Guest essay by Eric Worrall
French President Emanuel Macron has admitted that greens are losing because President Trump withdrew from the Paris Agreement.
Emmanuel Macron says the world is losing the battle against climate change
The World Today By Connie Agius
French President Emmanuel Macron has told fellow world leaders that the battle against climate change is being lost.
Speaking at the One Planet Summit in Paris, Mr Macron said the 2015 Paris climate accord was in a fragile state after President Donald Trump pulled the US out in June.
“We’re not going fast enough, there lies the tragedy,” Mr Macron said.
“We’ve committed to limiting the temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius, and if we carry on along this path, we’re heading towards 3 or 3.5.
“When I say that we’re losing the battle, I would like you to realise that of the countries represented here, 5, 10 or 15 of them won’t exist anymore in 50, 60 or 100 years.
“It’s as simple as that.”
…
And Mr Macron was quick to take aim at the US President’s decision to opt out of that agreement.
“There have been attempts and decisions to leave this accord. It’s very bad news,” he said.
“If we’re here today, it’s because many have decided not to accept the US Federal Government’s decision to pull out of the Paris Agreement.”
…
President Macron’s sadness over Trump’s Paris decision didn’t prevent a host of climate celebrities from jetting to Paris, to complain to each other about how difficult it is to convince ordinary people to live humble low carbon lifestyles.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Macron says: We’ve committed to limiting the temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius
The level of hubris is amazing.
This is nothing more than French swamp gas.
Why would anyone listen to the French about anything except making onion soup?
This especially true for energy.
Many years ago I was on a business trip with two other former navy nukes. One thing we could agree on is our dislike for the French. Subsequently, the engineering division of the power company I worked for was bought a French government owned company.
Let me explain the difference. In the US, we have competition and often an adversarial government.
We have coal, natural gas, and nuclear to choose from for baseload power. The four companies that designed US commercial reactors also designed coal and gas plants. The US was the world leader.
Then we elected Bill Clinton who tried to imitate Jimmy Carter in subjugating to world interests. Clinton did his best to destroy the US coal and nuclear industries. By the time the Clinton was gone the Japanese and French had acquired as much of US nuclear industry as they could.
Bush was pronuclear. However, the NRC is adversarial as it should be. Here are the regulations, show us how meet them.
The French nuclear industry is arrogant. Government policy supported nuclear because they had no coal. Reactor design came from the US and French regulators depended on the US for the hard work.
The French failed to learn the lessons of the other countries when designing the next generation of reactors. First you get your design certified in the US for a standard design. Then you get approval in the country where you are building the reactor. Then you get a company with construction experience to build it in five years.
So how are the French doing building 10 reactors in 4 countries? The French design has yet to be approved in the US. What did the French power company learn in partnering with US operators? Keep your existing plants running by replacing steam generators. No EPRs will get built in the US.
In Finland and France, regulators are still waiting for their questions to be answered. The EPRs got built but have yet to operate.
In China, 2 EPRs were ‘almost’ done in 2014. I am not surprised they are not making electricity. It takes a lot of work to get from almost done to everything works right. Then there are all those pesky questions.
In contrast, China is pumping out old designs of reactors in 5 years like we used to do in the US.
So the French have bet on nuclear for AGW and international trade. I am betting on South Korea.
If there is a “best” way to cook frog legs I would also like to know. Frog legs are yummy.
Same as Rabbit; tastes like rabbit too. Chicken too and rattlesnake.
G
only tried rattlesnake once … I must have got a bad one.
Let’s play Who’s a Winner: France’s unemployment rate is 10% vs. US’ 4.1%, GDP growth 1% vs. 3.3%, per capital income $42,000 vs. $54,000.. US wins.
The more money France wastes on the Climate Change ho@x, the larger the economic gap becomes..
C’est la vie, mon ami.
Of course Trump’s position is winning. With regard to science, the truth will always eventually win. The only thing we have to worry about is if the scientific truth isn’t well established before the next Democrat is elected President. Fixing policy is definitely a step in the right direction, but there needs to be a serious effort to fix the science or those policies will revert back to foolishness.
I would like you to realise that of the (governments) represented here, 5, 10 or 15 of them won’t exist anymore in 50, 60 or 100 (months) (and I think that mine may be one of soonest to go).
Great. Losing a war against a non existing enemy is ok
That’s the French for you. !!
“to complain to each other about how difficult it is to convince ordinary people to live humble low carbon lifestyles.”
This.
PS. And eat cake of course.
Macron’s “battle” for climate policy is the battle of the global left and deep state to con the general public into believe in dangerous global warming when the globe on reality is not warming at all, more likely the reverse.
Although with all climate data in the hands of activists and fiction writers, we will never know. Intil glacial advances become impossible to disguise as retreats and food disappears from stores.
Of *course* the planet is doomed because Trump pulled out!
If it wasn’t, he might be *entitled to his opinion* – and then where would we be!
“When I say that we’re losing the battle, I would like you to realise that of the countries represented here, 5, 10 or 15 of them won’t exist anymore in 50, 60 or 100 years”……While we were pointlessly obsessing over non-existant ‘Climate Change”, we totally lost control of our countries’ immigration policies and in 50, 60 or 100 years 10-15 of Europe’s countries will not exist anymore but will have been sucked into Eurabia and be under Sharie Law..
I hope other counties will follow the USA and leave. I wonder which one will follow us first.
They (Germany) would rather stay while increasing imports of coal from the U.S.
No penalty for staying in and doing nothing.
Sounds like the Iranian nuke deal, red lines, keep your doctor, etc. Failure was a hallmark of the Obama Administration.
The Climate Industrial Complex has replaced, with a vengeanc, the Military Industrial Complex.
+1
Except in the places where they continue to invest heavily in new strategic arms.
Myth: Climate change is a “battle”.
Joke: Humans are fighting this “battle” against themselves,
Absurdity: Humans are [losing] this “battle” against themselves.
Climate change IS a “battle”, in the war watermelons are waging against humanity. Not even sure that humans will win, but the malaria-DDT affair showed that it won’t be without heavy casualties anyway.
The French presidents admits politicians had always zero intent of making any “real” progress anyway with this CC stuff- Trump was just making it obvious.
“When I say that we’re losing the battle, I would like you to realise that of the countries represented here, 5, 10 or 15 of them won’t exist anymore in 50, 60 or 100 years.”
There is zero evidence anything like this could possibly happen regarding increasing CO2 emissions. Only possibility this may actually happen are unrelated and down to the political agenda relating to global warming or policies nothing to do with it. Contributing towards everything energy related being expensive and increasing poverty while at the same time making a few friends extremely rich. It has always been about the money and power, never about the science.
“We’ve committed to limiting the temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius, and if we carry on along this path, we’re heading towards 3 or 3.5.
Full of spin, no we are heading towards limiting the temperature rise to 1.5 c if we carry on along this path. With honest global temperature data set this value will be more likely no more than about 0.5 c. Any remote extremely unlikely 3 or 3.5 are based on significantly higher CO2 emissions at the very least or very unlikely scenarios.
Why should we stay in the accord? US CO2 emissions are already falling – faster than much of the rest of the world. Why do we need to be in the accord?
You do not need the accord, America thrives on doing things better more efficiently at lesser cost,thus less pollution and less plant food.
Way too much spin here all because of a) the wilful misrepresentation of two words: “fragile” and “since” and b) the implication that Macron actually said these words.
It was the ABC article that did the spinning for their agenda (climate panic) and you went along with it for your agenda (Trump is winning and the Paris Agreement is impotent).
ABC used the word “since” to imply that what was a solid agreement is now fragile “since Trump pulled out in June”. It’s true that emission-cutting progress isn’t fast enough to reach 1.5-2°C but that was the case on the day the Paris Agreement was signed. Everyone at Paris knew the NDC’s (Nationally Determined Contributions) would result in 3.5°C of warming as opposed to around 4.2°C Business as Usual (median estimates). In that sense, their so-called commitment to 1.5-2° was always fragile. In other words, it was fragile during the 18 months before Trump pulled out and during the six months after he pulled out.
The ABC article has simply added in the “since Trump pulled out in June” as an attempt to shame Trump. It’s technically true but meaningless because it’s been the case all along.
The only quoted evidence from Macron’s actual words for ABC’s interpretation of “fragile” is this:
“We’re not going fast enough, there lies the tragedy,” Mr Macron said.
“We’ve committed to limiting the temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius, and if we carry on along this path, we’re heading towards 3 or 3.5.”
“This path” isn’t the path since Trump pulled out. It’s the path that was laid out as of April 22nd 2016 when the NDC’s were formally committed to in the “high profile signing ceremony” in NYC (quote is from the agreement itself).
They knew then, as Macron knew during his speech, that improved NDC’s (deeper emission-cut commitments) were needed in order to reach 1.5-2°C. Those extra commitments are expected to come over the coming decades in the 5-yearly NDC assessment meetings…except everyone knows the eye-watering emission cuts needed to get to even 2° probably won’t be forthcoming, hence Macron’s concern.
But that concern was felt by all from the word go, back in Paris, 2015. All the big-hitting scenario modellers including MIT, Climate Interactive and Climate Action Tracker (who advise the policy makers) were projecting 3.5°C to 3.7°C for the Paris NDC’s. They were projecting this at the time of the conference and even before it, using the INDC’s (Intended Nationally Determined Contributions). And they were liaising with the delegates on this at the time of the conference as well.
All Macron was doing in his speech was reiterating the same old concerns that are regurgitated time and again by the modellers/advisors, the COP delegates (at Paris, Marrakesh and Bonn) and world leaders. Trump leaving in June adds to their woes, yes, but Macron was not saying the 1.5°C/3.5°C disparity was because of Trump leaving. Anyone with any knowledge of the subject should know this, including ABC Climate Change reporters and
WUWT.
But ABC added in the “since Trump pulled out in June” for extra impact as if Macron and all other world leaders were struggling to stick to the Paris Agreement since the US departure. It’s quite clear he wasn’t saying this as shown by this quote:
“If we’re here today, it’s because many have decided not to accept the US Federal Government’s decision to pull out of the Paris Agreement.”
As for ABC’s use of the word “fragile”, they say:
“Macron says 2015 Paris climate accord is in a fragile state…
The only ABC quote of Macron’s that could relate even remotely to this view is:
“When I say that we’re losing the battle, I would like you to realise that of the countries represented here, 5, 10 or 15 of them won’t exist anymore in 50, 60 or 100 years.”
It’s perfectly clear he’s not talking about the Paris Agreement being fragile because of “losing the battle”. He’s saying they’re struggling to cut emissions fast enough, something that’s been the case since Paris 2015, Copenhagen 2009 and Kyoto 1997. He isn’t saying that the agreement itself is fragile (which it may become). He certainly isn’t saying that “greens are losing because President Trump withdrew from the Paris Agreement.” (quote from this WUWT article). Or that the “French President Admits President Trump’s Climate Agenda is Winning” (title of this WUWT article, no less).
When we put the two words, “since” and “fragile” (both unattributed to Macron) together in ABC’s short sentence, it reads:
“Macron says 2015 Paris climate accord is in a fragile state since Trump pulled out in June”
This is a complete fabrication, concocted to elicit panic among Trump-bashing greens. ABC are their own worst enemy because now WUWT has taken this at face value (when you should know better). You’ve then exaggerated ABC’s claims still further by adding in the spurious claim in the title and that “greens are losing because president Trump withdrew from the Paris Agreement”. You’re both as bad as each other. This is hurting WUWT’s brand because ‘AGW Twitter’ will always complain about this type of WUWT story which makes it easier to dismiss your many well-researched stories in between.
It also affects the chances of people like me having our well-researched, anti-alarmist articles taken seriously. The following is a case in point as it is directly related to what Macron was saying and points to why there’s so much confusion surrounding what the Parties to the Paris Agreement actually agreed to do.
I’ve been spending the last six months trying to draw attention to the fact that MIT, Climate Interactive and Climate Action Tracker are including unagreed emission-cut commitments in their modelled projections for the Paris Agreement. They’re constantly saying they are not including these post-2030 “commitments” when in fact they are. This results in the Paris Agreement’s supposed impact being up to a 1.1°C temperature reduction for 2100 as opposed to the actual 0.63 to 0.7 it is (i.e. for the NDC’s actually agreed at Paris).
This is why Macron said 3°C to 3.5°C- he’s been duped along with us all: 3.5° is the correct NDC impact; 3° includes the spurious commitments.
The three modelling organisations above, that have a huge influence on policy-making, public understanding of CC and your taxes, are overselling the impact of the Paris Agreement by anything between 43% (CI) and 75% (MIT). They are at pains to promote the exaggerated version to us, the public, in order to keep us on board with voting for CC mitigation policies and impressing us with the temperature reductions we’ll see for shelling out all those taxes. But when they arrive at the COP conferences, they cite the true, lower temperature reduction. All the delegates (and modellers) know the true figure and negotiate accordingly. Then after coming to an agreement and flying home, they revert to the oversold version that includes either a) the hoped-for (but unagreed) post 2030 additional CO2 cuts or b) eye-watering modelled scenarios that bear no relation at all to what was agreed in the NDC’s or even in the suggested in the MCS’s. Climate Action Tracker are particularly adept at pulling off ‘b’ and presenting this highly adjusted result on their home page as a Paris pledge. Pure fantasy.
This is the story that you should be shouting from the rooftops. It’s a truly egregious abuse of the honest representation of scientific data. MIT used this trick in its shaming of president Trump regarding his (correct) citing of their research in his Paris Agreement speech. That was the 0.2°C reduction he cited for their NDC-impact findings (the difference between 0.2° and 0.63° stated above is yet more climate spin- too complicated to explain here).
MIT went to great lengths in their statement to assure us they weren’t using the unagreed, post-2030 “commitments” to reach their “1°C” when in fact they were.
I’ve researched this meticulously with copious references. I’ve linked the work on this site before but it’s elicited little interest. If the intricately spun MIT spin were given the airing it should, it would be one of the biggest fake news stories of the year. After all, MIT were calling out Trump’s correct 0.2°C by adding a known, spurious 0.35°C to their own findings for the impact of the Paris Agreement.
And that statement was big news- broadcast all over the globe. Just imagine the cognitive dissonance outbreak when we all learn that MIT were dishonest in their admonishing of Trump and that Trump was right all along.
And therein lies the difference. Alarmists concern themselves with winning, and will manipulate data to do so. Skeptics concern themselves with science, and will follow wherever it leads. It is still unclear which side will prevail. But it is a truly sad day when educated people cannot agree to sit down and review data objectively.
The fact that we’re in the grip of a severe winter here in the UK might make our politicos think twice about the climate scam. First snow came very early, in November. Looks like Paris hasn’t seen the kind of weather we’ve had, so maybe that’s why Macron is still on the global warming bandwagon.
On woodfortrees I note that most of the temperature graphs are starting to show a return towards the level period of 2000-2104. It will be interesting to see if it does go back and stay there,
you forgot that, when it is hotter, it is man-made climate change, and when it is colder, it is man-made climate change. Whatever happen is man-made climate change. Oh, and it is a disaster, too.
This misses the substantial announces made by large companies on disinvestment in coal/fossil fuels, the statement by the UK Prime Minister on funding poorer countries fighting climate change and other achievements made at the conference – summarised here:
World Bank, ING, & AXA Announce Fossil Fuel Divestment Worth Billions
UK Vows At One Planet Summit To Lead Coal Phase-Out & Support World’s Poorest Address Climate Change
Powering Past Coal Alliance Membership Blows Out Past 50
World’s Space Agencies (Sans US & Russia) Propose New Space Climate Observatory On Eve Of One Planet Summit
Canada Teams Up With World Bank To Support Clean Energy Transition In Developing Countries & Small Island States
Caribbean Leaders Launch Ambitious “Climate-Smart Zone” At One Planet Summit
The disinvestment/ending coal momentum is building up.
The western world is indeed disinvesting, not just in coal/fossil fuel, but in pretty much every industry. Europe even paid Mittal to close foundries in Europe, so that he build them back in India, and send the steel to Europe. that the way they reduce “carbon footprint”…
And Griff-like cheer up!
Meanwhile Chinese and Indian are investing in coal mine in Australia, and China build up its own “world bank”
You know what those disinvestments do, griff? They give other people a chance to snatch up the stocks at a good price and down the road they get even better returns.
And other people are not using dodgy politics to make real decisions. Ever wonder why socialism always fails?
“The disinvestment/ending coal momentum is building up.”
Which explains the 1600 coal fired power stations being built around the world…. right Griff 😉
“When I say that we’re losing the battle, I would like you to realise that of the countries represented here, 5, 10 or 15 of them won’t exist anymore in 50, 60 or 100 years. ”
but but but… who cares about “countries” disappearing? Not Macron for sure, who is trying hard to have the whole European nations to dissolve into a new EUSSR, as just a first strep toward a single worldwide country.
The elite cast doubt of their own story by flitting around the globe in private jets, eating at 5 star restaurants and generally telling us what to do, not as they do.
No one can influence the sun or volcanoes on land and below the sea.
By paying someone to “save the world” you create the biggest ponzi scheme ever, even better than novenas and papal interventions.
Griff
Canada has just approved another big coal mine in the north. Thousands of trains go by my house every year filled with cheap coal.
King coal will be around till it’s no longer economical.
Justin Zoolander is good at one thing,……… throwing up smokescreens! You know how that goes, it’s not what you do ….it’s what you say.
Poor old Napoleon . Can’t make up his mind. One minute trump can’t stop it next minute he is.