Skip to content

BBC Discover Paris Agreement Was Worthless After All!

October 31, 2017
tags:

By Paul Homewood

 

h/t HotScot

 

image

In its annual review, the UN says the gap between carbon cutting plans and the reductions required to keep temperature rises below 2 degrees Celsius is "alarmingly high".

Pledges made so far cover only one-third of the cuts needed by 2030 to keep below that goal, the review warns.

Even if all the promises are kept, temperatures might still rise by 3 degrees by 2100.

However, cost-effective options are available that can close the gap.

The UN has published an annual analysis of emissions every year since 2010.

This year’s instalment re-iterates the point that current pledges are insufficient to keep within the temperature limits agreed in the Paris climate pact….

By 2030 the UN says that the global scale of emissions needed to keep within the 2-degree path should not exceed 42 gigatonnes of CO2-equivalent. Based on the promises made, this report projects a gap of 11 to 13 gigatonnes, while for the 1.5-degree target, the gap is 16 to 19 gigatonnes.

"The Paris agreement boosted climate action, but momentum is clearly faltering," said Dr Edgar E Gutiérrez-Espeleta, Costa Rica’s minister for environment and president of the 2017 UN Environment Assembly.

"We face a stark choice: up our ambition, or suffer the consequences."

Ominously, the report warns that if the emissions gap is not closed by 2030 then "it is extremely unlikely that the goal of holding global warming to well below 2 degrees C can still be reached".

The report suggests that signatories of the Paris accord must significantly increase their ambitions in the new and updated national plans that will have to be submitted by 2020.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-41802982

 

I don’t know why Matt McGrath is so surprised. If he had been following this blog, he would have known two years ago that the Paris Agreement was not worth the paper it was written on.

He also shows this graph:

 

Chart showing predicted global emissions and gap between pledges made to reduce emissions and target

 

You can ignore the Baseline, as this is simply a projection of the Business As Usual forecasts, which developing countries have artificially inflated to make their INDCs look better.

For some reason, McGrath also chooses to ignore the pre-2025 numbers, which would have shown that emissions will rise substantially from 49 GtCO2e, even under the Paris trajectory.

 

Or, for that matter, the post-2030 ones, which show that under the Paris Agreement National Plans emissions will carry on rising rapidly:

 

Climate-Scoreboard-011617-graph1-apr5-768x625

 https://www.climateinteractive.org/programs/scoreboard/

 

 

Unfortunately we are now in for another few years of being bombarded with propaganda from the BBC and the rest of the media. Year after year, there will be more climate conferences, all leading up to the next submission of national plans in 2020.

I make three predictions now:

1) The BBC will hail the 2020 plans as world saving.

2) The next set of national plans will do no more than kick the can down the road for another five years.

3) In 2022, the UN will be telling us that we need to take drastic action by 2025, if we are to keep temperatures within the 2C target range.

Advertisements
47 Comments
  1. October 31, 2017 6:11 pm

    These wild guesses are unscientific since they are not testable and based on a premise that is already demonstrably wrong.

    Why persist in this total waste of time?

    If it does warm up 3.0 C by 2100, it will be caused by something other than CO2 effects.

  2. October 31, 2017 6:16 pm

    Another thing is that America gets the “wind and piss” for leaving a treaty that was never lawfully entered in my Country in the first place as it REQUIRES the passing vote of the Senate.

    Meanwhile the hypocrites who attacked my country for it,are the same ones who can’t even get their own CO2 emissions under control to meet the goals of the Treaty they did sign onto.

    Stop attacking America, who did a better job than you flaming hypocrites, at reducing CO2 emissions.

    • CheshireRed permalink
      October 31, 2017 6:43 pm

      Biggest irony of all is the US reduced its carbon emissions (fwiw) by fracking – the very process which the EU is trying to ban and Scotland has just banned in the UK. What it actually reveals is Greens have no interest in rational choices: it’s always about extremes and only ever about them. So despite needing gas to back up those thousands of Scottish wind mills they ban recovery of their own gas. They’re too stupid for words.

      • HotScot permalink
        October 31, 2017 7:31 pm

        CheshireRed

        The SNP are a lot more stupid than that.

    • keith permalink
      November 1, 2017 10:08 am

      You are so right, Germany in particular and Britain all b***** hypocrites, and yet nobody says anything. .

    • November 1, 2017 1:30 pm

      Furthermore, in his remarks in the White House Rose Garden, President Trump laid out the precise, science-based, common sense based reasons for pulling us out. That it was required to be ratified by the US Senate as it WAS a treaty, no matter what the Twerp-in-Chief with his “phone and his pen” said, is absolutely correct.

  3. Kestrel27 permalink
    October 31, 2017 7:03 pm

    This is OT Paul but someone or something is getting at your site. If you click on the heading to your previous article or ‘read more’ you get taken to a ridiculous picture of a boy in a gas mask which appears to be something to do with Amazon. It prevents you going back to your page – the picture simply returns. The result is that it’s impossible to read your article in full.

    • HotScot permalink
      October 31, 2017 7:29 pm

      Kestrel27

      No problems at this end. Methinks you may have picked up a bit of malware or something.

      • Kestrel27 permalink
        October 31, 2017 8:02 pm

        Find it happens only on one of the two browsers I use on iOS 11. Sorry to waste time.

      • HotScot permalink
        November 1, 2017 7:58 am

        No problem. It’s usually me looking for help.

    • October 31, 2017 8:43 pm

      It’s OK on my browser.

      Does anybody else see this?

      • October 31, 2017 11:17 pm

        fine here Win10

      • Athelstan permalink
        October 31, 2017 11:53 pm

        windows 10 and Firefox, no problem.

      • tom0mason permalink
        November 1, 2017 2:46 am

        Looks fine on Opera, Qupzilla, Firefox, Otter Browser, Dillo, Sea Monkey and lynx. I don’t use Chrome or Chromium.
        I also prefer to block google, facebook, twitter, etc, unless and until I need them as they seem to be a major source of unwanted content.

      • November 1, 2017 8:59 am

        Thanks for drawing our attention again to the uselessness and pointless expense of the Paris Agreement, providing lotsamunny to all those weepy luvies!

        The links are working fine here on Firefox, although “green” internet trolls must hate you to pieces, Paul!

      • Dung permalink
        November 3, 2017 4:24 pm

        Tomo

        What search engine do you use please?
        I am sick of Google sensorship.

  4. Stonyground permalink
    October 31, 2017 7:08 pm

    How are any of these emissions targets ever going to be met when the PTB insist on only using measures that don’t work? Switching to nuclear power and then electrifying the railways would have actually made a difference. Electric trains are based on well proven and practical technology, electric cars are not. Since 2013 I have cycled more than ten thousand miles, a lot of which I would have done in a car had I not used my bike. There are cycle paths in my area but they are mostly of very poor quality. Compared to the money that has been wasted on windmills, better cycle paths would cost peanuts. I don’t suppose a few people cycling a bit more would make that much difference to emissions but windmills don’t either and they cost a hell of a lot more.

  5. HotScot permalink
    October 31, 2017 7:23 pm

    Paul,

    the problem with that graph is that when the great unwashed see it, they will immediately jump to the conclusion that the Baseline is relevant and that humankind has made an impact with it’s feeble efforts to reduce CO2.

    I should know, I’m a member of the great unwashed and when I saw it I perceived it as a claimed ‘victory’ for the alarmists. However, having been visiting this and other sceptical sites for some time now, I knew something was amiss.

    Unfortunately the BBC has a big audience.

  6. October 31, 2017 7:31 pm

    I wait with interest to see how the BBC explains the falling temperatures over the next few years as emissions continue to soar. I guess they will just continue to adjust the data and claim success.

    • October 31, 2017 7:46 pm

      Someone is set to win a Nobel Prize for cooling the past

    • keith permalink
      November 1, 2017 10:19 am

      What makes you think they’ll be reporting falling temperatures when there is so much temperature data fiddling going on by all the main world temperature bodies. I bet they’ll still be reporting increasing temperatures because their models will say what they want them to say. There is absolutely no honesty in the left dominated climate science, they are too hooked into their money making fraud scam.

      • Gerry, England permalink
        November 1, 2017 1:46 pm

        I think people will notice as they shovel snow when it is claimed to be the warmest winter ‘on record’. Minnesota having a fun time with record-breaking snow the Mail claims is just ‘unusual’ as roads are hit and four people die. And yet snow was supposed to be a thing of the past.

  7. Broadlands permalink
    October 31, 2017 7:35 pm

    And it seems to have been forgotten that controlling emissions does nothing to lower atmospheric CO2 back to the mystical 350 ppm with “capture and store” negative emission technologies…which will have to be started afterwards and somehow accomplished with solar and wind?
    100-plus gigatons of CO2 at how much? per ton. That’s a truly alarming future.

  8. Francis Bowkett permalink
    October 31, 2017 7:46 pm

    The BBC article is about “…the gap between carbon cutting plans and the reductions required to keep temperature rises below 2 degrees Celsius…”. What about the gap between the actual carbon (dioxide) emissions of the virtue-signalling counties over the last several years and the reduced levels which they committed to reach during that same timeframe? Bet those are interesting numbers!

  9. October 31, 2017 8:22 pm

    ‘Stark’…’ominous’…’alarming’ – and that’s just the BBC’s delusions 😉

  10. October 31, 2017 9:16 pm

    The Great Global Warming shindig is teetering on the point of collapse, just listen to the contradictory narratives being broadcast. Some say there is a catastrophic lack of action, must try harder, others say that everything is fine, Trump doesn’t matter, renewables, US cities and states, and corporations are doing their stuff. The whole thing is highly unstable, the alarm, the “medicine” and the symptoms must all be carefully calibrated, but different interests are signing from different hymn sheets, and there is no clear combination of alarm/medicine/symptoms that will keep the patients in hospital, paying the fees.

    • keith permalink
      November 1, 2017 10:22 am

      Oh I do hope you are right, but I think you are being too optimistic. There is too much money being made in the whole climate scam for the ball to stop rolling.

      • Gerry, England permalink
        November 1, 2017 1:47 pm

        $1.5 trillion is the estimated climate change industry turnover.

  11. Graeme No.3 permalink
    October 31, 2017 10:13 pm

    Except for the committed no one is listening anymore. If they stop crying wolf and do want to get some action then I suggest they try the following:
    1. Supply scientifically valid proof that CO2 causes measurable warming.
    2. Show that the climate won’t change in the next 50 years except for changes in CO2 levels.
    3. Supply accurate (valid) calculations on how far extra CO2 would raise the temperature.
    4. Show that a temperature rise will be detrimental, not beneficial.
    5. Come up with a valid and affordable method of reducing emissions.
    6. …but I think they will fail at the first step.

  12. Athelstan permalink
    October 31, 2017 11:55 pm

    Cripes, China and India don’t have to do aught until the Twelfth of never and the US never joined.

    Japan bugged out and so too Aus……………..what’s the fekkin’ point of Paris?

  13. Geoff Sherrington permalink
    November 1, 2017 12:41 am

    Of course, the projections of temperature rely upon a climate sensitivity figure that the IPCC declined to state last time round, instead giving a wide range that means little.
    Why cannot policy makers see that they are just making stuff up? Geoff.

    • tom0mason permalink
      November 1, 2017 2:35 am

      +100!

    • Phoenix44 permalink
      November 1, 2017 9:03 am

      Policy makers literally don’t care. I dealt with the UK government recently on an unrelated subject, and no matter what evidence I produced (I was employed) to show their policy was wrong and they had misunderstood the fundamentals, they didn’t care. Policy had been decided, now they just needed to do it.

      Government deals in big things, big ideas, and it matters not that those ideas are usually nothing more than wishful thinking based on platitudes.

    • Harry Passfield permalink
      November 1, 2017 11:25 am

      “Why cannot policy makers see that they are just making stuff up?”
      Probably because they are bought and paid for, Geoff. We know it’s graft but the MMS is being fed the salacious crumbs of a non-story that is meant to divert the proles.

      • Harry Passfield permalink
        November 1, 2017 11:26 am

        Main Stream Media (my spell check will not allow the initials.)

  14. JerryC permalink
    November 1, 2017 1:08 am

    Controlling the weather is not as easy as it sounds, apparently.

  15. Gerry, England permalink
    November 1, 2017 1:50 pm

    2020 will give us another 2 years of changing climate and cooling temperatures. WUWT is showing that there is a lot of cold in the oceans now and that matters more than surface temps.

    • November 2, 2017 9:33 am

      Should put the brakes on any thermal expansion too.

  16. tom0mason permalink
    November 1, 2017 6:01 pm

    Rejoice! CO2 levels are still rising!

    Hurray the future looks brighter, food will be easier to grow.

    Onward to a 1000 ppm CO2 atmospheric levels!

  17. Barry Capsey permalink
    November 1, 2017 6:12 pm

    ‘THREE DEGREES’ – a tuppenny pop group, bearing no conflation with the miniscule, almost unmeasurable increase in world temps, IF ANY! TRIPE

  18. avro607 permalink
    November 1, 2017 10:04 pm

    I read somewhere that Christiana Figueres has joined Lancet.Should get interesting.Not only the death of capitalism,but now also the death of medical science.

  19. R. Johnson permalink
    November 3, 2017 12:12 pm

    Reducing “greenhouse gases” is code for economic oppression. The “greens” back their scare tactic propaganda with biased models not empirical data. They know absolutely that CO2 does not control temperature or climate. Yet they push for more destructive treaties, regulations and laws to punish their citizens. The greenhouse concept and anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theory are full of chemical/physical and thermodynamic contradictions making them totally useless.

    Prince William says there are too many people in the world…funny how the elite want to “reduce the surplus population”. Many that follow the Gaia climate religion want Earth’s population to be 100 million or less; they have built lavish fallout shelters for themselves—perhaps they favor nuclear war? It’s time to stop listening to fantasy science that’s bought and paid for by these Earth worshiping morons.

  20. Adam_0625 permalink
    November 3, 2017 3:50 pm

    I vote for suffering the consequences, which are either minimal (due to AGW) or unavoidable (due to natural variability). At least we will have some funds left to mitigate the worse case.

  21. Dung permalink
    November 3, 2017 4:33 pm

    Unfortunately the ice age mini or back to the full blown edition would shut these idiots up but cause us even worse problems (and they probably have a new scam lined up for that as well ^.^)

Trackbacks

  1. Delingpole: Trump Vindicated; Now Even the UN Confirms That the Paris Climate Accord Was a Complete Waste of Space | Bible Prophecy In The Daily Headlines
  2. UN Paris Agreement Fraud Ripped Off USA | Shift Frequency

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: