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)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Or….
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-change-will-not-be-dangerous-for-a-long-time/
Matt Ridley getting published in the SCIAM mag!
I wonder if the ownership has changed?
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.
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.
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.
It’s chock full of something.
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…
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.
with a concrete roadmap (Para IV, 54)
A good plan; here ya’go:
http://www.autotribute.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Highway.jpg
Hey! That looks exactly like the freeway I take on my workday commute, John. Where was that picture taken? ;o)
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.
I think it’s time for the ” Peons ” of the world to bring back the Guillotines !!
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……
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/12/obama_will_use_tpp_to_enforce_his_climate_agreement.html
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2015/12/13/paris-cop21-obama-declares-victory-the-tpp-likely-gives-it-to-him/
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.
I notice they’ve already decided where to hold next year’s five star pi$$-up – Morocco.
Nice work if you can get it!
They may have to shine the solar collectors.
It seems 1 party per year is not often enough.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
CLIMATE ACTION 2016
CATALYZING A SUSTAINABLE FUTURE
MAY 5–6, 2016 / COLLEGE PARK, MD / WASHINGTON, DC
Countdown clock here: http://www.climateaction.umd.edu/
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: http://climate-l.iisd.org/events/unfccc-cop-22/
Check out all the happy people here:
http://www.iisd.ca/climate/cop21/enb/
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.
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)
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
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!
Surely you mean nobble intentions. To “nobble” economies and lifestyles…
Ah no….knobble…is the word. I am sure there is a song about that…
The Paris ‘Agreement’ – chock full of noble intentions.
The very stuff the road to hell is paved with.
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..?’
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 !!
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.
“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.
As an Irish saint said a long time ago, “Te road to hell is paved with good intentions.”
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
So how much CO2 was emitted to get this jamboree on the road?
Remember Remember
The Twelfth of December
Upturning the Fourteenth July
With Bankity Moonshine
Plus Sauce Hollandaise
And Rentamobgreenhorns pie.
Full verdict at http://cleanenergypundit.blogspot.co.uk/2015/12/moonshine-is-blinding.html
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 (http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/analyst-us-senate-should-unilaterally-refuse-ratify-paris-climate), 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 (http://www.globalwarming.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Lee-Kelly-Resolution-on-Senate-Ratification.pdf). 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: https://cei.org/blog/obama-claims-paris-climate-agreement-not-treaty-huh.
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.