Skip to content

Whither Next?

June 2, 2017

By Paul Homewood

Now that the dust has settled, it’s time for a few reflections about the US exit from Paris.


The reaction from most of the media has been, predictably, virulently anti-Trump, almost as if he were the Anti-Christ.

Breitbart have reprinted the utterly ludicrous front page from the corrupt Weather Channel, which sums up a lot of the absurd criticisms thrown around.


Nobody seems to have mentioned that Trump was elected President with a promise to withdraw from Paris.

Nobody has mentioned that Obama railroaded the Paris Agreement through, without the consent of Congress.

Apparently democracy does not count these days.

The Agreement itself has been widely misrepresented. ITV News last night claimed that 200 countries had agreed to cut emissions.

Jillian Ambrose writes in the Telegraph:

The Paris Agreement commits almost 200 countries to ensure that the average global temperature doesn’t rise by more than 2C above pre-industrial levels, by cutting down on high-carbon energy and fuels…..

The catastrophic effects of climate change are well-understood and are already beginning to emerge. Rising sea levels, severe weather events, and food shortages due to crop damage could all increase in the years to come.

Both statements are complete garbage. Fortunately most of the comments reveal this, eg:



Meanwhile, the good Frau has let the cat out of the bag:

Ms. Merkel, however, sounded a somewhat bleaker note. “The whole discussion about climate was very difficult, not to say unsatisfactory,” she said. “There’s a situation where it’s six, if you count the European Union, seven, against one.”

“This is not just any old agreement, but it is a central agreement for shaping globalization,” she said. “There are no signs of whether the U.S. will stay in the Paris accords or not.”

And, of course, this is really what all of the fuss has been about. Paris never was about fixing the climate. Instead, it was part of a process of globalisation and wealth redistribution.



The hoary old chestnut has been wheeled out again – China will take the global lead away from America on climate.

Will China start cutting emissions now, rather than in 2030?

Will China agree to be reclassified as a developed country, with all of the obligations that entails for the UNFCCC?

Will China start paying billions in climate aid every year, instead of being a recipient?

Of course not.

There will be many platitudes offered in their meeting with the EU this week, and many meaningless pledges made. But China will continue to work for their own interest, and nobody else’s.


Trump has offered the possibility of renegotiating Paris. Is this likely?

My suspicion is that it is merely a sop to the Remainers.

We already know that the EU have set themselves dead against this, and why wouldn’t they? To let the US renegotiate would simply admit that Trump was right all along.

In any event, what new terms would be acceptable to Trump? He would probably insist on equal treatment with China. Either the US gets to agree just to reduce emissions intensity, rather than actual emissions, and carry on increasing till 2030. Or China has to begin large reductions now.

Neither scenario is remotely plausible.

Where now?

What effect will US withdrawal have on Paris?

The first question is when the US withdrawal will take effect? Article 28 clearly states that states cannot withdraw until three years after the Agreement entered force, which would be October 2019.

There is then another year before it can take effect: 


Presumably Trump will issue some sort of Executive Order, which will  make this clearer.

However, he specifically states “Thus, as of today, the U.S. will cease all implementation of the non-binding Paris accord “.

This would seem to imply that, as it is non-binding, he can just ignore it straightaway. Whether the courts see it that way is another matter!

As for the rest of the world, there is little doubt that the EU will plough on regardless, and in doing so just keep digging a deeper grave for themselves.

China will carry on using coal, oil and gas, and sell wind turbines and solar panels to the West. India will do the same, regardless of any money they are given.

The Russians have not even ratified yet, and probably won’t until all sanctions are lifted.

Smaller countries were never interested in anything but the money, but will no doubt be around next year with the begging bowl held out.

In short, the circus will carry on, but with nothing meaningful agreed, at least until the next US President arrives on the scene.

And the money? Of the first $100bn promised by 2020, little has appeared. The $100bn a year thereafter was always going to be pie in the sky. Without US funding, any further payments will be extremely small indeed. This may be the rock on which the whole ship founders in a few years time.

  1. June 2, 2017 4:34 pm

    A nice antidote to the nonsense being spouted on every main stream news channel i have tried so far.

    It’s almost as if the MSM is doing it on purpose – they couldn’t be that stupid could they ;-?

    BTW notice you are nearing your 5M hits!

    • Henning Nielsen permalink
      June 2, 2017 5:44 pm

      Yes, they do it on purose. And no, they are not stupid. They have invested years of propaganda effort on this scare, and they are not likely to end the effort until the readers need to google “climate crises” to understand what it’s about. Then the media can find another crusade.

      • June 2, 2017 10:33 pm

        ‘Fake crusade’ to be more precise.

    • Derek Buxton permalink
      June 3, 2017 9:25 am

      “they could not be that stupid , could they”. Short answer YES!

  2. June 2, 2017 4:47 pm

    At last we have a leader (although obviously not my president as I’m not American) who is prepared to call this monumental scam out. I look forward to the day AGW dies, although I’m sure it will be a long and lingering death.

  3. markl permalink
    June 2, 2017 4:51 pm

    There will be no re negotiation because it would shine too much light on the whole scam and out it for what it is….. a money and industry re distribution scheme and nothing more.

  4. June 2, 2017 5:05 pm

    There is a piece of mine that may or may not be published by WUWT. I intend to publish it *somewhere* if it doesn’t get into WUWT, but until then may I share some info…

    Back in 2001, Bush pulled out of Kyoto. The reaction was somewhat less virulent than now, but still you had strong criticism, specially from European countries which are ‘leading the fight against climate change’.

    There’s just one problem: after the US pulled out, it actually decarbonized FASTER than Europe! And this was all before the shale boom, during Bush’s years.

    Ludicrously, the climate movement still seems to think that US withdrawal from Kyoto was a catastrophe, set back emission reductions for years, yadda yadda – see this comment by Gavin Schmidt.

    The actual emissions don’t matter. The increase or decrease in emissions doesn’t matter. It’s all about the posturing.

    • June 2, 2017 6:36 pm

      You might be interested in this post about the UK emissions intensity as well

      • June 2, 2017 10:59 pm

        Yes, India’s ‘pledge’ is a joke; Oren Cass has covered this and other issues of the Paris agreement very well. So is China’s commitment: they’re off the hook forever as long as their emissions do not rise above their 2030 level, so all they have to do is burn a lot of extra coal (or simply manipulate data) that year and bam, done.

        Combined, India and China already emit about 50% more than US+EU. Over the rest of the century their emissions will dwarf those of the US and EU, so their worthless pledges say a lot about the whole agreement.

    • HotScot permalink
      June 2, 2017 10:46 pm

      How strange. No atmospheric water vapour in that graph of GHG emissions.

      But then I guess because water vapour is neither added to, or extracted from the planet (other than astronauts chucking their piss overboard) it somehow doesn’t count as a GHG.

      On the other hand, no meaningful CO2 has ever been added to, or extracted from the planet, it has merely been naturally, and accidentally, sequestered by nature.

      We are liberating it, we are liberators.

      And whilst the planet has existed with CO2 at one of it’s lowest levels in it’s history, dropping dangerously towards life extinction, up pops man, incredibly fortuitously, just in time to release CO2 from the bowls of the planet, and save life as we know it.

      Seriously, one has to wonder if there is a divine, intervening hand at work here.

  5. June 2, 2017 5:07 pm

    At last the truth is out. The Paris Accord for the average voter of whatever hue or country is “All Pain and No Gain”.
    Well said Trump. British politicians take note.

  6. treghotel permalink
    June 2, 2017 5:32 pm

    To repeat- Well said Trump,but I have no doubt that mother Theresa will remain subservient to Herr Merkel as will the rest of our political idiots.

  7. June 2, 2017 5:42 pm

    As to tactics, Paul, you overlooked section 3 of Article 28 of Paris. It says that withdrawing from UNFCCC is an automatic withdrawal from Paris also. UNFCCC withdrawal is now only 1 year from notice to done. The Green Climate fund is technically UNFCCC not Paris, since it was first established at Copenhagen, with its Korean HQ set up before Paris. Paric was only the new funding goal. Trump said US was withdrawing from GCF also. That was the clue to the mechanism that will be used. Article 28 section three of Paris via UNFCCC Article 25, which section 3 contains the mirror language to Paris Article 28 section 3. Written notice to UNFCCC, automatic after 1 year.
    I note also that under PL103-236 passed by Congress in 1994, the US is prohibited from funding its UNFCCC obligations under Article 4(3). UNFCCC recognized Palestine as a full state member April 2016, triggering the 1994 US law.

    • June 2, 2017 6:38 pm

      That would certainly be the sensible way to go.

      However, if he is serious about renegotiating, that rules it out

      • June 2, 2017 6:55 pm

        You are right, but I don’t think he was serious. It was a classic Art of the Deal move, a sop to the ‘remainers’ in his administration. The European reaction has already ruled renegotiation out. Completely different deal, his other alternative, is still possible although hard to figure why.

      • HotScot permalink
        June 2, 2017 11:01 pm


        it was an art of the deal move. It was as May’s statement was, no deal is better than a bad deal.

        So almost 200 countries must agree to a Paris light deal that will appeal to Trump.

        the 27 remaining states of Europe won’t be able to agree on a Brexit deal because of internal conflicts of interest, so why would 200 world nations be any different?

        Trump chucked them a bone to gnaw on.

        And whilst they squabble, the IPCC will be forced to reduce it’s climate warming expectations, once again, over the next 5 years, and Trump will have stolen march on everyone.

        America will begin to prosper before the rest of the world has their running shorts pulled up beyond their ankles.

        And when it comes to tying their running shoe laces, they will squabble over which foot is left or right.

        But the UK politicians have been doing that for donkeys years.

  8. June 2, 2017 5:50 pm

    I suspect that Merkel was thinking about the loss of manufacturing jobs to the USA, such as what happened with BASF a few years ago. The EU will try to inflict its onerous “green” regulations on others via trade deals, the UK must resist this, no Brexit deal could easily be the least worst option.

  9. John F. Hultquist permalink
    June 2, 2017 6:35 pm

    “… claimed that 200 countries had agreed to cut emissions.

    Almost makes me believe in parallel worlds.

  10. Oliver K. Manuel permalink
    June 2, 2017 7:05 pm

    There is but one problem and that problem is universal, Loss of contact with Reality (God)

    There is but one solution and that solution is universal, “Re-establish contact with Reality (God)

  11. June 2, 2017 9:01 pm

    Paul, thank you for your concise and precise understanding of the Paris Accord, Donald Trump’s being elected President in no small part as he promised to withdraw us from this money grabbing, sovereignty-killing turkey. In essence, thank you for understanding and stating the facts of the case. I wish the silly left in this country had half your savvy.

  12. dennisambler permalink
    June 3, 2017 9:44 am

    You are quite likely right about Russia not ratifying unti sanctions are lifted, after all they didn’t ratify Kyoto until they were bribed to do so with WTO membership. It took 8 years from the “Accord” to the “Protocol” because Russia only then tipped the 55% ratification requirement.

    The other bargaining chip Russia is playing, is that they seek recognition of their vast forests as “carbon sinks” which they can set against their emissions, hence ending up with having to do very little.

    Aren’t spreadsheets wonderful.

  13. sarastro92 permalink
    June 3, 2017 4:47 pm

    One of the big jokes, of course, is that EVERYONE (not just the Chinese) has more or less repudiated key portions of the Paris accord

    Example: the annual $100B climate tithe:

    “Developed countries have not met their commitments. In their reports a lot of their commitment is in the form of development aid. That doesn’t meet the commitment to contribute to new funds,” China’s top climate change negotiator, Xie Zhenhua, told a briefing on Tuesday. –Lucy Hornby, Financial Times, 11 April 2017

    This is all about symbolism… and the symbolism that Trump is saying is: There is no looming climate catastrophe… basically, catastrophic Global Warming is a hoax.

  14. Keith permalink
    June 3, 2017 5:25 pm

    Congratulations Paul. Sites like yours that have consistently shown present climate change policy to be nonsense are owed a big debt of gratitude. That type of influence helped American voters put Trump in power, who is the first global leader to have the cojones to say that present climate change policy is wrong.

    Well played sir.

  15. Russ Wood permalink
    June 4, 2017 4:36 pm

    If, despite being ‘binding’ and requiring 3 years notice, what if President Trump says “No way – no money”? Then, any anti-Trump Federal judge who tries to naysay him, could then be told “OK. YOU find the $2 billion to pay the UN!” So, now let’s see what happens!

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: