‘Is that green smoke we see above Notre Dame? That can only mean one thing – – we have a climate deal!’ – A Manufactured ‘Success’ in Paris
http://www.the-american-interest.com/2015/12/12/a-manufactured-success-in-paris/
World leaders can spin this however they like, but the real meaning of the Paris agreement is that the world is as far from adopting the kind of climate strategies greens want as ever.
Nobody is serious about this “agreement,” but the diplomats have agreed that a hollow facade of an agreement is preferable to the PR disaster that failure would have been. There will no doubt be many follow-ups, jet-setting conferences in many more attractive destinations, and climate diplomacy will continue to produce more greenhouse gasses than climate agreements block.
The agreement is a far cry from the binding international treaty eco-activists envisioned in the run-up to the summit. Instead, it is the codification of national pledges called Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) made by UN members.
Overall what came out of Paris was the diplomatic equivalent of a New Year’s resolution to go on a strict weight loss regime involving no more than six chocolate eclairs between meals.
Much as the last great Malthusian panics (the population bomb and peak oil) quietly fizzled out, the panicky, Chicken Little aspects of the green movement are likely to fade over time.
The Chinese are rich enough now to care about how filthy their air is; that will drive change more than anything that happens in Paris. Fracking has made natural gas cheaper and more reliable than coal in the United States. Online shopping is keeping people home from the malls, and more and more workers are working remotely. Down the road, more changes will come as the world shifts from a manufacturing economy based on metal bashing to an information and service economy. Technological change is also coming: self-driving cars, renewable energy that can actually compete with fossil fuels without generous government subsidies, genetically modified plants that don’t need fertilizer or pesticide, safe nuclear power. Always and everywhere, capitalism is pushing companies to produce more goods using fewer raw materials and energy, and generating less waste.
It’s also worth noting that the annual $100 billion climate fund, established with great fanfare in 2009’s failed Copenhagen summit as a way for the developed world to help the developing world cope with the effects of climate change, wasn’t exactly enshrined in “legally binding” language. From the relevant section (Article 9, paragraph 3):
As part of a global effort, developed country Parties should continue to take the lead in mobilizing climate …
Warmist Bill McKibben on Paris deal: ‘It won’t save the planet…it saves the chance of saving the planet’
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/climate-change-paris_566c2048e4b0e292150e169b…
Warmist George Monbiot: ‘I’m sorry to disappoint you, but the Paris deal is bullshit’
I doubt any of the negotiators believe that there will be no more than 1.5C of global warming as a result of these talks.
The real outcomes are likely to commit us to levels of climate breakdown that will be dangerous to all and lethal to some.
While earlier drafts specified dates and percentages, the final text aims only to “reach global peaking of greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible”. Which could mean anything and nothing.
The UN climate process has focused entirely on the consumption of fossil fuels, while ignoring their production.…
Nature Geoscience: ‘Climate change before the court’ – ‘Litigation could have an important role to play’
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo2612.html
Nature Geoscience (2015) doi:10.1038/ngeo2612
Published online 07 December 2015
In the absence of an enforceable set of commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, concerned citizens may want to supplement international agreements on climate change. We suggest that litigation could have an important role to play.
#
Climate change before the court
- Nature Geoscience
- doi:10.1038/ngeo2612
- Published online
In the absence of an enforceable set of commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, concerned citizens may want to supplement international agreements on climate change. We suggest that litigation could have an important role to play.