Obama in Paris: “Last Chance” to Fight Climate Change?

I have long referred to the Environmentalist movement as repackaged communism – “Green Socialism”, if you will. Indeed, the modern Environmentalist movement did not emerge as a significant political force until the mid-1990s, when hordes of former Marxists were intellectually fleeing the collapse of the Soviet Union. Post-Communism, these former Marxists immediately latched onto Environmentalism as the new casus belli for seizing power and controlling everything. It’s almost as if the Green movement became a replacement for something else in their hearts.

Currently, Obama and other useless people have met in Paris to discuss Climate Change and how to best use the idea of its existence to control everybody and restrict free trade. This is appropriate, as Paris was the frequent host of international Socialist conferences throughout the 1800s and 1900s. Same goals, different names.

From Politico:

Negotiators from around the world gather in Paris this week to finalize an international climate change agreement, capping a years-long process on which hopes have been riding for global action to limit greenhouse-gas emissions. When those demanding U.S. action speak of the need to show “leadership” and foster international progress, they speak of building momentum toward Paris.

“This year, in Paris, has to be the year that the world finally reaches an agreement to protect the one planet that we’ve got while we still can,” said U.S. President Barack Obama on his recent trip to Alaska. Miguel Cañete, the EU’s chief negotiator, has warned there is “no Plan B — nothing to follow. This is not just ongoing UN discussions. Paris is final.”

This is the sort of thing that I love hearing. It gets funnier every time. “This has to be the year… Paris is final. We must act now! ” It’s always the final year. We always must “act now”. We’ve been hearing this stuff since the 1970s. Back then, they predicted we’d be living on a burnt-out coal by the year 2000. Now, they predict we’ll live on a burnt-out coal by 2050, more or less. I’m sure in 2050, worldwide ruin will await us in the year 2100. Apparently, “final” ain’t as final as it used to be.

The interesting thing to note will be this: almost no matter what happens, the outcome of this meeting will be hailed as a historic turning point. There is a huge amount of political capital involved in this; indeed, it seems that Obama is pegging his legacy on shoving through an emissions deal. This has been his third choice: his legacy firstly was supposed to be Obamacare, which everyone hates, and secondly was supposed to be increased gun control, which Americans have rejected. Maybe the third time will be a charm.

So what’s Obama supposed to say to the Press after the meeting? “Mr. President, how did the meeting go?” “Eh, not so well.” That’s hardly the stuff of legacy. Even if the meeting produces nothing significant, which I think it will not, Obama and the Green movement will want to hold it up as a historic first step toward saving the world.

I really doubt that Obama will ever be able to achieve what is necessary in order for emissions agreements to have any significance, which is get India, China, and Russia on board. Without at least China on board, meaningful emissions reduction is pie-in-the-sky.

Conventional wisdom holds that negotiators are hashing out a fair allocation of the deep emissions cuts all countries would need to make to limit warming. That image bears little resemblance to reality.

In fact, emissions reductions are barely on the table at all. Instead, the talks are rigged to ensure an agreement is reached regardless of how little action countries plan to take. The developing world, projected to account for four-fifths of all carbon-dioxide emissions this century, will earn applause for what amounts to a promise to stay on their pre-existing trajectory of emissions-intensive growth.

Here’s how the game works: The negotiating framework established at a 2014 conference in Lima, Peru, requires each country to submit a plan to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, called an “Intended Nationally Determined Contribution” (INDC). Each submission is at the discretion of the individual country; there is no objective standard it must meet or emissions reduction it must achieve.

Beyond that, it’s nearly impossible even to evaluate or compare them. Developing countries actually blocked a requirement that the plans use a common format and metrics, so an INDC need not even mention emissions levels. Or a country can propose to reduce emissions off a self-defined “business-as-usual” trajectory, essentially deciding how much it wants to emit and then declaring it an “improvement” from the alternative. To prevent such submissions from being challenged, a group of developing countries led by China and India has rejected “any obligatory review mechanism for increasing individual efforts of developing countries.”

China and India are refusing to play along nicely. This is key. They refuse to sacrifice domestic production to satisfy the whims of Western liberals.  American Environmentalists can save the world and make it a better place if only those bastards in developing nations will submit to their will.

And lest pressure nevertheless build on the intransigent, no developing country except Mexico submitted an INDC by the initial deadline of March 31 — and most either submitted no plan or submitted one only as the final September 30 cut-off approached.

After all this, the final submissions are not enforceable, and carry no consequences beyond “shame” for noncompliance — a fact bizarrely taken for granted by all involved.

This is another key point: How do Environmentalists expect to punish those who break the agreements? Economic and political intimidation might work on tiny third-world banana republics. But if anyone thinks Chinese, Indian, or Russian people are going to willingly sacrifice economic development to make wealthy Environmentalist elites happy, then that person is incomparably naïve. And how is the rest of the “Climate Community” supposed to respond?

Perhaps not surprisingly, the submitted plans are even less impressive than the process that produced them. In aggregate, the promised emissions reductions will barely affect anticipated warming. A variety of inaccurate, apples-to-oranges comparisons have strained to show significant progress. But MIT’s Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change calculates the improvement by century’s end to be only 0.2 degrees Celsius. Comparing projected emissions to the baseline established by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change back in 2000 shows no improvement at all.

Communism always suffered from rotten epistemology. So does the Climate Change movement. What do they know, and how can they know it? Perhaps the worst weak point sported by the notion of catastrophic man-made Climate Change is this: there is zero historical evidence that can tie any shifting of Earth’s climate distinctly to the Industrial Revolution or anything thereafter. The Climate Change Mafia knows this, which is why arguments for Climate Socialism always avoid discussing facts and instead force people to watch reruns of “The Lorax”.

One of the only “Climate Scientists” to try doing this publicly was Michael E. Mann; his infamous “hockey stick” graph supposedly showing indisputable evidence of man-made warming was quickly smashed by writer Mark Steyn. Mann has been discredited even by Climate Change enthusiasts. Nobody else has stepped up to the plate, which is telling. They can sense a losing battle.

I have never said that I didn’t think the climate could change. The question is not whether the climate changes, but rather does it change explicitly because of mankind? And is it surely a negative change that will kill us all? The Climate Change Mafia asserts that it is indeed a result of mankind, and that it is a catastrophic change; but they have never produced evidence unequivocally proving either of these assertions.

Climate finance is the term for wealth transferred from developed to developing nations based on a vague and shifting set of rationales including repayment of the “ecological debt” created by past emissions, “reparations” for natural disasters, and funding of renewable energy initiatives.

The issue will dominate the Paris talks. The INDCs covering actual emissions reductions are subjective, discretionary, and thus essentially unnegotiable. Not so the cash. Developing countries are expecting more than $100 billion in annual funds from this agreement or they will walk away. (For scale, that’s roughly equivalent to the entire OECD budget for foreign development assistance.)

A number of Latin American governments have signed petitions and made demands for industrialized Western countries to pay them “environmental reparations” and to subsidize them heavily in order to prevent any need for industrialization or economic development. Most Latin American countries are dominated by petty dictators and socialist politics, which have kept most of these countries poor and crappy. To them, playing the guilt of liberals in the USA and Europe for free money sounds like a great deal. Heck, I need to learn how to manipulate liberal guilt. Daddy needs a new pair of shoes.

Congressional Republicans, signaling they will not appropriate the taxpayer funds that a climate-finance deal might require, stand accused of trying to “derail” the talks. But opposing such a transfer of wealth to developing countries would seem a rather uncontroversial position. One can imagine how the polling might look on: “Should the United States fight climate change by giving billions of dollars per year to countries that make no binding commitments to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions?” Certainly, President Obama has made no effort to even inform his constituents that such an arrangement is central to his climate agenda, let alone argue forcefully in favor of it.

We’re already deep into one unwinnable, money-sucking war: the War on Terrorism, courtesy of establishment Republicans. The least they could do is oppose another unwinnable money pit like the War on Climate Change. Let us hope the generally useless Congressional Republicans can at least do this much.

Tags: , , ,

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: