Climate Change

Upcoming Paris U.N. Climate Change Conference Is a "Charade"

According to Nobel economics laureate Joseph Stiglitz

|

COP21
COP21

The scientific and policy conference on climate change, Our Common Future Under Climate Change (CFCC15), met last week in Paris. The meeting served as an exchange for scientific information and policy analyses in advance the big United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Conference of the Parties (COP-21) meeting in Paris this coming December. Negotiators at COP-21 are supposed to agree on a new universal climate agreement aimed at reducing future greenhouse gas emissions and financing climate adaptation measures.

Andrew Revkin from over at Dot Earth has a good summary of what happened at the Our Common Future Under Climate Change conference in Paris last week. The CFCC15 Scientific Committee issued an outcome statement, Science Offers Robust Foundationa for Ambitious Outcomes at COP21 and Beyond, that, among other things, asserted:

Because warming from carbon dioxide persists for many centuries, any upper limit on warming requires carbon dioxide emissions to fall eventually to zero. A two in three probability of holding warming to 2°C or less will require a budget that limits future carbon dioxide emissions to about 900 billion tons, roughly 20 times annual emissions in 2014. To limit warming to 2°C, emissions must be zero or even negative by the end of the 21st century.

The universal climate agreement that will supposedly be hammered out by negotiators this December will be based on pledges by 190 countries to act in various ways to begin the process of eventually reducing their greenhouse gas emissions. The pledges, known as intended nationally determined contributions (INDCs), are voluntary with no legally binding force. President Barack Obama has promised that the United States will cut its greenhouse gas emissions by 26-28 percent from 2005 levels by 2025.

According to Bloomberg, Nobel economics laureate Joseph Stiglitz told the delegates at the CFCC15 that the Paris conference in December is doomed to failure, dismissing …

…the voluntary commitments that countries have been announcing leading up to the Paris summit. "In the absence of more forceful actions, voluntary actions simply don't solve problems of global public goods," he says. In other words, countries won't do enough if there's no compulsion involved.

His solution? A globally harmonized carbon tax. Basically, each country would set and collect a carbon tax which would replace some of its income and corporate taxes. If a country refused to go along, then its trading partners would set a tariff on exports from that country equal to the tax. The idea is that a carbon tax would encourage innovators to develop and invest in no-carbon climate-friendly energy technologies.

The scientific outcome statement from the CFCC15 noted that when it comes to cutting emissions that "excluding particular clean-energy technologies" increases "costs and complexity." I take this to mean that activist opposition to using nuclear power is counterproductive.

It is worth noting that other policy analysts report that innovators are already well on the way toward to developing energy generation technologies that will be cheaper than fossil fuel energy.

For more background on carbon taxes, take a look at some of the analyses over at the new libertarian think tank, the Niskanen Center.

NEXT: Iran Nuclear Deal Pits the Obama Administration Against GOP Hawks

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. President Barack Obama has promised that the United States will cut its greenhouse gas emissions by 26-28 percent from 2005 levels by 2025.

    Between continued off-shoring of heavy industry and CH4 supplanting coal in power-production mix (coal’s pie-share of electric generation was not biggest single item for first time last month in USA ever), those ‘goals’ will be met no matter what Superclown or his Paris pals do.

    1. The goal is to have an expensive gala and enjoy the esprit de corps among other high-profile celebrities of the international community while enjoying expensive luncheons and lavish dinners and intimate cocktails while laying the framework from which the next gala will arise, all on taxpayers’ dime.

      What did you mean?

      1. Private jets. Don’t forget private jets.

        1. #whataboutthehashtags?#IFLS!

        2. Private jets. Don’t forget private jets.

          What about the ‘public’ jets?

      2. Re: commodious spittoon,

        The goal is to have an expensive gala and enjoy the esprit de corps among other high-profile celebrities of the international community

        In the end, I believe that is what this will end up being, a great excuse to enjoy gatherings with beautiful or smart celebrities and the Jet Set but as innocuous as the Annual Meeting of the Theosophist Society.

        1. In the end, I believe that is what this will end up being, a great excuse to enjoy gatherings with beautiful or smart celebrities and the Jet Set but as innocuous as the Annual Meeting of the Theosophist Society.

          Carbon Confabs indicate their true function through their locales; which are either grape-nut adventure tourism (Lima), the beach (Cancun, Durban), or appropriately elitist pseudo-socialist enclaves (Paris, Copenhagen).

          It is also worth pointing out these get-togethers feel and look more like a tradeshow convention than any other allegedly serious international get-together. Even Davos is more subdued.

      3. And don’t foget their mass contribution to the per capita CO2 output. They should be proud! They are such hypocrites…

    2. So, is Reason in the “Alarmist” camp on the Global Warming issue?

      1. Reason’s editorial line is skeptically lukewarm. And their overall philosophy puts them at odds with the true believers’ solutions even when they are willing to concede the science.

        1. I have gotten the impression that Reason correspondent Ron Bailey, if not a Believer, is at least a believer.

    1. …where reality’s draw distance is worse than Nintendo 64.

  2. In other words, countries won’t do enough if there’s no compulsion involved.

    The world can only be saved at the barrel of a state agent’s gun.

    1. Which of these various climate-change protocols has the U.S. Congress ratified at the point of a gun? I can’t remember any off hand.

      1. I think you may have misunderstood my comment.

        1. It’s Tulpa, he didn’t misunderstand anything.

        2. I think you’re responding to Mary.

              1. It’s waiting, all the way down

        3. I think you may have misunderstood my comment.

          I think you may have misunderstood mine.

  3. It is worth noting that other policy analysts report that innovators are already well on the way toward to developing energy generation technologies that will be cheaper than fossil fuel energy.

    And I have a perpetual motion machine in the works as well. Ultra-cheap mechanical motion and shit.

    1. Using magnets, right? Magnets and gravitic energy are the solution!

      1. Fucking magnets, how do they work?

        1. +1 gang-related

      2. Old Mex would use that low tech. Mine harnesses the zero-point energy of our false vacuum. My critics claim that eventually this will cause a universally catastrophic parity break, but my research indicates this won’t happen until sometime after I’m dead and buried in my ridiculously opulent coffin.

        1. I harvest the chemtrails for tritium.

          1. Re: The Zeitgeist,

            That’s only because you are not considering the wondrous properties of unobtanium.

  4. Stiglitz is just a cranky, low-rent version of Krugman. I bet he even has an ocicat.

    1. An ocelot? I hope it’s corpuscular!

    2. Yep. This is the putz who said America should bail out Greece.

      Not only is Stiglitz even lower than Krugman, he’s even lower than Krugman’s wife.

  5. His solution? A globally harmonized carbon tax.

    of course. always. more.

  6. The scientific and policy conference on climate change, Our Common Future Under Climate Change (CFCC15), met last week in Paris.

    I am not sure if you realize, Ron, that the common use of that loaded term ?Climate Change? is meant to obfuscate and not to define the problem they want to attack, which is global warming, a real phenomenon that can be measured with real instruments, real data and what purports to be a real baseline for comparison (which is the main point of controversy for many climate scientists.)

    Instead, what’s the baseline for climate change? August 3rd, 1972? Or the day I was born? Or you were born? What was the climate like back then? How can you measure it? By the number of hurricanes? Compared to what, other hurricane seasons? What is to be the standard number of hurricanes per season”? One? Seven?

    Therefore, how can you or I take seriously the efforts of the policy makers and scientists when one already knows it is all a sham? This is no effort to control anything except productive people and their production. It is nothing more than an effort from rent-seekers to despoil capital creators and savers.

    1. Your ignorance is nobody else’s fault.

      Perhaps somebody should invent a globally interconnected network of boundless information that people with the ability to discern fact from bullshit can consult to cure their ignorance.

      . . . perhaps the only individual to actually advocate changing the term from ‘global warming’ to ‘climate change’, Republican political strategist Frank Luntz in a controversial memo advising conservative politicians on communicating about the environment:

      It’s time for us to start talking about “climate change” instead of global warming and “conservation” instead of preservation.

      “Climate change” is less frightening than “global warming”. As one focus group participant noted, climate change “sounds like you’re going from Pittsburgh to Fort Lauderdale.” While global warming has catastrophic connotations attached to it, climate change suggests a more controllable and less emotional challenge.

      1. meanwhile, some stories about another ice age are surfacing, which makes global warming sounds even more moronic than it already does. Maybe the stories are real, maybe they’re bunk, maybe they’re based on the same flimsy models the warmists use. Or maybe Frankie knew bullshit had to be dealt with no matter one’s thoughts about it.

        1. They’re bullshit, but certain to be taken as gospel by all you “skeptics.”

      2. Tony, you really, really should demand your money back from that school that taught you to “think”.

        Because what Old Mex is saying is that Climate Change is a nebulous term that encompasses so many phenomena that it is very difficult to pin it down to a set of predictions that can be tested by observations.

        The propaganda value isn’t that it’s less scary than global warming; the propaganda value lies in the chameleon like way it changes from runaway green house effect global warming, to weather weirding, to changing ocean currents, to ocean acidification, to whatever the next form is.

        I hope you are intelligent enough to be embarrassed by how stupid you are.

        1. I hope you are intelligent enough to be embarrassed by how stupid you are.

          this includes many assumptions, starting with the presence of self-awareness which I believe tony itself has debunked on numerous occasions.

        2. Are you saying that increased average global temperatures won’t have an effect on climate systems… or what? That climate is highly complex is why predictions are hard. That predictions are hard is how you guys continue to pretend that you’re smarter than all the experts attempting to make them.

          1. Re: Tony,

            Are you saying that increased average global temperatures won’t have an effect on climate systems… or what?

            Nobody can say for sure, if you ever bother to peruse the scientific literature. Most of the published papers rely on conditional terms like “might”, “may”, “perhaps”. The reason is because nobody has una puta idea of what could happen with increased temps. Perhaps NOTHING. Perhaps LESS droughts. Perhaps MORE droughts. So far the predictions have ranged from the timid to the preposterous. With such a wide range of speculated consequences, it is conclusive that any policy decision regarding global warming is going to be based on nothing.

            That predictions are hard is how you guys continue to pretend that you’re smarter than all the experts attempting to make them.

            It is precisely because predictions are difficult or impossible that most of us are skeptical of the policy prescriptions made with such self-assurance by people who are not scientists, like politicians and the Marxians.

      3. Re: Tony,

        Your ignorance is nobody else’s fault.

        Right on queue, he springs the trap.

        Frank Luntz: “Climate change” is less frightening than “global warming”.

        Whenever Marxians get in trouble because of the terms they use, they blame their origin on someone else. Back in the 90s, Marxians were blaming conservatives for Political Correctness.

        The term Climate Change has been used since the 70s as a possible result of global warming. All of a sudden, the Media ?not Frank Luntz? used Climate Change because the term Global Warming would lose its weight after it became obvious that global temperatures were not rising at the same rate that the Mann models were predicting.
        What’s in a Name? Global Warming vs. Climate Change

        ” Its first use was in a 1975 Science article by geochemist Wallace Broecker of Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory: “Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?”
        “Within scientific journals, this is still how the two terms are used. Global warming refers to surface temperature increases, while climate change includes global warming and everything else that increasing greenhouse gas amounts will affect.”

        1. and health care was a Repub idea. Because Heritage Foundation. In response to Hillarycare. In a proposal that was never introduced in either chamber, let alone voted on. But, it’s tony.

          1. PSSST!! 911 was an INSIDE JOB! Pass it on….

            *looks around suspiciously*

            /Choney

        2. Nothing you are saying wasn’t said in the link I posted.

          The point is the only person to consider the relative propaganda value of the terms is Republican operative Frank Luntz.

          1. Re: Tony,

            You are missing the point. The point is that Frank Luntz did not invent the term. Neither it is true that it is because of his memo that everybody suddenly jumped into the Climate Change vs Global Warming bandwagon.

            Besides, I don’t even understand the point the Marxians like you are making: does the fact that Frank Luntz suggested using Climate Change instead of Global Warming make the use of the term VALID, or does it invalidate it? What exactly is the point?

            You just keep regurgitating Think Progress’ talking points with not even a modicum of introspection.

            1. I love that Tony continually misses the point that most republicans are fucking progressive retards just like him.

          2. If that’s true then Luntz should get a lot of credit for his effectiveness, as most people nowadays (including the staunchest of advocates) now use ‘climate change,’ apparently, you contend, because Luntz did an inception on them.

            They should have stuck with global warming. For one, it’s more accurate, as average temperatures are going up. Warming. Easily measured, easily measured and demonstrated. And causes more readily discernible. “Change” on the other hand, is just a vagary, which some may have seen as useful, as it meant any climate catastrophe from blizzards to doubts to what have you could be attributed to one big monolithic phenomenon, which tends to backfire because the more audacious the claim, the less believable.

            Gradual warming on the other hand, pretty straightforward. Doesn’t make for as good of of a Roland Emmrich film though.

        3. Using the term climate change also allows them to point fingers at any weather event as proof of human emitted greenhouse gas activity. Super heavy duty blizzard? Climate change. California drought? Climate change.

          If I were a betting man, I’d be willing to bet some decent money if that mini- ice age does end up happening around 2030, they’ll shift gears and come up with some man caused excuse for that.

          1. On the other hand, if you point to a specific weather event as evidence to believe that global warming might not be happening after all, it’s dismissed as “we’re talking about global events here! Local weather events shouldn’t be construed as evidence one way or the other!”

            Indeed, the day I saw a headline that proclaimed that pretty much any weather event (*particularly* blizzards…) can be caused by global warming, was the day I began to dismiss global warming as unfalsifiable, and hence unscientific.

      4. Perhaps somebody should invent a globally interconnected network of boundless information that people with the ability to discern fact from bullshit can consult to cure their ignorance.

        I’m fairly certain the internet spreads more bullshit faster than it dispels it. I mean, without it, people were forced to rely on the bullshit their parents and grandparents had taught them through the centuries.

        We should really get to work on policies to reduce the internet’s bullshit footprint or at least strive to make it bullshit neutral.

        1. It’s simple: Outlaw bullshit. Problem solved.

          1. Silly me, I thought a bullshit taxes and bullshit credit exchanges was the only way. But we gotta do something, our oppression of the poor people of the world with our bullshit can’t go on unchecked forever!

      5. Oh no, a Skeptical Science sucker.

        I think the cultural connotation of the phrase is what we’re talking about.

        For example, does one ‘believe in UFO’s?’

        Taken literally, sure. Just about everybody has seen a literal UFO.

        But that is not what the question ‘believe in UFO’s?’ connotes. The unspoken query is ‘Do you believe aliens visit the earth, conspire with the government at Area 51, and abduct bored housewives in Ohio for breeding programs?’

        Same thing with ‘climate change.’ This also leads to some literally moronic rallying cries from the ecopukes such as ‘Stop climate change!’

        Figure it out Tony, and knock off the brainfuckery at Skeptical Science. They’re the punchline for the ‘climate change’ joke.

        1. I think the cultural connotation of the phrase is what we’re talking about.

          You’re talking about nothing. The string of letters that describes the phenomenon is really not that important. Call it whatever you want. Or let it turn you into a science-denying moron. I don’t really give a shit anymore. You people are hopeless.

          I’m glad to know the heavily sourced SS site is all bunk. I’m sure your sources are far superior. Care to link to any of them, or are you too embarrassed?

          1. Hate to go all WUWT on you Tony, but this link here is quite priceless about all the serious science that goes on over at Skeptical Clowns:

            http://wattsupwiththat.com/201…..new-level/

            Seriously, the Skeptical chumps photoshop each other into Nuremberg rally footage. All kinds of closet homoerotic-narcissistic creepy motherfuckers over there digitally fellating one another.

            I’ve thought Skeptoclowns were worthless ever since I watched their site scrub itself in real-time as Peter Gleick’s ‘scoop’ turned into his disgrace (at least outside the carbon clown echo chamber). But when I stumbled on that WUWT tidbit above, that’s just a Mastercard moment right there.

            But keep sucking their jizz, Tony. Because Science, amirite?

  7. You don’t need to qualify for the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel to figure out that all the climate summits are charades.

  8. Upcoming Paris U.N. Climate Change Conference Is a “Charade”

    In other news: Lady isn’t actually sawed in half at magic show.

    1. Don’t joke. This is huge. It’s the first thing related to climate change that can be labeled a charade.

  9. Now’s the time in politics when we dance!

    1. Wait! You never touched the climate change monkey.

      1. That is not a scientist’s laugh; that is a whore’s laugh.

  10. Nobel economics laureate Joseph Stiglitz told the delegates at the CFCC15 that the Paris conference in December is doomed to failure, dismissing …

    …the voluntary commitments that countries have been announcing leading up to the Paris summit. “In the absence of more forceful actions, voluntary actions simply don’t solve problems of global public goods,” he says.

    Ideas so good, they need to be imposed by force.

    Quite interesting that this economics professor would think that force is necessary where people are too stubborn to realize the value of what he peddles.

    1. OM: Taxes always imply force don’t they?

      1. Re: Ron Bailey,

        OM: Taxes always imply force don’t they?

        Taxes are theft. So yes, they imply force. Do you like paying taxes? I certainly don’t.

        1. You should be more patriotic.

          1. He’s MEXICAN for, fuck’s sake! That makes him a rapist and…something else….right out the gate! Although some may be nice people….

            1. Although some may be nice people….

              You’re assuming.

        2. But, but, but taxes are the price we pay for civilization! Without taxes there would be no civilization at all!

          1. Re: sarcasmic,

            I didn’t understand the point that Ron tried to make, anyway. I know taxes are collected at the point of the bayonet, so asking me if I believe they’re forcefully-collected seems redundant and pointless.

            MY point is that an economist [the scientist] is not supposed to be making prescriptive recommendations. Also, an economist should know by now that you can’t simply force people into doing something and expect universal and unquestioned compliance. I mean, hasn’t Stiglitz ever heard of Unexpected Consequences?

  11. Touch my monkey! Love him! Liebe meine Abstmincke!

    1. Your science grows tiresome.

      1. He’s as happy as a little girrrrrl….

        1. Your science intimidates me to the point of humiliation.

          1. Sorry, let’s try that again: Your denial intimidates me to the point of humiliation.

            1. SCIENCE

              1. I fucking love science.

  12. I think tony is afraid that the climate change religion wont bring about the predicted apocalypse.

    Im curious how he is able to have any opinion since he isnt a clinate scientist

    1. he stayed at a Holiday Inn Express?

      1. The Internet makes us all experts in all things. Why, I just found a cure for cancer and cold fusion!

        1. You know, the collapse of that WTC 7 building WAS awful suspicious. Says here on this website that jet fuel can’t even melt steel!

          1. Little-known fact: It is impossible to melt steel.

            1. Thimerosal can melt steel, i heard.

        2. A cure for cold fusion, eh?

          1. A cure for the COMMON cold fusion – tell me when we have that.

          2. +1 palladium anode for the common cold

  13. It is worth noting that other policy analysts report that innovators are already well on the way toward to developing energy generation technologies that will be cheaper than fossil fuel energy.

    If true, great. More fossil fuels to run my muscle cars. 😀

    1. Re: perlchpr,

      I bet anybody two-to-one that in the event those new and exciting forms or energy production come to fruition, the Marxians will continue to huff and puff because (take your pick): we’re contributing to overpopulation, consumerism, unsustainable use of “resources”, inequality, etc. The Marxians are not interested in solutions that greatly increase the welfare of people, P. They’re interested in control.

      1. Of course they will never be happy. they can always invent a new crisis.

        More efficient energy production is still undoubtedly a good thing.

  14. Fossil fuels are probably the single GREATEST thing ever to happen to mankind (except perhaps discovering fire, the wheel and PornHub).

    Fossil fuels have enabled man to travel, to allow research into curing disease, to allow freedom to trade rather than pure conquest. Heat our homes in the winter, cool our homes in the summer.

    Not to mention the plethora of materials that have been manufactured out of petroleum related products.
    Wind? BAH kills birds, and you have to hundreds of square miles of windfarms, and the maintenance is horrible.
    Solar? Sounds great, but solar cells are, and always will be, horribly inefficient and takes toxic chemicals to produce. Can fall back to other types of solar (heating fluids in pipe for example) but these things take an awful lot of room as well.
    Nuclear fission? I work at a PWR, I love nuclear. But the interveners make it so fucking expensive that I don’t think we have a future beyond the next 30-50 years. I hope I am wrong!

    1. Nuclear fission? I work at a PWR, I love nuclear. But the interveners make it so fucking expensive that I don’t think we have a future beyond the next 30-50 years. I hope I am wrong!

      Ditto, but a CANDU. The regs have all but strangled nuclear. The only hope I can see is for a simpler /cheaper reactor to be proven to work. However, I’m sure the regulatory ratchet will keep on turning to make even that expensive. When the philosophy is “No safe dose level”, there will never be a reduction in regulations.

      1. When are you giving us fusion?

        1. I already invented it but am keeping it to myself and my orphan slaves.

          1. Well, you might make more money secretly producing electricity with your fusion, while claiming that your power comes from people riding bikes.

            1. You mean fusing an orphan to a bike isn’t fusion?

              1. Well, yes, but not nuclear fusion.

      2. Get a reactor chamber, you two.

    2. Have you not discovered xvideos yet?

  15. If we are going to enter a mini ice age in thr next 15 years don’t we need more emissions to help warm things up. Does anyone know or really care about climate change accept those who want to get deeper into my wallet

  16. I thought Stiglitz was that turncoat German soldier who got killed in the shootout in the basement bar during “Inglourious Basterds”.

    He’s done well for himself – especially for a make-believe, dead guy….impressive.

  17. If it gets too warm, pop off a few nukes for the cooling effect.
    If it gets too cool, burn some more carbon for the warming effect.
    Iterate judiciously until everyone is comfortable.

    1. Iterate judiciously until everyone is comfortable.

      You aren’t married are you?

      /kidding

  18. I take this to mean that activist opposition to using nuclear power is counterproductive.

    I’m sure the scientific outcome statement will be ignored in favor of the more politically correct executive summary of the scientific outcome statement, right?

  19. Keep clapping, Ron. Someday tinkerbell will fly again!

  20. Because warming from carbon dioxide persists for many centuries, any upper limit on warming requires carbon dioxide emissions to fall eventually to zero.

    So, it’s to be caves, then. Without the fire.

  21. “Climate Change Conference Is a “Charade””

    We need total concentration. They should try again.

  22. Fortunately, next mini ice age is due soon…

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..lp00000592

    1. Don’t worry. All that cold will get stored in the bottom of the Ocean.

  23. One thing I don’t think people get about carbon taxes is that you’re supposed to just stick the price on Carbon and not do anything else. No investing in green technologies, no subsidies for solar power, revenues from the tax just go to fund general spending. I would happily pay a carbon tax if the government would agree to leave it at that. I don’t see that happening.

  24. “I take this to mean that activist opposition to using nuclear power is counterproductive.”

    No, no, no, you silly, the activist’s goal is to reduce power production and use, not change the method.

    Get with the program.

  25. Criminal willful ignorance of the most basic physics and biochemistry . Gross malfeasance .

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.