Vetting the Paris Agreement

December 14, 2015

Australian-German Climate and Energy College:

The Paris Agreement writes history.

The crucial Article 4 is: “In order to achieve the long-term temperature goal set out in Article 2, Parties aim to reach global peaking of greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible, recognizing that peaking will take longer for developing country Parties, and to undertake rapid reductions thereafter in accordance with best available science, so as to achieve a balance between anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of greenhouse gases in the second half of this century, on the basis of equity, and in the context of sustainable development and efforts to eradicate poverty. ”

In our assessment, the Paris Agreement rises to the challenge of limiting dramatic climate change. It sets the framework for a chance to limit multi-metre sea-level rise in the long-term. Individual post-2020 country targets put on the table before Paris are insufficient to the task of limiting warming to 2°C, let alone 1.5°C. The so-called INDCs have not been enhanced here in Paris (they were never meant to be enhanced here because the main focus was on the global agreement). Thus, there exists a big gap between INDCs and the global ambition needed. This will need to be bridged by upgraded mitigation contributions from countries in the years to come. In this article, we keep in mind those insufficient country INDCs but look at the Paris Agreement itself.

A well informed observer writes:

Also there is a private Barclay’s investor’s note that was written and sent to clients today coming off the back of COP21 – their closing takeaway: “Investor momentum around portfolio decarbonization will likely continue to build.” 

The Economist:

Perhaps the most significant effect of the Paris agreement in the next few years will be the signal it sends to investors: the united governments of the world say that the age of fossil fuels has started drawing to a close. That does not mean that they are necessarily right, nor that the closing will not be much more drawn out than the Marshall Islands and other such states would wish. But after Paris, the belief that governments are going to stay the course on their stated green strategies will feel a bit better founded—and the idea of investing in a coal mine will seem more risky.

Cartoon in the Rupert Murdoch owned Australian. Again, Racism hand in hand with denial:

australsolar

Joe Romm of ClimateProgress tells me he still stands by his September assessment:

The world appears to have bought itself a little time in the fight to avoid climate catastrophe, according to a new analysis.

Virtually every major country has made pledges to limit or reduce carbon pollution in advance of the Paris climate talks this December. These pledges generally end in 2025 or 2030, and so they only matter if the world keeps ratcheting down its greenhouse gas emissions in future agreements until we get near zero by century’s end. Otherwise we will blow past the 2°C line of defense against very dangerous-to-catastrophic global warming, and hit 3.6°C warming by 2100.

That’s the key finding of a new analysis from Climate Interactive and the MIT Sloan School of Business, tallying up the global pledges to limit carbon pollution leading up to the big Paris climate talks later this year.

Those pledges, called intended nationally determined contributions (INDCs), include the European Union cutting total emissions 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030, the U.S. cutting net greenhouse gas emissions emissions 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025 (including land use change and forestry), and China’s peaking in CO2 by 2030.

climate pledges

Impact of national climate pledges (aka INDCs) on world’s greenhouse gas emissions measured in CO2 equivalents (CO2e).

The good news, as you can see, is that the INDCs have bought us another five to 10 years of staying close to the 2°C path. I asked Andrew Jones, one of the systems-thinking savants behind Climate Interactive, if that was correct and he said, “Yep, about seven years.” By “staying close” I mean staying close enough to the 2°C path that it remains plausibly achievable — though (obviously) politically still very, very challenging.

41 Responses to “Vetting the Paris Agreement”

  1. Don Osborn Says:

    re: Barclay’s investor’s note: This is just what Jeremy Leggett (The Winning of the Carbon War, Solarcentury) has been saying would be the key result of Paris and the greatest driving force towards a decorbonized future. Getting the policy certainty right is helping to drive the investment dollars towards the change we need.


  2. Sigh. While the optimism is admirable, it’s hopelessly unfounded, when compared to reality. The reality is there have been 21 of these conferences, and in that 20 years, anthropogenic emissions and global average temperatures have soared, breaking records. We’ve passed 4 of 9 planetary boundaries for “safe operating space”. We’ve lost half of Earths biodiversity. 27 of Earth’s 31 major aquifers are unsustainably depleted. We’ve lost half of phytoplankton species and the oxygen they produce. Arable land is disintegrating, growing salty and desertifying. Ocean’s are acidifying, deoxygenating and dying. Yet, we’re still fu#k!n like rabbits while consuming finite and irreplaceable resources at unsustainable rates and silencing and threatening scientists who dare tell the dire and inescapable truth of our intractable predicament.

    There’s one stark, ever present and ever worsening truth being omitted in all this excitement over this “landmark climate deal”. The climate and earth’s collapsing ecosystems doesn’t care about or recognize the existence of Humans aspirations or agreements. Don’t care about promises, investors, markets, politics, policies, mitigation plans, sustainable development, green economies and the myriad of other pathologically anthropocentric human generated gobbledygook we’re spewing at each other as we arrogantly and foolishly cling to fantasies that Human actions will have any mitigating or palliative effect on the ever rapidly unfolding 6th great mass extinction and global ecological collapse already in progress. Earth’s battery level is critically low and its energy will not be regenerated until it is shut down and recharged. Oh, and the primary cause of its energy’s unsustainable depletion, industrial civilization and by extension “modern” humans are no more. Earth is creating the conditions for that to come to pass. Those conditions will not be ones humans and 95% of life on Earth can survive in. We need to stop pretending we’re in control of the situation here. We’re not. We’re polishing the brass on the Titanic. This extinction train is rollin and it ain’t got no brakes folks!

    • dumboldguy Says:

      Couldn’t have said it better. You sound like you’ve read the first few chapters of my new “favorite book that summarizes it all best”—-The End of the Long Summer, by Dumanoski.

      You reinforce her points that the Earth’s “systems” have been evolving (slowly) over billions of years, and that what we have done so rapidly over the past 200 years may exceed the capacity of the Earth systems to deal with in any time frame that will guarantee survival of more than a greatly reduced human population (if any humans survive at all).

      The Earth has not had an easy time in the past maintaining equilibrium anyway, and we’ve had hot spells, ice ages, and several mass extinctions. It’s a wonder that life has managed to survive this long.


    • My words to describe this half baked, half-assed deal….. hubris, just plain stupid arrogance, WILLFUL NAIVETY and those are the kindest things I could say….

      Back in Jan 1920, in Paris, there was another wonderful deal reached by majority of the world. It too lacked enforce-ability. I see so many “rhymes” between these two events.. This was the League of Nations…. those of us who paid attention in history classes understand how that turned out… DO YOU REALLY THINK THIS WILL HAVE A DIFFERENT OUTCOME!!!!!

      This deal allows people to pretend that there is a viable solution that is “equatable” and humane… There is not…. It is to late.

      The behavior and “rationalization” exhibited by the “negotiators”, is just another form of Denial….. and one that in the end…. may be more destructive than that espoused by Exxon….

      We need a pragmatic realistic plan to deal with the crap coming our way… and this ass wipe document “ain’t it”!!!

      I think Raul over at The Automatic Earth hit the nail on the head with his description of Con 21…

      http://www.theautomaticearth.com/2015/12/con21/

      You all need to stop navel gazing, put your feet on the ground and get real!!!


      • What a load of tripe for oldspeak. Go peddle your doomsday crap somewhere else.

        • dumboldguy Says:

          It’s hard to figure out what Bryant is really trying to say, because a 14 word message (of which only 4 words are multisyllabic) does not convey much information. I get the feeling Bryant is saying he doesn’t agree with oldspeak because Bryant is a BELIEVER that ignores science and believes only that which makes him feel good, Talking about “doomsday crap” makes Bryant fearful, so he lashes out.

          Sorry to introduce you to the world of rational analysis of observable fact so painfully, Bryant, but that “doomsday crap” is piling up, and only deniers and the bright-sided refuse to accept it and at least worry about it.

          Why don’t YOU go “somewhere else” and find a site that will tell you what you WANT to believe rather than confuse you with scientific truths. Watts Up With That would be a good one for you—-it’s very popular among the low-IQ and mindless, and they spend much time echoing “feel good” denier bullshit.


  3. In my POV, the best news to come out of Paris is that the PR battle is won. The deniers have lost. The debate has shifted from a scientific one to a programmatic solutions based one. Will the denial complex pack up and go away? Of course not. Nevertheless, the world has moved on. COP21 will hopefully serve as a lesson – IGNORE THEM!

    I am especially interested to see how this reverberates through the presidential campaigns. While I don’t expect the GOP to abandon its carbon benefactors, it will be fascinating to see how they message against COP21. It’s no longer a red and blue wedge issue waged by scientists unskilled in the arts of PR. Now they have to answer to a unanimous global call to solve the problem. This will be entertaining I am sure.

    Fist Bump to COP21!


    • Right. However, the only actual deniers of climate change are those who would set the climate an an unchanging level dating from pre-industry times. Try as hard as you might to ignore those who challenge y’all to do critical thinking on the issue, but the folks you dislike so much remain an itch you cannot scratch.

      Meanwhile:

      “……. HARI SREENIVASAN: Now, you were in Paris. I heard there was actually not quite a scuffle, but a disagreement on the word, whether it should be shall or should, right, whether countries shall make these commitments and these reductions and economic changes or should.

      I mean, now it’s basically — it went towards should, and everything seems rather voluntary.

      MICHAEL LEVI: Ultimately, all of these steps are voluntary. …….”

      Lest anyone forget, President Bush advocated exactly the same position, as reported by the Washington Post back in 2008 ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/16/AR2008041600337.html ): “President Bush yesterday called for a national goal of halting the growth of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 2025, mostly by curbing power plant pollution. But his voluntary target fell well short of what most leading scientists say is needed to avoid dangerous climate change and was widely criticized by Democratic lawmakers and environmentalists.”

      Y’all did the same kinds of leaps of joy and howls of back then for such a ‘pro-science’ position, did ya?


      • Did a tree just fall in the woods?

        • dumboldguy Says:

          That was just Russell, our favorite lying denier POS, trying to obfuscate the truth with his usual BS. He and his ilk won’t go away yet, because they make a living doing this, but desperation IS starting to color their comments.

          Russell is also the guy who hacks WordPress and awards himself “thumbs up” for his comments, just as he did here. That’s also where the “thumbs down” on our comments came from. Russell is NOT an honest man.

          And, like the tree in the woods that doesn’t fall because no one hears it, no one listens to Russell either. I have asked Russell dozens of questions here on Crock and he has not given a decent answer to one of them. Nor does he answer the questions others ask—he just deflects and tries to distract. Since he has NO science training at all, he completely igmnores any and all science-based questions.

          For anyone who wants to understand Russell better, I have copied my final comment from the “attend a hearing” thread, which grew from Russell’s assertion that he DID in fact answer one of my questions.

          “… (And Russell has never answered my many questions about why HE also appears on the address list for those emails). …” Russell replied:

          Yes, I have, but evidently in a manner too subtle for “d.o.g.” to comprehend. It is because I’ve had the opportunity to exchange emails with Dr Singer ever since 2005 (the first as an out-of-the-blue alert to him after seeing some mention of his SEPP site, when I was jousting with Seattle mayor Greg Nickels over Nickels non-science pronouncements about AGW). By the summer of 2009 I had exchanged enough with him that he asked me to meet with him when he came to town, and later that year when I ran headlong into irreconcilable differences in Ross Gellbspan’s accusations about corrupt skeptics, I alerted him to that, and we’ve exchanged many more on that topic ever since. But as I said in prior answers, my work on the smear of skeptics is why Dr Singer emails me and includes me in cc’d email recipients, and you’d think that would be an aswer as plain as the nose on my face, if only “d.o.g.” would take the time to read the content I’ve written over the years in online articles and at GelbspanFiles.com

          (In reply to Russell Cook at December 9, 2015 at 11:28 am, I said:)

          “Yes, Russell HAS already spun out this folksy tale of how he and Uncle Fred “found each other” and became bosom buddies, and just as I did last time, I will call bullshit on Russell. Russell laments that his brilliance would be “….as plain as the nose on my face, if only “d.o.g.” would take the time to read the content I’ve written over the years in online articles and at GelbspanFiles.com”

          “I should actually be anointed as some sort of superhero for venturing onto Russell’s gelbspanfiles.com site as often as I have. My motto could be “I go there and risk my sanity wading through Russell’s BS so you don’t have to”. I have put on my multi-layer tinfoil helmet and knee-high anti-BS boots and ventured over there once again—it appears I have returned unharmed (although I may have difficulty sleeping for a night or two). Here’s what I found:

          1) Almost no one visits Russell’s site. Maybe 15 visits a day, no likes, no tweets.

          2) Russell says he “endorses” the journalist’s “TAO pledge” (Transparency, Accountability, Openness) but won’r sign it himself—-he DOES NOT allow any outside comments on gelbspanfiles “because of lack of time to deal with them” and the fact that lying denier BS elicits what Russell calls “hate mail” (which I define as “questions about lying denier BS that they can’t answer’). It is interesting that Russell is himself a serial commenter on many sites, and spews a brand of “hate mail” that has gotten him banned from several and labeled a “harasser”, “troll”, and “fossil fuel shill” on others.

          3) Russell says that he was “self paid” until January of 2013, at which time he accepted $12,000 from Heartland to whore for fossil fuels. He also took $1000 from the infamous right wing site SPPI and $1350. from CFACT (Morano’s sponsors). Russell has gotten raises since, and I think he’s up near $30K now, although the references to that have mysteriously disappeared from his site since I saw them there. Russell would have us believe that there is no quid pro quo, that taking money from known right wing conservative AGW denier sites has no strings attached. LOL

          4) I have read many of Russell’s pieces over time and marvelled at their “content”. This last visit to gelbspanfiles was used to tally up and analyze the 70+ pieces of work that he cites in his gelbspanfiles “archive” page. There IS a pattern there—-below is a listing of years with the number or “articles” Russell wrote each year and the number of sites on which they appeared in parens.
          2009 (2 on 2 sites)
          2010 (23 on 4 sites)
          2011 (26 on 8 sites)
          2012 (12 on 5 sites)
          2013 (7 on 4 sites)
          2014 (4 on 3 sites)
          2015 (2 on 2 sites)
          Looking at that data, It would seem that Russell has long ago “peaked” and should be looking for his “exit plan” (unless he wants to move back into his mother’s basement and once again starve).

          5) Of course, there IS another explanation for this pattern, and it dovetails nicely with Russell’s warm and fuzzy BS about he and Uncle Fred becoming soulmates. Try this out and see if it fits the data. Russell and Uncle Fred came across each other in 2005, mainly because Russell had decided that his future lay in being a denier whore, and Russell was actually “stalking” Fred. Their meeting in 2009 was a “job interview”, at which Russell was told to “show what he had” by writing denier BS and getting it published. Russell busted his ass doing so during 2010 and 2011 and 2012, and was finally put on the Heartland payroll in 2013.

          “The big dropoff in production over the past two years may be because Russell has become more of a “secret agent” for Heartland, concentrating on making round-robin visits to websites like Crock and “commenting”. Since no one goes to gelbspanfiles, Uncle Fred now sends him to us, and it is NOT a joke when I chide him about “getting his Heartland timecard punched” for each comment. That’s his main source of income now, trudging the internet and trying to obstruct intelligent discussion and sow FUD on sites like Crock, and reinforce the beliefs of the ignorant and stupid conservative lemmings on sites like WUWT and American Stinker.

          “Yes, Russell, it’s as plain as the warts on a toad why Fred copies you on his Merchants of Doubt emails. You are a minion—-one of Heartland’s paid whores, and he somehow thinks that you may have something to contribute as he tries to escape his and Heartland’s fate. Too bad that you’re just a failed graphic design and business major that knows nothing about science—-he should never have put you on the payroll in the first place.

          ******Don’t bother to ask Russell questions about any of this—-he won’t answer******

          • dumboldguy Says:

            If you’re not simply making a joke (I suspect you are), but are asking because you’re perhaps new to Crock and are not familiar with Russell’s BS, go to this link:

            http://www.desmogblog.com/russell-cook

            Watch the first 30 seconds of the video clip of Russell’s “presentation” at the 2014 Heartland conference there as well. Nobody explains how unqualified Russell is to talk about climate change better than Russell himself.


          • Luv “d.o.g.” He’s the gift that keeps on giving, a case study of 911Truther-style, ChemTrail believer-style, creation believer-style conspiracy theory. Witness this gem: “… he’s up near $30K now, although the references to that have mysteriously disappeared from his site since I saw them there. ….” Those references were never there to begin with, and my grant is no higher than it was from the time of my last full disclosure, and there is literally no way “d.o.g.” can prove differently….. otherwise he would have figured out a way to do so by now. BTW, “d.o.g.” was guessing $36k back in June ( https://climatecrocks.com/2015/05/29/dark-snow-touches-down-in-greenland-for-2015-season/comment-page-1/#comment-72974 ), a comment he mysteriously seems to have forgotten about.

            Meanwhile, my online article writing peaked before 2013 because I switched to blogging. There are 100+ blogs at GelbspanFiles now. “D.o.g.” claims to wade into my blog, but in case it isn’t obvious yet, notice how he hasn’t disputed a word I say in there, or within any of my online articles? Nossir, what he does is bless us with the next conspiracy tale about Fred Singer telling me what to do. I’m saving that one for posterity, it is to precious not to share.

            Notice how “d.o.g.” asks everyone to watch the first 20 seconds of my ICCC9 presentation, but never advocates anyone to watch the rest of it to the end. There is a reason for that. Think about it.

            Finally, why do I have the courage to bop into sites like MotherJones, Crocks & others? Quite simple, it’s been a sort of a hobby interest to see if any of you AGW believers can support one of your central orthodoxies, namely the accusation that skeptic climate scientists operate in a conspiracy with industry people, where the agreement is that money will be paid for false science assessments that industry approves of, threatened by a cutoff of funds if the lies stop. As is amply demonstrated by “d.o.g.” and others here, you guys are unable to deliver.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            Yes, Russell, in all his delusionary splendor, fails to see that HE is the gift that “keeps on giving to Crock”. He is such a moron that he links us back to a rather embarrassing (to him) Crock piece from 6 months ago, one that all should indeed visit, because we took Russell completely apart on that thread and it’s fun to relive those moments.

            I don’t care to go back and waste the time trying to find what made me suggest that he was up near $30K, but I DO remember talk of a $6K “raise” and other $$$ “bumps”—-if it was on Russell’s blog, it has surely been erased so that no one can “prove it” (27 times). No matter, because a whore is a whore, all whores do the same thing, and the only argument is over how much they will be paid. Russell says his “grant is no higher than it was from the time of my last full disclosure”? OK by me, that just shows he’s a whore whose price has peaked. Develop your exit plan, Russell, because you’re soon going to be standing on the corner with no one “buying”.

            Russell doesn’t like my exposing his true history so he makes up yet more BS about why he is disappearing from the web (except as a serial disrupter and harasser on legitimate climate change sites). He is writing more blogs on Globspanfiles? LMAO—-reread my comment above —-no one goes there! Except perhaps for the morons that also frequent WUWT, and considering that there are a LOT of ignorance-seeking morons on WUWT, very few bother to “follow” Russell home.

            Russell also keeps trying to say that I fail to respond to his demands to “prove it” (repeat 27 times) by “disputing” the crap on Glubspanfiles or anywhere else he posts. As I said, no one goes to Gobspitfiles, so why should I talk to an empty room. And since he doesn’t allow outside comments there, I can’t do it anyway. I certainly won’t waste any time here on Crock doing so (beyond pointing out that Russell is constantly showing the world that he is a science-ignorant, lying POS whore for fossil fuels). Here’s an offer that Russell WILL refuse—bet on it. OPEN GELBSPANFILES TO OUTSIDE COMMENTERS and I will spend at least an hour every day ”disputing” the bullshit that you have enshrined there behind a “no rebuttal” wall. I will double your daily hit count all by myself.

            Also, anyone who attempts to “dispute” Russell on WUWT or the other zombie-populated right wing sites he posts on is immediately set up by people who want to eat their brains. When Russell shows up on legit sites, he is soon disassembled by people with the brains and science knowledge he lacks (or he gets himself banned), so that is a waste of time also.

            And it’s the first THIRTY seconds of your ICCC9 presentation that I suggest people watch, Russell, because it defines who and what you are. I never advocate for anyone to watch the rest of it to the end, because I myself DID watch it all, and besides temporarily losing 10 IQ points, found next to nothing of value there—-just strung-together 20-year old BS that proves nothing.

            Russell always finishes his comments with something that will make us laugh. He calls his obsessive and delusional stupidity in spewing BS on sites that will laugh at him “courage”? LOL. He takes large piles of $$$ to whore for fossil fuels and calls his efforts a “hobby”? LOL again! He says that one of AGW believers’ “central orthodoxies” is that he and others are paid whores? LMAO, over that one, because if Russell and his ilk were transported off planet by aliens tomorrow, we’d instantly forget all about him and them and go back to talking about the science of AGW, our real “central orthodoxy”. Deniers are only of interest here because they get in the way of dealing with AGW, and they do that because they are obviously paid to do so by the fossil fuel industry (as all the recent revelations about Exxon and the older ones about KOCH money show yet again). Russell fails to see the circularity there.

            Since Russell won’t (and can’t) answer my questions about why he is on Uncle Fred’s email address list for “dirty dealings” messages, maybe he’ll instead answer some of those science questions I always ask him and he never answers. Like what’s his opinion of the recent findings that ice sheet collapse is occurring in Antarctica and Greenland? Why is it happening, Russell?

          • dumboldguy Says:

            PS In case anyone just can’t get enough of Russell’s BS, here’s a comment thread where he sings the same old tired song and gets beaten into submission by people with brains. A sample comment:

            “Mr. Cook is upset because he can’t intimidate me, as he would like to. He is nothing more than a funny, pathetic little man championing the fossil fuel industry at the expense of the rest of us. Show me one time Mr. Cook has ever produced any scientifically credible piece of evidence to support his claims. He says things in the hope people will simply believe him. That’s what deniers do because there is no science to support them. Yes, the science is settled”. (Sound familiar?)

            http://augustafreepress.com/letter-desmogblog-is-unreliable-source-on-climate-change/

            Russell was trying to clean up after his Uncle Fred Singer, who made some injudicious remarks (and has even less credibility than Russell). Enjoy!


      • “shall or should” Words matter in government, and changing from shall to should was because of our lovely congress who started threatening to destroy any agreements the US made before the COP21 even met. I am not a lawyer, but I think it must make it so congress can’t do anything about it.

    • jimbills Says:

      Steven – the PR battle really only exists in earnest in the U.S., and the deal makes it perfectly clear that the battle is NOT won, because the world accepted a greatly weakened agreement to accommodate the U.S.

      In an extreme example of our audacity, we call this ‘leadership’.

      Kyoto is mostly considered to be a failure because of the intransigence of the U.S. So, what we did was take all the teeth out of what Kyoto tried to do and pass an agreement in Paris that allows the U.S. to bypass Congress. This is our great achievement after 23 years.

      And what of Kyoto?:
      http://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2012/nov/26/kyoto-protocol-carbon-emissions

      Why do we assume it will be different now?

      The Paris agreement is vague where it should be clear, especially on the funds to developing countries (which are too low even at $100 billion), and is only binding on the periphery. Because the U.S. couldn’t accept words like “shall’, ‘treaty’, or holding nations (and not just the U.S.) to their promises in a binding manner, what we have is agreement that is largely illusory. It treats the developed and historical carbon offenders with kid gloves and allows developing countries like India to increase their emissions for decades as long as they promise to put up some solar panels at the same time. The INDCs by each nation are not even scheduled to be implemented until 2020.

      We’re just so desperate for good news on the issue that we accept it without much question.


      • I am not claiming Paris was a magic bullet. Of course there are monumental challenges ahead. However, our best efforts to meet those was aided greatly in Paris by quashing the deniers and their canards once and for all. They can chat amongst themselves, but they are no longer relevant to the global discussion to replace their polluter client’s carbon with clean energy.

        I agree with Dana Nuccitelli, who wrote today, “These policy questions entail the global warming debate we should have been having all along. Denying the scientific evidence has successfully delayed the policy debate so far, but with the successes of the Paris COP21 negotiations, the days of denial are over. It’s time to get serious and figure out the best way to tackle the problem that the entire world now agrees urgently needs to be solved.” > http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/dec/14/the-paris-agreement-signals-that-deniers-have-lost-the-climate-wars

        • jimbills Says:

          We haven’t quashed the deniers in the slightest, and sorry, but it’s ridiculous to think that.

          The reality is that it has been hard to pass an agreement because of the selfishness of the world powers, most especially the U.S. We can’t pass a global treaty that imposes limits on ourselves, even today. The agreement passed in Paris because there are no substantive limits on our actions. We ‘promise’ to reduce our carbon emissions. Whether we actually do isn’t enforced by the agreement, we stripped that out of the agreement because of our selfishness, and we still have our Inhofe’s and Cruz’s. They remain with us, they aren’t going away, and thinking that the Paris agreement will shut them up or make them irrelevant to U.S. policy is (insert adjective here).

          Added on top of that, because we’re so effed up internally, we removed any binding mechanism to every other nation on Earth with the agreement. So, they can do whatever they like, too.

          It’s a big but horribly sad joke. We just don’t get it yet.

          • indy222 Says:

            Jim – there’s a great game theory experiment on climate, done a few years ago (I’ll have to dig out the link), which shows that yeah – when there’s any uncertainty involved, “Nash equilibria” guarantee, and were verified by actual players given real rewards and punishements to make it realistic, that climate negotiations will always fail due to selfishness. Fail, perhaps, until all uncertainty disappears. But that’s a monster Catch 22 since the biggest uncertainty in climate prediction is what those crazy humans will DO.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            http://climate.yale.edu/news/game-theory-offers-lessons-collective-action-and-climate-change

            “Solving the world’s climate crisis requires collective action. Ideally, all nations would invest equally in new technologies and reductions of greenhouse gas emissions. In reality, some willingly commit resources to abate climate change while others take a free ride. Research published in Nature Climate Change attempts to understand how scientific uncertainty of impending climate tipping points affects the likelihood that countries will act collectively to avert disaster.

            “The authors found that when uncertainty over a climate tipping point is large, societies tend to enjoy a free ride, polluting at will and making it virtually certain that the tipping point will be crossed. When the uncertainty is small, however, societies are much more likely to coordinate efforts and avoid the tipping point. Most importantly, the switch from effective to ineffective coordination happens abruptly once uncertainty increases above a certain threshold.

            (and) http://phys.org/news/2013-10-thy-neighbor-game-theory-climate.html


          • California is the 7th largest economy in the world, like Germany (6th,) we are not only meeting our carbon goals, we are exceeding them. We live in a Cap & Trade economy that is growing and has raised 1B dollars from carbon pollution. We are committed to slashing carbon emissions to 80 percent of 1990 levels by 2050 and solar adoption/conversion is on the brink of the 10% tipping point.

            Clearly, what needs to be done can be done. The economic inertia of what is underway in CA and Germany are signs of what is to come for greater Europe and the US. COP21 moves us past the scientific discussion and focuses us on the economic ones like CA and Germany in my POV.

            So we disagree on the export of COP21, fair enough. Best, to you and yours…


        • I don’t agree that we’ve quashed the deniers, because they are impervious to anything except their own voices. But what I DO think this agreement does, is it makes it a lot harder for our congress to earn any respect from the International community where it comes to international politics, if they continue with this assinine position of theirs. Should a Republican take office next, he or she will find it a lot harder to deny the science, at least among the rest of the world leaders.

  4. dumboldguy Says:

    Some interesting insights here. The deal almost went down over “should” vs “shall” in one place in the document, and the French and U.S. decided it was a typo and “fixed” it without going to the whole conference and thereby opening any cans of worms.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/anatomy-of-a-deal-how-the-climate-accord-was-won–and-nearly-lost/2015/12/13/2a9b3416-a1df-11e5-b53d-972e2751f433_story.html

  5. Jim Housman Says:

    I do love the comparison with the League of Nations.

    Years ago, in a conference room where I worked, there was a large poster showing a group of hippos standing around a water hole. All of them had their huge mouths open.

    The words on the poster were “After everything is said and done a lot more is said than done”.

  6. indy222 Says:

    “5 to 10 years of staying close”…. to the +2C path. Assuming that’s what happens – a big IF – it sounds about right: right to get the current players off the stage before the divergence hits them over the head.

  7. Lionel Smith Says:

    Call me a cynic if you like but I suspect some new global emergency will be triggered in order to deflect away from any large scale affirmative action. For example there is a nice ‘little’ situation brewing in the South China Sea as China attempts to wrest territorial advantages by extending some island and building others from scratch to be used as strategic air and naval bases.

    Flying close to Beijing’s new South China Sea islands

    To think that the western world has been fuelling the Chinese economy by its appetite for consumer goods at a cheaper price. Christmas of course being the time when there is a flood of silly plastic toys, five minute wonders, plastic ‘animals’ that produce all manner of make believe vile stuff from various orifices. I was aghast in the 1990s just how much of this carried the ‘Made in China’ label on the packaging. That very, over elaborate packaging being another source of unnecessary waste and pollution.

    I hope I am wrong for the sake of my grandchildren, but my interests in history and naval matters suggests we are now sleep walking into big trouble.

    Whatever, markers have been laid

  8. indy222 Says:

    Again, we’ve exported our manufacturing to China and Asia, and so has Europe. And with it, our CO2 generation. So I’m completely and massively unimpressed with Germany and Calilfornia’s rising renewables, nice though it is. When we stop buying bling from big fossil fuel generators, then let me know. I just hate seeing these excuses made “See? it’s all SO easy! Victory is at hand!, with big smiling face….and dirty hands held firmly behind us.

  9. indy222 Says:

    Do you really want to know the score? Forget all these shell games with CO2 generation and WATCH the KEELING CURVE. When it shows a noticeable inflexion downward, let me know. That’s ALL that counts, as far as Mother Nature is concerned.


  10. Reblogged this on MySoapboxCorner and commented:
    Frankly I can’t see what there is to be optimistic about. See my comment below… a long way down because I took the time read the whole fucking report.

    • indy222 Says:

      the “whole f’ing report” – ha! Well said. So today’s Crock post on the +3C avg rise over the Arctic for the previous year, combined with the theory showing temps do NOT go back down regardless of cuts in emissions, should have all sane people damn worried about the future. If Klaus Lackner and Greg Rau ever succeed in getting an atmospheric CO2 scrubber perfected and get an investment opportunity out there, buy with both hands because sooner or later these facts will dawn on the general populace and there’ll be desperate demand to pull CO2 back out and re-freeze our poles. I can’t believe Florida real estate is still booming. What the hell are those people smoking? Or are they too old to have all their mental faculties still working?

      • dumboldguy Says:

        I got into an extended exchange with jimbills some time back over my contention that mankind was “unworthy” of our lofty self-assumed position of ownership and “dominion” over the planet and all living things.

        The truth of the matter is that man has evolved in a manner different from all other living things on the planet, and our uniquely evolved brains have made it possible for us to arrive at our “modern societies” and “advanced technologies”, both of which are now likely to cause our extinction and that of much of the life on Earth (only “near extinction” if we get lucky).

        There is a certain “IN-sanity” bred into our genes, and that makes us unable to properly deal with AGW and many other “human” problems at the present time. We did evolve rapidly as a species, and the “brain that will kill us” did so over only a few tens of thousands of years. Unfortunately, what we face will likely wipe us out in a much shorter time than that, and evolution doesn’t work fast enough. As in the closing bit on Laugh In, it’s time for “Say Goodnight, Indy”.


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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

%d bloggers like this: