Climate Policy Keeps Failing—So They Quietly Move the Goalposts

Substack is overflowing with climate firestorms—catastrophists predicting imminent apocalypse on one side, skeptics waving it all away on the other. [some emphasis, links added]

This essay isn’t here to join either tribe. I’m not trying to relitigate whether the mainstream climate narrative is broadly right or wrong (though, for the record, I have serious doubts about much of it).

Instead, let’s narrow the focus to something sharper—and harder to dodge:

Even if you accept the dominant climate premises and metrics at face value, the core policy claims have repeatedly failed when tested against reality. Each failure has been followed not by accountability, but by a quiet shift to new goalposts.

From Simple Physics to Moving Targets

The original pitch was clean and confident. Atmospheric CO2 was the driver of dangerous warming. Cap it, stabilize the climate. Straightforward physics. Settled science.

Soon, that expanded to “CO2 equivalents”—all greenhouse gases rolled into a single metric, requiring precise annual emissions estimates. Same logic: measure it, cap it, catastrophe averted.

Trillions of dollars were spent. Mandates piled up. “Energy transitions” were breathlessly hyped.

Yet atmospheric CO2 concentrations kept rising. Annual global CO2 equivalent emissions kept rising, too.

Reality refused to cooperate—so the targets began to shift.

When Cooling Was the Crisis

This isn’t the first time confidence outpaced evidence.

In the 1970s, major media outlets warned of imminent global cooling:

• Washington Post (1970): “Colder Winters Herald Start of New Ice Age”
• Time (1974): “Another Ice Age?”
• Newsweek (1975): “The Cooling World”

These headlines are now mocked as pseudoscience.

But a 2008 review by Peterson et al. examined 71 peer‑reviewed climate papers published between 1965 and 1979:

• Seven predicted cooling
• 20 neutral
• 44 warming

Science tilted warm; media hype diverged.

Sound familiar?

Ironclad Targets That Melted Away

The modern era followed a similar pattern of confidence—then retreat.

• 1975: The National Academy of Sciences flags CO2 warming as likely.
• 1988: IPCC forms.
• 1990: First report targets ~550 ppm CO2 (double preindustrial ~280 ppm).

That number didn’t last.

• 1990s–2000s: 550 ppm remains the benchmark
• Mid-2000s: James Hansen calls it unsafe
• 2007 (AR4): Target shifts to ~450 ppm CO2-eqivalent
• 2008: Hansen declares 350 ppm the new “safe” level

350 ppm rapidly became activist dogma, popularized by 350.org:

“To preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed… CO2 must return to at most 350 ppm.”

This was presented not as a value judgment, but as hard physics.

The Metric That Wouldn’t Behave

Preindustrial CO2 was about 277 ppm.

Today, measured at Mauna Loa, atmospheric CO2 stands at roughly 427 ppm.

Despite decades of policy, subsidies, and sacrifice, there is no visible inflection point in the post‑2000 data, below in Figure 3. The curve marches upward, indifferent to our intentions.

Ask climate advocates today what the new “safe” concentration is, and you’ll rarely get an answer. The old red lines have simply been abandoned.

Pivot #1: From Concentrations to Emissions

Once concentration targets were blown past, attention shifted to annual emissions. (See Figure 4 below)

But global emissions kept climbing—driven largely by developing economies. Western nations cut at enormous cost; China and India surged. The net result: new records.

Strike two.

Pivot #2: From Hard Data to Temperature Models

Around 2010, the framework shifted again—this time to temperature goals:

• 2°C
• then 1.5°C
• then “net zero by 2050”

Temperatures are politically convenient. They bundle all forcings into one number and rely heavily on models, adjustments, and projections.

Reported global average temperature increase since the late 19th century now sits around 1.6°C (Figure 5 below)—with intense debate over tenths of a degree, while earlier benchmarks quietly disappear.

Even prominent insiders are hedging.

Ahead of COP30, Bill Gates remarked that climate change is not an existential threat—and that human well-being should take precedence over obsessing about fractional degrees.

Victory Laps on Forecasts, Not Reality

Ahead of COP30, Gates also offered a revealing example of the new logic:

Ten years ago, the IEA predicted that by 2040, the world would be emitting 50 billion tons of carbon dioxide every year. Now, just a decade later, the IEA’s forecast has dropped to 30 billion, and it’s projecting that 2050 emissions will be even lower. Read that again: In the past 10 years, we’ve cut projected emissions by more than 40 percent.

[Note: Bill is referring only to energy emissions, not [total emissions], just the fossil CO2 portion in Figure 4]

We didn’t cut emissions. We cut a forecast.

UN reports increasingly celebrate “progress” not because emissions fell, but because models predict a slightly better future than older models once did.

Miss your targets? No problem—update the scenario and declare success.

Read rest at A Pragmatic Approach To Energy

“A Pragmatic Approach to Energy” is written by Kerry Clapp, a retired mechanical engineer with 40 years of energy industry experience, focused on emerging developments. If you enjoyed what you have read here, please subscribe and support the work that goes into it.