the homes downwind from coal stacks. I am shocked at the lack of life in the areas where the wetlands were drained. Where there once was vibrant variety is now a triage. I don’t need science to tell me that. We are a destructive invasive species and a threat to all life.

  9. When Henry Ford unwittingly chose the gasoline engine over the steam engine to power the automobile he set the fate of the world to have endless wars over oil. Now with the U.S. out of the Climate Change scam how about we return to the steam engine for powering the automobile? All the early problems with steam power were resolved within decades. If we had had a century of development of the steam engine as applied to the automobile we would be energy independent today and long ago. The internal combustion engine is worthless without refined fuel made from oil. The steam engine is an external combustion engine which can run on anything that will burn and produce steam. It is much simpler than the ICU and has enormous low end torque, so much that a transmission is not even needed. A two cylinder Steamer is about equivalent to an 8 cylinder gasoline engine. Even ships have steam engines especially the nuclear submarine. A steam car even set a world land speed record once. Remember the stories of how your grandfather’s steamer ended up in the back of the garage due to a leaky steam valve? Bill Lear had faith in steam and proved its viablity in the California Steam Bus Project in the 1960’s. He invested $100 million of his own money. He was a genius inventor with almost no formal education. Let’s give steam another try for cars.

    • To illustrate the power of the steam engine, watch this fabulous video “The Last of the Giants” from Union Pacific Railroad:
      This is about the largest steam locomotive ever built before WWII “Big Boy” powered by a few small steam engines, direct drive, but it could pull a fully loaded train 5 1/2 miles long on level track! Many improvements have been made to steam power to make it more efficient and environmentally friendly today just as improvements were made to ICU engines. But always remember: The ICU is worthless without refined gasoline made from oil and we have used up about half the world’s oil reserves today. Steam can be produced by any fuel which can release energy even nuclear fuel. If you tried to make a nuclear ICU all you would do is melt the engine; you would get no useful energy out. It is time to give steam another try. Think of all the jobs created from this new technological effort to overturn the ICU which has caused so much death and suffering from endless wars.

  10. Well it’s official..what Trump has done is flush out more groups of fake environmental groups who care nothing about the environment. The Paris agreement is another crock of crap where the US gets to fund the filthiest polluters (China and India) who use slave labor. We get to lose more jobs more industry and more tax payers money and what do we get out of it…NOTHING! I was suspicious about this site now IAM sure it is just trash! So time to unsubscribe as I did with every NGO that emailed me writhing in disgust over Trumps FABULOUS decision…so thanks for outing yourselves as NWO or JWO (take note of the name of the (((author))) of this article) UNSUBSCRIBE!

    • The hypocrisy goes even further. The rules are such that poor countries can barely abide by them. (Except India & China, of course). Then all the rich signatories sell outdated, junk machoinery as refurbished to the poor countries, contributing to the problem 10-fold.

  11. The Germans were the good guys and the real victims in world war 2. If you don’t believe me read M S King’s “The Bad War”, read and watch Thomas Goodrich’s “Hellstorm”.

  12. Militarized geo-engineered climate control is a reality. Carbon credits are a tax paid to the KM. Pollution is bad and a couple of ppm CO2 doesn’t do squat.

  13. It is true though that the current global warming is man made. Deliberately so. First they deliberately destroyed the ozone layer over Antarctica, with the results that you get a sun burn after 10 minutes in the Australian sun, but can sunbath for hours on the equator and all you do is tan.

    When people got nervous about man made global warming, they used chemtrails and HAARP to microwave heat the atmosohere, telling governments and pilots it was about combatting global warming, when in fact it is about creating it.

    If you wonder why “deep state” is doing all of this, why they destroyed the ozone layer above Antarctica and are microwave cooking Earth? The answer is Neuschwabenland, Adolf Hitler’s impenetrable fortress in Antarctica. The Kosher Nostra is trying to complete the Hellstorm.

  14. Yes, global warming is real, but there is nothing to worry about. Ever heard of a place called Greenland? It is almost completely covered in snow and ice all year and yet the Vikings called it Greenland when they settled there 1000 years ago to grow oats, spell and rye. They were neither colour blind nor crazy, so why did they do it? Because back then the world was much warmer than it is now, due to cyclical changes to sun activity. And yet the cute little 250kg polar bears survived and the world did not flood. In other words the whole global warming hystery is totally fake. I am shocked and disappointed that VT doesn’t know.

    • They called it Greenland to trick settlers into moving there. There is a lot to worry about, the sea levels are rising and before the end of this century, many low lying areas will be underwater, which includes Trump’s Mar-A-Lago resort in Florida.

    • What is a more plausible explanation for the fact that Greenland, which even today, after decades of hysteric warnings about global warming, is still mostly covered by snow and ice all year around? That its naming was a conspiracy to trick Viking settlers into moving there? Or that it was in fact geeen and fertile back then due to much warmer weather back then?

      Personally I believe the wrong naming consoiracy theory is far less plausible. The Vikings would have killed the guy who made them go there telling him that he f*ing nuts.

    • The Vikings were a feudal society, meaning the common man lived in fealty to a lord; therefore there was no chance they would have killed their lord for sending them somewhere and lying about how pleasant it was. Unless fossil records show Greenland was once green and fertile, it’s only a theory. Things like pollen deposits trapped in layers of silt allow researchers to study the ancient climate, I am not aware of any research for Greenland, but I haven’t looked for any such research – it may exist.

    • That view is supported by the historic fact that at the settled “Greenland” the Scots were growing wine in Edinburgh. So Earth was indeed much warmer than it is now after a decade of “global warming” and us the the sweet little polar bears did no to die out and the lower lands did not get flooded. Human life as we know it did not end. False alarm!

    • Your logic is faulty. During Shakespeare’s time the Thames use to freeze solid for months – they held ice fairs on the river. Over the centuries, Earth’s climate has been through multiple warm and cold periods, probably due to variance in solar activity levels. However, this is a separate issue to whether man’s activities have caused climate change, therefore your point is invalid.

    • Ian, your and your fellow paid liar alarmists’ logic is flaud, not mine. All of this happened before the taming of the Vikings with the groveling dead Jew on a stick worship. Feudalism is a societally model that was forced on our forefathers when they were christianised ISIS style by axe and sword. Ever heard of the Verden massacre in which Charlemagne beheaded 3000 Saxon noblemen because they wanted to stay true to their ancestral Germanic religion. Their leaders would not have dared to deceice them about how cold Greenland was. Only jews would do that kind of shit. The pre-Christian Vikings would have given them the shortest hair cut of their life. And what would have been the point anyhow of making them settle a land that is mostly snow and ice all around the year?!

      What is more, there is plenty of archeologic evidence of the agricultural activities of the Viking settlers 1000 years ago. None of that type of agriculture would be possible even today, in spite of decades of fraudulent, pseudo scientist climate change paid lies hysteria. It is just too fricking cold. Greenland must have been green when the Vikings settled it, naming it Greenland.

      That leads to the following questions: if is was so much warmer back then, how did those poor polar bears survive and why didn’t the lower lands and pacific islands got flooded? It’s all just

Comments are closed.