Guest essay by Larry Hamlin
An article at Fox News by Liz Peek addresses a huge change in Biden’s April 28, 2021 Presidential Address to the Joint Session of Congress that was not contained in the speech distributed to the press before the speech. The speech transcript contains an additional phrase used by Biden acknowledging that U.S. emission reductions “don’t matter” as noted in the headline of the article.
The Fox article notes:
“This is what he said, according to a New York Times transcript of the president’s remarks: “The United States accounts, as all of you know, for less than 15 percent of carbon emissions. The rest of the world accounts for 85 percent. That’s why I kept my commitment to rejoin the Paris Accord, because if we do everything perfectly, it’s not going to matter.”
“It was a whopper that went unnoticed on Wednesday night; with just a few ill-chosen words Biden utterly toppled any justification for the Green New Deal, which plays a central role in his $2.3 trillion American Jobs Plan and which, without a doubt, puts our economy at risk.”
“And, for once in his life, Joe Biden was completely correct. Even if the Biden White House clobbers our economy, puts every last coal miner and oil driller out of work and drives down U.S. fossil fuel production and consumption, it will barely bend the curve on rising global emissions.”
“It is the rest of the world we must be concerned about. The EIA projects that between 2018 and 2050 emissions from non-OECD countries will grow 1% per year. China today accounts for 28% of global carbon output; India produces 7%. The U.S., as Biden accurately noted, contributes only 15%.”
China leads the world’s developing nations that control 65% of total global emissions (shown below at about 22 billion metric tons of CO2) with these nations having no interest or desire to follow the emission reduction economic suicide schemes being undertaken by the world’s developed nations including the U.S. Democratic Party proposal to reduce the country’s emissions by 50% below year 2005 levels by year 2030.
Regardless of what the U.S. and EU propose (the EU is proposing a 55% reduction in emissions by year 2030 from year 1990 levels) in emissions reductions the upward climb of global emissions will continue unabated. It should be noted that Germany by far the largest emissions entity of the EU by over a factor of two failed to achieve its year 2020 emissions reduction target.
The present world total emissions (shown below at about 34 billion metric tons of CO2) will increase by additional billions of metric tons by year 2030 even if the U.S. and EU spend many trillions of dollars and euros in economically destructive efforts pretending that they are saving the world from “climate change.”
During the period from 2007 to 2019 the U.S. has reduced emissions by over 900 million metric tons of CO2 primarily by using increased natural gas fuel to replace use of coal fuel with that change lowering energy costs and increasing energy efficiency. The EU has reduced emissions also by about 900 million metric tons of CO2 during this period primarily by mandated use of higher cost renewables that have left its electric rates as the highest in the world.
It was most appropriate of Biden to inject some “truth” into his speech by acknowledging the complete futility of his scheme mandating the U.S. to undertake costly and ineffective efforts regarding his year 2030 ridiculous emissions reduction proposal.
‘Climate change’ is not about the climate. They’re not hiding this from us.
People can focus on pointing out that human CO2 emissions aren’t wrecking the place, but they’re focussed on the wrong thing.
I sorta thought that “it won’t matter” meant that carbon has nothing to do with climate, just taxes and foreign tribute.
I remember not that long ago when at least some media would report and note such unbelievable ignorance as is being promulgated today (Green deal, Reset etc). All the media players are now ignoring the fact that we are sprinting off the economic cliff. I feel I must fight to the death to protect my children from the insanity of the political elites right now – notice I will not say the word leaders, because a real leader would not walk their own citizens to the front of the firing line for their own gain – only those unfit for office would do so.
We don’t have to take the New York Times’ word for it. It’s on the White House website:
Look, the climate crisis is not our fight alone; it’s a global fight. The United States accounts, as all of you know, less than 15 percent of carbon emissions. The rest of the world accounts for 85 percent. That’s why I kept my commitment to rejoin the Paris Accord — because if we do everything perfectly, it’s not going to ultimately matter.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2021/04/29/remarks-by-president-biden-in-address-to-a-joint-session-of-congress/
Now, if he would just admit that human emissions of CO2 DO NOT MATTER, either, he would be making real good sense, and the GND, as well as all the other “green” regulations and hysteria, could come to its well-deserved, overdue and ignominious end.
“Biden” and “truth” are rarely mentioned in the same sentence.
And for good reason…
Ridiculous article. Ridiculous comments. You all know he just means that all countries need to pull their weight in order to reach the temperature reduction goal and US needs to be in the Paris Agreement to ensure other countries do pull their weight.
I spend half my Twitter time debunking climate change, “cheaper than fossil fuel” solar and wind, misinterpretation of the Paris Agreement (which I could practically recite word-for-word), terrible lies propagated by MIT, Climate Interactive, and Climate Action Tracker used to mall Trump when he cited the “0.2°C” MIT study. Yes, I’m a sceptic, but if you believe in cc and believe emissions need to be cut equitably (however that’s calculated and assessed) you need to have negotiation and verification. The Paris Agreement was a pathetic patchwork of promises but it’s the only thing the believers have as a tool for cooperation. Therefore, Biden’s added statement is perfectly logical.
I detest the man, a race baiter of the highest order but I can see the logic in his added statement given his belief in cc and the ‘need’ for emission cuts.
You lot make my work more difficult by grasping at every apparent gaff and wilfully misinterpreting it. This comment thread reads just like the worst leftist echo chambers. There’s so much low hanging fruit out there to debunk and yet you tie yourselves up in knots to twist a (very rare) logical statement by Biden into a dumb gaff. This is why I never link any of the 99% of WUWT articles that are true and sound. It’s because the 1% like this one (and the echo chamber comments) that give WUWT a bad name in leftist circles.
You all need to grow up and stop gloating, snarking and trying to score points where there’s none to be had.
“…all countries need to pull their weight in order to reach the temperature reduction goal and US needs to be in the Paris Agreement to ensure other countries do pull their weight.”
What makes you think the US being in the Paris Agreement will have any effect at all on whether countries ‘pull their weight’.
All the evidence is it will have absolutely no effect.
You need to brush up on your reading comprehension skills. My comment made it clear that I think the Paris Agreement is well nigh useless but from the point of view of a believer it’s the only tool they have for compliance:
“ The Paris Agreement was a pathetic patchwork of promises but it’s the only thing the believers have as a tool for cooperation. Therefore, Biden’s added statement is perfectly logical.”
Your statement in bold is manifestly wrong because we know Europe, Canada, Australia etc are running their economies into the dust to comply with their ridiculously ambitious NDCs. This is directly as a result of agreeing those NDCs at Paris. So the Paris Agreement is already having an effect on emission reductions (as compared with what they would have been without such eye watering structures).
Obviously the glaring problem is that it’s developed countries cutting and developing countries that are shirking. That’s why the Paris Agreement is “a pathetic patchwork of promises”. But its overall effect is a global reduction in emissions, in comparison with what they would have been, however much we moan that China etc aren’t contributing.
Your shrill comment perfectly illustrates the point I was making: a knee-jerk rush to comment in a crude, partisan manner without carefully working through the points at issue (which I’ve clarified for you above). All it does is reverberate around the echo chamber and encourage yet more ill thought out replies.
“structures” should read “strictures”.
I no longer give believers the benefit of a doubt. I will not reward their virtue signaling. To accept their underlying premise that co2 is a problem and we need to do something about it, to them only confirms in their own minds that they are in the right, and so they continue on in their smug ignorance. After awhile their position can not be blamed on ignorance. The believer is either stupid or more likely mendacious. And that only deserves ridicule.
I agree. I’m laying into these people on Twitter all the time. They’re so disingenuous. What really gets me is when they use their own extensive knowledge of their own work to cherry pick data and at a stroke. That leaves me with hours of trawling through their work to get the full context, see the sleight of hand and roast them over it.
One of the worst was re Trump’s Paris Agreement speech and the “0.2C”. The MIT study he cited indeed did show that the Paris Agreement would have a 0.2°C effect (not 1°C as MIT said in a rebuttal that same night, to Trump’s 0.2°C statement).
Reuters phoned/emailed the two MIT *lead* authors of said study minutes after Trump’s speech. Neither could ‘remember’ any such study despite writing it one year earlier and citing the 0.2°C effect as a “Key Finding” on a page entitled “Key Findings”.
Instead, they furnished another study which modelled not just the Paris NDC pledges’ effect on emissions but also the effect of vaguely outlined aspirations on further cuts from 2030-50. Nothing to do with the pledges.
That study by one of those two authors of course showed a way better figure: a 1°C reduction. Reuters took this (i.e. took the bait) and published a take-down of Trump saying 0.2°C wasn’t ever mentioned by MIT. That story was syndicated round the world in minutes to hours. By midnight after the speech, Trump had been mauled on the 0.2°C by the entire World’s media.
Literally no one knows this. The two authors sloped off and were never disciplined. One even tweeted that evening soon after Reuters called:
https://twitter.com/erwan_monier/status/870617087567376385?s=21
Can you see how he inadvertently admits in the tweet that he knew Trump was quoting his actual research and not making it up after all? It seems he knew the exact study Reuters was asking about
It will be tough for the US and Europe to even hold CO2 emissions at the current levels, never mind cut them by 50%.
“A gaffe isn’t when a politician tells a whopper, but when he tells the truth.”
“…with just a few ill-chosen words Biden utterly toppled any justification for the Green New Deal.”
Oh, they’lll whiewash it and say he was just kidding, or something like that. They’re in such a scramble to buy votes to solidify their base that it’s likely they didn’t notice until it was in print.