UN summit on Climate change (30 November through 12 December 2015) what did it accomplish?

SGM Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 15 Dec 2015 15:36:48 -0500

I am surprised that the UN Conference on Climate Change concluded, and I have seen no notice on Facebook, or the media in general. (Although I don't watch MSNBC, where they are probably enraptured by it.) 195 nations signed the agreement, and in Nancy Pelosi fashion, now that it is signed, let's see what's in it.

"Developing" nations got promises of $100 billion per year from "developed" nations. And what does the world get in return for this? Each nation will be required to submit a plan to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, but there is no objective standard it must meet or no requirement that it must achieve any reduction at all.

The Paris summit operated on the principle of CBDRILONCWRC, or, "Common but Differentiated Responsibility in Light of National Circumstances With Respective Capability." What that means is that each nation has different capabilities and different priorities, so each decides for itself what it will do, and establishes whatever target it wishes. This is spelled out as, "Intended Nationally Determined Contributions." That's climate bureaucratese for, "You make up your emissions target, whatever it is, and we will pretend to take it seriously."

Prior to the conference, each nation was supposed to have submitted an initial plan for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Out of 195 nations, only Mexico complied by the due date of March 1st. Of those coming up with a plan after the due date is Pakistan, whose one page document says Pakistan promises to, "reduce its emissions after reaching peak levels to the extent possible." STOP THE PRESSES for a NEWS FLASH! Pakistan promised AFTER it reaches peak pollution to reduce it, if it can. I sure am glad President Obama fought to get such an important promise out of Pakistan to save the world.

What about China, the world leader in carbon emissions? China promises to reach peak emissions around 2030, when one U.S. government study estimates that it would hit peak admissions anyway. And how much money do we have to pay to get China to do what the government thinks it will do anyway?

India really has a solid plan. They want more money, and under the agreement, it is available if a country produces a plan justifying the increase. India still wants to double its output of coal by 2020. India "says coal provides the cheapest energy for rapid industrialization that would lift millions out of poverty." That is correct; and exactly how the industrialized world became the industrialized world starting about 200 years ago. But India is willing to reduce emissions. They want a paltry $2.5 trillion to do it.

Now we could pretend this would be worth it, if carbon emissions really are the danger prophesied by the Climate Change High Priests. The problem is a single word, "Shall." By including, "shall", the treaty indicated a requirement. The beggar countries blocked a requirement that the authors of the promises use a common format, and they did not even have to mention the emissions they wouldn't have to promise to reduce. China and India, leading the developing nations, rejected "any obligatory review mechanism for increasing individual efforts of developing countries." The word, "shall", was replaced by, "should", which means all we have is their promise.

The functionaries at the U.N. bristle at suggestions that the agreement will be difficult to enforce. There's no need for climate-change cops. The United Nations will boldly point the finger at nations that won't keep their commitments, he says. The shame, the disgrace, the mortification of it all. Being shamed by Lower Slobbovia and the Peoples Republic of Upper Corruptiana should be enough to make them toe the mark ... except ... there is no requirement that a target figure be stated or that any item of climate change will be addressed. What your money buys is their promise to try to do something.

Ban Ki-moon, the secretary-general of the United Nations, returned to New York on Monday and said, "Actions should begin from today. The Paris agreement is a victory for the people, for the common good, and for multilateralism." He will convene another "summit" next May, at a luxury resort to be named later, to nag the developed nations to start passing out the checks. Representatives of the developing nations are not invited, perhaps because they will not have sobered up yet from their victory.

Secretary of State John Kerry (who could possibly be the most clueless Secretary of State in the history of the United States) actually stated that the solution to ISIS was a job training program. Nevertheless, like a stopped watch, he can still be right twice a day. In a rare moment of candor, Kerry said, "...The fact is that even if every American citizen biked to work, carpooled to school, used only solar panels to power their homes, if we each planted a dozen trees, if we somehow eliminated all of our domestic greenhouse gas emissions, guess what -- that still wouldn't be enough to offset the carbon pollution coming from the rest of the world."

Kerry added, "If all the industrial nations went down to zero emissions -- remember what I just said, all the industrial emissions went down to zero emissions -- it wouldn't be enough, not when more than 65 percent of the world's carbon pollution comes from the developing world."

And remember that the United States provides 22% of the operating budget of the U.N. So when India wants $2.5 trillion, the U.S. portion is $550 billion. No matter how you feel about climate change, that money COULD be spent in the U.S. Across the political spectrum, from $15 minimum wage, thru free college, free medical care, fully funded social security, and all the way to building a S.H.I.E.L.D. helicarrier for the military, there are better ways to spend $550 billion than to give it to India for a PROMISE to TRY to do something.

Being a liberal means never having to admit error. Liberalism has always been about intentions and feelings, not results. Fighting "climate change" makes liberals feel good.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BB0aFPXr4n4

George Carlin on Global Warming

Response by MSG Brad Sand made Dec 15 at 2015 3:44 PM

MSG Brad Sand — Tue, 15 Dec 2015 15:44:20 -0500

It continues to amaze me how far people will take a fraud and who cares if time does not support any of their models...just make new models and predictions?

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 15 at 2015 7:09 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 15 Dec 2015 19:09:54 -0500

Everybody "pinkie swears" to cut emissions and keep temperature increases to under 2 degrees.
To enforce this, we will use the honor system... 'cause like it is really important and stuff.
And we agree to meet again in the future, to make more promises.
And you should pay lots of money to low lying countries, because that will help the ocean not rise.

Sigh.

Response by CPT Pedro Meza made Feb 29 at 2016 4:21 PM

CPT Pedro Meza — Mon, 29 Feb 2016 16:21:31 -0500

what did it accomplish? You do realize that it got you to post! Funny how they work!