UN Accuses Germany, Britain of "Betraying" the Paris Climate Accord

red-ban-ki-moon

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

In the wake of a dramatic rollback of climate policy in Britain and Germany, the UN has accused Britain and Germany of “betraying the spirit” of the Paris Climate Accord.

Ban Ki-moon’s climate change envoy has accused the UK and Germany of backtracking on the spirit of the Paris climate deal by financing the fossil fuel industry through subsidies.

Mary Robinson, the former president of Ireland and UN special envoy on climate change and El Niño, said she had to speak out after Germany promised compensation for coal power and the UK provided tax breaks for oil and gas.

Governments in Paris last year not only pledged to phase out fossil fuels in the long term but to make flows of finance consistent with the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.

“They’ve [the British government] introduced new tax breaks for oil and gas in 2015 that will cost the UK taxpayer billions between 2015 and 2020, and at the same time they’ve cut support for renewables and for energy efficiency,” she told the Guardian.

“It’s regrettable. That’s not in the spirit [of Paris]. In many ways, the UK was a real leader [on climate change] and hopefully the UK will become again a real leader. But it’s not at the moment.”

Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jul/18/un-criticises-uk-and-german-for-betraying-the-spirit-of-the-paris-climate-deal

As Ban Ki-moon’s tenure as UN Secretary General draws to a close, he is no doubt thinking about his legacy, how history will remember him. Given the accelerating collapse of political climate enthusiasm across the world, my prediction is Ban Ki-moon will be remembered as the UN Secretary General who presided over the downfall of the green movement.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
153 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Tom Halla
July 18, 2016 5:57 pm

“Special envoy on climate change and El Niño”? Who is their jokewriter?

M Seward
Reply to  Eric Worrall
July 18, 2016 6:20 pm

It will have to be a male so they can blame the evil conspiracy to cool the planet by La Nina on him.
I know! Kevin Rudd from Australia who is surely not going to get the top job. As Oz PM he was ( in his own immortal words) “ratf&%ked by the Chinese” in Copenhagen. Perfect!
Could such sweet, sweet irony come to pass? Anything is possible at the UN.

Bill Illis
Reply to  Eric Worrall
July 18, 2016 6:28 pm

Bob Tisdale was celebrating the arrival of the La Nina today so he would be the absolute perfect choice for the UN La Nina czar. They could also transfer the El Nino “responsibility” to him as well.
But then Eric Worrall could also be nominated. Thanks for all your hard work on the website and Anthony as well (it is appreciated). Germany, Britain and others are slowly waking up from the noble cause corruption which led them astray, in part, because of what occurs here.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Eric Worrall
July 18, 2016 6:35 pm

+1! to Bill Illis — Just think, if Anthony Watts had not lost that school board election back in 2006… or when he was so weary of just keepin’ on keepin’ on had… quit?
Thank you, Eric Worrall, Bob Tisdale, and moderators and ALL the science giants of WUWT (that includes you, Mr. Illis) whose persevering, painstaking, illumination of science realism is defeating the Envirostalinists!
WAY — TO — GO!!!
It has been a long fight, and the mopping up operations are far from over, but, the war is won.
AGW is dead.

H.R.
Reply to  Eric Worrall
July 18, 2016 6:51 pm

You said a mouthful, Bill. Seconded and thank you, sir!
(Three cheers and a tiger for Anthony and the Mods and our Mr. Tisdale!)

Editor
Reply to  Eric Worrall
July 18, 2016 7:20 pm

Janice, in all honesty, AGW is not dead, so far as I can see. We have Arrhenius. And the recent direct observations of CO2 absorption-reflection. That may not be absolutely definitive. However, it is good evidence.
But CAGW is as dead as a doornail.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Eric Worrall
July 18, 2016 7:45 pm

Dear Evan,
I realize that you and I disagree on this issue, and respect your opinion. I do wonder…. why did you feel it so important to promote lukewarm AGW that you wrote about it here?
There is, so far, no evidence, not one quantitative measurement, that even makes a prima facie case that anthropogenic CO2 causes ANY change in the climate zones of the earth. There is no proof that, whatever influence human CO2 emissions might have, that they are not overwhelmed by natural drivers as the controlling causation. No mechanism. Nothing. Just a belief that human CO2 might be a controlling factor.
Guesses are not evidence.
Further, there is ANTI-correlation data against AGW, now:
CO2 UP. WARMING STOPPED.
Conceding that AGW might be correct is unhelpful to the promotion of truth at best, very damaging to the cause of truth (and freedom from Envirostalinism) at worst.
Perhaps, your “evidence” would not be inadmissible in a court of law for being irrelevant,
however,
because its tiny potential probative value is FAR outweighed by its prejudicial effect,
it WOULD be INadmissible.
Please forgive me if my fervent tone was offensive. I just care about our FREEDOM very much and see your remarks as undermining the science warriors-for-truth’s efforts to preserve it.
Grateful for all YOUR years and years of dedicated hard work for science truth (from the very beginning of the weatherstations project!),
Janice

Janice Moore
Reply to  Eric Worrall
July 18, 2016 7:50 pm

Clarification: the “court of law” is only a metaphorical one — I did not make that at all clear. In a real court of law, if the issue required it, you could likely get expert testimony supporting lukewarmism in. I was only using the ideas from the law of evidence to talk about the concepts of prejudice v. probative value (of ostenstiblly relevant evidence).

kim
Reply to  Eric Worrall
July 19, 2016 1:30 am

Well, yeah, but cooling as anthropogenic climate change is already on the meme horizon. The fear of catastrophe and the human need for guilt will continue to drive this extraordinary popular delusion for awhile yet. The destructive power of false narratives in the modern age pales in comparison to the past.
=============

kim
Reply to  Eric Worrall
July 19, 2016 1:45 am

er, phrased backwards. We moderns can inflict a lot more destruction on ourselves than our ancestors. Uncanny how we’ve become uncanny.
==============

graphicconception
Reply to  Eric Worrall
July 19, 2016 3:30 am

@Janice RE: Court of Law.
I think that evidence for anthropogenic global warming falls into the category of “circumstantial”.
That is, there is no direct evidence. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/circumstantial+evidence

Editor
Reply to  Eric Worrall
July 19, 2016 4:58 am

Correct.
There is direct observational evidence that the effect is occurring.
There is direct lab-only experimental evidence that CO2 will trap heat.
There is direct evidence that it has warmed (though how much warming is in severe question; Team Anthony is working on that).
The connection between the two is circumstantial, as it is difficult to separate out natural warming.
There is also direct evidence that from the start of the record to 1950, any AGW effect must be insignificant, (yet there was warming).
We do not know how much LIA bounceback (if any) from 1950 – date has occurred. But such bouncebacks appear to be limited (as RWP and MWP show).
Therefore there is circumstantial evidence that AGW is a finger under the scale (with all the variation of natural cycles).
It is only circumstantial. Yet do not discount circumstantial evidence.

commieBob
Reply to  Eric Worrall
July 19, 2016 4:59 am

Evan Jones says: July 18, 2016 at 7:20 pm
… But CAGW is as dead as a doornail.

I won’t even give you that. It should have been done many years ago but it just seemed to pick up more steam even as the science became weaker and weaker.
The post-modern-enviro-fanatics only care about science when it bolsters their case. Otherwise, they have all kinds of excuses for ignoring it. This crap is really hard to kill because it is completely resistant to facts and logic. In addition, it seems that some powerful people have, for reasons I don’t understand, a vested interest in continuing the panic.
I just heard David Suzuki call himself a scientist. No David, the public thinks scientists are dispassionate and truthful, you can’t be both an activist and a credible scientist.

Latitude
Reply to  Eric Worrall
July 19, 2016 7:32 am

as it is difficult to separate out natural warming…..
I guess it’s all in the words chosen….
Truth is right now it’s not “difficult”…….it’s impossible

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  Eric Worrall
July 19, 2016 8:06 am

Eric:
“I wonder if there is an opening for a “La Nina” envoy? :-)”
The opening that you would have to keep open is the cake hole, not the ear hole.
The ultimate confession would be to create a La Niña envoy as it implies an admission that the heating scare is over.

Wayne Delbeke
Reply to  Eric Worrall
July 19, 2016 9:42 pm

Commie Bob,
Find what papers David Suzuki has published in his field (genetics) since say, 1970.
Well, ok, let’s use 1982 ’cause that would make the number “ZERO”.
He IS a very successful activist fund raiser and TV host.
Is the glass half full or half empty? The world goes round and round and round:
http://www.macleans.ca/society/life/the-nature-of-david-suzuki/

Gunga Dad
Reply to  Eric Worrall
July 22, 2016 10:12 pm

Evan Jones July 19, 2016 at 4:58 am
Correct.
There is direct observational evidence that the effect is occurring.
There is direct lab-only experimental evidence that CO2 will trap heat.
There is direct evidence that it has warmed (though how much warming is in severe question; Team Anthony is working on that).
The connection between the two is circumstantial, as it is difficult to separate out natural warming.
There is also direct evidence that from the start of the record to 1950, any AGW effect must be insignificant, (yet there was warming).
We do not know how much LIA bounceback (if any) from 1950 – date has occurred. But such bouncebacks appear to be limited (as RWP and MWP show).
Therefore there is circumstantial evidence that AGW is a finger under the scale (with all the variation of natural cycles).
It is only circumstantial. Yet do not discount circumstantial evidence.

Continuing in the circumstantial evidence “legal” comparison…
The problem is the DA is a politician up for reelection. He needs to win a big case to stay in power.
.An honest scientist would see “circumstantial evidence” as something to investigate further to better understand what they know they don’t fully understand.
A political-scientist sees “circumstantial evidence” as something to use as a lever to further a “Cause”.
If they need a bigger fulcrum, they adjust the old one.

Gunga Din
Reply to  Eric Worrall
July 22, 2016 10:56 pm

MODS.
I made a comment that has dissipated. Maybe I used an auto-bit-bin word. I don’t think so. Maybe my most recent typo was to hit “Cancel”. Could you please check in case the problem was not on my end?
(As I hit the reply for this comment, I think I spotted the problem. I had my email address right but there was a typo in the “Din” part of my screen name.)

Goldrider
Reply to  Tom Halla
July 19, 2016 7:56 am

It’s about time the UN got busy doing their bloody JOB, and create a “safe zone” for all these refugees in North Africa etc. so they don’t need to risk drowning trying to overrun Europe. WHERE have they been in all the jihadi mayhem? Not even a peep! Instead of worrying about fictional problems, use some of that endless money to prevent actual human suffering, here and NOW.

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  Goldrider
July 19, 2016 8:13 am

Goldrider
Libya is available and mostly empty…

markl
Reply to  Goldrider
July 19, 2016 8:45 am

Goldrider commented: “.. UN got busy … WHERE have they been in all the jihadi mayhem? …”
It’s time the world realizes the ME conflicts are part of the UN plan to homogenize the world. Why else would they spend more effort relocating people thousands of mile away from their homes and no discernible effort to stop the conflict…..which is their stated charter?

george e. smith
Reply to  Tom Halla
July 19, 2016 12:41 pm

Mrs. Robinson needs to spend more time with our Russian allies down at Vostok Station, so she can be the special envoy on ice as well.
g

Ron
July 18, 2016 6:07 pm

“Given the accelerating collapse of political climate enthusiasm across the world, my prediction is Ban Ki-moon will be remembered as the UN Secretary General who presided over the downfall of the green movement.”
Let’s just say he is getting out at a good time! It was inevitable.

Editor
Reply to  Ron
July 18, 2016 7:14 pm

He’ll always have Paris….

Langenbahn
Reply to  E.M.Smith
July 18, 2016 8:12 pm

Heh, heh. Nice one.

Reply to  E.M.Smith
July 19, 2016 12:20 am

;>)))

Editor
Reply to  E.M.Smith
July 20, 2016 8:26 am

Very cool reference.

Reply to  Ron
July 19, 2016 5:52 am

OK, UK and Germany are suspected of betrayal of the “spirit” of Paris COP.
What is in store for the Philippines, whose President has outright repudiated the agreement:
PRESIDENT Duterte on Monday said his administration would not honor the historic Paris Agreement on climate change that the Philippines adopted along with about 200 countries in December 2015, saying the covenant was “stupid” and “absurd.”
Read more: http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/796948/rody-wont-honor-paris-climate-pact#ixzz4ErGy7Cew

Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
Reply to  Ron Clutz
July 19, 2016 8:41 am

Unfortunately, President Duarte’s objection really comes down to “you [developed countries] got all the benefits of pollution early and now you’re telling me we can’t do the same”. While perfectly understandable, it’s not based on the principle that the Paris Accord was a stupid idea. Duarte’s objection can be met simply by cutting him in on a bigger slice of the climate loot. Extorting money from one group in order to bribe another group to support further extortion is a proven tactic. Expect further developments.

Reply to  Ron Clutz
July 19, 2016 8:56 am

Agreed. It’s not that different from the way India is playing this, and played Obama.
https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2016/06/08/india-show-us-the-climate-money/

Reply to  Ron Clutz
July 19, 2016 9:59 am

One problem is that the majority countries, determining the course of actions by majority voting in United Nations, will sit in in the receiving end of climate funding. They have nothing to loose.
Eventually they will understand that the actions by United Nations will increase energy costs. President Duterte seems to be the first government leader having the cojones to put the language straight and say the obvious.

kim
Reply to  Ron Clutz
July 19, 2016 10:28 am

China covered its chagrin at the failure in Copenhagen of the shakedown of the guilt-ridden developed West by pretending outrage at the neo-colonialist maneuvering of one Obama. They, and the BRICs are still pushing the shakedown for all it’s worth.
However, the social cost of carbon is actually negative. Use of fossil fuels has been a tremendous boon to human society, and to the whole biome.
Those BRICs know this; it is as plain as day.
=====

Brian H
Reply to  Ron Clutz
July 19, 2016 2:11 pm

Science or Fiction;
lose

Editor
Reply to  Ron Clutz
July 20, 2016 8:27 am

Well he is busy getting drug dealers shot. Climate issues aren’t on the first page of his to-do-list.

Sweet Old Bob
July 18, 2016 6:11 pm

I bet that the UN is getting…lots of…angry birds…….

July 18, 2016 6:11 pm

Rep.Mike Rogers from Alabama,pointed to a wide range of reasons why the U.S. should dump the UN. “Although the United States makes up almost a quarter of the U.N.’s annual budget, the U.N. has attempted a number of actions that attack our rights as U.S. citizens,” he explained. “To name a few, these initiatives include actions like the Law of the Sea Treaty, which would subject our country to internationally-based environmental mandates, costing American businesses more money, or the U.N.’s work to re-establish an international regulation regime on global warming which would heavily target our fossil fuels.”
Indeed, especially in recent years, the UN has become increasingly brazen in attacking the rights of Americans, and even the U.S. Constitution that enshrines those unalienable rights. From attacks on free speech and gun rights to assaults on America’s federalist system of government and states’ rights, the UN and its member regimes have become increasingly aggressive. Now, the UN is working on a series of major schemes that would undermine even the principles upon which the United States was founded, much of it under the guise of promoting pseudo-human rights and pseudo-environmentalism.
Trump for President, Hillary for Prison – 2016

Janice Moore
Reply to  Clive Hoskin
July 18, 2016 6:25 pm

Trump for President, Hilary for Prison 2016

LOVE it! +1

Reply to  Janice Moore
July 19, 2016 1:51 am

I think I’m going to update my Facebook profile w/a new tag line….

NW sage
Reply to  Janice Moore
July 19, 2016 5:28 pm

Actually, there is a BETTER reason to vote Trump – It is probably the only way we will be able to get Ruth Bader Ginsberg to move to New Zealand!

dennisambler
Reply to  Clive Hoskin
July 19, 2016 4:12 am
July 18, 2016 6:15 pm

Reblogged this on Patti Kellar and commented:
No betrayal – Just Realism.
The Paris Climate Accord was predictably a fail and rightfully so, given it is not about climate, it is about wealth re-distribution. (and a lot of our taxpayer dollars went towards flying a big whole bunch of Canadians to Paris for the grand event)
Yep, we are going to change the climate and do so by taxing people. Yeah, that’ll work. In your dreams or should I say, nightmares….

Janice Moore
July 18, 2016 6:22 pm

The greens (EU, UN, whatever — peas in a pod) are meeeellllting…..!
#(:))
“… oh … look what you’ve done to my beautiful wickedness….”
(the green-faced witch of “The Wizard of Oz”)

(youtube)
Laugh out loud — those greens are pathetic.
************************************************
You hang in there, dear Brittania, et al! YOUR side is going to win!
Courage!
(and, in your ear, dear United Kingdom subjects, you might think of hiring someone other than that barmaid-costumed (is that where she came from before appearing before the entire world to say, essentially, “Hi, I’m the new Prime Minister of the United Kingdom,” from her second job in the pub??? Hard to respect a woman who dresses like that for such an occasion…..) lukewarm, May — find a fiery Augusta or Augustus who will endorse Brexit now.)

charplum
Reply to  Janice Moore
July 18, 2016 7:01 pm

Always enjoy your comments. I do get a chuckle. Like the bumper sticker.
BTW, with what Hillary just got through I think she serves as the prime example of white privilege or should I make that white elitist privilege.

Janice Moore
Reply to  charplum
July 18, 2016 7:09 pm

Thank you, charplum! Cool!
I see I spelled H’s name wrong. They’ll get it right on the admission forms….. for the federal penitentiary, where she will be a “prime example of white [collar crime]” — bwah, ha, ha, ha, haaaa! 🙂

ozspeaksup
Reply to  charplum
July 19, 2016 3:57 am

ah but she is NOT through yet
or off the hook…
moves are afoot I read:-0
she will look peachy in an orange onesie

Perry
Reply to  Janice Moore
July 19, 2016 2:03 am

Hello Janice,
It’s kind of you to support the principle of the UK leaving the corrupt EU, but speed is not of the essence here. The Euro currency is in dire straits. Turkey will not gain access to the EU, if it re-introduces the death penalty. There are demands in France & Sweden for a referendum to leave the EU. Geert Wilders has offered the same to the Dutch, if he becomes PM. The project is beginning to teeter & clowns like Jean-Claude Juncker, Martin Schulz & SURPRISINGLY Donald Tusk, are helping the collapse, unless they are removed!!
Dr. Richard North has been unshakably resolute in his long years of campaigning. He has left no stone un-turned as witnessed in his blog. Here is his profile. http://www.eureferendum.com/profile.aspx?username=richard
He is listed under Political Climate on WUWT.
Dr. North produced a plan for leaving the EU. Now in its eighth version and with 100,000 downloads already registered, he & his group are progressively re-writing the work to take account of the post-referendum
circumstances. They offer it as a template to inform and fuel the ongoing debate on how we leave the European Union. It is required reading, by those who want to learn.
http://www.eureferendum.com/documents/flexcit.pdf
OTOH, cretins like Adam Wildman won’t have read it. He has little understanding of the complexity involved. He obviously not wise enough to know that it is better to be thought a fool than to scribble inane comments & thus remove all doubt.
http://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2016/07/adam-wildman-article-50-can-be-a-great-bargaining-chip-but-only-if-we-hold-our-nerve-and-delay.html
As for Teresa May’s sense of style; never judge a book by its cover. She will evolve; as did Mrs Thatcher!

rogerthesurf
July 18, 2016 6:26 pm

They’ve [the British government] introduced new tax breaks for oil and gas in 2015 that will cost the UK taxpayer billions between 2015 and 2020, and at the same time they’ve cut support for renewables and for energy efficiency,
I don’t understand the point about the UK taxpayer paying billions. Although subsidies are usually expensive, it is likely they will bring fossil fuels in line with renewables. However as the UK consumer benefits from having cheaper power the cost of the subsidy would be significantly balanced, except the part that government bureauracracy costs retain.
A more honest and cheaper way woud be to abolish all energy subsidies and let te renewables fade away if they cant compete with the fossil fuels.
Cheers
Roger
http://www.thedemiseofchristchurch.com

PiperPaul
Reply to  rogerthesurf
July 18, 2016 7:22 pm

But then who would hire all the incompetent fired people?

Reply to  PiperPaul
July 18, 2016 8:00 pm

A Department of Climate Change. As long as you don’t give it any power, it can be very useful.

jorgekafkazar
Reply to  PiperPaul
July 19, 2016 12:24 am

Not necessary to fire them. They’ll go on strike any day now.

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  PiperPaul
July 19, 2016 1:06 pm

PiperPaul
I understand that after Brexit some of the Polish farm workers who operate the food system in the UK will be leaving and those jobs will be available to those who can’t do anything else. Up at dawn, bracing weather, fresh outdoor air – it all helps.

lee
Reply to  rogerthesurf
July 18, 2016 7:50 pm

Are these IMF subsidies or real subsidies? it is so hard to tell these days. “The social cost of Carbon” subsidies.

rogerthesurf
Reply to  lee
July 18, 2016 10:45 pm

Maybe the rural sector should pay a fee to recompense all the other sectors who are producing atmospheric CO2 and are therefore supplying plant food to most rural enterprises.
I am aware of several sources who agree that 1000ppmv of CO2 in the atmosphere is the optimum. 🙂

Charlie
Reply to  lee
July 19, 2016 2:35 am

I think it’s one of those ‘if I taxed you at 40% but now I’m taxing you at 30%, that means I’m subsidisiing you’ affairs. It’s a wonderful thing. I could claim I’m subsidising you by taxing you at 95% as long as I’ve previously taxed you at, say, 99%.

MarkW
Reply to  lee
July 19, 2016 7:19 am

If one industry is paying a tax rate that is significantly below the other industries, then you can argue that either the high tax industries are being penalized or that the low tax industries are being subsidized.
All industries should have the same tax rates and similar deductions. (For example, depreciation and depletion allowances, while not the same, are similar.)

Reply to  lee
July 19, 2016 10:05 am

The social cost of United Nations war on carbon is amounting to Trillions of Dollars.

Chris Hanley
Reply to  rogerthesurf
July 18, 2016 10:45 pm

A tax ‘break’ i.e. refund of overpaid tax or deduction for the cost of doing business is not a government subsidy i.e. a direct payment which distorts the market in favour of a competing business or industry; it is a false equivalence or just another Climate Change™ lie.

Stephen Richards
Reply to  rogerthesurf
July 19, 2016 1:20 am

Its not a subsidy. That is the green deception. It is a reduction in tax paid to the exchequer.

rogerthesurf
Reply to  Stephen Richards
July 19, 2016 2:52 am

Well its kind of like the government giving you some cash every week. You can regard it as a gift, but as you already pay the government part of your weekly salary, maybe it is a reduction in taxation. It will certainly have the same effect and for the government to make up the cost of its weekly gift, it will need to raise taxes some from other tax payers.
Is the government subsidizing you or simply giving you a tax rebate?
Its just the same thing with a different name right?

Matthew R. Epp
Reply to  Stephen Richards
July 19, 2016 3:48 am

@ Rogerthesurf your attempt at equivalence if wrong. A tax rebate allows you to keep money you earned, a subsidy is giving you money someone else earned.

RAH
Reply to  Stephen Richards
July 19, 2016 8:04 am

Matthew R. Epp
July 19, 2016 at 3:48 am
@ Rogerthesurf your attempt at equivalence if wrong. A tax rebate allows you to keep money you earned, a subsidy is giving you money someone else earned.
Or is going to have to earn at some time in the future due to deficit spending by the government. They “give” what has not yet been paid for by the Tax payer.

rogerthesurf
Reply to  Stephen Richards
July 19, 2016 2:01 pm

RAH
Risky . Is tax, owed by you to the government, your money? Just try keeping it and see what happens:)
One needs to look at the effect – lets not waste time being pedantic with the name:)
http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/subsidy.html

george e. smith
Reply to  rogerthesurf
July 19, 2016 12:52 pm

If something is renewable, why on earth would it need to be subsidized ??
Subsidies seem like the very definition of unsustainable.
G

rogerthesurf
Reply to  george e. smith
July 19, 2016 1:54 pm

George e. Smith
Bullseye!
Cheers
Roger

simple-touriste
Reply to  george e. smith
July 28, 2016 9:47 pm

“If something is renewable, why on earth would it need to be subsidized ??”
If something is really a “renewable”, why on earth would anyone need to PAY for it?
The sun is free; the wind is free; the rain is free; water in the ocean is free.
“Renewables”, being free, have no possible competition; unless they are grossly inadequate as
a) they are somewhere which isn’t where the demand is
b) they arrive at the wrong time
c) they are in a difficult to use state
in which case:
a) a lot of transport is needed
b) a lot of storage is needed
c) a lot of transformations are needed
to match demand.
But then
a) transport ain’t free
b) storage ain’t free
c) transformation ain’t free
But they SHOULD BE free, right? After all, renewables provide free energy, energy good for transport, right?
But actually:
aa) transport of energy need for transport of renewables ain’t free
ab) storage of energy need for transport of renewables ain’t free

And we are back again…
“Renewables” are inadequate. What passes for “renewables” and is adequate is the use of a “renewable” source together with a lot of non-“renewables” tools.
These issues are trivial when you actually ignore all the issues. The electric car is fine if you can ignore the energy storage issue.
That’s what authors do in sci-fi. In the real life, you need to deal.

Gerry, England
Reply to  rogerthesurf
July 19, 2016 2:29 pm

Roger, you have fallen for the subsidy lie. The government isn’t giving money to the oil and gas industry it is stealing less in taxes. Unlike the subsidies to the uneconomic and useless renewable industry which is money stolen in taxes from the people and given to them. The greenies love to peddle the subsidy lie and use the spurious ‘if only the fossil fuel industry was taxed as we think it should be then renewable energy would be cheaper’ line.

rogerthesurf
Reply to  Gerry, England
July 19, 2016 6:17 pm

Gerry, in all truth I have not fallen for anything. In economic terms there is no difference between a subsidy and a tax break.
If you cant see that they are (in economic terms) exactly the same thing, then I suggest you all do a little more reading.
Start here perhaps. http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/subsidy.html
Cheers
Roger
http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com
http://thedemiseofchristchurch.com

Wayne Delbeke
Reply to  Gerry, England
July 19, 2016 9:57 pm

I do believe there is a “uuuge” difference. A tax reduction implies a successful business model that is being promoted to increase wealth, more business and increased net taxes for the government. A subsidy implies a failed or developing business model that can not make it on its own but is being promoted for political purposes. That is a very important distinction that perverts the market.

Paul Westhaver
July 18, 2016 6:27 pm

“That’s not in the spirit [of Paris].”
Ok. Good. They have wised up and I hope the spirit of Paris is thoroughly exorcised… forever, everywhere.

July 18, 2016 6:27 pm

they should be careful about making accusations against the hand that feeds them with outrageous tax free salaries, travel allowances, and housing allowances; lest they start making accusations of their own.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2794991

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  chaamjamal
July 19, 2016 7:46 pm

Chaamjamal
That gives me an idea. If one has a salary that is paid for by taxes, is that a subsidy? It seems to me it is a subsidy of nearly 100%. Maybe more if there is a tax-sourced pension involved.

July 18, 2016 7:04 pm

I love their criticism that UK and Germany are violating the spirit of the Paris whatever. Of course, it would have nothing to do with the practical effects the stupid policies that the Paris deal pushed on these countries. No, not a consideration.
Where was it that the price of electricity went from the normal $100/MWh to $14,000/MWh? Who would criticize a 14,000% increase in the cost of electricity? Our Undocumented Worker-in-Chief in the US told us that electricity costs were expected to skyrocket and here it is.

David A
Reply to  higley7
July 18, 2016 9:33 pm

Slight correction. His words were, as I recall, “Under MY plan, electricity rates will necessarily skyrocket.” So they were not expected to as much as he intended them to. Self fulfilling prophecy.

kim
Reply to  David A
July 19, 2016 10:33 am

I was naive enough in ’08 to think that those words would sink him in the coal-producing states, but it was late in the campaign and not widely reported. The people in those states are today generally more aware of Obama’s vicious attitude toward energy prices, even if they haven’t heard those words.
A destroyer, and not the valiant naval variety, either.
==============

3¢worth
July 18, 2016 7:04 pm

Can someone please tell me the name of that large red creature beside Bye Ban-moon? At first I thought it was an overlarge, red Mister Potato Head.

H.R.
Reply to  3¢worth
July 18, 2016 7:19 pm

Sorry. I’m not sure who that is on the left in the photo. Anyone else?

David A
Reply to  H.R.
July 18, 2016 9:36 pm

“Here is Red getting so angry at a simulated effort at reality that he destroys the annoying model. Then, suffering from low self-esteem, he puts it back together…… sort of.
=================================
Red is a climate scientist?

Janice Moore
Reply to  3¢worth
July 18, 2016 7:22 pm

Well, 3centsworth, I had to look it up. He is “Red,” one of the “Angry Bird” characters in shows I have never watched. Here is Red getting so angry at a simulated effort at reality that he destroys the annoying model. Then, suffering from low self-esteem, he puts it back together…… sort of. I think Red is supposed to be your average modern citizen who has normal courage and common sense, but represses it to be “good.” So, he gets bossed around a lot (see the crossing guard scene in “Red and His Neighbors” — pathetic — won’t even disobey the guard to scoot through before a veeerrry slow bird comes through).
He seems to be all about promoting OBEY THE LAW EVEN WHEN IT IS STUPID (or something). Perfect UN mascot (from the little data I have on Red, I mean).

Your friendly librarian,
Janice

Janice Moore
Reply to  Janice Moore
July 18, 2016 7:24 pm

“Red and His Neighbors”

Bryan A
Reply to  Janice Moore
July 18, 2016 9:55 pm

Sounds a lot like M.Mann who destroyed the climate data record to suit his favored models then rebuilt it to match his model output

TonyL
Reply to  3¢worth
July 18, 2016 8:14 pm

I thought it was the new head of the IPCC.
Janice cleared that up for us.

Larry Hamlin
July 18, 2016 7:06 pm

The climate alarmism political campaign has never been about science. It has always been about a political ideology which falsely manipulated science to provide the appearance of support for a massive global government bureaucracy run by liberal elites unaccountable to the people.
This phony campaign is in a state of collapse despite decades of government and media actions involving deceit, deception, arrogance and massive government funding to try to falsely manufacture “science” that could be used to justify this elitist political scheme.
It will be a great pleasure to watch this ridiculous scheme become recognized as the most monumental debacle ever perpetrated upon mankind.

D.I.
Reply to  Larry Hamlin
July 19, 2016 7:27 am

Spot on Larry, If you read the Guardian article It’s more about ‘Mary Robinson’ spouting off on a subject she knows little about.
Appointed by Bad Ki-moon in 2014 as his ‘Special Envoy for Climate Change’ to try to con rich Nations to fund all the free-loader ‘Tin Pot’ countries and Organisations around the World. You will see why he chose her by reading the ‘Wiki’ here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Robinson

markl
Reply to  Larry Hamlin
July 19, 2016 8:35 am

+1 and well put.

TA
July 18, 2016 7:08 pm

The Paris Climate Accord is dead. China and India ignore it, and Britain and Germany are figuring out they can’t afford it. Others will follow.
And then along comes Trump and blows the whole thing up.

roger
Reply to  TA
July 19, 2016 1:35 am

http://www.thegwpf.com/philippines-wont-honor-paris-agreement/
The president of the Philippines succinctly and without reservation, consigns the Paris agreement to the dustbin of history, hereinafter to be known as the CAGW tipping point.
That must surely be the end for the scam and Theresa May, despite her sartorial inelegance as perceived here, has at least brought to the notice of some that the emperor has NO clothes.

ozspeaksup
Reply to  roger
July 19, 2016 4:34 am

comments there are good:-)

Brian H
Reply to  roger
July 19, 2016 2:32 pm

He’s just complaining about not getting a big enough cut of the proceeds.

July 18, 2016 7:11 pm

The politicians had a choice: betray the Paris accord, or betray the energy needs of their voters.
Guess who won?

Gary Hladik
July 18, 2016 7:11 pm

Envoy: “I accuse you of betraying the Paris Climate Accord!”
PM: “Guilty. Now f— off!”
🙂

TG
July 18, 2016 7:13 pm

Don’t worry the slimy green monsters spirits and special UN provocateurs will crawl back into their privet jets and appear at the next climate conference again and again and again!

lee
Reply to  TG
July 18, 2016 7:53 pm

If only they were truly “privet” jets; they would indeed e Green.

Stephen Richards
Reply to  TG
July 19, 2016 1:22 am

They wont if trump stops all UN funding

MarkW
Reply to  Stephen Richards
July 19, 2016 7:27 am

Trump can only stop US funding of the UN.

George Daddis
Reply to  Stephen Richards
July 19, 2016 8:02 am

W
You are correct. But if the Donald WERE to cut off ALL US funding, it would have the same effect.
However, Donald speaks in hyperbole; I think what is much more likely is that he would work to selectively defund certain UN functions; for example the IPCC, as well as “Human Rights” agencies who have the world’s worst human rights violators on the panel; moving the organization back to its original purposes of Peace Keeping and Disaster Relief.

kim
Reply to  TG
July 19, 2016 1:35 am

Prune the privet, rent the jet.
=========

July 18, 2016 8:01 pm

I don’t know why we in the U.K. are being criticized.
We are a world leader in off-shore wind power deployment.
So we lead the world, in the sense that we are the foremost buyers of expensive wind turbines.
Although other countries may not want to follow our example. Because they may well decide that they prefer to spend their money more wisely.
So, I expect that we will lead the world in this area for some time to come.
We have certainly shown the world that we are exceptionally good at buying lots of expensive things.
That is now the sole talent of the modern British people.
Other people are good at making expensive things and we seem to want to lead the world in buying them.
“Since 1998, the United Kingdom has been running consistent trade deficits mainly due to increase in demand of consumer goods, decline in manufacturing, appreciation of the GBP and deterioration in oil and gas production. In 2015, the biggest trade deficits were recorded with Germany, China, and the Netherlands.”
At the present moment the U.K. govt. debt is £1.7 trillion plus. Up from about £0.7 trillion in about 2008.
So, abandoning our oil and gas resources and investing in lots of very expensive German and Danish wind turbines looks like it may not be such a brilliant idea right now.
Maybe we should try to not lead the world at losing.
Quote from: http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/balance-of-trade

Eliza
July 18, 2016 8:04 pm

SG aka Tony Heller ie: realclimatescience provided the real hard core proof long long time ago. The lukwwarmers are all now jumping on his bandwagon. He is the one that will be cited as the one who brought the AGW scam down mostly me thinks.

Stephen Richards
Reply to  Eliza
July 19, 2016 1:23 am

+1

Sweet Old Bob
Reply to  Eliza
July 19, 2016 7:01 am

Lurkwarmers ?

markl
July 18, 2016 8:38 pm

Oh for shame, for shame! Betraying the spirit of the Paris Climate Accord! And all this time I thought it was an agreement that meant more than an all expense paid lavish vacation in Paris paid for by the people to save us from destroying ourselves with affordable and safe energy. How could they? Maybe if I send the UN a few million war refugees caused by their inaction to promote peace when it is most needed they’ll feel better.

RossP
July 18, 2016 9:07 pm

This is part of the reason the Germans are waking up.
http://notrickszone.com/2016/07/15/german-power-giant-risks-becoming-largest-bankruptcy-in-german-business-history/#sthash.mIMgDU5n.dpbs
They are potentially facing having the biggest company bankruptcy in it’s history all because of Green fantasy ideas. The Greens forced the German Government into its energy policy decisions after the Japanese nuclear plant accident and this is what they get.
RWE will probably fall into the “too big to fail” category and obviously it is nationally important for the country’s infrastructure so it won’t be allowed to go under. But it will cost the Government mega bucks.

Mike Spilligan
Reply to  RossP
July 18, 2016 10:26 pm

It will cost the taxpayers mega-euros. They’re probably working out right now how to defray those costs across the whole of the eurozone – or even across the whole of the EU. To misquote a former and late US President: They borrowed the power, didn’t they?

July 18, 2016 11:13 pm

Sounds good to me….

Anoneumouse
July 19, 2016 12:22 am

I always thought the Spirit of Paris was Absinthe

stevekeohane
Reply to  Anoneumouse
July 19, 2016 5:55 am

+1

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Anoneumouse
July 19, 2016 11:17 am

Absinthe doth make the heart grow fonder…

Frank Karvv
July 19, 2016 12:27 am

Tough Titties Banky!!

July 19, 2016 12:35 am

Might as well add China, India, Australia, Sweden,Mexico, Brazil, Colombia, Peru, Korea, the entire Middle East and Africa, Russia, the old USSR and…oh hell. No one intended to actually obey your crap. They expected someone else to, you closet fascist.

July 19, 2016 12:49 am

United Nations is far out of line with their charter. Unelected, megalomaniacal and totalitarian bureaucrats which endorse inductivism is a threat for the self-determination of peoples.
Human rights, Article 21:
(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.
Where can I vote? My will is that United Nations is trimmed down to what is clearly in line with its charter, and in particular charter Article 1.1:
“To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;”
Everything else should be left to survive on it´s own – just like other political, idealistic or activist non-governmental organizations. I think we will be better of by cooperation between groups of countries and rational argument between opposing groups than by the monstrous United Nations.
“Article 1.2: To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;”
I think one of the problems with United Nation lies in the following article:
“Article 1.3: To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion;”
The are no limits,whatsoever, to what an unconstrained organization might come to think of as an international problem.
«The primary, the fundamental, the essential purpose of the United Nations is to keep peace. Everything it does which helps prevent World War III is good. Everything which does not further that goal, either directly or indirectly, is at best superfluous.»
— Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr.
“The UN was not created to take mankind to heaven, but to save humanity from hell.”
— Dag Hammarskjöld, Secretary-General from 1953 to 1961
United Nations must be reigned in before it is all too late.

george e. smith
Reply to  Science or Fiction
July 19, 2016 12:59 pm

Well the problem is they ARE Reigned in.
What they really need is to be reined in.
g

Reply to  george e. smith
July 19, 2016 1:00 pm

🙂 🙂 🙂

roger
July 19, 2016 12:50 am

http://www.thegwpf.com/philippines-wont-honor-paris-agreement/
The president of the Philippines succinctly and without reservation, consigns the Paris agreement to the dustbin of history, hereinafter to be known as the CAGW tipping point.
That must surely be the end for the scam and Theresa May, despite her sartorial inelegance as perceived here, has at least brought to the notice of some that the emperor has NO clothes.

1saveenergy
July 19, 2016 12:54 am

“Ban Ki-moon”
I thought it was started with a W

CheshireRed
July 19, 2016 1:34 am

I have said for several years that the time to challenge the UK green movement would be when we lose (our now ex-PM) David Cameron and similar green acolytes from senior government. They’ve gone and already changes are afoot. Plenty still to do but abolishing the ‘climate change’ part of our Energy department was a big symbolic step in the right direction. The fightback starts here.

kim
July 19, 2016 1:41 am

I’m a little curious whether the changes afoot in Great Britain and Germany are more a response to a popular skeptical movement, or more that their elites are coming to their senses. Anybody with any kind of take on this?
=========

markl
Reply to  kim
July 19, 2016 8:33 am

kim commented: “…I’m a little curious whether the changes afoot in Great Britain and Germany are more a response to a popular skeptical movement, or more that their elites are coming to their senses. Anybody with any kind of take on this?…”
If you call being worried about re election “coming to their senses” then that gets my vote. The reality of removing fossil fuels from our daily life is hitting home and it can’t be stopped even by the MSM propaganda machine. The lies are catching up with themselves. The promises of easy, effective, and economical transition to renewable energy snared the people but the truth is winning. I believe the skeptical movement has been ignored, derided, and pilloried…..but that is changing.

kim
Reply to  markl
July 19, 2016 10:34 am

Thanks, encouraging.
=====

Griff
July 19, 2016 1:47 am

“In the wake of a dramatic rollback of climate policy in Britain”
The DECC dept may have been removed, but not one single UK policy on climate and renewables has yet changed…

clipe
Reply to  Griff
July 19, 2016 4:51 pm

yet

Editor
July 19, 2016 2:22 am

Tax breaks that will “cost taxpayers billions”?
In fact North Sea oil and gas pay much higher taxes than other companies.
Meanwhile, news today that China is to finance and build a huge new coal fired plant in Kenya:
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2016/07/19/new-coal-and-gas-plants-for-africa-india/

PA
Reply to  Paul Homewood
July 19, 2016 2:54 am

Tax breaks that will “cost taxpayers billions”?
Huh?
The government doesn’t own everything in creation.
If the government doesn’t confiscate 100% that isn’t largess, that just means the government is stealing less than they would like to.
Tax credits don’t cost the tax payer anything. The government just has to cut spending. Since 80% of government spending is unnecessary that isn’t a hardship.

ole jensen
July 19, 2016 2:49 am

In my country (Denmark) we have now cut sudsidies for installation of solar panels, and postponed the construction of coastal birdblenders untill 2025. At that time they might consider building more off-shore wind farms (Read : CANCELLED)
Yay

Ron
Reply to  ole jensen
July 19, 2016 5:00 am

At that time they will be busy repairing all of the currently installed units.

TA
Reply to  ole jensen
July 19, 2016 10:05 am

“and postponed the construction of coastal birdblenders untill 2025”
Fantastic!

observa
July 19, 2016 3:11 am

Happening everywhere-
https://www.msn.com/en-au/money/personalfinance/solar-power-bill-shock-looms-as-lucrative-tariffs-roll-back-advocates-warn/ar-BBuukfw?li=AA54Gb&ocid=spartanntp
Bye bye to one lot of reshiftable power bills and it really does look like the climastrologists are finally on the way out the door but don’t expect them to go quietly.

Timo Soren
July 19, 2016 3:18 am

Well in the EU-19 Germany and the UK amount to a 50% of the GDP. They have the most to lose from the inane climate policies and hence are finally seeing the reality of the situation. If you consider the EU-28 they amount to about 41% total.

Griff
Reply to  Timo Soren
July 19, 2016 4:36 am

But Germany isn’t changing its approach on renewables at all, is it?
It just reformed its subsidy programme so it can keep on installing more wind and solar affordably and without straining the grid until it finishes its new grid…

Timo Soren
Reply to  Griff
July 19, 2016 6:43 am

Ah but it is. They are slowing abandoning their original ‘great conversion’. For example the 10X rule for wind power, requiring an offset = 10x the height, from others kills many wind projects. . In May/June, they worked hard to slow down/halt any land and offshore development, focusing on grid development. Meaning they have to get a smarter grid to do any more wind and solar. In addition, they are seriously discussing eliminating the vast subsidies due to the inability to use the wind when it comes. Curtailments they call them have been rising wildly and are costing Germans billions of Euros. So IF the grid upgrade will work is another question entirely. This ‘delay’ is just a forestalling of the demise.

Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  Griff
July 19, 2016 11:38 am

“Griff on July 19, 2016 at 4:36 am
But Germany isn’t changing its approach on renewables at all, is it?”
NO, Griff- it already has!
_____________________________________
“Griff on July 19, 2016 at 4:36 am
“It just reformed its subsidy programme so it can keep on installing more wind and solar affordably and without straining the grid until it finishes its new grid…”
_____________________________________
Veery black humor, Griff – sure like it!

Old'un
Reply to  Timo Soren
July 19, 2016 4:51 am

And the U.K.’s CO2 output is just over 1% of the global total. Why we ever wanted to be ‘leaders’ in CO2 reduction is beyond the understanding of the vast majority of tax payers, who are seeing their electricity costs rising and their jobs being exported because heavy industries have to bear excessive power costs. As for the green economy, all of the significant green hardware is imported, so that screws up our balance of payments. Meanwhile we are left with a catastrophic electricity infrastructure that is not fit for purpose in an advanced economy. You really couldn’t make it up!

July 19, 2016 4:46 am

These are the candidates for the positions as United Nations Secretary General including their vision statements.
All having been misled on climate change, none expressing a concern for the state of science, several expressing totalitarian ideas.
I would suggest to vote for: “None of the above”

Coach Springer
July 19, 2016 4:54 am

Climate treaties are good for violating sovereignty. Not so much for stopping the climate from changing. Then again, a lot of treaties these days are like that.

D Lavers
July 19, 2016 5:21 am

Someone mentioned Kevin Rudd.
He would be splendid for the job of Secretary General of the UN. They deserve each other.
He might also be the last Secretary.

DonK31
July 19, 2016 5:23 am

I had hoped that the Paris accords were not meant to be a suicide pact among Western countries. My hopes have been dashed.

Bruce Cobb
July 19, 2016 6:05 am

“It’s regrettable. That’s not in the spirit [of Paris]. In many ways, the UK was a real leader [on climate change] and hopefully the UK will become again a real leader. But it’s not at the moment.”
The whining, the entreaties, the pleas, guilting, shaming, and othering has just begun. Delish.

BallBounces
July 19, 2016 6:32 am

If this keeps up people will accuse climate science of being politicized 😉

July 19, 2016 6:44 am

two new papers
meltwater from the ice sheets disturbed the climate 10,000 years ago ? ?
The researchers show that on multi-decadal to multi-centennial timescales a negative correlation existed between the amount of rainfall and winter climate in north-western Europe and in the Mediterranean region during the mid-Holocene from 8,000 to 5,900 years ago and the late Holocene from 4,700 to 2,500 years ago. That means that one region experienced less rainfall when the other experienced a lot, just like today. In the early Holocene, however, a positive correlation existed between both regions. During the transition from the mid to the late Holocene, the correlation reversed.
http://phys.org/news/2016-07-meltwater-ice-sheets-disturbed-climate.html
earthquakes on San Andreas Fault triggered by gravitational tug of sun and moon
The gravitational tug between the sun and moon is not just a dance of high and low tides: It can also trigger a special kind of earthquake on the San Andreas Fault.
http://phys.org/news/2016-07-earthquakes-san-andreas-fault-triggered.html

Justthinkin
July 19, 2016 6:49 am

The UN? The Useless Nations? Really? They have betrayed more people in 50+ years then all the dictators,despots,etc in the world put together. As is becoming a more common question here in the Great White North…..are we STILL a member of this thing?

Twobob
July 19, 2016 6:53 am

Will the comments be so facile when Ireland does the same.

Resourceguy
July 19, 2016 7:11 am

This is progress, a little anyway. Democracy and reason are gaining back some lost ground.

Resourceguy
July 19, 2016 7:19 am

These are just the open betrayals. The expert cheaters are not so transparent.

Resourceguy
July 19, 2016 7:55 am

You mean the VW-UN Climate Agreement, right?

July 19, 2016 8:15 am

“They’ve [the British government] introduced new tax breaks for oil and gas in 2015 that will cost the UK taxpayer billions between 2015 and 2020, and at the same time they’ve cut support for renewables and for energy efficiency,” she told the Guardian.
Tell me, please, if I’ve got this wrong, but this is pretzel-esque logic. Surely the all-in cost for fossil- and nuclear-powered energy is far less than that for Renewable-power. To argue that it’s going to cost Brit taxpayers billions is complete nonsense.
I take the view that the Base Needs of Mankind (see Maslow’s Hierarchy: food; warmth, shelter, basic necessities of life) should be provided at the lowest possible cost to Society, and should be top priorities of the modern State. (Personally, I advocate Nuclear which mitigates CO2 production.)
Taxing non-Renewable-power to subsidize Renewable-power results in excessively expensive electricity.
Maybe, in the twisted-logic of the author of these absurd comments, that’s what she means by “cost[ing] the taxpayer billions…” Less subsidies = more tax??? Ha! Only if you are a Left-Wing theorist trying to explain-away why THEY want to double or triple(?) the price per kWh for Average Joe consumers, including little old Grannies freezing in the dark.
(Wait ….. maybe Pretzel Logic sees this as a golden opportunity to subsidize power-bills for the indigent, and come out shining as the Defender of the Disadvantaged. Hallelujah! ….. more Subsidies flowing one way, plus more Subsidies flowing the other way = more sloshing slush-money + bigger bureaucracies to rule us = Left wing Nirvana. Maybe they need Wynn (Ontario Premier) to show ’em the way towards huge Deficits for our Grandchildren to pay-off the idiocies of their forebears.)

gallopingcamel
Reply to  Ross King
July 19, 2016 8:04 pm

Taxes on automobile fuels in the UK are so huge that any tax breaks for the oil and gas industries hardly matter.
The UK will devour all its competitors in the Eurozone simply by eliminating all taxes and subsidies relating to fossil fuels. Imagine paying three times less each time you fill up your car and what that implies for commercial transportation!

n.n
July 19, 2016 8:16 am

Obviously, not enough widespread destruction and disruption caused by low-density “green” energy converters. The UN wants more large-scale solar farms and windmill gauntlets, and less productive human populations. The resource misalignment has been centrally inspired.

Pat Paulsen
July 19, 2016 9:32 am

Hooray for Britain and Germany’s gaining some common sense.

tadchem
July 19, 2016 9:33 am

The UN envisions itself as the apex of the New World Order – a world-spanning empire of bureaucracy. Any deviation from compliance with its myriad dictates threatens that position. Brexit and Germany’s sudden awareness of its fiscal vulnerability due to the UN mandates are both incompatible with the UN’s goal of global compliance.

July 19, 2016 9:47 am

Ban Ki-moon will be remembered as one of the greatest wastes of time and space in the history of the United Nations and that is a very big amount of waste in an organisation that has spiraled down out of control since Dag Hjalmar Agne Carl Hammarskjöld was killed.
The accelerating collapse of political climate enthusiasm around the world isbeing helped on by people like Ban Ki-moon and the ecological leeches that surround him.

Brian H
July 19, 2016 2:04 pm

Legacy? Korea will be a long time living Ki-moon down.

gallopingcamel
July 19, 2016 7:55 pm

A betrayal? No way…..this is people coming to their senses.

July 26, 2016 7:19 am

PR not Science again.
Look at the WUWT headlinwe “UN Accuses Germany, Britain of “Betraying” the Paris Climate Accord” which an repition of the Guardian’s headline un-criticises-uk-and-german-for-betraying-the-spirit-of-the-paris-climate-deal
Does the content of the Guardian article justify the headline ?
Has the UN issued an official statement ? NO
Is it news ? Like did Mary Robinson and other quoted people appear at some public event saying these things?
Is it a constructed story ? Seems to me yes, as if the journalist has gathered up quoytes to build a narrative. He may or may not be pushing PR from mary Robinson’s team, but the new-story contains no info saying whether the writer actually met up with her.
So I conclude as with a lot or most Greenblob stuff it’s the usual propaganda of PR not science.

%d bloggers like this: