Skip to content

Delusions Of Paris

June 3, 2018

By Paul Homewood


h/t Robin Guenier


As we all know, the Paris Agreement did very little other than kick the can down the road.

Yet the more that this becomes obvious, the more its proponents tie themselves in knots to acclaim it.

The latest attempt comes in the form of something called the “Profiles of Paris”. This is basically a “Love In” for “Climate Luvvies”, including the likes of Richard Branson, Pope Francis, Nicholas Stern, Christiane Amanpour, Weepy Bill McKibben, Arnie Schwarzenneger, Ban Ki Moon, Al Gore, Catherine McKenna, and even that little twerp David Miliband (brother of the idiot, Ed).



They and many others have been given the chance to relate the part they played in saving the world.

One of the most fascinating ones comes from Laurent Fabius, who you might recall was French Foreign Minister at the time, responsible for overseeing the conference.

Here are two gems:

It was then that John Kerry, the US Secretary of State, urgently requested a meeting. John Kerry had been very helpful all through the process. Indeed, a few days earlier he and the Chinese negotiator had been in my office for the purposes of fine-tuning some of the wording that would later prove to be valuable in the final arbitration. “Laurent,” he said, “I cannot accept the text, it is impossible.” “Not possible? But it is too late to change!” “It’s impossible, he repeated, “because there is a section where the word ‘shall’ has been used in the place of ‘should’, which was in the previous versions. In one case – as any lawyer will tell you – there is an obligation of means, and in the other the United States would be agreeing to an obligation to achieve precise results. The use of ‘shall’ would require that the US Senate put the text to a vote for approval. As you know, if we have to go down that path, there will be no Paris Agreement.” That was quite a blow! I quickly asked my team to review the situation. In the previous versions, the term that referred to financing was in fact “should”. As the final draft of the text was prepared, “should” had unfortunately been changed to “shall”. A typographical error. I told John Kerry that I was going to try to find a solution, but there was no guarantee. If the other delegations objected, we were headed for failure.

I sent an emissary to the most sensitive group, the G77 + China, to explain the circumstances. The group and its leaders refused to go back to the “should” version. We had to start from scratch: impossible. The minutes, the half-hours ticked by. We were up against a wall. The Conference participants were unaware of the situation, and did not understand why the COP stage was empty; rumours swirled and the delegates were more and more eager to vote. Tensions rose and many participants, who had been inclined to vote in favour, felt their convictions wavering.

In these circumstances, I decided that I needed to go to the tiny room just off the stage area where the “shall-should group” was meeting. Representatives of the G77 turned to face me as I entered. I put my cards on the table. “Over these many months,” I told them, “we have come to know each other, we have worked together, and we respect one another. I trust you and I believe you trust me. This is a typographical error that escaped us and not a substantive change. I would ask you, in confidence, not to refuse the necessary correction of this error – changing ‘shall’ back to ‘should’”. There was a moment of silence that seemed endless to me. Then the chief negotiator, the South African delegate, simply said, “All right.” The Paris Agreement was saved.

Whether it really was the simple typo error claimed is debatable. But what is absolutely clear is the determination of Kerry and Obama to avoid sending the treaty to Senate.


In the face of these challenges, it is essential that “the spirit of Paris” should be preserved. Yet there are risks that the Agreement might be blocked or that backsliding could occur. The leading example of a setback is the reprehensible decision, with its dire consequences, made by President Obama’s successor, to pull out of the Paris Agreement. Faced with such retrograde behaviour, we absolutely must pursue universal mobilisation – not only of States, but of all non-governmental actors as well, civil society, and especially local authorities and businesses. Each and every one of us holds part of the solution, through our choices of lifestyle, transportation, energy use, waste reduction, water and heating conservation, and so forth. The threat is global, and the response must be global as well.

Aware that Paris was little more than a house of cards, Fabius is obviously getting his excuses in already – blame it on Trump.

Indeed, Obama’s climate envoy, who references Fabius’ comments in an article on Climate Home News, talks about the recent failed Bonn climate meeting:

In the absence of the United States, you have a phenomenon of a fair number of countries, I think, trying to pull back a little bit on some of the things that were agreed to, some of the compromises that were reached in Paris

In reality, the breakdown at Bonn was the inevitable result of the inherent contradictions of Paris. Developing countries said,”where is our money?”. Developed ones said “when are you going to cut emissions"?”

  1. Europeanonion permalink
    June 3, 2018 7:55 am

    Dear old Pail breaking free of the fetters of politeness, “a twerp”, I love it and so apropos. Can you stop your software from following me around in the comments box “Enter your comment here”, it’s a bit annoying. I see your list of luminaries, you have to laugh.

  2. Robin Guenier permalink
    June 3, 2018 8:13 am

    I believe the “blame it on Trump” theme is new and important. Note the headline of the Climate Change News story: “Trump has damaged the Paris Agreement, say its architects. In it Todd Stern (Obama’s negotiator) is reported as suggesting that the difficulties that emerged in Bonn a few weeks ago were in some mysterious way a consequence of Trump’s decision – and not therefore a consequence of the provisions of the disastrous (for the West) Agreement of which all these people say they’re so proud. Stern goes on to suggest that, if in future countries fail to increase the “ambition” (ghastly word) of their climate targets, that too will be down to Trump.

    What I believe is happening is that Stern and Fabius (and their colleagues) know they negotiated a poor deal for the West (unless they live in their own dream-world, which I suppose is possible) and are eagerly and illogically seizing on Trump’s withdrawal as the perfect excuse for the bad news they know is inevitably heading their way.

    • martinbrumby permalink
      June 3, 2018 9:49 am

      “unless they live in heir own dream world….”
      Yes Robin. They do.
      But part of that dream world is to destroy Western Civilisation (excepting only the little bubble they live inside).
      That, together with filling their boots with Green subsidies, is precisely what gives them a big feeling in the underpants department.

      • Robin Guenier permalink
        June 3, 2018 10:54 am

        But, if so Martin, it’s hardly a dream world: they negotiated a deal that puts all the onus – to cut emissions and pay prodigious sums to “developing” countries” – on the West, while allowing said developing countries to emit as much as they liked. In other words, it was no dream: they got exactly what you say they wanted. Until that is Trump came along and messed it up.

  3. Ian Magness permalink
    June 3, 2018 8:16 am

    After Charles Moore’s excellent article on this topic, the MSM has reverted to type with this garbage from Matt Mcgrath – an “environment Correspondent” with the BBC.

    Paris climate pullout: the worst is yet to come

    Withdrawing from Paris has galvanised the rest of the world – but the full impact has yet to be felt.

    I hope the link works. Worth reading for a laugh. From a UK perspective, the biggest worry is how much Perry and co will demand that the UK now pays to the climate slush fund, given that the main sponsor has pulled out but the “developing” countries’ demands are escalating aggressively. You suspect many £billions until and unless someone in the Conservative Party shows some leadership and common sense…..
    OK not going to happen, fake news etc.

  4. June 3, 2018 8:24 am

    The wheels are coming off, finger-pointing fest awaits in Poland.

    • Ian Magness permalink
      June 3, 2018 8:35 am

      Oh yes OldB! Clowns of the Planet 24 in sunny (not) Katowice in December – the countless thousands of jet fuel propelled warmistas kept all snuggly and warm via those horrible Polish coal-fired power stations.
      I wonder how many would attend if they banned any non-renewable power sources to fuel the conference, hotels and similar?

      • June 3, 2018 2:41 pm

        They’d be stranded at the airport unless an electric taxi came along.

  5. Bitter@twisted permalink
    June 3, 2018 8:42 am

    “Typo” my backside.
    This is how the green scammers work.
    By deception and stealth.

    What a shame they got caught out at Paris.

    • Howard Priory permalink
      June 3, 2018 9:10 am

      Yes: it is a new meaning of ‘typo’ that only the French could conjure up. I have been to enough international meetings to know that the most important position is to be minute taker and resolution writer.Their preternatural ability to turn black into white, yes into no, should into shall, and your wishes into their wishes is beyond the ken of most normal human minds.

      Normally it is more subtlety buried away in the French version of the text. But this time even the slow-witted Lurch managed to spot it in the less obscure English version.

  6. m g permalink
    June 3, 2018 8:57 am

    decades ago there was a letter in the Telegraph from a university professor writing that the climate change debate was the biggest confidence trick on the population or words to that effect !

  7. Robin Guenier permalink
    June 3, 2018 9:03 am

    As for the “shall” vs. “should” issue, the usually well-informed Climate Change News had an interesting take on it at the time: China rescues US from Paris climate deal typo fiasco (

    The key extract:

    Key to smoothing matters among developing countries was China. Once an implacable foe of the US in this arena, it now cooperates closely with Washington at the climate talks. A senior EU official credited Beijing’s team with stepping in and resolving the issue, a story backed by a State Department official speaking at the back of the plenary late on Saturday.

    Why would China be so anxious to “cooperate” with the US? Surely it’s obvious: it knew it had manoeuvred the US into accepting a hugely disadvantageous deal and, more than anyone, didn’t want the Senate turning it down.

  8. Broadlands permalink
    June 3, 2018 12:25 pm

    Yet another example of those in charge not realizing what is quantitatively involved in trying to “manage” the Earth’s climate by controlling the energy derived from oxidized carbon… that got us here. Amazing myopia.

  9. John permalink
    June 3, 2018 1:05 pm

    Why hold back?
    ‘even that little twerp David Miliband (brother of the idiot, Ed).’

    There is little wrong with Red Ed and Banana man, fresh back from Thunderbird’s and the USA

  10. Phoenix44 permalink
    June 3, 2018 2:05 pm

    As the Telegraph showed on a difereent story (a bonkers one about exorcism):

    “Pope Francis has repeatedly reminded his followers that Satan is “a real being, roaming the Earth to devour souls like a lion”.”

    There’s plenty more on that line from him.

    Odd that the Pope doesn’t get called out on that sort of stuff when he’s supporting climate change though? The Alarmists are quite happy to use “being religious” against Deniers when it suits them.

  11. markl permalink
    June 4, 2018 2:53 am

    The fact that the MSM continues to support the Paris “Agreement” despite complete failure to produce any positive results says a lot about who controls the MSM.

  12. Jack Broughton permalink
    June 5, 2018 12:54 pm

    Interesting technical note today, apparently Trump has now mandated that electricity suppliers must buy coal and nuclear power for national security of supply: even despite the cheap gas available. He has realised that coal and nuclear are the only substantial, storable energy sources. The UK is now heavily dependent on cables and pipes from overseas and very vulnerable to enemy action.

  13. Robin Guenier permalink
    June 6, 2018 10:11 am

    … the Paris Agreement did very little other than kick the can down the road.

    Not really: it kicked the can over the hedge and into some impenetrable undergrowth. For anyone who believes that urgent and substantial GHG emission reductions are essential, the Agreement was a disaster. And the prospect of it being renegotiated is, to put it mildly, remote.

  14. dennisambler permalink
    June 8, 2018 1:40 pm

    “Donald Trump will miss the G7 meeting on climate change, Canadian government officials confirmed Thursday, as he departs the summit early on Saturday morning before the leaders’ scheduled meetings are completed.

    The U.S. president would have been included in a G7 working session devoted to “climate change and clean energy” on the second day of the summit, officials had confirmed earlier this week.”

    Meanwhile the faithful are seeking divine help:

    SPETSES, Greece (AP) — Leading climate change experts and campaigners said Wednesday they would work with the leaders of the Orthodox Church and other religions to fight global warming, after expressing concern that their message was not reaching people fast enough.

    Scientists, campaigners, and economists involved in the climate change debate gathered on the Greek island of Spetses at a conference organized by the spiritual leader of the world’s Orthodox Christians.

    Senior environmental experts are attending the event on the island about 100 kilometers (60 miles) southwest of Athens.

    “Faith can help us because we scientists have tried everything. We can’t say what’s happening in a more compelling way when we warn about the end of civilization,” said Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, an adviser to the German government on climate issues and founding director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. “Other social forces need to weigh in.”

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: