The Global Warming/Climate Change fraudsters have not even stopped celebrating the “successful” Paris Climate Accord of December 2015, and the US Supreme Court goes ahead and stays US Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Power Plan, which is “the centrepiece of the US commitment to the accord.”
Over at americanthinker.com, S Fred Singer has the details:
“The Paris Accord can be briefly summarized as follows:
- Each nation proposes to reduce emissions but sets its own voluntary emission target for greenhouse (GH) gases, especially for carbon dioxide (CO2); there is no overall target for global reduction. This procedure follows the pattern of the US-China agreement of November 2014, in which China decided to continue with business as usual (BAU) until reaching a 2030 peak — and then gradually reduce CO2 emissions. In this manner, each signatory nation to the PA can pick and choose their emission targets and timing.
- Furthermore, each nation reports its own emissions; there is no overall supervision.
- No sanctions are applied if a country fails to abide by its announced plan.
- As a result, the PA does not really deal with climate at all. It is simply a scheme for reducing emission of GH gases — especially of CO2 — and then hope for the best. The current plan is to re-visit and attempt to tighten national commitments every five years.
There is an additional factor that enters in, the unjustified fear that a little warming will damage the economy of developing nations. On the contrary, climate models — if one can trust them — predict that any warming will increase with latitude and be especially pronounced in winter nights. This would mean that the temperature in Siberian winter nights may reach minus 35 degrees instead of minus 40. Is that bad?
Of course, there will be claims forthcoming that the PA is already effective in slowing down GW, reducing extreme weather events, etc. Don’t believe any such claims; too many factors exist that affect the climate. Climate arguments are just too squishy. About the only thing that one can hope to do is an accounting job on CO2 — and even that job has many uncertainties.
Thus, it is not easy to tell if the PA is working as it should — in which case there might be a slight reduction in the rate of growth of CO2. [By this I mean that CO2 will still increase but at a lower rate.] I suspect, however, that CO2 will keep on increasing — and perhaps even faster — as other nations join China in developing industrially.
One might ask: “Why this emphasis on CO2; it is just one of many influences on global climate?” I am reminded of the story of the man who lost his wallet containing his money somewhere in the street. He was found looking for it under a lamppost. When asked “why there?” he explained: “I was looking for it where the light is.”
I suspect the emphasis on CO2 came about because it is the only factor affecting climate that can be accurately calculated and is largely controlled by humans. All the other factors, whether volcanic eruptions, solar activity changes, aerosol levels are hard to predict or calculate. Never mind that CO2 is found to have little influence on actual climate; scientists simply preferred to deal with it.
Sustainability — but why is nuclear energy ignored?
CO2 is released in the generation of energy that involves the burning of non-renewable fossil fuels: oil, gas, and especially coal – solar energy that was accumulated over eons and is used by humanity as the basis for our advanced civilization. This ties in with the current fetish about sustainability, the fear of running out of fossil fuels and of energy. [Witness the concern not so long ago about “peak oil;” all of this has suddenly disappeared – thanks to the shale-fracking revolution.] There is little chance that fossil fuels would become scarce during the next few decades and inhibit economic growth for developing countries. Also, there are vast resources that haven’t even being tapped yet, like clathrates of natural gas in ocean sediments around the world.
Despite this energy glut, as indicated so dramatically by the collapse of oil prices, the GW scare is being used to force-feed solar and wind energy — renewable (“sustainable”) and non-CO2-emitting (“clean”). But nuclear energy can supply all this — without any of the disadvantages: unreliability, intermittency, huge cost and footprint, and problems of tying in with the electric grid.
What seems to be driving developing nations to sign up for the PA is a chance of getting money from industrialized countries. The old quest for the NIEO (New International Economic Order) seems to have come back — although it never really died. The scheme is a simple bribe; it involves transfer of resources from hard-working non-wealthy citizens in developed nations to the Swiss bank accounts of kleptocrat dictators running most of the developing nations.
The excuse used is that most of the CO2 was put into the atmosphere by industrialized nations and made them wealthy. So the argument goes, they owe their wealth to the rest of the world, which is mostly underdeveloped and poor.
This share-the-wealth scheme is unlikely to succeed. Nevertheless, it has become one of the fundamental selling points of the PA. The matter has progressed even to the concept of “contraction & convergence,” whereby each individual inhabitant of the globe will be entitled to the same amount of CO2 emission — and therefore per-capita energy.”(from the article)
Read his full article here. It is a very informative piece.