The U.N. Has Been Holding Climate Conferences for 30 Years. Carbon Emissions Continue To Climb.
Atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperatures are on the rise after 33 years of largely fruitless negotiations.
United Nations' climate change conferences are exercises in futility. That is becoming ever clearer as the 30th conference of the parties (COP30) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) opens in Belém, Brazil. The chief goal of the UNFCCC is to achieve the "stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system."
Since the UNFCCC was negotiated at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, the concentration of greenhouse warming carbon dioxide (CO2) in the global atmosphere has been anything but close to stabilized. Instead, it has increased from 359 parts per million (ppm) to 425 ppm this year. And the increase is speeding up. The World Meteorological Organization reports that from 2023 to 2024, the global average concentration of CO2 "surged by 3.5 ppm, the largest increase since modern measurements started in 1957." The increase is largely the result of rising emissions from burning oil, natural gas, and coal to produce the energy that drives economic growth.

Global average temperatures have been rising concomitant with the increase in atmospheric CO2. In 1992, the global average temperature was about 0.5 degrees Celsius (0.9 degrees Fahrenheit) above the 1850–1900 baseline. In the succeeding 32 years, the global average temperature has risen, reaching 1.55 degrees Celsius (2.8 degrees Fahrenheit) above the baseline in 2024. In fact, 2024 was the hottest year in the instrumental record, and the last 10 years have been the 10 warmest years on record.

The signatories to the 2015 Paris Climate Change Agreement pledged to hold "the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels." That's not going to happen.
Climate researcher Zeke Hausfather asserted last year at COP29 that the 1.5 degree limit was "deader than a doornail." In June, Le Monde reported that a team of international climate scientists concurred that the goal "is no longer attainable." A recent U.N. report seems to affirm the unlikelihood of hitting these thresholds, finding that by 2035 humanity must cut its carbon dioxide emissions by 55 percent below its 2019 levels to achieve the global temperature limits outlined in the Paris Agreement. (I reported in 2022 from COP27 in Egypt that "1.5°C is already dead.")
At COP30, the Paris Agreement signatories are supposedly obligated to increase their nationally determined contribution pledges to cut their greenhouse gas emissions. But at the opening of COP30, around 130 out of 194 signatory countries had not yet submitted any new emissions reduction commitments. The U.N. report calculates that the pledges that have been made would cut global emissions by only 10 percent by 2035. So yes, the aspirational 1.5 degree limit is kaput.
So why have more than three decades of international negotiations largely failed? Because they have run headlong into what political scientist Roger Pielke, Jr. calls the "iron law of climate policy." As Pielke puts it, "when policies focused on economic growth confront policies focused on emissions reductions, it is economic growth that will win out every time."
In their October 2025 article in Communications Earth & Environment, a team of researchers at the University of Washington more or less confirmed Pielke's law. The researchers note that "overall carbon emissions rose, due to the rapid rise in world GDP, which more than canceled out the progress" made in reducing emissions. On the other hand, they report the good news that carbon intensity—carbon emissions per unit of GDP—has been steadily declining. Basically, markets are encouraging the adoption of low-carbon energy technologies and ever greater fuel efficiency. The researchers calculate that if carbon intensity continues to improve at current rates that global emissions will fall by 64 percent by 2100. That implies a projected increase in global average temperature of 2.4 degrees Celsius by 2100 and basically rules out the worst-case climate change scenarios.
On Thursday, U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres denounced missing the 1.5 degree limit as a "moral failure" and declared, "This COP must ignite a decade of acceleration and delivery." More than three decades of largely fruitless climate negotiations argue that COP30 will prove to be just more of the same.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please to post comments
And yet, all the dooms day scenarios trumpeted in those 30 years, none have come to pass.
Are you trying to say that climate prophet Algore was wrong?
The penultimate paragraph is a vague admission that economists and unalterable economic policy were right all along and that the problem will solve itself without destroying the planet or even necessarily widespread destruction. That the last 100 yrs. of ecological tyranny trying to blink humanity out of existence was worse than the next 100 yrs.
Normally, this is the point in the narrative where the level-headed misfit points out that they've walked past the same landmark before. The virtuous, self-righteous leader and everyone else in the group realizes he's been reading the map upside down, and someone punches him in the face while he's reading the map and they throw him off the cliff.
Of course, we've had repeated demonstrations that we should've been chucking the intellectual dead weight off of cliffs for generations at this point, rather than accumulating them, but here we are.
On the other hand, many useless bureaucrats and various grifting "non-profit" organizations their relatives run have raked in half a gazillion dollars.
We should consider nuking the next one.
“BELEM, Brazil, Nov 10 (Reuters) - As COP30 opens on Monday for the more than 190 countries participating, it was unclear what exactly they would discuss during the two-week U.N. summit in Brazil’s Amazon city of Belem.”
I’m sure the original plan was to have this figured out by year 31.
A meeting to set the parameters for the meeting!
How corporately bureaucratic!
MORE TESTING NEEDED!
Which means another hundred billion shelled out for by the taxpayers.!!! Yeehaw!
100 billion? Al Gore secured 5.5 trillion with Obummer and biden
Bailey will literally never live that one down because he won't admit he was wrong. And not just wrong about his positions, but wrong about his fundamental assumptions that led him into Covid nonsense.
I'd let him move on if he ever owned up to the fact that his underlying approach was all wrong. If he acknowledged that the default position for any organization or narrative is to be skeptical and consider possible motivations, and to see if current studies are consistent with historical results (ie, whether masks are effective) examining the same question when the issue is less charged. If he wrote a comprehensive article about how he intends to operate going forward with a bit more suspicion of narratives that become politically charged, like the wet-market leak theory, I'd be willing to accept what he has to say without seeing his name and immediately thinking, "MORE TESTING NEEDED."
He is a nine times boosted moron.
More boosting needed.
Faith-based religion and nothing more.
Some countries give lip-service while other countries terrorize their citizens with the doomsday prophecies.
Climate people are very much like Muslims - our way or we will kill you given the chance.
Main difference being that the climate religion still thinks you are the problem even after you submit to their faith.
The difference between Christianity (and most other real religions) and Climate Catastrophe is that Christianity (and most other real religions) have a coherent philosophy which does not rely on falsifiable lies.
Also there's generally paths to absolution in Christianity, so you can be made righteous again (well, except for Calvinism). Climatism has you always guilty of the original sin and there's nothing you can do other than to give constantly more sacrifices to the Earth Mother.
Anybody ever add the carbon footprint of all those conferences?
They just cut down four hundred acres in the Amazon zone for a recent conference.
1.5 million tons of co2 or more generated every single time they have a climate conference. Based on 7000 tons per private jet round trip flight and 200 member countries each with their own private jet. If they were not selfish fks and took commercial flights it would only be around 5000 tons.
If we just euthanized all socialists on earth humans would be saved.
The carbon narrative is a myth created by people such as Al Gore and Bill Gates (of hell).
In truth, you are the carbon they want to eliminate.
Bill Gates has changed his mind and now does not want to ban fossil fuels. Of course, this makes him public enemy #1 for the climate cult.
Sounds like someone told him how much power his AI will need - - - - - - -
Nah. They just want us to all return to living in caves and being hunter/gatherers on the savannah so we can be carbon neutral.
Of course, they'll be safely ensconced in modern luxury so they can monitor everyone and make sure that conditions remain in equilibrium.
It's right out of the Dr. Strangelove playbook.
Geesh here we are again putting assumptions ahead of reality and attempting to push pseudo science.
First off. How can anyone be serious about CO2 readings from the top of an active volcano? One that is not consistent in its daily outputs?
Second. There is not scientific evidence the earth's temperatures have risen.
Consider the US east coast had a couple of temperature recorded highs finally get broken in 2025 that had not since the 1860's. And the temperatures were 0nly 0.3 degrees F higher.
The bullshit lies of temperatures being 1 to 1.5 degrees C above those in 1860 are exactly that, bullshit lies. These are not science backed assumptions and those spewing and regurgitating these lies are fear mongers trying to create a crisis from nothing to benefit with power and profit.
The Maldives were the poster child islands that sea level rise would consume by 2020. Billions poured in to save them.
What happened? 3 new airports and many high end resorts were built. The actual accurate water level sensors show the water level reduced and has not risen.
AGW has always been, and still is bullshit. It’s just a phantom menace used to push Marxism.
Ice cores show the earth was in a low spot and would climb out of it from the mid 1800's until 2200ish. The wave pattern of temps shown in the Ice cores show a consistent 3.5 degrees F from coldest to warmest over many centuries and include the medieval warming period which was 5 degrees F higher than the temps shown in the mid 1800's.
As the earth was at the lowest temps shown in ice cores it is absolutely logical and should be expected the earth will naturally warm 3.5 degrees C over that next 300 years as continuing the wave pattern would suggest.
The global warming cult abused the data and knowing that naturally the earth's temperatures will rise they have attempted to say because industrialization began around that time that it is humans causing an effect that is naturally occurring.
Is CO2 a warming gas yes but so are all gases there are no cooling gases. here is the Rub though the most simplistc basic math/physics/chemistry shows that it would take 2500 ppm to move the temperature 1 degree. Every scientist who even looked at it for a minute knows this but they either won't or don't look at it they just accept it. And this laziness is allowing others to control and destroy our progress so they can have global control of everything. Unfortunately to many have accepted what "scientist" claim to be as infallible religion.
If it is true that CO2 is raising the temperatures of the earth then how could it be possible for record low temperatures to exist? Think about it? The assumption is extra CO2 is raising the temperatures of the earth. CO2 spread evenly throughout the atmosphere around the earth would then have the same effect all over the earth. Yet there is no evidence of this.
We had near record cold temps over the weekend and several inches of snow up here in Northern Michigan and elsewhere in the midAtlantic states got lots of snow. Wyoming hit with early season snowfall. It's chilly even for this time in November other wise I would be out smoking some ribs and drinking a cold one in 90* weather LOL!
Enough with the smoke! Don't you realize you're releasing even more CO2?
To sum up what the climate cult wants: we should all become childless cat ladies who never leave our un-air conditioned and unheated houses.
No. Caves. Return to cave living.
Why is CO2 rising? Continuing to destroy global rain forests, old growth forests and jungles around the earth, especially in the tropical regions by BURNING.
Rain forests are the most consistent temperatures of any region on earth. The Amazon temperatures vary less than one degree C throughout the year. If people are afraid of causing the earth's temperatures to change why in the fuck are these not the most protected areas on all of the earth?
The fact over 1 million square KM's have been burned in the Amazon alone since the 1970's and now the sun is warming the soils that had a tree canopy over them for 1000's of years will of course show increased temperatures on a thermometer placed there should not be a surprise.
The lack of these forests sequestering CO2 and the resultant carbon emissions from the wide spread burning daily year over year should not surprise anyone that CO2 is rising.
Add in Pakistan burned down 85% of it' forests since the 1970's, Indonesia destroyed it's rain forests since the 1980's and so has Africa.
Consider the push by Al Gore for Palm oil to profit from that industry has caused massive destruction.
And now scientific studies are revealing there are large reductions in rainfall amounts in the regions where the deforestation has occurred.
NASA satellite photos reveal the destruction since the 1970's, the reduction of clouds and rainfall and the increase of smoke pouring off of South America, Asia and Africa due to the increased amounts of burning forests and yet we are told evil fossil fuels are going to cause the oceans to boil...
Wasn't one of the carbon offset scammers actually caught burning down old growth forests in order to clear a location to plant seedlings in order to cash in on carbon credits?
I was particularly amused when Disney cut down a forest to build a solar farm.
Lies. Satellite imaging shows a net increase in forested areas world-wide.
Rain forests are the most consistent temperatures of any region on earth.
Are you trying to say it wouldn’t snow in the Midwest if it were covered in trees?
Rain forest doesn't equal forest.
Other factors, particularly latitude, have a major effect.
The gross truth. When the IPCC formed and created the agreements it had to entice China to join.
They guaranteed China the ability to double it's CO2 outputs by 2030. This of course was because the nations of fear mongers wanted to virtue signal to their people that they are making the efforts to reduce CO2 outputs and control the climate from changing by sending their manufacturing to China. They were revamping their coal power plants to natural gas and they would reduce their outputs.
Of course the issue was they virtue signalled removing all fossil fuels so they had to try and hide the Natural gas part of the plan. Then with Europe looking to have NG pipelines ran through Syria from Egypt, Qatar and Turkey the coal and nuke could be shut down. Sadly Putin decided he wouldn't have this and stepped on Assad's head, Assad pulled out of the agreement and the war in Syria began. Putin nearly had 100% control of NG in Europe.
Also guarantees that the world would purchase millions of solar panels made in China and windmill and EV components made in China. Again all part of how the western leaders decided they could easily gaslight their people saying they are making a difference with their policies.
China was also to be given a 500 billion dollar check for signing the IPCC agreement. Obama lost election and Trump won. Trump tore up the check and pulled the US from the absurd and horrible IPCC agreements. This of course pissed off a lot of people including China around the world. And the push by all to get rid of Trump began because he shut off the money spicket funding the pseudo science and China.
People need to open their eyes and realize today living conditions and environmental conditions are better now than they were 50 years ago and in fact fossil fuels are not the problem, CO2 is not a problem and destroying the rain forests, old growth forests and jungles are.
Despite the known 2 to 3 degree increase in temperatures due to concrete, asphalt and other heat sinking materials and the heat island effect NYC debunks the human caused climate change fear mongering lies all by itself.
The highest temperature recorded in New York City was 107 °F (42 °C) at LaGuardia Airport on July 3, 1966, while the Central Park record is 106 °F (41 °C), set on July 9, 1936. The all-time record for New York State is higher at 106 °F (41 °C) in Addison on July 4, 1911
re: "the concentration of carbon dioxide in the global atmosphere ... has increased" - Objective fact easily confirmed. (And to a comment above, yes there are sensors not placed at the top of an active volcano that find generally the same trend.)
re: "The increase is largely the result of rising emissions from [fossil fuels]" - Conclusory statement presented without adequate evidence. The null hypothesis is natural causes such as that temperatures are rising as a result of the long-term recovery from the Little Ice Age and that atmospheric CO2 is rising as a result of the oceanic outgassing from such temperature rise. The null hypothesis has not yet been excluded.
I'll also note that your cited temperature records are based on measurement systems and protocols that have been repeatedly shown to be of low quality and that fail to adjust for the well-known Urban Heat Island effect.
That said, yes, regulatory-based emissions restrictions are doomed to failure. As you say, they inevitably conflict with and lose out to economic growth. Greater fuel efficiency would have happened anyway because that's a path to economic success. Regulations, no matter how well intentioned, inevitably hinder rather than help that goal.
You are also correct that the worst-case climate change scenarios are excluded by the evidence. To any rational observer, they've been excluded from the day they were published. Basing regulatory policy on such obviously-wrong scenarios is legislative malpractice. And, yes, the endless COP boondoggle is a tremendous waste of time and money.
achieve the "stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system."
*sigh*
Fine Ron. Just say it. How many unborn babies do we need to sacrifice to the angry sun god?
Just two more weeks.
HOW DARE YOU!
"Mauna Loa Observatory"
It's always a good strategy to measure atmospheric CO2 concentrations right next to an active volcanic eruption, don't you think? It's so sad that humanity has been decimated by the 359 ppm to 425 ppm rise. Soon there will not be enough humans left on the planet to trouble Mother Earth any further.
Thinking that democracies would do anything appreciable about GW has got to be one of the biggest failures among liberals.
Another egregious failure is thinking that liberals are liberal.
What about non-democracies? i.e. China & India. More than a third of the world's human population between them.
So yes, the aspirational 1.5 degree limit is kaput.
That 'aspirational' target was ALWAYS dead and at core a fraud. It takes at least decades for temperatures to stabilize after CO2 concentrations stabilize - decades and maybe centuries for the effects of those temperatures to stabilize - and of course those CO2 concentrations have not stabilized. Further that 1.5C number was basically a randomly chosen number that had little to do with any serious cliff-type consequences (eg permafrost or arctic methane release or AMOC or end of Antarctica) - compared to eg the expected difference between 1.5C and 2C.
They KNEW that that 1.5C was going to be breached in 10 or so years. That no 'cliff' effect would occur at that level. And yet they chose to 'negotiate' something completely unreasonable and impossible - and then hyperventilate as if the end of the world was going to occur with 1.5. Which - already - happened.
They chose to sacrifice their credibility. And that is exactly what should happen. They should be sacrificed. Whatever happens going forward should be done without them - or maybe with their heads on a pike at the entrance to some future conference.
This is the perfect example of how experts screw things up for their own personal benefit. Worse - it emboldens both denialists (who deny that anything has happened) and resisters (who will resist any change in course until after Thelma and Louise go over the cliff).
How about no more conferences?
Similar to sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling Lalalalalalala
It wasn't long ago that this was all American technology and American science. Not a threat to billionaires and lobbyists. Exxon/Kochs/Cato/etc will look really fucking bad in history books. Hell - in 2004, in this very shitrag, Richard Lindzen says he's willing to take bets that global average temperatures in 20 years will in fact be lower than they are now. and John Christy calculated that global temps would increase by 0.8C by the end of the 21st century.
The 0.8C increase has already happened in the years since 2004 - and an increase is certainly bigger than a decrease. Fucking morons. And Bailey should be held accountable for that shit too.
Don’t wet yourself Bailey.
Let's see, 30 years of UN climate meetings that steadfastly refuse to hold China or India to any commitments, and emissions haven't slowed? Gee, whod'a thunk?
And then there’s the anti nuclear power contingent of the green movement. Which appears to still be most of them. I just can’t even begin to take these idiots seriously when they ignore China and India’s emissions output but always want to punish the US, and are simultaneously against nuclear power.
Fuck the green movement. They’re a bunch of clown shoes.
No one has made the point more eloquently than Konstantin Kisin.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJdqJu-6ZPo
OMG! 418/1,000,000 parts!!! or 0.0418% CO2! OMG!
From OMG! 318/1,000,000 parts!!! or 0.0318% CO2! OMG!
OMG! A total temperature change of 0.5C per 100-Years!!! OMG!
Exactly how much of a OCD F'En LUNATIC does one have to be to become alarmed about figures that are so minuscule it would take a Unicorn and Magical Pixie-dust just to get such accuracy from the meter itself.
Ya know; In the 70s it was Global Cooling OMG! We are all going to die!
This isn't about anything but being alarmed for the sake of being alarmed.
CO2 is absorbed by trees and other green plants that covert it into oxygen. There is nothing to worry about as the CO2 is quietly and efficiently removed by the planet's flora.
Charlatans like Al Gore and his Hollywood hypocrites all should just kill themselves and leave the rest of us alone.
It should be obvious by now that “Climate Change,” the artist formerly known as as Global Warming, is there solely to provide an excuse for governments and NGOs to gather power and money from the masses. Select a “crisis,” make sure it can’t be “solved” anytime within a visible timeline, and make sure the solution requires trillions of dollars and endless regulations that only you control. Meetings to be held in exotic locations. Travel by private jet only. Results are completely optional.
Why does anyone take what the U.N. does seriously?
It's been around for 80 years now. It continues to be, as it was when I was in grade school, touted as an organization that promotes international cooperation and maintains peace.
While in reality, it's just a forum for everyone else, particularly banana republic style dictators, to criticize the U.S. and blame us for everything. Perceived or not.