EU: There Will Be No Renegotiation of Paris! (AKA “The Art of the Deal”)

Guest post by David Middleton

Science & Environment

Juncker rejects US climate deal re-negotiation

By Matt McGrath
Environment correspondent
14 June 2017

The European Commission President said: “We have spent 20 years negotiating”, and now was the time for implementation.

US President Trump has claimed that the accord could be amended and made more palatable to his country.

[…]

“The European Union will not renegotiate the Paris Agreement,” Mr Juncker said.

“The 29 articles of the agreement must be implemented and not renegotiated. Climate action does not need more distractions. We have spent 20 years negotiating. Now it is the time for action. Now it is the time for implementation.”

The president of the Marshall Island, Hilda Heine, also addressed the parliamentarians, meeting in Strasbourg. She re-iterated her view that the Paris agreement was set in stone.

“We cannot do better (than Paris), and we don’t have the luxury of more time,” she said.

She urged the EU member states and other countries to use the three years before the US pulls out of Paris to try to convince President Trump of the importance of climate action.

She also called on Europe to adopt harder goals when it comes to cutting emissions of carbon dioxide.

“We will not stay within 1.5C unless Europe and others move before 2020 to raise ambition.” The bloc should adopt five-year climate targets instead of the current 10-year plans, she said.

By a huge majority the EU Parliament voted on Wednesday in favour of binding national targets for cutting emissions from areas including transport, agriculture and waste management. These areas are not covered by Europe’s emissions trading scheme.

[…]

BBC

So much material in such a short article.

An agreement that has no enforcement mechanism and allows its participants to set and revise their own emissions targets is “set in stone”…  Riiight.

“We cannot do better than Paris”… But we must do better than Paris… Even though it’s “set in stone”… Riiight.

At least there’s a bright side.  After President Trump wisely withdrew these United States from the Paris agreement, “by a huge majority the EU Parliament voted on Wednesday in favour of binding national targets for cutting emissions from areas including transport, agriculture and waste management.”

Talk about a win-win deal!  President Trump decides to not shoot our economy in the foot… And the EU volunteers to shoot their economy in both feet!

91e51-excellent-4689_preview

“The worst thing you can possibly do in a deal is seem desperate to make it. That makes the other guy smell blood, and then you’re dead.”

—Donald J. Trump, The Art of the Deal

Advertisements

288 thoughts on “EU: There Will Be No Renegotiation of Paris! (AKA “The Art of the Deal”)

    • Have you been to Brussels lately? seems like most everyone in and around Rue de la Loi is a drunken oaf these days. The EU will no longer reimburse for more than 2 cocktails with lunch, but a lot of employees pick up the 3rd and 4th on their own tab.

    • Johnson! As a drunk I strongly object to your statement.

      In my extensive experience a drunken oaf is cheerfully harmless and mildly entertaining.
      Its the sober ones who cause the trouble.

      • A drunken Gorilla isn´t harmless. It depends on the state of the ape. But a drunken EU-Juncker is indeed harmless.

      • “In my extensive experience a drunken oaf is cheerfully harmless and mildly entertaining”

        They have to be, in order to panhandle money to fund their habit.

      • Depends on what kind of drunk they are. Nobody behaves under intoxication in the exact same way, but there’s a few broad categories. You got your happy drunks, your sleepy drunks, your angry drunks, your crying drunks, your batsh– insane drunks, etc. :]

    • **It’s** Need a drink…

      [The mods are debating whether its “it’s” was originally singular or plural, to (lack of) wit, whether “it’s needs a drink” is more incorrect than “It’s need a drink” or “its need a (of a) drink”; and, if so, (to add even more comma’s in a parenthetical suborbital clause) what kind of drink it’s needed. Must ask Janice. .mod]

      • IT-apostrophe-S = IT IS. There can be no plural, that would be THEIR

        [But what is there were two its involved in their dispute about their shared apostrophe? .mod innocently wonders.]

      • “(to add even more comma’s in a parenthetical suborbital clause)”

        Mod, what does the comma possess?

        [I have no idea, do you? . . . mod]

      • QQBoss

        Mod, what does the comma possess?

        [I have no idea, do you? . . . mod]

        Well, clearly the commas do not possess any lizards.
        Quoting the song, “Comma, comma, comma chameleons. They come and go….”

      • Just remember: Contractions need apostrophes (He’s coming = He is coming; Who’s there? = Who is there?), but pronouns never do, even in possessive case (It’s sliding on its side! = It is sliding on the side belonging to it). Surely you never add an apostrophe to his, her, hers, their, theirs, whose, etc., as in “Each male student must bring hi’s notebook, and each female student must bring he’r purse.” Its–as a pronoun meaning belonging to it–never has an apostrophe. It’s–as a contraction meaning it is–always has one. As for the Paris Accord: It’s worthless on its face, and we are (we’re, not were) wonderfully well out of it!

      • “[But what is there were two its involved in their dispute about their shared apostrophe? .mod innocently wonders.]”

        So the mods are wonder what the meaning of it’s is? What is this, the Clinton impeachment hearings?

      • The apostrophe merely indicates a missing letter; in this case the (i). So it saves nothing; might as well say ” it is ” .

        It’s a whole lot more clear !

        G

    • The Allies at the end of World War II were determined to get rid of Junkerism and pull it out by its roots. Looks like it hid out in Luxembourg and has somewhat resurfaced in the form of Jean-Claud Juncker.

    • I’d just like to point out that we shouldn’t be cheering for anyone to shoot themselves in any appendage. A robust European economy is one we will do more trading with to each party’s benefit. Trade as a zero sum game is a Leftist conceit and we should be careful not to encourage them in their idiocy. Making others poor will never make me rich except in relative terms and I’d far rather simply enjoy my steak than to gnaw on a pig’s ankle while being glad that I don’t have to eat worms like those other guys.

  1. The EU seems intent on a course of self-destruction. I feel sorry for the many EU citizens that will suffer, but they are the ones who have elected national governments that are promoting such stuff. How Merkel ever got away with shutting down Germany’s nuclear program because of the threat of tsunamis is beyond me, but seems to be perfectly symbolic of the madness.

    • Germany decided to shutdown nuclear well before Fukushima. In 2002 they passed a law that (theoretically) would have shut down the last reactor by 2022. Chernobyl influenced this decision greatly. Fukushima merely expedited any foot dragging.

      • How many German nuclear reactors are threatened by tsunamis? Maybe 2 at most, as the other 2 coastal plants have been shuttered. And the North Sea isn’t exactly surrounded by a “ring of fire”.

      • Not so silly the Germans, actually. Coal power is cheaper than nuclear power, especially the dirty brown stuff they are strip mining next door to a blooming great coal-fired power station. Watched it all in action out of an office window while at a meeting at my company’s HQ a few years ago. They possibly realise, with molten salt reactors getting close to being commercially viable and fusion coming closer to being a reality now that liquid nitrogen temperature superconductors are commercially available, that high-pressure water-cooled reactors are likely to become obsolete quite soon.

        I’m quite sure that they were delighted that Mrs. ‘Climate Crisis’ May decided to sign off on yet another brand-spanking new nuclear white elephant.

        I’m sure the Germans much prefer Britain importing German cars than the other way round. I don’t take the Green BS (short for bogus science) too seriously. Of course in the real world the Germans actually have made a green choice. Those little green CO2 suckers must love all that food they’re getting from Germany and elsewhere.

    • Europe has relied on the US taxpayer to fund its military defense since the end of WWII. Time to let go, and have them fund it all themselves. We will then see the wild-eyed greenies facing reality.

      • Henning, do you really believe all those EU SJW’s are going to protect from Russia ?? What will they use, their Fanny Packs ?

      • Europe to defend itself? Really, Henning?
        As a proud Brexiteer, I’m all for the US and UK to leave NATO and let the ungrateful, malevolent Europeans defend themselves from Putin and the Jihadists. Let’s put an end to our subsidisation of Europe’s Welfare State and concentrate on our own citizens for once.

      • Last time I checked, Europe actually started two world wars and the US was called in to help end both of them.

      • They don’t defend their borders now from an Islamic invasion, why should the US?

      • What is Europe supposed to defend itself against? The only possible threat is from Russia. But seriously? Look at manpower, financial strength, military forces…Russia would never have a chance of winning, and they know it very well. US adventures is not the same as defence of Europe.

      • Henning ,

        Europe can’t defend itself from itself.

        At the current rate of regression the majority won’t be able to get their own panties off! Those that don’t wear panties will be vilified for not doing so.

      • Henning, so in your opinion, only the immediate neighbors pose a threat?
        That kind of thinking went out of style with the advent of the airplane and is down right suicidal now that more and more nations are getting ICBMs.

      • Henning,

        “What is Europe supposed to defend itself against?”

        Totalitarian government might be a good start . .

      • Neo
        June 15, 2017 at 10:37 am
        Thanks.
        Found the source of the Hot Air (AKA CAGW).

        And
        Incidentally,
        I note Juncker – (A) President Jean-Claude Juncker (What sort of body has a slack handful of Presidents?) – has a law decree.

        Eminently qualified, in his mind, therefore, to understand and comment on scientific questions.

        At least my BSc is that – even if it is Maritime Studies . . . .

        Auto
        Bum Boatie to the last

      • @Michael Hart “Last time I checked, Europe actually started two world wars and the US was called in to help end both of them.”

        ++++

        Last time I checked, the US stood on the sidelines of two world wars and didn’t join in until most of the heavy lifting had been done.

      • “Russia would never have a chance of winning”

        Henning,
        what have you been smoking? That statement is just completely disconnected from reality. Without the US (and UK to a lesser degree) troops in Europe, the Russians would walk all over it, just like they did the Crimea.

      • “Last time I checked, the US stood on the sidelines of two world wars and didn’t join in until most of the heavy lifting had been done.”

        The waiting of the U.S. in ww2 was justified by the refusal of Britain and France to go along with President. Wilson’s terms for a settlement of WW1, instead insisting on a victor’s peace that led to German revenge-seeking in ww2.

      • Are you for real Hemming. ‘What has Europe to protect itself from’. Are you not watching what is happening in Turkey with its wannabe Islamist dictator who is in charge of one of the biggest militaries in Europe. Do you not wonder why People voted for Brexit in light of EU’s open door policy and Turkey about to be granted restrictionless travel.
        By all means keep looking the other way if it makes you feel safe.

      • @Henning Nielsen “Europe is perfectly able to defend itself, thank you.’
        Europe has many security interests well outside their physical borders, it would be interesting to see the EU try to defend their right of passage in the Strait of Malacca, The Strait of Hormuz and the Horn of Africa at he same time.

    • For those you have not read Steve Goreham’s ” Outside the Green Box” …..he opines that the “sustainable wind and solar program…has resulted in the disruption of wholesale energy prices, rising consumer and industrial prices, the migration of energy-intensive industries, the financial demise of traditional electrical utilities, bloated national budgets from renewable subsidies, and the eventual decline of renewable investment. Other countries should learn from Europe’s lesson and adopt policies to allow energy sources to complete on a level playing field on capability, reliability, price and environmental quality. Sorry I’m preaching to the Choir. Time to short the Euro.

    • Basically, the voter is given no real choice in EU country elections, and the centre of power is an unelected parliament in Brussels. This is the plan the “progressives” have and the swamp Republicans were heading for. Elections in US had become meaningless with “progressives” having their real constituency outside the country in an EU/UN centric non representative seat of power.

      The hysteria over Trump is because of an existential crisis this creates for an entire generation of neo-Mrxists who were on the verge of grasping the long (~150 years) planned for комiитеrи global governance. Yes, the Iron curtain fell, but with aparatchiks from a population of chess players exiting, this was not checkmate (полное поражение).

  2. They have been trying to “implement” for 20 years…..

    The EU is going to get a lot smaller….without our money….even smaller

  3. From the article: ““We cannot do better (than Paris), and we don’t have the luxury of more time,” she said.”

    All true. Which means you should give up. But they won’t give up, they will double down.

    • From the article-
      “Climate action does not need more distractions. We have spent 20 years negotiating. Now it is the time for action.”

      As in, a piece of the action?

      Definition-
      “a piece of the action”
      A share of the profits or advantages that come from an activity.

      • Several world wars could be fought in the time it takes these idiotic bureaucrats to complete their negotiations. And the wars would probably do less damage and be much cheaper.

    • After all, the double-down strategy always works in blackjack, assuming you have infinite money to bet.

      Oh wait.

  4. “The European Union will not renegotiate the Paris Agreement,” Mr Juncker said.
    So, is that your final offer then?

  5. Trump should immediately stop ALL expenditures involved with the Paris Accord..

    The Senate never passed this treaty and there are no penalties for noncompliance.

    Not one more dime should be wasted on this CAGW scam.

    With the US out, there will be a mass exodus of other countries from the Paris Agreement, and once a critical mass is reached, this infernal scam will implode.

    • Samurai,

      The president can’t authorize payments (unfortunately, nobody told Obama); spending bills originate with Congress. All Congress has to do is NOT pass any spending authorizations for the Paris ‘Accord.’ It will then shrivel from benign neglect.

      One reason that treaties are supposed to be approved by the Senate is to insure that if there are any financial commitments that they have a probability of being authorized. Obama overlooked that detail when he decided to go it alone.

      • Unfortunately there are several pots of money that previous congresses have set up for the president to spend at his discretion.

    • Actually spending bills begin in the House .

      And it seems when the Republicans get in control of the House, they spend like drunken sailors; just like the Democrats do, but without apologies to drunken sailors.

      G

  6. From the article: “She urged the EU member states and other countries to use the three years before the US pulls out of Paris to try to convince President Trump of the importance of climate action.”

    Trump isn’t going to accept the Paris Accord deal. He’s already said so.

    The unfairness of the Paris Accord to the U.S. is so obvious even the Democrats couldn’t sell the Paris Accord to the American people.

    The Paris Accord places all sorts of restrictions on the U.S. and requirements to pay other nations enormous amounts of money, while there are no restrictions on China or India, and they don’t have to send any of their money to other nations.

    Try selling that kind of deal to the American people. It it not going to fly. It didn’t fly in the past, and it’s not going to change in the future. The CAGW advocates are barking up the wrong tree.

    • So absurdly disadvantageous to the US was this ‘deal’ that the only rational conclusion is that Obama was indeed a traitor dedicated to bringing down the US. When you look at what he was trying to implement by EO your jaw drops in horror at the sheer scale of the destruction that single man was attempting to wreak. How he is still walking around America at liberty will be forever beyond my comprehension. He makes Kim Jong-un look like your favourite nephew. The climate alarmist agenda is the perfect smokescreen for enemies of the West and any horror visited upon it whatsoever may be justified in terms of some dopey ecoloon claim or other.

      • I’m inclined to agree that Obama was indeed a traitor… However, it is absolutely clear that he was the antithesis of this component of The Art of the Deal:

        “The worst thing you can possibly do in a deal is seem desperate to make it. That makes the other guy smell blood, and then you’re dead.”

        He approached every international negotiation with a desperate desire to make a deal. From caving into Iran on nukes, to the premature withdrawal from Iraq, to Paris, he entered every negotiation with a desperate need to come away with an agreement for the sake of his “legacy.”

      • “Never attribute to malice that which can easily be explained by incompetence.”
        I think in this instance both played a large role.

      • @TA “The Paris Accord places all sorts of restrictions on the U.S. and requirements to pay other nations enormous amounts of money, while there are no restrictions on China or India”

        Yup..

        It only gets worse from here.

      • “So absurdly disadvantageous to the US was this ‘deal’ that the only rational conclusion is that Obama was indeed a traitor dedicated to bringing down the US. When you look at what he was trying to implement by EO your jaw drops in horror at the sheer scale of the destruction that single man was attempting to wreak.”

        On top of that, Obama has been the biggest enabler of radical Islamists terrorism in world history. He enables the terrorism of the Mad Mullahs of Iran, and sits and does nothing while the Islamist Terror Army runs wild across Syria and Iraq, which disprupts the whole Middle East and threatens the viability of western European society with the huge refugee flows.

        President Obama was definitely the “worst president evah!” We will be cleaning up the messes he created for years to come.

    • It isn’t three years to exit. Its one by operation of Paris Article 28(3). Trump,is also exiting the GCF. That is separate from Paris, Under UNFCCC Article 4(3). Since that Pact (aka a congressional-executive agreement) was approved by Congress in 1994 under Clinton, the only way to escape the binding obligation is to exit UNFCCC also under Article 25 (1 and 2). Then Article 25 (3) kicks in as does mirror Paris Article 28(3). One year.

      • I think Trump should claw back the second $500m payment made by Obama to the UNFCCC since it was apparently made illegally.

      • DM, it was unlawful under 1994 PL103-236, because in April 2016 (after first $500million but long before second $500 million on Jan 17 2017) UNFCCC recognized Palestine as a full member state. Law is crystal clear and Obama broke it.

  7. From the article: “She also called on Europe to adopt harder goals when it comes to cutting emissions of carbon dioxide.

    “We will not stay within 1.5C unless Europe and others move before 2020 to raise ambition.” The bloc should adopt five-year climate targets instead of the current 10-year plans, she said.”

    Don’t you love the unsupported assumptions she makes. She assumes she knows what is going on with the atmosphere, and she knows just how to fix it. If only that mean ole Trump would get in line, everything would be fine. The UNIPCC has everything under control.

  8. Trump was never interested in further negotiations.

    Trump knew that there could never be a deal acceptable to the US and those clinging to the idea that developed nations must decarbonise and pay reparation, whilst developing countries have a free reign to push ahead with economic growth and produce as much CO2 as they like. and get paid money to boot.

    The offer to renegotiate was a blinder, made merely to deflect some heat and reduce criticism.

    What the developed West does not readily appreciate is that the US can, and indeed will reduce, its CO2 emissions without cutting back on its energy demands because the US is exploiting fracking which is real performing energy and decarbonisation. The US will be able to retain industrial competitiveness.

    On the other hand the other countries that make up the developed West will have to cut back their energy demands if they wish to reduce CO2, perhaps by offshoring their industry to China or even to the US!!

    The other countries in the developed West have shunned fracking and nuclear so have no effective means of providing the energy that they now enjoy and utilise. Germany with its push to wind and solar has already come up against the buffer; there has been little reduction in CO2 emissions since 2005, and last year CO2 emissions increased. Materially, Germany has only been able to hold CO2 emissions steady because of the interconnect with France which provides Germany with back up power from nuclear. However, France cannot provide nuclear powered back up for all of Europe (to fill in when the wind does not blow or the sun does not shine), and in any event, France has penciled in the decommissioning of its nuclear plants!

    If Germany is going to reduce CO2 it cannot achieve that by further rolling out wind and solar. It must now start cutting back its energy demands which will cripple its economy which is already straining under the high and uncompetitive price of energy.

    China and India are in a win win position since much of the developed West’s industrial base will be off-shored to China and India, and the US is the only sane country having taken steps to protect its industrial base.

    A great pity that European political leaders are so stupid that they cannot see what is unfolding before their eyes. If the UK was sensible it should grasp the opportunity that Brexit provides and cast itself free of the shackles imposed by the EU, set aside the Climate Change Act and go hell for leather with fracking. It too has the opportunity to reap the rewards that the US will enjoy, and if it adopted this stance it would still be able to reduce its CO2 emissions whilst all around in Europe suffer.

    • Trump is always interested in further negotiations…

      “I never get too attached to one deal or one approach…I keep a lot of balls in the air, because most deals fall out, no matter how promising they seem at first.”

    • The UK has it’s own groaning burden of psychotic quasi-religious leftists and anything proposed of an advantageous nature to the UK will be met with screeching and hollering to wake the dead plus violent demonstrations and civil unrest.

      • @Kalifornia Kook – there is a theory that I believe has validity that tthe MSM in the U.S. controls the Democrat Party. That party is maybe falling apart and losing elections because the MSM moguls are clueless about winning elections.

        You would think from all the hype in the media that the Georgia House Rep. race was sown up already by the Democrat candidate. They are spending tens of millions in outside money as they did in the Montana race. The result will be the same.

      • They have also always been intolerant and inward-looking. But the press pays obeisance to them. I suspect out of laziness, but in fact, it could merely be that the elite learned to control the minds of the intellectually-challenged – i.e., the Press, shaping their minds from grade school all the way to a journalistic degree.

    • China and India are in a win win position since much of the developed West’s industrial base will be off-shored to China and India

      Not just the industrial base – the intellectual base as well in the form of higher level knowledge workers (programmers, engineers, etc.).

      • What higher level knowledge do programmer workers need ??

        A two year old child can make better traffic control decisions, than the people who program the traffic lights in Silicon Valley.

        Besides, ages ago, IBM discovered that good programmers are Musicians; NOT Engineers.

        You merely have to put the right instruction in the right place at the right time; or you get garbage; same as trying to play a Beethoven piano sonata.

        It helps if you have some basic problem solving skills (common sense), before you tell some stupid computer what it should do. It WILL do what you tell it; but even it doesn’t know if that will solve the problem.

        G

    • Trump’s speech was brilliant from start to finish . His expressing openness to renegotiation took that potential “bitch” off the table , but his laying out of necessary changes made it impossible for the eKo-statists to see anything they could possibly accept .

      His not disputing the “science” , while I felt initial disappointment , I saw by the end of the speech laser focused on the economics and the lack of any meaningful effect under all the best assumptions brilliant in defusing that issue . The next day in Spicer’s new conference several MSM reporters looked absolutely brain-damaged dumb perseverating on the whether or not he believed “climate change” a hoax despite Trump’s having made the issue moot .
      https://s3.reutersmedia.net/resources/r/?m=02&d=20170602&t=2&i=1187299476&w=644&fh=&fw=&ll=&pl=&sq=&r=LYNXMPED511E5

      • No Chris, it’s just that your idea of brilliance has more to do with emotive and pathos reasoning rather than rational disarming and logos reasoning to prevent political opponents from having a real argument.

        It was brilliant. Trump has everyone fooled more so than Bush 2 did. Everyone thinks he’s stupid, but there he is, sitting in the Oval Office.

      • Agree it was a brilliant speech that it reveals that it is the UN folks are the ones who are Recalcitrant and unable to reconcile the facts of available low CO 2 renewable fuels with the proposed reductions. They even ignore the IEA warning that renewable fuels development are not on a path to meet the Paris CO 2 reduction goals. Unfortunately he laws of thermodynamics need to be followed.
        http://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/09/energy-technology-is-not-advancing-fast-enough-to-meet-climate-goals.html

    • You forgot to include all the extra demand from electric vehicles which seem to have been forgotten. UK is already close to the edge of base load supply adding several million electric vehicles will on its own consume all the current base load supply. So where is the power going to come from? The same applies to California and its dream world.

      • In 2015, U.S. petroleum refineries consumed 46,860 million kWh…

        https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pnp_capfuel_dcu_nus_a.htm

        And produced 4,269,058 ,000 bbl of refined petroleum products, including 586,056,000 bbl of motor gasoline…

        https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pnp_refp2_dc_nus_mbbl_a.htm

        A typical PEV consumes 30 kWh/100mi. Let’s assume that every PEV sold in the U.S. from 2011-2016 is still on the road and driving 10,000 mi/yr (a bit less than the average passenger car).

        PEV’s 564,989
        PEV*miles 5,649,890,000

        That works out to 1,695 million kWh.

        There are about 263,600,000 passenger vehicles in the U.S.

        U.S. refineries produce almost all of the motor fuels for the ~ 263,035,011 vehicles that aren’t PEV’s, plus most of the heavy duty trucks and other vehicles that are on the road.

        So… 0.2% of US light duty vehicles consume 1,695 million kWh/yr. While refineries consume 46,860 million kWh/yr producing the fuel for the other 99.8% of passenger vehicles and most heavy trucks, etc.

        46,860/1,695 = 28

        A 28-fold increase in PEV’s would consume as much electricity as all of the petroleum refineries in the USA. 15,620,000 PEV’s would consume 46,860 million kWh/yr.

        15,620,000 is 6% of 263,600,000. A 6% PEV market penetration would consume as much electricity as the combined total of U.S. petroleum refineries.

      • David, Thanks for the data,
        In addition virtually all the construction equipment probably runs on Diesel or other fossil fuels, Does anyone believe all the heavy machinery that builds roads, buildings, windmills, etc can run on electricity from windmills and solar panels? Do they envision electric ships transporting “stuff” over the ocean or going back to sail boats?
        Also there are significant regions where the home heating heating is still provided by oil. Not t mention that plastics, tires, fertilizer, and other necessities are provided by fossil fuels.

      • Numbers mindless troll, numbers.
        Is there enough excess capacity to recharge 100 million EV’s over night?

      • There are currently about 263.6 million passenger vehicles in the USA. The average vehicle is driven 15,000 miles per year. The average PEV consumes 30 kWh per 100 miles.

        If 1% of the US passenger fleet was comprised of PEV’s, they would consume 1% of the current residential electricity sales. At 4% of the fleet, PEV’s would consume as much electricity as the combined total of all US petroleum refineries, about 3% of the current residential electricity sales. At 16% of the fleet, PEV’s would consume 13% of the current residential electricity sales.

        100 million PEV’s would consume 450,000 GWh/yr, 32% of current residential electricity sales. This would require either a massive expansion in generating capacity or allow Big Brother to be able to reach into our homes and power-off our AC units and other electricity hogs.

        While, the PEV’s could be recharged at night with less disruption to the grid than during peak demand hours, they couldn’t be recharged at night with solar power.

      • So when Moonbrown finally achieves his end goal of 100% electric and 100% renewables, who is going to pay the power bill for all of the free Tesla charging stations.

        I actually flattened my car battery the other day while working on a crossword puzzle, while sitting in a local Library parking lot. I forgot I still had my headlight high beams on and the car radio.

        I have to drive in the day time with my headlight high beams on, because I drive one of those small white automobiles that is hard to see in the daytime, so people are always driving into where my car is, thinking it is an empty space.
        I don’t need the high beams on at night because there is good contrast between my white car, and the black night.

        So the car wouldn’t start, when I went to leave. Well I was only 20 feet away from the three free plug in electric car charger stations, at which an electric BMW SUV, and a couple of Datsun Leaves, were slurping at the public trough. Well my jumper cables couldn’t quite reach, and I would have had to unplug the Beemer.

        Eventually got a boost from a Detroitosaurus Maximus that came by. gasoline to the rescue. So much for Electric cars.

        G

    • CO2 emissions in Germany are dragging because of heat and transport are not making progress, not electricity… and only went up a fraction last year. Germany now exports more power to France than vice versa. German generation and exports went up last year, while domestic demand fell.

      Germany continues to roll out and commission new wind power: at present the plan is to concentrate on offshore wind.

      Earlier this year for various reasons 4 of the remaining 8 reactors were offline and it made no difference to German electricity supply.

      Oh, and current plans for coal plant shut down now total 6.7 GW.

      The new UK climate minister (to my surprise) gave an interview this week in which he said Trump was wrong to pull out of Paris. The National Grid has launched a new initiative for grid balancing to further support renewables roll out…

      • no griff. the carbon intensity of the electricity used is lagging behind

        renewables do not significantly lower emissions unless you have hydro for backup.

        its a fact .

        get over it.

      • Let’s presume for a moment your opinion would be factual, why do citizens pay more for kWh in Germany than in France?

      • Griff, Germany’s co2 emissions are now at the same level as in 2009. Their 2020 target of 40% cut from 1990 level is impossible to reach, that would mean a reduction from 907 to 751 m tons, in 3 years. To accomplish this, the whole society, and not least the industry, would have to grind to a halt. Even more far-fetched is the 2030 target of 563.

        They just can’t do this, and they know it, but still Germany is hailed as the saviour of our planet. Why?

        https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/german-carbon-emissions-rise-2016-despite-coal-use-drop

      • Jaako

        Part of it is tax and VAT.

        Also note Germans use less power per household than US households and may well have solar panels or a share in a renewable energy community scheme

      • Henning, they are going to hit their renewable electricity target -but miss heat/transport, probably.

    • +1,000.

      But I do think it’s high time for Trump to go on the offensive, on two fronts.

      1. By pointing out the “Inconvenient Fact” (love using that one for some reason) that *even if every country meets its Paris “Deal” commitments, AND we accept the CAGW BS,* the effect wouldn’t even be enough to accurately measure, despite costing trillions.

      2. The CAGW BS is, indeed, just a political agenda, and is completely unsupported by any actual empirical data. The challenge should be put forth to “put up or shut up” on evidence of the supposed catastrophe, and it should be made clear that the existing argument of “we can’t account for the x amount of warming that occurred since [fill in the blank] without our pet hypothesis about human CO2 emissions, and we’re scientists, so there” argument from ignorance is NOT evidence. Nor are models, or exaggerated claims of “consensus,” or coincidental correlations without scientific connection beyond the pet hypothesis.

  9. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/01/27/study-the-solution-to-unreliable-wind-and-solar-power-build-more/comment-page-1/#comment-2411408

    Europe’s goose is cooked – there is only so much energy and economic stupidity that a society can sustain.

    Brexit was brilliant – the common Brit is much more sensible than his rulers.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/11/28/germanys-merkel-contemplates-social-media-crackdown-to-counter-fake-news/comment-page-1/#comment-2355706

    [excerpt]

    If it continues on its current course, Europe will become a museum, a later Luxor (Thebes). A society can only sustain so many foolish policies.

    Best, Allan

    • Nope. The islamics with Europe will destroy what is unique about European culture to replace it with their 7th C mideavilism. Just about everywhere islam goes, it destroys the culture they are invading into and replaces is with islam. No museums.

      • They built a pathetic plastic glass cage around the Eiffel Tower that is like painting a target on it! The Mona Lisa and the entire art and cultural underpinnings WILL be destroyed. Islam majority by 2040 and the climate crisis won’t even be remembered. Europeans are milling around in деиуал of their end and climate change is like the orchestra on the Titanic temporarily detracting them. I shed tears.

  10. The EU has bigger problems than CO2 reduction and the hardships that costs. Their willingness to allow radical Islamist to grow ever faster and ever more powerful has almost insured their destruction. They seem oblivious to the cancer growing deep in their belly.

    • Exactly. Any discussion of what happens in future Europe is only a projection of what might have happened had they not lost what feeble minds they had in the first place and decided to adopt an extreme tolerance ‘multiculturalism’ philosophy with an extreme intolerance ‘culture’ whose entire raison d’être is the extermination of all other cultures. Only the Visegrad Four in Europe maintain any kind of rationality and all the rest are lost in yammering and burbling-at-the moon insanity.

      Of course the rest of the Western World is heading down precisely the same path but just a few years behind.

  11. A great pity that European political leaders are so stupid that they cannot see what is unfolding before their eyes.

    Remember that European was so stupid that they cannot seen six millions of persons burning in Polonia.

  12. One wonders how long Ms Juncker can ignore the International Energy Agency report that technology is not advancing fast enough to meet the Paris accord goals

    http://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/09/energy-technology-is-not-advancing-fast-enough-to-meet-climate-goals.html

    “Paris Agreement has more problems than just Trump: Clean technology isn’t advancing fast enough
    Just 3 out of 26 energy technology categories the International Energy Agency tracks are on pace to help meet global climate goals.
    The IEA has a fairly straightforward solution: implement policies that will encourage investment in these technologies and work across borders to develop them.”

      • Isn’t that just what the U.S. did in the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 which requires renewable fuel to be blended into transportation fuel in increasing amounts each year? The RFS requires a certain amount of ‘Advanced Biofuels’ each year which no one has yet figured out how to make in quantity and at an acceptable cost.

      • Joe that’s absolutely correct, there was a mandate for ever increasing volumes of cellulosic ethanol every year; however , the industry despite massive subsidies could never produce the mandated amount of fuel. Ethanol from corn does not qualify, although we do have the 10% mandate in most locations.
        The Obama Administration just pretended their was no problem and the fuel suppliers had to take them to court frequently. Often the requirements were not established until the year was half over. Hopefully Trump can sort this mess out also.

  13. Ok so can we just leave it at that? I personally dont see anything to negotiate. I dont want to send our money and technology to anyone else, I dont think this agreement or any other agreement will change our climate by even a fraction of a degree, and if it did alter anything why are they convinced it would be for the better. R.I.P. Paris climate accord. Do with it what you will. I know you wont abide by it.

  14. Grenfell – Victims of the scheme.

    $10,000,000 spent to turn their high rise into a flaming inferno !

    • I wonder if the insulation enthusiasts who pushed that cladding addition will have the nerve to under-install similar cladding installed elsewhere.

      BTW, a story in WaPo today says the reason for installing the cladding was decorative, to make the building fit in better with its posh neighborhood. No mention was made of its main purpose: insulation. This lying-by-omission is an example of the MSM’s blindness to its instinctive bias.

      • a story in WaPo today says the reason for installing the cladding was decorative, to make the building fit in better with its posh neighborhood.

        I too have seen that claim in UK MSM, but I am sceptical of the claim.

        I consider it probable that the cladding was all to do with insulation, and requirements for better insulation brought about by the Green Agenda.

      • “I consider it probable that the cladding was all to do with insulation, and requirements for better insulation brought about by the Green Agenda.”

        Good grief, so now being more energy efficient is a “Green Agenda” and not just a common sense thing to do?

      • Actually that exterior wall design is not only for insulation, The air space behind the cladding is usually placed there for moisture control. I would guess that no one actually looked at the fire risk of that design when they specified it. I would not like to be the engineer that signed off on that design.

      • I love the way leftists assume that any benefit, no matter how small or costly, must be a good thing.
        Who cares if the mandated insulation will never pay for itself, we have virtues to signal.

      • Good grief, so now being more energy efficient is a “Green Agenda” and not just a common sense thing to do?

        I am not against commonsense, but a lot of old building are not suitable for adaption to modern insulation standards.

        In the UK many buildings have cavity walls. The void space is now often filled with insulation, to meet green energy criteria, but frequently this leads to damp.

        Many old building have double glazing fitted but this too often leads to damp especially if chimney/fireplaces are blocked off/boarded up. Old buildings were designed to be drafty so as not to be damp. Neighbours of mine had an Edwardian semi (built circa 1912), and they removed the fireplaces and installed double glazing to keep heating costs down. Their house always smelt musty and was damp. I had a 1930s house, it had ill fitting crittal windows and fireplaces. it was very drafty but had no damp problems. Energy bills were higher of course, but that comes as part and parcel of owning an old building.

        There is an article in the Daily Telegraph about this fire. It comments:

        Alongside the cosmetic appeal of cladding, it is used as an insulation to make buildings more sustainable to meet green energy requirements.

        “It could be that this is the quest for sustainability trumping other concerns,” Dr Glockling warned.,

        The insulation cost several million.May be it would have been more sensible to let the small amount of energy leaching through the concrete structure of the building to be simply wasted. If this had been done perhaps about 100 people would still be alive today going about there daily business.

      • I am no lover of the bloated plutocrats doing deals on ‘Right to Buy’ properties [wheeler dealers with an inside lead] [legal, but not creating anything], against those who through their own efforts have created wealth.
        However, this link below needs either confirmation or refutation;
        It worries me; has the (Presumed [!]) lust for gold been allowed to kill scores – 70??? –

        https://insidecroydon.com/2017/06/16/right-to-buy-is-an-organised-high-yield-industry/#more-43486

        Auto.
        We’re seeing Corbyn-Stalyn mobs demanding ‘something’; May has announced £40,000 per family in help; and the former housing minister, now freshly minted Chief of Staff to May; former Croydon MP, until last week (and my ward councillor from a few years ago) seems struck dumber than the average ox.
        Worrying in many aspects.

      • My Understanding is the makers of said cladding say it is NOT to be installed on buildings > 3 stories
        (I think normal size fire engine ladders).
        as it is a fire hazard.

    • Celotex RS5000 comprises rigid polyisocyanurate foam core (PIR) using a blowing agent that has low global warming potential (GWP) and zero ozone depletion potential (ODP).

      •Has been tested to BS 8414-2:2005, meets the requirements in BR 135 and the first PIR insulation suitable for rainscreen cladding applications above 18 metres in height
      •Achieves an ‘A+’ rating when compared to the BRE Green Guide

      https://www.celotex.co.uk/products/rs5000

      • Would I be wrong in assuming that polyisocyanurate will decompose into cyanide gas in a fire?

        Bags not being in one of those building when they go up.

  15. “US President Trump has claimed that the accord could be amended and made more palatable to his country.”

    But why play footsie with the Glo-Bullist cabal at all?

    Why humor the humorless and give ANY legitimacy to this politics-over-science power grab?

    Call it what it is:

    A monstrous lie that serves the interest of self-serving liars and con artists.

    Just Stop The Madness Here and Now.

  16. President Trump: “We’re getting out the Paris accord but are happy to consider renegotiating the deal.”

    Herr Junker: “We will not renegotiate the Paris deal, instead, we will spend the next three years persuading the US to sign up again, having left because it was a crap deal”.

    Is it me?

    Anyone know how much a nice 4 bedroomed house in the US would cost. Or even how much say, half an acre of land would cost so I can build my own? I’m seriously thinking of retiring across the pond to the US. British politics is bad enough but when half the country wants to cancel Brexit and throw themselves at the mercy of these crackpots I think it’s high time many of us called it a day.

      • David,

        any suggestions. A bit of land on the outskirts of a nice small town with supermarkets, restaurants etc.?

      • I’m partial to Texas. No State income tax. But sales and property taxes are high in some areas. Home and land prices are reasonable in the suburbs of Dallas-Fort Worth and Houston… and even more reasonable on the outskirts of smaller cities like Tyler, Corsicana and Huntsville.

        The Hill Country (Austin-San Antonio) is beautiful, but pricey and Austin (the Peoples Republic of Travis County) is like our own little California.

        The further out in the sticks, the more reasonable the prices

        Of course our weather is a bit warmer than the UK… except in the panhandle, where winters can be brutal.

      • Grand Junction, Colorado is very nice. Lots of people retire and live around that small city. Lots of festivals, hiking, and skiing nearby with pretty low-cost housing. Hot at times, cold at times, but usually quite pleasant there.

    • There are lots of cheap houses in the rust belt. Some are actually being demolished, such as in Buffalo, NY. You might be able to get some at a song, just for back taxes.

      • Roger,

        we see images of these beautiful looking, derelict houses on UK TV constantly.

        You better believe I have thought of it but it seems we might be the only people in an entire neighbourhood of derelict houses.

      • There are also houses abandoned after the flooding last year in North Carolina. The restoration would be costly, unless one did it oneself.

    • Oh yea, and the mad half of my Scot’s brethren want to divide the UK as well!!!

      A PM with a parliamentary majority calls an election to strengthen her Brexit hand and ends up with a hung parliament. Meanwhile home grown terrorism is taking hold and far from kicking suspects out the country, we’re forced to accept as many as Europe decides we should have.

      The largest and more efficient coal fired power station in Europe, Drax, is converted to burning processed wood pellets imported from the US and winds up emitting 17% more CO2 than it did burning coal.

      And perhaps 100 people will have died in a fire that engulfed flats, thanks, it appears, to cladding recently installed ‘for environmental reasons’ at a cost of £10M, but they wouldn’t spend £65K to fix the lifts.

      You couldn’t make all this up.

      • HotScot – The SNP do not want independence they want to be a region of the European Union. That way all their politicians can have sinecure EU posts on EU pensions with no worry about any voters voting them out of their EUrocrat offices. They will sell Scotland just to get the EU pensions.

      • Optimum location depends on if you are retiring or have a paying job. Texas is good if you have a job, as there is no income tax, but real estate taxes are high. If you are retiring, a place with low real estate taxes, like Florida would be cheaper in the long run.

    • Hot Scot

      Anyone know how much a nice 4 bedroomed house in the US would cost. Or even how much say, half an acre of land would cost so I can build my own?

      In coastal California, or the government-environs around NY and DC, a 4 bedroom apartment could be 1,000,000.00 USD. Or more. in the south, outside of downtown Charlotte, Atlanta, or Orlando, a good-quality (but used) 4-bedroom stand-alone home at 3500 sq feet on a 1/2 acre lot could be $120,000.00 used.
      New, the same 3500 sq foot 4-bedroom/3-bath house might be as low as 175,000.00 to 190,000.00 – although more new house on smaller properties are offered at 250,000.00 to 350,000.00 . Older houses out here are much more likely to have large lots than the small ones the younger generation seems to want.

      That 1,000,000.00 California apartment? Be prepared to have to pay more for the parking privilege.

      • RACookPE1978

        I think I would avoid California like the plague, too many lefties there as far as I can gather.

        Charlotte, Atlanta, or Orlando sound good. When we sell our small, 3 bedroomed cottage in Kent, 18 miles outside London, we will likely get around £500,000 for it. House prices in the UK are nuts.

      • Well, do plan to be “outside of” Charlotte, Atlanta, Orlando, Greenville for the lower prices.
        Higher altitudes (above 1000 feet elevation in the foothills) = cooler, dryer air than the more humid, hotter Atlantic and Gulf coastal areas.
        Further north (past north GA or NC state lines) invites “more snow” – heck, you might have three or four snow days a year in TN or south VA.

      • Look at the Atlantic coast from the I-4 North all the way to North Carolina – focus on the small towns.

      • HotScot June 15, 2017 at 8:15 am

        Charlotte, Atlanta, or Orlando sound good.

        we will likely get around £500,000 for it. House prices in the UK are nuts.

        Charlotte, Atlanta and Orlando have all had ”mass shootings” lately, haven’t they. Course iffen you like that kind of excitement, plus high crime rates and racial disharmony, go for it.

        Unless you are partial to the “bright city lights”……… then central and/or north central WV is a place to consider for either a small town or rural setting ……. and a Super Walmart within 30 minutes of the location you choose. £500K would buy you a nice abode and you would have at least £350K left for your spending pleasure.

    • Hot Scot,

      Florida is the place to be. Just make sure you are on the Gulf Coast south of Tampa.

      “A bit of land on the outskirts of a nice small town with supermarkets, restaurants etc.?”

      Sarasota meets those needs. Did you know that Scots have a long history in Sarasota?

      • Actually, so does the Gulf Coast on the Florida Panhandle. Nice houses on decent sized lots, or if you move inland about 20 miles you are in rural Florida with some small cities where you have larger lots and safer environments as well as better housing costs.. We do have humidity and mosquitoes though.

      • The smart money says Florida coastal property is already heading for unsaleable due to sea level rise.

        I know people here don’t believe in that -the sea does not care.

      • Funny thing, prices for ocean side property in FL continues to rise. Despite Griffies lies to the contrary.

    • You can find quite nice houses in a place like Bowie, Arizona for a few tens of thousands of dollars, but there is nothing to do there. I have a very nice house in southern Wyoming that would cost two and one-half times what I spent for it just 100 miles to the southeast of me in the Denver area. It all depends on what you demand for social services, culture and all other trappings…

    • I’m partial to Texas.

      I remember one of my first business trips which was to Houston. The Client invited me back to his home. It was a newish 3 bed detached house built to a high standard, double garage, swimming pool, Jacuzzi on a gated community with sports facilities and it cost about $85,000. In the UK, the house would have been a 5 bedroom house since in the UK bedrooms are small, no walk in closets, perhaps only 1 en suite etc.

      It struck me what wonderful value for money that represented, since it was cheaper than my small 1 bedroom flat in one of the cheapest areas in the East of London.

      The US generally enjoys a very high standard of living, and good quality of life compared to the UK.

    • You could try the “Live Free and Die” state, New Hampshire. I’d stay away from the southern/southeastern portion. Getting a bit crowded there, and besides, you are more apt to find areas with depressed housing prices further north. Very scenic areas, and close to mountains, lakes, etc. Property taxes can be a bit high in some areas, and electric rates are high. Still, worth looking into.

    • The US is a VERY big place. You could get what you want for $1-2 million US in places like Greenwich CT, or $100,000 in rural places. The question is what region you would like to live in, and then work from there. Folks have said Texas, but from the UK, you might find that rather hot. I would suggest North Carolina, Maryland, or Delaware. Improved climate from the UK, but not blindingly hot. Reasonable prices and interesting towns and cities. On the east coast, so close, relatively speaking to the UK.

      • Also, don’t forget Tennessee and Kentucky. Frankly, I loved eastern Kentucky with it’s four real seasons and wonderful scenery. I bit dodgy if you like to hike in the woods though, in some areas, because of the moodshiners.

    • That’s the stupidity and arrogance faced b Britain in their brexit negotiations. That’s why UK should just do a trump and leave. Tell the EU to knock on the door when ready.

      • Stephen,

        my thoughts as well, but a lot of crap to be unravelled. We are likely to still be here in 5 years time. If not 10.

      • That’s the best deal! When you have the world’s English speaking countries who share your economic thinking, culture, values work ethic, laws and freedoms as your trading partners, you should just let go of any ‘advantages’ or even assets you may possess as members of a dead end entity like the EU.

        One thing I’ve said about the US is multilateral deals are for the meek. If you are big and strong, joining such makes you an equal minority player. In a bilateral deal for the strong, they are in the driver’s seat.

        Settle with the EU in a week, and go out and strongly deal with your natural historic and cultural offspring. You will be surprised how well you do. Tell EU if they want any Stilton cheese, or Newcastle Brown, give us a call.

    • In Texas, you can get a half-acre well outside of Houston for $50K if you get a good deal. Inside the city goes up quite a bit. Further out, you can get acres for far less. Construction on a 4 bedroom will vary wildly from $200K to $400K. I can recommend you a few builders if you are serious.

    • The counties that border the Red River in southern Oklahoma have a good number of expanding small towns, typically the county seats. Especially the regional college towns of Weatherford and Durant. I see new houses going up on the outskirts of Durant on occasion (I live nearby). And Texas is just across the river. It’s common for people here to live on the Oklahoma side (cheaper rent/property tax) and commute to a job on the Texas side (somewhat better pay depending on the occupation). As a bonus, OK is pretty much the Republican-reddest state in the Union. Every single county posted a Trump majority back in November, even our urban centers of OKC and Tulsa.

    • Doubtful. They probably recommissioned Concord for a single return flight, for a single passenger. Just so she wasn’t away from her constituency for longer than was absolutely necessary.

  17. By a huge majority the EU Parliament voted on Wednesday in favour of binding national targets . . .

    Are they into B/D too?

  18. ““The European Union will not renegotiate the Paris Agreement,” Mr Juncker said.”

    Is that your final answer?

  19. Mark Steyn is doing an audio book reading of The Time Machine. He sees the story as a cautionary tale, warning us how dangerous degeneracy is. The European degeneracy is manifested in their obsessions over climate “risks” in the distant future while ignoring the consequences of their self destructive immigration policy today. They are so degenerate they cannot distinguish real from unreal, wasting precious time and treasure on the unreal climate crisis while their culture is expropriated away as they speak.

    • It’s the human condition, isn’t it? There are actually very few people who have any sort of critical sense and vision. When I taught engineering econ an interesting exercise was to take a hundred dollars in Roman times and watch its compound growth at 3% reach many billions of times the present wealth of the entire world population. Then we would discuss why it is that the world is not more wealthy than it is. Much of the problem is the lack of reasonable investments, of course, but much comes from the accumulated economic damage of stupid ideas.

    • hunter June 15, 2017 at 8:24 am
      “Mark Steyn is doing an audio book reading of The Time Machine.”

      Reading H.G. wells The Time Machine always makes me hungry

      michael

    • hunter,

      The European degeneracy is Germany concluding outstanding WW2 business.

      France is, as usual, is a German puppet and Macron will soon find Merkle’s hand firmly embedded in his arse, operating his mouth.

      If it’s not already.

  20. “And the EU volunteers to shoot their economy in both feet!”

    Actually, I’d say the E.U. just shot itself in the @ss !!

    91e51-excellent-4689_preview

  21. Everyone needs to read Varoufakis’ book “Adults in the Room’. What you find in it is time after time, well documented occasions, on which the unelected officials of various Euro institutions, meeting in secret and without minutes, make decisions which they themselves admit to be unjustifiable and irrational. Over and over again. The particular subject Varoufakis demonstrates this happening on is Greece and the Greek debt and bailout plans.

    But it is pretty much universal. It is not that the decision makers are elected officials with unelected advisers. This is common in contemporary democracies, and its reasonable to wonder whether such advisers are wielding excessive influence. As they appear to have done in the last UK government.

    No, this is people who have never gone near an election or popular mandate simply dictating to the elected representatives what they will do. They are a sort of self perpetuating oligarchy at the heart of Europe.

    Read Varoufakis on the Eurogroup. Its a body you have never heard of, with no legal existence as a thing in the various treaties that have constituted the EU. And yet it is basically dictating what the elected and accountable heads of state shall do in very important policy areas.

    The EU madness on climate, with its shining achievement being the promotion of diesel engined cars, is down to this kind of idiocy. People with no democratic mandate who say one thing in public and quite another in private, and have complete contempt for democracy.

    There will be no negotiation on Paris, just as there was no negotiation on the Greek debt, and there will be no negotiation on Brexit. Someplace in a room that in the old days would have been smoke filled a bunch of people will decide what their decision is, and give the Commission and the Council of Ministers their marching orders. They will be doing whatever the German Chancellor tells them.

    Meanwhile in another part of the wood the EU Parliament, a unique world leading institution, the first Parliament in the world to have no power to initiate legislation, what will it be doing? It will roll over and put its paws in the air, and hope to be given a bone.

  22. The problem with the EU setting targets and caps is that the EU isn’t satisfied with hamstringing only themselves. They want to bring everyone down with them. They will attempt to extend their crippling decisions outward via coercive laws that require any business wishing to do business in any way with the EU to agree to the suicide pact as well and force its suppliers to comply and on and on down the supply chain.

  23. See, that is how fake news is created. “No new renegotiation” means there had to be a negotiation. There was not. There was a dictate that Obama swallowed, but even his party members in the Senate would not vote for.

    Part of “The Art of the Deal” is to know when to walk away from the table. Trump did. The EU does not or they would not still be whining about it.

  24. The EU may be taking a gamble on President Trump’s impeachment.

    To impeach the president, if I understand correctly, a lot of Republicans would have to vote for it. That’s a problem. Even the Democrats are wary of impeaching the president. link On the other hand, if the public perceives that he is a traitor who cheated his way into the Oval Office, they might demand it.

    My prediction: popcorn sales through the roof. Much depends on how the Republicans are feeling about 2018.

    • There have been exactly 0 US presidents impeached in history. Take the closest historic attempt on Bill Clinton and he was facing strikingly similar charges ( one of perjury and one of obstruction of justice) and most would say he was guilty. The problem is you need 67 senators to vote for it.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton

      The cost was $70 million they had a simple clear cut case and they got 50 of the required 67 votes.

      You have snowballs chance in hell of impeaching Trump even if you could prove the charge. All the rubbish does is sell papers and give news a filler.

      • Johnson and Clinton were impeached. Impeachment only requires a simple majority of the House.

        Removal from office after impeachment requires a 2/3 super majority in the Senate.

      • “….All the rubbish does is sell papers and give news a filler…..” That’s the naive answer. The purpose of it is to provide ammunition for the smear campaign and incite people to anarchy.

  25. The Global Warming Green fraud kills.

    Celotex RS5000 comprises rigid polyisocyanurate foam core (PIR) using a blowing agent that has low global warming potential (GWP) and zero ozone depletion potential (ODP).

    •Has been tested to BS 8414-2:2005, meets the requirements in BR 135 and the first PIR insulation suitable for rainscreen cladding applications above 18 metres in height
    •Achieves an ‘A+’ rating when compared to the BRE Green Guide

    https://www.celotex.co.uk/products/rs5000

    The insulation material used in the refurbishment of Grenfell Tower “will burn if exposed to a fire of sufficient heat and intensity”, according to its manufacturer.

    Celotex confirmed that it supplied its RS5000 insulation for the £8.6 million renovation of the London tower block, where at least 12 people died and scores were injured.

    http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/15347983.Tower_insulation_firm__Material_will_burn_if_exposed_to_fire_of_sufficient

    • They built what is effectively a chimney. The builders/renovators filled and wrapped it with plastic and the occupants filled it even more with plastic tat (mostly) imported from China.
      Surprise sur-fooking-prise – it went off like a firework on Bonfire night.

      Were the victims killed by Global Warming. They most certainly died because of it.
      What was wrong with using white asbestos as insulation. It doesn’t burn, it doesn’t hurt anyone, it simply dissolves if you breathe it in. Brown and blue asbestos are the menaces but quite rarely ever used anywhere.
      Another blind panic that has created a gold-mine for the cronies who ‘volunteer’ to remove the stuff wherever they think they find it

      And what sparkling witticism will we get from Michael Mann about this?
      I ain’t holding any breath.

      And that Junker – there goes a childish tantrum if ever there was. Somebody give him his soother back before he busts a blood-vessel.

      I echo HotScot – wtf has gone (and is going) wrong around here?

      I always fancied Arizona. Dunno why. Somewhere big though. I like big country/space/sky/horizons…..
      Cumbria had those but the climate was sh1t.
      OK, maybe not The Climate. The weather has totally cr4p though.

  26. Good! Now exit the entire UN Climate Framework. They just told the US to drop dead.
    So much for half measures of the legalistic Paris only exit. Worried about Russian election interference? Here’s the whole globalist UN actively seeking to unseat Trump. Where’s the outrage?

  27. We have no time to reconsider action to prevent an immeasurably small change in temperature 100 years from now.

    Just when you think they can’t get any more ridiculous, they raise the bar.

  28. No doubt the world is relieved to note that the UN, FCCC and IPCC are administered by the Office of Mr. Junker (surrogate of Mrs. Merkel and the GDR) and the EU (NOT).

    Jajajajajajajaja

  29. Out in the private sector, there are these “deal makers” who can’t do much more than make deals.
    There are nothing like the average businessman you may have seen on TV or the movies.
    They live to deal. Whether it is a good deal or bad deal is irrelevant, but they will deal.
    The mess they leave behind themselves is awful.

  30. The reality is that the climate change we are experiencing is caused by the sun and the oceans over which mankind has no control. There is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate and plenty of scientific rational to support the idea that the climate sensivity of CO2 is zero. So the Paris Climate Agreement will do nothing to affect climate change and hence is of no benefit. But even is we could somehow stop the climate from changing, extreme weather events and sea level rise are part of our current climate so there is still no benefit to be gained.

    So much of the Paris Climate Agreement is voluntary so our federal government is voluntarily not going to abide by it. But that does not stop local governments and individuals from lowering their carbon footprints. If you feel that the use of fossil fuels is bad then stop making use of all goods and services that make use of fossil fuels. After all it is your money that keeps the fossil fuel companies in business.

    In the town where I live the transportation is based on fossil fuel based equipment.. The city can always pass new laws to ban such equipment in favor of horse powered equipment. The city can also ban the use of electricity derived from fossil fueled powered plants. Such laws would help to lower our cities human population which would further serve to reduce CO2 emisions within the city limits.

    • There should be a thread here on that topic (inflammable cladding). We already have some good comments on it in various threads that could be re-posted into it.

  31. I’m not a scientist, i just take care of their equipment. Can one of you Ph.D’s explain why if this is inevitable, we spend 100’s of billions on research for science that is settled, but nothing to prepare us for it?

  32. The Paris agreement was between nations. The EU is not a nation and Juncker is not the leader of any nation.
    Therefore I do not see what the hell it has to do with him.

    • …The E.U. BELIEVES it is a nation, just like the leftist loons that BELIEVE in Anthropological Catastrophic Global Warming….NUTS !

  33. Nations, states, parties, etc., etc, — does everybody even have the same definition of all these, let alone the common comprehension about them to determine if there are any legally binding terms applicable to them?

    I’ve been reading some pretty intense legal-type articles about the Paris agreement, and even they seem wishy washy. If it came down to some sort of litigation, I think it would just be a matter of who was judging or mediating the legal drama that day.

    I still get the overall feeling that the Paris Agreement is a puny legal obligation, as in no legal obligation whatsoever . Obama agreed for HIS administration, under HIS executive order, … he did NOT agree for the whole UNITED STATES, under all future executives, by disabling all future executive orders concerning it.

    Is “circumventing” the law the latest positive spin on “breaking” the law? How about I … “circumvent” … the law, as I place a demanding note in front of a bank teller, instructing her to hand over all the bank’s money. Gee, all I have to do is modify my descriptive vocabulary, and maybe I could get away with it.

    Your honor, I did not break the law – I circumvented the law, and, therefore, plead not guilty. Yeah, that would go over real well.

  34. “The European Union will not renegotiate the Paris Agreement,” Mr Juncker said.

    ====

    That is a great response from Trump’s point of view. He can just walk away. No need to waste any more of his time and USA $$$$$.

    Hold Juncker to his word.

  35. Interesting that the EU vote to impale itself further on the Paris accord was “nearly unanimous”. I wonder which countries had the sense to drag their feet?
    Is the congressman interview really genuine? If so I think it is terrifying that someone in such high office can say something like that. Surely he needs removing from office to a place of safety for his and all our sakes.
    We are all doomed it seems, Europe and America alike. At least it won’t be global warming that gets us-just stupidity.

  36. The best part of this fiasco is that the signatories seem to believe that the U S can’t opt out of the Accords for another three years because that’s the agreement that 0bama signed. Flash to the world, 0bama ain’t in charge and the Accords ain’t a treaty ratified by the Senate. They just don’t get how the U S works.

    • Trump could have stayed in the agreement and simply ignored it or he could have revised our emissions targets upwards or he could have submitted it to the Senate for ratification, where it would be voted down.

      Instead he pulled out and said he’d be willing to consider coming back in if he could renegotiate a better deal for us.

  37. I’m glad that they refuse to renegotiate the Paris Accord. If they were open to renegotiate it then the US might consider signing back on.

  38. “The European Union will not renegotiate the Paris Agreement,” Mr Juncker said.

    When Trump pulled out of the Paris Agreement, it was the end of the world. One magazine even wrote an obituary for the planet. What does it tell you when they won’t renegotiate to stop the world from ending? Even they don’t believe their own hype.

  39. “Talk about a win-win deal! President Trump decides to not shoot our economy in the foot… And the EU volunteers to shoot their economy in both feet!”

    Not by a long shot. The EU volunteers to shoot itself in the foot followed by the head.

  40. I wonder how many participants, if any, Trump will send to this year’s tea party in Bonn? A quick check of the participants list for COP21 in Paris showed there were 146 party goers including Obama. Excluding POTUS and his entourage, the cost must have been well over $1m.
    I ashamed to say that New Zealand where I come from sent 37 people to the party – way more on a per capita basis than the US.

  41. I admit to being a bit concerned when President Trump said he wanted to renegotiate – he might have actually managed to get a (somewhat less) crippling piece of garbage past the Congress.

    Now I can sleep better, though. The Kameraden of the Socialist States of Europe have pounded their desks and screamed “Nyet!!!” They will soon be back in the Sixth Century economically, and socially under Sharia.

    Perhaps time to expand that travel ban to a few more countries…

  42. I think that they think that Donald Trump is not going to be there in 2 or 3 years time…. They are counting on him being “removed”.

    The stakes are now sky high for them. Without the funding and regulatory frame work of “Climate Change”, the Globalist Socialists will not be able to fund their Global Socialism or exert control over recalcitrant countries.

    These Socialist fanatics are now all in….. That is why Republicans are being shot at charity baseball games and conservative speakers attacked at universities or beaten in the streets. The Socialists are determined not to let us speak and if they can’t stop us from speaking, they will escalate their violence.

    It’s only one side of politics doing this….. The Socialist Democrats and their foreign globalist ilk.

    Trump needs to apply the constitution and the law…. and be utterly steadfast in that application.

  43. The great thing about not being a member of the scary global warming church is that we have been subjected to the same playbook currently on display throughout the national political and social scene . No debate , just polarized intolerance of anyone else’s perspective . Global warming , global governance
    motivated by money .
    It has gotten so bad that as soon as you see things like …. Sources close to , or government officials (without names that is ) you know that it is just made up crap . NYT , WAPo, CNN have become unhinged ,
    In fact you have to give Al Gore credit because he would often reference some obscure scientist as the source for his prophesy’s of doom . Arctic ice disappearing for example . Having no scientific credentials himself at least at times he tried to create the elusion of sound scientific conscientious but without pointing out the high degree of uncertainty . For example climate models which are used to underscore the climate Armageddon have been proven to be grossly inaccurate and consistently overstating warming projections.
    There have been some complete bullshit statements like “the climate has a fever” which belay the desperation of a failing fear campaign .

    President Trump is the peoples chance to stop the ship from sinking but it’s tougher when mutineers pump water into the boat .

  44. Sweden just passed a law committing itself to a target more ambitious than its Paris commitment:

    https://qz.com/1007833/swedens-climate-act-legally-commits-the-country-to-reach-net-zero-emissions-by-2045/

    India just announced it expects to meet, indeed surpass, its agreemnt 3 years early@

    https://cleantechnica.com/2017/06/14/india-joins-renewable-energy-revolution-increases-emissions-reduction-pledge/

    I see also US got 10% of all electricity from wind and solar in March…

    Things moving on, even in the US!

    • 8% wind, 2% solar (mostly in the PRC)…

      The other 90% came from natural gas, coal, nuclear, hydro, etc.

      Wind is highly seasonal. It tends tp peak in spring and/or fall. There are days when Texas gets over 50% of its generation from wind. If days, weeks, months or seasons were relevant to electricity generation, the EIA article would be relevant.

      https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=31632

      • But you can see the way this is going… every year more solar and more wind than the year before comes online. And more coal plants retire.

        Great potential here. Some parts of the middle of the US have 45% wind capacity and then there’s offshore. There’s much more solar to exploit: Nevada just changed its tariff it pays to domestic solar owners back to market rate, for example.

      • Once again Griffie actually believes that because a trend exists, that it will continue forever.

      • Whereas Mark, you seem to believe a trend you don’t like can be ignored and a political direction you don’t like is lies, not a statement of intent.

        a trend is a statistical thing, based on real world figures. People like India are delivering on their promises, as you can see from multiple sources recording their energy use.

        There is no underlying reason why the downward coal trend should reverse

    • Funny thing about Griff. He actually believes that the statements of politicians take precedence over reality.
      IE, if a politician says something can be done, then it can be done. Period. No questions allowed.

      • but then I check the information about how many solar panels (for example) are being installed…
        Or are you trying to tell me you don’t trust what President Trump says he will do ! ? !

      • Ah yes, politicians are paying people to put up solar panels, and this proves that solar panels will eventually take over electricity production.

  45. It took 20 years to create a 25 page document with 29 articles. They can’t do anything unless everyone (the US) signs, agrees, and abides. Here’s to another 20 years of nothing.

  46. Members of the Scary Global Warming Church are free to donate as much as they want to the religion of their choice . How much are the very wealthy global warming preachers giving up of their wealth ?
    Have they sold their waterfront mansions and stopped using fossil fuels entirely ?
    If you go to a church and the leader says don’t do something yet they are doing it x 100 why would you listen to them ? The church of global warming is run by hypocrites .
    Why haven’t they set up a pledge /donation fund for their flock ?
    You know show you are a believer . I am sure they have thought about it and even tried it but the real interest wouldn’t even buy donuts for the congregation .
    Come on people like Gore , Suzuki, Nye , DiCaprio lets see all those properties you own sold and donated to stop the planets fever . What’s that …. silence .

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s