What Happens Now That Politicians Have Signed “Historic” Climate Pact?

Warmists all over the world, including those in the media, are crowing about the “historic” climate accord signed in Paris. Now that it’s signed, what happens next? Hyper-Warmist Chris Mooney tells us at the Washington Post

Countries just adopted a historic climate change accord. Here’s what happens next

The word “historic,” already being used to describe the just-accepted Paris climate agreement, is more than warranted. The world will now have a new and comprehensive regime in place to shape how its diverse nations go about the urgent task of reducing their greenhouse gas emissions.

That’s why climate activists are ecstatic the world over right now. It’s a big deal.

It’s also essentially non-binding. Everything is voluntary, and nations can pull out of this non-binding, voluntary agreement with a 1 year notice. It has no force of law, and, since it will never be put in front of the US Senate for ratification, it will have zero force of law here in the U.S.

The more ambiguous news, however, is that this document, by its very nature, depends on key sectors of society to respond to help make sure its goals are realized. Countries, companies and individuals all across the planet will have to do the right things — and very hard things, at that. And it’s too soon to tell exactly how they will do so.

If the believers in anthropogenic climate change refuse to make more than token changes in their own lives, why should anyone else? I understand that this might be a tedious point I bring up a lot. A LOT. But, it is central to this debate. If “carbon pollution” is so dangerous, if the world is on a path for “catastrophic events”, why aren’t the believers doing their part? Very few do.

What’s more, even if everyone plays by the rules, the standards and goals set out by the Paris agreement may not be enough to prevent the catastrophic effects of climate change. New science suggests that forces already set in motion — the melting of glaciers, the release of carbon dioxide from thawing permafrost — could unleash considerable impacts that this new deal is unable to prevent.

See? Catastrophic. Doom has been prognosticated for decades, yet, Warmists aren’t doing their part.

But what will energy companies — and energy investors — do once they read that the world now intends to “reach global peaking of greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible…and to undertake rapid reductions thereafter?” Will this send a strong enough “signal,” in the words of U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, to change the decisions that these companies, and these wealthy individuals, make?

Again, Warmists themselves haven’t been acting on the “signal”. The fossil fuels companies will not stop producing fossil fuels unless one of three things happen: 1) run out of oil/coal, 2) the government mandates they stop producing oil/coal, 3) people stop using oil/coal. I think it’s a safe bet to say that 99.9% of Warmists refuse to give up fossil fuels in their own lives.

And — as has been often stated — these pledges are not compatible with the Paris agreement’s ambitious temperature target, which is to limit “the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels.”

If the pact is so “historic”, why does it not accomplish anything? It won’t keep the world from hitting that 2C level (which it probably won’t anyhow, and, the number was plucked out of thin air, per the Climategate emails). By all accounts, it looks like this is simply a document to say “we’re Doing Something!!!!”, and the doing something is signing a document.

Of course, a goodly chunk of this non-binding, voluntary pact is about transferring money from big countries to little/3rd world ones. They included the notion of “loss and damage”, in order to force prosperous nations to pay up. Since this accord will not be put in front of the Legislative Branch, there is no legal mechanism for the US to transfer the money US taxpayers have taken from them by Government and send it to these leech nations.

How historic is this accord? Let’s ask unhinged hyper-Warmist James Hansen

Mere mention of the Paris climate talks is enough to make James Hansen grumpy. The former Nasa scientist, considered the father of global awareness of climate change, is a soft-spoken, almost diffident Iowan. But when he talks about the gathering of nearly 200 nations, his demeanor changes.

“It’s a fraud really, a fake,” he says, rubbing his head. “It’s just bullshit for them to say: ‘We’ll have a 2C warming target and then try to do a little better every five years.’ It’s just worthless words. There is no action, just promises. As long as fossil fuels appear to be the cheapest fuels out there, they will be continued to be burned.”

It’s strictly a feel good document. A non-binding, voluntary political document. But, I expect members of the Cult of Climastrology to implement the goals in their own lives. Will they? Based on history, the answer is a resounding “No.”

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

6 Responses to “What Happens Now That Politicians Have Signed “Historic” Climate Pact?”

  1. jl says:

    President Cruz, or Rubio, or Trump will cancel the “agreement” upon taking office.

  2. Gbear says:

    Fallen Angels by Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle seems to be another playbook for the envirowackos.

  3. drowningpuppies says:

    Best answer-

    “We’ve come up with a plan to control temperatures in 2065,” say governments that will all collapse by 2025.

    David Burge @iowahawkblog

  4. Dana says:

    Assuming that he signs this fool thing, President Obama will never submit it to the Senate as a treaty to be ratified, or to the Congress as a whole, as a congressional/executive agreement (which would require simple majorities in both Houses rather than a 2/3 majority in the Senate) for ratification.

    If Senator McConnell had any backbone, he wouldn’t wait for the President to submit it. Instead, he would simply take the agreement, on his own, and assign it to the appropriate committee for consideration and hearings, prior to a standard treaty ratification vote.

    It would be interesting to see the President splutter and puff and say that the Senate cannot perform its constitutional function of treaty ratification, and to see the Senate Democrats then filibuster an agreement signed by a Democratic President.

  5. Phil Taylor says:

    In Canada it will be ratified and the money will be sent. 4.5 billion a year.
    That is the disadvantage of a majority government. The advantage is that things get done. However it might not be the things you want done.
    I can think of a great many better things that money could do. Even if it was to be used in third world countries to build schools and roads and water wells etc.

    There is also a carbon tax in someprovinces and a cap in trade in others., so the moochers will be out in force.
    So far the carbon tax has done little in British Columbia except divert money from those that earned it to those that did not.

  6. John Smith says:

    Just another case of politicians “doing something” even when what they are doing is harmful. They can not stand to be seen is a negative light, which doing nothing might seem like, they might not get re-elected to the public trough. They rarely ever look back to see if what they did was harmful and try to correct it. And then there is the money, but I won’t get into that, it is obvious what is happening with that.

Pirate's Cove