The Paris Climate Accord, Unravelling

Back in 2015, then-President Barack Obama traveled to Paris to have the United States join on to the Paris climate accord.  The gist of the accord is that the United States, EU, Canada and Australia agree to cut their carbon emissions and hamstring their economies for no noticeable effect on the world's climate, all other countries go right on increasing their emissions by  a multiple of the cuts of the US et al., and the US et al. transfer $100 billion a year to kleptocratic third world governments.  Obama thought this was the greatest thing ever.  

Here are some remarks from Obama from 2016, when the US and China held a ceremony to sign the agreement together.  The US was agreeing to major cuts in emissions and hundreds of billions of dollars of financial contributions to the kleptocracies, while China agreed to effectively nothing.  

We are here together because we believe that for all the challenges that we face, the growing threat of climate change could define the contours of this century more dramatically than any other challenge.  One of the reasons I ran for this office was to make sure that America does its part to protect this planet for future generations. Over the past seven and a half years, we’ve transformed the United States into a global leader in the fight against climate change. But this is not a fight that any one country, no matter how powerful, can take alone. That’s why last December’s Paris Agreement was so important. Nearly 200 nations came together as — a strong, enduring framework to set the world on a course to a low-carbon future. 

Really, has there ever been a bigger sucker masquerading as a serious world leader?

Anyway, new President Trump came in saying some sensible things about the climate scam, but his administration has been something of a mixed bag on the subject.  On the plus side, Trump early on announced withdrawal from the Paris flimflam, and his people have resumed giving go-aheads to things like pipelines and oil leases.  But there are plenty of negatives as well:  the so-called "Endangerment Finding" (an EPA 2009 determination that CO2 poses a "danger" to human health and welfare) remains in place and unchallenged; and the temperature adjusters at NOAA and NASA remain unquestioned by their nominal bosses (Commerce Secretary Ross and NASA Administrator Bridenstine).  

But I thought that readers might be interested in a couple of bits of news from this past few days.  First up, the UN bureaucrats seeking to implement the Paris accord have been holding "emergency" meeting in Bangkok trying to finalize a few minor details like, for example, exactly when that $100 billion annual payment from the rich countries (mostly the US) is going to start showing up, and which sucker country is going to pay how much of it.  Because after all, there's no reasonable way to save the planet from carbon emissions without flying a few hundred people half way around the world to Bangkok to talk about it.  The talks broke up just today.  According to this piece from AFP, the affair ended with many third world nations "rounding on" the US and its allies for the positions taken in the talks (not sure the people at AFP know how to speak English).

Developing countries rounded on the United States and its allies at emergency climate talks Sunday, accusing the world's richest nations of stalling on a deal aimed at preventing runaway global warming.  Experts from around the world wrapped up discussions in Bangkok geared towards creating a comprehensive rulebook for countries to implement the landmark Paris Accord on climate change.  But talks foundered over the key issue of how efforts to limit climate change are funded and how contributions are reported.

I love that last line about "how efforts to limit climate change are funded."  Translation:  which sucker country is going to fork over how much of the annual hundred billion, all of which will be stolen by the kleptocrats, and none of which has anything to do with "limiting climate change" in any meaningful way?  The only possible rational answer to these crooks is, you're not getting any of it, and get lost.  Nothing in the AFP piece says exactly what the designated victim countries actually said, and presumably they put it more diplomatically.  But we do get a few clues:

[A]ctivists said the US -- with Western acquiescence -- had stonewalled momentum on the key funding issue.  Harjeet Singh, global lead on climate change for NGO ActionAid, said Sunday the Paris deal was "on the brink.  Developed countries are going back on their word and refusing to agree clear rules governing climate finance," he told reporters.  "If they remain stuck in their positions and fail to loosen their purses, this treaty may collapse."

Is there any doubt that a President Hillary would have put up $50 billion or so annually of US taxpayer cash for this charade?

And for our next piece of news, we have the appointment of Professor Will Happer of Princeton as senior director for emerging technologies at the National Security Council.  The NSC is that small group of the most senior administration officials involved in matters of security -- the Secretaries of State, Defense and Energy, the Vice President, and the President himself.  Happer is not just one of the top physicists in the country, but also a serious climate skeptic, of the sort not given to mincing his words.  Here are a couple of quotes from Happer:

From an interview with The Scientist, February 2017:  "[M]y position [is] that I think climate change has been tremendously exaggerated—its significance. Climate is important, always has been, but I think it’s become sort of a cult movement in the last five or 10 years.’"

As quoted in the 2018 book, "The Politically Incorrect Guide To Climate Change":  “I don’t see a whole lot of difference between the consensus on climate change and the consensus on witches. At the witch trials in Salem, the judges were educated at Harvard. This was supposedly 100 percent science. The one or two people who said there were no witches were immediately hung. Not much has changed.”

I would also call Professor Happer a friend of the Manhattan Contrarian.  Anyway, I think some green heads are in the process of exploding.  It's about time.