Skip to content

Trump has revealed the dirty secret of the Paris Accord: it is meaningless

June 4, 2017

By Paul Homewood

Booker on Trump this week:


From the howls of dismay and rage prompted across the world by President Trump’s speech on pulling the US out of the Paris Climate Accord, we couldn’t miss that something extraordinary had happened. But it is impossible to grasp its real significance without knowing just how far that Paris agreement has become one of the most dishonestly misrepresented events in recent history.

The reason why the BBC immediately wheeled on someone to describe Trump’s decision as “apocalyptic, paranoid and delusional” was that the President had just stripped away all the spin, pretences and lies that led even that celebrated climate zealot James Hansen to call the agreement at the time a “fake” and a “fraud”.

What was being hoped for in Paris by the world’s climate establishment, led by President Obama, who called it his “legacy”, was a legally binding treaty that would succeed where Kyoto and Copenhagen had so signally failed. It would commit every country to such drastic reductions in its emissions of “polluting” CO2 that this might somehow prevent global temperatures from rising by more than 2 degrees Celsius.

Trump says US to withdraw from Paris climate deal


To bring on board the developing world, led by two of the top three “polluters”, China and India, a Green Climate Fund was set up, whereby the developed nations would pay them $100 billion every year to “decarbonise” by going for renewable energy.

These people who are now waxing so angry have been looking in the wrong place for what drives the climate all along.

But for reasons I was able to explain here a month before Paris, none of this was going to happen. The reason it is only called the “Paris Accord” is that there was never going to be a legally binding treaty. But the really dirty secret of Paris, as Trump has now been the first world leader to reveal, was contained in a set of documents called “Intended Nationally Determined Contributions” (INDCs). Here, each country set out its own plan for how by 2030 it intended to meet the desired “climate goals”.

Again led by China and India, the developing countries all paid lip service to what was wanted, and how they would be expanding their “renewable” energy sources – wind, solar and the rest. But buried away in the small print, as dug out by the meticulous researcher Paul Homewood on his NotALotOfPeopleKnowThat blog (and reported here), was the devastating real story.

  1. tom0mason permalink
    June 4, 2017 11:07 am

    Trump understands that the “Paris Accord” is nothing but BS. It is not about keeping manmade CO2 under control, if it was then all nations (not just Western nations) would have been subjected to the same restrictions.

    The bottom-line FACTS are that all the weather and climate changes experienced in the last 200 years are NOT outside normal natural variations, and that CO2 has not, in the world’s mobile atmosphere, been proved to cause any warming. The THEORY that CO2 causes climate change is just plain wrong and too much time and money has already been wasted on this ridiculous notion.
    No increase in storms or hurricanes.
    No increases in droughts.
    No increase in sea-level rise.
    No evidence of Dr Hansen ‘runaway greenhouse effect’
    No abnormal climate variations!

    All we have evidence of is the planet becoming slightly greener, which is good.

    • HotScot permalink
      June 4, 2017 6:05 pm

      You are to generous.

      NASA reported greening has been 14% since their satellite observations began 30 years ago. If the term ‘unprecedented’ is appropriate to anything in the contemporary sense, it is that.

      Two continents equivalent to mainland USA of extra vegetation over thirty years is not just unprecedented, but utterly astonishing.

      It is the single most positive, and the only observed evidence, of the effect CO2 is having on the planet. None of the catastrophic events predicted by alarmists have, or in my opinion, will, manifest themselves. Nor have they done so over the last 40 years.

      AGW is a sorry projection imposed on the glass half full optimists on the planet, by the glass half empty pessimists.

      I detest the miserable b’stards who promote misery rather than opportunity.

      Were it not for optimism, mankind would have been extinguished long ago.

  2. June 4, 2017 11:14 am

    The usual suspects are now trying to claim that Paris in fact makes a huge difference for emissions / temperature.

    It’s always the same story:
    1. Assume that future ‘business as usual’ or ‘no policy’ or ‘baseline’ emissions will be ridiculously high.
    2. Say that, if we only ‘do something’ about emissions, they will be much lower (though still probably higher than now).
    3. Claim success for something that would have happened anyway, i.e. emissions failing to reach the absurdly high ‘business as usual’ scenario. (If emissions are nevertheless higher than you predicted them to be, blame the conspiracy of climate skeptic bloggers who are presumably lobbying Indians to buy motorbikes).

    My rebuttal to Climate Feedback is here:

    • June 4, 2017 4:16 pm

      Alberto, here is the complete cascade of suppositions, as they pertain to oil reserves:

      Supposition 1: A 2C global warming target is internationally agreed.
      Supposition 2: Carbon Restrictions are enacted by governments to comply with the target.
      Supposition 3: Demand for oil and gas products is reduced due to restrictions
      Supposition 4: Oil and gas assets become uneconomic for lack of demand.
      Supposition 5: Company net worth declines by depressed assets and investors lose value.

  3. A C Osborn permalink
    June 4, 2017 11:23 am

    Paul, along with some other at Tallblokes I wrote to President Trump the other day congratulating him on his reversal of Obama’s Paris deal.
    I took the liberty of mentioning your forum and the work you did on the Paris Accord INDCs showing that it would probably make CO2 emissions higher not lower.
    It is nice to see Booker acknowledging your sterling work as well.

    • A C Osborn permalink
      June 4, 2017 11:24 am

      I don’t know whether anyone at the WhiteHouse will actuall read any of the emails though, but we tried.

      • John F. Hultquist permalink
        June 4, 2017 5:32 pm

        My thought is that the White House (and any major government) will have its e-mails parsed for threats — those that meet that level may then be read by a security type. Then, perhaps, some will be cross-checked with databases of known crackpots. Likewise, letters and packages addressed to the White House are not delivered there.
        Likely also is an artificial intelligence (?) system that counts pro and con statements for subjects such as
        ~ 2nd amendment,
        ~ Melania Trump’s dresses;
        ~ creation versus evolution;
        ~ Elvis is still alive and recently seen;
        ~ veganism;
        ~ . . .
        ~ wild horses
        . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

        This Homewood – – Booker connection is one of the best things happening.
        When “my ship comes in” I’ll send Paul a case or two of whatever is on it.

  4. Graeme No.3 permalink
    June 4, 2017 11:55 am

    Paul, much as the Laputians (courtesy of Clive James) try to eliminate all dissent, your column via Booker is going out in the major newspaper. (I haven’t the latest figures but I would think its circulation is more than The Times plus The Guardian.)
    As Theodore Rooseveldt might have said “speak softly and carry a big readership”.

    Especially if those potential readers are those most likely to read it and think.

    • June 4, 2017 12:58 pm

      The main problem in this country is that most people get their news (fake mostly) from the BBC. Until the BBC stops (or is stopped) its bias, then most people will continue to believe the lies. No amount of truth from Booker, or anywhere else, can change public opinion in the face of the BBC, and the politicians (well LibLabCon) will continue to ignore the truth.

      • Ian permalink
        June 4, 2017 7:29 pm

        Copy of a complaint to the BBC about their handling of an item on this on Daily Politics:

        “Mr Ed Davey was asked to contribute to the Trump decision on the Paris accord. He was introduced without mention of his special interests in the subject, namely, from Wiki:

        Davey has taken up several business appointments since leaving his role as Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change in May 2015.
        Mongoose Energy appointed Davey as chairman in September 2015.[17][18]
        Davey set up a independent consultancy in September 2015 to provide advice on energy and climate change.[17]
        In January 2016 Davey was appointed as a part-time consultant to MHP Communications, the public relations and lobbying firm representing EDF Energy.[17] Davey was criticised by press commentators for the potential conflict of interest between his previous role as Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change and his role at MHP. As Secretary of State Davey awarded EDF the contract to build a new nuclear plant at Hinkley Point in Somerset.[19][20]
        Davey’s appointment as Global Partner and non-Executive director of private equity investor Nord Engine Capital was announced in February 2016.[17][21]
        In July 2016 he became non-paid patron of the Sustainable Futures Foundation, a charity promoting environmental sustainability for the public benefit.[17]

        Is this person going to give an unbiased contribution? When will Daily Politics be balancing this with an interview with somebody like Lord Ridley or Graham Stringer?”

        I’m expecting the usual “get lost” type of response.

  5. June 4, 2017 12:29 pm

    Paris Accord is important to the rent seekers and those taken in, hence the outcry.

    “Maybe that’s why the global warming alarmists have to crank it up to eleven. If we can point to billions of dollars drained from the U.S. government and diverted through an international bureaucracy, or trillions of dollars in lost production and regulatory costs imposed on the world economy over decades, the global warming alarmists have to be able to claim negative consequences so great that they dwarf these massive costs. There’s nothing bigger than the planet dying. It’s a claim that automatically wins the argument—or so they think.”

  6. John F. Hultquist permalink
    June 4, 2017 5:43 pm

    … nothing bigger than the planet dying.

    If I talk to someone that makes a “planet dying” statement, I think of
    George Carlin videos:
    Saving the Planet
    The Universe Wanted Plastic

  7. Bloke down the pub permalink
    June 4, 2017 5:51 pm

    Congratulations Paul on reaching the 5,000,000 visits mark. Bravo Zulu

    • Dung permalink
      June 4, 2017 10:35 pm

      Well spotted Bloke, I join you in congratulating Paul and I hope he will continue for many years.

    • Paddy permalink
      June 5, 2017 7:57 am

      Must be ex RN. Bravo Zulu.

  8. PhilW permalink
    June 6, 2017 6:41 pm

    As mentioned above.
    I tuned into Radio 4 after Trump’s announcement. The 2 voices that were commenting on his decision were Stern and Ed Davey. Good balanced views! Not!

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: