Trump’s Paris Decision One Year Later: Looking Better and Better

Guest essay by Robert Bradley Jr.

As of today, the United States will cease all implementation of the non-binding Paris Accord and the draconian financial and economic burdens the agreement imposes on our country. This includes ending the implementation of the nationally determined contribution and, very importantly, the Green Climate Fund which is costing the United States a vast fortune.

-President Trump on the Paris Climate Agreement, June 1, 2017

Climate scientist James Hansen called it “a fraud really, a fake.” President Donald Trump called it “a massive redistribution of United States wealth to other countries.” And this odd couple of alarmist scientist and skeptical politician agreed: the Obama-led Paris climate accord was all about lobbyists and imaging, not climate change.

Trump’s decision, one year in, remains bold, brilliant, and correct. And it will only get better as the rest of the world confronts the disconnect between what economic coordination and progress require and what starry-eyed bureaucrats want.

Consumers desire the most affordable, plentiful, reliable energies. Taxpayers favor neutrality, non-involvement. And governments ’round the world need to direct their limited resources to real here-and-now problems, not speculative, distant, unsolvable ones. As such, the U.S.-side Paris-deflating decision is pro-world, leaving only parasitic bureaucrats in the cold.

The Agreement

What exactly is the Paris climate agreement? In the words of its sponsor, the United Nations:

The Paris Agreement requires all Parties to put forward their best efforts [to reduce man-made greenhouse gases] through nationally determined contributions (NDCs) and to strengthen these efforts in the years ahead. This includes requirements that all Parties report regularly on their emissions and on their implementation efforts.

The goal of the accord is to limit the rise of global temperatures to not more than 2 degrees Celsius—and attempt to limit it to 1.5 degrees Celsius—above pre-industrial levels. The highly debatable assumption is that temperatures will otherwise surpass these levels because of human activity in the foreseeable future.

The accord is necessarily voluntary and aspirational for each of its signatories. Yet it is binding on citizens, in that each nation-party can forcibly intervene in its own energy market to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), as well as methane and other manmade greenhouse gases, despite the cost and hardship of doing so.

In the U.S., President Barack Obama was barreling down the interventionist tracks on the pretense of complying with the Paris Agreement, which was ratified (under its own terms) in November 2016. The U.S. was going firm on emissions reductions, while the rest of the world had much more latitude in its supposed reductions. And the US was the chief payer into the accord’s “Green Fund” to subsidize poorer nations in their forced energy transformation efforts.

Trump’s Reasoning

President Trump’s statement one year ago today on the Paris pullout comprised 2,500 words. Here are some highlights:

  • “Compliance with the terms of the Paris Accord and the onerous energy restrictions it has placed on the United States could cost America as much as 2.7 million lost jobs by 2025 according to the National Economic Research Associates.”
  • “China will be able to increase these emissions by a staggering number of years—13…. Not us. India makes its participation contingent on receiving billions and billions and billions of dollars in foreign aid from developed countries.”
  • “China will be allowed to build hundreds of additional coal plants. So we can’t build the plants, but they can, according to this agreement. India will be allowed to double its coal production by 2020…. Even Europe is allowed to continue construction of coal plants.”
  • “Even if the Paris Agreement were implemented in full, with total compliance from all nations, it is estimated it would only produce a two-tenths of one degree—think of that; this much—Celsius reduction in global temperature by the year 2100…. In fact, 14 days of carbon emissions from China alone would wipe out the gains from America … in the year 2030.”
  • “The [Paris Accord’s] Green Fund would likely obligate the United States to commit potentially tens of billions of dollars of which the United States has already handed over $1 billion…. In 2015, the Green Climate Fund’s executive director reportedly stated that estimated funding needed would increase to $450 billion per year after 2020. And nobody even knows where the money is going to.”
  • “The risks [of the Paris Accord] grow as historically these agreements only tend to become more and more ambitious over time. In other words, the Paris framework is a starting point—as bad as it is—not an end point.”
  • “… exiting the agreement protects the United States from future intrusions on the United States’ sovereignty and massive future legal liability. Believe me, we have massive legal liability if we stay in.”


The case against the Paris Agreement has only grown stronger as its “worthless words,” as Hansen called them, have run up against the reality of a business-as-usual mineral-energy world. China and India are going big with coal. The European Union’s CO2 emissions are rising. And a globally-connected natural-gas world emerging from the shale-gas boom is locking in a fossil-fuel-future for decades to come.

“The president made a tremendously courageous decision by saying we’re going to get out of the Paris Accord, put America first, and make sure that we lead with action and not words,” stated EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt. In fact, Trump’s announcement goes down as one of the greatest single energy-policy moments in recent history, joining President Reagan’s oil price-and-allocation decontrol order of January 1981, which ended the Nixon-to-Carter energy crisis.

May the Paris Agreement continue to unravel and go the way of the ill-fated Kyoto Protocol of 1997. And may energy consumers and taxpayers win to help make the world, not only the U.S., great.

5 1 vote
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
J Mac
June 1, 2018 8:03 am

Let June 1 henceforth be known as Freedom From Environmental Fraud Day and celebrated as a US holiday! Fire up the BBQ and crack open the carbonated beverages!

Reply to  J Mac
June 1, 2018 9:34 am

There was a piece out today in the MSM about how some State Governors were still “Following the Paris Accord! In defiance of Trump!!!”

and of course they fail to note that the “Paris Accord” was just a hazy wish list of suggestions, not requirements, and that the only part that mattered was where Uncle Sugar was supposed to hand over tens of billions of dollars to any 3rd world country that wanted some, while hamstringing its own economy at the same time.

So for all those who say “We’re still following the Paris Accord!!!” – well if you ain’t shipping off half of your tax receipts to small islands in the South Pacific just to enrich the local pols, you ain’t doin’ it right.

Reply to  wws
June 2, 2018 1:57 am

I liked the take of a commenter on a piece on the Reason website WRT the slush fund proposal. It was basically that they want to take money from poor people in rich countries and give it to rich people in poor countries. Describes it perfectly.

Bryan A
Reply to  J Mac
June 1, 2018 9:56 am

Fire up the propane BBQ
Propane is fossil, while briquettes are renewable

J Mac
Reply to  J Mac
June 1, 2018 6:33 pm

What you burn is not important. Burn, combust, exothermicly oxidize any fuel and celebrate Freedom From Environmental Fraud!
Free the BTUs! Free the CO2s! Free all Y’all Too!

June 1, 2018 8:06 am

Four Questions that together confound warmists.

What are the photon absorption bands of CO2?
What are the photon absorption bands of water vapor?
What is the overlap?
What does it mean?

Reply to  M Simon
June 1, 2018 8:31 am

M Simon,

Three’s only one question that matters:

Given that the 0.8C increase said to arise from only 1 W/m^2 of forcing increases the surface emissions by 4.3 W/m^2, where does the power required to offset these emissions come from?

To make this easy, I’ll even make it multiple choice.

a) 3.3 times more feedback power than forcing power
b) hidden heat in the oceans
c) alien intervention
d) it’s a trick question since the premise is impossible

Reply to  co2isnotevil
June 1, 2018 9:28 am

Where does your 4.3W/m^2 come from? Never seen this number before. “Emissions increased by ‘forcing'”?,… Temperature MAY be increased by some funky ‘multiplier effect’ (aka ‘forcings’) but how do we get to ’emissions’ (actual gasses) increasing? Or are you simply saying the ECS (plug number) is *3.3* x 1.3?

Reply to  Sparky
June 1, 2018 12:26 pm


Emissions are the radiant emissions of the surface consequential to its temperature and given by the Stefan-Boltzmann equation.

At an surface average temperature of 288K, the average surface emissions are 390.1 W/m^2 while at 288.8K, the average emissions have increased to 394.4 W/m^2, for an increase of 4.3 W/m^2.

If the surface is emitting 4.3 W/m^2 more based on the 0.8C claimed increase and if those emissions are not replenished, the surface will cool, thus must be continually replaced. One W/m^2 of this is coming from the forcing. Where are the other 3.3 W/m^2 coming from?

This is basic first law (COE) stuff, nothing more, nothing less.

Reply to  co2isnotevil
June 2, 2018 9:54 pm

Thank you. I’ll move two rows back and observe for awhile since i a not a Stephan-Boltzmann initiate. Please do keep (the list) informed. Regards, Sparky

Ian Macdonald
Reply to  M Simon
June 1, 2018 8:32 am

What is the equation defining the temperature rise caused by a given concentration of CO2?
From original measurements, which was hotter in the USA, the 1930’s or the 2010’s?
How much wind nameplate capacity does the UK have?
How much power is UK wind providing right now?
What was the most it provided this month?
How large a battery to provide a week’s Grid backup, and what cost?
How much power would a streetful of electric cars on-charge need?
How much CO2 reduction have Germany’s renewables made possible? (Warning, trick question)
What (costly, embarrassing) thing does Denmark have to do when the wind doesn’t blow?
What happens when you add a small amount of weak acid to a much larger alkaline body of water?
What proportion of the UK tide range is the sea level rise over the last century?
When will thorium energy be shown to work? (Warning, another trick question)

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  Ian Macdonald
June 1, 2018 9:29 am

we are all interested in the answers

Adam Gallon
Reply to  Ian Macdonald
June 1, 2018 10:41 am

UK nameplate wind is around 18.8GW, IIRC. A wonderful 0.56GW is being produced. That’s 1.6% of the UK’s power demand at the current time. It peaked at about 9GW this month.

Michael Keal
Reply to  Ian Macdonald
June 1, 2018 10:46 am

What’s the half-life of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere? (Hint: The bomb test curve.)

Reply to  Michael Keal
June 1, 2018 12:23 pm

The half-life of CO2, a molecule continuously produced and consumed, has no meaning. The IPCC invents an even more meaningless notion which has zero basis whatsoever in science and no trace in any physics or chemistry textbook called “lifetime” and tries to define it by a farcical gobbledygook. Just read in the AR3, AR4, ARx their definition of “atmospheric lifetime” for CO2, methane, etc, it’s absolutely laughable if it wasn’t such a travesty of science and logic. Like Dr Tim Ball says sometimes : their science is as bad as that!

Gary Pearse
Reply to  miniTAX
June 3, 2018 1:49 pm

They use “half life” to marry it to nuclear.

Donald Kasper
Reply to  M Simon
June 1, 2018 9:49 pm

The photon band for CO2 is 668 cm-1 and that is it. The photon bands for water are 300, 500, and 700 cm wide in three band groups.

Reply to  Donald Kasper
June 1, 2018 11:32 pm

The overlap of the Infrared bands and the saturation of the bands by water vapor (except for the band centered on 15um) means CO2 can have no significant affect on temperature.

Increasing the absorption in a saturated band has “no” effect (very very little).

The science is simple – and nothing else need be known. And you can accept any CO2 causes warming theory you like.

There are about 30 times as many water vapor molecules in the air as CO2 molecules, and water vapor has a more effective fingerprint spectrum which is about three times wider than that of CO2. It is also much more variable. This means water vapor will swamp whatever CO2 does.

Ian Macdonald
Reply to  M Simon
June 2, 2018 1:19 am

comment image

June 1, 2018 8:10 am

Obama wanted the Paris Accord as a rationale for his pet judges to enforce his Clean Power Plan as effectively a law. Of course, the Paris Accords were not a treaty, and the CPP was not a law, but BHO was making a cynical judgement that his supporters in the courts would treat it as enforceable when he was out of office.

Reply to  Tom Halla
June 1, 2018 9:01 am

… the courts would treat it as enforceable when he was out of office.

Good luck with that. President Trump has stacked SCOTUS. Even if he drops dead today, his influence will last for many years. Bogus treaties will not be treated as law.

Reply to  commieBob
June 1, 2018 10:00 am

There are some lower court and circuit court judges trying to enforce the CPP by not throwing out challenges to Trump’s actions.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Tom Halla
June 1, 2018 10:35 am

The Obama Admin had a plan for a surreptitious back-door path to binding the Paris INDCs and Paris goals for Climate Aid through the now dead Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreement, that paradoxically his own Democrats helped scuttle. Obama was attempting a delicate, complicated dance to get that which he could not get from Senate treaty ratification, that is, a legally binding enforcement of Paris Agreement on US domestic law.

Obama couldn’t tell his own party his plan because to do so would have inevitably tipped-off the Republicans (via leaks and loose lips) who naively support TPP, under the Republicans dogmatic belief in “Free Trade.” Obama was going to use this Republican dogmatic belief in Free Trade to his advantage. Republicans in Congress had already given Obama the first piece to his planhe needed. In June 2015, the Republican Congress gave Obama Trade Promotion Authority (TPA), which is also referred to as “Fast Track.”

With TPA in hand, all Obama needed to get TPP as a binding treaty on the US was a majority vote by both the Senate and the House. He was basically playing Congressional Republicans as his “useful idiots” in this plan. Obama just had to get TPP across the finish line, not for the Free Trade that Republicans wanted, but for something else, something far more nefarious that would ultimately be flipped to support the Paris climate agreement. It is called “ISDS” (see more on ISDS below) in the for now scuttled TPP.

An interesting read is this paper:

Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP), September 2016
How the TPP and trade deals undermine the Paris climate agreement
Written by Ben Lilliston

Short summary: This IATP WP argues strongly for the rejection of TPP because it seemingly harmed implementation of Paris Climate INDCs. The author argues TPP and ISDS process would have an adverse effect on signatories trying to meet the INDCs of the Paris Agreement.

So on the surface, Obama’s support for TPP seemed diametrically counter to Obama’s stated climate goals and his Paris Climate Agreement. But if nothing else, Obama is a very intelligent man, so why would he do something that his base environmental supporters vociferously opposed? In other words, why would Obama, who made the Paris Agreement his signature international agreement, also be so strongly pushing TPP, whichseems to be so anti-Paris INDCs?

Any clear-headed analysis of Obama, one walks away realizing Obama (besides his narcissism) is about two things: (1) was working a path to one-world socialism, and (2) ultimately supporting his Progressive support base in the US.

What must be realized: In short, Obama’s TPP plan was going to be a ultimately use the Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) system to satisfy his environmental NGO base support from the environmental groups. He just couldn’t tell them that else it would tip his plan to Republicans. It would have been a tip-off if environmentalist NGO’s suddenly dropped their opposition to TPP. But Obama had to keep naive Republicans on-board the TPP band wagon if there was any hope of passing TPP in a simple up or down vote that “Fast Track” legislation gave him. He was trying to juggle to seemingly on the surface, diametrically opposed plans, Paris INDCs and TPP free trade.

It is vital to understand the anti-democratic monster called the Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS)
system embedded in TPP. The ISDS is a one-world Socialist’s dream machine.

What is ISDS:
The ISDS allows foreign corporations to use a private tribunal system of three trade lawyers to
challenge the public laws of another country if they believe the laws are discriminatory or unfair. There is
no appeal process. These corporate rights provisions are particularly relevant to climate-related policy.

ISDS is truly a horrific assault on US domestic sovereignty and on Article 1 of the US Constitution, that is, that it is Congress that writes US laws, not the Executive, and certainly not international tribunals of 3 lawyers. Obama understood what the ISDS represented and certainly how it could be manipulated to achieve something he could never get through the front door of Congress, that is binding enforcement of international environmental agreements in the US judicial system.

And has anyone heard lately about any attempts to get international corporations onboard with Paris Climate INDCs that maybe they could’ve then asked the ISDS for enforcement on the US? Asking for a friend.

One final note:
I’m sure some folks here will say, “Where’s your Tin Foil hat Joel?”

Maybe they are right, but if I learned anything about watching and studying Barack Obama during his presidency, is he always had a plan, and he always used deceit and deception to get what he wanted over the opposition. Any study of the way the Obama conducted the Iran Nuclear Deal through early negotiation to final signatures is that Obama, his Sec State John Kerry, and his National Security Council employed multiple levels of deception and out-right lies to get to the final deal. Any study of ObamaCare passage (remember Dr. Gruber?) leads to the same conclusion about Obama.
As such, anyone who thinks the manipulative Obama was going to turn against his environmental NGO support base and his Paris agreement with TPP is simply being naive.

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
June 1, 2018 2:13 pm

The TPP was a real piece of work. link It was an assault on national sovereignty in many ways.

paul courtney
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
June 2, 2018 7:13 am

Joel: No tin foil hat, your reception is excellent without it. No doubt there are lawsuits in the chute to get some fed court issuing orders enforcing “Paris”. Would be just as frivolous as asking a fed court to enforce DACA. My own observations of Clinton/Obama- Even if they could get something through legitimately, they’d still use deceit, to stay in practice.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  paul courtney
June 2, 2018 1:01 pm

Obama knew Paris, as written and agreed, was unenforceable in the US courts without something else.

That something else was the very undemocratic ISDS process in TPP. The plan was to weaponize ISDS once it was in place, just like Obama weaponized the IRS, the FCC, etc.

And there would be nothing the Republicans in Congress could do to stop it. Democrats and the environmental NGO’s would be squealing in pleasure at having a panel of 3 trade lawyers, two of which were to be appointed by the US President, could overrule US domestic laws.

Getting an international corporation to submit a complaint to ISDS concerning any US lack of implementation of Paris INDCs or Aid payments would get an ISDS hearing. The outcome of that process would be a foregone conclusion. There is no appeal process. And he had hoped with a Liberal majority on the Supreme Court, it would get a pass there.

It also was predicated on the US President being a Democrat. Which Obama thought he had in the bag with Hillary, and candidate Trump going down in flames in FBI investigations.

Obama certainly has enough “dirt” on Hillary’s and Bill’s pay-to-play crimes over the years that he thought he could keep a President Hillary under his control, just as Vladimir Putin kept Medvedev under his control during the time Medvedev was Russian President.

All that fell apart with the election of Trump. Obama’s legacy has crumbled to dust.
The US is saved … for now.

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
June 2, 2018 7:43 pm

UN Global Compact

Regions: North America

Local Networks > the organizations.

Also check out the SDGs tab.


UN Environment

UNEP Inquiry

Crawler at the webpage bottom > click on the dots for organizations included.

Webpage includes UN activities information.

June 1, 2018 8:27 am

Using a questionable metric (Global Average Temperature Anomaly) as a measuring stick for measuring progress and dictating policies is the fundamental error of the Paris (DIS)Agreement.

Using such a small increment of a questionable metric as a goal driving the (DIS)Agreement is a further confounding error that easily reduces the endeavor to absurdity (or BS, as Hansen so perfectly put it).

Rob Bradley
June 1, 2018 8:31 am
June 1, 2018 8:45 am

The newspaper editorial section this morning has an article calling Trump a ‘madman’, among other things. It’s okay for other countries to stiff the good ol’ US of A, but we can’t stiff them right back? The tariffs on EU (German) steel and Chinese/Indian steel and goods – well, gee whiz, they tariff us, so is it so unfair that we tariff them?

Frankly, knuckling under to those self-serving Greenbeans in the EU is something I don’t care for. I would just as soon fire up our own smelting plants again, and put us back in the lead where we belong.

I have never seen anything as disastrously stupid as the obama admin’s incompetence and glad-handing idiocy.

Reply to  Sara
June 1, 2018 9:47 am

Grew up in eastern Ohio and PA. The steel plants were in just about every city I traveled through. Forty years later, driving through these cities sickens me. The Steel plants are shuttered, decaying and look like the pictures from Syria. In at least half of the cities I drove through, there was a large shopping mall also closed, and decaying, grass growing on the parking lot. Made me glad I joined the Navy and finished my degree and got my degree in Nuclear Engineering but explains why the democrats lost the presidential election. But the last administration has now ruined the value of that degree. NPPs are shutting down faster than build Wind Farms. If only the Enviro-whackos knew what is in store for the cost of electricity ahead. How do you make Aluminium with wind/solar power?

Reply to  Sara
June 1, 2018 10:50 am

I saw a banner headline on tv this morning concerning Trump and tariffs that gave me a laugh:

“There’s a New Tariff in Town” 🙂

Kaiser Derden
Reply to  Sara
June 1, 2018 8:27 pm

the EU effectively charges a 20% tariff on all US goods (they call it a VAT) and has for over a decade … should have been retaliated against years ago … and the EU drones happily pay over $7/gallon for gas over half of which are taxes (they do have nice roads … but not that nice) …

richard verney
Reply to  Kaiser Derden
June 2, 2018 11:09 am

About 80% (not 50%) is tax.

It is a mad socialist world in Europe. In fact, in many ways it is near communist.

The US is so lucky to have President Trump, but hopefully his impact will trickle through to the rest of the developed world.

June 1, 2018 8:53 am

I get a chuckle out of warmists. They just want to impose limits. Any limits. For any reason.
I note that the cafe standards were originally intended to address the expected shortage of petroleum. When fracking solved that problem, did they withdraw the standards? Nope, just found another reason to justify them.

Reply to  texasjimbrock
June 2, 2018 12:11 pm

An excellent observation, Texas Jim. I plan to use a variant of your observation as an epigram for future missives.

June 1, 2018 8:54 am

We sometimes discuss internal wealth redistribution inside Western Countries especially the USA, but the Left has always had a second, international redistribution of wealth. We have done it with unfair trade deals, foreign aid, etc seldom with our leaders considering whether there is any benefit to our country. The Left starts with the assumption that anyone or any country that is wealthier than another is evil, that is unless those that are wealthy donate freely to leftist causes.

June 1, 2018 8:59 am

Article II, Section 2 of the United States constitution: “He (the President) shall have power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;”

This Paris Agreement was never legally binding on the United States. President Obama never submitted it to the United States Senate for ratification, it was never voted on by the Senate, and two thirds of the Senators never voted for it. This agreement has no legal standing in the United States and it never did have any legal standing in the United States. And the rest of the world knew that too.

Don K
June 1, 2018 9:01 am

The Paris Accord has one saving grace. It requires nothing from developing countries including, for example, China and India. But essentially all the (probably copious) new GHG emissions in the future will be from developing countries. As a result the Paris Agreement clearly going to fail to do much — which is what James Hansen is complaining about.

As for US participation, it’s quite clear that the Senate is unlikely soon (or ever) to manage the two thirds majority required to approve the treaty. So it would not be legally binding on the US. Neither do I think the US would be likely to contribute much money even if the president hadn’t rejected the treaty.

And frankly, I doubt that most of the other developed signatories are going to actually come through with a lot of cash when it comes to passing budgets and writing checks. Words are cheap. “Saving the Planet” isn’t.

Reply to  Don K
June 1, 2018 9:35 am

Note — China is funding ‘off-shore’ COAL Electricity Plants around the developing world as part of their ‘foreign assistance’ plan. China is selecting countries where they have political and economic interest – and potential plans for ‘off shoring’ energy intensive manufacturing or natural resource exploitation. Not only does China increasingly build Coal Plans in China, but encourages the other NDEs to do so as well. What a farce.

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  Don K
June 1, 2018 9:37 am

In Canada our own stupid PM Trudeau opens Canada’s chequebook all the time. He gives money to everybody. And he has open borders. In Canada we have welfare payments and free medical Whats not to like if you are poor in another country that doesnt have those freebies and most countries dont?. People are walking across Canada borders in record numbers and claimg refugee staus.and Trudeau wont turn them away. In Canada apparently the streets are paved with gold and the world knows it. How much longer can the gold last ?

June 1, 2018 9:02 am

Dr Spencer’s monthly is showing a drop for the month of May down to 0.18C. It is all down slope from here, imo. There should have been a global temp spike by now, if the heavy rain winter of 2016/17 on the West Coast was the cause for the rise in global temps around 20 months later, which can be seen in historical data after such strong winters. This means that it is the Sun rising off of its minimum which is the cause for the global spike approximately 20 months after strong West Coast winters such as 2016/17, examples are the 1997/98 spike after 1996/97, the 1966/67 spike after 1964/65, the 1957/58 spike after 1956/57, and there are other examples.

Reply to  goldminor
June 1, 2018 9:14 am

This was supposed to read as 1957/58 spike after 1955/56, instead of (…the 1957/58 spike after 1956/57, and there are other examples…).

June 1, 2018 9:06 am

The big push by Obama and his legions bought ad space and fake news coverage in all U.S. news outlets large and small leading up to the Paris Agreement signing. It was obvious that they bought off publishers far and wide.

June 1, 2018 9:07 am

“…as the rest of the world confronts the disconnect between what economic coordination and progress require and what starry-eyed bureaucrats want.”

I don’t think those were stars in the bureaucrat’s eyes, I think they were dollar signs.

June 1, 2018 9:30 am

What has the Green Climate Fund done with the funds it has received so far? Has any of it actually been disbursed (and to what projects), or is it all going into administration, supporting yet another bureaucracy?

Reply to  RobP
June 1, 2018 11:36 am

I reckon the Green Climate Fund is the equivalent of ‘Overseas Aid’ and, as such, continues to provide dictators with limousines and the people with nothing.

June 1, 2018 10:26 am

I wouldn’t be surprised if some Green Climate Funds were used to line the pockets of corrupt counties’ politicians with more green, .. for whatever the heck they wanted to use it for.

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  Robert Kernodle
June 1, 2018 10:41 am

Again, taking money from poor people in rich countries and sending it to rich people in poor countries.

John Endicott
Reply to  Robert Kernodle
June 1, 2018 10:54 am

I go so far to say most of it went to such corruption.

Reply to  Robert Kernodle
June 4, 2018 10:04 am

I would be highly surprised if it DIDN’T

William Astley
June 1, 2018 10:32 am

The Paris Agreement does not change reality.

Fake agreement, fake problem, fake solution. Three out of three.

The Paris agreement is a hot mess. There is no CAGW problem to solve. Wind and solar do not work.

Germany proves the forced ‘green’ solution (wind and solar) ‘solution’ to the non-CAGW problem does not work.

Germany has now installed the maximum amount of solar and wind power that is possible without grid electric storage.

German ‘green’ energy = 100% of the grid load but ‘green’ energy is only available for 20% of the time on average.

This explains why German CO2 emissions have not dropped for nine year and why German politicians are stopping subsides for wind and solar.

Germany Energiewend Leading To Suicide By Cannibalism. Huge Oversupply Risks Destabilization
Capacity without control

The problem with the “renewable” power sources of wind and solar is their intrinsic volatility coupled with their poor capacity utilization rates of only 17.4% for wind and 8.3% for solar (average values for Germany).

Yet Germany has a unique peculiarity: its leaders sometimes exhibit a stunning inability to recognize when the time has come to abandon a lost cause. So far €500 billion (William: €500 billion is $550 billion US) has already been invested in the “Energiewende”, which is clearly emerging as a failure.

Yet all political parties continue to throw their full weight behind the policy rather than admitting it is a failure (which would be tantamount to political suicide).

Instead, the current government coalition has even decided to shift into an even higher gear on the path to achieving its objective of generating 80% of German electric power from “renewable” sources by 2050. If the situation is practically unmanageable now with 25% renewable energy, it’ll be an uncontrollable disaster when (if) it reaches 80%.

German’s experience is support by a Google Engineering study that found renewable energy simply does not work.

The key problem appears to be that the cost of manufacturing the components of the renewable power facilities is far too close to the total recoverable energy – the facilities never, or just barely, produce enough energy to balance the budget of what was consumed in their construction. This leads to a runaway cycle of constructing more and more renewable plants simply to produce the energy required to manufacture and maintain renewable energy plants – an obvious practical absurdity.

A research effort by Google corporation to make renewable energy viable has been a complete failure, according to the scientists who led the programme. After 4 years of effort, their conclusion is that renewable energy “simply won’t work”.

June 1, 2018 11:14 am

You are absolutely correct. The TPP set up three member climstc panels which ruled on simple 2/3 vote. This panel had the ability to levy fines amounting to billions per year payable to any member country who claimed our CO2 was causing damage to their economy or country if ANY EPA or International Climate agrreemsnts were not strictcly enforced in all 50 states. In addtion, this climate panel was given VETO power over any future changes to our EPA related climate regulations. We were totally screwed.

Anthony Mills
June 1, 2018 11:53 am

CO2isnotevil and Sparky:A careful quantitative energy balance on the ocean surface gives a corresponding increase in surface radiation emissions of about 0.12 W/m^2,and evaporative loss of about 0.25 W/m^2 (tropical ocean, moderate winds).

Reply to  Anthony Mills
June 1, 2018 1:50 pm

“A careful quantitative energy balance …”

Sure, these second order effects contribute to the total 0.6 W/m^2 of extra emissions per W/m^2 of forcing.

To find all of the extra 3.3 W/m^2 required is an exercise in futility. This is why they have a fanatical preoccupation with directly expressing the sensitivity as degrees of change per W/m^2 of forcing, rather than as W/m^2 of incremental surface emissions per W/m^2 of forcing and then converting the incremental increase in emissions to an incremental increase in temperature.

Which sounds more plausible, a 0.8C surface temperature increase per W/m^2 of forcing or 4.3 W/m^2 of incremental surface emissions per W/m^2 of forcing? Starting from the current average of 288K, both of these represent the exact same thing even as the later is an obvious violation of COE.

The absolute maximum possible sensitivity is 2 W/m^2 of incremental surface emissions per W/m^2 of forcing, corresponding to a temperature increase less than the 0.4C lower limit claimed by the IPCC. This requires an atmosphere that can absorb 100% of what the surface emits, while the GHG’s and clouds combined currently only absorb about 77% of the energy emitted by the Earth’s surface.

June 1, 2018 12:07 pm

The Paris Agreement was never about the climate, it was always, as usual, about “economic justice”, which is just another form of “Social Justice.”

michael hart
June 1, 2018 12:14 pm

My main criticism is that this should have happened on the very first day of the Trump Presidency. Why did it take so long? I would have bought him a Presidential signing-pen myself, coated with Platinum or Iridium if necessary.

Richard S J Tol
June 1, 2018 12:47 pm

The USA is still a party to the Paris Agreement, and will remain so until 4 Nov 2020.

Kaiser Derden
Reply to  Richard S J Tol
June 1, 2018 8:33 pm

which we are ignoring as the “agreement” basically says we can do … and being a party to any agreement is not worth the paper its written on … unless that paper is a ratified by the Senate treaty … it has as much legal force as a note Obama jotted down in his diary like “note to self: Destroy Americas energy independence” …

Richard S J Tol
Reply to  Kaiser Derden
June 2, 2018 4:16 am

The Paris Agreement indeed only obliges the USA to have a climate policy. Withdrawing from the Paris Agreement does not change anything, as the Supreme Court had already obliged the USA to have a climate policy.

Trump’s announcement that he will write a letter on 4 Nov 2019 that will remove the USA from the Paris Agreement by 4 Nov 2020 (the day after the presidential election) is a publicity stunt.

Doug MacKenzie
June 1, 2018 12:49 pm

It was a successful voter attention grabber for Trump since most Americans think “climate science” is about 15% science foundation and 85% science fiction. The 3 Billion$ US committment to the Green Climate fund was really only $10 per American, a pittance of an amount that US citizens could easily afford and be proud to contribute if it was to fight disease or poverty. Instead somebody decided that “climate change” had a better ring to it. Hopefully the world do-gooders have learned their lesson.

Zig Zag Wanderer
June 1, 2018 2:31 pm

How large a battery to provide a week’s Grid backup, and what cost?

Well, to give you an idea, that massive battery Musk built for South Australia at massive cost would last South Australia a whole whopping three minutes, if it happened to be full, and if it could actually sustain that level of power (it cannot).

Steve Case
June 1, 2018 3:11 pm

My e-mail from Gina McCarthy

Friend —

In late 2015, members of the Obama administration joined leaders from all over the globe in Paris — coming to a landmark climate change agreement that committed nearly every country on earth to protect the world we’ll leave to our children.

We saw it as a day that historians would remember — a moment when we acknowledged that we are all truly in this together, and collectively, decided to save our health and our climate.

And even though, one year ago today, this administration announced a short-sighted plan to leave the agreement, I’m more confident than ever that we were right.

The Paris Agreement solidified what we’d already known: This fight isn’t just about saving polar bears, or removing plastic bottles from the ocean.

It’s about giving our kids the opportunity for a healthy, sustainable world.

We’ve already made big progress. The clean energy industry we worked so hard to foster has taken off. Cities, states, businesses, and citizens across the country have stepped up as leaders in our fight against climate change.

It’s on all of us to keep going. That’s why, today, I’m proud to help OFA keep growing its Organizing for ’18 program.

The actions we take in 2018 — what we lend our time to, who we support, whether we vote — will decide whether we turn the tide. Join Team ’18 today, and work to elect officials who believe in our fight against climate change.

Cities like Pittsburgh, which last year introduced a comprehensive climate plan that adheres to the Paris Agreement’s goals, are leading the way. So are American businesses who support for the agreement, and continue to work towards it.

They’re not just doing this out of the goodness of their hearts.

They’re doing it because it makes sense. Shifting away from dirty fossil fuels that cause climate change can slow the increase in more devastating hurricanes and wildfires, asthma attacks in children, and the hundreds of billions of dollars in disaster recovery and health costs that come along with them.

On top of that, our move towards a low-carbon, clean energy future makes America and our businesses more competitive. It creates new, high-paying jobs. It builds new industries that will fuel our growth.

That is the future we can create for our children — and it’s already here.

But we need leaders who will strive towards it. Citizens who will talk about it. Elected officials who will acknowledge it, and vote for common-sense solutions.

Our work continues right now. Join Team ’18 today, and work to elect leaders who believe climate change is a fight we must take on:

I signed up for “Organizing for Action” emails some time ago. I wanted to see what sorts of things they were up to. This is the first one I replied to. I wrote back:

“Hi Gina,
The main reason I voted for Donald Trump is I knew he would put the brakes on the Paris agreement.
Best regards
Steve Case…”

Reply to  Steve Case
June 1, 2018 4:51 pm

Did you get a response?

Steve Case
Reply to  Jones
June 1, 2018 5:37 pm

Just a canned thank you – I don’t expect Gina to respond and I doubt she will ever see it.

June 1, 2018 6:55 pm

much is made of the “fact” the withdrawal from Paris will not take effect until the day after the 2020 presidential election (with the CAGW mob hoping Trump would lose is he runs again to someone more favourable to the Paris Accord).

what I have not seen discussed, is whether or not the withdrawal CAN take effect during the transition period following the election?

does anyone know the answer to that question?

Kaiser Derden
Reply to  pat
June 1, 2018 8:36 pm

it doesn’t matter … with a proper judicial system it can NEVER be implemented and the Dems will never get to 67 votes in the Senate in 2020 to attempt to ratify it …

Richard S J Tol
Reply to  pat
June 2, 2018 6:31 am

Trump can send the withdrawal letter on 4 Nov 2019 at the earliest, and the USA will leave the Paris Agreement on 4 Nov 2020, regardless of the outcome of the presidential election.

Trump may not remember to send the letter on time, or change his mind, or be removed from office.

Jim Heath
June 2, 2018 1:35 pm

The true definition of “Climate Change” is “Mass Hysteria.”

June 2, 2018 3:10 pm

Just a note about radiation anomalies and using the SB equation as appeared early on in this discussion.

If there is, as calculated by CO2inotevil, a 4.3 w/m2 anomaly due to a 0.8°C increase in temperature then one can calculate the effect such an anomaly should have using Q = mass x specific heat x deltaT.

Using the oft quoted values for atmospheric mass, Earth surface area, specific heat of ordinary air one can easily calculate the delta T for such an anomaly over one year – 31,536,000 seconds.

The answer for an anomaly of 4.3 W/m2 is ~13.5°C per annum.

The answer for Trenberth et al’s 0.9 W/m2 anomaly is ~2.83°C per annum.

Remember a continuous input of 4.3W/m2 is 4.3 Joule per second per square metre of the Earth’s surface.

Neither is even remotely close to any of the values cited as cause for alarm suggesting there is something seriously wrong with the “physics” being utilised by climate alarmists.

There is nothing wrong with Q = mass x specific heat x deltaT.

June 3, 2018 4:06 am

Looks like COLA has closed down Maybe Trumps defunding of global warming sites is beginning to bite? The fellow running this site wanted to put all skeptics in Jail if I recall

June 3, 2018 4:24 am

Re COLA it was Mr Shuckla who was in charge. The site had some very nice weather forecast maps its a pity they got involved in the AGW scam

Verified by MonsterInsights