Det er glædeligt for alle – og især amerikanerne – at Trump besluttede sig for at honorere et valgløfte og trække USA ud af Paris-aftalen. Trumps timing er dog elendig, da jeg har så dårlig tid i disse dage. Det er der til gengæld forstandige mennesker, der har haft. Bjørn Lomborg har siden ‘aftalen’ “Legally binding – only go up to 2030, and only commit the world to achieving less than 1 per cent of the carbon cuts that would be needed to keep temperature rises under 2 degrees Celsius.” i Paris skoset indholdet gentagne gange, senest i The Daily Telegraph

Hours before Donald Trump announced that the US would be quitting the Paris carbon-cutting treaty, UN Secretary General António Guterres took to the President’s preferred medium, Twitter, to declare that climate action is “unstoppable”.

The clear message, reinforced by leaders from the European Union and China, is that the rest of the world will continue with the Paris Treaty without US involvement. Their resolve is quickly going to smash into three incontrovertible truths.

First, the Paris Treaty will be the most expensive global agreement in world history. Cutting emissions without affordable, effective replacements for fossil fuel means more expensive power and less economic growth.Calculations using the best peer-reviewed economic models show the global price tag of all the Paris Treaty promises –through slower GDP growth from higher energy costs – would reach $1 trillion to $2 trillion every year from 2030. Without US involvement, the rest of the world must cough up between $800 billion and $1.6 trillion annually.
Furthermore, the treaty hinges on the delivery of $100 billion a year in “climate aid” to developing nations, starting from 2020 – a vow that slightly awkwardly came originally from the U.S.

These huge costs have imperilled the Treaty since its signing. It is not difficult to imagine other leaders balking at slowed growth, or to envisage wealthy nations reneging on the promised aid.
“Unstoppable”? It remains to be seen if that bravado withstands an economic downturn.

Lomborg giver ikke meget for alternativ energi, der skønt subsidier i størrelsen “hundreds of billions of dollars in annual subsidies, we only get, according to the International Energy Agency, 0.5 per cent of the world’s energy needs from wind, and 0.1 per cent from solar PV”. I 2015 skrev Lomborg i New York Post

The problem with the deal is simple, and was obvious from before it was even signed. The Paris agreement talks a big game. It doesn’t just commit to capping the global temperature increase at the much-discussed level of 2°C above pre-industrial levels. It says that leaders commit to keeping the increase “well below 2°C,” with an effort to cap it at 1.5°C.

But this is all talk.

My own peer-reviewed research, published in the journal Global Policy, shows that all of the treaty’s 2016-2030 promises on cutting carbon-dioxide emissions will reduce temperatures by the year 2100 by just 0.05°C. Even if the promised emissions cuts continued unabated throughout the century, the Paris agreement would cut global temperature increases by just 0.17°C. Scientists from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology reach a similar conclusion.

And that’s assuming countries actually live up to their promises: The treaty’s nonbinding.


By the United Nations’ own reckoning, the treaty will only achieve less than 1 percent of the emission cuts needed to meet target temperatures. So instead, signatories point to the fact that beginning in 2020, countries will be asked to lay out more ambitious targets every five years. In other words, 99 percent of the problem is left for tomorrow’s leaders to deal with.


For at uddybe, hvad den ikke-bindende aftale betyder, skriver Oren Cass i Commentary

In fact, most of the major developing countries, whose emissions will drive climate change this century, pledged only to continue with business as usual.

China committed to begin reducing emissions by 2030, roughly when its economic development would have caused this to happen regardless. India made no emissions commitment, pledging only to make progress on efficiency—at half the rate it had progressed in recent years. Pakistan outdid the rest, submitting a single page that offered to “reduce its emissions after reaching peak levels to the extent possible.” This is a definition of the word “peak,” not a commitment.

Since then, the farce has proceeded as farces do. Secretary Kerry claimed the Accord would unleash clean-energy investment. “It is going to move the marketplace,” he said, calling it “a break-away agreement which actually changes the paradigm” and will “spur massive investment.” Instead, global investment plummeted by 20 percent in 2016 compared to 2015, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance. The first quarter of 2017 saw another 17 percent decline versus 2016.

The volunteer pledges have commanded precisely the respect they deserve. An April report by Transport Environment found only three European countries pursuing policies in line with their Paris commitments and one of those, Germany, has now seen two straight years of emissions increases. The Philippines has outright renounced its commitment. A study published by the American Geophysical Union warns that India’s planned coal-plant construction is incompatible with its own targets. All this behavior is socially acceptable amongst the climate crowd. Only Trump’s presumption that the agreement means something, and that countries should be forthright about their commitments, is beyond the pale.

Som Daniel Greenfield skriver i Frontpage Magazine: “Trump is doing to the Paris Agreement what he did to TPP. He’s trashing a bad deal that no one really liked and that wouldn’t achieve its supposed goals. He’s being the heavy because no one else has the guts to stand up and say “No”.”



Drokles blogger på www.monokultur.dk

3 svar til “We´ll always have Paris”

  1. KnudMadsen siger:

    Det eneste fornuft i alternativ energi er, set med mine øjne, at vi på den måde gør os fri af fossile, og dermed muhamedanske energikilder.
    En skønne dag, skal vi jo åbenbart igang med en altomfattende religionskrig, hvor al forsyning af fossilt brændstof vil blive lukket ned. Så er det jo glimrende at have noget alternativt.
    Jeg skal dog ikke klage, idet jeg i dag ser mine statsstøttede Vestas aktier udviser en exorbitant stigning! og mine støttede solceller producerer strøm efter noder og min støttede varmepumpe laver dejlig varme! 🙂
    Kæft, hvor er det åndssvagt!

    • Verden_er_gal. siger:

      Vi har jo den norske oljen på vår side. Men når man hører på de idiotene av noen politikere vi har, så kan man jo nesten lure på hvilken side de vil være på.

  2. Bjart_S siger:

    Det er ikke global oppvarming som truer Europa nå! Det er islam!!!