Opinion by Anthony Watts
A final draft of the Paris climate agreement has emerged after days – and years – of negotiation. Laurent Fabius, the president of COP21, called the final draft text “differentiated, fair, dynamic, durable, balanced and legally binding.” French President Francoise Hollande urged leaders to accept the text, calling this an “historic day for mankind”. and adding “This would be a major leap for mankind.” Apparently, it’s a bigger moment for him that the moon landing in 1969, which was “That’s one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind.” Of course, I’m not allowed to quote that, because Professor Lewandowsky thinks I think the moon landing was “faked”.
Climate delegates in the hall reportedly were breaking out in applause and standing ovations. I haven’t bothered to look for the predictable videos.
The final draft says countries will aim “to achieve a balance between anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of greenhouse gases in the second half of this century”.
Right, I don’t think anyone will ever remember this agreement 100 years from now, we have bigger problems. The final draft will be brought up for discussion and a vote during a session starting at 3:45 p.m. Paris time.
If adopted, the agreement would constitute the first “universal climate agreement in history”, which sounds better than “galactic climate agreement” I suppose, probably because every time I hear the word “galactic” I think of that line from a Few Good Men, where Tom Cruise delivers a rant that seems apropos here:
Thank you for playing “should or should we not, follow the advice of the galactically stupid!
Even Dr. James Hansen, the “father of global warming” has picked up on the stupidity of the whole thing:
“It’s a fraud really, a fake,” he says, rubbing his head. “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.”
Yep, it’s all just empty promises and speculation, even their wording pays homage to the RCP (Representative Concentration Pathway) models: (bold mine)
Emphasizing with serious concern the urgent need to address the significant gap between the aggregate effect of Parties’ mitigation pledges in terms of global annual emissions of greenhouse gases by 2020 and aggregate emission pathways consistent with holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2 °C above preindustrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 °C,
…
Article 2 1. This Agreement, in enhancing the implementation of the Convention, including its objective, aims to strengthen the global response to the threat of climate change, in the context of sustainable development and efforts to eradicate poverty, including by: (a) Holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels, recognizing that this would significantly reduce the risks and impacts of climate change
Oh, but wait, we may not make it, so let’s express some concern about it:
Notes with concern that the estimated aggregate greenhouse gas emission levels in 2025 and 2030 resulting from the intended nationally determined contributions do not fall within least-cost 2 ˚C scenarios but rather lead to a projected level of 55 gigatonnes in 2030, and also notes that much greater emission reduction efforts will be required than those associated with the intended nationally determined contributions in order to hold the increase in the global average temperature to below 2 ˚C above pre-industrial levels by reducing emissions to 40 gigatonnes or to 1.5 ˚C above pre-industrial levels by reducing to a level to be identified in the special report referred to in paragraph 21 below;
It will be interesting to see how this upcoming vote goes and who comes to their senses and says “no” to this toothless agreement that will accomplish nothing other than lining the pockets of some corrupt third-world regimes, likely resulting in the death’s and suffering of thousands that a little bit of warming could not accomplish on its own.
Oh, but let’s not dwell on negatives; there’s lots of patting themselves on the back going on right now, via the Guardian, some quotes from the parasitic rent seeking organizations NGO’s that attended:
Avaaz
“a turning point in history, paving the way for the shift to 100% clean energy that the world wants and the planet needs”
WWF UK
“We have a clear vision in the strong long term goal; mechanisms to address the gap between that aspiration and the countries’ current commitments; and the foundations for financing the transition to a low-carbon future.”
Greenpeace
“The wheel of climate action turns slowly, but in Paris it has turned. This deal puts the fossil fuel industry on the wrong side of history. There’s much in the text that has been diluted and polluted by the people who despoil our planet, but it contains a new imperative to limit temperature rises to 1.5C.”
350.org
“This marks the end of the era of fossil fuels. There is no way to meet the targets laid out in this agreement without keeping coal, oil and gas in the ground.”
Oxfam
“This deal offers a frayed life-line to the world’s poorest and most vulnerable people. Only the vague promise of a new future climate funding target has been made, while the deal does not force countries to cut emissions fast enough to forestall a climate change catastrophe.”
EDF (Environmental Defense Fund)
The agreement will send a powerful, immediate signal to global markets that the clean energy future is open for business. It makes a moral call for dramatic action that leaves no one behind, and it moves us closer to the crucial turning point when global carbon emissions, which have been rising for more than two centuries, finally begin to decline.”
Christian Aid
“This is a historic agreement and the culmination of a path the world set out on four years ago.”
Cafod, Catholic aid agency
“For poor people living on the frontline of climate change this deal offers hope for a brighter future, but not yet the security that we’ll get there quick enough.”
E3G, thinktank
“The transition to a low carbon economy is now unstoppable, ensuring the end of the fossil fuel age.”
ActionAid
“what we have been presented with doesn’t go far enough to improve the fragile existence of millions around the world”
Here is the full text of the draft agreement via the UNFCC website: http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/cop21/eng/l09.pdf
Don’t let anyone tell you this isn’t about wealth redistribution, and these two paragraphs clearly show, it’s nothing more than a handout from rich to poor which will probably end up getting diverted and used for anything but the intended emissions reductions, especially in corrupt regimes of Africa
53. Decides that, in the implementation of the Agreement, financial resources provided to developing countries should enhance the implementation of their policies, strategies, regulations and action plans and their climate change actions with respect to both mitigation and adaptation to contribute to the achievement of the purpose of the Agreement as defined in Article 2;
54. Further decides that, in accordance with Article 9, paragraph 3, of the Agreement, developed countries intend to continue their existing collective mobilization goal through 2025 in the context of meaningful mitigation actions and transparency on implementation; prior to 2025 the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement shall set a new collective quantified goal from a floor of USD 100 billion per year, taking into account the needs and priorities of developing countries;
And the one year “out” clause, which I suspect will reach nearly 100% participation in a decade or so.
Article 28
1. At any time after three years from the date on which this Agreement has entered into force for a Party, that Party may withdraw from this Agreement by giving written notification to the Depositary.
2. Any such withdrawal shall take effect upon expiry of one year from the date of receipt by the Depositary of the notification of withdrawal, or on such later date as may be specified in the notification of withdrawal.
3. Any Party that withdraws from the Convention shall be considered as also having withdrawn from this Agreement.
Note: shortly after publication, some punctuation and spelling errors were corrected, along with adding some clarifying text to the paragraph on RCP models.
Since it got the ‘legally binding’ clause, this means congress has to approve it for he US, correct?
Obama will pretend otherwise.
Legally bound to be not legally binding. Phew.
So will Congress . . . .
Fortunately for us there is an election in 2016. This tremendous financial obligation to cure planetary lycanthropy is great ammunition to persuade the reasonable swing voter to vote for not-Hillary.
The real monster looming is our monetary bubble, and that is scary. http://www.usdebtclock.org/
Congress is supposed to have to declare any war that the US gets into. They have not done that since 1942 for WWII. Does that mean we have not fought in any wars since then? Hmmmm?
http://time.com/3399479/war-powers-bush-obama/
Then there is the whole “war on some drugs” thing. We had to change the constitution to outlaw alcohol (demon rum!), but the government thumbed its nose at the constitution when it when after other drugs. Many lives ruined over the unconstitutional outlawing of people smoking a little weed or whatever.
So, does “legally binding” really mean Obomber (in the urban dictionary for his use of drones in illegal wars) will need congress? Your guess as good as mine.
“They have not done that since 1942 for WWII. ”
That is not true. Congress authorized the 1990 Gulf War, and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
“That is not true. Congress authorized the 1990 Gulf War, and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.”
They did not declare war as the constitution requires. I don’t care if they passed some bill and delivered it with cookies and milk to the while house. The constitution demands that war be declared. But as one president is supposed to have said, “the constitution is just a god damn scrape of paper”.
Invading a sovereign nation is clearly an act of war. Therefore, an authorization to invade, IS a declaration of war. Just because they pussy-foot around and don’t use the word WAR, doesn’t mean they haven’t declared war. Congress likes to hide behind meaningless words.
G. H. W Bush had Congressional approval in Iraq. G. W. Bush made his case before Congress and obtained approval for action in both Afghanistan and Iraq. The absence of the words “declaration of war” is irrelevant. The Congressional oversight the Constitution demands was satisfied.
Sorry, but I thought that The USA declared war on Japan on 8 December 1941 shortly after Pearl Harbor.
Some here seem to not care if congress and the president conduct murderous actions overseas without the formal declaration of war required by the constitution. Some have wrote that any authorization of force is “good enough”. That sort of thinking is how we got involved around the globe in all manner of conflicts and “regime changes” — most of which we started. The quote below and the article it came from just happens to agree with my understanding and I don’t necessarily agree with everything the man writes. I also can say that I don’t recall ever running across a classical liberal (libertarian in modern speak) who would agree that any old bill out of congress is “good enough”, nor did any member of the “old right”.
The entire article is well worth your time to read, especially the part where the State went to war in Korea without the guts to declare war. (and sent my dad there to be a medic which is the only position on the battlefield where the man is unarmed as the enemy shoots at him)
No disrespect to those with other views but I agree with markstoval. The authorization to invade is not a declaration of war. It is as others have said “pussy footing” around it. The WWII was clearly a declaration of war. Everything since has not been.
That being said Mark and I are wrong according to the courts.
In the courts, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, in Doe v. Bush, said: “[T]he text of the October Resolution itself spells out justifications for a war and frames itself as an ‘authorization’ of such a war.”[1] in effect saying an authorization suffices for declaration and what some may view as a formal Congressional “Declaration of War” was not required by the Constitution.
Agreements don’t require Congressional approval, only treaties. Hence, the lack of Congressional approval for free trade agreements.
That is also not true. Agreements between sovereigns that import legal obligations on them are called treaties. All treaties are agreements. Not all agreements are legally binding. Not all agreements are among sovereign nations.
No necessarily. Have a look at this……..
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/12/obama_will_use_tpp_to_enforce_his_climate_agreement.html
Not necessarily, dang text to speech autocorrect!
yup, scary, and with real world problems, this is simply disgusting`
Congress will retaliate with a modern version of Smoot-Hawley, then it’s off to the races.
A bit like being married then going through a no fault divorce. No strings.
You jest, of course.
“… likely resulting in the death’s …”
That’s “deaths” if you please, editor.
Well, it doesn’t actually commit anyone to do anything other than ‘set ambitious goals’. Well, it actually does do one concrete thing. It creates yet another huge bureaucracy to collect and ‘manage’ all of the ‘ambitious goals’ every 5 years and generate thousands of reports.
I forgot to say “generate thousands of reports that no one will actually read’.
Now the 40,000 can happily jet back home and giggle about the huge carbon footprint they have created by travelling that way.
Except the European locals who must be suffering Carbon Footprint envy. 🙂
Not to say £150.000.000 lighter for dubious privilege of hosting the jamboree.
Shepherd, there was actually a kiosk at the conference where the 40,000 could pay penance for their sins…
http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2015/12/10/459223558/how-to-stay-carbon-neutral-when-getting-to-paris-is-carbon-costly
But the author said that most attending the conference didn’t pay up, lol.
I wonder what the guy sponsoring the carbon pennance booth had to pay to set up there? I went to the site Climate Neutral Now and it appears to be a massive scam. You donate money for projects because, presumably, you feel guilty for killing the Earth. You pay money, I’m guessing, to fund a clean energy project in another country, but in the end, don’t end up with any ownership in the project or its future earnings. I’m guessing that the “owners” of those projects will be charging market rates for the electricity those projects produce, and they’ll pocket the profits…
I’ve seen Nigerian phishing emails that were more convincing.
Reading this ‘agreement’ I was reminded of the scene in “Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy” with the bureaucrats meeting and making an agreement to save the planet from a meteor hit.
Thanks for the update on the back slapping and whining about supposed deficiencies but…
How much will this nonsense cost the average bloke?
On the books direct cost, or off the books indirect costs through crashing what’s left of the economy?
CBC News/ Calgary, Dec.7, 2015
‘Suicide rate in Alberta climbs 30% in wake of mass oil-patch layoffs’
Similar to the Detroit area situation c.2009 when the auto layoffs took place.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/suicide-rate-alberta-increase-layoffs-1.3353662
Maybe some of the NGO groups have something to be proud of? (sarc-off)
This video clip pretty much highlights how the IPCC and the AGW movement are really anti-capitalist movements. It is all politics and no science.
https://youtu.be/QowL2BiGK7o?t=49m20s
Excellent video …..thank-you
Oddly enough I find the comments from Cafod (Catholic Agency For Overseas Development) the most incongruous of the whole thing. Cafod is a charity devoted to improving conditions for people in underdeveloped countries and they think it’s a good idea to permanently keep them all in dire energy poverty. And just in case that wasn’t enough to starve whatever crops they can manage to grow of co2 thus ensuring famine and disease. Oh, and better ban condoms while they’re about it to ensure the efficient spread of dangerous STDs. You simply couldn’t make this stuff up.
As a Catholic I almost totally agree. Unfortunately CAFOD is run by people who seem to be more concerned about being in the same team as all the other aid agencies than they are in reducing world poverty. Even more unfortunately they have the clear backing of the Pope. Many of his announcements are masterpieces in ambiguity but on this one he is absolutely clear. And the Catholic Church will be paying the price long after Francis is a footnote in history.
The bit were I disagree is in the silly comment about condoms.
+1
You certainly must mean that “dire energy poverty” equals “dire poverty”.
If it meant that I did not have to listen to the BBC pontification about Co2 for the rest of my life I would willingly advocate a complete ban of fossil fuels because then these jumped up fallacious half wits would be denied the ability to transit the planet to persuade us that we should not have that ability.
And if our industry gets completely broken in the process then exactly how are we supposed to earn the money to give away.
As one – probably the only one – journalist with a brain said that if these people had an fewer brain cells they would need watering twice a day.
Exactly how dies electricity from a wind turbine translate into energy to find iron ore extract it move it to a port and load it on board a 380,000 ton ore oil carrier and provide the energy to move it across the oceans when iron ore can be turned into steel for the manufacture of wind turbine towers.
It really does prove beyond all reasonable doubt that you don’t need a brain to make money or become a rent seeking donation reliable imbecile in urgent need of treatment like getting banged up in a padded cell with the only relief offered being Al Gore’s film inconvenient truth being played 24/7 to reconfirm your beliefs so that you can die in peace.
David: Re your question about creating and erecting wind towers. The answer is obvious. You extract the iron ore manually using picks and shovels (thereby creating employment). You transport it to port using a horse and a wagon (more employment, with a side order of manure for fertilizer to enhance food production the old fashioned way). Once onboard ship, you use sails – no problem, it was done in the past. As for manufacturing the steel, you use a hand operated bellows (a big one) generating yet more job opportunities. It’s simple, really. Ask any greenie.
Well, the Brits did run a world empire with no machines at all. Everyone loves the memory of those days, right?
David, well said
David Wells,
I once heard someone being told “If brains were mountains you would be a quarry.”
I like your watering idea better.
I see that the goal seems to have shifted from limiting to 2C warming to limiting to 1.5C warming.
These people are so full of themselves, I;m surprised they didn’t try for a negative number.
“..try for a negative number”. Maybe that is coming. But not by their hand.
What bothers me is that since the whole cagw thing is a fallacy, the temperature targets will be easily achieved regardless of whatever ibecilic rules get enforced and they’ll claim that their intervention worked and use that to increase their power to cause more problems in the future. I think it was quite astute of them to change the meme from CO2 is bad to a temperature limit which allows them to impose anything they like in the name of temperature reduction.
“Holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels, recognizing that this would significantly reduce the risks and impacts of climate change”
==========================================================================
Oh oh, how do we tell them they are already to late? According to the new pause denier surface record, we are already at 1.9 degrees. Doomed again.
It will accomplish one thing, it will provide justification for increasing or adding taxes in the name of going ‘green’ while maintaining a clear conscience (or is that con-science?). Yes, I am looking at you Mr Trudeau.
Our planets first universal Orwellian nightmare where trillions are spent to fix a none problem and then in 25 years with no warming success is declared by all
vested parties.
I suddenly feel a warm glow knowing the planet has been saved……….No…wait…..that was my gas fired central heating coming on.
Pardon me if I don’t bother reading the
text daftdraft agreement, as my tolerance for bafflegab, double-speak, and other forms of perfidy, all as attempts of both wealth-transfer and jumping off economic cliffs for no reason is somewhat low.Successful conferences generate unanimous resolutions. And the purpose of government Is the production of regulations. Both self congratulate themselves on their successful functioning with the awed approval of the popular press.
All that fabulous French haute cuisine and fine wine was well deserved. Then those VIP’s had to blast through the stratosphere in their private jets to return more quickly to their valuable work.
I suddenly feel a warm glow knowing the planet has been saved……….No…wait…..that was my gas fired central heating coming on.
I demand my extra two degrees NOW!
Ivor: TWO?? I wanted three…..Singing the anthem for future COPs (hope this works….)
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6fVDAjs9f0&w=640&h=360%5D
Lip syncing is never impressive !! Now, those legs…that’s impressive !!!!
Could be worse…..I just turned 69, have been in this house–same age as me—with a modern gas furnace (2010 Goodman) installed in the place of the old wood/coal still lurking in the corner for a year now. My house inspector for Rural Development looked at the furnace in Aug and decided the fact that it was installed to blow heat thru the two cold air returns a non-essential fact that could and was omitted from his report. Other than a visit from HVAC company out of town to tell me it was backward no one seems concerned. Realtors pooh-poohed my concerns, RD says sell, and I am compos mentos enough to know a law suit would generate laughs up to the day of foreclosure emergence when all legal data is wiped out.
My best guess is that the basement conditions were well known—high humidity, single pane basement windows, uninsulated concrete walls, uninsulated metal ductwork which all combined to cool the heat traversing the ceiling ductwork so that when it emerged from the ducts a foot high on the outside walls it was cool. Uselessly cool. So the furnace was set reversed to blow thru the close to furnace cold return duct and be drawn across the floor to the outer wall duct opening. But it was substituting one problem for another because this created such a strong draw that the air rushed across the floor cooling itself. And the furnace cool-down left the hall cool.
Guess what I did? I plugged the air opening in my small den where I basically lived last winter. Hoping to have a warmer house this winter, I plugged two more. Silly me. I woke up for my nightime wee and threw up several times between which I opened the bathroom window and lay on the floor. Still no HVAC people would respond to my call for repairs so I assume it was carbon monoxide from poor combustion–not enough air? I am using electric heaters with the circuit breaker for the furnace turned off and Thank Goodnessing the El Nino event.
[Yes, get it fixed. Immediately. .mod]
There is the ancient curse: ‘May your wishes come true.’ The global warmists want it colder. I fear they will get their wish sooner than they realize.
Yes. My response to any Canadian idiot Politician prattling on about carbon emissions is to ask them: “How much colder do you want to make Canada?”
My question would be: “how much personal income will you, yourself, derive from any Carbon tax or trading or offset scheme?” We keep forgetting to follow the money…
To quote a line from another Tom Cruise movie, “Risky Business”
“It’s all bull$hit Joel. I’m surprised you listened to me at all”
The “One year” opt out is actually 4 years. The option to opt out does not exist for three years. After three years a notification can be made of intent to opt out. The opt out process takes an additional year to finalize. Countries accepting the agreement are thus locked in for 4 years,
That is how I read it too!
Somebody has to say it…The “opt out” is actually a “COP out.”
Which is one year less than the five years of secrecy imposed on the TPP, TTIP, ETC treaties..
President Cruz, or Trump or Rubio can cancel it at any time unless the Senate ratifies it as a treaty, which they won’t do.
Still waiting for a good set of studies showing where the climate trend is in relation to the optimum for our biosphere and especially for food crops. Although Canadian farms report they can raise grain crops at 60 degrees north, any cooling moves that line south and every km it moves takes tens of thousands of hectares out of production. The climate madness also induces governments to mandate or subsidze biofuels that have the effect of making food crops compete against crude oil though cost and substitution linkage. This is sooo foolish.
There is only a narrow band across Canada where food can be grown and the kinds of food crops grown depends on the temperature ranges within this narrow band.
The one-year opt-out clause is identical (up to minor words) to the corresponding clause in the original 1992 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change – which, by the way, is interesting to compare.
Thanks Steve, you are always a font of useful information
So….if you withdraw from the Convention, then you are deemed to have withdrawn from the agreement.
But… just like the Agreement, you can’t withdraw for three years after signing, and then with one year notice
Except…. most countries at this meeting have ALREADY been in the Convention for three years
So…depending on how you want to read it, it seems to me that anyone who has been in the Convention for at least three years could get out of both the Convention and the Agreement with only one year notice?
David, it’s more simple than that…
…just stop doing it at any time
There’s no penalty.
well ok…maybe a sternly worded letter
Without substantive involvement of the US, there is no agreement. And without congressional approval, there will be no substantive involvement of the US. So, unless the GOP blows it in November, this is merely a $1B-expensive Photo Op. It’s real purpose is to keep the valve open – for much more of the same.
The GOP has about 10 months to solidify its case.
And without China and India cutting the rate of growth of their emissions there will be no slowdown in the release of human CO2 into the atmosphere. Good thing too because plants are doing great all over the world.
James Hansen must have a very short memory, be unreasonably or obsessively anxious and have a totally unrealistic belief in own capabilities:
1988 Rob Reiss asked official Climate Scientist Dr. James Hansen how the greenhouse effect was likely to affect the neighborhood below Hansen’s office in NYC in the next 20 years, whereupon Climate scientist James Hansen issues this prediction, to be fullfilled in 20 years, which is to say, doom by 2008:
“The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water. And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. And the same birds won’t be there. The trees in the median strip will change….There will be more police cars….[since] you know what happens to crime when the heat goes up.”
By such dire predictions United Nations established the heavily biased IPCC:
IPCC was heavily biased from the very beginning
By such dire predictions United Nations departed from it´s charter and started it´s war on skepticism:
United Nations was supposed to solve problems of an international cultural character – not to become one!
I think it is time again to be reminded about the key to science. Enjoy this 1 minute clip with Feynman:
https://youtu.be/b240PGCMwV0
That is a great clip. No BS just straight factual info
are we now going to borrow money from China to pay subsidies to China? The US and Europe are broke but the liberals/socialists have no clue what that means. Just spend the money – China will happily lend it to us and then hang us by the rope we bought with it. This is the story of the downfall of great nations, from Rome to now – rotting from the inside.
The liberals/ socialists (i.e. fascists) will simply print more money to hand out, thus devaluing the currency further and making it ever hard for those who are working to bring good food to their tables. The only good thing here is what happens when it all falls apart. They will be suffering with everybody else, except they will be clueless. May they all starve to death (my fantasy for Arnold Schwarzenneger). Of course, they would probably be blaming it all on global warming, or Bush, or anybody but themselves with dying breath.
“Climate delegates in the hall reportedly were breaking out in applause and standing ovations.”
Self-congratulation, high fives and victory laps for all government-funded Parisites involved in the accomplishment of nothing other than spending billions of taxpayer dollars.
Still waiting for the agreement to put clown noses on windmills.