Skip to content

Donald Trump took the heat, but the rest of the G20’s posturing won’t hide their rising emissions

July 16, 2017

By Paul Homewood

 

 

Booker returns to last week’s G20 story:

 

 

image

Golly, what excitement there was over President Trump’s refusal to sign the G20 communiqué backing the “Paris Accord” on climate change.  Trump was in a minority of one against all the other 19 governments (plus the EU) which supported an agreement that the world must phase out fossil fuels. We were even told that the US now stood alone against all the other 195 countries that signed up to that non-binding Accord.

But, just as happened at the time of Paris itself, everyone completely missed the real story. Before Paris, each of the 196 participating countries, as I reported at the time (thanks to that expert analyst Paul Homewood on his Notalotofpeopleknowthat blog), was asked to submit an Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC), setting out its energy plans for the years up to 2030.

China, the world’s largest CO2 emitter, is planning to double its yearly emissions

All the major “developing” nations, led by China and India, paid lip service to the conference’s intentions, showing how they would be investing in “renewables” such as wind and solar, so long as they were generously subsidised to do so by the “developed” nations out of a Green Climate Fund worth $100 billion a year.

But they then explained how, to keep their economies growing, they planned to build huge numbers of new fossil fuel power stations, which would lead to a massive increase in their CO2 emissions.

China, the world’s largest CO2 emitter, is planning to double its yearly emissions, by an extra 10.9 billion tons. India, the third largest emitter, will treble its emissions, adding 4.9 billion tons, All the other major “developing” nations, plus Japan and Russia, are equally planning to build more coal-fired power stations.So 13 of the countries which signed that G20 communiqué last week, intend to contribute to what the INDCs show will within 13 years be a 46 percent rise in global emissions.

The only G20 countries left committed to CO2 reductions (by 1.7 billion tons) are now those in the EU, plus Canada and Australia, between them responsible for just 11.3 percent of global emissions. Most of the remaining 88.7 percent is emitted by countries which plan to increase them. Is it surprising that President Trump wanted no part in such a grotesque display of international hypocrisy?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/15/donald-trump-took-heat-rest-g20s-posturing-wont-hide-rising/

Advertisements
23 Comments leave one →
  1. Brian carriere permalink
    July 16, 2017 12:36 pm

    Yes..keep going mr.trump..climate change and the paris accord is a scam..

    • Sceptical Sam permalink
      July 16, 2017 1:08 pm

      Of course it’s a scam.

      No better example is available than that provided by Mein Fuhrer Merkel’s Germany which has its Carbon emissions rising in 2016 despite a reduction in the use of coal.

      https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/german-carbon-emissions-rise-2016-despite-coal-use-drop

      Trump is the only Western leader who understands the European green Marxists and their strategy to destroy the free-market capitalist system

      Nevertheless, they’ll fail again; Venezuela, Kampuchea, USSR, East Germany et al.

      Ah! East Germany. Now there’s a failure for you Mein Fuhrer.

      • Tom O permalink
        July 17, 2017 2:51 pm

        And I believe Germany’s “claim” to lower CO2 comes from the fact that it stopped burning coal from its own mines and importing the coal to burn instead, so that CO2 is given to the selling nation, which happens to be the US among others.

        As for maligning the term Mein Fuhrer by attaching it to Merkel, well each to their own, but Hitler rebuilt Germany before WW2. Merkel appears to be taking a rebuilt Germany and destroying it instead. That’s not the same, nor can you list Venezuela in your list of nations destroyed by socialism. Had the nation been given a chance by the west, it would have succeeded, but there is a real problem with “socialism for the common person” that the west hates. Neither Hitler’s Germany or Chavez’s Venezuela were intended to be two tier communist style socialism. It’s truly sad how bad education has been had.

      • markl permalink
        July 17, 2017 3:45 pm

        “…Had the nation been given a chance by the west….” Blaming the absolute destruction of a once vibrant economy due to the introduction of a purer form of Socialism on the “west” is pure drivel. You obviously are ignorant of Socialism’s history.

      • Sceptical Sam permalink
        July 18, 2017 12:51 pm

        Education you say Tom O?

        Try either/or and neither/nor. Syntax. That’s education.

        Second point, since when was the CO2 component of exported coal attributed to the exporter as opposed to the end user from the global accountability perspective. References please.

        And, + 1 markl on the truth about socialism of either the left or the right. Both types are destructive and corrupt; brutal and totalitarian.

  2. July 16, 2017 12:48 pm

    Thank goodness we have Christopher Booker to point out the utter stupidity of the EU, Canadian and Australian governments in impoverishing their people – the UK government following in their footsteps. And thank goodness you are able to supply the vital statistics for Mr Booker to use.

  3. Athelstan permalink
    July 16, 2017 12:54 pm

    ‘The Paris Accord’ in its every facet is, a farcical stitch-up.

    But then if one considers just for a moment that, the UN and the EU are joke institutions and wouldn’t be able to produce anything other than farce and **** ups, now would they?

    The problem is, thanks to the likes of Miliband, blair, broon, camoron and may with the circus that is Westminster – the Paris Accord is taken as writ and that’s no joke insofar as UK taxpayers and consumers are concerned. Already we have to pay through the nose twice – expensive energy and fuel costs and the jobs lost thanks to these unilaterally imposed costs.

    Bin the green agenda – yes but first we have to bin the EU-Westminster – the Brussels proxies.

  4. Joan Gibson permalink
    July 16, 2017 1:28 pm

    I think that photo (which I managed to post last on the July 7 “Open Thread” just about says it all. You cannot improve upon the optics.

  5. July 16, 2017 1:31 pm

    Here is an excellent report which destroys the validity of all the Global Temperature charts.
    A good analysis of the bias in the adjustment methods.
    In some respects it links together much of what we have been reading here in this blog over the past. Perhaps it should be given pride of space in the next contribution from Paul Holmwood, knocking as it does the whole basis of the Paris Accord.

    https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/ef-gast-data-research-report-062717.pdf

  6. Broadlands permalink
    July 16, 2017 1:40 pm

    Even NASA’s James Hansen has described the Paris Accord as “wishful thinking” and “bullsh*t”.

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/12/james-hansen-climate-change-paris-talks-fraud

  7. Barry Capsey permalink
    July 16, 2017 1:51 pm

    President Trump displayed more common sense than the rest of the G20 mob. USA will soon a massive exporter of fossil fuels, which are totally VITAL to the lights staying on, WORLDWIDE.

  8. dennisambler permalink
    July 16, 2017 1:53 pm

    It’s all part of the UN meme of Contraction and Convergence, developed nations contract their economies to allow developing nations to catch up, (converge), so that there is “global equality”.

    Full details here from the musician who came up with the idea and sold it as a concept to the UN: “Climate Truth and Reconciliation” http://www.gci.org.uk

    Annex 1 parties of the UNFCCC are the industrialised nations, who are “responsible for climate change” because of the wealth and better living conditions they have produced as a result of using energy from fossil fuels and who must make financial reparation to undeveloped countries for their “inequitable use of the atmosphere.”

    This largesse is to be collected and dispensed by the United Nations and its various organisations, such as the World Bank and the Global Environment Facility, assisted by multifarious schemes such as the Clean Development Mechanism, Emissions Trading Schemes and Carbon Offsets, in order that less developed nations such as India and China, can also achieve more wealth and better living conditions by the use of fossil fuels. The money for the global financiers lies in the management and consultancy work in the CDM and ETS schemes and the garnering of millions in carbon credits from spreadsheet reductions in emission “offsets”.

    However, this Redistribution Scheme can only work if there is a guaranteed price for the virtual commodity of carbon dioxide emissions. The UK already has a floor price for CO2 emissions, set up by George Osborne. No other country has yet done this, although parts of Canada and the US are producing their own schemes. Paris is the “Son of Kyoto”, seeking a global “carbon” price.

    The UK doesn’t have its own INDC, we are part of the EU submission “average”, which means we pick up the tab for less enthusiastic countries in the bloc. I suspect if we ever get out of the EU, we will not opt out of the EU submission.

    • July 16, 2017 3:48 pm

      That’s all very well, dennis, but when you have Erhlich and Strong and others on record as saying things like, “giving people cheap abundant energy (and in another quote “nuclear energy”) would be like giving a 5-year-old a Kalashnikov” or “we have to stop [the developing world] right where they are” or “isn’t it our duty to get rid of western civilisation?” (paraphrased) then it becomes clear that letting sub-Saharan Africa “catch up” is not the agenda. It’s to turn the “developed” world into a lot of Zimbabwes.

      Or if we’re lucky, Venezualas — with the oil “left in the ground” of course.

      Figueres has made that pretty plain with her talk of a new economic order to be run by the UN. Her language was coded but not all that much. There was plenty space between the lines for reading in!

  9. markl permalink
    July 16, 2017 2:16 pm

    The average person on the street does not know the implications of the Paris Discord because they are being mushroomed. It’s being sold as CO2 reduction when in fact it is nothing more than CO2 and wealth redistribution. The shame and blame game aimed at dissenters is going full force from the MSM. Trump is correct in saying this may THE defining moment for the West to survive and CAGW is at the center of the scam.

    • Broadlands permalink
      July 16, 2017 2:54 pm

      Yes, sold as CO2 reduction, but not just by lowering carbon emissions to zero, but by lowering atmospheric CO2 by an impossible amount for an impossibly long time at absurdly huge cost… using a risky technology nowhere near global-scale. To get CO2 Back to 350 ppm? Back to the climate of 1987? That’s it?? Hello?

  10. Keitho permalink
    July 16, 2017 3:02 pm

    President Trump loves us and he wants us all to be happy no matter who we voted for. No wonder the lefties hate him.

    • July 16, 2017 3:25 pm

      President Trump is a business man. He knows that establishment politicians couldn’t run the proverbial in a brewery.

      • Graeme No. 3 permalink
        July 16, 2017 11:31 pm

        😀 Or anything else anywhere else.

  11. July 16, 2017 7:52 pm

    Paragraph 17 (from memory) of the accord says the INDCs won’t be enough to hit its target. Not a lot of people know that.

    • manicbeancounter permalink
      July 16, 2017 8:54 pm

      Wolsten,
      The UNFCCC produced a graph to show the INDCs will not meet the 2C or 1.5C targets. Global Emissions will rise through to 2030, when the target is to reduce emissions.

  12. manicbeancounter permalink
    July 16, 2017 9:12 pm

    For clarity, whilst Paul Homewood takes the logical approach of breaking down aggregate global emission plans to country level, the UNFCCC and the IPCC do not. Yet countries are (with the exception of the EU and International travel emissions) the relevant policy-making entities.
    What folks baying for reductions in emissions forget is that most countries under the 1992 Rio Declaration were classified as “developing countries” and are therefore not obliged to give priority to cutting their emissions. I found that these Non-Annex countries accounted for 100% of the increase in emissions between 1990 and 2012; now have over 60% of global emissions; have over 80% of the global population; and many of these countries will continue increasing their emissions for decades to come. I have done a breakdown to get some perspective.

    My First Law of Climate Mitigation is a truism that is ignored by all the mitigation policy advocates.

    To reduce global greenhouse gas emissions, the aggregate reduction in countries that reduce their emissions must be greater than aggregate increase in emissions in all other countries.

  13. Richard permalink
    July 17, 2017 6:01 am

    It is all smoke and mirrors and The Donald and his advisors have seen through the trickery.
    And it all detracts from the real problem of population control.
    Less people need less energy.

    • NeilC permalink
      July 17, 2017 8:50 am

      I presume you mean less energy will kill more people. Especially in the countries of the developed western world.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: