Essay by Eric Worrall
On the 10th anniversary of the Paris Agreement, The Union of Concerned Scientists are concerned fossil fuel use is not falling.
Paris Agreement Turns 10, an Uplifting and Sobering Anniversary
December 12, 2025 | 10:10 am
Rachel Cleetus
Policy DirectorToday marks the 10th anniversary of the adoption of the Paris Agreement, a landmark global climate agreement that has demonstrably and powerfully helped focus global attention on climate action. It’s a sobering time to mark this day, though, because the trajectory of global heat-trapping emissions remains stubbornly, perilously high, and scientists confirm that the world is on track to overshoot 1.5°C of warming by the early 2030s. Meanwhile, the Trump administration has pulled the US out of the agreement yet again, the only country that has shamefully exited it (twice!)
…
Tackling climate change requires rapidly scaling up clean technologies and practices AND simultaneously phasing out fossil fuels. Both/and. Cheap renewable energy is already expanding rapidly across the world, and we have to accelerate that momentum. But there is no credible pathway of meeting climate goals without also advancing a fast, fair transition away from fossil fuels.
…
I’m sometimes asked if the current dire reality of the climate crisis proves that the Paris Agreement has failed. No, I don’t think so at all. …
The monumental failure here is that world leaders, especially those from richer countries, have reneged on the promises they made under the Paris Agreement. They have allowed fossil fuel interests to continue to dictate the world’s energy policies. They have ignored their obligations to poorer, less well-resourced countries. And they may have given lip service to science and the importance of the 1.5°C target, but they are actively undermining it in practice by continuing to expand fossil fuel production.
…
Read more: https://blog.ucs.org/rachel-cleetus/paris-agreement-turns-10-an-uplifting-and-sobering-anniversary/
So let’s see if I’ve got this right.
The Paris agreement hasn’t failed, it’s just world leaders have reneged on their obligations.
Renewables are scaling up, but we also have to reduce fossil fuel use.
The things these people believe.
The reason world leaders are ignoring their obligations under the Paris Agreement is because the Paris Agreement has failed.
The reason fossil fuel use is not dropping significantly despite the rollout of renewables is that renewables are not capable of replacing fossil fuel use.
I guess we can call this the denial phase of the five stages of grief. The next few years are going to be interesting, as greens finally accept they have lost.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“Cheap renewable energy is rapidly expanding etc. ….. .”
Link to the “cheap” energy please. I clicked on the red link but could’t find any properly costed cheap systems.
Very “cheap” frequently here in Cali midday on moderate temperature days, negative value and dropping. Meanwhile, this week Diablo Canyon nuclear received a 25-year license extension.
Cost Comparison for Diablo Canyon vs Solar + Storage vs CCGT
Extending Diablo Canyon’s license for 25 years costs about $1.4 billion, producing roughly 18,000 GWh/year. Spread over 25 years, that’s 450,000 GWh, making the capital cost only 0.31¢/kWh. Add nuclear fuel and O&M (~3.2¢/kWh), and the total is about 3.5¢/kWh.
To match that output with solar at 25% capacity factor and 40 hours of battery storage at $500/kWh, you’d need 4 GW of solar plus 160 GWh of storage, costing about $84 billion. Over 25 years, that’s 18.6¢/kWh for capital plus ~1¢ for O&M, totaling ~19.6¢/kWh.
A new combined-cycle gas plant running at 67% CF would cost about $3.06 billion in capital (0.68¢/kWh) plus fuel and O&M (~3.4¢/kWh assuming gas at $5/mcf — currently under $3/mcf), for a total of ~4.1¢/kWh.
Bottom line: Diablo Canyon extension ≈ 3.5¢/kWh, CCGT ≈ 4.1¢/kWh, Solar + 40h storage ≈ 19.6¢/kWh. Nuclear wins on cost and reliability by a huge margin.
Send this comment to Gov. Gavin N. and the Editor of the Los Angeles Times newspaper.
What good do you imagine that would do?
You have to believe that they will take notice and start to change their minds.
That would require a change in religion.
“Cheap renewable energy is rapidly expanding etc.- if one adds reliable to the this it would make more sense.
“The reason fossil fuel use is not dropping significantly despite the rollout of renewables is that renewables are not capable of replacing fossil fuel use.” Amen …. and you can add to that …. renewables are expensive and the people end up paying for them, over, and over.
This indicates that while most of the world is figuring out renewables are unfit for purpose, most climate scientists cannot. Leads one to be believe they are stupid. Other than preacher or truck driver, what kind of job can they expect to find after this career becomes a dead end? Who would want to hire someone who can’t see the obvious?
BTW, becoming a licensed truck driver in the US (not including Kalifornia) requires skill, an understanding of road safety, and knowledge of vehicle systems and their maintenance, all demonstrated through written, oral, and driving tests. I don’t think most climate astrologers could meet those requirements.
“Climate Astrologist” – I like that.
Madam Zelda has a special Crystal Ball for your Christmas Climate Forecasts on sale for $9.95 (plus tax) per session.
Climate Hypocrites.
funny how their opinion always conforms with who is funding their “studies “
Don’t forget. Here in the U.S. they should also be able to read road signs in English:<)
Oh, should I worry like these unionized “Concerned Scientists” say?
I have carefully quantified the maximum influence of the Paris Agreement on “warming” or on any trend of climate variables, in the proper context of dynamic energy conversion within the general circulation.
It’s a fraction of the thickness of the index mark at “0” on this plot. Not making this up. The modelers know this, which means eventually this will all have to come out. It explains why the “climate action” movement opposing fossil fuels was based on a misconception all along.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1knv0YdUyIgyR9Mwk3jGJwccIGHv38J33/view?usp=drive_link
Thank you for your patience in this matter.
P.S. In 1938, before computer models, the concerned meteorological experts already knew why attribution of a reported warming trend to the incremental IR absorbing power of rising CO2 was not plausible, considering the nature of the circulation.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2025/04/06/open-thread-138/#comment-4058322
The kinetic energy of winds above every square meter of surface….CAUSED BY convection, evaporation, uneven surface warming, and Coriolis forces acting on low and high pressure areas…a large fraction of which is dissipated each nighttime and “re-energized” during daytime….is SO LARGE in comparison to CO2 forcing of a few watts per CO2 doubling…..one can only assume that these concerned scientists are completely context deficient…must be “raindrops-mean-the-sky-is-falling” types.
Agreed – “context deficient” is a good way to put it.
Story tip
Interview with Dr. Mische on gas prices in California
UCS – perhaps the biggest package of lies I have ever heard
The Paris Agreement is/was based on a false premise. A hypothesis of many climate scientists is that water vapor increase is feedback from warming caused by CO2 increase. The observation is that, for about a decade, accurately measured average global water vapor increase rate has substantially exceeded the maximum possible water vapor increase rate, determined using the Clausius-Clapeyron relation, from just planet warming. This demonstrates that the hypothesis is false. CO2 increase (burning fossil fuels) cannot be a significant cause of planet warming.
If you click on the chart, it will expand and become clear. Click on the “X” in the circle to return to comment text.
An important natural process for transporting water vapor into the atmosphere from the oceans and surface waters is the wind. A portion of the water vapor will become clouds. On land transpiration by plants releases lots of water vapor into the air as do wildfires. In the corn fields in the summer, there is a phenomena known “corn sweat” which increases the RH in the area around the fields.
Metabolism of food by animals ranging from mites to elephants produces large amounts of water and carbon dioxide which is exhaled.
The positive water feedback process is nonsense because carbon dioxide can not cause any heating of the air. Presently, one cubic meter of air at 21° C and 70% RH has mass 1,200 kg and contains 14.3 g of water and a mere 0.78 g of CO2. This small amount of carbon dioxide can have no effect on weather and climate. In winter carbon dioxide hibernates.
Keep in mind that 71% of the earth’s surface is covered with water and we really do not have worry about carbon dioxide.
The Union of Complete Simpletons.
You can’t say that – real simpletons will feel slighted being compared to ignorant and gullible pseudoscientists. Your average simpleton readily accepts reality.
“The Paris agreement hasn’t failed, it’s just world leaders have reneged on their obligations.”
They basically say the same thing about socialism. It’s never socialism’s fault. It’s our fault for not cooperating with being raped.
They will move on to their next grift
Obviously the Union of Concerned Scientists should have stuck to their original charter instead of “following the money” to insert themselves on the alarmist side of AGW/CAGW.
“The organization’s founding document says it was formed to ‘initiate a critical and continuing examination of governmental policy in areas where science and technology are of actual or potential significance’ and to ‘devise means for turning research applications away from the present emphasis on military technology toward the solution of pressing environmental and social problems’.”
— https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_of_Concerned_Scientists
Key phrase: “in areas where science and technology are of actual or potential significance”. That would not be, ummmmmm, climate change™ . . . especially viewed as a “pressing environmental and social problem“.
However, there is no net loss to mankind from them now circling the toilet bowl.
These guys are liars. If wind and solar were cheap they wouldn’t need subsidies, tax preference, grid preference, guaranteed price, 24/7 backup, they wouldn’t need government to force their completion out of business, price for electricity wouldn’t have skyrocketed while wind and solar are expanding, they wouldn’t have to cheat on environmental assessments and on and on. Wind and solar don’t work they are expensive everybody knows this.
Most of the conclusions and statements made by the UCS are actually laughable since the gurus in the organization can’t see the forest for the trees. For starters, what “cheap renewable energy” are they talking about? If such exists, it’s certainly not on this planet; and if it were, it would have been extensively adopted already. And if world leaders have reneged on their obligations to poor countries, it’s because they know their citizens wouldn’t appreciate one bit their tax dollars being sent to countries with bad records of utilizing foreign aid. In addition, if fossil fuel use keeps expanding, it’s due to the fact that it provides a relatively cheap and definitely reliable energy source unlike sporadic renewables, which currently continue to be supplementary power at best and certainly not in any primary category. As well, the overwhelming majority of the global population, as polls show, don’t consider any form of serious climate action necessary to begin with and certainly don’t intend to make any major lifestyle changes to assist the process. So the UCS claims are nothing but variations of the wishful thinking that the climate alarmist crowd tends to consistently fall back on when they’re faced with facts that refute their claims.
Those poor in Africa that cook using dried dung definitely want climate change. The want to rid their homes of pollution by having electricity or hydrocarbon fuels to cook with and heat and light…. and maybe a better dwelling and food… and….
“…The monumental failure here is that world leaders, especially those from richer countries, have reneged on the promises they made under the Paris Agreement…”
What??!! Politicians not keeping their promises??? I’m Shocked. SHOCKED I tell you!
Thank God that their propensity to lie worked in our favor for a change.
Can these eminent scientists tell us how we will know when “climate change” has been “tackled”? Will we have no more extreme weather events ever again?
What fantasy world are these “people” living in?
Still waiting for the definition of optimum climate in terms of measurable, testable metrics.
How do we know we are not moving towards the climate optimum if it is not drefined?
The image used is very apt. ‘Fossil’ fuels are used for much more than running engines. Oil is literally woven into the fabric of society. Take it away and society and industry will be laid bare. CO2 isn’t a poison gas, it’s plant food. Commercial greenhouses use it all the time to improve yield. This COP claptrap wants us all to believe that less CO2 is better for the planet when historical records prove otherwise. The belief in their NWO doctrine caused them to build a road to the COP event through pristine rain forest. The hypocrisy was lost on those attending but not on those watching.
I am still puzzled with “climate pollutant.” How can a statistical average be polluted? I suppose by altering the data, but not by CO2 or anything else that is physical.
Notice, they abhor human flourishing. They are very concerned about whatever it takes to prohibit it.