As expected, we are now finding out the Paris climate climate agreement has been spectacularly oversold to the public as a success for climate protection.
Now that the text has been examined, it is clear that the agreement, which cannot even be called a treaty, and which has yet to be “ratified”, is turning out to be an empty package of pompous proclamations, opt-outs and intents.
Global warming godfather James Hansen has even called the conference and its result a fraud. Economic expert Prof. Bjorn Lomborg wrote at Twitter that the agreement will be “extraordinarily costly“, and that it “will do little – if anything to rein in global warming.”
At his blog renowned climatologist Dr. Roy Spencer ridiculed the watered-down agreement, implying that it is a meaningless feel-good gesture.
Michael Limburg European Institute for Climate and Energy (EIKE) wrote that the agreement is not even a treaty, reminding us that it was even forbidden by President Obama to call it a “treaty”. EIKE calls the agreement “a failure” and that it is not possible to control the climate with “declarations of intent” EIKE adds that “participation in all climate protection measures remain for the most part voluntary and that no sanctions were agreed on and that even the climate faithful have had to concede that this it is useless“.
Limburg writes that the only success of the agreement is: “The UN has taken an important step closer to reaching the target of transforming the current world order into one of a central planning system“.
Climate experts Dr. Sebastian Lüning and Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt write at Die kalte Sonne:
After years of fruitless climate conferences, the breakthrough supposedly has now been suddenly reached. But is it true? A closer look at the agreement document brings a surprise: Much remains optional, and financial commitments are kept limited. And that is good because the scientific basis of climate change is on very shaky ground on every front. It almost appears as if the media agree beforehand to report on this positively this time around in order to lend momentum to climate policymaking. A failure this time would have led the public to wonder.”
At the Handelsblatt here meteorologist Karsten Schwanke says “the climate agreement is a catastrophe!“
Indeed the targets come up much too short, weather expert Karsten Schwanke belives. At the current pace we are headed for 3.2 to 5.4°C of warming until the year 2100 – and with our emissions we are moving along close to the top of the upper range.”
Wanting to pile onto the voluntary requirement of 1.5°C – to say it mildly – is foreign to reality.”
Die Welt/Prof Mojib Latif
At the online flagship daily Die Welt, climatologist Mojib Latif is reported to be dissatisfied with agreement, and is quoted as saying the countries agreed on the “lowest common denominator” for climate protection.
With these targets the agreed global warming cannot be achieved.”
Die Welt notes that despite all the lofty rhetoric the world is not really taking the problem seriously, noting that “since the early 1990s global CO2 emissions have risen 60 percent“.