The Paris Climate Agreement turns ten this month. But COP21’s outcome — in which 195 countries pledged to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions to achieve a global temperature outcome — is in serious peril. COP30, now in session, finds almost all signatories out of compliance with their “nationally determined contributions.” Major emitters such as the United States and Russia are not participating in the annual meeting either. How much longer can “Net Zero” and like UN global aspirations continue?
Specifically, only one of the 40 major reporting groups (accounting for 85% of global emissions) is on track, and most of the rest have not even submitted a target. “This lack of progress is deeply concerning,” Climate Action Tracker reported, citing a need to “step up mitigation efforts and avoid weakening targets by relying on offsets and sinks….”
The U.S. is rated “critically insufficient,” joining Russia, Saudi Arabia, Argentina, and six others. Canada, China, India, Argentina, and three others are “highly insufficient,” and the trend is negative for virtually all countries with growing economies.
Little Surprise
Like the Kyoto Protocol of 1997, the Paris Climate Accords were destined for failure. James Hansen, the father of the global warming alarm with his 1988 Congressional testimony, predicted as much. The 2015 agreement, he said at the time, is “a fraud really, a fake.”
It’s just bullshit for them to say: ‘We’ll have a 2°C warming target and then try to do a little better every five years.’ It’s just worthless words. There is no action, just promises. As long as fossil fuels appear to be the cheapest fuels out there, they will be continued to be burned.
What was a photo-op, in retrospect, was negated by superior, consumer-chosen, taxpayer-neutral energies. Should this be surprising?
“Clean” Energy Focus?
At COP30, “clean” energy is in, and emissions targets are out. James Hansen has offered a realistic opinion here as well: “Suggesting that renewables will let us phase rapidly off fossil fuels in the United States, China, India, or the world as a whole is almost the equivalent of believing in the Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy.”
China is the new role model with “clean” energy, from renewables to vehicle electrification. But why emulate a centrally planned economy that loses money at the expense of its citizens? China depends on fossil fuels for 87% of its energy usage, in any case.
At best, China is “greenwashing” its coal boom. Coal, after all, the world’s leading source of electrical generation, is powering China’s drive to ‘clean’ energy.
Politics
Climate activism starts and ends with politics, which introduces government failure in the quest to address alleged market failure. Hansen had some choice words here, too.
Big Green consists of several “environmental” organizations, including Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) and National Resources Defense Council (NRDC), each with $100+M budgets, each springing from high-minded useful beginnings, each with more high-priced lawyers than you can shake a stick at. EDF …was chief architect of the disastrous Kyoto lemon. NRDC proudly claims credit for Obama’s EPA strategy and foolishly allows it to migrate to Paris.
Compare this to the Grassroots Green movement blocking wind, solar, and battery projects (1,126 and counting) that create blight and lower property values. Will ecologists belatedly stand up against industrial wind, solar, and batteries — and the Climate Industrial Complex writ large?
Conclusion
It is past time to get realistic and repeal the Paris Agreement and Net Zero. The path forward under any climate scenario is adaptation, where the best energies and societal wealth anticipate, ameliorate, and recover from weather extremes. The last word belongs to Alex Epstein, who stated in The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels:
The popular climate discussion … looks at man as a destructive force for climate livability … because we use fossil fuels. In fact, the truth is the exact opposite; we don’t take a safe climate and make it dangerous; we take a dangerous climate and make it safe. High-energy civilization, not climate, is the driver of climate livability.
Originally posted at the Institute for Energy Research
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
My emphasis. It’s a telling subterfuge….
Cheapest in every way but “fuel cost”. Wind and Solar MAY have ” Free Fuel” but you can’t order more when you run out…and you WILL run out.
Solar runs out of Free Fuel daily at 5pm and gets no more until it starts trickling in after 8am the next day…if you’re lucky.
Solar get less than half their usual Free Fuel supply in Winter and at higher latitudes.
Wind runs out of Free Fuel under blocking highs that last days to weeks for hundreds of hours uninterrupted.
Also Wind’s Free Fuel supply ceases to function below 9mph or above 55 mph.
Neither will guarantee you Fair Weather and Neither will function in Foul Weather.
Yesterday California solar averaged about 2.8 GW, about 18% of a bright sunny day. Up to this storm we had beautiful sunny fall days. But wind was mostly not there, in fact, it seems under 50% of a good day for most of the last 20 days.
Today’s Outlook | Supply | California ISO
For 11/15/’25: “natural gas” and “imports” carried the load. I was surprised at the amount of battery charging done in the early morning hours. (I look at CA and AEMO nightly at 10PM MST.)
AEMO | NEM data dashboard
In my country, coal and natural gas are FREE too. They’re owned by the government (the people) and we just pay someone manage their use, just like “free” wind and solar.
Actually solar and wind are not free in any meaningful sense unless you are growing plants or getting a tan. Coal, gas and oil are also free until you have to capture and convert it to usable energy. No such thing as a free lunch.
Never said Wind and Solar are free…just their fuel source…if you can convince the weather to supply it.
Other than their fuel they’re both
Ultra expensive
Acreage extensive
Mineral intensive
Concrete hungry
Short lived
Unrecyclable
Subsidy dependent
Part time weather dependent energy sources
They got Hansons warning and acted accordingly
as they do their best to make the extraordinary expensive renewables APPEAR cheaper than fossil fuels.
Typo Alert: ” Hansons” should be “Hansen’s”.
If you spot a typo after posting a comment or want to add more info to it, move the mouse pointer to lower right corner of the of the comment box. There will appear a small gear wheel. Click on it, and the “Management Comment” is displayed”. Click on it and “Edit” is displayed. Click on it and your comment is now displayed in light grey font. After making corrections, click on “Save”. You have five minute window for making corrections after posting a comment.
To put an exclamation point on James Hansen’s “a fraud, really, a fake”, analysis, it is being widely reported that Brazil cut down 100,000 trees to make room for activities, like parking vehicles, for COP30. The Amazon Basin Indigenous groups demonstrated against the whole Net Zero deal, and, you know, there’s nothing that says “Indigenous” like a feather headdress and blue jeans.
Brazil cut down 100,000 trees to build a highway that the COP attendees don’t even need and won’t use.
The Accommodations are in the Red Light District so they can WALK to Entertainment.
The Accommodations are just south of the venue so the new highway is unneeded to get there.
the Venue is just East of the Airport so you Can’t drive on the new highway to get there, in fact you need to drive past the venue just to get to the highway.
The Hundred Thousand Tree Highway sits farther East of the entire town and will never need to be used by COP attendees.
no the path forward is to keep providing the facts that show that man’s actions have no effect whatsoever on the climate and money spent trying to late the climate is a fool’s errand and wasted money
Story tip….
Top MIT scientist blasts ‘climate hysteria,’ says global warming fears are driven by money… not evidence | Daily Mail Online
The Daily Mail placed 79 cookies on my computer. Yuk.
Instead of going there, read this: {replace witch with CO2}
Witch trials in the early modern period – Wikipedia
CTRL/ALT/SHIFT “Delete Cookies”
Mmm! Cookies!
I make cookies with my now favorite legal ingredient. 🙂
Not into that.
Get yourself an ad/cookie blocker ASAP.
“It is past time to get realistic and repeal the Paris Agreement …”
I have no idea what it means to repeal this. It was negotiated by 196 parties (whatever that means) and often called a treaty. Countries (parties) can simply ignore it. Ancient galleys had multiple oarsmen per side that required a coxswain to synchronize the rowers’ efforts. In the case of the Paris Agreement rowers by the dozen have dropped out and few pay attention to the coxswain António Guterres.
The documents should be buried in one of Paris’ famous cemeteries.
Repealing the Paris agreement is a country by country thing. The US never ratified the agreement, Obama ever even tried as he knew it was a non starter so claimed we were going to follow it. Trump came along and said “Nope, not having anything to do with that!” and withdrew us. No one really talked about it because it was dead here in the US but I believe Biden put us back in so Trump said Nope a second time.
“The documents should be buried in one of Paris’ famous cemeteries.”
Or you could put it in the Louvre.. would be bound to disappear 😉
How about put it in Paris` famous sewers.
Yuh, in the area with contemporary art- also mostly trash.
Or even better, bring it to Washington DC, and have it dealt with by “Top Men”.
“The documents should be buried in one of Paris’ famous cemeteries.”
With a gravestone above it telling the full horrible story of green energy. For future generations.
We could end this all tomorrow with the truth and apologies from Hansen, Mann, and Obama. Since honesty is in short supply, the next best thing is financial crisis management in true believer countries offering token help in a land war in Europe. In other words, strong medicine is needed to make changes happen.
I do wish they’d make up their mind about Argentina though…
Either Argentina, like the US is “Critically Insufficient”
Or Argentina, like Canada is merely “Highly Insufficient”
Or is the author simply Highly Critical of Argentina?
I guess they don’t even know where Guyana is on the map.
I want my reparations payments from those responsible for the thermostat manipulation and opened window in the hearing room at the original Hansen testimony to the Congressional committee.
Coverage of “Global Warming” has been pushed from the daily news by AI and the acute need for power to run it.
From Copilot AI …
Key Forecasts for AI Power Demand
I don’t see data centers being powered by solar cells on the roof, windmills in the parking lots surrounded by stacks and stacks of batteries.
Nuclear maybe?
Maybe look some more….
Arkansas to build 600 MW solar project for Google’s $4B data center – pv magazine USA
600MW of solar would produce about 120MW of power. That isn’t even a drop in the bucket for Google, much less total needs of all companies. They are simply making a token gesture. I’m sure you read this paragraph in the same article: “Google recently came under scrutiny when the Canada’s National Observer discovered Google had quietly scrubbed its Sustainability website, which touted its pledge to achieve net-zero emissions across all operations by 2030 above the fold.”
Either that or are planning to only use the data centre for a maximum of 6-8 hours a day in summer, and 2-3 hours in winter. 😉
Just so you know that utility has two nuclear units on the other side of that state, two large aging coal plants, and one of the largest combined cycle gas plants in the country also in that state–it has its own gas pipeline feeding it across the border from Louisiana. That’s not even getting to the government-owned TVA power nearby.
So they’ll just turn off the data center at night. 🙂
Probably 4-5K acres?
“How AI Datacenters Eat the World”
From the third paragraph of the above article:
“The U.S. is rated “critically insufficient,” joining Russia, Saudi Arabia, Argentina, and six others. Canada, China, India, Argentina, and three others are “highly insufficient,” and the trend is negative for virtually all countries with growing economies.”
Hah! That part about China is comedy at it finest. The only possible reason for China to not be rated as “critically insufficient” is that the rating person/agency is indebted to, or has a great fear of offending, China.
Here is a link to some history of China’s “pledges” under the “nationally determined contribution” (NDC) that was voluntarily self-established by each country individually under the Paris Agreement:
https://www.carbonbrief.org/qa-what-does-chinas-new-paris-agreement-pledge-mean-for-climate-action.
In particular note, the headings and data presented in the table on that webpage. To wit:
China initially (2016) pledged an emissions target to peak CO2 “around 2030”, “making best efforts to peak early”, with an associated pledge of a reduction in CO2 emissions (compared to 2005) of 60-65% by 2030.
That NDC was revised in 2021 to peak CO2 “before 2030” and “achieve carbon neutrality before 2060”, with an associated pledge of a reduction in CO2 emissions (compared to 2005) by >65% by 2030.
However, it’s apparent that with only five years left before the end-of-2030 and the absurdity of such virtue signaling in the face of hard data showing absolutely no reductions in CO2 emissions over the last 10 years (see attached graph), China’s president Xi Jinping was forced to extensively soften China’s NDC.
According to the cited webpage, China’s new NDC was published on 3 November 2025, just two weeks ago, with the following summary: cut GHGs to 7-10% below peak levels by 2035 (note the additional five years added to the reference date), and no longer state a reduction of CO2 emissions (compared to 2005).
The website https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co-emissions-by-region provides an interactive graph that allows one to slide across calendar years to see absolute tons of CO2 emissions from both major individual nations and major geographical areas . . . a static image of its chart scaled horizontally for the years 2000–2024 is attached. Over the interval of just 2015 to 2024, China increased its emissions from 9.86 to 12.3 billion tons (a whopping 25% increase), India increased its emissions from 2.23 to 3.19 billion tons (a whopping 43% increase), Asia excluding China and India increased its emissions from 6.98 to 7.91 billion tons, and Africa increased its emissions from 1.34 to 1.50 billion tons. Meanwhile, over that same interval the United States decreased its emissions from 5.37 to 4.90 billion tons, and the European Union decreased its emissions from 3.09 to 2.43 billion tons.
Canada and Mexico, all of South America, and Europe excluding EU-27 were basically unchanging when looking at their annual CO2 emissions over that same time interval, so I’m scratching my head why anyone would claim any of them were rated as “critically insufficient” or even “highly insufficient”. I would lay the blame to GIGO on the part of the rating person/agency.
Well, at least China has the capacity to become flexible and alter their stance when reality commands it. They are pretty good at adapting. And they have a strong industrial base. 2 things the US and especially Europe lack..
It’s not so much that China is “adapting” as it is they had no real intention—let alone capability—of meeting their NDCs as pledged in 2016 and later in 2021.
I don’t have any problem whatsoever with calling a spade and spade.
As a Canadian, I am disappointed we only achieved ‘highly insufficient’. I guess our politicians are too busy vacationing in the caribbean to notice that we are 90% frozen tundra. We definitely need more than 2C of warming up here!!
Hillary said no to pipelines at the border and Canada said leave to Kinder Morgan.
Very sensible.
I’d like to see consumer surveys done in the countries whose climate-mitigation efforts are rated as inadequate to determine whether the citizens are mainly concerned about these shortcomings or about their countries’ economies and their own financial security. The odds would be overwhelming that the results would favor the latter sentiments, so only the alarmists and those who stand to profit from strong (and expensive and probably ineffectual) climate action would support them.
I sleep well at night with my nat. gas furnace and my R-410A AC unit. I grew up with nat. gas space heaters and no AC.
I do not have any moral issues with using them. I use gasoline burners V4, V6 and V8 engines.
I’d prefer diesel engines but they are way out of my price range.
Remember Rockefeller considered gasoline a waste product from making kerosene.
James Hansen, the father of the global warming alarm
Also the father of fake climate models. His computer model of the supposed evolution of Venus’s atmosphere, which is 96% carbon dioxide, inspired his religious devotion to the theory that its atmospheric heat (467 ⁰C) and pressure (93 times as dense a Earth’s, same as at 900 meters underwater on Earth) was caused by a “runaway greenhouse” effect, which has never been proven to have occurred. Hansen’s feverish imagination failed to register that Mars’s atmosphere, also 95% carbon dioxide, has apparently not suffered from a “runaway greenhouse” effect and is 2% as dense as Earth’s. I’d love to hear Hansen explain why carbon dioxide is a menace when Mars and Venus have an identical ratio, but completely different surface surface environments, and how he managed to extrapolate from the hellscape of Venus to the ideally hospitable surface of Earth with only 0.04% carbon dioxide. What a ludicrous leap of imagination.
Alex Epstein nailed it perfectly!
This right here explains the whole damned scam. “we don’t take a safe climate and make it dangerous; we take a dangerous climate and make it safe” Leftists look at the entire world ass-backwards.