Skip to content

If Trump Exits Paris, Will It Make The Slightest Difference To Climate?

May 31, 2017
tags: ,

By Paul Homewood

    

Word is coming out of Washington that President Trump has finally made the decision to exit the Paris Agreement.

   

There have already been various stories about the apocalypse waiting around the corner if that happens, not least from so-called scientists who should know better, eg:

   

image

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-05-30/climate-danger-zone-seen-if-trump-pulls-u-s-out-of-paris-deal  

  

But just what difference will it make to global emissions?

Obama promised to cut GHG emissions by 26% from 2005 levels of 6.2 GtCO2e, in his INDC at Paris. Yet between 2005 and 2012 (the last year figures are available from UNFCCC) emissions had already fallen by 11%. Most of this occurred shortly after the financial crash.

   

image

http://unfccc.int/di/DetailedByParty/Event.do?event=go#

         

Provisional data suggests that emissions have flattened since 2012.

Therefore, if the US keeps to its target, emissions would need to drop by about another 0.9 GtCOe.

But what about global emissions?

Even the UNFCCC admitted that the Paris Agreement would mean that these would rise from 49 Gt in 2010, to 55 Gt in 2030, a rise of 6 Gt.

Therefore, if the US does not cut emissions any further, worldwide emissions will rise by 6.9 Gt, instead of 6.0 Gt.

         

fig2exec_syr_update_v27apr2016_905_withlegend_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb

http://unfccc.int/focus/indc_portal/items/9240.php

            

If climate scientists honestly believe that the US exiting from Paris will make so much difference, perhaps they ought all to get on a (slow) boat to China, and ask them why they are not cutting their emissions.

As we all know, none of this has anything at all with climate. The real concern amongst corrupt scientists, rent seeking renewable scamsters and wealth redistributors is that the money will dry up.

Take away the US, and the whole house of cards will soon come crashing down.

Advertisements
23 Comments
  1. markl permalink
    May 31, 2017 8:04 pm

    No.

  2. Athelstan permalink
    May 31, 2017 8:07 pm

    Not before time, the US boots the Paris stitch-up into the outer twatosphere.

    It won’t affect the climate of the globe one iota, however the NWO will be affected, knocked back a peg or two and just for that I exclaim: Gloria in Excelsis Deo, laudamus Te.

    ON DJT, Call him what they like and they do how TF do they get away with this………’liberal merika’……………just who are the real fekkin nutters – here? the greatest mistake they; Soros and O’barmy’s little Commie helpers – make, is, to underestimate President Trump.

    GO DONALD, For America and England too, help us Englanders, bring about our own revelation.

    • treghotel permalink
      May 31, 2017 9:47 pm

      Well said – Go Donald

  3. Terry permalink
    May 31, 2017 8:09 pm

    thats not the point. US withdrawal would put a brake on the communist /marxist redistribution of wealth from western countries, leaving many in western countries in energy poverty!. See my letter in todays Times.(330 000 households in Germany without electricity!). Environment policy is less about the climate and more about impoverishment of the West!

    Terri Ja\ckson

    Terri

    On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 8:49 PM, NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT wrote:

    > Paul Homewood posted: “By Paul Homewood Word is coming out of > Washington that President Trump has finally made the decision to exit the > Paris Agreement. There have already been various stories about the > apocalypse waiting around” >

  4. May 31, 2017 8:59 pm

    According to Bjorn Lomborg on Channel 4 News (that bastion of alarmism), Trump quitting Paris will be good thing because Kyoto was 15 wasted years and Paris would lead to more wasted years. Instead of all the money wasted on renewable energy crap, he said that money might instead be spent on researching and developing better means of energy generation. Bryony Worthless disagreed with him, but she is an intellectual giant, having been a Labour Government adviser.

  5. May 31, 2017 9:05 pm

    I thought that most countries had already opted out of the Paris agreement by fair means or foul, exceptof course,the idiots. At least Trump is being honest.
    CO2 is not the problem. The obsession with it is and it is becoming quite dangerous.

  6. May 31, 2017 9:42 pm

    BBC are up to their old reporting this story ;

    This was very sneaky;

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-40113393

  7. May 31, 2017 9:57 pm

    Much depends on the exit pathway: 1) Reversing Obama’s signature, 2) The Senate rejects the Paris Treaty or 3) The US leaves the UNFCC. The last one is the quickest and most radical, but with unknown blowback ( Supreme court?) The Senate has 22 sworn to stop Paris, but it is not a slam dunk. The first one is easiest,an attempt to have a soft landing for the believers, but it also means years of noise and sand in the gears (lots of litigation).

    As Paul shows, it is not about the climate but all about politics and money.

    • June 1, 2017 9:37 am

      The big problem with 1) is that the US has to give 3 years notice, during which time presumably all sorts of legal challenges will be issued.

      • June 1, 2017 12:08 pm

        Right. We already see that worldwide litigation of climate change is on the rise. Time for lawyers to get their piece of the pie. The problem is both IPCC theory and also the endangerment finding, which needs overturning.

  8. Robert Fairless permalink
    May 31, 2017 10:15 pm

    Faux scientists in Paris- let us hope that Mr Trump calls their bluff; all they want is his money.

  9. John Peter permalink
    June 1, 2017 12:55 am

    Refeence Ron Clutz above, Ristvan has an interesting comment on WUWT

    ristvan May 31, 2017 at 1:29 pm
    Yes. UNFCCC exit is 12 months. By article 25, all subsidiary agreements (Paris) automatically also exited. And by US law passed in 1994 (PL103-236), as of April 2016 US cannot offer any support anyway to UNFCCC or its subsidiary organizations (Green Climate Fund, IPCC) because it explicitly recognized Palestine as a member state.”

    Ristvan is quite knowledgeable so by law US should already be out of UNFCC. It would be hard for the Supreme Court to rule that it is illegal for POTUS to actually inact a law passed by Congress now that they are up to nine members and the liberal Constitution meddlers are no longer able to block decisions.

    • June 1, 2017 12:13 pm

      John, a further clarification was provided by Ristvan. Treaties in US law are with no time limit and no opt out. UNFCCC has an opt out, so is not a treaty, but is in fact a “congressional pact.” It follows that the Paris accord must also be a congressional pact, which it presently is not. I can hardly wait to see what Trump will say about this swamp.

  10. June 1, 2017 6:56 am

    It amazes me how the EU can step forward and say with one voice, “We’re committed to exporting all our manufacturing to China.”
    China meanwhile solemnly agrees.
    Someone ought to make a neat little summary of which country agreed to what at Paris. My one regret is that Blighty is still on board this particular ship and shows no signs of any nervous glances over her shoulder to check whether safe land is still visible. Full steam ahead!

  11. Europeanonion permalink
    June 1, 2017 7:29 am

    I don’t know what the truth is in this matter. It is like asking Mao, as they did, what he thought about the French revolution and him replying that it was too early to tell. What I do know is that Paul shows us incontrovertible data with some translation (the bread and butter of the technical author) from acknowledged source and invites you to disagree if you have a mind. People of my acquaintance are so ready to regurgitate emotional blackmail, which in an age of the worldwide web is available in bucket loads, literally, just talk. The majority may not know their decadal climate prediction from their El Nino but words of crushing emotional weight based on supposition and rampant romanticism outweigh the scientific in the sort of mind that is all to do with the inevitable outcome and interested little in the source.

    That the BBC is such an unreliable witness it is pitiable. It leads to the thought that they know something which the broader population of enquiry does not reinforced by the their banning of what has come to be called ‘denial’. I have used the association with the Phlogiston theory to illustrate why I think the BBC is wrong and how an editor of news who seeks drama and the exclusives could find no greater attraction than, “Official. End of the world nigh”. There are many stories about the origin of the BBCs contrivance but whatever input they had it is obvious that there was a view already held, especially since they only invited people that would confirm that which they wanted to believe when formulating their policy.

    The BBC is not the centre of all learning and does not attract the best brains. The best brains are not reporters but doers. All the BBC want is someone with a grasp who will do the bidding of their editor and who has a good voice. The coercion that the corporation applies is breathtaking. Their practices of enforcing the Metropolitan, no, the view of the coterie, is a litany of snide practices and selective commentary of which many examples abound. You only get back what they seek to contrive by selective witness. Unfortunately the BBC is unassailable. Unfortunate also as the Corporation is seen abroad as the voice of British Government, which is absolutely awful and something which is never questioned or denied.

    No meaner or more scandalous TV face than Jeremy Paxman averred that Trump was being falsely persecuted by assumption and contempt. The hauteur directed against that man is not earned (although he does do an excellent portrayal of Bill Murray’s greens keeper in the film ‘Caddy shack’ at times). Yet Trump is also that figure representing a stance against the controlling class, the les enarques, that which has assumed an intrusive authority on its own recognisance in society. There are too many proselytisers for too many unsubstantiated causes that have reference to ‘what if’ rather than actual outcomes that can make politicians seem so loving of mankind, so concerned about the “every sparrow that falls”, scenario, that egregious saintliness which talks a good game. At the moment society is burning (or not burning) effigies to gods that it wishes to propitiate rather than doing the one thing that man has proved so adept at, enquiry.

    • Athelstan permalink
      June 1, 2017 2:23 pm

      Go away.

  12. CheshireRed permalink
    June 1, 2017 8:22 am

    BBC interviewed Boris Johnson this am, starting with the leading assertion about the US exiting Paris; ‘It’s a disaster’.
    Not an ‘is it’? Not any sort of question. Just an assertion of unquestioned fact. They really are w@nkers.

  13. Ian permalink
    June 1, 2017 9:15 am

    This is what I posted on WUWT:

    Mr Trump has a very big responsibility – not just to pull out of the Paris Agreement, but to get his experts to explain why and start a proper debate. Sceptics will never have a better platform. The need for this was very evident in the political debate/shouting match that took place last night in the UK, where the only thing the politicians had in common was the delusion that climate change is going to kill us all. Correction – there was one note of caution, the Ukip rep. noting how India and China are going hell for leather on coal power. No impact, though.

    Nothing I’ve seen since invalidates this.

    • CheshireRed permalink
      June 1, 2017 10:04 am

      Correct Ian. Tiny Tim still thinks ‘climate change’ is ‘the gravest threat to our future, ever’. Quite astounding ignorance and exaggeration. But there’s no telling ’em.

      Trump should roll out an official Inquiry into their adjusted data. That’d be fun.

  14. Peter Flint permalink
    June 1, 2017 11:31 am

    Why isn’t Paul Homewood working in government?
    His articles are so blindingly simple, use well researched facts and make compelling reading. His honesty shines through like a beacon.

    Oh, I think I’ve just answered my own question.

    Thank you Paul, please keep the articles coming.

  15. June 1, 2017 2:18 pm

    Reblogged this on Climate Collections.

  16. manicbeancounter permalink
    June 1, 2017 8:41 pm

    Back in January I looked at Trump’s famous tweet about global warming being a hoax created by the Chinese to make US Manufacturing non-competitive. In this I explain the discrepancy in the UNFCCC graph shown above. The Yellow band is the emissions pathway is the forecast if all policy proposals in 2015 are fully implemented. This shows emissions rising through to 2030, and includes the USA. The dark blue band is the emissions pathway to constraining warming to 2C by the end of the century (assuming that a doubling of CO2 levels results in 3C of warming)
    The major reason for the difference between the emissions pathways is that the developing countries did sign up to the 1992 Rio Declaration to reduce GHG emissions. They accounted for all the growth in GHG emissions between 1990 and 2012.

    This “developing” part of the world now has 84% of the global population, but in 2012 was just 64% of the greenhouse gas emissions. Global emissions will not fall whilst most of the world’s population lives in countries where emissions are growing without constraint. The reason for emissions growth is economic growth.

    https://manicbeancounter.com/2017/01/13/trump-is-wrong-on-china-global-warming-hoax-but-right-on-the-policy-consequences/

    • manicbeancounter permalink
      June 1, 2017 9:05 pm

      For some perspective on the developing countries, I did a split into 5 “groups”, with roughly the same sizes of population (1010 to 1400 million). China has the biggest emissions growth between 1990 and 2012. But that growth will slow down and stop by 2030. In the next 20 years India is likely to have most of the emissions growth. Then it will be S&E Asia. Later in the century it is likely to be Africa.
      Note that the population of the EU is 500 million and the USA is 330 million. The “developing” world has 7.5 times the population yet is hardly mentioned when the claimed policy goal is to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions. I find this somewhat curious.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: