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.
I just love Oxfam’s “This deal offers a frayed life-line to the world’s poorest and most vulnerable people.”
You mean the minute they get hold of it it will snap?
Shouldnt we express happiness that thios Conference has resulted only in empty pledges and not in concrete economy crippling commitments as we have feared? Maybe the GWPF or the Open Atmospheric Soc should communicate : ‘Climate Skeptics elated about results of Cop21’.
Well, I guess that Australia is fine since it is a net sink.
Some of the developing countries will be screwed since the OCO-2 data shows them to be sources.
Josh had it right every step of the way.
‘taking into account the needs and priorities of developing countries;’ that of course can be summed up in one word that is ‘endless’ , if you think that will be no point at which people stop throwing free money at you, why would you tell them to stop ?
Although it is true that money shake down which is the reason many are there in the first place does gets a heads up , you can note that it is a quantified goal , which of course means you may never get there at all , as its a ‘goal ‘ and how you get this ‘quantified’ remains a mystery.
Even at the best of times there was little chance of this cash being available, and this far from the best of times.
The changes to lower value than 2 does give them a ‘out’ , given that with no change at all ,2 looks very unlikely to ever happen , they can claim a ‘victory’ no matter what occurs even if its decrease in temperature , as long as ‘something is done’ even if its no where near what was claimed ‘had to be done’ they can and will the state the only reason that temperatures have not increased has they claimed they ‘must ‘ was becasue their actions saved us from ‘climate doom’ They live and breath ‘heads you lose , tails I win ‘ so will have no issues with this idea.
I am only sad I could not get some money down on the bet , that whatever came out it would simultaneous be claimed as a ‘victory ‘ and also a ‘failure’ depending on the shade of green the reader was wearing.
Prepare now for wide-spread acceptance of ‘the pause’, as this surreal group finds a way to take credit for the cessation of global warming.
Yes, the idea was to get an agreement before the temps started falling and claim that CO2 restrictions were the reason. They will take credit for the pause and for the fall in temps to follow.
Follow the money.
Why so I get the feeling that the US is the only country that will comply with the letter of this “law”?
John
To date the UK is the only country in the world to have a legally binding climate change act to reduce emissions. The US didn’t even sign up to Kyoto
How this will get through your senate bearing in mind the US refused to sign anything legally binding AND the text calls for everyone to reach the targets set our in Kyoto is anyone’s guess.
tonyb
An interesting comment from Owen Paterson , (the UK environment minister who was sacked by Cameron for disagreeing with Green organisations over the Somerset flooding), about the Climate Change Act in today’s Telegraph (written on the eve of the final agreement) :
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/climatechange/12046531/Why-we-have-to-scrap-the-Climate-Change-Act.html
Apparently the Act could be sidelined :
“Clause 2 of the act enables the Secretary of State to amend the 2050 target, which could have the immediate effect of suspending it. To avoid failure in 10-20 years time, that decision must be taken now. ” –
Aren’t these financial promises all based on Article 11 of the Kyoto Protocol? The U.S. didn’t ratify Kyoto, so should not give any money under it.
It’s an historic, breakthrough Climate Pig! They all agree, so it must be true.
Wait, is that a new shade of lipstick?
veni, visa, vamoose
I came, I wined & dined, I’m outta here!
: )
John
Is it true ! the end of climate conferences, it has been reported that the next one is to be held in Gambia , ( per capita income $488 per year ) With 40,000 delegates arriving at a cost of + – $50,000 each for 2 weeks, plus 50 billion dollars to build the 5 star infrastructure.etc, etc
“the end of climate conferences”
But no, the next one is in Washington, D.C. next May.
See the count-down clock here: Climate Action 2016
Classic.
Just speed read the Final Draft! Surprise, surprise! All requests, urging and basic generalities and aspirations. Not worth the paper it’s written on and certainly not any substantiation for the massive amounts of money wasted and CO2 emitted, not just during the last 2 weeks but during the very many prior meetings and conferences leading up to it. It’s even got a cop out clause creating a “Get out of Jail” card for any country subsequently realising that even this “agreement” was too much of a liability
No doubt the politicians, senior bureaucrats and “celebrities” attending this “jolly” will come away with the satisfaction of having something else to almost sate their self-righteousness, another saintly endeavour to add to their CV’s for the future, and many global contacts that they can put on their future mutual backscratching schedules!
I read it carefully. A massive actual fail. Differentiation live and well in 2.3, despite Kerry pointing out in his speech that this guarantees Paris fails to meet its primary CO2 reduction objective. No INDC transparency despite 4.8; the bodies are buried in preamble paragraph 27. No loss/damage liability despite 8.2; the bodies are explicitly buried in preamble paragraph 52. No guaranteed amounts of GFC funding; 9.1 only says developed countries shall provide financing without saying how much. The Group of 77 ‘bribe’ promise is relegated to preamble 54, which is as meaningless as Copenhagen. ‘Intend to maintain a $100 billion/year goal floor’ does not say anything about actual funding. Unfunded financial goals as real as unicorns. Nothing is binding except resubmitting INDCs every five years (unless you are the Group of 77, where even that got a pass).
The warmunist ‘success’ PR spin is beyond the pale. Yes there is a piece of paper from Paris. But it means and does NOTHING.
This ought to be the kernel of a new thread.
I read it carefully as well and came to the same conclusions. It left me wondering about two things. First, with such an empty agreement (except, of course, from the perspective of international bureaucrat offered almost endless opportunities to create new positions), how will the western governments who have staked so much political capital on this manage to communicate the results as though they were a victory? My guess is that there will be a great deal of crowing about the meaningless 1.5 degree C. “target” and the “victory for global justice” represented by the repetition of the $100 billion per year aid commitment. There probably will be no end of imaginative fiction-writing devoted to that. Second, in light of the abject failure to achieve a publicly binding agreement, what kinds of secret behind-the-scenes deals were made or will be made in consequence?
ristvan – it would be really nice for lazy people like me if you could write this up as a guest post.
So when do the 195 countries vote on this?
Now
tonyb
And if the few on the UN Security Council often can’t agree, then what chance these 195 will? Don’t hold your breath!
I was so looking forward to Marrakesh
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/167279_10150383243295214_518940213_17119626_4455434_n1.jpg
Is that photo from the area? If so, I want to save it for when the propaganda starts. Of course there may be many more like it from the area if they all came from the same contractor. They make good monuments for the stupidity of the global warming/green energy crowd.
Arlington, WY apparently
I grabbed the photo from here –
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/02/wind-power-gets-bent-out-of-shape-in-wyoming/
Thanks Bubba – a symbolic picture that’s worth a thousand snarks!
Thanks, Bubba Cow, I can’t get enough pictures of busted or burning windmills – the folly of the greens.
When cooling causes CO2 levels to drop we can declare success as we continue to cool into another LIA. The standing ovations and prizes will flood academia. The starving people and collapsing economies will be met with overwhelming glee. Can I opt out… (giving my notice of intent now). GK
Cooling will not necessarily cause CO2 levels to drop. Less plants due to increasing cold will probably cause the levels to rise. If you can believe the data, CO2 levels can skyrocket during real ice ages because of plant die off. The cold atmosphere will not stop volcanoes from belching CO2.
The world seems in the grip of a massive delusion not at all different from those Charles Mackay described in his 1842 treatise except that it is much larger, and thus more dangerous by way of global communications.
There are so many ways to escape this agreement it will never be enacted widely. Unfortunately we in the U.S. are currently in the grip of the most delusional Administration of all time.
The Madness Collective in full cry.
Looks to me like they only reiterated the goal from the failed Copenhagen conference, which countries don’t look like they’re going to meet ($100 B by 2020). They’ve just sweetened the pie a tad by essentially saying “You know all those previous promises we made? Well, we’re gonna make even bigger promises somewhere down the line.”
If developing countries do indeed vote to pass this, based on their earlier heated rhetoric complaining about previous broken public promises, they are either fools or they’ve been promised something under-the-table by Kerry and/or the EU.
I guess though, there’s always hope for the faithful…
I see that one of the contributors to the UK’s Guardian website is complaining that this agreement commits us to “climate breakdown”. I kid you not!
Given that climate is the average of weather, can we now add the destruction of statistical analysis to John Brignell’s list of things that CO2 will cause? /sarcoff
In fact, said contributor is none other the George Monbiot. So it must be true!
Ah, Monbiot, one of the most- favored activists deployed by NPR in their climate change propaganda broadcasts.
My understanding is that life originated in the sea. Some different theories have emerged but the original offers, I think, the best explanation. This is because I believe that the migration of those original sea creatures onto land represents the long process toward the ultimate ending of life. Therefore life could not have originated and developed anywhere but in the sea if it regresses and ends on land.
Allow me to explain. The earliest forms of life must’ve been the unicellular organisms which became ever so slightly more sophisticated to develop into what would be the creation of the animal world in the form of the Amoeba. The next step would appear to be the sponge: All those individual cells came together to create something big enough that one could see it; assuming there was anything like eyes back then. But, all those cells comprising the sponge are identical; they can essentially live on their own. Next came the organization of those cells into, well, organs where each group of cells had a specific function, and without the assistance of other groups that also had their own, but different, function they’d kiss their a•s•s goodbye.
Did I just say ‘kiss their a… goodbye?’ Well, that bring us to those more sophisticated animals that succeeded the sponges. I’m not certain but I believe that would be the coelenterates; corals, anemones, hydras. If one looks, they’ll quickly notice that these animals are basically one big a•s•s. Technically; this means that their mouth and their anus are the same thing. So, if one group of organized cells stopped offering their assistance the animal would, in the most literal sense of the term, truly kiss it’s a… goodbye.
Having a mouth that is also an anus is probably ok for an organism without a brain. But, as brains came into being a solution had to be sought. I think we can all agree that, for a sentient being, the idea of having a mouth that’s also an anus would not just be profoundly unappealing; it would also cause problems out the, um, a•s•s. For instance, kissing your child goodbye could generate a call to DCFS. Or, let’s imagine what would happen to Hollywood receipts if a movie script called for a passionate kiss. Ick. And, think of how disrupting that might be during a presidential State of the Union address.
See, what I mean? For life on this planet to advance the anus absolutely had to be separated from the mouth. And, eons ago, this grand evolutionary feat occurred before life crawled, slithered, paddled, or wormed its way out of the seas.
And, now what do we see? After several excruciating days of watching COP 21 in Paris it has become quite clear. It’s taken a while in the de-evolutionary phase but it’s now quite clear that crap is also being discharged from the delegates’ mouths. The mouth has now, once again, also become the anus.
I’ll simply increase my personal carbon footprint to offset “all” of this-Lol
The photograph at the top of this article is very telling. Note the crowd of people carrying plenty of oil-product items of modern comfort: flags, banners, umbrellas, parkas, etc. Mostly nylon or other similar carbon-based manufactured products. Not to mention the cellphones on display and in people’s pockets.
And I realize it’s just one rather wide-angle photo, but how many people of color do you see in that rally? It’s like finding Waldo… I think I see one person of color near the bottom left. But other than that, it’s a sea of white guilt meets white privilege. Typical for the CAGW scare mongers.
How right you are. If you sincerely and genuinely believe in change you start with yourself. http://www.dineshdsouza.com/news/the-hayride-it-is-unwise-for-leftists-to-challenge-dsouza/ is an epic statement on everyone else has to change first. It is the breathless arrogance of the warmists and lefties I abhor.
Now that COP21 is finally over (it IS over isn’t it?), can we please get back to the real world and its real challenges and leave the Almighty to get on with overseeing Mother Nature? If we’d spent more time trying to eliminate genuine causes of atmospheric pollution such as NOx. rather than Carbon dioxide, the gas which, sine qua non, sustains the cycle of life, we would all be in a better situation and, I daresay, considerably better off.
Is this text really saying that we are to work to a set of goals not yet identified?
“… 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;”
The nations of the world are going to bind themselves, legally, to levels not yet identified. That is one big, scary, TBD.
All the COP21 info points to limiting global average temperature (GAT) to 2ºC ( or at a stretch, 1.5ºC) over pre-industrial levels. Where are pre-industrial levels defined? UK MO defines pre-industrial GAT as average temp over the period 1850-1900, is this the definition being used? Whose dataset will be used to measure when we get to 1.5 or 2ºC? Or will they actually measure limiting CO2 to 40 gigatonnes (2ºC), or is 30 gigatonnes (1.5ºC)?
This should not be submitted for ratification. It should simply be ignored. Next we’ll have the Mayor of Vanuatu submitting stuff.
Climate charade?
Yes, and for developed nations the tickets are not free while developing nations get paid to attend the show.
Atmospheric concentrations of man-caused CO2 have very little influence in the total CO2 concentration, if at all. And atmospheric concentrations of CO2 have very little influence in the global temperature, if at all. This is the situation I see, unless scientifically proven to be otherwise. Call me skeptic, I am.