The Paris 'Agreement' – chock full of noble intentions

Guest essay by Philip Lloyd

All the excitement, the back-slappings, the hubbub is over, and the 40 000 have jetted back home. COP21 has come and gone. We have now had time to assess all 32 pages of the Paris Agreement.

In spite of the claims about saving the planet, there is little for your carbon comfort. Much of the Agreement has to do with noble intentions:

“Each Party shall prepare, communicate and maintain successive nationally determined contributions that it intends to achieve. Parties shall pursue domestic mitigation measures, with the aim of achieving the objectives of such contributions.” (Article 4.2)

Legally binding? No! And wasn’t there something about the path to Hell being paved with good intentions?

Much of the Agreement has to do with accounting:

“Parties shall account for their nationally determined contributions. In accounting for anthropogenic emissions and removals corresponding to their nationally determined contributions, Parties shall promote environmental integrity, transparency, accuracy, completeness, comparability and consistency, and ensure the avoidance of double counting – -.” (Article 4.13)

It will be nice to be able to tell how rapidly we are committing carbon suicide (if indeed we are), but it is difficult to see how this is going to save the world.

An issue largely left unresolved is what to do about the big emitters who have emerged since 1992, when the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change came into being. It is all very well for the Agreement to say “Developed country Parties shall provide financial resources to assist developing country Parties with respect to both mitigation and adaptation in continuation of their existing obligations under the Convention.” (Article 9.1), but there is no clarity of who is ‘Developed’ and who ‘Developing’. Which category does China fit into?

On the money, the Agreement is gloriously vague:

strongly urges developed country Parties to scale up their level of financial support, with a concrete roadmap to achieve the goal of jointly providing USD 100 billion annually by 2020 for mitigation and adaptation.” (Para IV, 54)

In other words, for all the pious promises, $100 billion a year will not be available soon.

I am seriously underwhelmed by the Paris Agreement. It is little more than hand-waving. This is clear from 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 – -. 2. Any such withdrawal shall take effect upon expiry of one year from the date of receipt – – of the notification of withdrawal, – -”

An agreement from which you can opt out any time you feel so inclined? That’s no agreement!

As the Romans would have put it,

“The mountains have been in labour, and given birth to a little mouse.” (Horace)

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
December 21, 2015 11:37 am

It’s the grand Obama illusion. They fooled more people than a Las Vegas magic show act.

george e smith
Reply to  Resourceguy
December 21, 2015 11:52 am

Well I intend to get filthy rich.
But don’t count on me for your MacDonald’s breakfast. There is no assurance that my intentions will be realized.

george e smith
Reply to  george e smith
December 21, 2015 11:54 am

And I will only be accounting for those CO2 molecules that carry my PIN number on them.

Reply to  Resourceguy
December 22, 2015 11:23 pm

It seems to me that Obama and the ‘Anglosphere’ are hell bent on destroying their economies on the ‘sacri
ficial alter of co2’ while Germany is well down the track of rebuilding its energy base on coal and France on nuclear energy. I posted this clip on Bishop Hill which is running a thread that observes that the US has ursurped the EU’s role as the ‘global village ‘ fool.

kadaka (KD Knoebel)
December 21, 2015 11:49 am

The Paris Climate Summit – chock full of noble press releases.

CC Reader
Reply to  kadaka (KD Knoebel)
December 21, 2015 1:23 pm

Do you mean “Nobel Prize releases”

December 21, 2015 11:51 am

There’s enough in it for Obama to roll it into the TPP and further punish American taxpayers.

Reply to  Slywolfe
December 21, 2015 12:22 pm

The TPP will also be dead in 2017, so no difference !!

Kalifornia Kook
Reply to  Marcus
December 21, 2015 1:41 pm

You’re making an assumption of which party will have the presidency, and for that matter, the Congress. Do not underestimate the power of the fool, who has a right to vote, whether he knows who is running or not, or even how to find his country (let alone state) on a map.

Reply to  Marcus
December 22, 2015 5:52 am

A majority of voters vote for who ever promises them the most free stuff.

December 21, 2015 11:58 am

Only serves as a checkbox and physical proof of attendance on the participants travel re-embursement forms (however paid in advance in cash $, ¥, £, €, etc. but did not inform the accounting secretary, snicker snicker).
Obama will have a “talking point” for the next 12 months of his regime; then … poof.
Ha ha

Reply to  601nan
December 22, 2015 2:51 am

I’d caution anybody who thinks a Coalition of Pirates would have noble intentions should they find a way to enforce their “Grand Scheme”. Implementation would bring the world’s economy to its knees and redirect our allegiance to a new governing body. It looks benign right now but when (not if) its implemented, we’ll rue the day.

Reply to  RockyRoad
December 22, 2015 5:53 am

It doesn’t look all that benign to me, even right now.

December 21, 2015 12:01 pm

In the United States the whole issue is in the hands of the Courts and the rules of the Bureaucracy. Nobody is really talking about that. If there was a single pair of balls on Capitol Hill there would be hearings and corrective legislation to reign in the EPA, Corps of Engineers, and Fish and Wildlife services who have,by default, become what would have been called in the old Soviet system the Directorates of central economic planning.

Reply to  fossilsage
December 21, 2015 3:00 pm

foss good soul,
might it be rein in – as in uncooperative mules?
Mind he whole bunch need reining in – and – possibly – hog-tying . . . . . .

Reply to  Auto
December 21, 2015 3:47 pm

And may it rain on their parade forever.

Reply to  Auto
December 22, 2015 11:40 am

alas spell check can’t rein you in if one spells the word reign correctly.

December 21, 2015 12:05 pm

If a non binding agreement is agreed upon, and no one cares, does it make a noise?

Reply to  JustSteve
December 21, 2015 2:25 pm


Reply to  wijnand2015
December 21, 2015 6:01 pm

The ‘climate aid’ goes through the UN who takes a fee off the top. The aid is severely reduced for the neediest countries.

Reply to  JustSteve
December 21, 2015 9:45 pm

No it is jazz hands all round and an agreement to keep the party going.

Reply to  JustSteve
December 22, 2015 11:44 am

Dale, you mean to say that, like the Clinton Foundation, 97%goes to “administrative fees”?

December 21, 2015 12:11 pm

The Agreement also mentions eradication of poverty four times.. Many countries have foreign aid for that purpose.

Tim Crome
Reply to  Dale Hartz
December 21, 2015 1:37 pm

Foreign aid will now become climate aid, a simple accounting exercise that keeps (almost) everyone happy!

Jeff in Calgary
Reply to  Tim Crome
December 21, 2015 2:48 pm

Good point. All a country like USA or Canada needs to do is change the ‘memo’ blank on the foreign aid cheque to read “Climate Aid”, and presto! climate penance complete.

Chris Hanley
December 21, 2015 12:20 pm

“Much of the Agreement has to do with accounting …”.
That’s what governments like to call ‘job creation’.

December 21, 2015 12:21 pm

Well gee whiz, they had to come up with something !! LOL

Robert O
December 21, 2015 12:22 pm

Seems to have dropped off the agenda quite quickly so us normal folk can get on with living and paying taxes to be spent on climate scams.

Robert of Ottawa
Reply to  Robert O
December 21, 2015 2:49 pm

Unfortunately we have a stupid boy as PM who believes this stuff, and this controlled by ideologues and money-seeking cronies. Canada is toast.

anthony ricketts
December 21, 2015 12:23 pm

COP21 is truly remarkable for its global consensus, from fossil fuel dynasties on one hand to low lying island nations being washed away by sea level rise on the other. I can’t imagine another complex scientific / political / diplomatic issue where 200 countries could together agree the problem, and formulate steps towards a solution. A recent Pew survey found the majority of people in 40 countries saw climate change as a serious problem with a median of 54% seeing it as very serious ( Finally the global will is there to pass a livable planet to future generations, and none too soon. Now is a historic moment, as Lee Iacocca famously said, to “lead, follow, or get out of the way”.

Reply to  anthony ricketts
December 21, 2015 12:31 pm

anthony ricketts,
So the nightly newsbabe has made a believer out of you. Stick around here, the scales might fall from your eyes.

Reply to  anthony ricketts
December 21, 2015 12:34 pm

LOL Anthony…Out of 190 nations attending, 185 were there ONLY because they thought they were going to be getting trillions of free money !!!

Tom in Florida
Reply to  anthony ricketts
December 21, 2015 12:43 pm

anthony ricketts December 21, 2015 at 12:23 pm
” Finally the global will is there to pass a livable planet to future generations, and none too soon.”
Do you honestly believe that our Planet is going to become unlivable because of a rise in CO2?
Someone has finally caused me to be speechless.

RobertBobbert GDQ
Reply to  Tom in Florida
December 21, 2015 8:55 pm

Tom in Florida,
Hello from The Land of the Kangaroo.
We have a private (but $6.5 million government grants over 6 years) website called The Conversation and The Drum which is Government ABC Media. Both are choc a bloc with the pandemonium story of gobsmacking doom and horror and to many of posters of these sites this imminent horror that our Planet is going to become unlivable because of a rise in CO2 is pretty much a given.
The remedy of course being to give more money to The Renewable Bandits of Solar and Wind and even more The UN and all the associated Climate Fund Scammers and, in some cases, silencing dissent, and even Criminalising Scepticism.
BTW. Our States share a city called Melbourne. My home city had its first hot spell of the season with about 3-4 days of 35 to 38 celsius but with some useful night time relief. Christmas day is tipped to be 33C and a few of my friends are claiming that it has to be due to The all encompassing Climate Change but tend to quieten when I ask what season is it here in Melbourne during Dec-Feb.
Summer. Who wooda thought that to be linked with heat hey!
To be as scientifically silly as they are I shall be extremist and say no doubt there are alarmers out there who would dispute that Summer or even the Sun has any thing to do with it.
Funny and gobsmacking thing is that some websites do have these whack jobs!
That just the way they are!
What’s your State weather situation Tom.
Kangaroo Hops To All.

Reply to  Tom in Florida
December 22, 2015 4:36 am

The addition of tens of billions of tons of plant food will make the plants unlivably smug.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Tom in Florida
December 22, 2015 9:27 am

RobertBobbert GDQ December 21, 2015 at 8:55 pm
“What’s your State weather situation Tom.”
Greetings to you Robert. I prefer to say you are from the land of XXXX where you produce some of the greatest beer commercials ever.
I am on the southwest coast of Florida across the State from Melbourne, which by the way is where I attended college for a while before joining the military. We have been above average most of the fall. Normal high temps for us in Venice at this time of year is around 71F (21.666C). This morning our low temp was 72F (22.2C) heading for a high temp of around 82F (27.7C). We are expected to remain like this for another 7- 10 days. This is almost perfect weather, a few degrees warmer would be better.

Edmonton Al
Reply to  anthony ricketts
December 21, 2015 12:47 pm

@ anthony rickets…
I have a question for you. The UN IPCC says that a 2C rise will occur if the CO2 level doubles. That is to say that the CO2 level rises from 400ppm to 800ppm.
Now 400ppm is 1 part in 2500. Correct?
I ask you to explain how 1 molecule of CO2 can heat up the other 2499 molecules of Oxygen[O2] and Nitrogen[N2] 2C degrees? That 1 molecule of CO2 would have to “trap” 5000 C degrees of heat.
That is absurd…. No?
Reply to  Edmonton Al
December 21, 2015 12:57 pm

(Note: “Buster Brown” is the latest fake screen name for ‘David Socrates’, ‘Brian G Valentine’, ‘Joel D. Jackson’, ‘beckleybud’, ‘Edward Richardson’, ‘H Grouse’, and about twenty others. The same person is also an identity thief who has stolen legitimate commenters’ names. Therefore, all the time and effort he spent on posting 300 comments under the fake “BusterBrown” name is wasted, because I am deleting them wholesale. ~mod.)

Edmonton Al
Reply to  Edmonton Al
December 21, 2015 1:13 pm

OK the 1 molecule of CO2 would have to thermalize how many BTUs to raise the other 2499 molecules, O2 and N2, 2C

george e smith
Reply to  Edmonton Al
December 21, 2015 2:33 pm

Duzzat mean that Vostok Station will only be at -92 deg. C instead of -94,or does it mean the North African deserts will get up to + 38 deg. C (air) or +62 deg. C (ground).
Or maybe both ??

Ben of Houston
Reply to  Edmonton Al
December 22, 2015 7:36 am

Edmond, you really aren’t understanding. It’s absorption of infrared light, something you can observe with some basic experiments and quantified in gas chambers over a century ago. That’s a very, VERY different thing. I don’t even know where to begin. It’s like saying that germs are too small to make you sick.
That’s not skepticism. That’s willful ignorance.

Reply to  Edmonton Al
December 22, 2015 9:54 am

Edmondton Al, that one molecule of CO2 doesn’t just do this once, it does it over and over and over again.

Village Idiot
Reply to  anthony ricketts
December 21, 2015 12:59 pm

Everything you say is true, but as noted in the essay above, and elsewhere, the deal just cannot deliver what the science says is needed…

Robert of Ottawa
Reply to  Village Idiot
December 21, 2015 2:55 pm

The “science” doesn’t say anything is needed. It makes statements of fact (hopefully) and politicians say what is needed – more money, normally.

Harry Passfield
Reply to  anthony ricketts
December 21, 2015 1:21 pm

Just think, Anthony Ricketts, the people who gave us WWI were very similar in their motives to the guys who gave us COP21: they also wanted a world that was fit for the future – for heroes. But history has informed us: we now know that those who gave us WWI (don’t even mention WWII) were so very wrong – evil, even. What is to say that our future generations won’t also be ‘informed’ of the evil that men do?

Steve Fraser
Reply to  anthony ricketts
December 21, 2015 1:38 pm

I particularly liked the use of the ‘median’, and the lack of error bars…

Reply to  anthony ricketts
December 21, 2015 2:17 pm

A recent Pew survey found the majority of people in 40 countries saw climate change as a serious problem
Isn’t propaganda wonderful?

Reply to  PiperPaul
December 21, 2015 3:01 pm

Oh, PEW!

Reply to  anthony ricketts
December 21, 2015 3:26 pm

“as Lee Iacocca famously said, to “lead, follow, or get out of the way”.”
Patton said it first. (Or earlier, anyway.)

Reply to  rogerknights
December 22, 2015 5:59 am

Would you pay attention to someone who was trying to commit suicide, who said “lead, follow, or get out of the way”?

CD in Wisconsin who is wishing for a mild winter this year.
Reply to  anthony ricketts
December 21, 2015 3:49 pm

@anthony ricketts and Village Idiot: Guys, if you two actually believe that the COP21 conference has a legitimate scientific basis and will produce any results that will make this planet more “livable” as AR calls it, then I have a really big ol’ bridge in Brooklyn that I am willing to sell you real to you guys really cheap if you are interested. You can put in toll booths at both ends and make a fortune off of all those evil internal combustion engine users, especially the SUV owners.
Just think guys, you can use the profits….um, I mean earnings from the toll booths to install a whole bunch of wind turbines and solar farms all over the country to make for a more “livable” planet….and don’t you worry your little ol’ selves one bit about those physicists who say that wind and solar energies don’t scale up. And you just never mind about how many birds will be made into avian mincemeat by all those wind turbines and that they produce only maybe 15-25% of their nameplate capacity depending on the whims of Mother Nature. We’re talking “green” avian mincemeat here, right? And who the hell needs reliable 24/7 electricity these days anyway?
Let me know guys if you are interested in the Brooklyn Bridge offer. The price is negotiable and I offer very generous terms.

Reply to  anthony ricketts
December 21, 2015 6:15 pm

anthony ricketts: “Now is a historic moment, as Lee Iacocca famously said, to “lead, follow, or get out of the way”.”
I hate to disillusion you Anthony, but out in the real world, the CAGW hoax is losing credibility fast, as the following surveys courtesy of the British Broadcasting Corporation and the United Nations clearly demonstrate.
Public support for a strong global deal on climate change has declined, according to a poll carried out in 20 countries.
Only four now have majorities in favour of their governments setting ambitious targets at a global conference in Paris.
In a similar poll before the Copenhagen meeting in 2009, eight countries had majorities favouring tough action.
The poll has been provided to the BBC by research group GlobeScan.
Just under half of all those surveyed viewed climate change as a “very serious” problem this year, compared with 63% in 2009.
The findings will make sober reading for global political leaders, who will gather in Paris next week for the start of the United Nations climate conference, known as COP21.
The 2015 United Nations ‘My World’ global survey of causes for concern currently covering 9,716,575 respondents shows ‘action on climate change’ flat last, 16th of 16 categories.
Crying “WOLF!” can only work for so long, and as not a single one of the catastrophic predictions of the Warmist religion over the last 3 decades has actually happened – in fact in the majority of cases such as hurricane landfall frequency and polar ice disappearance they have been diametrically wrong – their credibility is rapidly approaching zero.
The real problem is that these scammers and the credulous bedwetters that unquestioningly support them are destroying the credibility of real science – and not just in the field of climate either, and just as in the fable, when a real wolf does come – and it will, sooner or later, nobody will believe them.

Reply to  anthony ricketts
December 22, 2015 12:27 am


Reply to  anthony ricketts
December 22, 2015 5:56 am

The claim that low lying island nations are being washed away has been disproven, Years ago.
Most of those 200 countries agreed to have a handful of other countries promise to give them money. As the text of this article makes clear, that promise isn’t worth the paper it was written on.
It’s CO2 that makes the planet livable in the first place. More CO2 will make it even more livable.

Reply to  anthony ricketts
December 22, 2015 8:17 pm

Anthony Ricketts – over 1 million people have fled war in the Middle East this year; economies are crashing all around the world even as the US is coming out of recession; Saudi Arabia has declared a fossil fuel market world war; hackers from (pick your favourite – maybe even anonymoose) are stealing vital records from countries and corporations; many people are struggling to put food on the table, many are losing their jobs as mines, refineries, and factories shut down or reduce production … who the heck is going to worry about Climate? A degree here or there under those conditions, especially when they watch the anointed drinking wine on the Champs Elysee using their tax dollars isn’t going to bother most working folks. End of rant.
Merry Christmas.

Reply to  anthony ricketts
December 24, 2015 12:20 pm

Claims of a cause and effect are just that, claims. There is no scientific “control experiment” that can be run to test the theory of anthropogenic climate change. To insist that CO2 is the control knob of climate dynamics while ignoring other possible untestable variables is pure folly. If the world would be so stupid and gullible to follow the dictates of the would-be dictators in the making, we would starve from poverty and misery. Fortunately I think there are enough of us that if the time should come with our backs against the wall, a bloody rebellion would sweep you far-left idiots away.

Reply to  anthony ricketts
December 26, 2015 4:18 am

“low lying island nations being washed away by sea level rise on the other”
Would that be the Maldives, currently prospecting for oil in their pristine seas?

December 21, 2015 12:27 pm

The major victor from COP21 is bureaucracy. What would all those useless bureaucrats (starting with the 40,000) do without Climate change? Well they are always going to do nothing of value, but COP21 guarantees with Climate Change they can be paid a lot for doing nothing.

December 21, 2015 12:29 pm

Here in Canada we’ve elected a guy who is better known for his hair than his intelligence. Some have called him Prime Minister Zoolander, which is more accurate than it is kind, but I’d prefer to call him PM PR.
All he does is smile for the cameras and gush about how doing the right thing is very, very important…even though he offers few details about how things are supposed to actually GET done.
Just smiles and the children of the women who got weak in the knees over his father lose their minds.
We live in a sad world, sometimes.

Reply to  CaligulaJones
December 24, 2015 12:22 pm

The current Canadian nightmare too shall pass.

December 21, 2015 12:45 pm

I’m … unable …. to … stop … laughing.

December 21, 2015 12:53 pm

Chock full of noble intentions, perhaps. But even more chock full of noble cause corruption.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  kamikazedave
December 21, 2015 1:08 pm

More like chock full of nuts.

Reply to  Tom in Florida
December 22, 2015 6:00 am

Sometimes you feel like a nut. Sometimes you don’t.

John in Oz
December 21, 2015 12:57 pm

No mention of ‘carbon dioxide’ nor ‘CO2’ in this document.
If this is the control knob for the World’s temperature, why no target for the level they seem to think will provide the perfect climate?
Reducing emissions without stating a desired end measure for CO2 concentration seems pointless (as is the entire agreement, of course).

Jeff in Calgary
Reply to  John in Oz
December 21, 2015 2:56 pm

That is an interesting point. Not only does it not mentin ‘carbon dioxide’ nor ‘CO2’, it only mentioned ‘Carbon’ 5 times. 4 of those mentions are related to ‘forest carbon stocks’, and one is related to ‘carbon tax’.
What is this agreement even about?

George Tetley
Reply to  Jeff in Calgary
December 22, 2015 1:18 am

Gavin, oh Gavin , where are you, Please hurry, we need some of your “Good Luck”

December 21, 2015 1:01 pm

There is no substance to the Agreement to stop global emissions from rising, let alone starting to fall rapidly. This was the main objective of COP21, implied in the claim of preventing of 2C of warming. But there is more than sufficient mush to provide the political justification for many countries continuing to pursue ineffective, but costly, job-destroying and regressive policies.
The recognition that the current INDCs are far from sufficient to achieve this main objective is contained in Paragraph 17. The response (contained in Paragraph 21) is to get the IPCC to dream up some more scary stories and some more modelled emissions forecasts.

Harry Passfield
Reply to  manicbeancounter
December 21, 2015 1:29 pm

Manic: well, they don’t seem to care about CO2, I mean:[…]strongly urges developed country Parties to scale up their level of financial support, with a concrete roadmap (grin)

Reply to  Harry Passfield
December 24, 2015 12:26 pm

They think it is concrete, but what they got is quicksand which could quickly swallow them up.

Reply to  manicbeancounter
December 21, 2015 1:42 pm

Paragrap 17
“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;”
55 Gt CO2 (or equivalent) yearly in 2030 against 40 Gt in 2014. It takes a lot of heating to contain warming.

E. Martin
December 21, 2015 1:08 pm

The climate dogmatists must be challenged to show the robust scientific evidence that demonstrates that co2 levels can be controlled by regulating co2 emissions.

Reply to  E. Martin
December 21, 2015 1:46 pm

I agree with what you say, but with a point about regulation. Each country needs to regulate their own emissions, and a central body needs to regulate the regulators. The majority of current emissions (and nearly all of future emissions growth) comes from countries who have no intention of regulating emissions such that global emissions will start decreasing with a few years, rather than increasing.

December 21, 2015 1:15 pm

can’t recall Gov Brown mentioning any of this in Paris!
21 Dec: Buzzfeed: Jim Dalrymple: Tons Of Methane Are Spewing Out Of California, And There’s A Connection To The Governor
The out of control leak has forced thousands of residents to flee their homes. Gov. Brown’s sister is a paid board member at the company that owns the well…
The natural gas leak, which has forced thousands of residents to flee their homes in the Porter Ranch neighborhood of L.A.’s San Fernando Valley, is spewing 100,000 pounds of methane into the air per hour…
The leak was discovered in October, prompting hundreds of complaints, resident relocations, school closures, lawsuits, flight restrictions, and a condemnation from star lawyer Erin Brockovich — and shows no sign of stopping.
The methane is coming from a ruptured pipe at a storage facility owned by Southern California Gas Co., which in turn is owned by San Diego-based Sempra Energy…
But Gov. Brown’s connection to Sempra goes even deeper. Campaign finance records show that Brown has received tens of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from Sempra and Sempra employees going back to at least 2006…
The Golden State governor spent the year touting his green credentials and has specifically singled out methane — the gas leaking near Porter Ranch — as a greenhouse emission he wants to cut. Earlier this month he also was a star attendee at the Paris climate conference — a global gathering that explicitly aimed to curb greenhouse gas emissions…
Brown himself has been publicly quiet about the massive leak…READ ALL
18 Dec: OCRegister: AP: Ellen Knickmeyer: Gov. Brown’s sister on board of firm in gas leak
While public-health officials say the leak is not an immediate health threat, residents complain of nosebleeds, headaches and nausea
The utility is paying to relocate nearly 3,000 households…
Brown’s sister, Kathleen L. Brown, a lawyer and a former California state treasurer in the 1990s, has served as a director of Sempra Energy since 2013, receiving $188,380 in salary last year. Federal filings show she also holds stock in the company currently worth about $400,000…
In 2010, Kathleen Brown left a West Coast position with Goldman Sachs in part to avoid any perception of conflict of interest after her brother was elected governor, the securities firm said then…
Toney said the focus should be stopping the leak — something that authorities say will likely take months…

Alan Robertson
Reply to  pat
December 21, 2015 2:12 pm

Months to stop a natural gas leak? They must need to build a new line to route around the leaking section and can’t just shut it down for repairs. Or… What percentage of that time is lost to bureaucratic entanglements- red tape- waiting to shut off the valve, repair the leaking section, check for leaks and go?

Reply to  Alan Robertson
December 21, 2015 7:26 pm

They are waiting for White House approval- could be years!

Reply to  pat
December 21, 2015 3:35 pm

I wonder if this will have value as an experiment in the effect of methane on the atmosphere. If it degenerates quickly and has little effect on temperature it will weaken alarmism.

December 21, 2015 1:20 pm

When I saw those things I described it on social meeja as one of the greatest days in the history of the world. Not one of my leftist warmist friends even attempted to engage on that topic, or regurgitate the green self-congratulations. That suggests they actually know it.
These are the lowest of low information voters – the ones that believe whatever al-Gore, Soros and the Guardian tell them to believe. And if they know it, everyone knows.

richard verney
December 21, 2015 1:26 pm

There is nothing noble about it.
It seeks to condemn countless millions to a life of poverty, depression, servitude and despair.
Fossil fuels should be celebrated. they have done more than anything else to advance mankind, and civilisation and wellbeing.

Reply to  richard verney
December 21, 2015 1:39 pm

And they may be helping to hold back the next ” Little Ice Age “, which would devastate most of the Northern countries like Canada !!

December 21, 2015 1:35 pm

I wish I could have gotten my mortgage under like terms. I will endeavor to pay a sum equivalent to my ability to earn in the vicinity of what is necessary to achieve the desired goal of reducing my debt for the term of loan unless I have given written notice of my lack of interest in continuing the agreement in which case the agreement will be considered null 1 year after I lose interest. Oh yes, and I keep the house.

December 21, 2015 1:39 pm

“The mountains have been in labour, and given birth to a little mouse.” (Horace)
But it’s a mouse that can roar, amplified disproportionately by the left leaning liberal media, particularly the state owned media such as the BBC. What do we do when the proper open and balanced debate we need is being obstructed and even fully prevented by far too many of our “betters” within the political elites, who were elected to supposedly look after our interests, but have only PR skills to offer. These “leaders”, jointly, have just about sufficient scientific and technical knowledge to understand how to change an electric plug fuse but exist and survive because they are all backed up by a deferential but demanding army of supporters within the UN and national bureaucracies and certain lesser scientists – providing all their crib sheets and writing all their auto-cue scripts. These “supporters” have their own personal agendas. Regrettably, our elitist leaders sensed that such Green issues had votes value and simply added their PR skills and successfully sold too many of us some of this the religion like some spiv salesman only interested in keeping his job and growing his performance bonus.

December 21, 2015 1:42 pm

Over at we see a report on:
“Satirist Rex Murphy has a column in the weekend edition of Canada’s National Post newspaper. Its headline asks the most important climate question of 2015:”

So why aren’t we celebrating saving the planet?

A great question. Did we not just “save the planet”? Where is the utter joy in dodging the bullet?
He also wrote:

It’s a wonderful thing to save the world. Literally, to save all the world. It surely doesn’t happen every day. Considering we have just had that rare, even singular, event transpire in Paris…it is passing strange how little jubilation the rescue of the planet has stirred. The billions who have seen Doom forestalled seem eerily disinterested.

Yes, we avoided doom itself. It is like being saved and avoiding eternal damnation. Where is the joy?
And he also wrote:

But after the news that our dear green planet has been hauled back from the crevice of total catastrophe, that the world’s great cities will be spared from inundation and destruction, the absence of celebration, the dull, flat, routine response of the world’s population, poses a mystery. I’ve seen people exhibiting more joy over a bacon sandwich. Strange, isn’t it?

Perhaps it is obvious to all that there was no real danger to avoid, or perhaps many know that Paris was just a dog and pony show. Or maybe people are just more concerned about real problems in from of their face —- like me trying to do my 83 year old mom’s last minute Christmas shopping. I can never get the list with weeks to go; only at the last minute. 🙁

Bubba Cow
Reply to  markstoval
December 21, 2015 2:08 pm

“joy over a bacon sandwich” zowie

Alan Robertson
Reply to  Bubba Cow
December 21, 2015 2:14 pm


Patrick MJD
Reply to  Bubba Cow
December 22, 2015 4:37 am

A while back I persuaded my local café to make me a sammie. It was toasted bread, buttered of course, with lashings a bacon and an egg on each slice. Fried mushrooms with…tabasco sause and HP sauce (For us Brits). And it was a riot! Secret menu and all that…

Reply to  markstoval
December 21, 2015 2:22 pm

“Everybody wants to save the world but nobody wants to help Mom do the dishes.”
– P.J. O’Rourke

Reply to  PiperPaul
December 22, 2015 8:02 am

I don’t recall running across that O’Rourke quote, PiperPaul, but I love it! Thank you, sir.

Reply to  markstoval
December 22, 2015 6:04 am

I’d lost track of the number of celebrities who had declared that COP21 was our last chance to save the planet.
Of course the same fools said the same thing about COP20, COP19, COP18, COP17 …

richard verney
Reply to  MarkW
December 23, 2015 12:38 am

And will be saying the same thing when COP22 comes around.

December 21, 2015 2:12 pm
John F. Hultquist
Reply to  Marcus
December 21, 2015 9:14 pm

Matt Ridley getting published in the SCIAM mag!
I wonder if the ownership has changed?

Leon Brozyna
December 21, 2015 2:23 pm

And since there is no treaty, Messrs Obama and Kerry will no doubt cheerfully dig into their own pockets to bear any costs which accrue due to their Paris Agreement.

Alan Robertson
Reply to  Leon Brozyna
December 21, 2015 2:50 pm

Legally binding, or not, members of the US Executive branch of gov’t. gave indications pre- Cop21 that they would spend our money on climate matters anyway, regardless of Congress, or Constitutional authority.
Time will tell.

December 21, 2015 4:05 pm

Its not the C21 agreement requirements that are of such concern. Its the zealots at local council, state and provincial level who have renewed enthusiasm and a further excuse to add costs and frustration to a multitude of activities.

Bruce Cobb
December 21, 2015 4:14 pm

It’s chock full of something.

December 21, 2015 4:39 pm

Are we missing the ridiculous obligations we’ve placed on ourselves for at least four years?
“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 – -. 2. Any such withdrawal shall take effect upon expiry of one year from the date of receipt – – of the notification of withdrawal, – -”
As an example, here in Canada, this obligation along with our disastrous PM will have just enough time to completely destroy our country (a la Obama). Four years can be a long time to hold your breath…

December 21, 2015 4:54 pm

Sorry, Philip Lloyd, but I can not see the noble intentions. I see a power grab by the UN, I see the lies and the waste of resources. I see the poorest condemned to even more poverty.
I see the dead in winter because of lack of energy to heat up the houses and shelters.

John F. Hultquist
December 21, 2015 4:59 pm

with a concrete roadmap (Para IV, 54)
A good plan; here ya’go:

Reply to  John F. Hultquist
December 22, 2015 7:59 am

Hey! That looks exactly like the freeway I take on my workday commute, John. Where was that picture taken? ;o)

John Robertson
December 21, 2015 5:04 pm

Tis noble indeed.
To live a worry free life, fleecing the working class.
The noble scheme put forth at COP 21 by these para-sites…
Tax the poor to reward the righteous and true.(Politically well connected)
Course as taxpaying citizen,I think the term is nobbling.
Scheming to rob the many for the benefit of the few, is nothing new.
But scheming to cripple the producing members of western society to satisfy a idiotic ideology, on the scale of CAGW, is a quantum leap in the scale of mass hysteria.
These parasites have crossed the threshold, from minor pest into pestilence.

December 21, 2015 5:10 pm

I think it’s time for the ” Peons ” of the world to bring back the Guillotines !!

December 21, 2015 5:30 pm

Still don’t see much discussion about this COP21 enforcement back door for Barry. Why?
The US is the big target for the cash in this whole mess. Hopefully this path is shut down before we get swindled again by the POTUS……

December 21, 2015 6:10 pm

Were there any scientists at COP21? From the bits and pieces that I caught, there were politicians aplenty, backed up by celebrities from the film world — notably Sean Penn, who would be as scientifically literate as my local butcher (who, incidentally, makes the world’s best black pudding so may well be scientifically skilled).
But for a gathering such as this to have real legitimacy in taking what is claimed to be history-changing decisions, the science behind those decisions should have been spelled out and reinforced by guys with PhD after their names.
Politicians and celebs parroting the 97% consensus line isn’t good enough — some of those making up the “97% consensus” should have been there.
That they weren’t says plenty.
Also saying plenty is the absence from the official section of the conference of any dissenting voices. COP21 was like a Stalin-era Soviet show trial . . . all prosecution and no defence.

December 21, 2015 6:18 pm

I notice they’ve already decided where to hold next year’s five star pi$$-up – Morocco.
Nice work if you can get it!

Reply to  catweazle666
December 21, 2015 8:09 pm

They may have to shine the solar collectors.

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  catweazle666
December 21, 2015 9:33 pm

It seems 1 party per year is not often enough.
Countdown clock here:
134 days away.
The 22nd session of the Conference of the Parties (COP 22) to the UNFCCC
from 7-18 November 2016. Morocco
read more:

Reply to  John F. Hultquist
December 26, 2015 4:41 am

Check out all the happy people here:
Once you have enjoyed the photo gallery, scroll down and see the meetings they had beforehand and the associated spin-offs. The COP is just a side show to what is being engineered all year round.

December 21, 2015 7:44 pm

Bureaucrats have a talent for taking a simple matter and rendering it as confusing and complicated as conceivably possible.
They walked into this project with the desire to acquire power and money by feigning a pretense of expertise. Now the result of their combined confusion has risen up and taken on a life of its own.
It will confuse everything and anything with which it comes into contact.
Eventually even well informed supporters of the project will notice that they have started to feel muddled.
In the midst of this confusion a massive busload of cash money can be hauled off and secreted in private off-shore bank accounts never to be seen again.
Nobody will notice, because nobody will be able to figure out what the hell is going on.
Only that some people are being paid a vast amount of money to agree that they will henceforth agree to agree that agreements shall be forthcoming. And that countries will be strongly encouraged to encourage more strong encouragement. And please give the U.N. more cash money, ideally denominated in dollar amounts containing 11 or 12 digits.
If catastrophic runaway global warming is real. And the U.N. is the only body that can prevent it – then – let’s face it – WE’RE ALL DOOMED!!! (sarc)

Reply to  indefatigablefrog
December 21, 2015 7:52 pm

Haven’t you heard the latest ?? Gavin Schmidt is now claiming that Humans are causing Global Warming AND Global Cooling…at the same time !! LOL

December 22, 2015 4:13 am

So it appears that if a Party wishes to track their emissions of reflective particulate material, that would be a contribution too. The models would confirm that their pollution offsets their GHG. Good accounting!

Patrick MJD
December 22, 2015 4:32 am

Surely you mean nobble intentions. To “nobble” economies and lifestyles…

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Patrick MJD
December 22, 2015 4:39 am

Ah no….knobble…is the word. I am sure there is a song about that…

December 22, 2015 5:26 am

The Paris ‘Agreement’ – chock full of noble intentions.
The very stuff the road to hell is paved with.

December 22, 2015 5:56 am

I did wonder how the representatives of 190 countries were willing to sign up to this ‘climate solution’…
Having read it – I can see why..!
‘Its alright, chaps – doesn’t commit us t anything at all. Where do we sign..?’

Reply to  David
December 22, 2015 9:12 am

Actually, the HuffingtonPoop is now claiming there was 195 countries there, BUT, what they don’t acknowledge is that 185 of them were there ONLY because they thought they were going to get TRILLIONS in FREE money !!

December 22, 2015 8:47 am

It may be hard to notice close up, but peak climate scare has just occurred and it’s downhill from here. The hype will fade compared to the peak political effort, the weekly agency round robin of scare press releases will decline, and the physical underpinning (AMO) will also decline further from a major peak. Science will recover and chip away year by year as the political agenda rotates to other crusades. By the time the slumping AMO matches the decline of the 70s, or the 20s there will be no memory of the global scare campaign in media manipulation land. It will be about as relevant as the Tea Pot Dome scandal.

Tom in Florida
December 22, 2015 9:36 am

“Parties shall account for their nationally determined contributions. In accounting for anthropogenic emissions and removals …”
Solution: remove all catalytic converters from vehicles. Less anthropogenic H2O and CO2 being emitted into the atmosphere, a double win.

December 22, 2015 12:35 pm

As an Irish saint said a long time ago, “Te road to hell is paved with good intentions.”

Steve Meikle
December 22, 2015 5:21 pm

the agreement was hand waving? thank God for that. When they get serious about what is in fact a totally fictitious threat then people will die as they for example divert more arable land from food to bio fuel, at which point food prices skyrocket and guess who suffers. As we are now in a cooling cycle the evidence that this is so and so climate simply changes of its own accord will end the madness. And it be to soon for me. Warmists are dangerous

richard verney
December 23, 2015 12:40 am

So how much CO2 was emitted to get this jamboree on the road?

December 24, 2015 4:18 am

Remember Remember
The Twelfth of December
Upturning the Fourteenth July
With Bankity Moonshine
Plus Sauce Hollandaise
And Rentamobgreenhorns pie.
Full verdict at

Marlo Lewis
December 24, 2015 1:33 pm

Dismissing the Paris treaty as a paper tiger because its emission reduction and funding commitments are not “binding” under international law is whistling past the graveyard.
Obama’s goal in the Paris round was always to negotiate an agreement that is binding on the United States “politically” rather than “legally”. For two reasons. First, he gets to pretend the agreement is not a treaty, hence does not have to be submitted to the Senate for its advice and consent. He knows that even when Democrats were the majority party in the Senate, there was no chance of ratifying new international climate commitments.
Second, the agreement does not have to be legally binding to pressure future Congresses and the next president to implement rather than overturn the Clean Power Plan (CPP) and whatever other federal regulatory policies are needed to fulfill the promises Obama made in Paris (our “Nationally Determined Contribution” or NDC).
If GOP leaders dare to nix the CPP and refuse to pony up billions for the Green Climate Fund, 190 foreign heads of state, hundreds of Democratic pols, scores of green advocacy groups, and legions of liberal pundits will point fingers and bleat, “You promised, you promised!”
Think about it this way. There was no chance the U.S. Senate would ratify the Kyoto Protocol. So was the Byrd-Hagel Resolution, which preemptively rejected Kyoto by 95-0, irrelevant or empty symbolism? No.
As my colleague Chris Horner explains (, Byrd-Hagel ensured that whatever agreement the Clinton administration signed at Kyoto would not become politically binding on the United States. Byrd-Hagel told the world that, unless the Kyoto Protocol met certain criteria (which it did not), the agreement signed by President Clinton would never be more than a proposal of the administration. It would not become a policy of the United States.
Recall too that, even with Byrd-Hagel, the G.W. Bush administration was excoriated and demonized for keeping America out of Kyoto.
So unless GOP leaders are men of iron (we know they are not), they will cringe and cave to “international pressure” in 2017 and beyond unless they take strong action in 2016 to draw a big bright line in the sand. They must clarify soon that Obama’s “commitments” at Paris are proposals of his administration rather than commitments of the United States, or Paris will become “politically binding.”
What should be in a Byrd-Hagel2.0?
A concurrent resolution recently introduced by Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Mike Kelly (R-Penn.)
is just what the doctor ordered ( The House and Senate should each pass it before April 22, 2016, when the Paris agreement is officially open for “ratification, acceptance, accession, approval.”
The Lee-Kelly resolution clarifies that the Paris agreement is a treaty. As such, the United States is not a party to it until and unless the U.S. Senate ratifies it.
Why is the Paris agreement a treaty? It clearly meets several — arguably all — official State Department criteria for distinguishing treaties from other types of international agreements (such as a “sole executive agreement”). For details, see this post:
In addition, as Lee and Kelly also document, the Senate agreed to ratify the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) only on condition that future agreements containing emission-reduction targets and timetables be submitted to the Senate for its advice and consent. NDCs are targets and timetables. Consequently, Obama’s claim that Paris merely updates the UNFCCC, so does not require additional advice and consent, flouts the very terms on which the UNFCCC was ratified.
To sum up, the Paris agreement is designed to pressure future U.S. policymakers to implement Obama’s climate agenda as a “legacy policy” for the ages. If you think stopping EPA is hard now, wait until EPA’s rules become part of something much grander that “we” have “promised” to the world.
To foil Obama’s end-run around the Constitution, GOP leaders must mount a political campaign. Its centerpiece should be a Byrd-Hagel2.0, such as the Lee-Kelly resolution. The objective is to clarify for the public, both at home and abroad, that until ratified by the Senate, the Paris agreement is no more binding on the United States than any of the myriad never-enacted proposals in presidential state of the union speeches.
If, instead, GOP leaders, citing the non-legally binding elements of the Paris agreement, take no action to put it under a political cloud, they will later be overwhelmed by the political pressure exerted against them.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights