The climate topic du jour is whether President Trump should abandon the Paris non-treaty “treaty.” Most of the discussion seems to revolve around esoteric legal issues concerning what the US is allowed and not allowed to do as a result of President Obama’s agreement to the “treaty” without Senate consent. I find most of the arguments propounded by climate skeptics on this topic to be sound and perceptive. What I find odd is that I have yet to see any discussion of what climate change science might say about the wisdom of continued US “participation” in the Paris “treaty.” In other words, is there any reason why the US should want to abide by the “treaty?”
The purpose of the “treaty” is to provide a framework for developed countries to reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases primarily by reducing their use of fossil fuels. The reason people use fossil fuels is that for most uses they are the most efficient way to supply the energy humans need to supplement their own energy use that will improve their health and welfare. The climate alarmists have exploited the public’s understandable lack of knowledge concerning climate science to argue that the developed countries (but usually not less developed countries) should give up some or preferably all fossil fuel use in order to avoid alleged catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW). Although they have never proven that changes in CO2 emissions will even change global temperatures, that has not prevented them from urging/coercing others to spend other people’s money on their unproven or now almost certain false claims.
The Most Important Issue: Would It Accomplish Anything if “Successful?”
After the dismal failure of their Kyoto Treaty to achieve this end, the alarmists have tried a second approach called the Paris accord or “treaty,” and flouted the US Constitution by claiming that the “treaty” is not really a treaty. Whether all this is worthwhile ultimately hinges on whether there are sufficient benefits from reducing fossil fuel use to make it worthwhile to give up the many uses humans have found for them. If there are not, humans should not agree to give up any uses of fossil fuels, or waste time and resources on efforts to bring this about. That includes non-treaty “treaties.”
As explained previously, the best current science shows that there are no significant reductions in global temperatures that would result from reducing fossil fuel use, let alone CAGW. And there are much more efficient and effective ways to reduce real pollution from fossil fuel use. Climate alarmism “science” is simply what Richard Feynman called “cargo cult” science. It is long past time to abandon it as well as “treaties” trying to implement it.
Thanks for finally talking about > Carlin Economics and Science »
The Strange Absence of Science in the Paris “Treaty” Discussion < Liked it!
theme5s,
Ron Clutz has a post up on the Clean Power Plan-
https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2018/07/22/rehab-epa-with-a-proper-clean-power-plan/
that goes into some detail on the different clauses (sections)-
“But that endangerment finding simply doesn’t apply. It doesn’t meet the criteria of Section 111, that a pollutant from stationary sources endangers the public health and welfare. Instead, it found that an aggregate of six different greenhouse gases, emitted by mobile sources, is a danger.
Why is this difference important? Section 111 permits regulation only from “a category of sources . . . [which] significantly causes or contributes significantly to air pollution [that endangers health or welfare].” This “significance” requirement is not found in Section 202.”
I am not sure if the nuanced legal approach to the CPP will be of much use to addressing the EF being invalid for say the current efforts to decarbonize the transportation sector of the economy or H part of HVAC in the county.
Just beau, and Dr. Carlin,
If you haven’t listened to president Obama’s recent talk (1) on climate change I recommend you do so after listening to Dr. Pielke’s recent post:
https://thehonestbroker.org/2017/05/18/technology-assessment-as-political-myth/ post.
(1)“Obama Speech & Interview Milan 5/9/2017
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1LLzJ_FMcI
The Paris “treaty” is politics. It’s a multilateral forum if politicians.
If the context is politics, as it is, then science may have its place, but is not all-governing.
This answers Docs question.
Essay in journal yesterday about reason to stay in UN Paris thing. It’s to advocate for the energy policies of the Unted States of America!!
Like clean coal.
And beautiful nuclear power!
Author is congressman Cramer from North Dakota.
This is not an agenda to please Al Gore. It may further dismay his flock.
Read somewhere else it was claimed Presidents stated default position is climate change is a bunch of bunk. Has he read Doc’s book?
Alan you may, or may not, be reading too much into the end stages of the rational that is going to be stated to the public shortly on why the United States (President Trump) is pulling out of the Agreement. From a scientific point of view I agree with your assessment.
From an economic point of view I agree with Ross McKitrick (see Cato):
“The real reason for pulling of the Paris Accord is that it is a futile gesture based on empty and dishonest premises.”
And Lomborg.
Dr. Lomborg said: “Paris is being sold as the summit where we can help ‘heal the planet’ and ‘save the world’. It is no such thing. If all nations keep all their promises, temperatures will be cut by just 0.05°C (0.09°F). Even if every government on the planet not only keeps every Paris promise, reduces all emissions by 2030, and shifts no emissions to other countries, but also keeps these emission reductions throughout the rest of the century, temperatures will be reduced by just 0.17°C (0.3°F) by the year 2100.
http://www.lomborg.com/press-release-research-reveals-negligible-impact-of-paris-climate-promises
From a cultural point of view do we want to continue with moving towards more of a globalist, progressive, Marxists approach to organizing human activities? Do we want to use more of the precautionary principle and guilt associated with political correctness without checking to see what actually has worked?- i.e. Taleb’s recent post(1)
IF CO2 levels are existentially important for the cultural framework (say the end capitalism is the goal, c02 is just the means to the end) than yes we should stay in the treaty. One should than acknowledge that the pea shifted to a new goal of 1.5C!
“Recognizing this fact, the international community agreed in meetings in Cancun in 2012 to review, by 2015, progress to the 2°C target and consider whether it should be strengthened to a 1.5°C threshold.”(2)
Do we want to continue having the EDF, other environmental NGO’s, or the political bureaucrats at the UN, or in Washington D.C., picking the winners and losers in Scientific research and technology development:
“Although having EVs capable of discharging energy back to the grid is in a very nascent stage, it is rapidly evolving and these types of vehicle-to-grid (V2G) strategies should be considered among the suite of solutions capable of helping to achieve GHG reduction targets. EDF contends that recently released transportation electrification applications can be enhanced by including exploration of V2G to strengthen the grid, potentially with help from Volkswagen settlement funds.37 The same holds true here.
Similarly, storage – both EV batteries and other forms of storage – should be an explicit part of the Scoping Plan. EDF struggles to understand why storage is minimally mentioned in the Scoping Plan update, given the increasing focus being given to this resource in California. In implementing AB 2514’s storage mandate,38 the CPUC states the mandate was designed to abide by three core principles:”(3)……
I am not sure we will ever know the weighting factors the President used or the specific items he had in his decision matrix. Am I thrilled that it is President Trump making the decision- YES. Do I think he will need to have his daughter and son-in-law on board with his decision to make it effective in moving us in the direction of putting Americans first once again- YES. I hope he has worked up the implementation strategy and tactical plan(s) to leverage their expertise and capabilities.
It’s now, or not likely ever, to address some of the cultural issues- how we got here has been a long process. How we get on the right track will take the wisdom of folks like the president and his advisors. Many who likely remember the advice of Dr. Sagan:
“We’ve arranged a global civilization in which most crucial elements profoundly depend on science and technology. We have also arranged things so that almost no one understands science and technology. This is a prescription for disaster. We might get away with it for a while, but sooner or later this combustible mixture of ignorance and power is going to blow up in our faces.”
“One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.”
The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark
1) https://mises.org/blog/what-nassim-taleb-can-teach-us
2) Pg 12 https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/2013_update/first_update_climate_change_scoping_plan.pdf
3) https://www.arb.ca.gov/lispub/comm/bccommlog.php?listname=scopingplan2030
Discussion of the science may bring up an awkward question as to the purpose: is it to play Russian Roulette?
Good morning Doc!
You are doing a solid job putting pressure on team Trump.
The WSJ editorial could have been intended as cover to buy some time. Maybe the timing for bailing on the Paris accord is not yet propitious?
Or maybe the accord is so nonsensical and trivial that it is useful to keep around, to serve as a punching bag?
It’s funny Al Gore seeking $15T to save the planet from a nonexistent threat. How does off his rocker climate change begging help restore the credibility of the Democratic Party with mainstream voters?
Maybe we want to Encourage the former Vice President to beg for even more moola in future? keep the UN climate accord alive!