Court Ruling: French Government is Failing to Meet Paris Agreement Pledges

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

What is the point of President Biden rejoining the Paris Accord, when even the French cannot be bothered to keep their pledges?

Court rules France failed to respect its climate change goal

A Paris court has ruled that the French state failed to take sufficient action to fight climate change in a case brought by a group of nongovernmental organizations

By The Associated Press
3 February 2021, 20:53

In its ruling, the Paris administrative court recognized ecological damage linked to climate change and held the French state responsible for failing to fully meet its goals in reducing greenhouse gases.

But Oxfam France, Greenpeace France and two other organizations say Macron’s lobbying for global climate action is not backed up by sufficient domestic measures to curb emissions blamed for global warming.

France is missing its national targets that had been set under the 2015 Paris Agreement to curb climate change, and the country has delayed most of its efforts until after 2020.

Read more: https://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory/court-rules-france-failed-respect-climate-change-goal-75653967

What a surprise – if I have understood this court ruling correctly, turns out the champion of the Paris Agreement, President Macron of France, is a total climate hypocrite.

Perhaps the Paris Agreement was always just a vehicle for virtue signalling politicians to pretend they care.

4.9 20 votes
Article Rating
92 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
MarkW
February 3, 2021 6:12 pm

Perhaps the Paris Agreement was always just a vehicle for virtue signalling politicians to pretend they care.

Perhaps????

Reply to  MarkW
February 3, 2021 6:31 pm

No, it’s always been a vehicle of distraction from their true objective: Destroying America, their only barrier to a One-World government. Kind of takes your breath away in light of all the Leftist insanity — boys playing in girls’ sports, impeachment mania, election fraud. And many Democrats justified election fraud based on “climate change” fears.

Bryan A
Reply to  Rod Martin, Jr.
February 3, 2021 8:29 pm

If I were running one of the Paris Climate Treaty Countries I would publish my NDCs as a “Promise to produce Less CO2 than China”

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Rod Martin, Jr.
February 3, 2021 9:13 pm

In reality, the only country that would have fulfilled the Paris Accord (had Trump not pulled out). Noe of the virtue signalers will fulfill their promises. China, the world’s biggest CO2 emitter is a signee with no restriction at all.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Rory Forbes
February 4, 2021 11:37 am

John Kerry was bragging yesterday about how he had negotiated the Paris Climate Accord, and how he was the one that managed to get China involved.

The only problem is John’s negotiations resulted in China not being required to do anything about CO2 until 2030, and after 2030, they will take another look at it but are still not required to do anything.

John Kerry thinks he made a good deal for the United States. It just shows how divorced from reality Kerry really is.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Tom Abbott
February 4, 2021 2:04 pm

Kerry is just one of those ridiculous, wealthy twits whose sense of entitlement is so vast they have no self awareness. The Chinese have been playing us from the start. If they didn’t have our technology they’d have practically none at all. The present administration will only encourage them to keep stealing the West’s intellectual property.

griff
Reply to  Rod Martin, Jr.
February 4, 2021 1:26 am

That is absolute nonsense, shading on conspiracy theory.

MarkW
Reply to  griff
February 4, 2021 6:41 am

How dare we take them at their word.

William Astley
Reply to  Rod Martin, Jr.
February 4, 2021 11:31 am

I agree 100%. And CAGW is China’s plan. China has control of the ideas/universities/media and the governments.

The Western fake Zombie governments are planning a ‘Climate Emergency….

where we spend our countries to death using borrowed money on wind and sun gathering and other ‘green’ scams killing our economies, as the last jobs go to Asia.

We are losing the ‘cold’ war with China.

This is interesting. China Built Three Times as Much Coal Power in 2020 as the Rest of the World Combined.
 
https://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2021/02/03/china-built-three-times-as-much-coal-power-in-2020-as-the-rest-of-the-world-combined/
 

Jon Salmi
Reply to  MarkW
February 4, 2021 12:22 pm

Yes, Mark, it seems that inane French Court thought that climate action was supposed to be done per the treaty – silly court.

Edward Katz
February 3, 2021 6:19 pm

Mark Twain reputedly said that everyone talks about the weather, but no one does anything about it. If we substitute “climate” for “weather”, we’d have an accurate summary of the results of these various climate conferences, agreements, and treaties over the last 25 years. Moreover, there’s little motivation for change when we hear that China and India, two of the 3 leading carbon emitters, don’t have to halt them until 2030. And that’s if they even choose to do so because who’s going to do anything about it if they don”t? The reality is that the battle to regulate the world’s climate was lost before it began because the forces of Nature are too powerful and there’s not enough resolve or commitment on the part of the global community to do enough about the issue. It’s a lot more convenient just to attend climate conferences at taxpayers’ expense and pretend everyone’s serious about taking the appropriate measures.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Edward Katz
February 4, 2021 4:21 am

The kicker is that it’s a fake issue to begin with. The slight warming we’ve experienced since the LIA has been A) nothing but beneficial, and B) has little, if anything to do with our “carbon” emissions, which C) are in themselves nothing but beneficial.

MarkW
Reply to  Edward Katz
February 4, 2021 6:42 am

It’s worse then that. India and China only have to think about (not do) reducing (not stopping) their CO2 emissions in 2030.

George Daddis
Reply to  MarkW
February 4, 2021 7:54 am

Correct!
And we have the team of VP Biden (BHO’s China “point man”) and SoS Kerry to thank for those difficult negotiations.

(Remind me again what the US got out of those talks.)

Richard Page
February 3, 2021 6:21 pm

The government’s that signed onto the Paris treaty are still doing it; trying to outdo each other in a crazy competition to show how committed they are to the Green cause. COP26 is a showcase for them to announce more and more crazy schemes to virtue signal to their citizens that they are combating climate change whilst actually doing very little.
It’s just business as usual political theatre.

Someone pass the popcorn, please?

Joel O'Bryan
February 3, 2021 6:22 pm

Perhaps the Paris Agreement is a part of the Trojan Horse, an artifice hiding a capitalism destroying agenda and economic poison pill for the West?

Last edited 4 months ago by joelobryan
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
February 3, 2021 6:35 pm

Not really. Leftists say they want to destroy capitalism, but the big evil in capitalism is the Leftist variety of capitalism (Giggle, YuckTube, Twatter, Fakebook, Military Industrial Complex, Big Pharma, etc. — every corporation which loves Big [Leftist] Government). Leftist Capitalists hate Free Market Capitalists; that’s why they help write all the Big Regulation legislation. The objective was voiced most clearly by the late David Rockefeller in his Memoirs when he bragged that he had conspired for decades against the best interests of these United States. He was proud of his treason.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Rod Martin, Jr.
February 3, 2021 7:21 pm

In the past it (“it” being the real agenda behind the climate scam) got some exposure by comments from the likes of Christiana Figueres, former head of the UNFCCC, but she then learned to STFU as her comment damaged the multi-billion dollar gas-lighting disinformation campaign.
With the ascent of AOC in the political theater of DC and the unveiling of the GND as social re-engineering plan, the agenda is clearly no longer “hiding.”
The problem for the Big Evil capitalists got in bed with the Marxists out of convenience is that the Marxists have no problem, once they get enough power, to send the Big Evil Capitalists to the gulags, or dispatch them like the Romanovs, as well.
The Big Evil Capitalists always arrogantly think their money will shield them from the worst instincts of the Marxism purists. But that is never the case. Modern-day Oligarchs in Russia have learned that the hard way. Modern day Chinese billionaires are learning that lesson too from the CCP.

Last edited 4 months ago by joelobryan
Derg
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
February 3, 2021 11:21 pm

Bingo

griff
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
February 4, 2021 1:30 am

Really? It seems a convoluted way of going about that.

back to our old favourite Germany: 21 years since it published it Energiewende strategy.

still capitalist. prosperous, still had economic growth (as 2008 and covid have permitted).

MarkW
Reply to  griff
February 4, 2021 6:45 am

I see griff is still trying to push the claim that anything that isn’t pure communism, is some form of capitalism.

Richard Page
Reply to  griff
February 4, 2021 7:32 am

Still capitalist, prosperous, still had economic growth (as 2008 and covid have permitted) DESPITE Energiewende. The fact that Germany has had to increase it’s fossil fuel use year on year to now well over 80% of energy production amid calls to drop the failed Energiewende is significant. The fact that the UK enjoyed more economic growth and prosperity over the same period just shows that Germany could easily have done far better without the Energiewende millstone around it’s neck.

ILUVCO2
Reply to  griff
February 5, 2021 12:33 am

still capitalist. prosperous”

Yes but all that trouble with absolutely no reduction in their CO2 emissions.
They just created a class of energy poor.

Green Energy Not Fit for the Grid! ”Green” Germany now using more coal than in2009 http://climatism.wordpress.com/2014/02/09/shock-news-green-energy-not-fit-for-the-grid/

February 3, 2021 6:25 pm

The objective has never been one of protecting the environment, or even of thwarting “capitalism.” Instead, it has been one of destroying America and establishing the New World Order’s One-World government. Leftism is defined by tyranny and fear; this has been true ever since the French Revolution where Democracy meant no individual was safe from the mob.

The late David Rockefeller bragged in his Memoirs that he had conspired for decades against the best interests of these United States. Yep, he confessed to multiple conspiracies of treason and was proud of it. The “naked” Emperor truly is a fruitcake.

And solutions are so easy. #Nullification, for one, built right into the Constitution’s Article VI. Both Republicans and Democrats are holding the insanity in place by blindly pushing opposing agendas which ignore the truths held by the other side. Examples:

Democrats: Defund ALL cops; destroy ALL capitalism.

Republicans: Protect ALL cops and ALL capitalism.

Both are 1-Dimensional, infantile, identity thinking that ignores the differences and similarities. If only Democrats and Republicans would protect GOOD cops and Free Market Capitalism, while firing or jailing BAD cops and ending Leftist Capitalism, there’d be no reason to riot! And climate is equally simple to solve. Too many Leftists conflate CO2 with pollution, because Leftist Corporations are criminal, destroying environment and economies. Remove Leftist Capitalism from the playing field and Leftists no longer have their “pollution” card.

ALL Publicly-Traded corporations have a fiduciary duty to be evil. ALL Privately-Owned corporations at least have the freedom to choose whether or not to be evil. Instead of destroying ALL corporations as the Leftists pretend they want to do, hold ALL corporations accountable for their actions, and suddenly “climate change” disappears as a problem.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Rod Martin, Jr.
February 3, 2021 9:18 pm

YES!

Larry in Texas
Reply to  Rod Martin, Jr.
February 3, 2021 10:12 pm

Uh, I don’t know where you get “nullification” from Article VI of the United States Constitution. Especially since Article VI, Section 2, contains the Supremacy Clause – “This Constitution. . . shall be the supreme law of the land.” There is otherwise nothing in that article from which a doctrine of “nullification” can be even remotely inferred.

Nullification is an old canard first employed by John C. Calhoun in 1832 in connection with the tariff issues of that day. It is a prescription for the next civil war, NOT the “easy solution” you seem to think it is.

I have a better argument – since Joe Biden wants to put into effect rules and regulations pursuant to the Paris Accords, it seems clear that he AND Obama actually considered these Accords legally binding upon the Government of the United States. Therefore, they are in reality a treaty that must be consented to by two-thirds of the United States Senate.

My second argument is that as Biden considers his action as regulatory in character and overrides the findings made by the Administration of President Trump, Biden’s order violates the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), in that Biden’s order has made no real findings of its own and has not allowed for public comment on this change as required under APA. Let us now see if John Roberts really has the courage of his convictions and is willing to consistently apply the (almost bogus) precedent of his ruling on Trump’s revocation of Obama’s (clearly illegal) DACA order.

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  Larry in Texas
February 4, 2021 5:20 am

Jefferson and Madison considered state nullification of federal laws that are not pursuant to the constitution to be the rightful remedy to federal over reach. This was in response to the Alien and Sedition Act of 1798, not later tariffs.

Thanks to the gutless 2020 version of your supremes, we won’t be able to vote the federal bastards out, so our best chance of resisting the federal tyranny in process will necessarily have to come from the states. You could help by not blindly equating nullification with Calhoun, which is the what the progressives want you to learn in sixth grade.

Duker
Reply to  Rod Martin, Jr.
February 3, 2021 10:38 pm

Yawn…all tired and silly conspiracy theories

Trying to Play Nice
Reply to  Duker
February 4, 2021 5:18 am

Commenters who dismiss others without any explanation and/or proof of their contentions are obnoxious twits. This is an opinion, not a statement of fact (for all you smart-arses).

Ghowe
Reply to  Duker
February 4, 2021 5:45 am

Yep, it’s all been debunked! Old news!

MarkW
Reply to  Duker
February 4, 2021 6:47 am

Notice how once again, Duker emonstrates that he actually believes that his disagreement with a position is sufficient to disprove that position.

griff
Reply to  Rod Martin, Jr.
February 4, 2021 1:32 am

And what then of the many, many other govts in the world which have signed up to Paris and where they are making substantial efforts towards it?

The UK, with its right of centre Tory govt, for example?

How is Boris Johnson working for the New World Order’s One-World government?

If it is a one world govt, then your argument has to cover its progres sworldwide, I would have thought?

Richard Page
Reply to  griff
February 4, 2021 6:07 am

As I’ve said several times, BoJo is the host of the next COP junket so he’s going to outdo everyone else in plans to implement the Green agenda. He has to – the UK cannot afford to be sidelined by other countries at this juncture or the whole Brexit thing will implode. Expect more plans to be greener and cleaner than every other country in the run up to the junket but after that, with trade deals and promises of friendship firmly in his pocket, chances are it might be a completely different matter. We’ll have to see.

MarkW
Reply to  griff
February 4, 2021 6:48 am

Substantial? Really?
As to the Tory government being right of center. That’s from the European perspective where socialists are considered right wing.

Richard Page
Reply to  MarkW
February 4, 2021 7:13 am

The Tory government has traditionally been on the right of the political spectrum. However, in recent years, as Labour and Lib Dems have moved further to the far left, the Tories have occupied the centre and centre left. It’s not always been a comfortable or natural fit.

Oh and Socialists are considered to be left wing not right. National Socialism was never considered to be Socialism.

Last edited 4 months ago by Richard Page
Rob_Dawg
February 3, 2021 6:30 pm

Why would any court be involved in a non-binding non-treaty with non-goals?

commieBob
Reply to  Rob_Dawg
February 3, 2021 6:57 pm

The government has certain duties and it’s not clear what they are exactly. How far should it go to protect its citizens? How far does it have to go?

American courts usually decide that certain things are best decided by elected officials. Usually the courts realize that public policy is a juggling act where you can’t meet all the apparent requirements at the same time.

It’s not beyond imagining that some activist judge somewhere would decide that the government has to protect its citizens from the ravages of climate change regardless of the letter of the law. The argument might be that climate change deprives citizens of their life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. As things stand now, I’m guessing that such a decision would be overturned in the Supreme Court.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  commieBob
February 3, 2021 7:34 pm

It happens when the courts begin to believe the Progressive lie that courts exist to legislate on feelings when the political bodies won’t.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Eric Worrall
February 3, 2021 8:45 pm

Feelings override laws in Liberal orthodoxy.

MarkW
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
February 4, 2021 6:50 am

If feelings can override facts, then overriding laws should be easy peasy.

Chris Nisbet
February 3, 2021 6:53 pm

So this court “recognized ecological damage linked to climate change”, and managed to attribute some of it to France’s failure to meet its commitments.
What specific ecological damage are they referring to? Did they just take someone’s word for it that there was some damage somewhere? How did they work out it was pesky human CO2 emissions what did it? Did they balance this ‘damage’ against the benefits of having a slightly warmer world?

ResourceGuy
February 3, 2021 6:56 pm

It’s the advocacy thought that counts.

It’s a policy placebo.

Warren
February 3, 2021 6:58 pm
Larry Hamlin
February 3, 2021 7:16 pm

The Paris Agreement has become completely irrelevant to the ever upward climb of global emissions. The upward trend of global emissions is under the total control of the developing nations that now dominate both global energy use and resulting emissions.
The developed nations including the EU and U.S. account for only about 35% of global emissions compared to the developed nations controlling 65% of these emissions.
The developed nations have reduced CO2 emissions by over 1.6 billion metric tons in the last decade compared to the developing nations increase during that period of over 5.7 billion metric tons.
China and India are significantly increasing use of coal along with other developing nations and have no reduction commitments in the Paris Agreement during the coming decade.
Biden’s proposal to “rejoin” the Paris Agreement is irrelevant regarding stopping the upward trend of global emissions. His action is pure political propaganda amounting to absolutely nothing of real world consequence.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Larry Hamlin
February 3, 2021 8:47 pm

When did destroying US energy independence* and loss of affordable energy for the middle class** become “nothing of real world consequence?”

* a national security issue.
** a domestic economic security issue

Dementia Joe (more precisely the Useful Idiots his handlers have placed around him) will use Paris as the public face of those two consequences. To save the planet from imaginary climate “existential threats.”

Last edited 4 months ago by joelobryan
Gregory Woods
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
February 3, 2021 11:37 pm

I tend to believe that politicians who knowingly destroy the US economy should be considered traitors and meet the usual punishment for traitors….

Trying to Play Nice
Reply to  Gregory Woods
February 4, 2021 5:35 am

Unfortunately, the Constitution has a very clear definition of treason so our hands are tied.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Trying to Play Nice
February 4, 2021 11:45 am

Let’s just charge the traitors with sedition. 🙂

RiHo08
February 3, 2021 7:24 pm

The Paris Accord, engaged in by many including our President at the time: Barak Obama, performed in the elaborate Kabuki Theater: “Kabuki (歌舞伎)is a classical Japanesedancedrama. Kabuki theatre is known for the stylization of its drama, the often-glamorous costumes worn by performers, and for the elaborate kumadori make-up worn by some of its performers.”(Wikipedia)

Hardly a day goes by that some performer doesn’t enact some ritual climate death spiral for the adoring believes and media. Of course, all this theatrics is in the name of performance art. Some are well regarded by their virtue waving in such a spectacle.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  RiHo08
February 3, 2021 8:57 pm

The thing is, they use that Kabuki theater as their public face, their artifice, to sell the coming destruction of middle America to a dumbed-down public.

Last edited 4 months ago by joelobryan
Mr.
February 3, 2021 7:31 pm

Remember the Copenhagen CoP gabfest back in 2009, when delegates almost came to blows over what the Chinese would or wouldn’t nominate as their CO2 reductions pledge?

As it predictably turned out, didn’t matter one jot what ANY of the countries promised, because (iirc), only the USA and Australia managed to reduce their rates of emissions at all.

And still the bullshit continues . . .

How can any honest media outlets not be intrigued enough to revisit this perfidy?

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Mr.
February 3, 2021 9:07 pm

Fortunately, and by every measure, Copenhagen was a dismal failure. We dodged a poorly aimed Chinese bullet. The UNFCCC learned, the elitists learned. And then they doubled down their efforts with the globalist, billionaire-wannabe Obama as US President for COP21.

The jury is still out on Paris. The Paris Agreement was never meant to be anything but the beginning of redistribution platform to build upon. Voluntary INDCs were and still are unachievable because if a European Union (including UK as it was in then) nation or the US or Japan or Australia or NZ actually achieves them, their economies WILL be hollowed out. As Germany is finding out, achieving Paris INDCs without those consequences is impossible.

Joe’s globalist puppet masters plan on using Paris, just as Obama intended, to be the public face of why the West must be forced to shrivel whilst China roars, oil soars, and the Russian bear reawakens with new money.

niceguy
February 3, 2021 7:58 pm

Don’t show that glorious Eiffel tower photo. Show the daylight, drone footage taken during fête du 14 juillet. Close ups showing the metal all rusty and ugly.

niceguy
Reply to  Eric Worrall
February 4, 2021 12:16 am

There is now a bizarre gun proof 65 mm glass protection around it. I really really can’t see the point of gun proofing a touristic place. What’s the threat model?

It only costs 35 millions so…

Sweet Old Bob
Reply to  niceguy
February 4, 2021 8:11 am

“Close ups showing the metal all rusty and ugly. ”
Maybe because a military couple I know, along with their Doberman ,(they were stationed in Germany) , visited the Eiffel tower …..
where the (male) Dobe promptly hiked his leg and claimed the tower for himself….

😉

Robert of Texas
February 3, 2021 8:15 pm

The first smart thing I have seen from the French in a long time…Ignore the Paris Accord.

MarkW
Reply to  Robert of Texas
February 4, 2021 6:53 am

Perhaps they are just surrendering to climate change?

Rory Forbes
February 3, 2021 9:09 pm

– if I have understood this court ruling correctly, turns out the champion of the Paris Agreement, President Macron of France, is a total climate hypocrite.

That’s true … but like most other leaders who virtue signal about the “climate crisis”, they are climate illiterates. What’s more, the majority are also science challenged.

Graemethecat
Reply to  Rory Forbes
February 4, 2021 3:44 am

The sole exception to your rule is the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party. The majority of the Politburo’s members have hard Science or Engineering qualifications, and are therefore numerate, unlike boobies such as John Kerry. They understand perfectly well that CAGW is utter drivel, but are only too happy to sell windmills and solar panels to credulous Western governments.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Graemethecat
February 4, 2021 9:47 am

They understand perfectly well that CAGW is utter drivel,

After nearly 40 years of following the bouncing ball of this madness, I’m inclined to say that ‘C’AGW is just more equivocation, like “climate change”. The “C” isn’t necessary. There might be some human contribution, but generally there’s no “A” in global warming either.

Last edited 4 months ago by Rory Forbes
Greg
February 3, 2021 9:32 pm

What a surprise – if I have understood this court ruling correctly, turns out the champion of the Paris Agreement, President Macron of France, is a total climate hypocrite.

Perhaps the Paris Agreement was always just a vehicle for virtue signalling politicians to pretend they care.

So are you with GreenPiece France and the other NGOs calling for the french state to apply these stupid “targets”?

I’m quite happy that the european govts. have other priorities than these stupid “accords” and are not meeting them.

The main issue here is that the courts are starting to accept the faked scientific claims based of rigged and non validated computer models and NGOs are trying to force govt. to act on these non binding “targets”.

I’d much rather WUWT was attacking that rather than yahbooing Macron just for the sake of it.

I’m much more concerned about Macron running the country under a state of emergency from behind closed doors in a secret committee which maintains no minutes and even the list of attendees is classified as top secret information. He or his prime minister pops up every couple of weeks to announce the latest decrees.

That is worryingly close to martial law.

I really don’t give a swat whether his being “hypocritical” about climate.

Last edited 4 months ago by Greg
DMacKenzie
February 3, 2021 10:29 pm

The large fine for compliance failure was paid by a cheque from the French treasury department payable to the French treasury department. Claimants thought it should have been twice as high to get more media coverage. /s

Tom Abbott
Reply to  DMacKenzie
February 4, 2021 11:49 am

“The large fine for compliance failure was paid by a cheque from the French treasury department payable to the French treasury department.”

That’s funny! 🙂

Iain Reid
February 3, 2021 11:24 pm

This extract from the article :- “In its ruling, the Paris administrative court recognized ecological damage linked to climate change and held the French state responsible for failing to fully meet its goals in reducing greenhouse gases.”

This means that the court accepts the hypothesis that man made CO2 is responsible for climate change.and that we can affect that by reducing emissions.

This seems to be general with all law suits of this nature, but surely all cases fall down on the simple basis that guilt has to be proved and as this is not the case with the AGW contention then courts should not waste their time on any such cases and not accept them for trial?

Climate believer
Reply to  Eric Worrall
February 4, 2021 3:08 am

One important thing to understand in this French Eco political war, is that ‘the Water Melon Greens’ are feeling really emboldened at the moment against a very weak government that is floundering from one bad decision to the next.

Several ex-members of the government are even part of the plaintiff group.

These people are attacking everything they can hang a “climate” label on, and they have ambition.

The fallacious French politicians, as you mention Eric, are on their “politically correct” back foot, which is always funny, but inevitably means more bad decisions will be made and people will suffer.

Macron finds himself in an uncomfortable bed of Green, Red, and Yellow vests, his mismanagement of the China Flu has him hated by nearly everybody too.

This judgement is only symbolic, but it’s game on for the religion of Alarmists™.

Matthew Sykes
February 4, 2021 1:29 am

No politician really takes CAGW seriously. They make a few token gestures to keep the eco-nazis happy, but thats all.

William Haas
February 4, 2021 1:36 am

Hence the French should be delisted from the accord. However, since a power plant in Denmark has been using wood for fuel instead of fossil fuels all of the world’s climate and weather problems have been solved for now and for all time so it really does not matter. Extreme weather events will never happen again ever and the climate will always be perfect everywhere and for all time.

Josie
February 4, 2021 3:39 am

The Paris “agreement” leads to States paying fines to themselves. Very practical.

Joseph Zorzin
February 4, 2021 3:41 am
niceguy
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
February 4, 2021 5:36 pm

When Sarkozy was in power, no plants were closed, by he did nothing to make nuclear more economic. That would have taken real courage, and Sarkozy was not an ideologically courageous person.

The real issue is the radiation danger hoax. Few people know that radiation are trivially carcinogenic except at a huge dose; the people who get those huge doses typically are

  • cancer patients
  • people entering a working particule accelerator
  • people stealing and opening a medical radiation machine in Brazil
  • people putting out a fire inferno that used to be a nuclear reactor

Note the huge different in media treatment of the last two, one of those even being called “an incident”.

dennisambler
February 4, 2021 4:14 am

“What is the point of President Biden rejoining the Paris Accord,”

The Paris Accord is a legally binding Treaty according to the UN and therefore requires a two thirds majority in the Senate:

United Nations

https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement/the-paris-agreement
“The Paris Agreement is a legally binding international treaty on climate change. It was adopted by 196 Parties at COP 21 in Paris, on 12 December 2015 and entered into force on 4 November 2016.”

US Constitution
“The Constitution provides that 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” (Article II, section 2).

The Constitution’s framers gave the Senate a share of the treaty power in order to give the president the benefit of the Senate’s advice and counsel, check presidential power, and safeguard the sovereignty of the states by giving each state an equal vote in the treaty-making process.

As Alexander Hamilton explained in The Federalist, No. 75, “The operation of treaties as laws, plead strongly for the participation of the whole or a portion of the legislative body in the office of making them.”

The constitutional requirement that the Senate approve a treaty with a two-thirds vote means that successful treaties must gain support that overcomes partisan division.” 

2hotel9
February 4, 2021 4:47 am

Its ok, once Faux Joe starts sending France all our tax dollars they will be able to meet their obligations.

Bruce Cobb
February 4, 2021 5:22 am

You just need to understand the roolz of the Climate Game™, which are that all countries get to pretend (or not) however much they like, to “address climate change” except the US. The US is supposed to be “leading” the rest of the world on “climate change”. While everyone else is supposed to pretend to grab for the restaurant check, we’re the ones who are supposed to actually grab it. Now, Oxfaux, Greedpiss, and others are breaking the roolz by calling out France. Tut-tut. But they have their own money-making agendas, so throwing France under the bus is no skin off their noses.

Paul C
February 4, 2021 5:28 am

Whilst very tempting (as an Englishman) to criticise the French, their electricity production being based on Nuclear has historically had a relatively low plant food output. Reduction from a historically low level is far more difficult. Perhaps this criticism from the courts will push them to accelerate their Nuclear renewal programme. Their Nuclear plants perform load following, but that response will not cope with the destabilisation by the increasing introduction of unreliables to the mix. That will have necessitated using gas turbines to smooth out the intermittency, so pushing up the use of fossil fuels, reducing efficiency, and stability. The Paris accord is so flawed that it is worse than useless – at least in its STATED aims.

ResourceGuy
February 4, 2021 5:33 am

The French have a long history of cheating international agreements and embargos so a loose climate agreement is easy. The Germans on the other hand got lazy with their VW cheat software.

eyesonu
February 4, 2021 5:35 am

I want to sue President Macron of France for not complying with the Paris Agreement because I have to cut my grass more often!

Laurence Zensinger
February 4, 2021 6:39 am

After Macron attempted to raise gasoline prices, in order to reduce emissions, and he was met with nationwide resistance in the form of the “yellow vests” I believe he has lost some of his enthusiasm for further diminishing people’s rights and increasing costs for average workers in the name of reducing CO2. So why isn’t he getting any credit for shutting down France’s nuclear energy program? Wait a minute–could that be the reason.

Gordon A. Dressler
February 4, 2021 7:28 am

I’ve asked this before, but it’s worth asking again in light of the news given in the article above:

Is the penalty for France (or any other nation, for that matter) failing to meet “committed goals” made under the Paris Accord, one of the following:
— Will each person in the nation have to write out 1000 lines of “Ooops, we should have tried harder”?
— Will each taxpayer in the nation have to fork over an additional $30,000 (USD) in taxes as a penalty?
— Will all of its citizens turn into pumpkins?
— Will any housing unit or business/factory location found to still be using fossil fuel energy in 2025 automatically be forfeited to the State?
— Will the government squads come around at midnight to take away the firstborn male in each family?
— Or will it be something else that is meaningful?

Jeffery P
February 4, 2021 7:35 am

Trump really should have sent the Paris Climate Agreement to the senate for ratification as a treaty, knowing full-well it would have been rejected. This would have left us on stronger ground to oppose the Green New Deal and other climate scams.

George Daddis
February 4, 2021 7:48 am

The lesson to me is that a nation who joins the “Accord” becomes subject to legal actions from activist groups in their country if they can identify an area where the nation is not acting to the letter of the “Accord”. (Recent events have shown the argument does not have to be logical, “data driven” or “science based”, despite words to the contrary from Biden.)

Expect “violation of the Paris Accords” to be a prominent part of the activist suits against fossil fuel companies and the basis of “Sue and Settle” actions with Richard Windsor Gina McCarthy who developed this tool to a fine art!

Andy Pattullo
February 4, 2021 8:04 am

As long as leaders create a perceived obligation, or even a promise to control the weather they will hold the door wide open to litigation over their failure to do so.

observa
February 4, 2021 8:06 am

Have the French people organized the class action against the Gummint for this yet? Are the Gang of Four putting up the equity funding or relying on carbon credit? Stay tuned folks to the burning issue of our times.

menace
February 4, 2021 9:19 am

“But Oxfam France, Greenpeace France and two other organizations say Macron’s lobbying for global climate action is not backed up by sufficient domestic measures to curb emissions blamed for global warming.”

I thought Oxfam was a “feed the poor” charity? That’s basically what their charter says.

Why would they possibly want to oppose putting more CO2 into the air when it is an undeniable fact that CO2 helps crops grow faster and more bountiful? How do they justify under their charter the action and the expenses of suing the French government?

Do not give to Oxfam!

menace
Reply to  menace
February 4, 2021 9:26 am

Interesting, on the top level, Oxfam says

Oxfam is a confederation of 20 independent charitable organizations focusing on the alleviation of global poverty, founded in 1942 and led by Oxfam International.

But if you dig into details (what we believe)…

The way we see it, poverty is solvable—A problem rooted in injustice. Eliminate injustice and you can eliminate poverty.

So fighting poverty is not about providing food and shelter to the poor it is about social justice.

ResourceGuy
February 4, 2021 9:50 am

All the climate fraud will take decades to uncover and prosecute. Take for example the climate cheerleader-for-hire McKinsey Consulting. They are just now paying up to settle the lawsuits over their opioid cheerleading efforts to the tune of $580 million to the state governments that paid for the opioids in Medicaid billings.

ResourceGuy
February 6, 2021 11:54 am

But, but they paid for American climate scientists to move there during the Trump years in a highly publicized action.

Of course it fell into the category of greenwashing like the Vatican, Mckinsey Consultants, and countless others.

%d bloggers like this: