Liberals Are More Upset About Paris Climate Agreement Than London Terrorist Attack [Opinion]

Just a cursory glance at Twitter over the past week reveals a disturbing trend. While one would expect the responses to the London terrorist attack to be the most passionate, the reactions, at least from many on the political left, pale in comparison to the histrionics on display after President Donald Trump committed the ultimate sin of pulling the United States out of the so-called Paris climate agreement, a $3 billion per year commitment that doesn’t even hold major polluters China and India to a meaningful standard, according to the Daily Wire.

Many of those who went absolutely bonkers over the U.S. leader’s decision to pull out of the Paris Climate Accord claim that this action will be the cause of mass death and destruction in the future. But when death and destruction occur as a result of terrorism in the here-and-now, this same fear mongering and outrage is nowhere to be found.

It is patently disturbing that a terrorist attack in London that kills seven people and injures nearly 50 gets a mild “#PrayForLondon” hashtag, if even that, while a change in the membership of a climate agreement that most self-important, ultra-outraged commentators haven’t even read gets treated like an apocalyptic disaster.

What could possibly explain these disproportionate reactions? Is it a mere difference in priorities or is it actually the refusal of many on the left to acknowledge the reality of the threat that radical Islamic terrorism poses to the West?

As the reactions to the London terrorist attack become more and more bizarre, it becomes clear that the latter explanation is the more likely.

Liberal Reactions To Paris Climate Accord

I’d like to start out by revealing that I am an environmentalist. I think that keeping our air, water, and food free of pollution and contaminants is of utmost importance. As an environmentalist, nothing makes me angrier than governments or corporations using environmentalism as a prop to get people to agree to or approve of oppressive or harmful policies. In my opinion, the Paris Climate Accord is one such example. Unfortunately, many environmentalists are just conformists of a different color and do not have the same skeptical outlook as myself.

Unfortunately, the fact that the Paris climate agreement doesn’t actually do much beyond crippling the U.S. economy didn’t stop purportedly environmentalist liberals from bemoaning President Trump’s exit. The little blue check mark club on Twitter wasted no time calling the president a “traitor,” as well as claiming that he is abdicating his position as a world leader, according to the Free Beacon. This particular criticism is surprising, considering that many of the people who are saying it did not want Trump to be a world leader at all. While tweets from fuming individuals are an eyeful, a melodramatic headline from Huffington Post takes the cake: “Trump To Planet: Drop Dead.”

If the Paris Climate Accord actually did anything to fight pollution, some outrage from environmentalists would be appropriate. But according to the leader of the Copenhagen Consensus Center, Bjorn Lomborg, the accord would only result in a temperature decrease of 0.17°C by 2100, assuming all of the promised cuts in the agreement are implemented, reports the Daily Wire.

The reactions from liberal and Democrat politicians followed the same alarmist tone as professional commentators and casual Twitter users. In a tweet, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi called the president’s withdrawal from the agreement “a grave threat to our planet,” while Democratic party chair Tom Perez tweeted that the decision was “a gross abdication of American leadership.”

Trump supporters hold up signs celebrating President Trump's withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord at a Pittsburgh not Paris rally

Liberal Reactions To London Terrorist Attack

We’ve examined the liberal reaction to an international agreement that does little to actually help the environment. Now, let’s examine the reaction to the real tragedy.

Many of the politicians who so vociferously denigrated President Trump over his decision to exit the Paris climate agreement had nothing to say about the London terrorist attack that left seven people dead and scores injured.

Others had a message of “carry on,” which seems at first glance to be inspirational, but at second glance to be an empty platitude that excuses inaction. One Twitter user, who is especially characteristic of the general response, says she refuses to live her life in fear. But shouldn’t one be afraid of terrorist attacks, especially as they have become so common? Maybe instead of hoping for the best, she should be contacting her lawmakers with ideas for making her home safer from future terrorist incidents. She also says that “we cannot let hate divide us.” What does this mean? Why are angry reactions to terrorism always classified as “hate”?

Having a reaction of anger towards someone who attacks you is normal, rational, and necessary for further survival. While this anger should not be used in a civil society to incite violence or vigilantism, it should be used to fuel political activism and meaningful work towards policies that would prevent future tragedies from occurring.

It is not a coincidence that Poland, a country that the Independent reports is refusing to take refugees, has had virtually zero terrorist attacks since 1970, while other countries in Europe that have taken in massive amounts of refugees have suffered many such terrorist incidents. The fact is, the combination of massive amounts of immigration from countries rife with radical Islamic terrorism and very poor vetting procedures results in more violent incidents. It’s nothing but common sense to recognize what is happening. Polish Prime Minister Beata Szydlo puts it aptly by saying the following.

“Where are you headed, Europe? Rise from your knees and from your lethargy or you will be crying over your children every day.”

Trump’s Reaction To London Terrorist Attack

President Donald Trump appears to be one of the few public voices who is not afraid to tell it like it is when it comes to European terrorist attacks. The U.S. leader has long been an outspoken critic of Europe’s open borders and mass immigration policies, recognizing the inherent threats. In a tweet on Sunday, the president identified political correctness as one of the major barriers to security.

In another tweet, President Trump called out London Mayor Sadiq Khan for stating after the terrorist attack that “there is no reason to be alarmed.” The London mayor also stated that terror attacks are “part and parcel” of living in a major city, reports the Independent. Trump was not afraid to call out the absurdity of this shockingly blase attitude towards terrorist attacks that the London mayor appears to display. Even though the president got lambasted in the press for his direct comment on Khan’s attitude, many Americans rejoiced that their leader was one of the few voices in the West who was actually taking a stand on an issue about which most of Europe has miserably failed to address.


Liberals who purport to value life and avoid massive amounts of destruction should be focusing less on the looming specter of climate change and more on the very real, very present, and very destructive force of mass immigration and radical Islamic terrorism. It is not necessary to philosophize about the nature of Islam or the prevalence of radicalism in the Islamic community to recognize the threat that open borders and mass immigration pose to the West. The numbers speak for themselves. If all of the rage, activism, and political participation that was inspired by President Trump’s decision to exit the Paris climate agreement was channeled towards stopping terrorist attacks in London and elsewhere, further tragedies could be prevented.

[Featured Image by Jeff J Mitchell/Getty Images]