Climate Change

The Relentless March Toward a New Universal Agreement on Climate Change

Rich countries commit to total decarbonization of the global economy.

|

ParisCOP15
France

Earlier this week, President Barack Obama and the other leaders at the G7 meeting in Germany issued a declaration stating that the world's economy must be completely decarbonized by the end of this century. Otherwise, they worry, the continued burning of fossil fuels will boost global temperatures by more than 2°C, pushing man-made climate change into dangerous territory.

This fear is largely based on projections from computer models. It is of more than passing interest that most of the models are running much hotter than the actual temperature trends. Nevertheless, the G7 leaders committed their countries to the goal; and by 2050, they want global greenhouse gas emissions down to 40 to 70 percent below the levels emitted in 2010. They further affirmed their "strong determination" to adopt a legally binding agreement at the Climate Change Conference this December in Paris.

The leaders want all countries to submit their "intended nationally determined contributions" to the fight against climate change—their INDCs, in bureaucratic lingo—well in advance of the Paris conference. These are national plans for reducing greenhouse gas emissions after 2020. The goal is to have enough INDCs by the Paris meeting such that they are added up they are sufficient to be "in line with the global goal to hold the increase in global average temperature below 2°C."

As it happens, climate negotiators from scores of countries were also meeting this week in Bonn, Germany, trying to hammer out that legally binding agreement—in the words of the G7 statement, a "protocol, another legal instrument or an agreed outcome with legal force." Why the convoluted language? Because the negotiators all know that if the new agreement is a treaty, it will have to be submitted to the U.S. Senate for its advice and consent. As French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius explained earlier this month: "We must find a formula which is valuable for everybody and valuable for the U.S. without going to the Congress. We know the politics in the U.S. Whether we like it or not, if it comes to the Congress, they will refuse."

Earlier U.N. negotiations concocted a possible workaround for America's inconvenient climate change politics: If each country can come up with those INDCs, the Obama administration could perhaps artfully interpret the Paris agreement as not being an actual treaty. Instead, they would argue, it is simply an elaboration of already existing U.S. obligations to stabilize greenhouse gases under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

Some countries have already made their INDC pledges. Obama has promised to cut U.S. greenhouse gas emissions 17 percent from their 2005 levels by 2020, and then reduce them further by 26 to 28 percent by 2025. That's about a 14 to 17 percent reduction below 1990 levels. The European Union has committed to a binding target of an at least 40 percent domestic reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 compared to 1990. Russia intends to limit its greenhouse gas emissions to 70-75 percent of its 1990 levels by the year 2030. Since Russia's vast forests absorb a great deal of carbon dioxide it may only have to cut its actual emissions by 6 to 11 percent below 1990 levels.

China does not plan any emissions reductions, but intends to peak its carbon dioxide emissions by 2030. Canada's INDC, which includes a forest carbon absorption component, aims to reduce by 2030 its greenhouse gas emissions by 30 percent below its 2005 levels. According to calculations made by the non-governmental group Climate Action Tracker that translates to a 21 percent reduction below 2005 emissions levels excluding forestry, or 2 percent below 1990 levels. Japan's draft INDC contains a reduction target of 26 percent below 2013 emission levels by 2030 (equivalent to 18 percent below 1990 levels). Other big emitters, including Brazil, India, Indonesia, and Australia, have yet to submit their INDCs.

So would current INDC pledges achieve the U.N.'s goal of stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations "at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system"? At earlier climate meetings, negotiators agreed that the risk of dangerous interference with the climate becomes too great if global average temperature exceeds 2°C above the pre-industrial level. So far, global temperature has risen about 0.85°C above the pre-industrial level. In Bonn last week, U.N. climate researchers Andreas Fischlin and Zou Ji warned that "limiting global warming to below 2°C necessitates a radical transition…not merely a fine tuning of current trends."

As things stand, many climate scientists and environmental activists calculate that the current INDC pledges are far from sufficient for keeping the average temperature rise below 2°C. The United Nations Environment Programme calculated last year that the emissions reduction pathway implied by current INDCs means that global average surface warming would rise to 3.7 to 4.8°C above pre-industrial levels by 2100.

Last month British economist Nicholas Stern and his colleagues at the London School of Economics' Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment issued an analysis of the current INDC pledges. They report that in order for the world to maintain global temperatures below 2°C in 2100, we will have to emit the equivalent of between 32 and 44 gigatons of carbon dioxide. In 2014, the humanity emitted about 40 gigatons of greenhouse gases. Given the promised reductions and the expected increases in emissions from developing countries as their economies grow, projected global emissions will be the equivalent of 57 to 59 gigatons of carbon dioxide in 2030.

Stern and his colleagues currently project that the U.S., the E.U., and China will together emit 22 gigatons in 2030. If developing countries do not reduce their projected emissions of 35 gigatons, the only way for the world to meet the high-end goal of emitting only 44 gigatons in 2030 is for the U.S., the E.U. and China to cut their projected emissions extremely steeply—from 22 gigatons to just 9 gigatons. For reference, the U.S. alone emitted 6.7 gigatons in 2013.

At the conclusion of the Bonn climate negotiations yesterday, UNFCCC Executive Secretary Christiana Figueres announced that the world's states "are committed to reach an agreement that sets down the pathways and the supporting structures for a century-long transformation that allows all countries to reach a sustainable, clean energy future." Not everyone was so sanguine. Samantha Smith, leader of World Wildlife Fund's Global Climate and Energy Initiative, asserted: "Progress in Bonn has been slow, but a bigger concern is the growing gap between what is needed and what is being promised on finance and emissions. While much work remains to close that gap, there is hope that governments are finally committed to take more action on emissions prior to 2020."

Thus grind the gears as we move toward Paris and a new universal agreement on climate change.

NEXT: White House Trying to Save Trade Fast Track, NAACP Leader Outed as White, Shark Bites Teen in North Carolina: A.M. Links

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Hey, G7 dipshits:

    “Is that a subpoena in your wood chipper, or are you just happy to see me?”

    1. I have my eye on you.

        1. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go? to tech tab for work detail,,,,,,,

          ????????????? http://www.pay-buzz.com

      1. Who is this guy, Preek Bharara? I bet he got picked on a lot as a kid.

    2. You do know woodchippers use fossil fuel and chop tress ? You are worse than Hitler.

  2. So when do we break ground on the new nuclear plants?

    1. HAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA –

      *deeeeeeeeeeep breath*

      aaaaaaaaaaaAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!

    2. That will involve clearing a lot of trees. And that will require a lot of woodchippers.

      1. You know what I’ve learned recently – wood chippers aren’t that expesive.
        They’re not cheap. But they’re not out range of an oppressed-american, like myself, to save up a few bucks and chip a little wood on the weekend.
        http://www.homedepot.com/p/Bru…..5yc1vZbxbi
        Of course, you have to get something with 15, or more, hp… for bones.

        1. “wood chippers aren’t that expensive.”

          They are an investment. Into a better tomorrow.

          1. Only if used correctly, what do you have in mind?

        2. Of course, you have to get something with 15, or more, hp… for bones.

          I hear in the northeast the dumber the post the harder it is. Those need some serious woodchipping:

          http://www.morbark.com/equipme…..-chippers/

          For…trees.

    3. Memo, read it, you did not.

      Future is solar.

      1. *looks out window*

        Yep, it’s foggy again.

        1. Mother Nature – she a bitch

          1. You’re a misogynist! /prog

      2. That gives me an idea. What they should do is create some regulations for the Sun. That’s really the source of all of the climate problems. Seems awfully wasteful to mess around with fiddly little earth-bound regulations when you could go right to the source.

        1. Giant Ray ban?

    4. The second the nuclear industry begins pouring money into the GOP/DEM warchests.

  3. “[…]They further affirmed their “strong determination” to adopt a legally binding agreement at the Climate Change Conference this December in Paris.[…]”

    Since the US recognizes no supra-national government, how can any agreement be legally binding?
    BTW, I mean government which has coercive powers of enforcement, not the UN ‘government’.

    1. That’s the needle Obama is trying to thread.

      I’m pretty sure it can be either legally binding on the US, or not approved by Congress, but not both.

      How Obama will dodge this, is by having the EPA adopt the international agreement as a regulation. Mark my words.

      1. If ever an enemy of the Progressive Theocracy is in power again, wouldn’t he be able to put his cronies in power and have them rewrite all such “regulations”.

        I’m hoping the next President adds *all* Americans to the list of those exempt from Obamacare regulations.

  4. As it happens, climate negotiators from scores of countries were also meeting this week in Bonn, Germany, trying to hammer out that legally binding agreement?in the words of the G7 statement, a “protocol, another legal instrument or an agreed outcome with legal force.” Why the convoluted language? Because the negotiators all know that if the new agreement is a treaty, it will have to be submitted to the U.S. Senate for its advice and consent. As French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius explained earlier this month: “We must find a formula which is valuable for everybody and valuable for the U.S. without going to the Congress. We know the politics in the U.S. Whether we like it or not, if it comes to the Congress, they will refuse.”

    Lawyers, assemble!

    Is there any SCOTUS case law that distinguishes between treaties and “legally binding agreements” between the United States and a foreign government?

    I mean if it has all the same effects of a treaty it seems like the Constitution should require the president to submit it for ratification.

    1. Let’s run it through the wood chipper and find out.

      1. Worked for the Constitution.

        /Obama

    2. Why ratify it, when the EPA can simply adopt it as a regulation?

      1. And a future administration can eliminate that regulation.

        1. …like so many administrations have done since the 50’s.

        2. Paging Almanian, Almanian to the white courtesy phone, raucous laughter needed.

      2. EPA will get sued by extremist anti-carbon trust funders and will choose not to contest the suit, thereby adopting the regulations via court action.

  5. You know who else looked for “final solutions” to global “problems”…..

    1. manufacturers of wood chippers?

    2. Replogle? They make globes.

    3. Darth Vader?

    4. Quantum?

    5. Pierre de Fermat?

    6. Dr. Paul Flammond?

    7. Pinky and The Brain?

    8. Me?

  6. Well, something like that would need to be ratified by the U.S. Senate, if I recall my Constitution correctly.

    1. If the Constitution still meant anything, that might actually matter.

    2. Look, we can follow the Constitution or we can give Obama something to call a “legacy”.

      Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what you can do for President Barack Obama.

      1. Oh, he’ll have a legacy all right. I mean look at Nixon. He got a movie. Actually, indirectly, he got several.

      2. That’s God Emperor Barack Obama to you, peasant.

    3. I’m pretty sure the President has authority to deem that the Senate has ratified a treaty that he has signed in much the same way that he now deems the Congress to have passed a budget.

      In other words, the Constitution is pretty much a dead letter.

      1. Yeah, well, he may say that, but let him enforce it in court.

    4. [REDACTED]

    1. Progressives may have done away with God, but they still have hell! On Earth! Global warming FTW!

  7. So, what role would this “trade bill” play in reaching the environmentalist goals discussed in this article? It was one the arguments that Obama explicitly made for its passage.

    1. We have to pass it to find out.

      1. Much like what is inside tree limbs, would tge answer be wood chips?

    2. He just said that to get Team Blue to shut up and stop complaining about his corporatism. We have to pass it to find out what’s in it.

  8. It is of more than passing interest that most of the models are running much hotter than the actual temperature trends.

    “Passing interest”?

    They are fucking lying about it. This supposed “global consensus” of scientists are flat out lying about what the data is showing. And this is terrifying for anyone who believes in the overall importance of honesty within the scientific method.

    “It is at risk of damaging the whole reputation of science”.

    1. God help us if this planet ever does face an actual environmental threat of apocalyptic proportions.

      1. It seems to me there was a story about that kind of scenario, might have involved a young human child and a feral canine…

        1. It makes me so amazingly happy that that story had nothing to do with Environmentalism.

        2. There’s also that chicken.

      2. Back in the late-80s, early-90s when I was a bona fide young na?ve door-to-door environmentalist activist, one of the old hippie guys I worked with said he dreaded the day that government got involved in environmental issues.

        His argument was that the government would simply choose exactly *one* issue, declare it to be the cause of all evil, simplify it beyond all recognition, and then divert all available resources into faux solutions for the exaggerated problem, while distracting people from *actual* problems.

        Sound familiar?

        1. Wow. You knew Willie Nelson?

          1. Thinking back, there was a striking resemblance, but I didn’t think to ask. The residual odor of weed was . . . distracting.

            1. Awesome. I don’t know why, but this story absolutely made my day!

    2. “Warming hiatus” = “long chain of failed predictions”

      1. Good point, not made often enough.

    3. When you devote tens of thousands of dollars to your education, and your field is as boring and insignificant as climatology, you have to come up with something to make yourself valuable and important. Self-preservation, if you will.

  9. The voice of the people must be heard!*

    I blame the SoConz.

    *Unless we don’t like what they’re saying.

  10. Okay, earlier there was a post on transracialism and now Drudge has a headline that Pelosi is taking a brave stand for America.

    What the fuck is going on?

  11. OBAMA: A vote against the trade bill is a vote against me!

    1. Yes. Your point?

  12. those G7 cats better hope the people of the future don’t build a wood chipping time machine because they are pissed off about having no hot water.

  13. “Stern and his colleagues currently project that the U.S., the E.U., and China will together emit 22 gigatons in 2030. If developing countries do not reduce their projected emissions of 35 gigatons, the only way for the world to meet the high-end goal of emitting only 44 gigatons in 2030 is for the U.S., the E.U. and China to cut their projected emissions extremely steeply?from 22 gigatons to just 9 gigatons. For reference, the U.S. alone emitted 6.7 gigatons in 2013.”

    But what about all the gigaderp pollution this is creating?

  14. Hilarious.

    “Oh yeah, we’re totally going to decarbonize, we promise. We’ll just wait until approximately 70 years after everyone signing this deal is either dead or retired to actually do so and obviously there will be no incentive for future generations of politicians to renege on this deal and push the deadlines out further.”

    1. I always love these long-term pledges. I thought the whole argument was that things had to change now! I mean, we’re seeing catastrophic predictions inside five years from some Gaianticians.

      So, what I’m getting from all this is we must act now means write down pledges on a useless piece of paper in hopes it all works out (sticks thumb outside window) in 70ish years?

      Fuck these people are cynical retards; the politicians and the idiot environmentalist fear-mongerers.

      1. Inside five years? Didn’t James Hanson tell us many years ago that the point of no return was 5 years from then? Think that was in 2005.

        1. If we are past that point now, shouldn’t we just stop trying?

          Seems like it is either that or they are admitting that pretty much all of the past predictions that can be tested have failed.

    2. but we will start taking your money today

  15. “stating that the world’s economy must be completely decarbonized by the end of this century.”

    But what about the 18% of carbon found in humans?

    1. Soylent Green centipedes will never give it a chance to be taken up into the atmosphere.

      1. Do your part for the carbon balance – Cannibalism NOW!

      2. Soylent green chippers

    2. “You have been declared dead. Report to Disintegration Chamber 7.”

  16. “the world’s economy must be completely decarbonized by the end of this century”

    So. . . no more campfires? No more motor oil? What about natural gas? Cigarette lighters? Propane tanks?

    Cattle farting? Oh, wait, that one doesn’t count anymore . . .

    “Completely decarbonized.”

    Empty political posturing, anyone?

    1. Turning the population into biochar would meet the goal. Just sayin.

    2. “Propane tanks?”

      Hank Hill will need to find another job.

      1. He could always sell woodchippers.

        1. … and wood-chipping accessories

      2. But solar-powered barbecues *also* preserve the flavor of the meat . . .

    3. Pig fart tractors were used in Star Wars first book.

    4. No exhaling either.

  17. Earlier U.N. negotiations concocted a possible workaround for America’s inconvenient climate change politics: If each country can come up with those INDCs, the Obama administration could perhaps artfully interpret the Paris agreement as not being an actual treaty. Instead, they would argue, it is simply an elaboration of already existing U.S. obligations to stabilize greenhouse gases under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

    Which is nothing but boob bait for the boobouise in the green movement. I don’t care what he calls it, it doesn’t have the force of law without Congress. And without the force of law it is utterly worthless and nonbinding on any future administration.

    1. ‘As French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius explained earlier this month: “We must find a formula which is valuable for everybody and valuable for the U.S. without going to the Congress. We know the politics in the U.S. Whether we like it or not, if it comes to the Congress, they will refuse.”

      Oh, look at the French encouraging Obama go around a body that represents the people.

      How quaint.

      It’s not a lie if it’s a good lie, right?

      1. Um, who is Obama representing? I mean, it’s not the U.S., clearly, as the U.S. requires that any treaties be ratified by the Senate, which is a representative body. Certainly, the Senate is a much more democratic body than the president, who is just one dude.

        1. Right-thinking people the world over.

          1. Perhaps he should resign, declare that he is, in fact, Kenyan, then run for SecGen.

            1. Then we’d be rogue again.

      2. Quelle bande de merde , vous faggot

    2. And even if it was “binding”, it couldn’t be enforced on us. Dennis Leary covered this quite eloquently in his song “Asshole” like 25 years ago.

    3. It’s all theatrics for, if not, we’re all fu…..chipped.

  18. So,by the end of the century they want to eliminate all cars,heavy trucks ,planes ,cargo ships,fishing boats ,petrochemicals modern farming and on and on? And EVERY county will agree? And Obama will be around then to make sure the deal is followed?. They’ll need a lot of wood chippers to pull this off.

    1. Solar powered woodchippers would be cool.

      1. … and a good name for a band

      2. … and a good name for a band

  19. :How Obama will dodge this, is by having the EPA adopt the international agreement as a regulation. Mark my words.

    It’s not like anybody in the Senate will get up on his hind legs and initiate impeachment proceedings. Why the fuck wouldn’t he?

  20. R C Dean here, re-branded to join the party.

    1. Same here. Solidarno??

      1. Would you gentlemen prefer feet-first, or head-first seating?

        1. Head first, please. In deference and acknowledgement of “Fargo”

          1. You guys need to leave a little of your last name in the current one please.
            Trigger: you guys (after the fact)

  21. It’s really easy to make grand plans for after you are dead.

    Sure. Let’s decarbonize the economy. Sometime after I die in 2060 or so.

    This shit is such a joke (I mean the attempts to “do something!”, I’m not commenting on the value of the predictions right now). It’s just not going to happen. Even if the most dire predictions were certain to come true, it’s not fucking happening. People will keep burning stuff for energy because it is effective, fairly simple and very decentralized.

    1. The fossil fuel industry finds way to become cleaner and more efficient all the time. That they don’t tell you.

      1. That’s just them trying to perpetuate their evil. Before long, in their infinite deviousness, they’ll produce fossil fuels that burn with *no emissions* just to sneak that evil stuff under the new regulations!

        1. all we gotta do is keep fracking like a motherfucker.

          1. Don’t you mean “keep fucking like a motherfracker”?

  22. I found a Nick Denton quote regarding Gawker that is so amazing I can’t avoid sharing it:

    “”Whatever information we have, whatever insight we have, whatever knowledge we have, our impulse is to share it as quickly as possible, and SOMETIMES WITH AS LITTLE THOUGHT AS POSSIBLE,” he told me after we had settled into a small conference room. “BEFORE YOU CAN THINK ABOUT IT TOO MUCH, just put it out there, just share it out there. I think that’s the essence of who we are.””

    Nick Denton: I’d say we’re mostly idiots who don’t think about things. That’s really our identity.

    1. Wow, more self-awareness than you’d think they’re capable of.

    2. Thank you for translating idiot into English. Makes life easier.

    3. Thank you for translating idiot into English. Makes life easier.

      1. Thank you squirrels. I really don’t want you thrown into a wood chipper.

        1. GET TO DA WOOD CHIPPAH!!!!11!!

          AAUUUAAAHGHHHHAAA!!!

          /Ahhhhnold

  23. Imagine if some leader were to come to power and wage outright war on climate change. As in bombing oil fields, coal mines, power plants, and such, all around the world. Through force of arms they could not only save the planet from carbon pollution, but there would be the added benefit of starving a decent portion of the human population by disrupting food supplies. Then we humans could get back to living a sustainable lifestyle, one with the planet, in utter poverty, like most of our existence throughout history. Now where can we find such a hero? Tony?

    1. White Indian. Tony (if he is a real person) doesn’t seem to care much about anything besides his comfortable lifestyle.

      1. Holy shit – I haven’t seen White Indian around here in years! He’s not back is he? Did he change his name?

        1. She showed up on the Popehat thread that must not be discussed. She used her actual name. She made a friend.

          Then she denied her identity in a manner that flagrantly exposed many of her cognitive deficits.

          It was sweet, funny horrible and pathetic, like the all-you-can-eat buffet at a downscale chinese restaurant.

          1. You never wanna go full wood chipper…

          2. Wow. I guess I’m not remembering my sock puppets accurately. For some reason I have a connection in my memory between White Indian and Tulpa. Is it just that they showed up around the same time? Are you sure White Indian was Mary?

            Hell, *I’ve* been called Mary before when I’ve been arguing anti-interventionist positions with some of the warboners around here.

            I did crack a schadenfreude smile at the unmentionable thread with the “did you think I would actually post here under my OWN NAME” comment. Commandeering Playa’s screen name was a classy touch, as well.

            This is why I was against registration. It’s been somewhat less fun ever since.

            1. “This is why I was against registration”

              This and, of course, DOJ having access to our email addresses . . .

              *tightens tin-foil hat*

    1. “I think he should be brought before a court of law to answer to charges of attempted murder,” Graves said.

      Knowingly sending an innocent man to death row is most definitely attempted murder.

    2. Whoa. Consequences for unethical behavior by a prosecutor? Does that not violate physics or something?

      1. Apparently thesecond successful proceeding in TX in 3 years.

    3. Nice! Insufficient, but a nice change from the impunity that is the norm in such things.

    4. Excellent. Now try the ex-DA for attempted murder.

    5. Even after Graves walked free in 2010 and was formally exonerated in 2011, Sebesta continued to impugn his character?telling Texas newspapers as recently as last January that Graves was guilty of murder.

      Perhaps he has a slander case, too.

  24. We need to move to a Single Screwer environmental protection system.

  25. “the world’s economy must be completely decarbonized by the end of this century”

    I know that laugh

    Why do i find this sentence as equally ridiculous as NASA’s long-held dream of one day blowing up the moon?

    1. I guess we will need to find a silicon based life form to take over the planets economy. We should start interstellar advertising immediately .

  26. “We must find a formula which is valuable for everybody and valuable for the U.S. without going to the Congress. We know the politics in the U.S. Whether we like it or not, if it comes to the Congress, they will refuse.”

    It’s so shocking to see such blatant disrespect of democracy.

    Don’t they understand that the government is trying to solve everyone’s problems?

    1. “We must find a formula which is valuable for everybody and valuable for the U.S. without going to the Congress. We know the politics in the U.S. Whether we like it or not, if it comes to the Congress, they will refuse.”

      I would hope that this would upset Congress enough to make the stop this in its tracks. But I don’t have a lot of faith that it will.

      1. On the contrary, I think that might be the actual goal, given the hyperbolic absurdity of the “total decarbonization” plan.

        I couldn’t help but notice that the moment Congress came 100% under Republican control, a lot of those old campaign promises (like closing Gitmo) got trotted back out as things “Congress” won’t let the President do.

        He’s been full of hyperbolic promises lately that he knows full well a Republican Congress is going to block. It gives them a golden opportunity to point at all the things they *could have* done, and *really really wanted* to do, if not for the Koch-purchased Congress squashing all that is good and holy in the world.

        1. The wood chipper cartel is a powerful enemy and it is they who are preventing progress.

  27. politicians “strongly affirm” their determination to STOP PLATE TECTONICS

    The subduction must end!

  28. And why, exactly, do we need to submit to these international agreements, when our Non-Participation in the last round of collective political self-congratulation…. resulted in far greater emissions reductions than that of any of the eager co-signers of the bullshit agreement?

    Climate Change, regardless of one’s view on its relative threat/non-eventness, is nothing except a platform for political theater, and worse = the excuse for needless interventions by elitist academic morons intent on imposing a control economy over the entire planet.

    We’ve seen the results in the German “Energiewende” = a half trillion euros thrown down a toilet with a net result of *no better emissions* than before they shut off their nuclear plants. they ended up using more coal, and importing electricity to offset the weakness of the ‘green’ grid, simply exporting their own emissions to other countries.

    top-down ‘solutions’ are always, always worse than the ‘problem’.

  29. What is the feed rate of the Wood Chipper 5000 for U.N. climate researchers? (figuratively speaking).

    1. With the side mounted discharge chute or the top mounted one?

  30. ” It is of more than passing interest that most of the models are running much hotter than the actual temperature trends. ”

    Since we know that The Science is Settled, it must be reality it is wrong.

    Bad Gaia. Bad.

    1. Probably they failed to incoporate the carbon-reducing benfits of the Cash for Clunkers programme.

  31. “protocol, another legal instrument or an agreed outcome with legal force.”

    “We must find a formula which is valuable for everybody and valuable for the U.S. without going to the Congress. ”

    We must find a way to further subvert the US constitution.

    The Senate needs to pass their own resolution clearly stating that the chosen “legal instrument” to bypass the US Senate’s constitutional authority will have no legal force in the US despite what The Emperor of All the United States says in his remaining days in power.

  32. 2015 is Peak Stupid.

    1. Just like 2014, 2013, 2012, …

      1. I think this year is truly Peak Stupid.

        There is high hopes for El Nino, a big one, all through this year (great for marketing), this is Barry’s last effective year as Prez, and the calendar is capped by the Paris Carboncon.

        This is it, the Carbon Clowns know it.

  33. So most of you guys see something like this happening and seriously, I mean actually think giant conspiracy based on lies? I’m just trying to get a grasp on what is going on, cognitively, for this kind of delusion even to be possible. At least religion promises you things.

    1. Politically-induced mass hysteria based on flimsy science. In other words, the new Drug War, since that one’s lived out its usefulness.

      1. The DEA is still wasting billions every year employing many of the wood-chipper eligible while substantially increasing the profits of drug cartels , inner city gangs and other criminals. And you claim it is no longer useful ?

      2. That is going on, but it’s on the denier side. Know how I know? Because they are the ones denying scientific facts.

        1. “We have to decarbonize by the end of the century” is not a scientific fact.

        2. Tony until you are personally carbon neutral in your own life, which you are currently not, taking an “AGW is real position” is fraudulent.

    2. So most of you guys see something like this happening and seriously, I mean actually think giant conspiracy based on lies?

      Scaremongering, boogeymen not there, shaming of cynics, convincing evidence – collected and curated by Top Men – presented to the world via special UN get-togethers.

      Hmmm. Sounds like build up to Iraq War. Was that a giant conspiracy based on (obvious) lies?

      1. But not one endorsed by the global scientific community.

        1. But not one endorsed by the global scientific community.

          Global scientific community endorsing a worldwide centrally-planned economy that somehow (pick a poison) collates carbon dioxide to money?

          WTF does any of that have to do with science?

        2. Climate scientists =/= global scientific community.

          Equivocation is powerful drug.

        3. Tony, whn they come for you to toss you into a wood chipper then maybe ypu will understand. Maybe…

    3. Re: Tony,

      So most of you guys see something like this happening and seriously, I mean actually think giant conspiracy based on lies?

      Remember Prohibition?

      I’m just trying to get a grasp on what is going on

      We all know you’re challenged.

    4. So most of you guys see something like this happening and seriously, I mean actually think giant conspiracy based on lies?

      Conspiracy implies competency and coordination. This is just collective stupidity, hysteria, and madness. You know, similar to the kind that brought Hitler or Stalin to power.

    5. Do you think Ehrlich was a conspirator or a true believer? It’s obvious to anyone who hears him yammer on about the False News Channel that he’s a confident crackpot who can’t separate his work from his politics, which is why he’s spent his career tumbling from one pseudoscientific doomsday cult to the next.

      The left is prone to secular religions masquerading as hard science (neo-Keynesian economics, neo-Malthusian ecology, climate change, and most notably Soviet psychiatry). This is the latest iteration, and it’s telling that you still don’t have falsifiable hypotheses or predictive models and you still cling to your faith on the basis of ideological lines and have dug in even deeper as your models have revealed themselves to be worthless.

    6. See what? A UN conference – attended by bureaucrats who depend on big climate grants – where the goal is to extract money from the US?

      How could anyone possibly see ‘giant conspiracy based on lies’ here? What could possibly be the motive?

  34. they want us to decarbonize. Everyone hold your breath, do not exhale or you will be in violation of a non-treaty.

  35. The facts are incompatible with global warming aka climate change aka climate disruption alarmism, but every liberal worth his salt knows, as Don Quixote says in Man of La Mancha, “Facts are the enemy of truth.”

  36. Good news that it’s a start. More to be done.

    1. The good news is that no one in their right mind listens to jackasses like you.

    2. Yes. We need more treaties being agreed upon that won’t be implemented in anyone’s lifetime and can’t possibly work.

      You are completely correct, and everyone here agrees with you.

      1. The last thing I would want is for most of the commenters here to agree with me…it would mean I was an imbecile. Hopefully your comment was tongue in cheek.

        1. You do not even post enough about the subject for anyone to have an opinion. Into the woodchipper with you. With great Hyperbole.

          1. Wow. What a rebel you are jp. Very impressive!

        2. Jackand Ace|6.12.15 @ 11:26PM|#
          “The last thing I would want is for most of the commenters here to agree with me…it would mean I was an imbecile. Hopefully your comment was tongue in cheek.”

          He’s pointing out that you ARE an imbecile.

    3. Be nice.

      Ace was incredibly thin skinned before he began posting here. Now his flesh is thick, like rhino. And it’s all because libertarians helped him through that hard patch of his life.

      Good luck, Ace, as you venture out into the real world and leave your trolling career behind.

    4. Jack

      How’s your zero emission lifestyle coming?

      1. Not zero, but much better than it was, much better. Thanks!

        1. So you want to use other people’s money to restrict their actions and at the same time fund your personal agenda that you couldn’t accomplish on your own? Weak.

  37. What if the UN called for global suicide and no one participated?

    1. Forced consumption of cyanide-laced Flavor Aid.

  38. i buy almost everything except food and clothing from online auctions most people aren’t aware of the almost I unbelievable deals that they can get from online auction sites the site that has the best deals is
    BEST DEAL HERE (??) http://WWW.PROFIT-REVIEW.COM

    1. Tony? Is that you?

    2. I bought my woodchipper online. CAT 1 PTO model that attaches to my diesel motor tractor. Anything over about three inches in diameter becomes firewood.

  39. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.netcash5.com

  40. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.netcash5.com

  41. The headline for this story could just as easily read:

    World votes to have the US pay them billions of dollars in the name of ‘climate change’

  42. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.netcash5.com

  43. I drive my v8 powered 4wd truck to the ocean with my boat in tow, so I can run my 300HP boat engine to take me to a beach and chill a while, have a few beers, then I drive it all back home. Ya know what I call that? “A good day”. Thanks to carbon based fuel. And beer. If I was to buy a wood chipper, I’d get the supercharged V8 model with chrome wheels and a margarita blender attachment, so me and my buddies could have some refreshing beverages while we worked on our locally controlled deforestation projects… Just sayin.

  44. The real problem with third-world countries is not how poor they are, but how much they keep breeding like dumb wild animals that don’t understand what population control is.

    They will literally destroy the world.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.