#COP25 – The Neverending $tory

Failure In Madrid As COP25 Climate Summit Ends In Disarray

Negotiations at a U.N. climate summit in Madrid broke down today as the two-week meeting ended without a crucial agreement on the global carbon market rules of the Paris Agreement.

After extending the two-week summit for an additional two days, the world’s countries agreed a text with vague pledges to enhance their Paris emissions reductions targets. But the watered-down text reflects a failure to agree on the key outcomes that were needed at the summit: setting a rulebook for the Paris Agreement and designing a global carbon market.

Donald Trump has filed paperwork to remove the United States from the Paris Agreement, signed by his predecessor Barack Obama, next November – the earliest date the U.S. can leave. The U.S. absence has left the EU alone in trying to bring developing countries like China and India on board.

“COP25 has been mired in the politics of low ambition that seek to serve individual agendas in a way that is totally out of step with the urgent need for collective action,” said Eliot Whittington, director of the European Corporate Leaders Group, a collection of climate-ambitious CEOs.

Full story here

Josh has updated his long running cartoon.

116 thoughts on “#COP25 – The Neverending $tory

  1. I don’t think Josh had to spend much time updating his cartoon. He’s going to need more space in a couple of years, though.

    • Trump’s coming re-election and then the US’s continued ignoring of these practitioners of sorcery and witchcraft gatherings might be the stake through the heart those blood suckers deserve.

        • knr,

          Excellent observation but, with apologies, I offer a slight correction to your post. With the US not willing to put up the cash, they are dead in the water.
          Nothing and no one is stopping any of them from putting up the cash, if they really want to do so. Well, maybe the Yellow Vests, Dutch farmers, truck drivers and such but no one else is stopping them.
          One would think the cash and destroying their economies and freezing their poor to death because they can’t afford the utility bills etc. would be minor things compared with saving the Planet, if they really, really believe! 🙂

          • Bloomberg, Steyer, the Rockefeller Fund is free to send them their money in lieu of the US tax dollars like 0bama did when he misappropriated funds to the climate aid fund.

    • Haha , perhaps start equivocating the numbers with the participants , will it be linear or exponential ?
      COP25 had 25000 who could not agree , except to COP26

      • Well George1st,
        Our wee pretend queen of Scotland Nicola Sturgeon (Yes the giver of caviear) is hosting next year’s great global warming scam in Glasgow.
        Ignoring the fact that Scotland has the highest rate of winter cold related deaths in the UK and we do not have enough airport space to accommodate 1500 private jets or enough 5 star hotels spaces for 25000 delegates (mind you Mr Trump has 2000 6 star rooms in Turnberry), or sufficient pot hole free roads to convey the vips to the conference centre, she never the less is determined to stop global warming in its tracks.

  2. Sorry, but i don’t know where to post this,
    Has anyone here ever seen or can point to a whitepaper supporting AGW that fully complies with the acknowledged Scientific Method as outlined in say, Wikipedia?

    • Since the Climate Change Scientists never adhered to the Scientific Method, there likely is no such encapsulated summary of the “Proven Climate Science”.

      But I will do some searching.

      Climate Claims and Projections are found all over the place. Statements of Proofs along with verified evidence (according to the Scientific Method) seem to be lacking.

    • If a conclusion conforms to the narrative driven by the UN/IPCC/UNFCCC, it must ignore the scientific method, so what you’re asking for not only doesn’t exist, it can’t.

      Most of what’s published presumes that the IPCC is correct about the sensitivity. I’ve yet to find anything that supports the presumed sensitivity that doesn’t apply circular logic and/or make unsupportable assumptions, including everything referenced by IPCC reports and claimed to provide support for their assumptions.

      It’s crucial to understand that it’s the IPCC’s assumed magnitude of the sensitivity quantifying the AGW effect that can’t be supported by the scientific method and not the AGW effect itself. Unfortunately, most alarmists fail to understand the difference.

      • And positive feedbacks. Without those, even the postulated warming is rather mild.

        Since ANY warming would invoke these feedbacks, and they did not in the past few climate optimum periods (as warm periods used to be known), these feedbacks are evidentially non-existent.

    • The paper that seems to have got everything going was this one by James Hansen et al. It postulates a positive feedback mechanism whereby CO2 would warm the atmosphere somewhat. That, in turn, would evaporate more water. Water vapor, being the most important greenhouse gas, would cause even more warming.

      In his analysis of the positive feedback, Hansen cites Bode 1945. Our beloved Christopher Monckton showed that Hansen did that analysis wrong. So, we could say that the paper that underlies CAGW is debunked.

      Here’s a link to a retrospective of Hansen 1988. In that link there is a good graph showing a couple of Hansen’s scenarios as well as two observed temperature records, HadCRUT4 and UAH6.

      Note that the temperature trend of HadCRUT4, which is surface temperature, is greater than UAH6, which is the lower troposphere temperature. It seems to me that implies that the lapse rate is increasing and that, in turn, implies decreased atmospheric water vapor.

      Hansen’s theory predicts increased water vapor. So, the above observed temperatures indicate that he was wrong. There is no positive feedback due to water vapor. There is no Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW).

      Of course it could just be that the divergence of HadCRUT4 and UAH6 is because of adjustments to HadCRUT4. 🙂

      • If you look carefully at Hansen’s paper, he mixes up the gain, g, and feedback, f, terms. He also assumes unit open loop gain, without saying so or even knowing so, because he seems to not know the difference between the open and closed loop gains, nor does he understand Bode’s simplifying assumptions of strict linearity and an implicit, infinite source of Joules that disconnects the output Joules from the limitations of the input Joules.

        If G is the open loop gain, g is the closed loop gain and f is the fraction of the output returned to the input as feedback, the gain equation is 1/G = 1/g + f. If you set G == 1 (unit open loop gain) and solve for g, you get g = 1/(1 – f). In the Hansen paper, equation 7 has g and f reversed. Thereafter, it’s all GIGO reaffirmed by confirmation bias.

        Just in time for AR1, Schlesinger got a paper published that corrected the Hansen error and was cited along with Hansen’s paper in AR1 as the scientific foundation for an absurdly high ECS arising from feedback. Schlesinger fixed [hid] the assumption of unit open loop gain by assuming it in one place, but not in another by conflating the feedback fraction, f, with the feedback factor given as f*G. The two are only the same when G is 1. He used this assumption to cancel out what he claimed was an open loop gain that converted forcing into a temperature, which was really just the incremental application of the SB law converting a change in W/m^2 into a change in temperature. More GIGO followed and both papers became ‘settled’ science in AR1.

        Roe followed in about 2008 and made the same exact mistake of conflating the feedback factor and the feedback fraction, except that he changed some of the variable names from those used by Schlesinger. These fundamental errors are still with us today.

        • IMHO, Hansen’s basic approach isn’t even valid. He applies feedback analysis but doesn’t present a strong justification for doing so. As you point out, the implicit infinite power supply assumption violates conservation of energy for the climate system.

          • but wasn’t Hansen original work on that done for Venus?
            because he was on the team planning a mission there that got canned n he got moved out? or left?
            I reckon he used the same lousy surmises for eath when he couldnt use it elsewhere
            i see theyr now planning a mission there again after many decades

          • The most broken piece of climate feedback analysis is the claim that approximate linearity around the mean relationship between forcing and temperature satisfies Bode’s linearity requirement, especially considering that there’s a preexisting and demonstrably linear relationship between W/m^2 of total forcing and W/m^2 LWIR emissions of the surface corresponding to its temperature. Bode requires linearity across all inputs and outputs which means that the output temperature must be linear to the forcing across across all possible forcing from 0 W/m^2 up to the maximum solar input which is impossible given the T^4 relationship between W/m^2 and temperature as required by the Stefan-Boltzmann Law. There’s no possible contortion of a system with W/m^2 of input and temperature output can satisfy the linearity requirement for applying feedback analysis.

            The nefariousness of this error is that it lends plausibility to an incremental sensitivity several times larger than the average sensitivity which is otherwise precluded by COE since the planet has no way to tell the next Joule from the average Joule so that it can do so much more work sustaining the planets tempreature. This nasty piece of garbage called ‘settled science’ is the error upon which all others depend.

    • I can’t wrap my head around this whole ‘conference culture’ that the eco-loons love so much.

      Have the never heard of teleconferencing? There is absolutely NO REASON they have to be physically present at these things, and it is blatantly obvious that most of them are there for a boondoggle vacation on the company/public dime. That’s a huge part of the reason why us ‘normals’ can’t take them seriously. When they start doing these conferences remotely over the internet, then I might start paying attention.

    • At first I thought this must be The Onion or Babylon Bee, but …

      Greta Thunberg apologizes, blames “Swenglish” for threatening violence

      During her speech in Madrid, she uttered a sentence that sure sounded like a potentially violent threat. If world leaders don’t bow to the Fridays for Future movement, “We will make sure we put them against the wall and that they will have to do their job.” That’s quite a loaded statement, historically speaking. It certainly implies putting someone to death by firing squad to most of us. It’s a graphic reference to violence.

      Her apology issued Saturday included a caveat – the confusion came about because she was improvising her speech. She blamed “Swenglish” for the poor translation of that “against the wall” comment.

      • She is probably truthful in this particular case, “ställa någon mot väggen” (“stand someone agianst the wall”) in Swedish does not have at all the same connotations as in english. It means forcing someone to take action or choose sides.

        Her handlers are apparently careless, or less than proficient in idiomatic english. I certainly wouldn’t have let her say that, but then I’ve translated english/swedish professionally.

  3. These COP “get togethers”remind me of the Vatican Council meeting’s the Catholic Church have held in the past to update church laws@ regulations.Any difference?

    • icisil,

      “I’m hearing many small nations have left because they weren’t being included.” Haha!

      Should read, “I’m hearing many small nations have left because there was no money being handed out to them.”

    • Many COP veterans have said they’ve never seen it fall apart this badly. This is a failure.

      So, does that mean it’s a good cop or a bad cop?

  4. And again a jamboree that was a success only for taxi drivers and prostitutes.

    Next time in Glasgow. Thinking of being there with a banner stating: ‘Why don’t you go home and do something worthwhile?’

  5. Since Obama never submitted the Paris Accord for ratification as a treaty by the Senate, why does Trump have to wait to get the US out of it? It’s an illegal agreement, non-binding thanks to trying to end run around the Senate.

    • If Trump were to ignore its terms he could be sued by an ‘injured party’ and there’s a huge risk that a judge could decree that the agreement is binding, triggering years of appellate lawfare in the courts.

      So he is withdrawing in a manner complying with its terms. He is betting he will win reelection. He doesn’t trust the courts to follow the law… with good reason.

      • I believe the drop dead date is just after the 2020 election so, even if, God forbid, Trump loses, he will still be President and can pull us out of it. He would still be President until Jan, 20, 2021.

  6. I am not sure if the implications of the failure to address concerns over the content of Article 6 will reach public ears. As many will know, the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) was the basis of carbon trading, generating billions and billions in turnover, and is what feeds the value of an offset (1 ton of CO2 or its equivalent forcing). They are called certified emission reduction Certificates (CER’s).

    Every article I have managed to find in the useless media that we have, avoided the actual nitty gritty about what the dispute was, what the positions of various countries was (especially Brazil) and text what was proposed.

    While it is well and good and bully-for-them to protest saying “We have to get serious about this and really, really, really cut CO2 emissions…” it is not enough to agree and shake hands. There has to be some mechanism for trading carbon reductions and CO2 generation that is punitive enough to raise the billions needed to fund the transition from absolute national sovereignty to dependent implementers of the plans of an unanswerable global elite.

    The breakdown is over what happens to existing CDM projects, especially a requirement (in the CDM text but not as forcefully) that requires all paid-for CERs to be ‘real’, or absolute, no cheating this time. The key single issue, if there was one and there isn’t, is the rolling over of all existing CDM projects into the Paris Accord trading system, without re-doing the baselines, and a desire to avoid a rather strict interpretation of the “additionality” requirement. If you are new to the subject, additionality means that a project activity that would have gone ahead anyway, cannot apply for CER’s to be generated by that activity.

    If the Great US Eastern Forest is going to regrow all by itself, the USA cannot sell CER’s based on the billions of tons of CO2 it will remove from the atmosphere when doing so. You can’t sell what is already happening, or what will happen soon anyway. If the project (afforestation) would not go ahead unless there was additional funding, then additionality has been demonstrated. In short, only economically unviable projects can receive CDM or Article 6 funding.

    Obviously progress has to be measured using some baseline. That baseline has been “declared” in the past in many cases, based on the rules published by the CDM Executive Board. The Paris Accord’s Article 6 requires that all baselines be redetermined to eliminate cheating, they say. So with a stricter requirement for demonstrating additionality, a recalculated baseline and meeting the requirement that there has to be an absolute drop in atmospheric CO2 as a result of the project, many of the current activities in developing countries will be cancelled. Developing countries realise this and are hankering for a slice of the future carbon pie to be set aside for them. As a group, they got little of the funding available through the Kyoto Protocol and they want guarantees that will not happen again. The biggest thing on the agenda, Article 6, cuts them off at the knees, just as they were working out how to milk the system the way the rich countries did for 23 years.

    The mad crowds hollering outside for deep, deep cuts do not realise what a financial disaster it will be for the developing countries to have all or most of their projects reassessed and downgraded, particularly those involving forestry over large areas. Many Gold Standard Projects (a kind of easier version of CDM that permits many things to be estimated instead of measured for the baseline and compliance) cannot survive a baseline recalculation as the funds “generated” don’t cover the cost involved. Selling hot air isn’t as easy as it used to be.

    The breakdown is over money, power, control, and a demand (led by Brazil since June) that this round the poor countries are guaranteed half the loaf. Half a loaf is better than no bread, they say.

    Without Article 6 in place and the details of its operation agreed, all carbon trading will stop save in the voluntary market and certain national plans. Undermining all this ambition is the plain fact that if I emit CO2 and you absorb it (offset it) there is no net reduction in CO2. The protesters want to see that reduction guaranteed. The carbon traders want to trade offsets and speculate in them, not actually reduced emissions. Every ton of absolute reduction is a ton not traded. It is gone. You only buy an offset when you are emitting. A carbon tax yields zero if no one emits. If you are emitting, offsetting provides zero net reduction.
    This brutal reality sets the agenda of the fat-cat carbon traders against that of the ideologically possessed protesters. The skeptics aren’t even invited to the fight. They are watching, slack-jawed, on the sidelines.

    • Thanks, very good clarification of the main issue.
      If I had GT’s email address, I would forward your comment to her.

    • We skeptics are not watching, slack-jawed, Crispin.

      We, The Skeptics are watching in utter amusement as the climate liars try to “out lie” one another about which Emperor’s clothes are the most magnificent.

      • Joel – I think you’re right.

        What amazes me is how well-buried the real story is. Beneath all the fluff about saving the planet, it is really about saving the funding mechanism. Fundamentally, this carbon trading thing is supposed to replace foreign aid, instead of being country-directed according to the various national interests. The idea of the Copenhagen agreement (read it in full) is to place a benevolent dictatorship of climate-curers in the seats that will direct all aid for all reasons. The idea in 2015 was to call everything from lack of roads to bad housing a “consequence of global warming”. Then “mitigation” would kick in to pay for schools, wells, traffic cones, drainage and so on – absolutely everything – all in the name of creating a sustainable world.

        There is some benevolence in this plan. The idea is to bypass the bickering UN and the inveterate foolishness of absolute national sovereigntists each planning to “win” what they assume is a zero-sum game. Aid between nations can be based on being our brother’s keepers, not just empathy and sympathy when some disaster strikes. We don’t do that between provinces, why would we do it between states? Makes no sense. It is at least possible that Island America could lead this initiative. Climate scientists can’t.

        • Every public policy the Progressives ever try to implement has the opposite of intended effect.
          Look no further than the US West Coast Homeless crisis for strong evidence the Left’s well intentions are the Road to Hell for the middle class.
          Another one:
          Growing income and wealth inequalities… Leftist policies.
          Highly regressive energy taxes:
          Impoverishment of the working class to need welfare handouts for their ballot vote.

  7. 20,000 delegates 20,000 delegates 20,000 delegates 20,000 delegates. Ivory Coast sent some 600. UK 48. 2 more women than men so that’s OK then. Ridiculous

  8. Since America funds 80% of this global Bureaucratic scam. Trump’s exit plan means the flim flam will run out of money for everybody next year. The conference at whatever exotic location the planners are scoping out this year should ask for their money in advance since there are going to be a lot of cancellations.

    • COP26 Glasgow; 30,000 delegates are expected to attend the event at Glasgow’s Scottish Events Campus – 9-19 November 2020

      Looks like a nice place – – when not crowded with 30,000 crazy people.
      Also, I think the 30,000 is total folks, not UN-registered crazies.

      • Perhaps not but they will all have to be paid for and the ultimate source for all that cash will be western taxpayers.

  9. The reality is that, based on the paleoclimate record and the work done with models, the climate change that we have been experiencing is very small and is caused by the sun and the oceans over which mankind has no control. Despite the hype, there is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate and there is plenty of scientific rationale that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is zero. So reducing all CO2 emissions to zero will have no effect on climate. But even if we could somehow stop the Earth’s climate from changing, extreme weather events and sea level rise would continue because they are part of the current climate. There are many good reasons to be conserving on the use of fossil fuels but climate change is not one of them.

  10. As COP25 jamboree os now over so is the Schipool Protestival by Greenpeace and XR. The Dutch military police set an end to that, dragging the hundreds of protesters out from the airport one-by-one.

  11. Make Greenland green again….exercise more…exhale more CO2…but don’t make Greta too angry….please Greta….not the wall….anything but the wall…..we’ll bend to your will if you forego the wall.

    • T.C.,
      Unfortunately for the Alarmists, Greenland has stopped cooperating with them.

      Greenland’s SMB gained 14 Gigatons over the past 2 Days alone, pushing this Season above the 1981-2010 average
      December 3, 2019
      Despite decades of doom-and-gloom prophecies, Greenland’s Ice Sheet is currently GAINING monster amounts of snow — 14 gigatons over the past 2 days alone (Dec 01 – Dec 02).
      Crucial to the survival of a glacier is its surface mass balance (SMB) — the difference between accumulation and ablation (sublimation and melting). Changes in mass balance control a glacier’s long-term behavior, and are its most sensitive climate indicators (wikipedia.org).
      And I’m innocent of any NOAA-like cherry picks here — Dec 01 and 02 just happen the latest two days. The truth is, since September, 2019 –the official start of this season– SMB spikes above the 2/2.5 gigaton daily average have been a regular occurrence in Greenland — in mid-November, for example, the sheet gained a whopping 10 Gt in a single day.
      All this sublimation has seen the Acc. SMB rise above the 1981-2010 average, as visualized below in the Danish Meteorological Institute’s (DMI) chart…”
      If Greenland keeps this up, it will soon fall off the media’s Face of the Earth and neither they nor the Warmists will act like Greenland even exists.
      A moment of silence, please, for the impending death of poor Greenland.

      • Don’t panic. They will find a different way to measure it so that it’s once more “worser than we thought!”

  12. https://twitter.com/RHarrabin/status/1205547745156718594

    They may keep on fighting until they are dead. I asked Benny Peiser what single piece of evidence would persuade him climate change was a serious threat and he never replied. I would still be interested in an answer to that question

    I’ve a suggestion for Harrabin: when China decides to pursue zero carbon by 2050 for themselves I might be persuaded to believe it is serious. Meanwhile, it appears that Harrabin is the one with his head in the sand.

  13. From the link in the article (https://www.forbes.com/sites/ibm/2019/12/12/cuny-ibm-and-business-roundtable-collaboration-a-model-for-filling-the-tech-skills-gap/#34f76a2863eb).

    “…But away from the negotiations at the UNFCC, new indications of climate leadership did emerge this week – from Brussels – where the EU delivered its Green Deal, and climate neutrality by 2050 was finally agreed. For businesses this sends the signal that the transition to a net zero economy can really start to accelerate.”

    Actually,to the extent businesses believe that THIS TIME the EU really, really means it, this sends a signal to
    them to get the heck out of Europe and go to India, China or other nations where they can manufacture at a profit. Since those nations have low to non-existent environmental standards, let alone any concerns about CO2 reductions, the EU guarantees that Earth will have more human-caused CO2 emitted as well as more real pollutants.
    On the bright side, maybe they will all move to the US which is the only developed nation to have reduced CO2 and other emissions and that is no thanks to the Paris Accord.
    Electric Utility Emissions Continue to Decline Through 2018

    “…Due to policies and economic technology, emissions from electric utilities continue to decline. According to an EPA report, sulfur dioxide emissions declined by 92 percent between 1990 and 2018, nitrogen oxides emissions declined by 84 percent between those years, ozone season nitrogen oxides declined 83 percent between 1997 and 2018, and carbon dioxide emissions declined by 24 percent between 2005 and 2018. The large reductions in emissions occurred despite increasing output from U.S. electric generators. Electric output increased by 19 percent between 1990 and 2018.
    Clean Air Act Amendments
    The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 established the Acid Rain Program and required reductions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides from the electric generating sector. These pollutants are the primary precursors of acid rain. The sulfur dioxide program sets a permanent cap on the total amount of sulfur dioxide that may be emitted by electric generating units in the contiguous United States. The program set a cap on sulfur dioxide at 8.95 million tons in 2010, a level of about one-half of the emissions from the power sector in 1980. U.S. electric utilities surpassed that reduction in 2010 and sulfur dioxide emissions in 2018 were a mere 1.26 million tons, down from 17.3 million tons in 1980. Sulfur dioxide emissions are now about one-fourteenth of what they were in 1980
    …Americans now enjoy the cleanest air many of them have ever experienced, and all signs point to increasingly healthy air, even as the United States has become the largest oil and gas producer in the world. The future of energy in America is bright; our air is clean and getting cleaner every day.”

    • I believe that the usual ‘albedo’ of 30% is an underestimate of actual total reflectivity for Earth. Thus, the models would tend to run warm using 30%.

  14. I wish the youth would lead by example and a real message. The other day I saw young people from a local high school out along the boulevard with placards about the climate crisis. Along this street litter lines the gutters from the school to a nearby teriyaki place. Not one of those students made an effort to retrieve the refuse.

  15. What a circle jerk. When you look at the results accomplished so far the world is adding, not depleting, CO2 on a steady basis. Based on future projections this will continue. Who’s fooling who?

  16. I think it would be helpful and kind to meet delegates to the 2020 COP26 in Glasgow with a nice ‘Welcome Pack”.

    The delegates should certainly be encouraged to ‘meet the locals’, starting with the denizens of the traditional hostelries along Sauchiehall Street.

    The delegates might be encouraged to try the fun pastime of waving little St. George’s Cross flags and singing a verse or so of ‘There’ll always be an England”. If you don’t know the words, hum a bit of Rule Britannia.

    The local lads may very well treat them to a pint or two of the local beer. Ask if they have Fuller’s London Pride. Quite a speciality!

    After all, it is all harmless fun and, as I think it was P.G.Wodehouse who said, you really can’t distinguish between a Scotsman and a ray of sunshine.
    Or something like that.

  17. All of the COPs and the Greta pep talk is working.

    The EU have committed to economic destruction to attempt to do something that is physically impossible by 2050.

    Apparently, the UK have signed on with the EU to mutually assured destruction and/or public rioting well before that date if the idiots stay the course.


    Delegates drew some consolation from an agreement reached in Brussels last week by the European Union’s 28 member states, bar Poland, to reach net zero carbon emissions by 2050, under a “Green Deal” to wean the continent off fossil fuels.

    BBC world news:
    Krista Mikkonen, Finnish environment minister and EU representative at the conference
    “It seems that the EU now needs to be the leader and we want to be and we are going to be and that is what we are doing.”

    Parking the fact 100% of the IPCC science is incorrect. Humans caused no more than 5% of the recent rise in atmospheric CO2. Obviously no CAGW. Expect cooling early next year.

    • 9-19 November 2020, in Glasgow and they have an issue they can’t kick things down the road if they don’t have a full agreement the Paris Agreement becomes invalid. They can choose to vary the Paris agreement but that I think most would say there would be no point if they were not at least close to agreement.

      The two big sticking points wont be resolved because they have underlying problems
      (1) The developed nations are never going to agree to formal reparations they want as they can afford approach. There would be few democratic countries that there leader would be able to do that because the public would vote them out. I know what the reaction in Australia would be if our leader suggested we were going to send massive amounts while we still have our own poor and disadvantaged. So it isn’t remotely possible our Politicians could agree to that because the public support is to low.

      (2) The carbon trading scheme is problematic because the rich countries can simply out source there carbon neutrality. In the same way all the jetsetting celebs and royals claim carbon neutral by buying a few trees. The general idea is you are supposed to at least try and cut your emissions first and use the offsets as a last resort.

  18. What is the US currently doing to be in the Paris agreement? I know of no C02 restrictions on anything in the US.

    • US is still in because Obama signed you in to the agreement (which isn’t a treaty) and it had a 2 year exit clause. So you get to stay in and throw hand grenades although this time around you didn’t have to throw many China won the hand grenade throwing contest, India and Brazil were close second, followed by Japan, Australia and the Saudies.

      • LdB, as I recall….Signatory Parties could notify their exit from Paris Agreement 3 years after signing, with a then 1 year withdrawal period.

    • John,

      The Obama EPA-directed Clean Power Plan (CPP) was intended to be Obama’s end-around Congress to impose Paris Agreement US national declared intentions on CO2 emission reduction.

      The Supreme Court put a court-order “Stay” (by a 5-4 majority vote) on the implementation against the states by EPA’s CPP in February 2016 until pending CPP challenges in the lower courts could be heard and appeals made. What Obama was trying to do with his Paris Agreement CPP rules from the EPA was without Congressional authority. The Executive has no power to impose new legal requirements on the States without some kind of Congressional authority, something based on laws passed by Congress. Obama had no Congressional authority for CPP. It was thus unconstitutional with a Supreme Court majority that remained faithful to an original US constitution interpretation.

      Justice Antonin Scalia’s untimely death 1 week after the CPP Stay then allowed Obama to make a Supreme Court nomination (Merrick Garland) that would, if confirmed by the Senate, probably would have tipped the majority back to the Liberals to allow the CPP go forward. Fortunately Senate Majority Leader McConnell made one of the most consequential decisions of our lifetime. He told Obama his Supreme Court nominee would not get a confirmation vote from the Senate Majority, fulfilling his advise and consent duty under the Constitution. The CPP stay by the Supreme Court was never lifted as Obama had obviously hoped for. The fact that the Supreme Court balance was in play for the 2016 election drove many Conservatives to the polls to vote. A reality of many silent conservatives the media and pollsters could not account for in their polling methods, polling which consistently showed Hillary winning, thus lulling the Democrats to some complacency about a sure win for Crooked Hillary who could then fill Scalia’s seat with a Lib and remove the stay on CPP.

      The Supreme Court stay on CPP implementation was still in effect when Trump took office in January 2017. The Trump EPA has since withdrew the CPP implementation and the court challenges became moot. The US under President Trump has no intention of committing economic suicide while China and India have no emissions limits under the UNFCCC COP process.

      If the US elects a Democrat President in 2020, that President will be facing a solid conservative majority Supreme Court.

      The Democrats hope to have two options at that point in 2021… if they can exercise them by winning the Senate majority in next year’s 2020 election.

      1) Eliminate the Senate filibuster rule for legislation so that a simple majority vote in the US Senate can pass a CPP legislation and carbon taxes, or a cap and trade scheme like the one that died in 2010.

      2) pack the Supreme Court with 4 more Liberal Justices that will allow the executive (President) to rule by fiat.

    • John Bell,
      The US is now and has been for well over three decades reducing pollution, the real kind and CO2, as well. (We’ve been working on it since Nixon and the 70s, in reality.)
      I posted this article above but in a longer version. The US has been cutting CO2 for a long time–without Paris and without wrecking our economy, esp., in the last 3 years, unlike Europe while cutting CO2 emissions. Fracking and natural gas, all done without the Gov., is the biggest but not the only reason.
      The US is the only developed nation of which I am aware that is on target to meet 2050 CO2 emission standards. No Paris A, needed, thank you very much.
      Electric Utility Emissions Continue to Decline Through 2018

  19. Little entitled Thunberg is annoyed at Deutsche Bundesbahn…
    She twitted:
    “Traveling on overcrowded trains through Germany. And I’m finally on my way home!”
    To which DB responded:
    “We were pleased that you were on the ICE 74 with us on Saturday, and with 100 percent green electricity,”
    “It would have been even nicer had you acknowledged how well and competently our team treated you in your First Class seat,”
    Billionaire sailing yacht, special flown skipper, Telsa littered with plastic bottles and one use plastic cups… that’s your green hypocrite of the day!


  20. norway should be putting mega billions into the fight since they make mega billions from their state owned fossil fuel company which has put away hundreds of billions of dollars in profits . its more fun to just whine about everyone else”s inaction . its
    why theyre not in the EU . when youre that rich you want your independence

  21. norway should be throwing billions into the fight from the hundreds of billions of dollars of profits from their state owned fossil fuel industry . but its much more fun whining about the lack of action . its why theyre not in the EU . whats norways is norways . sharing stops at the border .

  22. The teenage girl campaign against farting cattle continues!
    1857 Nonqawuse (300 000 – 400 000 cattle slaughtered. CO2 & methane output massively reduced)

    2019 Greta (Scoldilocks) Thunberg (No figures officially recorded)

    A luta continua

Comments are closed.