How the Paris Climate Accord will hurt developing nations

For the past 38 years, satellites have continually tracked global temperatures. And what they’ve recorded in that time is a temperature increase averaging 0.136 degrees Celsius per decade. That means on its current trajectory the Earth could see a potential surface temperature increase of 1.36 degrees Celsius over the entire 21st century.

Notably, the Paris Accord’s key goal is to keep “a global temperature rise this century well below two degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase even further to 1.5 degrees Celsius.”

Noting the current warming trajectory, it appears that by simply doing nothing, the world could accomplish the main goal of the Accord.

Equally significant, though, is the loss of life that would result from the Paris Accord’s full implementation. While the plan’s costs may range as high as $1 trillion annually, none of it would have any meaningful impact on the roughly three billion people in the developing world who currently have no real access to energy.

Much of the developing world still burns dung as their chief means of cooking and heating. Realistically, the most effective means of saving their lives and improving living conditions would be to provide the steady electricity generation needed for water and sewage treatment as well as lighting and cooking.

The Paris Accord, in contrast, essentially ends any chance to help them. While natural gas and coal power plants could provide reliable, affordable electricity for these populations, the Accord aims to steadily reduce fossil fuel usage.

Well-meaning bureaucrats in the United Nations readily support the distribution of solar panels and wind turbines to the developing world. But these sources of energy can hardly undertake the massive lift needed to modernize dung-burning peoples.

And so, rather than saving them, the Paris Accord would mean forfeiting the lives of hundreds of millions of people in the developing world.

It’s unfortunate that amidst the shrill debate over the agreement very little is said of the moral implications that would result from sacrificing less fortunate populations in Africa and Asia. This is all the more egregious when one considers that the current warming trend, even if it continues, appears far milder than the Paris Accord’s boosters will admit.

These are important points, however, and there should be a moral duty to examine all of the implications involved.

Trackback from your site.

Comments (10)

  • Avatar

    Amber

    |

    A potential 1.36 degree Celsius increase ? Let’s pretend that were to occur .
    Why then is there no cost benefit done? Clearly the warming will be beneficial to some areas and for some drawbacks . If mother nature happens to pull rank and change climate one way or the other what do the climate controlee’s intend to do about that ? Or is it simply climate change is OK as long as humans apparently have little to do with it . CO2 has moved naturally within a range of hundreds of percent change
    without human influences and humans are powerless to set the sun spot dial .
    The whole thing is an illogical joke except that it has damaged science credibility and robbed tax payers of $trillions .
    President Trump was one of the first world leaders to put on their big boy pants
    and call BS on the largest overblown fraud in history .

    Reply

  • Avatar

    G

    |

    In a backhanded way, this article confirms what most people already know. Although ultimately redistribution of world wealth is fraudulently called for as the “solution” to man-made climate change, nobody really believes than any of those trillions of dollars in transfer payments would actually serve to benefit the poor in the first place.

    It’s the same old story of socialism. Promises of “social justice” while government sets itself up as the ultimate middle man. Meanwhile, little or nothing goes to the designated recipients. Real producers of goods and value are driven out of business while a privileged few gain wealth and power.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Sonnyhill

      |

      G, you’re educated and up on things. Ever heard the phrase “bass ackwards” ? I’m sharing.
      If the UN truly cared about the 3rd World, they’d sponsor some strategic drilling rigs. Use the energy to power some water pumps where it’s needed. The rest will fall into place.

      Reply

  • Avatar

    Spurwing Plover

    |

    The entire enviromental movments based upon a rediculous ideology which in turn is based upona idiotic notion the humanity is a great threat to the planet and all humans must go extincted i would prefer to have all eco-wackos be marooned in the amazon jungle lets see how long they would last

    Reply

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    CORRECTION

    The temperature change due to ” greenhouse gases ” will be

    ZERO per year
    ZERO per decade
    ZERO per century
    ZERO per millennium

    There is no such thing as a greenhouse gas as defined by the extremist left alarmists.

    I wish all of you would
    STOP
    buying into their farcical lie.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Trumpanzee

      |

      Speaking of farcical JayPee, is this be the year that you to present your evidence for the Albedo Global Warming Theory?

      Reply

      • Avatar

        JayPee

        |

        Andrzejewski
        You are fooling nobody
        I refuse to respond to a lying mental midget
        who has miniscule reading comprehension

        Reply

  • Avatar

    Darrell

    |

    Climate change is real, global manmade climate change unmeasureable.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Amber

    |

    Darrell , Yep that pretty much sums it up . A nothing burger … well except for the $Trillions being robbed of tax payer money . A complete con job .

    Reply

Leave a comment