Is The Paris Agreement Realistic? Part 1 Background

Time for some background on the Paris Agreement (PA) that was adopted by consensus in December of 2015 at the 21st Conference of Parties (21COP), a UN organization.  These COP meetings are gatherings of warmers, NGOs, and politicians (seeking to tax and regulate their citizens) usually at some exotic place. The attendance is in the 20,000 range, most of them traveling to Bali or the like in fossil fuel powered jet airplanes in order to attend several weeks of meetings in large air conditioned rooms. A little bit of hypocrisy on display, perhaps.

The objective for the PA in general is described by Wiki as follows:

“(a) Holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels, recognizing that this would significantly reduce the risks and impacts of climate change;

(b) Increasing the ability to adapt to the adverse impacts of climate change and foster climate resilience and low greenhouse gas emissions development, in a manner that does not threaten food production;

(c) Making finance flows consistent with a pathway towards low greenhouse gas emissions and climate-resilient development.”

There are 195 COP members of which 194 have signed the PA.  Former President Obama signed the document.  All the nations but the Obama Administration* shepherding it for the US,  call it a treaty.  The US Senate must ratify any treaty before a treaty becomes law. The US Senate has not done this and is unlikely to do so.

The many nations were called upon to provide “Nationally determined contributions”, meaning how much it would cut CO2 emissions and how much money it would toss in to a UN fund to support the underdeveloped nations that are part of the Treaty.  Interestingly, there is no enforcement provision in the Treaty to make a nation live up to its Nationally determined contributions.  They plan to “name and shame” nations that don’t live up to their commitments.  My guess is that most of the Developed Nations will be subject to the naming and shaming, making the effort meaningless.

The CO2 reduction commitments, made at the time of the signing are nowhere near enough to limit global temperature to 2C rise let alone the preferred 1.5C rise**. The financial commitments are not matching up to the pledges, either.  Further, the time frame over which to reduce CO2 emissions is like 30 years according to the warmers calculations.

The plan going forward to achieve ZERO net CO2 emissions by 2050 requires totally destroying the livelihood of most everyone in the developed nations unless some miraculous inventions are made.

So far, it has been “good politics” to go along with the catastrophic predictions made by the warmers.  Of course, the politicians could resort to continuing to throw money at that proposition because the full impact of its collapse may not be known until after they are no longer seeking office.

Next blog will discuss a warmer road map for meeting the PA climate goals. It is a chimera.

*Ex-President Obama Nationally Determined Contribution for the US CO2 reduction was 80% by 2050.

**Please recall that my view is that CO2 is not the primary determiner of Global temperatures.  I am more worried that the nations will continue to follow the path outlined in the PA.  By continuing to flog this idea that they can prevent warming by draconian measures to eliminate CO2 emissions, will result in great harm to the world.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s