Skip to content

Oren Cass Savages The Phony Paris Treaty

March 21, 2018

By Paul Homewood



John Stossel interviews Oren Cass, senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, about just how worthless the Paris Agreement actually was.


Regular readers may recall that I was pointing out all of this even before the Agreement was signed!





  1. Robin Guenier permalink
    March 21, 2018 11:07 am

    Cass is absolutely right. At the risk of being a bore (as I’ve referred to it many times before) here’s my take on Paris – different from Cass’s as I focus, not on the INDCs, but on the terms of the document itself:

  2. March 21, 2018 11:31 am

    Can this be true? I mean Roger Harrabin and the BBC have said nothing about this.

    • Joe Public permalink
      March 21, 2018 1:26 pm

      • Gerry, England permalink
        March 21, 2018 2:02 pm

        and getting permission from the Guardian gauleiters.

  3. March 21, 2018 1:31 pm

    The only thing I objected to was the acceptance that there was man-caused global climate change on any scale. Otherwise, it was a good piece with a lot of heretofore unrealized information, i.e. the “pieces of paper.”

    Thank God for Donald Trump not falling prey to this nonsense. He not only saved the country, but peeved Obama and Gore. Doesn’t get better than that.

  4. Broadlands permalink
    March 21, 2018 2:05 pm

    As has been stated here before… the Paris Accord cannot possibly work even if everybody was doing their best. There is this “350 ppm” goal that we are supposed to reach by technological CO2 “sinks”…using CCS, carbon capture and store. We are now at 400 ppm which means the signatories must not only stop all emissions but then take 100 Gigatons of CO2 from the atmosphere and rebury it somewhere.

    NASA’s James Hansen has led this quixotic venture…

    Hansen et al… Young People’s Burden: Requirement of Negative CO2 Emissions

    “…reducing atmospheric CO2 below 350 ppm. Such targets now require “negative emissions”, i.e., extraction of CO2 from the atmosphere.”

    Kevin Anderson and Glen Peters, SCIENCE (October 14, 2016)… “The trouble with negative emissions”

    “Negative-emission technologies are not an insurance policy, but rather an unjust and high-stakes gamble. There is a real risk they will be unable to deliver on the scale of their promise. If the emphasis on equity and risk aversion embodied in the Paris Agreement are to have traction, negative emission technologies should not form the basis of the mitigation agenda….the mitigation agenda should proceed on the premise that they will not work at scale. The implications of failing to otherwise are a moral hazard par excellence.”

    Bottom line? Transitioning to solar panel and wind turbine “farms” is just the beginning of a monstrous lengthly plan with completely absurd costs… per ton of CO2 removed and buried.

    • Harry Passfield permalink
      March 21, 2018 2:17 pm

      I wonder what the volume of a gigaton of co2 is…..

      • Broadlands permalink
        March 21, 2018 2:48 pm

        Harry… If 50 ppm of CO2 was in the form of dry ice (which of course it is not) it would occupy more than five cubic miles of space. (A pound of Dry Ice will sublimate into 8.3 cubic feet of carbon dioxide gas.)

        One gigaton of CO2 is half-a-ppm. You can check that out with CDIAC.

        “Each ppmv represents 2.13 X10^15 grams, or 2.13 petagrams of carbon (PgC) in the atmosphere. “

        And, don’t forget that the carbon we extracted for our energy did not contain the added oxygen. We are supposed to put an added “32” pounds of it back into its “12” pound bag? Bury it geologically into abandoned oil fields and coal mines…as compressed gas? “Are you kidding me”?

  5. Bitter@twisted permalink
    March 21, 2018 5:26 pm

    The Paris agreement was a puerile exercise in virtue signaling.
    Lots of noise meaning nothing- except to the West, whose governments are stupid enough to try and implement real CO2 reductions and cripple their economies.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: