Trump Correct To Reject…Founder Of German Environmental Movement Calls Paris Accord A Bad Deal!

One of the founders of Germany’s modern environmental movement and a former renewable energies executive has publicly announced that President Donald Trump’s rejection of the Paris Accord is the right thing to do.


Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt, a founder of Germany’s modern environmental movement, supports rejection of Paris Accord. Photo credit: Die kalte Sonne.

USA starts the CLEXIT

At his climate science critical website, Die kalte Sonne, Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt says the USA has de facto “begun the exit out of the Paris Climate Accord“, or CLEXIT, and that among world leaders at least Donald Trump comprehends that natural factors are at play in climate.

Moreover, Vahrenholt notes that upon really reading the Paris Accord for the first time, it is only now that the media have become surprised that it is not even a binding agreement, but instead one that only involves intentions by the rich countries to transfer cash to developing nations to the tune of $100 billion annually beginning in 2020.

He wonders why “neither Obama nor Merkel, Juncker or Macron have found it necessary so far to explain to their citizens the agreement burdens their own citizens to the benefit of no. 1 emitters China, and India“.

Vahrenholt calculated the 2030 per capita emissions China would be allowed by the Paris Accord:

In 2030 Europeans would have to lower their emissions to 4 tonnes per capita, while China’s would be allowed to rise to 14 onnes per capita and the USA would have to fall to 10 tonnes per capita. One has to ask, who signed, cheered and celebrated such an agreement and welcome it with tears of joy?”

Vahrenholt describes an agreement that is totally in favor of China, a country that plans to construct 368 coal power plants by 2020 while India plans to build 370. In his view the Paris Accord is a free ride for China.

Overall the Paris Accord will hardly have any effect on total emissions.

We can be happy that the American President Trump has seen this anachronism, and what on earth moved his predecessor to such a disadvantageous agreement?”

In Vahrenholt’s view the agreement is neither about the climate nor the environment, and that its real intention was made clear by Prof. Ottmar Edenhofer of the Potsdam Institute in 2010:

Through climate policy we will de facto redistribute global wealth… One has to free himself of the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy.”

Also the German professor of chemistry writes that European leaders cannot expect Trump to simply defraud his voters by not keeping his campaign promises, as controversial as some may be.

Vahrenholt, a member of the SPD socialist party, says Trump’s decision is nothing to criticize, and those who do criticize “either do not understand the mechanism of Paris, or have an interest in deindustrializing Germany and the bad USA.”

Vahrenholt also questions Germany’s Ministry of Environment (UBA) proposals to tax privately driven kilometers so that German citizens will finally stop driving and ride their bicycles more often, remarking: “There was once such a society: China 25 years ago.”

Overall Vahrenholt sees the Paris Accord as “practically dead” because “Trump’s most important announcement is a stop of all finances to the green climate fund, which was to be supplied with $100 billion beginning in 2020.” The USA’s share is 22%.

Vahrenholt also blasts the IPCC climate conference circuses of Cancun, Bali, Durban, etc..

The USA gave $55 million annually for this travelling climate circus to go to the most exotic locations of the world so that the Schellnhubers and Edenhofers of the globe could act like they were doing important things on the taxpayers’ dime.”

He cites Prof. Judith Curry. She wrote earlier this year (2017) that the IPCC climate models are not suitable to explain the causes of the 20th century warming or to forecast regional and global climate changes over decades, let alone a hundred years, and that they are not adequate for acting as a base for policymaking. Curry adds:

There’s growing evidence that the climate models are running too warm.”

Prof. Vahrenholt concludes his piece by advising EPA chief Scott Pruit to heed Curry’s recommendations.

33 responses to “Trump Correct To Reject…Founder Of German Environmental Movement Calls Paris Accord A Bad Deal!”

  1. John F. Hultquist

    Fritz Vahrenholt wonders why Obama hasn’t explained to the US citizens why and how he offered to transfer their income to organizations that would then pay him $400,000 per appearance so he could expound on how great a person he is. That made me laugh.

    Now that the new President has cut off the $$$ flow, I suspect Obama will not make as many high earning appearances as he hoped for.
    Had that woman become President, Obama might have topped the list of all time useless speaking fees. Now Bill&Hillary seem to have a lock on the title.

    1. Newminster

      For some reason, John, that first sentence reminded me of a mock interview (British readers will know it) with Debbie McGee, one-time assistant to and later partner of TV magician Paul Daniels: “Tell me, Debbie, what was it that first attracted you to millionaire Paul Daniels?”!

      As ever — follow the money! Science? Who needs it? Truth? Oh, really!!

      Every now and again I dig out that quote of Edenhofer’s but nobody seems to notice it. They just go back to trying to argue the science. And that’s just the skeptics! You would think by now we would all have got the message that as far as the climate activists are concerned the science is settled — there isn’t any!

  2. CO2isLife

    The True Face of Science Denialism: NASA Geologist “Scientist” Denies 600 Million Years of Geologic History
    https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/06/11/nasa-geologist-scientist-denies-600-million-years-of-geologic-history/

  3. Agent76

    Jun 1, 2017 The Sad Truth About The Paris Climate Accord

    President Donald Trump is expected to announce his decision on the Paris Climate Accord shortly. What is the truth about the highly touted Paris Climate agreement?

    https://youtu.be/TJNJ_k8SUkA

    1. AndyG55

      Let’s call it what it was.

      The Paris AGENDA.

      1. tom0mason

        The Paris agenda is an attempt to regress the USA’s and Western Nations’ worldwide power, political power, technical power, financial power, by all through a self inflicted foolish agreement, backed-up with propaganda and diplomatic pressure to conform to the will of the UN.
        For Americans it attempts to wrap restrictions around the US Declaration of Independence’s well known precepts of its citizens having ‘Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness’ in an agreement which at its heart is a lie, the lie of CO2 causing atmospheric warming and so ability to change the climate.
        This wrapping is the soft pliable start, the Paris Agenda, but later that will harden to statues and global declarations that lock nations into anti-industrial, anti-commerce, anti-liberty casings of laws and treaties.
        Western nations will become immobilized by a kind of legal Plaster of Paris.

  4. Henning Nielsen

    “Overall Vahrenholt sees the Paris Accord as “practically dead” because “Trump’s most important announcement is a stop of all finances to the green climate fund, which was to be supplied with $100 billion beginning in 2020.” The USA’s share is 22%.”

    IMO, those 22% are the US contribution to the reguLar UN budget (see link). For the UN climate fund, the US has promised 3 bn dollars and paid 1, AFAIK. So far the fund has a total capital of ca. 10 bn dollars, though it is a bit unclear how much is actually paid and how much is only “pledged”. However, this is peanuts compared to the ten times larger amount to be transferred every year from 2020. I have never seen documentation of any binding committment to this, and I doubt there is any.

    https://factly.in/united-nations-budget-contributions-by-member-countries/

  5. Don G

    Why do the IPCC conferences always seem to be in warm-weather locations? Are they implying that warmer is better???

    1. richard verney

      Well in 2009 they did try Copenhagen, and the Gore effect struck.

      There was much snow and it was the earliest date that there had been in Copenhagen for about 100 years. But that is Climate Change for you.

  6. AndyG55

    A nice and very sensible idea.

    Had to happen sooner or later.

    There’s only so much money you can throw at a pointless cause.

    http://dailycaller.com/2016/04/08/germany-to-abandon-1-1-trillion-wind-power-program-by-2019/

    1. richard verney

      Oh no!!!

      Surely, it can’t be. Imagine how difficult it will then become for Germany to reduce its CO2 emissions. What will our resident trolls say about that.

      1. SebastianH

        “resident trolls”, read one comment above and you know what he is saying 😉

        The content of the article is already history. Large wind and solar have to bid at auctions now and this has greatly reduced the subsidies. It apparently was the right move and should have been implemented a lot sooner.

        EEG-Novelle: https://www.enbw.com/media/konzern/docs/eee/eeg-novelle.pdf

        It’s still 2800 MW in 2017, 2018 and 2019 and 2900 MW new wind power (onshore) from 2020 on. Offshore increases similarly from 500 MW per year (2012 and 2022) to 700 MW from 2023 until 2025 and 840 MW from 2026 on resulting in 15000 MW total offshore capacity in 2030. PV has similar “goals” defined. This should result in an increase of renewable electricity generation from ~180 TWh in 2016 to ~300 TWh in 2030.

  7. Josh

    ‘One of the founders of Germany’s modern environmental movement and a former renewable energies….’

    It is this part that makes me feel that Mr Vahrenholt has something to apologise for. Nonetheless his courage in pointing out the problems with the ‘science’ underpinning AGW and the many and massive issues with renewable energy generation is to be applauded.

  8. yonason (from my cell phone)

    “Has there ever before been so much money spent with nil result as has been spent on global warming? It would take a war to equal it.”

    From first article here…
    http://dissectleft.blogspot.com/2017/06/doing-nothing-can-be-good-conservative.html?m=1

    Leftist pols are always going on About “doing” things. Sadly, they are nearly always the wrong things.

    1. SebastianH

      How do you know that it had “nil result” and will have “nil result” in the future?

      1. yonason (from my cell phone)

        Trillion$ down the crapper with nothing worthwhile to show for it, and chatbot SebH wants to know why that’s a nil result.
        https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/22457-climate-costs-estimated-at-more-than-12-trillion-for-u-s-taxpayers

        …or why maybe in the future it might not be.

        It’s not up to me to prove the obvious. It’s up to the useful-idiot chatbots to show that something is being accomplished, …something other than feeding parasites at the expense of everyone else, that is.
        http://joannenova.com.au/2015/07/spot-the-vested-interest-the-1-5-trillion-climate-change-industry/

        1. SebastianH

          How do you “prove” that something didn’t happen? That something being higher temperatures than we have now, more CO2 emissions than we have now, more pollution than we have now, etc.

          The investments in green tech has obviously let to lower prices and faster adoption. As others here constantly point out the percentage of renewables on global scale is minimal as of today … but it is increasing exponentially, meaning the most expensive part (per unit of energy generated) is likely already behind us. The part that is already covered by renewables (at a higher percentage in countries which spent more) is for the most part replacing fossil fuels. Not in Germany, that I give you 😉 … we all know why.

          feeding parasites at the expense of everyone else, that is.

          Do you have any idea how much other sources of energy really cost? Was/is coal a parasite? Nuclear? Subsidies everywhere, tax breaks, etc … we always subsidized what we wanted to have. Everyone paying a little for a common goal. Is that a bad thing?

          1. tom0mason

            seb
            CO2 is NOT pollution — PERIOD!

            Your argument (as always is vacuous) In other words prove that CO2 at or above current levels is bad of the planet. History says YOU ARE WRONG!

          2. tom0mason

            Take two

            “…we have now, more CO2 emissions than we have now, more pollution than we have now, …”
            seb
            CO2 is NOT pollution — PERIOD!

            Your argument, as always is vacuous. That is to say prove that CO2 at or above the current levels is bad for the planet. History says YOU ARE WRONG!

          3. SebastianH

            tom0mason, I didn’t write that CO2 is a pullutant. What are you talking about? CO2 concentration will never be bad for the planet, only for some forms of life on this planet. Do you know what happened last time CO2 concentration increased significantly (obviously not caused by humans burning fuel)?

            This:
            https://phys.org/news/2013-03-link-co2-mass-extinctions-species.html

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian%E2%80%93Triassic_extinction_event

          4. yonason (from my cell phone)

            You are the one asking me for proof of the nothing. I’m asking you, chatbot-SebH, for proof that any good has come of warmunist policies. But you can’t, because none exists, as has been often pointed out by many here in excruciating detail. Yet you keep repeating the same falsehoods.

            No, neither wind nor solar have made electricity either more reliable or cheaper. Nor are they “green.” Pelleted wood from trees is worse for the environment than coal, not to mention being a phenomenal waste.

            I and probably others have posted on subsidies before, so go look for it. “Renewables” are the parasites.

            All Leftists are good for is to create waste, inefficiency, interference with progress, and harm – sometimes a LOT of harm. Scoundrels the lot of them.

          5. SebastianH

            Can you then backup your claim that “neither wind nor solar is green”? Or how biomass (from trees) is worse than coal?

            Renewables have reduced the CO2 output (*). Green policies have reduced air and water pollution, etc.

            Regardings politics: no fan of dividing people into political camps, but I thought conservatists are the ones who stand in the way of progress by the very definition of that word. Whatever. I am a fan of picking what’s good and supporting it.

            *: before you point out that they haven’t since CO2 emissions are increasing world wide: that’s not entirely true, isn’t it? Emissions would be higher without renewables and renewables are growing exponentially, so an impact on global emissions should be visible in the next 10 years even though energy consumption will further increase.

          6. yonason (from my cell phone)
          7. tom0mason

            I’m sorry how do you explain —

            “That something being higher temperatures than we have now, more CO2 emissions than we have now, more pollution than we have now, etc.”

            ??

            Surely your words are conflating many things (temperatures, CO2, pollution, etc ) into just one illogical muddle.

          8. SebastianH

            There is a reason for the “,” to be there. It’s a list.

      2. AndyG55

        “and will have “nil result” in the future?”

        No, the place will be littered with rotting wind turbine corpses, left there for the taxpayer to tidy up.

        Those who took the subsidy money will be long gone and hiding there money where it can’t be accessed by governments.,

      3. richard verney

        How do you know that it had “nil result” and will have “nil result” in the future?

        I think that we can be fairly certain that temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere today, are about the same as they were in the late 1930s/1940 notwithstanding that during this time about 95% of all manmade CO2 emissions have taken place.

        As both Hansen and Phil Jones noted in the 1980s there is no quality temperature data in the Southern Hemisphere. It dooes not exist because are too few stations taking measurement, even less with historic records going back prior to the war, and due to the lack of spatial coverage.

        As we also know, from the Climategate emails, the Team had to get rid of the 1940s blip, and the Team has made a concerted effort to do just that. Hence the endless adjustments which Steven goddard is always highlighting, as well as showing the records set in the 1930s.

        Both Hansen and Phil Jones published separate papers in 1981, Both of these papers showed 1940 warmer than 1980, and in the Northern Hemisphere warmer by about 0.3degC. You have no doubt seen the NAS 1975 paper and data putting the Northern Hemisphere some 0.5degC warmer in 1940 compared to 1975.

        It has probably warmed by about 0.3 degC since 1980 so we are today back where we were in 1940.

        I could go on, there is plenty of evidence backing that up. Don’t forget that even Michael Manns trees going through to the 1990s did not show any warming post 1940 when left to stand, so he had to cut off the tree ring data. That is the reason behind the “hide the decline” and the “nature trick.”

        There is no empirical observational data showing that CO2 causes warming, and the data such as it is shows that CO2 lags temperature change on all timescales, and that changes in CO2 are a response to temperature not a driver of it.

        1. SebastianH

          There is no empirical observational data showing that CO2 causes warming, and the data such as it is shows that CO2 lags temperature change on all timescales, and that changes in CO2 are a response to temperature not a driver of it.

          I have to ask (again): do you believe that the current increase in CO2 concentration is a response to temperature changes?

          Atmospheric CO2 10500 years until today:
          http://imgur.com/a/yru36

          1. yonason (from my cell phone)

            Ther is no correlation between large scale CO2 change and temperature.
            http://notrickszone.com/2016/09/04/climate-propaganda-german-augusts-in-fact-cooling-over-past-20-years-now-barely-above-1930s-levels/#comment-1130207

            There does seem to be a subtext of small scale CO2 response to temperature change, which is probably what you are referring to. But without at least another thousand years or so of data, nothing can yet be said about the change now occurring, IMO.

            Still, it’s the big changes that warmists claim are important, and the paleo record tells us that is simply false.

  9. Publius

    It seems the whole accord is nothing but a multi pronged heavy handed taxation designed to destroy United States industry and much more and tax us into the stone age. Under this agreement United States was being singled out for extermination.

    1. Hivemind

      You forgot Australia. Worse, our government still has us mired in this appalling swamp.

  10. The Latest Fake Climate Change Information – USSA News | The Tea Party's Front Page

    […] us to select a few choice words from this article to further prove how bad the Paris Accords are and why they have nothing at all to do with […]

  11. The Latest Fake Climate Change Information – Freedom Outpost | Gds44's Blog

    […] us to select a few choice words from this article to further prove how bad the Paris Accords are and why they have nothing at all to do with […]

Leave a Reply