The Belgian online Le Peuple here interviewed István Marko, Professor of Chemistry at the UCL, and a so-called climate non-alarmist, on what he thought of the results of the highly ballyhooed Paris COP21 climate summit and agreement.
Unrealistic and laughable
His assessment is devastating. He calls the COP21 agreement a “grand illusion“, a “resounding failure” and one of “wishful thinking” on the part of the rich countries. He calls the 2.0°C warming target “unrealistic” – never mind the 1.5°C warming target, which in the interview he called “laughable“.
No enforcement mechanisms
Markó calls the COP21 agreement an “obvious failure” because there is no mechanism forcing the signatory countries to do what they just ‘promise’. “Nothing is binding.”
Markó says the rich countries have engaged in “wishful thinking“.
When it comes to the $100 billion in annual payments to developing countries, “nothing in the 10 pages of the 31-page final report assures this is going to happen”.
Will it be loans or donations? Will there be an interest rate that will be applied? And if so, which? What happens in the event of of non-payment! There’s no organ of control”.
Markó says, “Nobody knows how the European countries are going to finance these amounts to be paid to poor countries”.
No CO2 emissions decrease
Markó also tells Le Peuple more on why the COP21 agreement is nothing short of a folly:
China can continue to emit CO2 without restriction up to 2030. These emissions would correspond to an increase of 140% over its 2005 emissions, and India 150% of its 2005 emissions. Other developing countries can emit CO2 as they see fit. No decrease in emissions!”
Text filled with “should” instead of “shall”
For Professor Markó it is indeed a mystery how any serious environmental organization holding the belief that man-made CO2 emissions are damaging global climate would be satisfied with such a powerless agreement, which we are now seeing as being nothing more than an illusion of a binding treaty. Come Christmastime when environmentalists unwrap the package, they will quickly realize they’ve been sold a fake.
Markó also finds it amazing that countries who endorse the agreement will be able to still withdraw after 3 years:
Yet once again, nothing is binding.” Remember that U.S. Secretary, John Kerry had announced before, that if there were the slightest binding commitment, the US Senate would refuse the agreement.
He adds that throughout the text conditionals were added everywhere: “should” instead of “shall“.
On the 2°C target, Markó says it has “strictly no physical or scientific basis” and that it is “nothing serious“. It is a randomly picked number by Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber, Director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, which Markó calls “the green lobby in Germany” and “a voice of the Church of climate alarmism“.
Markó reminds that not even Schellnhuber believes the alarmism he so gravely preaches, citing a Spiegel interview where “he had confessed that even if warming exceeds 2°C, humanity would not suffer”.
For him it is a symbolic figure, for political purpose. The message has been dramatized and 2°C has become the difference between the death of the planet and our very survival! Delirium.”
COP21 ends, realities return
At the end of the interview Markó summarizes that COP21 has no useful or serious results other than slowing growth in developed countries and rendering no benefit to developing countries. The only good Markó sees from COP21 is: “it is over and we finally can return to the realities.”