Newsbytes: Time is running out to save the Paris Climate Accord

Newsbytes from around the web (h/t to Climate Dispatch)

Time is running out to save the Paris Agreement, UN climate experts warned Tuesday at a key Bangkok meeting, as rich nations were accused of shirking their responsibility for environmental damage. If nations cannot reach an agreement by a December summit in Poland—known as COP24—the Paris Agreement, carved out in 2015, will be at risk. Money is at the heart of the issue. —AFP, 4 September 2018

Coal is clinging to the top spot in power generation, accounting for as much of the world’s electricity as it did two decades ago, despite heightened concerns about climate change and a slowdown in financing for projects involving the dirtiest of fossil fuels. The rebound shows coal’s resilience, especially in emerging regions, and recent events suggest the market for black combustible rock will remain strong. —Neanda Salvaterra, The Wall Street Journal, 3 September 2018

Indonesia’s coal industry is enjoying a resurgence, driven both by rising demand from China—the world’s biggest consumer of the fossil fuel—and a push by the government in Jakarta to build more coal-fired power plants. Demand for energy in China and Indonesia continues to drive the resurgence of the latter’s coal industry, setting back efforts in both countries to shift to a greater share of renewable energy. —Eco-Business, 31 May 2018 

In 2030, when countries have to take stock of their commitments under the Paris climate agreement, India will double its carbon dioxide emissions from its 2012 levels, but will still be within its intensity pledge, according to a new study by experts from the New Delhi-based Centre for Policy Research and elsewhere. —India Climate Dialogue, 21 August 2018

Local UK council pension funds have more than £9bn invested in companies engaged in fracking, despite a fierce debate over shale gas exploration. —Financial Times, 4 September 2018

With one surprise court ruling, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau faces the risk of contesting next year’s election with key pieces of his economic and environmental plans in ruins. —Reuters, 31 August 2018

80 thoughts on “Newsbytes: Time is running out to save the Paris Climate Accord

  1. “Money is at the heart of the issue”
    Especially when one runs out of other peoples’ money, as Maggie observed a few years back.
    Slow to learn, these socialists.

    • Wall Street and many world banks sure used a lot of OPM to survive the Crash of 2008.

      Socialism for the wealthy?

      • Not just Wall ST. , in the UK the govt nationalised the debt and toxic debt but left the banks with worthwhile assets.

        Oddly, having taken on the debt and bailed out the bankrupt banks , they did not take over ownership of the banks, which are now raking in billions and have become solvent again. Taxpayer pays the debts, banks keep the profits.

        Head I win, tails you lose.

        • Unfortunately socialism leads to dictators and capitalism leads to banksters. However given that benevolent dictators are in short supply, I will take my chances with banksters.

      • “Socialism for the wealthy?”
        Yes, just as all the public money being squandered to “stop the climate from changing” is an indulgence of the wealthy, not the poor.
        (Let’s see how many Lear jets are used to ferry the elites / delegates to the next CoP conference. Anyone for a game of ‘Learjet Bingo’?)

      • The Crash was caused by bad government policies. Specifically forcing banks to loan money to people who had little chance of paying it back.

        • Nope.

          The Great Recession was caused by Wall Street bundling subprime mortgage notes into highly (over) rated securities, known as CDO’s. When the economy went a bit soft, and people started to default, the firms holding the credit default swaps on the CDOs went bankrupt. The government is incapable of forcing a bank to make a bad loan.

          • Wasn’t your Obama mixed up in it all? Before he was selected to be President? Maybe when he did the bail out he was just trying to make good his first mistake? But probably not.

          • Of course they did, but it was in an environment of moral hazard, partly created by the Community Redevelopment Act which definitely did push lenders to emit NINJA loans, as well as to the lack of rigor coming from the 17 different regulatory agencies which were susceptible to ‘regulator capture’ with their staff attracted to switch to high paying jobs with lenders who thought they were laying off risk by securitizing the shZtty loans which the rating agencies shamelessly rated up to investment grade. The latter was a foreseeable consequence of the fact that Moody’s, Standard & Poor, et al have to bid for the rating business, analogous to real estate evaluators who had to signal they were in on the game of inflated evaluations in order to participate. And, as one famous lender said (paraphrased) “As long as the music is playing, you have to keep dancing.” Every one of the players believed “It is different this time” but some saw the end coming and made big bucks betting on the fall.

          • The only reason there was a large number of subprime loans is because of government policy. First, the government, through FannyMae agreed to guaranty lots of bad mortgage loans then the government threatened the banks if they didn’t make enough loans in low income neighborhoods. The result was lots of bad loans. In a rational world, the government would not have issued guaranties or required bad loans, the banks would have made a more rational evaluation of the associated risks and made fewer bad loans.

          • Nope, banks made the subprime loans. The government cannot force a bank to make a loan. Mortgage loans have collateral behind them, so if the person taking the loan cannot repay, the bank forecloses. Only way a mortgage loan can go “bad” is if property values drop unexpectedly.

          • Banks are regulated by the Fed, if the Fed tells you that you are going to be penalized if you fail to give enough loans to minorities, then you find some way of getting loans to minorities.

          • No. The (democrat-led) federal government Deep State bureaucracy, under the “laws” of the judges and their un-elected bureacracy and its NGO proponents, forced the loans to be given to the unworthy borrowers under the guise of “preventing redlining” (false claims of racism) BY the same agencies and promoters. The Fed reserve merely protected “some” of the bankers that SHOULD HAVE defaulted and been wiped out.

          • Sorry RACookPE1978, you do not understand banking regulation. For example, judges have no say in what a bank can, or cannot do. You didn’t even mention the primary federal regulatory agency involved in banking. Your lack of understanding makes your response funny. What is even more hilarious is that you want to blame Democrats, when the collapse of the financial system occurred with a Republican president. ROTFLMAO @ RACook please get your head out of the RWEC and into non-partisan history books.

          • The LAWSUITS threatening these lenders were specifically placed in front of specific judges selected for their previous opinons. The (somewhat) republican president at the time was NOT a factor in these lawsuits, nor in their resolution to force the lenders to change their rules. The federal regulators forcing these decisions WAS the specific “bureaucracies” and “agencies” forcing the lenders to make the loans, and democrats were the ones involved in ALL of the wrong decisions.

          • ” their resolution to force the lenders to change their rules”

            Please provide citations cases involved.

            PS the REPUBLICAN president at the time did nothing to regulate the rampant Wall Street abuses of CDO’s that caused the collapse.

          • Not true. Not true at all in today’s world. The courts now even force a baker to mrk a specific words and decorations on specific cakes, IF the “state” prosecutor office decides they want to force that baker to decorate that specific cake. Or, of course, the baker can go out of business. Now, if you are a member of a selected community that the prosecutor DOES favor, then you can force the state to do anything you want them to do – including worship at schools, meetings, and football games. Or stop the out-of-favor classes from “worshiping” in those same government-funded venues and private venues.

          • No. Prior to 1992, Fannie and Freddie were only required to buy mortgages that institutional investors would buy (i.e., prime mortgages). Barney Frank and others forced Fannie and Freddie to meet gov’t quotas when they bought loans from banks or other mortgage originators. Initially it was 30%…i.e., 30% of all loans had to be made to people at or below the media income in their communities. This rose to 50% in 2000 and 55% in 2007.

            Mandatory quotas that undermine underwriting standards…sounds like being forced to make bad loans to me.

          • The sub-primes mortgage notes are the ones I was referring to. If they hadn’t existed, there would have been no need for the banks to try and find some way of dealing with them.

    • “Money is at the heart of the issue”

      Well I’m glad we’ve got that one cleared up at last. Now we can have an honest discussion about why we should have global wealth redistribution and who we can trust to over see that.

      If we can stop pretending it is about climate we may get somewhere on the “heart of the issue”

      • I can look after that for you! Guaranteed less crooked than anybody who’s done the job up til now.

  2. “Time is running out to save the Paris Agreement, UN climate experts warned …”

    Good riddance. It’s only purpose was to ‘level’ the economic playing field by dragging down the developed world, i.e. cutting off your nose to spite your face.

    • Pretty accurate! Every significant thing done on the planet is enabled by Capital. Yet the Socialists want to either tear down Capital or control it themselves when they have repeatedly demonstrated that they are incompetent and untrustworthy to perform that vital task.
      I ask the question.How can we expect the Socialist leaders to allocate Capital wisely when they didn’t earn it and have no personal stake in it?
      We can’t! They have shown their untrustworthiness and incompetence around the world and throughout history.

      Feel free to add to the list!

      For the Socialists out there, feel free to throw out a name of a country where Socialism has succeeded!

        • Sweden =
          Low levels of regulation and a small homogeneous (up until now) society.

          The Heritage Economic Freedom Index ranks Sweden, Denmark and the U.S. among the top 15 percent of 178 countries in total Economic Freedom in 2016. The index assigns Sweden and Denmark lower scores than the U.S. for large government spending and taxation, but it assigns them higher scores for all other components of Economic Freedom. They score higher than the U.S. in rule of law, regulatory efficiency and open markets. Sweden and Denmark have been able to provide a broad safety-net without intruding on an efficient market economy.

          What can Americans learn from the experience of Sweden and Denmark? First, prosperity was achieved by growth in their market economies prior to the expansion of big government. Today, in spite of large government budgets, both countries exhibit greater economic freedom in the regulation of their private sectors than the United States. As Danish Prime Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen stated in a recent speech, “I would like to make one thing clear. Denmark is far from a Socialist Planned Economy. Denmark is a MARKET ECONOMY.” [all caps, mine]

          Read more here:

  3. Global Warming/Climate Change and the Paris agreement is all about
    politics. This Ayn Rand puts it into perspective:

          There is no difference between communism & socialism, except in the
          means of achieving the same ultimate end: Communism proposes to
          enslave men by force, socialism – by vote. It is merely the difference
          between murder & suicide.

    • Perhaps Ayn Rand should have added ‘Oligopoly Capitalism’ to that perspective?

      If only small capitalists weren’t gobbled by big ones, we’d have much more equity and democracy.

      • The USA is a Constitutional Representative Republic, not a mob rule ‘democracy’.
        Your attempted revision of Ayn Rand’s astute observations fails similarly.

        • Fortunately, the USA is a democracy, where each adult person (preferably living and not an illegal alien) gets one vote, and each vote, whether by a billionaire or homeless cititzen carries equal value.

          The Constitutional Representative Republic part is merely how the United States of America sets itself up, given the 50 states of which the USA is composed, many of which states are the size of a country (bear in mind that in Europe Luxembourg is considerably smaller than Rhode Island, and Andorra is just 180 sq. miles!) .

          The Constitution limits the power of the three organs of government and that of the Commander in Chief. Of course, the Constitution was based on the UK model, albeit somewhat improved and it is ironic that the Magna Carta carries more weight in the US than it does in the UK. What benefits the US the most is that the Supreme Court tries to uphold the Constitution and hence the significance of the Kavanaugh hearings, whereas in Europe the equivalents Courts pay all but no regard to their country’s respective constitution, and bend over backwards to such nebulus concepts as Human rights. In Europe there is no proper democracy since most people are governed by law made up by the Courts and by diktat passed down by unelected and unaccountable EU elitist technocrats. Switzerland has the best democratic model where the people have the most power and have the right to make decisions by referendum, and there may be perhaps10 to 20 referenda each year. In Switzerland a referendum could be held on policies such as do you want to build the wall, do you want to abolish ICE. Let the people decide on major or controversial policies, the Government then implements the will of the people.

      • Unfortunately socialism leads to dictators and capitalism leads to banksters. However given that benevolent dictators are in short supply, I will take my chances with banksters.

        • Nobody forces you to choose one bank over another. You don’t even have to use a bank if you don’t want to.
          Government on the other hand does not give you a choice.

          • and therein lies the paradox. people think government is necessary and make all sorts of excuses as to why, never realizing it is that violence they are so against that is the only weapon the government has to keep itself an authority.

            folks don’t like big corporations? Then you better be a voluntaryist, because the reason they got so big was because their buddies in gov’t rigged the game to eliminate competition.

      • As long as government does not prevent new companies from forming, large companies are never a problem.
        The reality is that the disadvantages of scale always outweigh the advantages of scale.
        That’s why over the last 4o or 50 years, most companies have been breaking themselves up, much more than they have been buying smaller companies.

      • Back in the bad old days of the EVIL ROBBER BARONS, Standard Oil was losing vast amounts of money and making many people rich by ‘gobbling up’ all its small competitors. Because many of those competitors just took the money and built a new company that Standard Oil would then have to buy for far more than it was worth.

        This is why big business got big government to impose so many onerous rules and regulations that no-one would be able to take advantage of them like that again.

  4. Call it the cynic in my but the point wasn’t to save the world. It was to “save the world” and be the hero. For Obama he was setting up to be leader in Natural Gas exports from the US insane amount of reserves. Natural Gas needs a market, but with coal being much cheaper than gas once it’s compressed it would be difficult. Pipelines across oceans? Nah. Finding a way to make it favourable was the solution, which has CO2 as a problem, intermittent sources of production require what Natural Gas is good at, turning on and off quickly. Perfect fit? Push hard for Nuclear to go, so more room for intermittent sources and natural gas. Notice some of the solutions to Europes trade pressure was the promise to buy more US LNG? My thoughts.

    • Obama worked assiduously to stop coal, oil, and natural gas production on US public lands by refusing exploration and production permits. He certainly did nothing to enhance natural gas production for export… or domestic use.

      The development of the ‘US insane amount of (natural gas) reserves’ was driven by application of hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) applied to existing production fields as well as developing wells on private lands.

      • You are wrong. Obama was a stout supporter of LNG export, providing money and impetus to construct the ports needed to export LNG. Made a case for demonizing coal. He saw the opportunity with Natural Gas. Five former Energy Dept. after went to LNG export companies. Obama absolutely wanted LNG and pushed for it. LNG is a big battleground right now with people staking their interests and claims. Fighting with Russia over Nordstream II gas pipeline. Getting Korea and Japan to buy more. There are alot of behind the scene battles, climate change being one of them. Part of Syria war was about Natural Gas pipeline.

    • That would explain why the US is trying so hard to create a crisis between countries of Europe and Russia.

  5. “coal industry is enjoying a resurgence”…well good grief….what would you expect when you give the vast majority of countries a free pass

  6. Hopefully it’s a death spiral. Unfortunately the forces behind the scam can wait forever and this is their BIG push for control. All their eggs are in the Climate Change basket and they won’t give up until they run out of money or invent a new scam that has more promise of success.

  7. Jolly stuff, this introspection of one’s UN “navel”.

    Seems to me that China is “pulling one over” on the United Nations COP commitments — importing coal from Indonesia is actually far more costly than mining the stuff from their own stocks, but the Chinese don’t have to “count it” officially as part of their coal use. “No, no, no… we only mined XXX amount of coal, and that would be less than last year. The trend of mining is going down. That’s our attainment of Paris goals. Now… look over there at the shiny new nuclear power plant! Would anyone like dimsum and tea?”

    Just saying.

    Thing is, that Chinas burgeoning economy is primed to continue to rise. There is actually nothing on this Earth at the moment that’d stop it. No wars looming … no proxy wars … no suddenly super-hot hostilities in the oil-producing regions of the planet. No famines, no volcanoes exploding, no plagues, no killer typhoons, no mega-earthquakes.

    And that spells the future fairly clearly: China will consume more energy in the years ahead.


    Now, whether she’s building enough nuclear power plants to fully address the uptick fast enough, is a very good question. I think rather so: there is every indication that China’s nuclear build-out is happening at a very fast pace, and moreover the AP–1400 reactors (of choice) are no pea-shooters. They’re BIG power plants. And rarely is China inclined it seems to only install 1 unit at a pad. More like 3+.

    That’s a lot of power.

    Yet, the economic growth remains stunning. About 6 months ago, I “did the numbers”, like most sofa economists … averaging out growth, power consumption, connecting dots, looking up publicly heralded nuclear power plant build-out, upgrades, certifications and projected full-power online dates … and it seemed that for about 7 years forward China would be requiring more coal, not less.

    Well if that is actually happening, then it makes complete sense that China is importing an increasing amount of Indonesian coal. First, it brings China something it needs: fuel. Second, it opaquely lowers her “official” coal production, lending to the idea that her commitment(s) to the Paris Accord are ongoing. Third, it gives her something to trade with Indonesia: YUAN. That in turn gives Indonesia baskets of cash to pay for all that they are becoming dependent on China for, for imports. All good.

    Its not surprising at all, is it, in that context?

    Anyway. If my armchair projections work out, barring some kind of world-consumption-catastrophe (hey… which could happen… but I’m not in the business of prognosticating THAT kind of future!), she’ll consume far more coal in the next 7 years than allowed under her Paris Agreement terms. So… it’ll be imported. Called pig snouts or something, to hide the numbers. Just saying. Its China. As it always has been, and frankly, always will be.


  8. ” Time is running out to save the Paris Climate Accord”

    Good. Time can’t run out soon enough on that waste of time and money.

    • Didn’t we save it 2015, I mean we had Paris. Time to move on … oh wait someone forgot to pay the bill. I think we all agreed send it to Macron.

  9. “UN climate experts warned Tuesday at a key Bangkok meeting”

    Because Bangkok is the Capitol of The World?

    Or do they just go where the prostitutes are?

    Or is climate change readily demonstrable there?


  10. Time is running out for your reservations at the next international climate scare convention. But then who really cares if the cost is doubled or tripled?

  11. Perhaps countries paying large sums of money into the black hole which is the Paris accord should rename it as “Foreign aid”which it really is, mostly to that other cash black hole Africa.


  12. disclaimer:

    The political statements made here do not correspond to known facts.

    The content is not liable.

    • What “political statements” do you believe are correct, then?
      Made from what people, quoted in which sources?

Comments are closed.