What follows are two new papers that once again throw the policy paths promoted by climate activists into question. Hat-tip Kenneth Richard.
Paris Agreement China pledge irresponsible
The first by Harris, 2017, calls China’s Paris pledge on climate change “inadequate and irresponsible” and “little more than business as usual“.
Today China is the largest national source of greenhouse gas pollution and thus to solve the “problem” of climate change, China is the country that needs to do the most. But the paper writes that the Paris Agreement “disregards such obligations“. The paper adds:
The inadequacy and irresponsibility of China’s Paris pledge exposes some fundamental flaws in the international climate change negotiations and agreements, demonstrating that science and environmental studies cannot be disconnected from ethics and justice.”
The Paris Agreement is not going to accomplish anything. China is on board because its leaders know they won’t be obligated to do anything differently. It generally gets a free pass. Under the bottom line, there is no agreement in place that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Globally, it isn’t going to happen.
Climate change will be “slightly positive”
The next paper is by Tol, 2017, where he clearly reminds us that climate change is not only bad, like many “experts” like to have us believe it is. An excerpt from page 2:
Research has shown that climate change would bring both positive and negative impacts (Arent et al. 2014, Schneider et al. 2007, Smith et al. 2001, Pearce et al. 1996). Positive impacts include a reduced demand for energy for winter heating, fewer cold-related deaths, and carbon dioxide fertilization which makes crops grow faster and reduces their demand for water. Negative impacts include sea level rise, the spread of tropical diseases, and increases in storm intensity, droughts, and floods. Adding up all these impacts after having expressed them in welfare equivalents, the impact of initial climate change is probably slightly positive. This is irrelevant for policy, because initial climate change cannot be avoided. More pronounced climate change would have net negative effects, and these impacts would accelerate with further warming. Even so, the impacts would be moderate: The welfare impact of a century of climate change is comparable with the welfare impact of a year of economic growth (Tol 2015). Uncertainties are large, though, but even the most pessimistic estimates show that welfare loss due to a century of climate change is comparable to that of losing a decade of growth (Stern et al. 2006).”
Concerning the negative impacts some may not be the problem they are assumed to be (tropical diseases, storm intensity), or the problem will take decades and centuries to show up (sea level rise). The author also mquestions the merits of fighting climate change, noting that it “cannot be avoided”.
From binding agreement to “pledge and review”
Moreover, the international community appears to have given up on pursuing a binding treaty. The paper states on page 7:
There are no sanctions for missing targets – indeed Article 15 explicitly states that the ‘mechanism to […] promote compliance’ is ‘non-punitive’. Article 28 stipulates that a country may withdraw from the Paris Agreement without sanction.
In other words, after 20 years of trying and failing to negotiate a treaty with legally binding emission reduction targets, the Paris Agreement switched to pledge and review.”
They all knew it, that it was impossible to create any commitment on emissions reductions. The whole hyped-up Paris conference was nothing but a search for the biggest and most empty phrases. In this ambition they certainly were successful.
The Paris Treaty is the great Houdini act of international climate policy; all the artfully executed knots and ties of a binding agreement turn out to be non-binding and untied. Tricks and illusions, and, like those of the great master himself, profitable tricks and illusions. But Houdini was loyal to his art and worked hard to uphold professional standards and expose fraudulent artists. It would therefore be unfair to him, though apt, to name the next big climate treaty, which no doubt will come, the “Houdini Agreement”.
I’m surprised so many believe it’s still worth signing.
Then again, it’s worth signing because it isn’t worth signing.
That is the cynical truth behind the whole scam.
“I’m surprised so many believe it’s still worth signing.”
countries have noticed that the treaty is in their best interest.
Countries that stay out (the US might, under Trump) will get punished by reality.
There is no need for a binding contract. plenty of countries will outperform their (cautious) pledges (Germany might not…).
What’s the “reality” that those who do not abide by their stated commitments will be “punished” for? What’s the “punishment”?
“What’s the “punishment”?”
Additional costs. New coal plants for example simply will struggle to pay back the investment. But the main problem is falling back in new key technologies. renewables, electric cars, …
In pre Paris negotiations, China – supported by India – succeeded in ensuring that developing countries (responsible for over 65% of GHG emissions) were exempt from any obligation, legal or moral, to reduce their emissions. I spell out the consequences here: https://ipccreport.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/cop-21-developing-countries-_-2.pdf
So the treaty is certainly in their best interests – putting pressure on the West to take economy damaging action while leaving them free to do as they please.
Less well off countries want the money promised by the countries that have been made to feel guilty. “Climate justice” is the concept behind this. In the USA we have many that do believe they have sinned and wish taxes to pay the indulgence. Then they can sin some more. Think celebrity activists and those that march for “science.” Others are just clueless and still think Hillary should be POTUS.
An explanation of the hoped for money flowing toward this 100 Billion USD fund by 2020 is given here: Green Climate Fund (GCF)
Interestingly, the USA is deep in debt and would have to borrow money from the very countries that could receive grants from the GCF.
That global warming reduces the severity of storms by reducing the polar/tropical temp differential that powers them is settled science (warmists used to admit this before the “pause”). We’ve seen it in the real world. There is no evidence tropical diseases have spend since the ending of the LIA (malaria is not just a tropical disease, BTW). Quite the opposite.
I assume you mean “spread”, not “spend”.
The Harris article is very good. please take a look at it and at his other work:
https://paulgharris.net/articles/
What he says is simple: China is not doing enough. That is true. But the other truth is, that China is doing a lot. His fear is, that China might not do everything that it pledged it would do. At the moment, it looks like China might be doing more.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/18/world/asia/china-coal-power-plants-pollution.html
China is rapidly expanding both their renewable and fossil fuels (gas) infrastructure.
“China is rapidly expanding both their renewable and fossil fuels (gas) infrastructure.”
electricity production in China is driven by an economic reality of power sources. China will deploy more renewables not because of the Paris accord, but because it makes sense.
The effect can be seen everywhere. Britain just had its first day without coal.
https://www.ft.com/content/8f65f54a-26a7-11e7-8691-d5f7e0cd0a16
And Germany will hit a 100% renewables on a day like this one (23.04., sunday with wind and sun) in the not so far future.
https://www.agora-energiewende.de/de/themen/-agothem-/Produkt/produkt/76/Agorameter/
The world is changing, and a global renewable energy contract might not need any sticks any longer…
China will also deploy more and more fossil fuels too…because it makes sense.
—
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/china-wont-waste-time-wind-power/
The local authorities in Inner Mongolia, Jilin, Heilongjiang, Gansu, Ningxia and Xinjiang—the windiest areas in China—were told to no longer approve conventional wind power projects until there is better infrastructure to transmit and use the power. These regions have more wind turbines than the rest of China combined–about 71 gigawatts.[ii] According to the NEA, 33.9 billion kilowatt-hours of wind power (15 percent of China’s total wind power) was wasted in 2015 because of low utilization efficiency.[iii] This is not a new issue. China ordered its wind operators to stop increasing its wind power four times in the last five years because wind’s unreliability was damaging the country’s power grid and costing the government enormous amounts of money. China is learning from its experience with wind power.
—
http://english.gov.cn/state_council/ministries/2017/01/20/content_281475546580444.htm
China’s natural gas supplies will exceed 360 billion cubic meters by 2020, according to the National Development and Reform Commission. Conventional natural gas is expected to see an increase of proven geological reserves by 3 trillion cu m by 2020. And, shale gas will grow by 1 trillion cu m, the NDRC said on Jan 19.
—
http://www.rigzone.com/news/oil_gas/a/148540/chinas_2017_natural_gas_output_to_jump_to_170_bcm
China’s natural gas production will surge by about a quarter to 170 billion cubic metres (bcm) in 2017 from 136.8 bcm in 2016, estimates from the National Energy Administration showed on Friday.
“The effect can be seen everywhere. Britain just had its first day without coal”
roflmao.. what a deceitful little worm you are, sob.
GAS and nuclear…
.with wind and solar providing basically NOTHING.
“And Germany will hit a 100% renewables on a day like this one”
And then later, on a day not so helpful, they will hit close to ZERO percent renewables.
And if all the coal and nuclear are gone.. because they have been driven out of the market by idiotic renewable subsidies and mandates…
… what will Germany do for electricity.?????
Its just a matter of time.
…. and when it does happen, I will be laughing until my sides ache. 🙂
“Britain just had its first day without coal.”
Right….
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2017/04/21/uk-set-for-another-day-of-misleading-bbc-propaganda/
“Britain just had its first day without coal.”
Because we had gas.
I should wait until after our General Election before rejoicing. Should the Conservatives get the massive majority expected, our electricity production may also become “driven by an economic reality of power sources”.
The Conservatives’ idea of “economic reality” will probably be far from yours.
“a global renewable energy contract might not need any sticks any longer”
Er, if the world were indeed changing, there would be no need for carrots, either.
No need for a UN Renewable Energy Contract. (Other than for a regular ‘freebie’ get-together for Diplomats, Climatologists, and Civil Servants – just to monitor progress, and bathe in self-congratulation.)
Kenneth have you been to China? SOD certainly has not- not worth replying to someone that lacks understanding about anything technical.
The China is and has installed at lot of Hydro power stations. I visited the 3 Gorges Dam which has 32 turbines with a total capacity of 22,000 MW. One of the reasons they took over Tibet is the immense potential capacity of Hydro power. Nearly all the supposed green energy in China is hydro. The solar and wind do not makeup more than 0.5% of nominal capacity. Many of the Solar and wind are not connected to the grid and are only for show. The actual generation of wind and solar in China would be about one tenth of the nominal capacity. Plans in China have forecast that Hydro will grow to about 20%. China has already Nuclear power plants (5-8%) and is building many at present and more planned. Some plans put future Nuclear at around 30%. Coal is said to drop from its present just under 80% to about 45%
“Kenneth have you been to China? SOD certainly has not- not worth replying to someone that lacks understanding about anything technical.”
By pure chance, i have been to China. I have also been to the EXPO 2010 in Shanghai. And so i saw e-mobility at work.
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expo_2010#Transport
If you have been to a city in China, you will know this.
The power sources of china must not be guessed but can be taken from charts:
http://ceenews.info/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Generation-2016-China.png
the full article is also interesting:
http://ceenews.info/en/power-statistics-china-2016-huge-growth-of-renewables-amidst-thermal-based-generation/
The Harris article is NOTHING but a mis-guided anti-science OPINION piece.
CO2 provides food for ALL life on Earth.
China has the largest population.
China produces the most CO2. 🙂
… and so long as it keeps doing so, it will be doing its bit. 🙂
The so called Paris Agreement is the political end route of the AGW chicanery. Started by Maurice Strong as a method of socialized redistributing Western wealth to poorer nations. (See http://www.nationalcenter.org/DossierStrong.html)
And this UN mediated socialist/communist politic movement has been driven by powerful UN socialists like Christiana Figueres, and their acolytes like Al Gore, and G. Soros ever since.
Science is not the main question within the Paris Agreement but financial redistribution via the UN, World Bank, and the IMF. This is the true target of the UN’s actions, impoverishment and deindustrialization of Western nations for the short term benefit of poorer nation, while increasing the long-term political power-base and wealth of the UN permanency, moving nations towards the centralized One World Government, and One World taxation. Taxation initially via ‘Carbon Tax’ demands, and later as a more general methods pushed by stratagems of dubious ecology targets, and the nonsense of ‘sustainability’.
Spot on
Congress Should Investigate the Claim of Scientific Consensus
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/04/24/congress-should-investigate-the-claim-of-scientific-consensus/
> Climate change will be “slightly positive”
So if it gets warmer, it will be slightly positive?
If it gets colder, it will be slightly positive?
Ditto wetter or dryer?
Perhaps some outcomes are significantly positive and exceed the negative outcomes.
Or perhaps climate change is just a codeword for global warming.
Here I’m sure he means warming with “climate change”.