James Hansen, a former NASA scientist and leading herald of “global warmism” has called the Agreement “a fraud” and “a fake.”
Hugs, tears, euphoria: it was not the World Cup finals but that of the Conference of the Parties in Paris, or COP21 as it is better known. Under the chairmanship of French socialist foreign minister, Laurent Fabius, its organizers emotionally celebrated a “historic agreement” on the planet’s future climate.
Fabius, a huge promoter for a successful COP21, presented the final text as “the best possible, strong and delicate balance which will allow each delegation to return home with important achievements,” the daily Le Monde, reported.
Those are beautiful words worthy of a good connoisseur of the better and more expensive champagne.
But what has COP21 actually adopted “by consensus?” The euphoric media reports left no room to even begin deciphering the riddle. One could not find any objective information on the key issues of the colossal gathering.
Only when the issue began to disappear from the headlines and the environmental media hoopla subsided was it possible to figure out that the umbrella of euphoria had covered up a large void with no concrete achievements.
The money issue impassioned the media: the “rich,” declared guilty for global warming without trial, should transfer a minimum of $100 billion per year from 2020 to the “poor countries.” These are presented as victims of global warming caused by Western consumerist entrepreneurs. Yes, by your car, your farm, your store, your industry!
These $100 billion would be only the “floor.” At successive meetings — COPs or not — that figure would only increase.
And — how adorable — that huge lumpsum would not go straight to the “poor countries,” as they have already been declared incapable of managing it, or even worse, accused of wishing to imitate Western “capitalist” development. Instead, the money flow would go to a Green Climate Fund that would distribute it among groups and government programs that carry out “ecologically sustainable” development plans.
In a nutshell, it would be distributed to radical green brotherhoods such as the NGOs that harass Brazil over the Brazilian Amazon, and to friendly, socialist, “Bolivarian” governments or those inspired by anarchist-tribalist fantasies.
The text of the Paris Agreement “opens a door” to that goal and agrees “by consensus” that the minimum amount should be $100 billion annually. But no one agrees to raise the opening stakes, except for some donations or promises of investment that also benefit the donor.
In short, what the closing amounted to was green media theater and little else.
There were many promises to “strengthen understanding, action and support” on this issue. But the Agreement excludes any reverie of “compensation” payments or expenses for those “responsible” for the environmental damage supposedly caused by consumerist and over-indulgent pleasure seekers.
The agreement even admits that “the intended nationally determined contributions” announced by the signing Parties (i.e. the promises to reduce greenhouse gas emissions) are insufficient to attain the chimerical goal of holding the increase in the global average temperature to below 2ºC as compared to the pre-industrial era, and “that much greater emission reduction efforts will be required than those associated with the intended nationally determined contributions…”
In other words, even in this much coveted point, they acknowledge their own fiasco.
The Agreement should enter into effect in 2020, but many signatories, with skewed statements, have already made it clear they will not comply.
From the outset President Vladimir Putin took the position, “let them pay, we will not cut anything.” He claimed that only when Russia has modernized the mammoth-sized industry inherited from the Soviet era, will some cuts be made, the Romanian news agency RFI reported.
In order to take effect in 2020 the Agreement must be ratified by at least 55 countries producing at least 55% of the greenhouse gases. And any country may withdraw from the Agreement when it so pleases.
Ratification may therefore be taken for granted since among the greatest producers of greenhouse gases, pollution and such, are socialist countries unwilling to comply with anything, but bent on harassing as much as possible the U.S. and “capitalist” Europe, which, as a stickler for rules, may just try to abide by the treaty.
The Congress of the United States has categorically made it clear that it will not ratify any agreement in this regard.
NGOs and radical activists don’t conceal their frustration.
James Hansen, a former NASA scientist and one of the leading harbingers of global “warmism,” speaking about the Agreement to The Guardian of London, said, “it’s a fraud really, a fake.” For him, the Paris Agreement is “just worthless words. There is no action, just promises.” This Agreement is an excuse forged by politicians to be able to say: “We’ll have a 2C warming target and then try to do a little better every five years” continued Hansen, adding disappointedly that fossil fuels, the bogeyman credited with being a major cause of global warming, were not even mentioned. In Paris, Hansen asked for even heavier taxes on fossil fuels, coal and gas, as if they were not already exorbitant. He also lamented that the 196 signatory countries established no clear goal or timetable.
May Boeve, director of the activist NGO 350.org whined that the Agreement did not detail the contributions the rich, developed countries were to make to the poor, developing countries, essentially leaving it voluntary. She stressed that the aid had to be specific and additional to any existing aid, “not redirected from green projects, loans or vague collaborations,” the Buenos Aires daily La Nación wrote.
Maxime Combes, with the NGO Attac-France, expressed dismay that the Agreement puts off to the Greek Calends, or in the Agreement’s parlance “to a later date” the concrete commitment to reduce emissions.
According to that green activist, promises and non-binding national targets have won the day. Countries that fail to meet their targets will neither be punished nor prosecuted, the radical activist lamented. Consequently, the unattainable goals will indeed not be achieved. How could they anyway?
Nor will “poor countries” be monitored or prosecuted if they heat up the planet with their development plans.
The curtain fell, the play was over, corks popped from champagne bottles, politicians celebrated, victims were saved by a thread, and apocalyptic environmentalists prepare for new attacks.
But, at least this time, the farce to impose a universal green dictatorship was unable to deceive the public, who followed with supreme indifference the follies of Paris’ planetary environmental assembly.