Paris Climate Change Conference

Paris Climate Conference Emissions Promises Do NOT Mean Real Emissions Cuts

Sixth Dispatch: The claim that pledges from 180 countries cover 95 percent of emissions is seriously misleading.

|

TowerClimate
globalresearch

Paris—Over the past 25 years of climate change negotiations, one of the chief objections to making commitments to cut greenhouses in the U.S. is that doing so would make no difference to the climate since other countries would merrily continue to burn fossil fuels and further load up the atmosphere with carbon dioxide. Two days ago at the Paris climate change conference, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry sought to assure Americans that this time they will not be taken for chumps. How so?

"More than 180 countries – representing 95 percent of global emissions – have made individual commitments," declared Kerry at the Paris climate change conference. "That is a sign – and they made those commitments before they came here, the 180, now up to 186. But they came here and made a statement through the announcement of those determinations that they are determined, we are determined to succeed here in Paris." Hooray, right? Not so fast.

This formulation—180 countries/95 percent—has become a ritual incantation constantly uttered throughout the particle board hallways and conference rooms here at the Le Bourget site. Negotiators and activist cite it as evidence that all countries are committed to adhering to a universal climate treaty. This is misleading.

Kerry is right that some 180 countries have submitted what are called their intended nationally determined contributions (INDCs). The INDCs are basically voluntary pledges from countries explaining what they plan to do to address the problem of global warming after 2020 when the new universal climate treaty comes into effect. For example, the Obama administration has promised to cut U.S. greenhouse gas emission by 2025 up to 28 percent below their 2005 levels. So all countries are in this together, right? Not so fast. Let's take a look what the INDCs of several major countries are promising to do by 2030.

In its INDC China, the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases promises to peak its emissions by 2030, which means that it may well be emitting 60 percent more greenhouse gases. In its INDC the Indian government makes it clear that it intends to get electricity to the 300 million of its citizens who don't have access to it now. This means that India could triple its emissions by 2030. Russian emission could rise by as much as 50 percent by 2030. Indonesia's emissions are also slated to increase by 50 percent. In its INDC, Turkey forthrightly says that it will double its emissions. Iran's emissions will also double, but it will graciously accept $35 billion in aid to reduce that increase from 100 percent to 88 percent. Saudi Arabia promises that its emissions will only increase by 158 percent.

The INDCs submitted prior to the Paris climate change conference do indeed cover 95 percent of global emissions. But just ones listed above show that countries responsible for 44 percent of current global emissions have no intention of making actual cuts in their emissions over the next 15 years. In fact, if these countries follow the emissions trajectories outlined in their INDCs, they collectively will be emitting nearly 14 gigatons more carbon dioxide than they do now. That is double the amount that the U.S. currently emits.

Of course, what Kerry and other representatives from rich country governments are hoping is that by getting these countries to adopt the new Paris climate agreement that they can be persuaded down the road to make faster and deeper cuts. Well, maybe.

Note: I am filing daily dispatches from the Paris climate conference. We have been told that the really final universal climate accord will be agreed upon early on Satuday morning.

NEXT: How the 'Convention for proposing Amendments' became the subject of popular mythology

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. In fact, if these countries follow the emissions trajectories outlined in their INDCs, they collectively will be emitting nearly 14 gigatons more carbon dioxide than they do now. That is double the amount that the U.S. currently emits.

    Are we going to let them out-emit us, boys? Hell no. Let’s emit like we’ve never emitted before!

    1. This emission gap must not stand. Sugarfree is on the case…

      1. STOP yer un-clean and Gaia-destroying emissions, ye horrible Reasonoids!!! Be morally superior like MEEE!!!

        I obviously LOVE the Gaia Mama-Earth, as can be clearly seen by my Own Sacred Efforts to Serve as a Human Carbon Sink? Did y’all know that Yers Truly is doing his / her VERY best, and serving as a “human carbon sink”? Whenever anyone brings free food to work, or there is a pot-luck of ANY sort, I make DARN sure to follow “fair is fair”? Half for me, half for everyone else! And so I have put MANY carbon atoms WAY into the deep freeze, OUT of them that thar atmosphere, and stored into Mine Own Beloved Body, AKA, the Human Carbon Sink? I do it ALL fer U, and The Earth Goddess Gaia, and The Children! And, Yer Welcome!!!

        1. PS, the other thing I do to show my Love of Gaia? As a cat-loving, Gaia / Mother Earth Loving, Baby-Seals-loving kind of Morally Superior Personoid that I am, I have to conclude washing cloth diapers, or using disposal diapers, or flushing one’s urine stains or poop stains down the drain, wastefully, is all abhorrent to Gaia. So I fartilize the earth in the back yard with my poop and pee. Poop and pee STAINS remaining on me, you ask? Well, the Earth Mother has kindly, graciously provided us ungrateful sub-humanoids with PERFECT puddy-tats to show us the way! They use neither cloth nor un-natural fibers to clad their babies’ butts, or even to wipe their own? They LICK them clean, in a Gaia-loving way. Most of us can’t lick our own butts, sad to say, so the VERY least we could, and should, be doing, is to use recycled cloth butt-wipes and lick them clean, wasting neither precious water (Gaia-Mother’s precious BLOOD, you know!) nor fiber, nor polluting the Mother Earth with artificial fibers or pollutants. If y’all aren’t doing it like I say, here, y’all are just making the baby seals cry, that’s all I’m gonna say now? Do as I say, REPENT NOW! Before it is too late!

      1. No, you just don’t believe Aori is best waifu enough; therefore, you are denied.

        1. The original link is still SF’d. Fix it stat!

  2. Sooo, we’ve moved past the deadlock phase to the breakthrough after midnight phase, and the cold light of day phase is manifesting itself?

    1. Why can’t you just be excited about this thrilling show of unprecedented show of global cooperation?

  3. Ron, does the PCC play its theme song in the hallways?

    Promises, Promises.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBupia9oidU

  4. “That is a sign ? and they made those commitments before they came here, the 180, now up to 186. But they came here and made a statement through the announcement of those determinations that they are determined, we are determined to succeed here in Paris.”

    I promise, the check’s in the mail.

    1. I rather suspect the United States won’t comply, nor will China or India.

    2. Yeah well, FIFA still has more members with 209. So. Pft.

      http://bit.ly/1OlYdvl

  5. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry sought to assure Americans that this time they will not be taken for chumps

    The head clown says there’s no funny business going on.

  6. You don’t have to do too much analysis to highlight weakness in whatever accord is finalized. At the end of the day, the whole affair is based on pledges to begin with, and a pledge is just that. A pledge.

    But that doesn’t mean there isn’t reason for some optimism. Take your note of China, for example. Yes, there is a pledge out in 2030. But they are taking action now, including a cap and trade system (a kind of carbon tax) that we can’t even get passed here.

    And maybe most importantly, they have a ghastly carbon pollution problem that is forcing even more current action toward reducing emissions. There has been in the last 2 years a reduction in coal consumption

    “But the gloom pervading northern China’s coal country could mean brighter prospects for worldwide efforts to slow global warming. Some experts say that if China’s coal use continues to slow or even falls, its greenhouse gas emissions could peak years earlier than the government had promised, which could make a critical difference planetwide in limiting rising temperatures and sea levels.”

    We will see. We have enough what ifs and maybes about our own pledges…particularly if the GOP wins the next round of elections

      1. From the link:
        “China’s coal consumption weakened last year and through the first half of this year, largely because of a slowing economy, according to statistics from China’s largest coal industry analysis group.”
        So there’s probably even chances it’s a temporary change.

        “But the gloom pervading northern China’s coal country could mean brighter prospects for worldwide efforts to slow global warming.”
        Great Jack. Starve a Chinaman for your religion! I’m sure you loved colonialism!

    1. Do you know what the cost of a ton of carbon would need to be set at for it to have the actual desired effect on the market?

      1. Dude, let it go.

        Let the idiots carry all the face they can off the battlefield.

        If Ron is to be believed, they’ve lost. It’s their battle of midway, and three of their carriers are aflame while the pilots that took a generation to train and equip drown in the pitiless ocean. Let them declare that they’ve won a glorious victory and sail the survivors home.

        1. So who’s Yorktown in this analogy?

          *eyes Trudeau warily*

          1. I would think analogue to the Yorktown would be all the men and women of integrity that have been cowed into silence or had their careers blighted by the cult.

            It will probably take 30 to 60 years to purge the west’s scientific institutions of the damage caused to them by this religious cult. Some likely will never recover.

      2. I’m not sure how China is basing their system. But there have been a number of different studies done on what the social cost of carbon should be set at. The Interagency Panel on Sicial Costs of Carbon set it at between $5 and $65 per ton, with a central value of $25 in 2015. That would be a starting point for discussion.

        1. “I’m not sure how China is basing their system.”

          I know exactly what they’re basing their system on–stay out of the government’s way, or we’ll torture you to death.

          http://www.ishr.org/countries/…..-of-china/

          At some point, you really should condemn authoritarianism–because right now you’re coming across as a useful idiot.

          You don’t know how China sets its government standards? You think that’s because you didn’t study it in school?

          No one knows how China sets its standard, and anyone who asks gets locked up in prison.

          1. China actually has 7 previous carbon markets already set up, so they have their own pricing history to draw on, si I am sure they will figure it out.

            http://www.thepmr.org/system/files/documents/PMR China Market Newsletter_Hi Res 5_19.pdf

            Now don’t YOU be an idiot, useful or otherwise.

            1. How effective have those carbon markets been?

              http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12…..lenge.html

              You think the prices in those “markets” have effectively reduced emissions to acceptable levels?

              And by what legitimate authority is China’s government imposing these “markets” on people anyway?

              Do you approve of those methods?

              1. The 7 pilot program covered 7 cities, not the entire country. So they were never going to have the effect the planned nationwide effort will have.

                The success to date has been questionable for sure. And that is because they all recognize the price has been too low.

                “The pilot plans’ effectiveness is unclear, according to experts. Some cities have cited success. Beijing, for example, credits its system with decreasing carbon dioxide emissions by nearly 6% in 2014”

                Are you serious? Are you suggesting that when I cite efforts in a country to reduce emissions I am endorsing torture? Please. I’m not even endorsing their plan, just stating the fact of what they are doing.

                Of course, that isn’t saying much there, but it’s a start. And it is what they are building on.

                1. “The 7 pilot program covered 7 cities, not the entire country.”

                  The fist two cities I saw were Shanghai and Beijing!

                  Their emissions are still just as bad as anybody’s! If you think those “market” prices reflect the legitimate price necessary to clean up Beijing’s and Shanghai’s air, the you’re plain, flat wrong on the facts. To whatever extent those “markets” are effective, they are still completely ineffective.

                  1. “BEIJING ? Officials in Beijing declared on Monday that the thick smog blanketing the city was bad enough to require a red alert, the first time they had raised the alarm to its highest level since an emergency air-pollution response system was announced in 2013.

                    Across the city, residents braced for another “airpocalypse” ? the term that some English speakers here use for the most toxic bouts of air pollution.

                    If carried out properly, the temporary restrictions will affect many of Beijing’s more than 20 million residents. From 7 a.m. on Tuesday to noon on Thursday, schools will be required to close; cars will be allowed to drive only on alternate days, depending on their license plate numbers; and fireworks and outdoor barbecuing will be banned (grilled kebabs are a hugely popular street food in the city). In addition, government agencies will have to keep 30 percent of their automobiles off the streets.”

                    New York Times, December 7, 2015

                    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12…..alert.html

                    If you think the market prices set on Beijing’s carbon market are sufficient to effectively reduce emissions to reasonable levels there, then you’re an ignoramus.

                    Will you believe anything people tell you if it confirms your biases?

                    1. P.S. By what legitimate authority does the Chinese government impose market trading for carbon credits on its people, and do you or don’t you approve of imposing such caps on the American people without the consent of Congress?

      3. You may find this interesting:

        Another measure with a strong foundation in economic theory is putting a price on carbon. In Sweden, pricing carbon through CO2 taxation has been the main policy instrument to drive fossil fuel consumption down ? and it has done so significantly over the last 20 years.

        “The CO2 tax in Sweden was first introduced in 1991 alongside already existing energy taxes and has gradually been significantly increased, from 29? in 1991 to 125? in 2014 for households and services. The tax is coordinated with the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS), which was adopted in 2005. Industrial installations covered by the EU ETS are not subject to the CO2 tax.”

        It’s currently set at a whopping $168 per ton, and they are doing fine. It’s not like this is anew concept with no history to draw from.

        1. You may find this interesting:

          In order to have the desired stated effect, that is getting power generators to stop using carbon-based fuels, the cost of carbon credits would need to be over $1000/ton. I work for a company whose job it is to know this and it’s not a secret.

          In contrast, Massachusetts is eyeing a bill to raise the cost to $40/ton over the next seven years. This is not about getting generators off carbon, it’s about making money.

          1. “This is not about getting generators off carbon, it’s about making money.”

            And signalling to losers like Jack who wants to feel good’ about something.

          2. I should also state that the $1000/ton figure is a pure market-based signal and leaves out government meddling.

        2. It is fascinating that all it takes to stop global warming is to hand over money.

          1. Don’t forget freedoms, its money and freedoms…

        3. I may be just a rube but I’m a little weary of pointing to Scandinavia. Their ‘dirigiste’ economies don’t interest me in the least for many reasons. They can, if a government measure fails, just change or reverse course (seemingly) on a whim because of their small, largely deferent to authority populations.

          Not so much in bigger, diverse and more dynamic economies with a strong liberty impulse like the USA.

          They – and Canada – have a damn lot to lose if these sort of schemes go wrong for the economy.

        4. Another measure with a strong foundation in economic theory is putting a price on carbon. In Sweden, pricing carbon through CO2 taxation

          So it’s not a “price,” it’s a tax.

    2. By the way, Ronald, GOP front runner to become President has stated this:

      “The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.”

      Maybe China has greater concern about being taken for chumps.

      1. And maybe most importantly, they have a ghastly carbon pollution problem that is forcing even more current action toward reducing emissions.

        China’s air quality problems are not from CO2 emissions; but soot, single oxides, etc.

        CO2 is a clear odorless gas, if China’s emissions were nothing but CO2, the air in Chinese cities would be clear and clean as in any forest.

        A good proportion of increased air quality in the developed nations can be traced to essentially offshoring smog-maker industries to China, then still enjoying the products of said industries via trade deficit by importing from China. That game cannot go on forever.

        1. It’s from the burning of fossil fuels, so the reduction of fossil fuel use has the added benefit of reducing carbon.

          1. This is akin to saying that renoving all water from the planet would eliminate drowning deaths. The proximate cause is the lack of electrostatic scrubbers and precipitators, not burning fossil fuels. Tell me just how many sulfates and how much soot burning methane produces.

      2. “The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.”

        And who can look at the Kyoto treaty and assume that it was anything other than this. Russia was given carbon credits for adding forests, while the US (in the midst of major forest reclamation as we reduced our agricultural footprint) was denied the same credits. Europe’s targets were based on the simple fact that they were already in the process of modernizing the energy infrastructure of failed Bloc states. And third world countries were granted a simple process through which they could “declare” an intention to build CO2-intensive infrastructure and then offer to NOT build it in return for carbon credits. That is, any country that hadn’t already gamed the system (like Russia and the EU) would have to either cripple its economy or pay third world chrony countries for the privilege to continue producing. Strangely, the US was the only country that would have to do this.

        Yeah, how could someone objective think that the whole point was to make the US either pay off poor countries to not improve infrastructure for their citizens or make manufacturing competitively more expensive? How could they ever get that idea?

        1. Trump supporter?

          1. It’s non-responses like this that make my $50 donation to Reason in your name so worthwhile.

    3. Jackand Ace|12.11.15 @ 10:38AM|#
      “But that doesn’t mean there isn’t reason for some optimism.”

      Just for reference, here’s what Jack posted as proof positive that Americans want to DO MORE!
      http://environment.yale.edu/cl…..ent-paris/

      Feel free to laugh; it’s what he deserves.

    4. How do slow something that isnt happening Jack?

      Really, I want to know.

      1. It’s not?

    5. “particularly if the GOP wins the next round of elections”

      Or maybe if the electorate decides supporting your religion isn’t worth wearing hair shirts.

    6. If you get really excited about this, then I assume you get really excited whenever you hear your congressman open his mouth.

    7. This is the same China that has been systematically lying about its CO2 emissions for the last couple decades, right? I’m sure now that they’ve come clean they will never lie again.

  7. Of course, what Kerry and other representatives from rich country governments are hoping is that by getting these countries to adopt the new Paris climate agreement that they can be persuaded down the road to make faster and deeper cuts.

    Well why wouldn’t they?

  8. Two days ago at the Paris climate change conference, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry sought to assure Americans that this time they will not be taken for chumps.

    Well, that’s settled then.

    1. Actually, they are being taken for chumps. If the Democrats controlled the Senate, I believe the morons would have agreed to gut the American economy.

      1. Crap, I somehow deleted my second paragraph!

        In order not to be stopped by the meanie Republicans, the morons in the Obama admin have agreed to something that is toothless. But that’s not out of a desire to not be taken for chumps. Their intentions were entirely chumpy.

      2. Ron only said ‘not so fast’ twice in this article.

        I think he could have added those words fourteen or fifteen times. After all, he was writing about John F’ing Kerry.

  9. “U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry sought to assure Americans that this time they will not be taken for chumps. How so?”

    By lying through his teeth.

    The primary purpose of this conference was to legitimize (justify coercive power) what they want to do to us.

    It’s bad enough when vicious dictatorships like China’s make a mockery of democracy by sending representatives to a deliberative body like this for show–even while pro-democracy activists languish in China’s prisons. Much worse when our own democratic government tries to use deliberation with an authoritarian, one-party state like China’s to try and legitimize using the government to inflict the Obama regime’s will on us–unconstitutionally and without any input from Congress.

    Congress should pass a resolution specifically rejecting this agreement–with all of its specific text–to make it quick and easy for the Supreme Court to flush this bathroom tissue of an agreement down the toilet where it belongs.

  10. I wonder if our negotiators and activists understand that non western countries negotiate with a different intent? After all, psychologically we are W.E.I.R.D – western, educated, industrialized, rich and democratic.

    Probably not. Which is why they’ll be shocked and appalled when none of the non-weird countries implement policies that harm their countries or transfer wealth to others. The exception is western crony capitalists, of course. They know exactly how this game is played and they’ll make out like bandits.

    1. “I wonder if our negotiators and activists understand that non western countries negotiate with a different intent?”

      Negotiations happen between free people and their representatives.

      This is the United States and China conspiring against their own people, and there isn’t anything especially more representative about the Obama administration representing us than the unelected Chinese government representing them.

      Obama was not elected to negotiate with other states on our behalf. We have a Congress that either grants or denies him that authority, and Congress has to ratify them afterwards, too.

      This isn’t a negotiation. This is planning with other governments to impose rules on average Americans–without the benefit of representation.

      1. Not just rules, but freedom and prosperty robbing rules that will cost those of us they deign will bear the brunt of their stupid fantasies a shit ton of cash. That the priests of the AGW get stinking rich skimming a good portion of the wealth transfer scam they are running is not accidental either. These people are fucking evil.

    1. Hmm, thought I was on AM links and so neglected the traditional OT. My apologies for the breach of protocol.

      1. No, no, i think it’s applicable.

        Woodchippers are NEVER off topic when discussing some bullshit that government actors want to force on people.

  11. AP is not on the reservation here:

    “Billions in climate aid pledges have ‘wild west’ accounting”
    […]
    “LE BOURGET, France (AP) ? There’s a lot of money in climate financing. Six years ago, rich nations pledged that by 2020 they would provide $100 billion a year in aid, loans and private money to help poorer nations cope with climate change and wean themselves off fossil fuels. This week in Paris, they’re pledging even more, and discussing whether developing nations like China need to pony up, too.
    But what exactly are they paying for? In the wild west of climate finance, the funding includes things like a “love movie festival,” research on elephant sounds and even new coal plants.
    When it comes to climate money, expert after expert says, don’t believe most figures.”
    http://www.sfgate.com/business…..691295.php

    Hey, Jack and Tony fell for it…

    1. I am wondering how much this completely unproductive boondoggle is going to hobble the global economy and stifle technological and economic progress. They are the modern equivalent of the Medieval Catholic church. They want to drag us back into the dark ages where peasants pay indulgences to a privileged class. Really, fuck these people. They should all burn in hell.

      1. The costumes and holy text have changed, but everything else remains the same.

      2. They are worse than medieval Catholic Church. At least the Church preserved last remnants of Empire in the West from your barbaric ancestors, created universities, allowed a path to success for people of wrong birth, produced some stunning architecture and sponsored the artists whose works helped sparked the exit of Western Europe from Middle into Modern Age.
        These fuckers only destroy.

      3. Really, fuck these people. They should all burn in hell.

        But, hey, why bang your fists about the AGW phenomenon if the proposed solutions are capitalist/libertarian, right?

        Who cares that many of the true believers are rather fundamentally anti-science and anti-humanity, if they somehow managed to find actual solutions to implement amongst themselves and somehow managed not to insist on foisting them on the rest of humanity, there’d be no reason to be adamantly opposed to them, right?

    2. Poor people in rich countries being forced to give money to rich people in poor countries.

  12. As a lay person, there are a couple of notable problems I’ve had with the Court over recent years.

    For one, they defer too much to the Commander-in-Chief in times of war. For another, judicial restraint seems to make them too reluctant to overrule legislation that’s passed both houses of Congress and been signed by the President–when it should be found unconstitutional.

    Does anybody genuinely expect that the court will uphold penalties predicated on an “agreement” with foreign states that hasn’t been ratified by Congress and doesn’t have any of their input whatsoever?

    If Obama uses an executive order to change EPA emission standards in compliance with this “accord”, and someone sues, how likely do you think it is that the Court will uphold those fines?

    This ain’t a “penaltax”. Congress didn’t pass this mess.

    1. If Obama uses an executive order to change EPA emission standards in compliance with this “accord”, and someone sues, how likely do you think it is that the Court will uphold those fines?

      Very likely. EPA’s mandate is to fight pollution. If CO2 is a pollutant, then it’s within their purview, at which point they can set fines to be whatever the fuck they want.
      Because it’s fresh in my mind, Road to Serfdom has a section trying to explain the difference between legalism and Rule of Law. Above would be an example. Obamacare would, too, for that matter.

      1. I don’t suppose the Obama regime would be able to sell their justification as being tied to the “accord”.

        I doubt any of us will live long enough to see all the damage that Obama has done to our country undone.

        1. The problem is that nothing prevents Obama from working with other nations to set goals as long as he already has the authority to enact those rules. For example, the President already has authority over the military and DHS. He doesn’t need authorization to coordinate with Canada on border control or to coordinate military exercises with Japan. Since he already has authority to control CO2 as a pollutant, the President and EPA can do whatever they want.

          If I were the GOP controlled government next year, I would declare that “Climate Change” is too much of a risk and that it needs its own entity to control CO2. I would then prohibit the EPA from regulating CO2 or funding CO2 research and create a National CO2 Board funded to study the problem and recommend regulations that will go up for votes. All the CO2 alarmists would then go to that regime, and when they proposed some draconian law, everyone would support closing down the department all together.

          1. “For example, the President already has authority over the military”

            Because the courts have been reluctant to meddle with the Commander-in-Chief’s war powers in times of war is no reason why they ignore the Treaty Clause.

            [The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur.”

            I can give Obama directions to the Senate if he needs them–just take a left at the Washington Monument.

          2. “If I were the GOP controlled government next year”

            If I were the GOP controlled Congress this year, I’d bring up the text of the treaty for a vote–and vote. it. down.

            Let’s see Obama (or some fresh new hell of a President) try to implement it after it’s been explicitly rejected by Congress.

      2. PZ: The Supreme Court has already ruled that the EPA can regulate CO2 emissions.

        1. I appreciate that, Mr. Bailey. Thank you.

          In regards to the case you linked, the case answered the question: “Does the Clean Air Act give the EPA authority to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases?”

          It’s one thing to say they have the authority under the Clean Air Act–that’s an act of Congress.

          Quite another to subject people to standards, reporting, and enforcement mechanisms that do not originate from the Clean Air Act at all but from an “accord”, an accord in which the President was not given fast track authority by Congress and Congress never even got to vote up or down on.

          That’s taxation without representation.

          1. Oh my, would you ever expect them to set up the regulation based on the accord, then defend it as unrelated to the accord, but rather as part of their core mission to fight pollutants? And the Court saying, yup, seems legit, go on?

            Something something penaltax…

            1. But the penaltax was based on an act of Congress.

              This is not based on any Congressional input whatsoever.

              That’s the difference between democracy and not democracy.

        2. So the SCOTUS made every living being exhaling a poluter, helping the AGW church yet a step closer to that global culling these watermelons are really after….

    2. It doesn’t matter. The trial is the punishment. Through rules they can enact de facto laws. Even if the courts ultimately slap them down (see ozone rules) they can affect permanent change just by having the threat of rules hanging over everyone’s heads.

  13. I can’t read these ‘climate’ articles any more.It’s always warmest ever ,save the world,.end is nigh,give us money,DOOM ,THE POLAR BEARS!!,,fuck it.

    1. Yes, after all the sound and fury it always ends with ‘pay up’.

      It looks like a scam because it is one.

    2. This is where climate change morphs into an economic and political issue.

      Before it was all noise. Now it matters.

    3. The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was making the world think he didn’t exist. These are the Usual Suspects in Paris.

  14. This formulation – 180 countries/95 percent – has become a ritual incantation

    Nice to see Bailey using religious language where it belongs.

    More importantly, though, are the pledges appropriately gender-responsive and based on indigenous peoples knowledge and local knowledge systems?

    1. “More importantly, though, are the pledges appropriately gender-responsive and based on indigenous peoples knowledge and local knowledge systems?”

      Cowabunga!

      1. Well,people burning wood and dung to heat and cook have so much to teach us.And of course women know so much more about the kitchen.If we lived like that the mother earth would smile,and think of all the exercise from carrying water for miles and washing laundry in a steam by hand.You know,with 10 more orphans I could pull that off.

    2. M: Not to worry – gender responsiveness and indigenous knowledge is included in the current text.

      1. +1 it’s only about the science… 😀

      2. So,Ron,what does gender have to do with ‘science’ and what ‘knowledge’ do these ‘indigenous ‘ people have that is so important? Are female Inuit so in touch with nature they know more then Al Gore and all the socialist gathered in Paris?

        1. I think the “Dry humor” module in your Sarcasmometer is defective and needs to be replaced.

          1. No,I really want to know,I mean,if this is so important in any deal,tell us what it is.

            1. It’s not…. fascinatingly though, the cultists see, to think it is. Hence the joke.

      3. “Not to worry – gender responsiveness and indigenous knowledge is included in the current text.”

        So there’s a comedy act in there?

  15. A point i referenced earlier this year =

    No one really knows what China’s emissions levels are

    any claims they make of “cuts” will be on basis-levels they grab out of their ass.

    The margin of error in their own data is larger than the total CO2 contribution of Europe.

    IMHO, its all bullshit, and China has zero interest in any foreign powers dictating its energy use policy. End of story. The rest is all just first-world nations stroking each other’s egos.

    1. Exactly. You can fully expect that the Carbon tax will be used to fleece foreign companies for more money, up to the point where politically connected Chinese start losing business to other countries. Then the right numbers will be adjusted to fix the glitch.

      1. Hey all the 5 year plans came in over estimates .don’t you know? China leader in green energy Joe.

    2. G: Which to be fair is why the U.S. and the E.U. are pushing hard to tough monitoring and review provisions in the accord.

      1. Oh yes! Because tough monitoring and review provisions have a great track record of preventing waste and fraud foreign aid projects!

  16. the particle board hallways

    It’s at least the second time Mr. Bailey mentions this. Must have made a deep impression for him.

  17. It’s like liberal “compromises” on budget or immigration issues, except that the US liberals are on the losing end this time. We make promises that the Obama Gang intends to enforce; other countries make much milder promises down the road that they have no intention of keeping if it hurts their economies. But Feckless Leader and John Fresno Kerry get to preen themselves, and what could be more important than that?

  18. CO2 is an extremely minor component of so-called greenhouse gasses. Water vapor is the major component by far but is excluded from the computer models. Ice core studies show that CO2 goes up after temperature goes up, trailing by several hundreds years. Sun spots throw more UV energy out into space, thereby hitting the Earth. More sunspots means more energy–heat–for Earth. We are now in a time of little to no sunspot activity that may rival the Maunder Minimum which caused the little ice age. More likely than not we are about to be subjected to a big chill caused by forces totally beyond the control of hubristic humans. This new agreement is only going to do what the other agreements have done, transfer billions of dollars from one set of pockets to the limited set of pockets of people like Al Gore, making them fabulously wealthy but doing absolutely nothing for the desperately poor of this world.

  19. The two largest polluters in the world: China & India have zero intention of ever letting ecological concerns interfere with their commerce, ever. Discussion over.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.