Warmists Defied: President Trump Pulls Out Of Paris Climate Deal

Posted on Fri 06/02/2017 by

2


By Andrew Bolt ~

Here in Australia the ABC is wailing in horror: Donald Trump is pulling out of the Paris climate accord. (Sceptics are worried: he says he is open to a better deal.)

Trump has in fact pull out a deal that lets its strategic competitors – Russia and China – increase their emissions while cutting America’s. He’s pulled out of a deal that actually makes almost no difference to temperatures – at the very most 0.05 degrees by 2100 – at the cost of trillions of dollars. He’s pulled out of a deal that only pretends to fix what might not actually need or want fixing.

And by pulling out, Australia’s idiocy is exposed: the world’s top four emitters are either out of the Paris agreement or are free under the deal to increase their emissions. China is the top emitter, responsible for 28 per cent of the world’s man-made global warming gases. It is followed by the United States, India and Russia, and the Paris agreement allows China, India and Russia to all increase their emissions.

So why is tiny Australia still part of this growth-killing useless gesture, spending billions to make no difference?

Let fact-check the hysteria.

Typically, the Washington Post lies:

As U.S. backs away from climate pledges, India and China step up

In fact, China under the Paris deal is allowed to increase its emissions by at least 50 per cent:

As for China themselves, their INDC only promises to peak emissions by 2030, and reduce CO2 emissions per unit of GDP by 60% to 65% of 2005 levels. Because their economy has expanded so much since 2005, and is planned to grow much more up to 2030, their promise is likely to see emissions increase by at least 50% from current levels.

India can double its emissions:

While India’s pledge promises to cut its emissions intensity in 2030 to a third below 2005 levels, its growing economy means actual emissions will still increase… India’s pledge could see total greenhouse gas output nearly double by 2030…

Russia can increase its emissions above current levels:

Taking a closer look at Russia’s climate plan reveals that the country could increase its emissions about 40-50 percent above current levels by 2030.

So Trump is actually right:

[The Paris agreement] just transfers [coal] jobs out of the United States and ships them to other countries. This deal is less about the climate and more about other countries gaining an advantage over the United States.

What’s more, the deal is actually a con.

So far global warming has not produced the predicted disasters. Cyclones have in fact between rarer, and not stronger. Droughts have not worsened overall, and Australia’s dams have not emptied, as was warned. Low-lying atoll islands have not drowned – in fact, 40 per cent have increased in size and 40 per cent have stayed stable. World grain crops have set new records.

This may in fact be a pretend fix to a pretend catastrophe. Even if every country in the Paris deal cut their emissions as promised (and they aren’t) and even if the climate is as sensitive to our emissions as the Paris deal assumes (and it may not be), the deal will still make very little difference:

Professor Bjorn Lomborg:

  • The climate impact of all Paris INDC promises is minuscule: if we measure the impact of every nation fulfilling every promise by 2030, the total temperature reduction will be 0.048°C (0.086°F) by 2100.
  • Even if we assume that these promises would be extended for another 70 years, there is still little impact: if every nation fulfills every promise by 2030, and continues to fulfill these promises faithfully until the end of the century, and there is no ‘CO₂ leakage’ to non-committed nations, the entirety of the Paris promises will reduce temperature rises by just 0.17°C (0.306°F) by 2100.

What the Paris climate deal actually does

What the Paris deal meant to the US:

Barack Obama enacted the deal in 2015, pledging to cut domestic greenhouse gas emissions 26 to 28 per cent below 2005 levels by 2025 as well as to commit up to $3 billion in aid for poorer countries by 2020.

But unlike its predecessor, the Kyoto Protocol, the Paris deal isn’t binding, so countries that don’t follow through with their commitments on curbing carbon dioxide emissions by 2025 won’t face enforceable sanctions.

$3 billion? No wonder little piggies are squealing.

And Bjorn Lomborg explains why that squealing has added urgency:

The Paris Treaty hinged on $100 billion a year “climate aid” from rich nations, and cuts in fossil fuel use that would have cost $1 trillion to $2 trillion every year from 2030.

Andrew Bolt writes for the Herald Sun, Daily Telegraph, and The Advertiser and runs Australia’s most-read political blog. On week nights he hosts The Bolt Report on Sky News at 7pm and his Macquarie Radio show at 8pm with Steve Price.

Read more excellent articles from Andrew Bolt’s Blog . http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/

Advertisements