Guest post by David Middleton
NATURE | COMMENT
Prove Paris was more than paper promises
David G. Victor, Keigo Akimoto, Yoichi Kaya, Mitsutsune Yamaguchi, Danny Cullenward& Cameron Hepburn
01 August 2017
All major industrialized countries are failing to meet the pledges they made to cut greenhouse-gas emissions, warn David G. Victor and colleagues.
Beyond US President Donald Trump’s decision in June to withdraw the United States from the 2015 Paris climate agreement, a more profound challenge to the global climate pact is emerging. No major advanced industrialized country is on track to meet its pledges to control the greenhouse-gas emissions that cause climate change.
Wishful thinking and bravado are eclipsing reality. Countries in the European Union are struggling to increase energy efficiency and renewable power to the levels that they claimed they would. Japan promised cuts in emissions to match those of its peers, but meeting the goals will cost more than the country is willing to pay. Even without Trump’s attempts to roll back federal climate policy, the United States is shifting its economy to clean energy too slowly.
[…]
Paris was a huge step forward. But the framework remains young, incomplete and fragile. Its benefits are still abstract to most stakeholders. The exit of the United States could multiply those troubles, or it could provide an opportunity to fix the looming problem of incredible goals.
Nature 548, 25–27 (03 August 2017) doi:10.1038/548025a
Wishful thinking and bravado may not stave off the horrors of Gorebal Warming, but, at least…
That one shining moment in World History when almost every nation on Earth joined together in one giant futile gesture!
Emissions reductions were not the goal of Paris, but income redistribution, so it might be meeting its actual intent.
Hardly likely without the ~25% US share of the GCF.
The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them [Lenin]. Paris went a step further and wanted the US to provide the money.
That’s just a logical extension of the idea to send the family of the executed a bill for the cost of the bullet.
Why only US, Europe, and Japan?
I wondered about that too, Leonard. I think China would be off the top of the chart.
Sorry. As the Frank Sinatra song goes, “You can’t have one without the other.” If there is to be income to redistribute then there must be emissions. Emissions reductions and redistribution of income are mutually exclusive goals — Unless, of course, we can be successful in fantasizing that the fantasy currency that central banks conjure out of their magic holes in the air is actual and real money that can be distributed as shareable income ….. Universal Basic Income or Ben Bernanke helicopter money, maybe?.
There are some so-called economists who are just as flaked out as some so-called climate scientists. Guess how both groups likely voted in the last US Presidential election.
The EU and the Canadians can support the WaBenzi with their own money.
This point is not made often enough and cannot be over emphasized. They want to cut off the hand that feeds them, and yet still expect bread (or is that caviar) put on the table.
it reminds me of another Frank Sinatra song. To dream the impossible dream.
Bernie Madoff was a piker on “income redistribution” schemes. We need to see prison times awarded for this authoritarian scam.
Paris was about increasing Global CO2 emissions by an additional 18+ Gigatons from the present 32.1 Gigatons taking annual global emissions to some 50 Gigatons (50 billion MtCO2e) by 2030.
Paris was about allowing China to double and India to treble their CO2 emissions by 2030 – an increase of some 18 Billion MtCO2e by 2030 (18 Gigatons).
Paris was about the UK, Australia, Canada and the EU cutting their emissions by 1.79 Billion MtCO2e to Offset the 18 Billion MtCO2e Increase from the rest of the world – Not enough to make any difference to CO2 levels but big enough to drive people into energy poverty, to lose jobs and industry and (seemingly) to force electric vehicle policies forwards.
Paris was about the developed nations Paying for the privilege of having their economies damaged and shrunk as they export energy-intensive manufacturing and employment to countries where the level of CO2 emissions is not a real issue.
Paris seems to have confirmed what the UN and IPCC have stated at various times – this is not about the climate, it is about wealth redistribution and, as was tried at Copenhagen, the creation of a global government.
Paris also, in my mind, confirmed something that the UK, France, Germany, and the Netherlands have unwittingly just reconfirmed. All 4 nations have pledged to ban internal combustion engines and only allow electric cars to be sold – from 2040 in UK and France, from 2030 in Germany and from 2025 in the Netherlands.
As the recent IVL study in Sweden found, the CO2 emissions from the manufacture of a Tesla battery is 35 MtCO2e if no renewable energy is used – Germany struggles to reach 30% and the UK 26% at best. This electric car policy will directly lead to an increase above 2015 CO2 emissions in the UK of between 19% and 37% by 2048 – the lower figure is only achievable if 50% is a genuine percentage of the energy used to manufacture the batteries. (BTW 35 MtCO2e equates to 16 years driving a petrol or diesel car !)
What Paris and these policies seem to confirm to me is that despite all the political rhetoric about reducing CO2 emissions and the policy makers making public claims about achieving this – the reality is that apart from forcing real pain and suffering on the public in Europe, Canada and Australia – what they are actually doing is significantly increasing global emissions levels of CO2.
It makes me wonder – and your thoughts on this would be very interesting – if it might be that privately the international decision makers and leading politicians accept that CO2 has little or no effect on Global temperatures. I wonder if one of the multiple geo-political strands is pulling the teeth of middle east oil and gas producers and ending energy-based relationships with them. Perhaps with a more European perspective is it in part about ending the dominant position that Russia has on LNG gas supplies in Europe.
Interesting times.
OE
That Chinese curse, again.
“May you live in interesting times.”
Your points noted and largely agreed with – too late at night for a quibble.
Auto
Points well made and worth emphasizing
Someone has to produce the goods that the consumer’s in the West demand, so industry is being passed from the developed West to China and India and they are given a free pass so that the West may virtue signal and claim that they have reduced CO2 emissions.
The politicians know that the only way to reduce CO2 is to either go almost completely nuclear, which is politically a difficult sell, or to de-industrialise and adopt a 19th century lifestyle, which again is a difficult sell. There would be an uprising in the West if consumers were told that to reduce CO2 it is the end of cars, fridges, cookers, TVs, ipads, computers, HiFi, mobile phones etc. Politicians realize that someone has to produce these goods so China and India are given a free CO2 pass to enable them to do so to supply the West and keep the sheeple quiet and on board for the globalists plan of one world government.
The scheme of things is quite simple when one looks at the Paris Accord and the statements of Politicians and the UN. That is why MSM has never done a proper critique of the Paris Accord, or to point out that America’s withdrawal from Paris will have no impact at all, or that despite America’s withdrawal the US will reduce CO2 emissions more than any other developed Western Nation since America is pushing ahead with fracking for shale gas and switching from coal to fracked gas which is proven decarbonisation. MSM is on board and covering up the basic facts so as not to alarm the sheeple.
.
Old England…
Some great points in your post. However,the vast majority of Russian gas is still piped into Europe. Although Russia has LNG production in Sakhalin in the Far East, they have little LNG capacity to service Europe yet (apart from a small operation in the Baltic). However, that will change dramatically with the Novatek Yamal peninsula facility which just started up its first liquefaction train. Pipeline gas is still intrinsically cheaper than LNG due to the refrigeration costs of the latter but Gazprom’s historical pricing strategy in Europe have made cheap US LNG an attractive option.
It was always about the money, Im sure lots of money will flow and even more because the CO2 pledges are not being met…
“Politician: we need to work harder and because we are not doing enough for the enviroment we committed to funding more green projects, run by my friends and family etc etc”
25 years ago “Beirut, the Paris of the middle east is a mess”
5 years from now ” Paris is a mess”
How about a rewrite?
“5 years from now “Paris is the Beirut of Europe”
Both in terms of ruin and ethnic composition.
Literally, Paris is Beriut of Europe – same agent of destruction, same result of a once Western culture and Christian derived population.
Bulls eye! Mumbles.
Regrettably there is a large element of truth in your comment, although we are probably talking 25 to 50 years rather than 5 years.
It is a great shame since Paris is truly one of the most beautiful cities in Europe. It will be a lost gem, unless the EU changes its political stance very quickly indeed..
The further problem is that the fete of Paris is shared by most of the major European Capitals. It is coming to a city near you. Only Eastern Europe are showing some fortitude to stand against the tide of mass immigration, and to try and preserve their culture and way of life.
Europe is the most negligent of all after Merkel tried to run bulldog over Trump and Trudeau kissed up to make her feel better. Is Canada going to be the only sacrificial lamb because it might earn us some selfies with the phonies?
“meeting the goals will cost more than the country is willing to pay.”
And yet we have climate twits of various plumage telling us that solar and wind are as economic as coal.
In the contest between reality and ideology, reality always wins.
“In the contest between reality and ideology, reality always wins.” Thank you, Pat Frank. I will make good use of that quote.
It took 70 years for reality to win over ideology in the Soviet Union, Pat. How long before the CAGW insanity runs its course?
“I’m shocked! Shocked! that gambling is going on here!”
“you wore blue…the Germans wore gray”
The goal of Paris accord was to: “Take money from poor people in rich countries and give it to rich people in poor countries.”
“The goal of Paris accord was to: “Take money from poor people in rich countries and give it to rich people in poor countries.”
Brilliantly said! Stunningly true! Superbly well-put!!!
Calm down Tom. It’s not his quote – although it’s as good today as it was when first uttered and is absolutely true.
Thanks, Cheshire.
I don’t want undeserved credit.
I too would like to know who coined that witticism, as it is brilliant.
Shimon Peres said, “Giving is problematic. We take money from poor people in rich countries and give it to rich people in poor countries.” The comment was with regards to foreign aid.
That formula is kind of UNiversal… 😎
The climate boondoggle is the only distraction Europe has from the real, existential, billowing crisis they’ve created for their culture and society. The psychology can best be understood by the Titanic’s orchestra playing while the ship is going down.
Members of the band’s families were given bills for the uniforms they perished inside of. Titan psychology. Al Gore would use Pharrell to pretend toward happiness.
Warmists and Globalists bit off more than they can chew and now they are choking on it.
Paris was a huge step forward in bypassing Congress and the US Constitution on a global scale after years of practice in governance by executive order. It was international in scope of over reach and required billions of dollars to line up the Potemkin consensus. At the domestic scale it also required bypassing quality controls for research in federal science agencies and a load of street money spread around thousands of media outlets all across the land. It was most impressive in its marshaling of compromised cheerleaders. They would have done the same for any hollow, screw the masses effort with that level of campaigning. I guess Hillary assumed everything worked that smoothly.
Are you talking about money from “Obama’s stash?” Bread and circuses indeed.
…Unfortunately markl, we’re all choking on it.
rocketscientist–see above–has it figured out; can’t say the thing any more clearly.
No credit to me. Not my quote, but I love it all the same.
I agreed with the author right up to …
“Paris was a huge step forward.”
He then goes on to express hope “the framework” can somehow be saved. Even when confronted by harsh reality, these green one-worlders just can comprehend it. They sputter “But, but, but, we can still save the corpse.”
Damn! “just CAN’T comprehend it” I swear I reread my entry before posting.
To be fair those nations required to do nothing , China and Indian and those for who Paris meant endless pay days will certainty stick to the agreement. They be mad not to .
Does it really need six authors to write such nonsense?
Its the camel invented by the government commission aiming to build a horse. Of course it takes 6 named people. For behind them each is another half dozen. Somewhere bemixt are the consultants. The trickle-tree of efficiently subdividing, but horribly inefficiently tactically investing a pool of money is in high krausen.
There’s no such thing as government waste. Just dutiless enterprise, castle building, re-doing what the previous 5 people redid, and so on.
GoatGuy
On the contrary, GG. It takes six people to have enough courage to say “Paris won’t work” in the current political climate. Note: they do everything to avoid the two most important points: the vast majority of countries pledged nothing or less than nothing, and that even if they all fulfilled their pledges, CO2 emissions would more than double by 2040. They focus on the least of the points, that every last country is failing to meet its pledges.
If it was only one author, even with such a mild critique, they would be scoured as traitors, heretics, and “deniers”, no matter how well known or qualified they were nor how right their facts were.
Climate analysts such as MIT, Climate Interactive and Climate Action Tracker are inflating the definition of the (comparatively) solid pledges actually agreed at Paris to include all manner of extra non-existent pledges. The solidly agreed Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC’s) have been conflated with the vague, unpledged Mid-Century Strategies and touted as furnishing a much higher reduction in 2100 surface air temperatures (SAT) than they really do:
https://investigativeanalysis.wordpress.com/2017/07/18/on-trump-and-mits-on-the-order-of-1-degree-celsius/
MIT: their own research in February 2016 (Report 291) shows a 0.65°C SAT reduction in 2100 for the NDC’s agreed at Paris. Yet they claimed in their statement on Trump’s Paris Agreement speech that the agreement furnishes “on the order of 1 degree Celsius”. This was the statement taking issue with Trump’s use of their research in the speech.
Climate Interactive: They add the unpledged Mid-Century Strategies to the NDC’s to arrive at a 2100 SAT reduction of 0.9°C. Their own research shows that it’s in fact a 0.7°C reduction for the NDC’s alone but this figure is nowhere to be found on their website and certainly not on their home page showing a big thermometer with the 0.9°C reduction.
Climate Interactive: They don’t just conflate the Mid-Century Strategies with the NDC’s. They add in an entirely fictional scenario whereby the rate of emission-cutting through 2020-2030 is maintained throughout the century resulting in eyewatering CO2-emission austerity. This results in a ~1.45°C SAT reduction in 2100 which is then placed under “Pledges” on their home page thermometer. So their fictitious, modelled scenario is attributed to pledges made by the Parties to the COP21 agreement but of course they can’t say “Paris pledges” so they just say “pledges”. But their modelled scenario hasn’t been pledged in any way shape or form.
They’re all playing this game. Climate Interactive and Climate Action Tracker do technically state what they’re doing but do so in the most arcane language and don’t place the explanation where it matters- next to their exaggerated SAT reduction figures on their home page thermometers.
The practice is so rife that the MIT statement made the mistake of categorically stating that their 1°C *did not* include post-2030 additions (Mid-Century Strategies) and only included the Paris commitments (NDC’s). This is categorically false because their cited source (Climate Interactive) does include the Mid-Century Strategies. MIT then rounded up Climate Interactive’s already exaggerated 0.9°C to “on the order of 1 degree Celsius. As mentioned, MIT’s own research shows its a 0.65°C SAT reduction in 2100 for the Paris Agreement NDC’s without the post-2030 Mid-Century Strategies. MIT have spirited 0.35°C from nowhere and added it to the true figure in their research findings.
MIT should retract their statement.
Why in doing this they are practicing ‘good climate science ‘
And apologize.
Regarding my comment above saying MIT should retract their statement claiming that the Paris Agreement would furnish a 1°C SAT reduction in 2100. This article came out today.
https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2017-08-04/urgent-action-needed-in-light-of-new-climate-change-studies-scientists-say?context=amp
The following four points show why MIT have shot themselves in the foot in this article and prove to us with their own words that they should retract their statement:
1- The MIT statement specifically says that it was informed by the researchers at the MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change whose research Trump cited (correctly). The co-director of the Joint Program is John Reilly who is quoted in the article linked above (his contribution is reproduced at bottom). In fact, John Reilly likely wrote or co-wrote the MIT statement because the same claims and mistakes are made in his own Washington Post op-ed a week after the statement was issued.
2- The MIT statement’s claimed 1°C includes the Mid-Century Strategies (even though they say it doesn’t) because their source for the 1°C clearly states that it includes them.
3- The Mid-Century Strategies are not Paris pledges. They are the vague plans that aspire to cut emissions by 80% in 2050 and Reilly refers specifically and only to these in the article linked above.
4- Reilly refers to the 80% emission cuts as hard for companies to achieve because of the difficulty involved in convincing governments to set carbon prices at high enough levels. So the Mid-Century Strategies that MIT relied on for their 1°C (without telling us they were relying on them) are being described by Reilly as difficult and hard to achieve. Reilly is the person who either informed or wrote the MIT statement. The 80% cuts he’s now telling us are so difficult to achieve are the same cuts the statement uses to add 0.35°C to the genuine SAT reduction figure of 0.65°C. The resultant 1°C was touted in the MIT statement as being “the impact of the Paris Agreement”. Only the 0.65°C attributable to the NDC’s is attributable to the Paris Agreement. Reilly has shown categorically in his contribution to the article that the added 0.35°C has been spirited from no solid commitments agreed to at Paris: just vague ideas he has no idea how to implement or how to convince governments to implement.
This is why the MIT statement on Trump’s use of their research absolutely must be retracted.
The above is only a small part of the mistakes and misleading statements MIT made regarding Trumps use of their research. The full list is here:
https://investigativeanalysis.wordpress.com/2017/07/21/14-trump-and-mits-on-the-order-of-1-degree-celsius-section-14/
Here’s Reilly’s contribution to the article pasted in full:
“But John Reilly, co-director of the Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change at MIT, pointed out the difficulty involved in convincing governments to impose carbon prices at necessary levels. And without economic consequences, most industries continue emitting greenhouse gases.
“It’s hard for [companies] to imagine cutting their emissions by 80 percent by 2050 without the right economic incentives to do it,” Reilly said. “If companies want to do good, and do good, and go out of business, then all the efforts are wasted.” “
It should be: even if every nation fails to live up to its pledge
Or
even if all nations fail to live up to their pledges
Ilsa: ” Play it once, Sam.For old times sake.”
Sam: ” I don’t know what you mean, Miss Ilsa.”
Ilsa: “Play it,Sam.Play,’ As Time Goes By”.
Sam: ” Oh, I can’t remember it, Miss Ilsa. I’m a little rusty on it.”
And later,
Rick Blaine:” You know what I want to hear”.
Sam: ” No, I don’t.”
Rick: ” You played it for her, you can play it for me!”
Sam: “Well, I don’t think I can remember….”
Rick:” If she can stand it, I can! Play it!”
“…Prove Paris was more than paper promises…”
But it was less than that.
“That one shining moment in World History when almost every nation on Earth joined together in one giant futile gesture!”
How did you not link this great moment in classic film history:
I really had to resist the urge to post that classic Animal House scene… almost as hard as I had to resist posting this…
https://youtu.be/ib-Qiyklq-Q
😎
Ms. Merkel, however, sounded a somewhat bleaker note. “The whole discussion about climate was very difficult, not to say unsatisfactory,” she said. “There’s a situation where it’s six, if you count the European Union, seven, against one.”
“This is not just any old agreement, but it is a central agreement for shaping globalization,” she said. “There are no signs of whether the U.S. will stay in the Paris accords or not.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/28/world/europe/angela-merkel-trump-alliances-g7-leaders.html?_r=0
At a news conference last week in Brussels, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism.
“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution,” she said.
Referring to a new international treaty environmentalists hope will be adopted at the Paris climate change conference later this year, she added: “This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history.”
http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/climate-change-scare-tool-to-destroy-capitalism/
Hell hath no fuehrer like a woman scorned.
That right arm can scarcely be contained.