The failure of the Paris Local weather Settlement – ​​James Hansen was proper – do you agree with that?

Robert L. Bradley, Jr.

The Paris Climate Agreement turns ten years old this month. But the outcome of COP21 – where 195 countries pledged to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions to achieve global temperature balance – is in serious jeopardy. COP30, currently in session, finds that almost all signatories are failing to meet their “nationally determined contributions”. Large emitters such as the USA and Russia also do not take part in the annual meeting. How long can “net zero” and similar UN global aspirations last?

Specifically, only one of the 40 major reporting groups (accounting for 85% of global emissions) is on track, and most others have not even presented a target. “This lack of progress is deeply concerning,” Climate Action Tracker reported, citing the need to “increase mitigation efforts and avoid weakening targets through the use of offsets and sinks…”.

The U.S. is rated “critically inadequate,” along with Russia, Saudi Arabia, Argentina and six others. Canada, China, India, Argentina and three others are “grossly inadequate,” and the trend is negative for virtually all countries with growing economies.

Little surprise

Like the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, the Paris climate accords were doomed to fail. James Hansen, who fathered the global warming alarm with his testimony before Congress in 1988, predicted this. The 2015 agreement was “actually a fraud, a forgery,” he said at the time.

It’s just nonsense when they say: “We’re going to have a 2°C warming target and then try to do a little better every five years.” They are simply worthless words. There are no measures, only promises. As long as fossil fuels appear to be the cheapest on the market, they will continue to be burned.

What was, in hindsight, a photo op was negated by superior, consumer-elected, tax-neutral forces. Should that be surprising?

Focus on “clean” energy?

At COP30, “clean” energy is the order of the day and emissions targets are out. James Hansen also expressed a realistic opinion here: “To claim that renewable energy will enable us in the United States, China, India or the world to quickly phase out fossil fuels is almost like believing in the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy.”

China is the new model for “clean” energy, from renewables to vehicle electrification. But why emulate a centrally planned economy that loses money at the expense of its citizens? China already relies on fossil fuels for 87% of its energy consumption.

At best, China is “greenwashing” its coal boom. Coal, ultimately the world’s leading source of electricity generation, is driving China’s pursuit of “clean” energy.

policy

Climate activism begins and ends with the policies that initiate the government’s failure to address alleged market failures. Hansen had some good words here too.

Big Green is comprised of several “environmental” organizations, including the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) and the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC), each with a budget of over $100 million, each growing from high-minded, utilitarian beginnings, and each with more high-priced lawyers than you can shake a stick at. EDF …was the chief architect of the disastrous Kyoto Lemon. NRDC proudly claims credit for Obama’s EPA strategy and foolishly moves it to Paris.

Compare this to the Grassroots Green movement, which blocks wind, solar and battery projects (1,126 and counting) that cause damage and reduce property values. Will ecologists belatedly take a stand against industrial wind, solar and battery industries – and the Climate Industrial Complex writ large?

Diploma

It’s high time to get realistic and repeal the Paris Agreement and Net Zero. The way forward in any climate scenario is adaptation, where the best energies and societal prosperity anticipate, mitigate and recover from weather extremes. The final word belongs to Alex Epstein, who stated in The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels:

The popular climate discussion… sees humans as a destructive force on the climate’s quality of life… because we use fossil fuels. In fact, the truth is just the opposite; We do not make a safe climate dangerous; We are making a dangerous climate safe. High-energy civilization, not the climate, is the driver of the quality of life in the climate.

Originally published at the Institute for Energy Research

Like this:

How Load…

Explore more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to receive the latest posts by email.