G20 Hamburg: Leaders fail to bridge Trump climate chasm
By Paul Homewood
From the BBC:
Leaders of 19 nations at the G20 summit in Germany have renewed their pledge to implement the Paris deal on climate change, despite the US pulling out.
Deadlock over the issue had held up the last day of talks in Hamburg but a final agreement was eventually reached.
It acknowledges President Donald Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement without undermining the commitment of other countries.
The compromise comes after violent protests in the host city.
The joint summit statement released on Saturday said: “We take note of the decision of the United States of America to withdraw from the Paris Agreement.”
However, the leaders of the other G20 members agreed the accord committing nations to restrict global temperature increases was “irreversible”.
In her closing news conference, German Chancellor Angela Merkel said she still deplored Mr Trump’s position on the Paris accord but she was “gratified” the other 19 nations opposed its renegotiation.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-40540359
As Robin Guenier commented:
“Well, the Hamburg meeting is over and the “G20 Leaders’ Declaration” has been published:
Regarding the US withdrawal from the Paris Agreement it says this:
We take note of the decision of the United States of America to withdraw from the Paris Agreement. The United States of America announced it will immediately cease the implementation of its current nationally-determined contribution and affirms its strong commitment to an approach that lowers emissions while supporting economic growth and improving energy security needs.
And goes on to say:
The Leaders of the other G20 members state that the Paris Agreement is irreversible. We reiterate the importance of fulfilling the UNFCCC commitment by developed countries in providing means of implementation including financial resources to assist developing countries … We reaffirm our strong commitment to the Paris Agreement, moving swiftly towards its full implementation in accordance with the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, in the light of different national circumstances…
In other words, following the US withdrawal, there will be no renegotiation and Canada, Australia and Europe will bear the entire burden of emission reduction and funding transfer while powerful “developing” countries are let completely off the hook.
That Western governments should willingly put their heads in this noose is beyond comprehension.”
Robin is right. It is a very sobering thought that the rump of countries left fighting the fight, ie the EU, Canada and Australia only emit 11.3% of the world’s CO2, according to CDIAC data.
Russia and Japan are the only other Annex 1 countries in the G20 (ie developed), and they contribute another 8%. However both nations have made it abundantly clear that they are not serious about cutting emissions.
Which all leaves the EU hopelessly exposed.
Trackbacks
- The Paris treaty Is Just Another Progressive Climate Con - GraniteGrok — GraniteGrok
- The Paris treaty Is Just Another Progressive Con | The New Media Militia
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Mostly references to wealth redistribution which is what its’ all about. People should understand what these statements are really telling people. Where ‘globalization’ is failing to provide the economic equity desired by the Marxist/Socialist cabal “Climate Change” is just a blunt forcing to wealth redistribution and nothing more.
Let them walk the plank by themselves. Just because they stick themselves in the eye with pencils and get their fingers caught in doors doesn’t mean we have to do that.
We need a Trump style leader in Australia, to fight back. Protect industries and the jobs that go with them. We’ve sold everything the tax payers built and payed for, even the farms. Now we’ll be funding the climate change , global warming lie.
With less people in full time work, big industries going belly up, our critical infrastructure in private hands, god help us.
They also doubled down on the $100 billion/year giveaway (from 2020-2025) without the expected contribution from the US.
Note that they will be cracking down on subsidies–for fossil fuels only! (see page 12)
https://www.g20.org/Content/DE/_Anlagen/G7_G20/2017-g20-climate-and-energy-en.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=5
Dear G19
Wow
Really tough sounding statement
But this aint Dodge City
And you aint Bill Hickok
“In other words, following the US withdrawal, there will be no renegotiation and Canada, Australia and Europe will bear the entire burden of emission reduction and funding transfer while powerful “developing” countries are let completely off the hook.”
Not likely. There are no signs of the gigantic yearly transfer of 100 billion dollars starting from 2020, just total silence. One would think such a sum would long since have been calculated into the budgets of those nations intended to provide the funding, but where can one find any evidence of this?
As for emissions cuts, ask the Germans if they will be able to meet their own goal of cuts in 2020, no signs of this either with their dependence of back-up power from coal.
It is no problem at all to comply with Paris, as it is only window-dressing and nothing else. James Hansen himself has said so. For those who like facades and empty “promises”, Paris is great. And quite wonderfrul for politicians who can claim that they “save the planet” with no obligations at all.
“Yes, Mr. Prime Minister”:
Henning: you’re probably right about the funding transfer (although I suspect some countries will foolishly try to contribute) – but certainly not about emission reduction being unlikely. In the UK for example practically no one in authority questions the need to reduce emissions and meet the requirements of the Climate Change Act – the only criticism (again from the Establishment) is that we’re not doing enough. It’s an attitude that’s led the closure of viable coal-fired power stations and the installation of huge numbers of wind turbines and solar farms. To incur all this cost and economic disadvantage in a country that’s responsible for only 1% of global emissions is absurd.
No, the Paris Agreement is more than “window-dressing” and “empty promises”. For example, Article 4.4 requires “Developed country Parties” (that’s us) to take the lead “by undertaking economy- wide absolute emission reduction targets”. Complying with that, as we are saying we will in our “Nationally Determined Contribution”, is a major – and potentially damaging – problem. What James Hansen said was that Paris wouldn’t bring about the major GHG cuts that he thinks are necessary. He’s right – not least because countries responsible for nearly 90% of global emissions have no intention of making cuts, either because the Agreement lets them off the hook or because they’ve decided to ignore the Agreement.
That we – and a few other countries – have chosen to comply is utter madness.
I disagree. The agreement is mostly intended to soothe the guilty consciences of European apologists. It lacks technical detail, such as the fat that most wind turbines generate more carbon during their construction (steel, for example) than they can eliminate over a lifetime of operation. It also lacks the one critical thing that could cure climate change, hunger, and war. And that simple thing is birth control. There is NO technology that can serve the needs of a rapacious human population that is doubling every 50 years. Birth control. So simple, so elegant, so effective. So completely ignored in the simple-minded thinking of environmental do-gooders.
Robin,
Australia’s pompous oaf (Turnbull/”Trumble”) is just foolish enough to agree (he has) AND appropriate the funds to fund it in full. But then he has a son who is heavily invested in the whole scam.
I refer you back to the picture from the G20 I posted under “Open Threads” a couple of days ago. It shows Donald Trump sitting at the long table, obviously reading something while the cocktail party goes on with the G19 vacantly milling in the background. Donald Trump does not drink (or smoke or do drugs).
That picture sums this up perfectly.
Well for sure the international virtue signallers are well and truly marching down the path to economic suicide.
And yet………
By a big somehow though, despite all her specious ‘save the world’ rhetoric German industry goes marching on and all those lovely polluters car, ship, engineering, coal fired power stations are OK in the Fatherland!!!!!……..Yup – the Germans won’t pay a sou unless there is a quid pro quo and in the same moment Mutti will be marching the idiots up to the cashpoint – mother theresa’s UK taxpayer funded credit card – will be made to cough up for the EU contribution.
France and Italy shuffling in the background muttering – “we av no monai boss!”
Donald J. Trump can read ’em a mile away, contrasting to: mother theresa sups the green Kool aid like an addict craving her next fix.
I note the Stassi Hausfrau and Co were not happy that the UK did not think global warming was worthy of their four discussion topics.
I believe the scalding pain of WWII is still brutalizing the European psyche. Germans were humiliated by their own savagery, and Merkel would be the generation who were the children of the perpetrators. They still have not recovered their national self-respect. Yes what they did was horrific but it’s time for them to move on a build a new positive image of themselves that can look honestly at their contributions to civilization. Ditto Italy for participating and France for collaborating. Meanwhile England is humiliated for being a colonial power. Get over it, Europe, before it’s too late!
Trump is deplorable. Other leaders are gratifiable. Time is out of joint.
Others, notably Paul Homewood and Robin Guenier, have done excellent work on the subject of the Paris Accords. FWIW I’m slowly analysing the INDCs of the Paris Accords signatories and adding my comments on this discussion thread over at Bishop Hill:
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/discussion/post/2675420
UK doesn’t have its own INDC, we form part of the EU submission, which is an average for all the countries, so we will do more than others.
Ruusia wants to have its vast forests accepted as carbon sinks, that means they won’t have to do anything.
Whiie we commit economic harikari, the Russians,Chinese & US follow sensible policies. Even if CO2 was a problem, the Russian approach is valid as true CCS.
Forests are good irrespective of the global warming nonsense.