Study: Pace of new climate legislation has ‘slowed significantly’ – Warmists fret: ‘Could be a sign for concern’

From the “let’s call it The Pause” department:

While the number of climate laws and policies worldwide has increased dramatically over the past 20 years, from just 72 in 1997 to 1,500 today, the pace of passing new legislation has recently significantly slowed, according to a new study. From the years 2009 to 2015, between 100 and 143 climate change laws were passed globally every year.

That number dipped in 2016 to 64, and then again dropped last year to just 36, according to the study…While having a body of existing policies and laws that cover “substantial ground” lessens the need for new legislation, “a sustained low level of legislative developments could be a sign for concern,” the study says.

The report was published on Monday as diplomats and environmentalists gathered in Bonn, Germany, to keep working on the rules governing the 2015 Paris climate accord, a landmark agreement aimed at combating climate change.

More at CBS News h/t to Marc Morano of Climate Depot

The study was written by Michal Nachmany and Joana Setzer and is available here

Advertisements

47 thoughts on “Study: Pace of new climate legislation has ‘slowed significantly’ – Warmists fret: ‘Could be a sign for concern’

    • For the US’s Leftist politicians, they adhere to this motto:

      If you ain’t lyin’, you ain’t tryin’.

      • ‘If you ain’t lyin’, you ain’t tryin’.’
        There’s also the faction that’s just too stupid to know better.
        At least a liar KNOWS they’re lying – the second group’s harder to deal with because they’ve got the courage of their convictions.

    • To paraphrase Einstein: if AGW is right, one law would suffice. If AGW is wrong, no number of laws could fix it…

    • We can start by eliminating the Obama junk science EPA Endangerment Finding for CO2. It would count as a reduction (a negative rate contributor) and would simultaneously be a major positive for healthier plants and a healthier economy.

    • Trump’s PD in 2017, it was a 2-for-1 order. Cut 2 old rules for every 1 new one.

      Federal rule making has fallen precipitously under Trump.

      He’s got my 2020 vote on that alone.

  1. While the slackening of the rate of climate legislation may be regarded as a sign of gradual enlightenment what should be of concern is an apparently increasing rate of climate policies by organisations such as the World Bank.

  2. Shouldn’t effectiveness be measured in what law is effective, not how many laws are enacted?
    The a bizarre metric to be honest, let alone one to worry over.

    • It would be cause of celebration if the previous laws were subject to a sunset provision. But the topic is additionallaws. Aren’t the books becoming saturated with environmental regulations?
      I’ll take notice when the <absolutenumber of climate laws are reduced, especially in the US.
      Pruitt may be making a good start and explains the vitriol against him.

      • The vitriol against Pruitt seems to be well deserved. Just because a guy rolls back environmental legislation that doesn’t give him a free pass to break the ethics rules and squander taxpayer money. Swamp draining seems to have taken a vacation with this lot.

      • I notice that the trolls both here and in Congress who complain about Pruitt’s “ethical lapses” never say a single word about the fact that the previous head of the EPA was caught using a false email address for agency business in which it was specifically stated that this was done to thwart FOIA limitations. Also, in these emails she openly conspired with environmental activists to find ways to get through policies with the US Congress had not authorized and would never approve of.

        But no, none of them have a single word to say about that. Instead they say “oh waaah, he travels too much”. If he didn’t travel they would say “he never goes anywhere, doesn’t talk to anyone.”

    • One of the wonderful things about living in Utah is that when laws do not work they get repealed. I just do not remember this ever happening California.

      • To repeal the laws, someone would need to read them to know which one to repeal. As you may have noticed, Politicians from California don’t read laws. Especially before passing them…

        (Remember that Ms. Nancy “We need to pass the bill to find out what’s in it” Pelosi is from California…)

  3. Probably because they can’t think of anything else that isn’t so absurd…they won’t even go there.

    Ban candy corn…candy corn causes global warming

    • Oh god, that article. I can see why they don’t have comments.

      © Getty Images
      In April, for the first time in recorded history, the average monthly level of CO2 in the atmosphere exceeded 410 parts per million (ppm).

      And the picture of course shows clouds of steam rising from cooling towers.

      >¿<

  4. It’s a sad statement when it’s determined that lack of laws mean something’s wrong.

  5. Let me see if I have this right, we are only making progress when we are passing new laws. Beyond that, progress can be measured by a raw count of how many laws are being passed. No attempt to measure whether these laws are actually doing anything. Raw numbers are all that matter.

      • Hey stop muscling in on my turf. Who told you you could be a qualified Asymptotalogist? The nerve! There orta be a law against lay upstarts masquerading as the real deal at the commanding heights of séance.

      • There are so many laws, many of them vague and ill-defined, if not outright contradictory that it is next to impossible for anyone to go through the day without breaking a couple of them.

        This is how the deep state gets control over people. No matter who you are, if they dig deep enough, they can find something to charge you with.
        The only hope for the average person is to keep your head down and do nothing that will bring attention to yourself or your family.

        And that’s how the totalitarians win.

      • MarkW: Show me the man, and I’ll show you the crime. The process should be: discover evidence of a crime; discover evidence of who committed the crime; investigate that person. At a high level, it has become: investigate a specific person; discover evidence that correlates with a crime; suggest that a crime has occurred. If that person is not the real target, threaten him with imprisonment if he does not plead guilty to the theoretical crime, and implicate the target as being part of the act.

    • Lawyers must live, if not, they die. And there’s a law against death of lawyers. Or will be.

    • Passing laws may actually increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Case in point: bicycle lanes that are virtually unused but cause automobile traffic jams.

      • They just did that here in my city. I read in the paper this morning that it cost $500,000. No one uses the bike lanes, and traffic congestion has effectively doubled at the intersections, since they went from two lanes to one. Even if it’s the same amount of traffic as before, I assume CO2 emissions have increased because it can now take longer to get through the intersection, depending on the length of the backup.

        I’m sure it was some politician’s resume pad and they got some federal funding for it.

  6. In other news … there is increasing concern that there have been no new laws against murder passed this year. Does this mean that people don’t care about murder any more? Surely our legislators have taken their eyes off the ball. We’re all doomed.

  7. Layman here but as yogi noted ‘it’s amazing what you can observe just by watching’ – or something like that.
    I understand that volcano in Hawaii does spew out a considerable amount of sulfur but what about CO2? It is burning most anything in it’s path including cars and structures.

    • and a positive sign for those of us who think there is too many useless laws on the books already. The less new useless regulations the better.

  8. Peak oil. Peak gas. Peak policy.

    And after the peak follows the decline, the ditching of all those misguided and damaging rules and regulations. I propose a bonfire. Oh, oops …..

  9. Perhaps, like the faked data on global warming,
    the rate of passing laws on climate has plateaued,
    or even better has peaked, rather than paused,
    and then, to plummet.

  10. Then new USA head of the EPA , Scott Pruitt , has indicated that he wants TRANSPARENCY IN
    SCIENCE before he imposes RULES ( based on the available science ) onto the industry and public.
    WE should be encouraging him with POSITIVE FEEDBACK.
    The EPA is calling for submissions regarding CLIMATE SCIENCE and ( from what I can see here )
    MANY OF YOU are well equipped to prepare information and LODGE SUBMISSIONS
    that will guide FUTURE ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS IN THE USA.
    This WILL have a “flow-on-effect” in the rest of the CIVILISED , INDUSTRIALISED WESTERN WORLD
    and I urge you to investigate this OPPORTUNITY and EXPLOIT IT …..NOW !!!!
    NOTE: Submissions CLOSE at the end of MAY !!
    .
    Regards , Trevor.

Comments are closed.