The Non-Binding Paris Deal And Its Implications

hansenThe real battle about the implications of the Paris climate agreement has just begun. The fuzzy and essentially aspirational deal suits most governments and allows them to declare a victory. Its woolly and non-committal form, however, poses a serious challenge to the EU’s and Britain’s climate policy framework. The Government has been clear that the UK may revise the fourth carbon budget in light of developments in the EU. If member states refuse to turn the 2030 pledge into nationally binding targets, we can expect Mr Osborne to finally achieve what he has been trying for years: to revise the UK’s 2025 target to more modest commitments. –Benny Peiser, The Daily Telegraph, 14 December 2015

It’s is a fraud really, a fake. It’s just bullshit for them to say: ‘We’ll have a 2C warming target and then try to do a little better every five years.’ It’s just worthless words. There is no action, just promises. As long as fossil fuels appear to be the cheapest fuels out there, they will be continued to be burned. –James Hansen, The Guardian, 12 December 2015

At the Paris climate conference, China has won praise for pledging to stop the growth of its greenhouse gas emissions by 2030, largely by reducing its use of coal. But these reductions are being undercut as Chinese state-owned companies, backed by state loans, build coal-fired power plants across the developing world despite concerns about global warming and air pollution. Once complete, the 92 projects will have a combined capacity of 107 gigawatts, more than enough to completely offset the planned closing of coal-fired plants in the United States through 2020. Coal-fueled power plants account for 68 percent of the electrical generation capacity built by China in the rest of Asia, and that figure is set to rise. –Michael Forsythe, The New York Times, 12 December 2015

The UK’s global network of climate diplomats is facing the chop days before negotiations on a new UN deal to tackle global warming open in Paris. More than 100 posts are under threat, with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) set for 25-40% resource budget cuts by 2019-20 under a spending review due out on 25 November. “The rumours – so we have been told – are they are going to axe the climate posts once the COP [Paris climate summit] is over,” said Barry Gardiner, Labour’s shadow climate minister. –Ed King, Climate Home, 1 December 2015

The green movement hopes that [the Paris deal] mwill produce real change, but those hopes seem likely to be disappointed. Developing countries can and will excuse their inaction by pointing to the absence of that $100 billion slush fund, and, in any case, the governments of many developing country are surprisingly indifferent to the views of first-world NGO scolds. Much as the last great Malthusian panics (the population bomb and peak oil) quietly fizzled out, the panicky, Chicken Little aspects of the green movement are likely to fade over time. The economy of the future will produce more abundance and leave a smaller footprint than the economy we have today. It will be capitalism and innovation that we have to thank for that; fortunately, United Nations climate diplomacy isn’t humanity’s line of defense against eco-catastrophe. –Walter Russell Mead & Jamie Horgan, The American Interest, 13 December 2015

Trackback from your site.

Leave a comment (newest first):

Comments (8)

  • Avatar

    Ken

    |

    What disturbs me the most about this fictional claim of man made climate change is that there has never been actual debates. I know that the biased media has gone to great lengths to stifle any side contrary to the “global warming” side. Are there any reports of scientists of both sides of the issue sitting down and hashing out their views on this hypothetical fiasco?

    Reply

  • Avatar

    David Lewis

    |

    Ken, you have a good point and I think I know the answer. The scientists on the side of warming alarmism are dependant on grants from the government and environmental groups for their livelihood. Their views can not be subject to change or they would lose their funding.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    GR82DRV

    |

    True Ken. But asking a man made climate change activist to debate the science is like asking Dracula to eat garlic while facing himself in a mirror. Unlike any other field of [u]true[/u] science, climate change and all of its iterations shun debate and alternative theories with a fanatical religious zeal.

    With the kind of money that pours in from politically issued public grants, many scientists don’t even allow [u]themselves[/u] to entertain alternative thought.

    Meanwhile, university research centers remain the perfect hub for this kind of scam. No place on earth has recently focused this much effort on eliminating intellectual diversity – from science to politics. Culturally isolated and tenured faculty, already inclined to extreme leftist ideology, seem more than happy to sacrifice the integrity of their science to politics as long as their friends approve and the money keeps rolling in.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    GESchroeder

    |

    Here is a Christmas joke for all the readers: Global warming protesters are like old Christmas lights. Most of them don’t work and they’re not very bright.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Al Shelton

    |

    The allarmists claim that CO2 is causing global warming so it is up to them to provide the proof.
    So far, the only thing provided, is faulty computer models; tampered temperature data, and an empirically unproven GHG Hypothesis.
    Reliable satellite data shows no warming for nearly 19 years, despite increased levels of CO2.
    WHY??
    Because CO2 does not cause global warming
    Somebody please explain to me the following:
    How can a 400ppm in CO2 cause 1.5/2.0 C of warming?
    400ppm=1 part in 2500.
    Therefore 1 molecule of CO2 has to “trap” enough heat to heat up the other 2499 molecules of N2 and O2 1.5/2.0 C
    That is one helluva lot of heat.
    Impossible in my books.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Amber

    |

    Al Shelton as right as you are they no longer need to prove it because the fake crisis has already served it’s purpose .

    The climate scientists no longer have a role.

    Unless, in a few years a select few want to be used again to say there has been some slight moderation and temperature increases may be slowing . Just keep those hundreds of $$Billions flowing .

    I really don’t get why all the old men insiders don’t already have enough money . Maybe they are just compulsive sociopaths
    or perhaps they are paying off their last three wives . The hedge fund banks … well
    no explanation required on that group .

    Maybe all the payments are in USA dollars
    and that will help save the USA currency from it’s pending displacement .

    One thing it has nothing to do with is fear mongering about the planet having a fever .

    All those “reporters” celebrating confirms the fix was in .

    Reply

  • Avatar

    David Lewis

    |

    Al, after following the climate change issue for a long time you will find the alarmists do not consider it to be their responsibility to prove their theories. They put a theory forward and if someone disagrees, it is that person’s responsibility to disprove it. Then, once their theory is disproven, they continue to march on as if has been validated.

    Consider the polar bears. The theory was that climate change was putting them under a lot of stress. It has been proven that they are thriving. Yet, in the Paris climate change summit, polar bears were an iconic symbol.

    The UN climate models are the sole bases of this artificial crisis. Yet they are running three times hotter than observed data. Despite that, forty thousand people gathered in Paris to solve the problem that the models predict.

    Empirical data does not support the theory that carbon dioxide causes warming, or at least that it causes significant warming. Carbon dioxide levels have soured to higher levels than were the worst case predictions a few years ago. Yet we are in an eighteen year warming pause. In addition, half of the warming blamed on humans occurred between 1910 and 1941, before significant levels of green house gasses built up.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Borum

    |

    There supposedly were more than 40,000 present for the taxpayer funded no-holds-barred mega-orgy in Paris.

    I know it’s surmise, but how many of those 40,000 were drug free ?

    Reply

Leave a comment

Loading Disqus Comments ...

No Trackbacks.