Climate Negotiators Give Up On Enforceable Paris Deal

Newsbytes from The GWPF:

UN Climate Summit May Fail If Developed Nations Don’t Deliver, India Warns

For all their efforts to get 200 governments to commit to the toughest possible cuts in greenhouse gas emissions, climate negotiators have all but given up on creating a way to penalise those who fall short. The overwhelming view of member states, says Christiana Figueres, head of the U.N. Climate Change Secretariat, is that any agreement “has to be much more collaborative than punitive” – if it is to happen at all. To critics, the absence of a legal stick to enforce compliance is a deep – if not fatal – flaw in the Paris process, especially after all countries agreed in 2011 that an agreement would have some form of “legal force”. —EurActiv, 12 October 2015

More…

1) Climate Negotiators Give Up On Enforceable Paris Deal
EurActiv, 12 October 2015
For all their efforts to get 200 governments to commit to the toughest possible cuts in greenhouse gas emissions, climate negotiators have all but given up on creating a way to penalise those who fall short.
The overwhelming view of member states, says Christiana Figueres, head of the U.N. Climate Change Secretariat, is that any agreement “has to be much more collaborative than punitive” – if it is to happen at all.
“Even if you do have a punitive system, that doesn’t guarantee that it is going to be imposed or would lead to any better action,” Figueres said.
To critics, the absence of a legal stick to enforce compliance is a deep – if not fatal – flaw in the Paris process, especially after all countries agreed in 2011 that an agreement would have some form of “legal force”.
They warn that a deal already built upon sometimes vague promises from member states could end up as a toothless addition to the stack of more than 500 global and regional environmental treaties, while the rise in global temperatures mounts inexorably past a U.N. ceiling of 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 Fahrenheit), with the prospect of ever more floods, droughts and heatwaves.

International climate court?
That fear finds its sharpest expression in a proposal from Bolivia’s socialist government for an International Climate Justice Tribunal with powers to penalise countries that break commitments.
Diego Pacheco, Bolivia’s chief negotiator, said anything less would be “dangerous to Mother Earth”.
But the idea is a non-starter with almost every other country going to the Paris talks, from Nov. 30-Dec. 11.
Even the European Union, which has long argued for a strong, legally binding deal, is increasingly talking about a “pledge and review” system under which national commitments would be re-assessed every five years against a goal of halving world emissions by 2050.
Elina Bardram, head of the European Commission delegation, insisted that strong compliance mechanisms were vital. “Weak rules would undermine the whole structure,” she said.
However, many developing nations oppose reviews of their goals, wanting oversight to be limited to the rich.
Nick Mabey, chief executive of the E3G think-tank in London, says a Paris deal is likely to be more like international agreements limiting nuclear weapons than accords under the World Trade Organization, which can impose sanctions.
A watchword of nuclear non-proliferation – “trust but verify” – could be the basis, he said.
Yvo de Boer, the United Nations’ former top climate official, said he remembers the moment when he realised that the principle of sanctioning countries for non-compliance was dead.
In 2001, as a senior member of the Dutch delegation, de Boer attended a closed-door meeting of environment ministers in Bonn, Germany, that was designing rules to enforce the U.N.’s 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which obliged about 40 rich nations to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

Empty pact
He recalled being struck by the strength of objections, even from once-supportive countries such as Australia and Japan, to any attempt to punish those who fell short of emissions commitments.
“The agreement was to be legally binding, but it became very clear that a lot of countries didn’t want sanctions,” he said.
Despite the opposition, a sanctions regime was agreed later in 2001. It required any developed country that missed its greenhouse gas targets between 2008 and 2012 to make even deeper cuts in the future.
But even those sanctions were an empty act of bravado by rich nations angered by U.S. President George W. Bush’s decision in March 2001 to stay out of Kyoto, said Jan Pronk, a former Dutch environment minister who chaired the Bonn meeting.
“There was a political feeling that the United States cannot just kill something that is so important internationally,” Pronk recalled. But now that even the flawed Kyoto agreement had expired, he added, “sanctions don’t mean anything any more”.
He noted that Japan, Russia and Canada – which was set to break its pledge – have simply abandoned Kyoto in recent years, without suffering sanctions.
“Kyoto was the high-water mark for the idea of sanctions in climate agreements,” said Alex Hanafi of the U.S. Environmental Defense Fund.

“Race to the top”?
Both China and the United States, the two top carbon emitters crucial to any effective agreement, made clear from the start of the current negotiations they would not agree to any form of international oversight. The U.S. position instead speaks of a collective “race to the top”, in which countries push each other to see who can be the greenest.
Nor do the loose commitments being made by countries lend themselves to easy enforcement. Russia’s pledge, for example, says only that limiting emissions to somewhere between 70 and 75% of 1990 levels by 2030 “might be a long-term indicator”.
All countries agree that that the emissions curbs pledged so far are too small to get the world on track to limit warming to 2 degrees Celsius.
That means a strong mechanism will be needed for ratcheting up pledges after Paris.
Critics say that simply shaming outliers will not ensure compliance and that, unless there are costs for non-compliance, any country can share in the global benefits of reduced temperature rises while leaving the hard work of emissions cuts to others.
But Figueres, the U.N. climate chief, believes that cuts in greenhouse gases can serve countries’ economic self-interests. China, for instance, can improve the health of millions by shifting from coal-fired power plants that cause air pollution.
Full story


2) Paris Climate Summit May Fail If Developed Nations Don’t Deliver, India Warns
Press Trust of India, 9 October 2015
Unless there is credible action from the developed nations with regard to the Green Climate Fund, the Paris talks may fail.
Ahead of the crucial climate summit in Paris, India on Friday said developed nations are “historically responsible” for global warming and must do “justice” to the developing countries by delivering on the Green Climate Fund (GCF) promised by them to deal with climate change.
“Green Climate Fund is only talked about (and) not materialised. (The) Developed world has committed itself $100 billion per year by 2020. It has to be paid by the developed world to developing nations,” environment minister Prakash Javadekar told PTI here.
Javadekar said French President Francois Hollande, who will be hosting the Climate Summit in Paris, has indicated that unless there is credible action from the developed nations with regard to implementation of GCF, the Paris talks may fail.
“Therefore, we are saying that unless there is credible action … and even French Francois Hollande (the host of Paris summit) has said if there is no clear progress on Finance, Paris (talks) may fail. … He has warned,” Javadekar said.
The Green Climate Fund was set up under the framework of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in 2010 and developed countries had committed to raising $100 billion each year by 2020 to help developing countries deal with climate change.
Further, dismissing any suggestions that India is moving away from its role in protecting interests of poor and vulnerable nations in world summits, the Union minister said India is always at the forefront to ask for climate justice “which has caught up the imagination of the world, because it is a historical responsibility”.
Asked whether the bloc of newly industrialized countries – Brazil, South Africa, India and China, formed to act on climate change, is still relevant in the changing global political scenario, Javadekar replied in affirmative.
“BASIC is relevant,” he said.
“We had a very good meeting last year. I was the minister. India hosted the BASIC meeting. Then, now China is hosting. I am going there. We are part of all groupings plus some additional new friends. We have not walked out of it,” he said as the nations prepare for the Conference of Parties (COP21).
Full story


3) What Good Is an Unenforceable Climate Deal?
The American Interest, 12 October 2015
With just a little over a month and a half left to go until the world’s next big climate summit kicks off in Paris, every indication is that we won’t be getting a binding international treaty, much to the chagrin of the green movement. Reuters reports:
For all their efforts to get 200 governments to commit to the toughest possible cuts in greenhouse gas emissions, climate negotiators have all but given up on creating a way to penalize those who fall short. […] Nick Mabey, chief executive of the E3G think-tank in London, says a Paris deal is likely to be more like international agreements limiting nuclear weapons than accords under the World Trade Organization, which can impose sanctions…A watchword of nuclear non-proliferation – “trust but verify” – could be the basis, he said.
This is hardly surprising. Back in May, Christiana Figueres, the UN’s climate chief, told the world that negotiators would be concentrated on hammering out a deal focused on “enabling and facilitating” climate mitigation and adaptation policies, as opposed to (in her words) a “punitive-type” treaty. With one of the most important individuals involved in the push for a Global Climate Treaty essentially admitting defeat months ahead of time, the agreement could be worth less than the paper it will be printed on.
Figueres wasn’t wrong in attempting to deflate expectations this spring. Paris won’t produce a binding agreement and delegates won’t ultimately insist on one, because doing so would alienate important players at the negotiating table, chief among them the United States. It doesn’t seem likely that Congress would ratify any sort of internationally-enforceable deal.
That leaves us with a treaty focused more on “good vibes” than lasting policy changes, and, while that approach may be familiar to many greens, it has to be seen as a setback for a modern environmental movement that has invested so much in this quixotic GCT endeavor. The best-case scenario for Paris is the production of a kind of eco-version of the Kellogg-Briand Pact—a fact that’s long been evident but is just now starting to feel real for greens.


4) Paris Climate Summit ‘Heading For Failure’ Scientists Warn
BBC News, 12 October 2015
Rebecca Morelle
The UN climate negotiations are heading for failure and need a major redesign if they are to succeed, scientists say.
The pledges that individual countries are offering ahead of the Paris climate summit in December are too entrenched in self interest instead of being focussed on a common goal.
The researchers say the science of cooperation is being ignored.
Instead, they say the negotiations should focus on a common commitment on the global price of carbon.
This means countries would agree on a uniform charge for carbon pollution, a scheme that would encourage polluters to reduce their emissions.
The comments from researchers at the University of Cambridge, UK, University of Maryland, US, and University of Cologne, in Germany, are published in the journal Nature.
Ahead of December’s United Nations climate meeting, individual countries have submitted their plans for cutting greenhouse gas emissions. These are called Intended Nationally Determined Contributions – or INDCs.
However, the researchers say that this approach will not work.
Prof David MacKay, from the University of Cambridge, who was former chief scientific advisor to Britain’s Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC), said: “The science of cooperation predicts that if all you are doing is naming individual contributions – offers that aren’t coupled to each other – then you’ll end up with a relatively poor outcome.
“We have the history of the Kyoto agreement as an example of this. Initially, the approach was to find a common commitment, but eventually it descended into a patchwork of individual commitments… and that led to very weak commitments and several countries leaving the process.”
The Paris negotiations, he warned, were heading in the same direction.
Full story




5) IEA: Southeast Asia’s Fossil Fuel Boom To Last For Decades
International Energy Agency, 8 October 2015
The energy landscape in Southeast Asia continues to shift as rising demand, constrained domestic production and energy security concerns lead to a greater role for coal, a sharp rise in the region’s dependence on oil imports and the reversal of its role as a major gas supplier to international markets.
Embedded image permalink
“As Southeast Asia flourishes, it is moving to the centre of the global energy stage,” IEA Executive Director Fatih Birol said. “Countries in the region now have much in common with IEA members. We must all work together to build more secure and sustainable energy supplies and markets, as platforms for promoting economic development.”
The World Energy Outlook Special Report on Southeast Asia (WEO Special Report) presents a central scenario in which Southeast Asia’s energy demand increases by 80% in the period to 2040, though the region’s per-capita energy use remains well below the global average. Despite policies aimed at scaling up the deployment of renewable resources, the share of fossil fuels in the region’s energy mix increases to around 80% by 2040, in stark contrast to the declining trend seen in many parts of the world.
Rising imports sharpen the focus on the economic and security aspects of energy use. By 2040 the region’s net oil imports more than double to 6.7 mb/d, a level equivalent to the current oil imports of China. Southeast Asia’s oil import bill surges to over $300 billion per year by 2040, compared with around $120 billion in 2014, with increases in spending in almost all countries in the region.
Indonesia supports a continued expansion of Southeast Asia’s gas and coal output, but production is increasingly consumed within the region. As domestic natural gas demand outpaces indigenous production, intra-regional and intra-country trade increases, and Southeast Asia turns into a net gas importer of around 10 bcm by 2040, compared with net exports of 54 bcm in 2013.
The power sector shapes the energy outlook for Southeast Asia, as electricity demand almost triples by 2040, an increase greater than the current power output of Japan. The sector continues its shift towards coal due to its abundance and relative affordability. Although the average efficiency of Southeast Asia’s coal-fired power plant fleet increases by 5 percentage points throughout the projection period, less-efficient subcritical technologies account for 50% of the region’s coal power fleet in 2040, highlighting the need to accelerate the deployment of more efficient technologies in the region to reduce local pollution and slow the rise in CO2 emissions.
Full story

Advertisements

132 thoughts on “Climate Negotiators Give Up On Enforceable Paris Deal

  1. Met Office said that the Siberian swan has migrated to its UK winter ‘holiday resort’ 25 days to early. This apparently heralds longest and coldest winter for 50 years.

  2. Reality will win in the end. Everyone agrees that saving the world is the right thing to do but transfer of wealth? Not so much unless you’re one of the countries that is slated to be a receiver and those countries are in no position to sway public opinion. The only hope for the Warmist Cult to succeed is for China and India to join the stampede and I don’t see that ever happening despite the efforts of the MSM to spin it otherwise. This whole waste of time and money should collapse under its’ own weight but considering the financial backing and politics involved it won’t happen soon or quietly. But it will happen. Science, no matter how right or wrong, will have nothing to do with it.

  3. The sector [Southeast Asia, as electricity demand almost triples by 2040] continues its shift towards coal due to its abundance and relative affordability.

    Meanwhile: California Gov. Jerry Brown signed an ambitious bill on Wednesday to combat climate change by increasing the state’s renewable electricity use to 50 percent and doubling energy efficiency in existing buildings by 2030.

      • In California (maybe across the US), hydroelectric is not considered renewable and doesn’t count towards these mandates.

      • @James H
        October 13, 2015 at 12:42 pm

        California is one of about 31 have developed similar statements. It seems to be a state by state decision and is pushed by certain environmental groups. Federally, hydro is considered “renewable”.

        From Montana:

        “Included in the body of the bill are restrictions on the inclusion of substantial hydroelectric power production. Basically, hydropower dams generating above 10 MWh don’t count. That means that about 98.7% of all current hydroelectric power generation in the state can not be counted as a renewable energy source.”

        This is common in US States and pushed by the Sierra Club et al.

        https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20140710135110-294192772-why-hydroelectric-power-isn-t-considered-renewable

        (I think that is ludicrous, although dams do have a limited life, we are talking a hundred years. Longer than bird choppers or solar panels – 20 to 25 years.)

        http://ivn.us/2011/04/26/bizarrely-enough-hydropower-not-considered-renewable-energy-california/

        However, the US Federal Government considers hydroelectricity as renewable and so do most reasonable people in spite of the big negative effects of damming some rivers. I think most people would consider it renewable/sustainable except for certain environmental groups, but they have been able to cause the legislation noted in many US states. The world is crazy. Some folks don’t even have food and shelter. Oh well. Rant of the day.

    • Is that generated power or delivered power. We know that electricity has to be discarded during peak green power periods because fossil fuel electricity has to be generated as well during that time to cover when green power is at it’s minimum. Even natural gas power generation takes upward of an hour to come online. Therefore excess Energy has to be generated to cover variations in green power levels.

      • I believe there now exist technologies to bring generation capacity on line much more quickly than an hour, as well as methods of balancing capacity with demand that do not simply pump electrons into the ground.

      • Steve Jones (quoting a UK mpoweruk website)

        Peak Shaving

        Power plants designed to provide emergency or opportunist power are called peak shaving plants. They are mostly gas turbine plants which can be brought on stream very quickly in case of sudden unplanned demand. Large industrial energy users who buy their electricity at “spot” rates, which tend to be higher when demand is high, may choose to use their own highly efficient modern generating plant at times of high demand when spot rates exceed their own generating costs, switching back to the grid when demand and rates fall. Using distributed generation in this way can take some pressure off utility’s the peak energy demand, hence the name “peak shaving”. It essentially a way that utilities can use to reduce their supply obligations by encouraging users to invest in incremental grid capacity which will be used at a very low load factor.

        That is “sort of” true, but the gas turbines that are able to startup and shut down very quickly are the least efficient (at 40% efficiency) and are typically much smaller than the bigger, slower-to-start, combined cycle gas turbine+heat recovery steam turbine (as much as 61-63% efficiency!). If the combined cycle plants are started and stopped repeatedly, their casings, exhausts, exhaust struts and bearing struts and compressor casing begin cracking – sometimes so much that you can stand in the exhaust pipes and see enough sunlight you don’t even need a flashlight. As you scrape off rust and debris and water damage that in through the holes.

        Start-and-stop operations with the efficient units are done. Then they shut down and replace the turbine blades, liners, and burners and struts in 18 months. Rather than the 4-6 year life those high-stress items are intended to yield.

      • I believe there now exist technologies to bring generation capacity on line much more quickly than an hour, as well as methods of balancing capacity with demand that do not simply pump electrons into the ground.
        _____________________________

        Yes, in the UK it is called STOR – the Strategic Operating Reserve. But STOR is comprised of dozens of diesel generating farms, springing up all over the country. So the balancing power generation for Green Renewables, is dirty and inefficient diesel.

        And some of these diesel farms are quite large. The Neath farm alone has 52 generators producing 20MW of power. Now that really is a daft Green solution to a fantasy Green non-problem.

        http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/may/06/uk-energy-bill-subsidies-driving-boom-in-polluting-diesel-farms

        R

  4. President Obama, in his recent 60 Minutes interview, said that *real* leadership was “leading on climate change.” So if the Paris Conference doesn’t not produce a binding agreement does that mean President Obama lacks *real* leadership?

      • He will have helped secure a 1T dollar international social justice fund and institutionalized CO2 as a basis for disparate impact in the US.

        The next question becomes … can that be rolled back ?

    • Here’s the problem we face: just like the Iran deal, in which Iran will disregard and ignore anything it wants to while accepting the hundreds of $billions being handed to it by Obama, this ‘climate’ deal will be disregarded and ignored by countries like China, India, Russia, and a hundred smaller CO2-emitting countries.

      They will all pay lip service to whatever is ‘agreed’, but as usual American taxpayers will have no say whatever in this scam. In the end, only the U.S. (and some other Western countries) will pay a fortune to them, while getting nothing in return.

      This follows Obama’s M.O. of giving away taxpayers’ wealth for no good reason:

      • By regulating coal generation beyond that which can be complied with, they are effectively eliminating it from the US energy infrastructure over time.
        This has already had the effect of drastically lowering the price of coal on international markets, and bankrupting US coal companies and destroying the wealth of anyone unfortunate enough to have been invested in those companies.
        This cheap coal is now being bought [by] other countries and used to generate electricity, much of it in far dirtier plants than where in use here and in some other countries with similar policies.
        The net affect is a de facto transfer of wealth out of the US (and those others) and into the coffers of those who are increasing capacity. Not all of those who are benefitting are needful of charity and, IMO, not a single one of them deserves the charity of hard working Americans.

      • I think it’s particularly rich of India to be complaining about getting its share of the $100B/year climate fund. They could, for example, cut their space program to deal with poverty in India.

        Maybe they got their hypocrisy from the UK.

      • I think it’s even richer for third world gangster countries, who’s economies are in the tank….to milk rich countries

      • dbstealy – Yes, of course! Powerful, sovereign nations will never be bound by pieces of papers signed many years previously. Chamberlain returned from Munich in 1938, happily waving a scrap of paper which Hitler had signed without any protest : “peace for our time”. It took Hitler only one year to forget that signature. And here we are talking 35 to 85 years before promises must be fulfilled. Just how naive can you be??

  5. Thanks Mr Watts

    An excellent survey. The summation bullets

    1. The international community (UN) does not have concensus to enact binding sanctions for missed targets.
    2. The UN will continue to promote the creation of an eventual 1T fund (over the next 10 years) to address climate injustice.
    3. SE Asia continues to increasingly rely upon fossil fuels for growth.

    WUWT members, if so inclined please edit the above bullets.

    • Knute,

      #4: The U.S. must pay. China and others will not, no matter what the final language says.

      #5: American taxpayers will have no say in any agreement.

      • DB

        Thanks for 4 and 5.

        I think you are right. It follows the pattern of how the Iran deal was cut. End run around the US Congress ending up with a 1T dollar slush fund for the fraudsters.

        The lingering albatross in the US will be the already institutionalized CO2 regs and its concurrent use in disparate impact claims. We won’t feel the 100B ding, but we will feel the results of the slush fund’s use.

        Among the posts I’ve read over the past few weeks that have stuck in my brain are the Apache nation post concerning integrity, your link concerning the farmer, “W”‘s dealings with hecklers and the sheer cost of alt energy on the citizens of England.

        While I think science should continue doing good science, they should also be aware of the decreasing benefit of arguing about increasing minutia. It’s too easy for the fraudsters to use that against the profession.

        At its core, the CAGW movement tugs at the heartstrings of people who don’t want to be wasteful and want to help their fellow man. Basic values. Ultimately, those heartstrings could be redirected towards real issues and real problems.

      • Knute,
        The diversion of resources and attention away from some of the very real environmental problems of the world, investigation and implementation of solutions and remediation to these, and the hoodwinking of people who are taken in by the CAGW misdirection, are among the worst aspects of this entire fiasco.

      • dbstealey
        October 13, 2015 at 11:06 am

        But, but – this is the most transparent Administration ever. Isn’t it? Well, I guess POTUS Obama is like every other politician. Say what needs to be said to get elected. Hope this isn’t rude from a foreigner, but I remember many of the promises:

    • Why continue to call it climate justice when we all know it is socialism and central planning by nincompoops for their own benefit since they have assured themselves they know better than anyone else.

  6. This is why they have been recently screaming ..” Time is running out , this is our last chance ” etc…..they know scams can only fool people for so long before they fade away !!!!!

  7. “any agreement “has to be much more collaborative than punitive”

    This has just been a downgrade to a conference goal of developing a framework for collaboration. This is the best news I’ve heard of this in years. It’s an admission of total failure, and a way to hedge against the disappointment that the Greens will experience when they see that Paris was Much Ado About Nothing.

    • And this is our “moment” as skeptics to run the TRUTH up the flag pole, high and wide, EVERYWHERE letting the cat out of the bag that there never WAS any reason to be doing ANY of this to begin with.

  8. Uh-oh, that will mean an even greater spectacle of hand-wringing, crocodile tears, naming, shaming, and finger-pointing at the Paris Climate Jamboree.
    Time to lay in supplies of popcorn.

    • Hey, I just created a computer model that shows the Sun revolves around the Earth , thus, proving that the Sun has no effect on the Earth’s climate !!!! Wow, I could get Noble prize for this !!!! . . . What ???? No you can’t look at the data , you just want to prove me wrong !!!!!!

  9. What would an “enforceable” agreement look like anyway? Is the UN going to send in the troops to punish any nation that fails to live up to it’s agreements?

    As we have seen over the last few hundred years, any agreement that relies on the countries to punish themselves when they fail to meet their agreements isn’t worth the paper it’s written on.

    • MarkW,

      Any agreement, or even a protocol, will be enforced on the U.S., by the U.S. This Administration is working hard to hand our wealth to other countries, for nothing in return.

      Look at the reaction of the Iranian government, after Obama agreed on our behalf to hand them hundreds of billions of dollars, for promises the Mullahs have already stated they will disregard. Does anyone think they have the least bit of gratitude?

      China and others will be a net recipient of ‘climate’ money confiscated from American taxpayers. If they didn’t think that would be the result of this meeting/scam/hoax, they wouldn’t bother attending.

      • Did you read the part of your link that states: “Of course, President Obama will have a tough time moving these actions through a Republican majority, many of which have already set their sights on rolling back the executive actions taken that put the EPA in charge of regulating carbon emissions” ?????????/

      • Yes, of course I read it. Are you an American? If so you probably understand that Republicans ‘set their sights’ on rolling back Obamacare, and the EPA’s pollution rules, and many other Executive Orders. Name one that they’ve accomplished.

      • Thanx for that strawman. But as they say, it takes two to tango. The president was 50% of that dance team.

        And in the end, he called their bluff. They caved.

        I’m glad I’ve never been a Republican.

      • Hard to believe that between now and 2050 there won’t be a Republican president that will roll any agreements like these back. Internal US legislation may be more difficult because of voter reaction, but external “treaties” are another thing altogether and can usually (and have been) broken on a whim.

      • BFL

        True on the treaties, not true concerning codified regulations. CO2 is the lynchpin.
        Unseat its position as a hazardous gas and then you will see some progress.

        If it lingers and disparate impact (derived from the civil rights act) is solidified in case law, you will see more and more cottage industries spring up to keep it alive.

  10. One (the richest and most decadent) of seven billion people will have to pay to make token gestures, that will only make a small dent in the RATE OF INCREASE of atmospheric CO2, the other six billion will continue to industrialise, buy ever more cars, and demand “clean” (i.e. gas and electric) cooking and heating.

    The greater atmospheric CO2 will give us a bit more warmth, a lot more crop growth, and reduced risk of going into another ice age.

  11. So Paris has become another useless gabfest for the junket-monkeys. Why am I not surprised?

    Here’s and idea for all the grant troughers:
    Why not do something really useful and see if you can spend all those billions you are given on ensuring that all of sub-saharan Africa has access to clean drinking water. Just a thought, ya know.

  12. It’s cooling in key areas; NW Pacific, Gulf Coast, E. Seaboard, N. Atlantic, Mediterranean, S. Ocean, and Hudson Bay. Arctic ice has rebounded well in September. Where is that global warming again?

    • It’s not over till it’s over. Look at the ENSO meter. Probably climb all the way to COP21. Waiting for next post from BT. The California Current is slowly doing its job but it could be a few years before the warm blob and its southerly heat gets pushed out.

  13. ‘Critics say that simply shaming outliers will not ensure compliance and that, unless there are costs for non-compliance, any country can share in the global benefits of reduced temperature rise while leaving the hard work of emission cuts to others’ Hey that’s cheating. Shame on them! LOL

    • This is why they have been recently screaming ..” Time is running out , this is our last chance ” etc…..they know scams can only fool people for so long before they fade away !!!!!

  14. The UN has NO mandate, or authority, to force any country to do anything against their will. I sincerely hope China/India and Canada tell them and the Bozobam to go pound salt. A quick check on the UN website shows over 80% of their members are all terroristic/despotic ,tyrannical, fascist, or communist. Take your pick. The greatest Mafia ever created.

  15. India says “hand over the check” or it will burn extra coal and continue its regular policy of domestic content rules on solar farms. These countries all have their own strategy to play the great policy game. For India it is the stiff price approach in your face and for China it is the comply later strategy. Might as well enjoy the sights and tastes of another vacation conference.

  16. As Yvo de Boer noted, there was no chance of an enforceable agreement in 2001. That was at the beginning of a long period of relatively strong economic growth. And they spent all of that decade venting about enforcement until the frigid collapse in Copenhagen in 2009.

    Today, most of the world’s major economies are in significant difficulties. To butcher a phrase, if there was no chance in 2001, there’s even less chance now.

    As usual, the December COP/MOP conference will be an expensive gabfest resulting in nothing.

  17. This is good news. In another couple of years, it will be so obvious that nothing really matters outside of China and India. Add to that the fact that China and India are dead set against any actual reductions, and you can cancel the future conferences…

    • China and India are dead set against any actual reductions
      =============
      they are all in favor of reductions that someone else pays for. for years the US was the biggest polluter. Now they are like a reformed smoker. holier than thou, preaching that everyone else needs to give up smokes as well. all the while ignoring the huge financial advantage they gained from dumping their pollution on the rest of the world.

      if the US can be the biggest polluter for decade after decade, and not pay anyone anything, why the heck should anyone else make any effort? clean up your own house and call us in 100 years. the only reason the US has been able to cut pollution of late is due to fracking, which had absolutely nothing to do with the US government. If BO and the EPA had their way, fracking would have never been permitted.

      The US has cut pollution as a result of economic freedom and human ingenuity. Something the government lacks in great measure. The government solution to pollution we already saw in 2008. Increase taxes, bail out the banks and stock market, and shut down the economy. No economy, no pollution. Borrow trillions to pay for it all.

      • The US has codified it as a pollutant, dangerous to health. Not widely remembered, it was the Clinton administration in late 90s (98 I think) that first proposed the idea. Bush squashed it as part of the Kyoto no go. It came back to life as part of an early focus group for attracting young voters in 2007ish.

      • Knute commented: “kokoda said….CO2 is not a pollutant.” Knute said…..The US has codified it as a pollutant, dangerous to health.”

        The wordsmithing required for the EPA to pull off this travesty makes attorneys proud….or not….depending on their conscience. Truth is the administration gave them the power to do so. Any intelligent person knows CO2 is no more a pollutant by their definition than hydrogen and oxygen….water. Teaching children that CO2 is a pollutant is unconscionable. Adults that believe it need to be educated…..again.

      • Corporations made special interest groups which lobbies (drafted regs) for Congress which taught others to create NGOs which lobbies (draft regs) Congress to come up with little diddies like CO2 regs.

        I’ve lived long enough where I’m beginning to wonder which reinvention of the special interest … NGO … ________ lobbies (drafts regs) next.

        The NGO, who was the primary author of the CO2 draft was a sub NGO of a major NGO. That major NGO was in allegiance with others. It all gets pretty yucky when you look under the rug.

        It’s like a family tree of ugliness where many things are not what they look like on the surface. Patrick Moore, an original Greenpeace founder does a good job laying out how things went awry … in general.

        Of course, history is full of these ltitle frauds. This CAGW one is quite the whopper though.

  18. Yay. Expected, but given the push to Paris on so many fronts, it is a relief.

    Now I can turn my attention to cold weather in Paris for late next month. Perhaps the cold in Eastern Europe can be tempted to come west. Is Al Gore available for bait?

  19. It’s the North-South, Rich-Poor nation money grab conference all over again, with a spice of climate scare media management assault.

  20. I am sure the 50,000 or so delegates and hangers on will have a wonderful fortnight in Paris. I hope they have advance booked the Louvre to avoid the queue and also got tickets for Disney and Versailles organised in advance. It will be perishing cold; always is in December in Paris; so I hope they have warm clothes to stop the wind blowing up their Eiffel towers.
    They will go home content, having quaffed a few jars, eaten more food than Eritrea consumes in 10 years, Burnt more fossil fuel than Sudan will ever get, let alone burn, and thrown away more rubbish than Governor Brown talks.
    The blame for their lack of achievement will be placed squarely on the Rupublicans, Tories, Aussie Liberals, D****rs, Old Etonians, Democracy, “people who do not know what is good for them”, and the scumbags who actually would like a bit more heat on the planet to save on their electric bill.

    Until the next great gathering.

    Meanwhile the climate refugees will continue to go to Florida and Spain every year. The polar bears will thrive, especially if they can spice up their diet with a few eco-warriors on missions to prove that there is no ice. The temperatures will stay much the same and the weather will do its usual. Cook will do another survey, this time getting 99% of two scientists to agree with him and Lew will write another insane conspiracy theorists paper. Obarmy will get a job at the UN in the kitchens and Kim jong Un will be made Secretary General of the UN…I mean …there is a man who gets things done… all in perfect step as well.

    It is no wonder that when the proletariat are actually asked not one of us give’s a tinkers cuss about climate change.

    • Ivor Ward:

      I agree all you say, but I write to add that you are describing the movements of a corpse. And there is a deadly zombie which poses a threat.

      The AGW-scare was killed at the failed 2009 IPCC Conference in Copenhagen. I said then that the scare would continue to move as though alive in similar manner to a beheaded chicken running around a farmyard. It continues to provide the movements of life but it is already dead. And its deathly movements provide an especial problem: they are creating a dangerous bureaucratic zombie.

      Nobody will declare the AGW-scare dead: it will slowly fade away. This is similar to the ‘acid rain’ scare of the 1980s. Few remember that scare unless reminded of it but its effects still have effects; e.g. the Large Combustion Plant Directive (LCPD) exists. Importantly, the bureaucracy which the EU established to operate the LCPD still exists. And those bureaucrats justify their jobs by imposing ever more stringent, always more pointless, and extremely expensive emission limits which are causing enforced closure of UK power stations.

      Bureaucracies are difficult to eradicate and impossible to nullify.

      As the AGW-scare fades away those in ‘prime positions’ will attempt to establish rules and bureaucracies to impose those rules which provide immortality to their objectives. Guarding against those attempts now needs to be a serious activity.

      The so-called ‘localisation’ activities mentioned by several in this thread are actions intended to establish the bureaucracies and rules at national and sub-national levels because – as the above article reports – it is now generally recognised that there is no longer any hope of a realistic international agreement similar to the defunct Kyoto Protocol.

      I repeat, it is now very important to guard against attempts to impose rules and bureaucracies justified by assertions of AGW because that is where the totalitarians are already concentrating their efforts between junkets such as that to be held in Paris..

      Richard

      • RC

        Well done. The institutionalization of CO2 as a dangerous gas and the recent data from the OCO2 satellite are being combined in the US.

        They will be busy identifying diparate impact zones where those who live in high fossil resource production areas will be encouraged to sue those that live in high CO2 consumption areas.

        Localized mobilization.

        Investigate which NGOs are being formed in those communities. Do your own homework. It’s already out there. You just have to look.

  21. I get tired of people equating controls on real pollution to cuts in CO2. For example, above Figures is said to have stated that, “Cuts in greenhouse gases can serve countries’ economic self-interests. China, for instance, can improve the health of millions by shifting from coal-fired power plants that cause air pollution.” The cheapest way to control real pollution is to use scrubbers and other control devices, but these reduce the net output of the power plant. The result is less electricity supplied for the same amount of fuel burned (and CO2 emitted). Actually, on a recent trip to China, I asked if the power plants had modern pollution control devices and I was assured that they did. I also asked if the cars had pollution control devices and I was again assured that they did. I then asked why, if that was the case, was the air so polluted. I was told (I don’t know if it is true) essentially that there was no enforcement. Power plants run the control devices when inspectors visit but otherwise do not because it reduces output. There is also no incentive to keep catalytic converters etc on cars working and, in fact, an incentive to eliminate them since they again reduce “energy efficiency” (shades of the VW saga).

  22. If there were any honest Q&A in presidential debates, the candidates would talk about the costs of climate change policy steps and international “agreements” aka world peace and harmony goals with special emphasis on whether the costs are just the first step in a multi-step hidden agenda to be revealed later.

  23. Bring in the special ops communique writers to polish off the final documents with modified scaremonger terms and ‘dangerous world’ if you don’t pay up now warnings.

  24. SJ

    Let’s assume in a literal (hard) sense you are correct. I’ll also assume you understand hard dollar, soft dollar, future costs terms. There are definitions of wealth (ie people who die to defend us), but let’s just keep it simpler.

    I’m not sure, but it’s likely that if someone did the research, they’d find cushy loans at favorable rates headed toward Iran. Check.

    The US joined with other UN nations to lift sanctions on a country that is eager to destroy the US and by extension, anyone representative of western culture. Do you see a cost associated with having to defend yourself from someone you just made stronger ? Check.

    Would you expect empowering your neighbor to kill you costing you something ?

  25. It’s a good thing there aren’t any real problems we humans should be spending our time and money on addressing, instead of the imaginary one of climate.

  26. “China, for instance, can improve the health of millions by shifting from coal-fired power plants that cause air pollution.”

    I have to wonder what the millions of Chinese would have to say about that. Would they vote to have cleaner air and improved ‘health’ while they starve and freeze to death, or would they vote for the affordable energy they need to create jobs, increase survival, and improve their lives generally?

  27. Just send the bill from Paris or New Delhi. The message managers will find a way to explain it all later. But it might take some consulting contracts with Dr. Gruber on this one.

  28. For all their efforts to get 200 governments to commit to the toughest possible cuts in greenhouse gas emissions, climate negotiators have all but given up on creating a way to penalise those who fall short.

    In that case, I will personally pledge to cut my greenhouse gas emissions by 347 million-billion tons. There solved that problem.

    But even those sanctions were an empty act of bravado by rich nations angered by U.S. President George W. Bush’s decision in March 2001 to stay out of Kyoto, said Jan Pronk, a former Dutch environment minister who chaired the Bonn meeting.

    Bush’s decision or the 0-95 vote by the senate on pre-approval of the Clinton/Gore treaty.

    The best-case scenario for Paris is the production of a kind of eco-version of the Kellogg-Briand Pact —a fact that’s long been evident but is just now starting to feel real for greens.

    Look it up. The Kellogg-Briand Pact was an agreement to outlaw war signed on August 27, 1928.
    On August 27, 1928, fifteen nations signed the pact at Paris. Signatories included France, the United States, the United Kingdom, Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, India, Belgium, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Germany, Italy and Japan. Later, an additional forty-seven nations followed suit,
    The first major test of the pact came just a few years later in 1931, when the Mukden Incident led to the Japanese invasion of Manchuria.
    https://history.state.gov/milestones/1921-1936/kellogg

    Who-uh! It lasted three years, but something to shot for.

  29. Correct me if I’m wrong on this
    I was reading that Goldman Sachs is one of Obamas largest donators and that they are keen to promote Carbon trading which is touted will be in the Paris climate talks
    Presumably this is why he spouts so much about climate change
    Been paid and now has to deliver before he leaves office

    Article here on Scientists want Carbon pricing http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-34489266
    Trading in fresh air !

    How can those termites ever pay for their output

    • Pearl

      Follow the money.

      https://www.opensecrets.org

      Old Uncle Warren bought GS at 80ish during the crash. He now ships lots of oil w his RR.
      If you dig too deep, you’ll start to get nauseous. Take a break. Breath.

      Dirty money on multiple sides of any debate where a simple explanation is sitting on the table and nobody grabs it.

      In the case of CAGW, the nonsense will stop when either the money runs out or the planet starts cooling. Even then you could have folks claiming alt energy saved the day.

      • Nicholas

        Perhaps perhaps.

        For me, the best read on the subject was by John Casey, retired NASA. Cold Sun was the book. I see that he also is you tubed up.

        Here’s one of the problems. If John is right and bad cold is coming, you now have a population that is fatigued by fraudster scientists. Bad timing to be issuing yet another call to fear.

      • I suspect that if we have substantial cooling, messaging will not be an issue.
        Cooling has the potential to shutdown economic activity during winter months, impede navigation and, perhaps worst of all by far than anything else that could happen, it could lead to sudden and widespread crop failures, which then result in devastating famines, food riots, wars…worse things than the modern world has ever experienced.
        I can easily describe a scenario whereby one ill timed cold snap could lead to a billion people starving to death.

    • Obama and Al Gore and GS CEO David Blood and IPCC co-founder Maurice Strong were involved in founding the Chicago Carbon Exchange. Gore founded Generation Investment Services; carbon credit trading. Did you think this has something to do with the environment or science?

      • matt cassidy: :…Obama and Al Gore and GS CEO David Blood and IPCC co-founder Maurice Strong were involved in founding the Chicago Carbon Exchange. Gore founded Generation Investment Services; carbon credit trading. Did you think this has something to do with the environment or science?”

        What amazes me is how people are willing to discount this amazing fact as not being relevant. Politicians and financiers in positions to affect public opinion take the lead to tax what people breath and invest in and their motives are not questioned.

      • Marketers have discovered that people will believe it if you say a scientist said it.

        What does that say about science ?

  30. If the 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference COP 21 (Paris in December) results in a non-binding agreement as feared/suggested by the 5 sources identified by the GWPF, then the AGW crusaders of alarm and exaggeration will (choose any that apply):

    1) wildly claim a moral victory which will be loudly echoed by the media who have given them frantic sounding soliloquies in prime airtime for the last ~25 years

    2) double down and explicitly endorse a cult of self-sacrifice shorn of any last vestiges of pseudo-climate-science trappings; such as trappings like those of the subjective IPCC assessment process

    3) sulk in HotWhopperland and in their favored airline’s frequent flyer lounges

    4) shift to a crusade of alarm and exaggeration about anthropogenic global cooling

    5) retire to a warm climate

    6) decide to no longer participate in their own non-debate

    7) sing kumbaya mournfully

    John

  31. Please hope that Paris is a shambles. It gives some opportunity to regroup and spread the message that climate change/ global warming is a fraud. How convenient that the UN, the ones who promote the myth are the ones to profit most handsomely by way of their cut of ETS payments and politically( destroying the economies of free market nations.)

    As for input from vested banking interests, Goldman Sachs is positively evil. They own our (unelected)Prime Minister in Australia, who will almost certainly go against the wishes of the electorate (we voted to get rid of carbon taxes) and sign up for some climate suicide.

    As for Paris, hopefully the weather creates chaos as in Copenhagen. Better still if Muslim “refugee” gangs invade the proceedings and start invoking some of the passages of the Qur’an literally, eg Sura 2, v 191-193 – slay them as ye shall find them.

    Even if the talks collapse, they will have had a great time in Paris- great little junket. Who cares about the carbon footprint.

    • No-one in Australia, other than party members, can vote for an MP to be a PM. No-one in the voting public in Australia can vote for a PM. Only those in Turnbull’s electorate can vote for Turnbull as an MP. The party can then vote for any party member to be leader and thus by default, become a PM.

      But you are right. Australians voted on the policy of the LNP in 2013. Now Turncoat is in the driving seat, and I said all along in these pages that, if Turnbull becomes PM (Which was very likely anyway), it would be a disaster for Australia. The LNP may win again in 2016, but the puppet masters in the banking space who own Turnbull have placed their pawn in anticipation of an ETS soon after the 2016 election.

      So the political pantomime continues in Australia. 5 PM’s in 5 years?

    • Rule of thumb here in Aus is that the unions control the ALP, the banks control the LNP. Voters? Who are they again?

  32. …with the prospect of ever more floods, droughts and heatwaves.

    As predicted using regional climate models that can not predict regional climate. Often embedded within global climate models that can not predict global climate.

  33. Here’s the simple logic that will be used:
    We must act now, according to the precautionary principle even though there is no substantial evidence that the world is threatened.
    If we do not act now and the fears of the fearmongers are realized then it will be “too late” for action – for some usually unexplained reason.
    Nobody will ever consider that people in the future are likely to have access to greater technology and capital resources than we currently possess.
    Based on this drive towards “urgent climate action” – policy makers will be seduced into committing to doing a variety of useless things badly on the back of scant evidence.
    However, in the process the freedoms of individuals will be curtailed and bureaucrats (mostly unelected) will expand their power.
    THEN, in the future, the situation will be reassessed and it will almost certainly be understood, at least by some portion of the intellectual class, that policies were not justified by available evidence and that many schemes brought about unintended consequences which were more harmful than the problem that they claimed to “mitigate”.
    Whilst, there may be some questions asked and some finger pointing at this later stage –
    power will never be returned from the bureaucrats to the people. It never is.
    And this is the key point.
    This is why action must be taken prematurely, before clear evidence is revealed.
    Because, what the bureaucrats fear most, is that the evidence will NOT justify their current power grab.
    In other words, what they are most afraid of, is waiting 20 years and discovering no significant problems with rising temperatures, extreme weather or sea level rise.
    These people are most terrified of – NO GLOBAL WARMING CRISIS.
    It must keep them awake at night. Worrying that global warming may not really be a crisis, at all.

    And that is why we must act now to gift control of industry and energy infrastructure to faceless policy makers.
    The days of adjustments and fudging are coming to an end.
    RSS, UAH. Argo, Satellite measurement of sea ice and sea level are screwing up the capacity of alarmists to paint a picture of total disaster.
    Plus the newfound ability of Americans to count the number of CAT3+ landfalling hurricanes in the last decade. Since, almost all Americans can count to ZERO. Even Obama.
    This is why we must act NOW on climate change.
    We must act NOW, before more good quality data arrives and destroys the widely circulating vision of oncoming thermageddon.
    Things are going from bad to worse for alarmists. Damned scientists keep coming up with instruments that make more and more accurate and reliable measurements. Damned statisticians keep coming up with ways to show that freak weather events are part of normal weather variability.
    Damned paleoreconstructions of ice cores keep showing us that the climate has always changes and it changed far more significantly and alarmingly in the distant past, often for unknown reasons.
    So, act now – to destroy your own economy and grant power to bureaucrats – NOW, before any more inconvenient science can be done – because whatever future science shows us – you will never get those freedoms back.
    And then the children aren’t going to know what affordable and reliable energy is…
    That’s my point really. Let’s screw up the developed world – for the children.
    (I may have drifted into sarcasm at some point during the above rant.)

  34. I could have read all that wonderful wordage or gone had a cup of tea…….
    Bet you can guess which won.

    James Bull

  35. I think that the Paris Climate Summit should pay much more attention to the oceans, since they have the most important role in climate change, much more important than greenhouse gas emissions, in my oppinion!

    • smamarver,
      The oceans are too difficult to tax. No sense discussing them in Paris.
      .
      .
      .
      .
      And if you do think of an easy scheme to tax the oceans… shhhhh…! Don’t give the Parisites any ideas.

  36. Beware.
    They declare they’ve suffered a stinging disaster when they just manage to steal a $100 million off you when they were aiming for a billion.
    And the moment they assure you that you don’t need to worry, is when they have the fix sown up.

Comments are closed.