And why does the answer illustrate the fallaciousness of the whole climate change movement? I’ll give you the weekend to comment on it before I pontificate.

Mongolia fetes Vladmir Putin in violation of the ICC criminal warrant (which Mongolia is a party to).

Russia Invades Ukraine

China rams Philipine fishing boats in South China Sea.

India refuses to join Western sanctions against Russia

Brazil kicks X out in a row with Musk.

I welcome your thoughts below in the comments.

Almost nobody played, but there was football. And life. And Donald Trump targeted by yet another assassination attempt.

In short, there is one common theme among all these world events: the nation in question flouting international norms or expectations, even if in some cases they agreed to the norm. The leaders of these nations are more than willing to act in their own perceived self-interest even when it brings them into various states of conflicts with others. The left has long believed that multinational elite governance can end conflict in the community of nations. After all, conflict is not inevitable, but is usually due to misunderstanding and the “rules-based international order” can successfully lead us into the future.

It is on this fallacious thinking that undergirds any possible rationale for the whole climate change agenda. As the chart above shows, the developed world of the U.S. and Europe have already peaked on emissions and are downward trending. China and India are the largest sources of new emissions going forward, along with Russia. There are many reasons given for the U.S. to continue with further draconian cuts to emissions, but the reality is nothing that the U.S. can do will affect the climate (even if you buy the whole anthropogenic story, which I don’t) and the eventual temperature rise. It is up to China and India and how they modernize to become developed nations. When confronted with these realities, I often hear explanations of fairness and the like, but supposedly our example and commitment–our leadership–is what is going to get these countries to go into our green future. Yet they never do. This naive belief that somehow other nations are going to go against their own perceived self-interest is belied by all history and daily headlines, such as my examples above. There are numerous implications for this in foreign policy which I’ll leave you Bereans to ponder, but the point for today is that the world is much closer to a Kissinger’s realpolitik view than one that cares about some abstract rules-based international order, and we need a foreign (and climate) policy that recognizes this.