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.
Make up your mind, Anthony. Do you despise the agreement because you don’t believe the science or because it may be ineffective. Don’t ever suggest Dr Hanson and you are on the same page.
Perhaps the real reason for your obsession with dismissing climate action us revealed on your rant when you say: ‘Don’t let anyone tell you this isn’t about wealth redistribution, …. 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’. Maybe you just hate being moral because that might mean you have to share a little.
So how does it feel, Anthony, the world has ignored you.
By the way, no apostrophe in NGOs.
“Make up your mind, Anthony. Do you despise the agreement because you don’t believe the science or because it may be ineffective.”
He’s not annoyed that’s it’s ineffective; he’s annoyed that’s it’s being touted as effective.
Martin Wright,
Why? {is your premise hidden and false}
John
There’s one thing certain. Taking large amounts of money from US Citizens will redistribute most of it to the already wealthy. Its really a method for wealth concentration.
There’s nothing moral about transferring money from the poor in rich countries to the rich in poor countries. That’s just delusional. To get truly moral you first need to get real.
Your argument is based on an unproven assumption. How do you know that the wealth transfer will be misused by poorer nations?
“Martin Wright
December 13, 2015 at 12:39 pm
Your argument is based on an unproven assumption. How do you know that the wealth transfer will be misused by poorer nations?”
Aid already is.
Here’s the way it goes.
US Congress says “Stuff it up your fundament”
The rest of the developed world makes horrified noises, but is quietly relieved, Russia, China & India say “Well if the Yanks aren’t doing it, neither are we”, the proposed recipients of all this £100billion largess start screaming, along with the Green Blob “It’s all the evil USA’s fault!” and the wheel continues to turn.
Everyone agreed to meet in Paris to solve the dangers of fairies and unicorns. This meeting, set up to address the threats posed by fairies and unicorns, was called the Conference of the Parties (CoP). The CoP – comprised of representatives from all the world’s various governments (and many unelected representatives from self-interested charities) – has been meeting for 25 years now, on and off, each time to discuss the threats posed by fairies and unicorns. In almost 30 years of extremely well funded research, a scientific consensus that fairies and unicorns do exist and are actually potentially catastrophically dangerous to mankind has emerged. Unfortunately, nobody yet has ever seen or has ever been able to scientifically identify any fairy or unicorn anywhere in the world.
After two weeks of talking about the dangers that fairies and unicorns pose – even though, to date, there is no scientific evidence whatsoever that faeries and unicorns have ever directly or indirectly caused anyone any harm at all – all the delegates to the meeting agreed that the dangers posed by still imaginary fairies and unicorns is real and that urgent action is needed to deal with the threat, should these imaginary faeries and unicorns ever actually appear and start making trouble.
All the delegates at the Paris CoP decided that the best way to fight fairies and unicorns would be to tax the world’s population to try and make it so that the danger of faeries and unicorns ever appearing and threatening anyone, especially smaller, poorer nations, is averted, or at the very least mitigated. The CoP agreed, therefore, that it would collect $100billion every year from now on – mostly from the world’s richer nations who are, after some discussion, believed to be the most responsible for encouraging the likelihood of an attack by fairies and unicorns.
The $100billion that the CoP has voted for itself to receive every year will come from taxpayers living and working in the world’s richest nations (but not all of them, especially not those in Asia and the Middle East who are, CoP says, not as responsible for making fairies and unicorns a real threat to humanity as are countries in western Europe and North America) – this will be money collected mostly from ordinary people who are just trying to earn a living, feed their families , etc, and most of whom would have had no idea whether fairies and unicorns even existed or not, had the Media Party, who are very firm believers in both fairies and unicorns, not told them. Every day, in every way.
Poorer nations, who the CoP think are probably more vulnerable to fairy and unicorn attack than richer nations, will get the majority of the $100billion collected every year. They will be asked to use the money to protect themselves from anticipated fairy and unicorn attacks – although nobody is yet sure how best this could be done.
To date, nobody has ever proved the existence in any scientific paper, anywhere, ever, of either fairies or unicorns.
What I don’t get is how you can push a conspiracy theory of such magnitude. You’re saying that the vast network of climate scientists and the most senior politicians of every nation on the planet all labour under a fallacy. That’s a very big call. It seems to me that the establishment of developed countries is better off preserving its fossil-fuelled energy supply. These global corporates have succeeded in slowing the world’s response to AGW by disseminating seeds of doubt, but at the end of the day science has propelled our governments to commence a transition. These same governments are looking hard for evidence to justify further delay, and sadly they can’t find it. This website included.
CNN is of course at it again – Latest opinion warrants a headline “This is the end of fossil fuels”
I bring up CNN because it is a mainstream news outlet. It is not surprising that alarmist publications spew their Baghdad Bob climate nonsense, it is unforgivable a that major news outlet does the same.
“CNN is of course at it again – Latest opinion warrants a headline “This is the end of fossil fuels”
12,000 miles of oil pipeline has been built in the US in the last 5 years,
fossil fuels are here for a very long time.
This wealth redistribution is how we destroy Capitalism, right Bob?
boon·dog·gle
/ˈbo͞onˌdäɡəl/
noun
1.work or activity that is wasteful or pointless but gives the appearance of having value
Of brother. Did anyone tell the Chinese that their man-made islands in the South China Sea will be under water by 2100.
I did some number crunching on the Paris Climate (let’s say) targets or long-term objectives. This is not what the actual emission plans submitted by countries but what the long-term targets are.
The Paris Climate agreement plans to limit human emissions so that the amount that plants oceans and soils can absorb is equal by about the years between 2050 and 2100. Emissions have to peak in 2030.
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35073297
So let’s take the natural absorption rate of the year 2075, about 28 Gigatonnes per year (compared to the rate of 2014 of 20 Gigatonnes). Human emissions then need to decline by about 0.75% (less than 1.0%) per year after the year 2030 (40 Gigatonnes) and by 2075 (28 Gigatonnes).
CO2 then peaks at 480 ppm in 2075 and slowly declines to 400 ppm by 2200. That would be in the range of +2.0C by 2100 according to the 3.0C per doubling theory.
http://s4.postimg.org/fg9o2ib3h/CO2_Path_Paris_Agreement_1750_2200.png
The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) says:
http://www.thegwpf.com/gwpf-welcomes-non-binding-and-toothless-un-climate-deal-2/
Reassuring, I think. If the US Congress does not fund any of the faux ‘commitments’ the Obamunists have made, then they are moot. And with any luck a President Cruz will put the kibosh on the whole business.
/Mr Lynn
The climate cranks have now sealed their precious “agreement” to make the world safe for continuing vast transfer of wealth to rent-seekers who manufacture and promote this fake crisis.
With victory at hand, news organizations may now be forced to switch to other controversies to sell newspapers. All that remains is a blowout celebratory TIME cover marking this event as the high point of the current social mania before it passes away to join all the others lying near bottom of the dustbin of history.
The great thing about science is that it remains true even when you don’t believe in it.
The great thing about science is that it doesn’t rest on belief. Unlike religion, which does.
Sorry, bh2, but I’m not a crank. I’m a rational, responsible world citizen. I’m doing my best to make semse of the signals I receive. My perception is that the world’s media have under-represented the case for action on AGW, and over-represented the scientific minority view of sceptics. It’s the sceptics’ view that sells newspapers.
What do you mean by “rent seekers”? If AGW is a real or likely threat then it makes sense to enable poor nations to develop with less reliance on fossil fuels. Does it not?
Please identify the other “social mania” that you say alredy occupy the dstbin of history. How many of those are backed up by such a comprehensive scientific research base?
Hi, Mart …
In answer to your last question, I refer you to Makay’s famous “Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds”. It’s a long list. And a big book.
Every delusional crowd is stirred by rent seekers who PERSONALLY benefit from the promotion in one way or another. “Follow the money” is surely the most reliable measure of motives generally governing human affairs.
The large body of natural followers (which is to say, most people) who echo and re-echo the promotional messages (“signals”?) submit willingly to confirmation bias and soon accept virtually any evidence promoted by others which re-enforces their adopted beliefs. (I leave it to Richard Feynman to explain to you in plain talk how this pernicious process operates in science, including the observation that “the easiest person to fool is yourself”.)
A copy and paste definition of rent-seeking: “When a company, organization or individual uses their resources to obtain an economic gain from others without reciprocating any benefits back to society through wealth creation.” This gain is not only denominated in dirty lucre, however. The social benefit of claiming to pursue a selfless cause in service of humanity is the worlds oldest (and arguably most profitable) deception, and also, therefore, arguably a major sub-category of the worlds oldest profession. There are very few like Sean Penn, who pays his own way in money and in kind to support those causes he deeply believes in. Most of the rest expect someone else to pay the way for their “beliefs”.
George Soros once described his strategy for earning riches by speculation was to discover the trend which is false and to then bet against it. This can take a long time, of course, owing to what Soros labels “reflexivity”. Eventually the false premise is exposed and the false trend fails. Often suddenly. Surprise follows. And losses.
The point, of course, is that most people do not see the trend as false and it is their very belief in the certainty that it will continue forever which sustains it. Soros profits on eventual fulfillment of their delusional thinking.
Until he collects his reward for sustained skepticism, most people (97%, let’s say) will more and more devoutly believe in the false trend and promote it ever more loudly, despite the fact it rests on a fundamentally false premise being steadily undermined and exposed by objective reality.
“If AGW is a real or likely threat…”
Yes, like that one.
It’s a matter of trust. I am not a climate scientist. I don’t need to be. Others have that expertise and when other experts combine and reach a consensus, then I listen. I listen for advice based on scientific research that I cannot hope to understand.
I choose to place my trust in the IPCC and in the many authoritative agencies such as NIWA (the meteorological service in New Zealand where I live) or NOAA. I choose to not place my trust in the sceptics who comment on this website. They are outside the scientific consensus.
The institution of scientific inquiry includes the evaluation of studies that appear to contradict previous findings. Scientists seek to reconcile conflicting data from competing studies. Old theories may be rejected or affirmed or adapted as further studies account for the differences. That’s science. The accumulation of thousands of studies, including the ones that appear to be contradictory, have brought us to the present understanding of AGW.
And the case for action has never been stronger.
As was the case for population control, based on UN projections decades ago.