Monday, September 5, 2016

GWPF Newsletter: Paris Agreement - What Exactly Have China and U.S. Ratified?







EU Divided Over When And How To Ratify Paris Climate Deal

In this newsletter:

1) U.S., China Agree On implementing Non-Binding Paris Agreement
The Wall Street Journal, 3 September 2016
 
2) EU Divided Over When And How To Ratify Paris Climate Deal
Financial Times, 2 September 2016
 
3) Paris Agreement: A Blank Cheque For CO2 Emissions By China And India
Global Warming Policy Foundation
 
4) Paris Agreement: What Exactly Has Been Ratified? 
Not A Lot Of People Know That, 3 September 2016
 
5) Reality Check: Britain Likely To Miss Climate Target As Motorists Shun Electric Cars
Financial Times, 1 September 2016

Full details:

1) U.S., China Agree On implementing Non-Binding Paris Agreement
The Wall Street Journal, 3 September 2016
Carol E. Lee and William Mauldin

HANGZHOU, China—U.S. President Barack Obama and Chinese President Xi Jinping on Saturday outlined new plans for expanding their joint efforts on climate change, showcasing one of the few areas of agreement in an otherwise tense relationship between the two leaders.
 



U.S. officials detailed the agreement reached by Messrs. Obama and Xi ahead of what is likely to be their final meeting before a new president enters the White House in January.

The new steps include formal adoption by both the U.S. and China of the international climate-change agreement reached in Paris in December 2015, as well as a road map for achieving emissions reductions in commercial aircraft and for phasing out hydrofluorocarbons, or HFCs, a potent group of gases that are linked to climate change but aren’t covered by the Paris agreement.

The moves cap three years of efforts by Messrs. Obama and Xi to advance climate-change initiatives, following their first meeting as presidents in 2013.

The White House has touted the climate cooperation as a vital form of leadership the two biggest economies have sought to demonstrate for the rest of the world, where developed and developing countries often are at odds. The administration has given a high priority to climate collaboration with Beijing at a time when the two countries have struggled to see eye-to-eye on other economic issues, such as trade, investment rules and exchange rates. The countries have also faced tensions over military affairs and cybersecurity.

Brian Deese, a senior White House adviser, said that the U.S. and China have come “full circle” on climate change with the Paris agreement announcement.

The durability of the U.S. commitments largely hinge on November’s presidential election. Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton and Republican candidate Donald Trump have taken opposite positions on climate change.

Mrs. Clinton has said she would continue Mr. Obama’s climate-change agenda. Mr. Trump has promised to roll back Mr. Obama’s climate-change measures, questioning the scientific findings behind them.

The formal adoption of the climate-change agreement by the U.S. and China is designed to encourage other nations to formally adopt the Paris pact, helping it enter into force as early as this year, Mr. Deese said, noting that, together, the two countries represent roughly 38% of the world’s emissions.

U.S. negotiators pressed hard last year to structure the Paris agreement in such a way that the countries’ individual targets for greenhouse-gas emissions after 2020 wouldn’t be binding. Any agreement with legally binding targets and the threat of international sanctions would have required the approval of the Republican-controlled Congress, officials said.

Full story

2) EU Divided Over When And How To Ratify Paris Climate Deal
Financial Times, 2 September 2016
Pilita Clark

The EU is shaping up to be a potential stumbling block as countries around the world scramble to make the Paris climate change agreement “Trump-proof” ahead of the US presidential election in November. [...]


Image result for EU Paris agreement GWPF

The European Commission suggested in June that it could in effect ratify on member countries’ behalf, through a European Council decision, rather than waiting for all 28 states to act separately. But a number of countries are understood to be wary of the precedent this could set, preferring to join individually first.

Some analysts say this will make it hard for the Paris agreement to take effect this year, even after the expected G20 announcement this weekend by Barack Obama, US president, and Xi Jinping, his Chinese counterpart.

“Action by the US and China will create renewed momentum toward entry into force of the agreement this year, before Obama and [UN secretary-general] Ban Ki-moon leave office,” said Paul Bledsoe, a former Clinton White House adviser. “But without EU approval, they face a steeply uphill climb.”

A spokeswoman for the European Commission said the EU was determined to ratify and implement the pact swiftly.

Full story

3) Paris Agreement: A Blank Cheque For CO2 Emissions By China And India
Global Warming Policy Foundation

The Paris Climate Agreement, far from securing a reduction in global CO2 emissions, is fundamentally a blank cheque that allows China and India to increase their emissions as they see fit in pursuit of economic growth.
 



This is the conclusion of a paper by Law Professor David Campbell (Lancaster University Law School) and published by the Global Warming Policy Foundation.

For the last 25 years, international climate change law has failed to agree a programme of global emissions reductions. Indeed this law grants a permission to major emitters such as China and India to emit as much as they see fit. Global emissions reductions therefore have always been impossible and since 1992 global emissions have enormously increased.

Indeed, the Paris Agreement contains a categorical statement that countries such as China and India will not be obliged to undertake any reductions.

The UK Government proposes to continue with decarbonisation even though Britain’s unilateral decarbonisation is utterly pointless and thus wholly irrational.

Full paper (PDF)

4) Paris Agreement: What Exactly Has Been Ratified? 
Not A Lot Of People Know That, 3 September 2016
Paul Homewood


ScreenHunter_4457 Sep. 03 10.44

1) For a start, the BBC clearly don’t understand the Paris Agreement when they say:

In a landmark deal struck in December, countries agreed to cut emissions enough to keep the global average rise in temperatures below 2C.

Whilst the Agreement aims to keep the global average temperature to well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels, no agreement was made to cut emissions to achieve this.

Indeed, quite the opposite, as Paragraph 17 makes clear:
 

image_thumb87
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/12/12/paris-agreement-will-lead-to-rise-in-ghg-emissions/

The figure of 55 Gt is an increase of 12% on 2010’s level of 49 Gt.

2) As for China themselves, their INDC only promises to peak emissions by 2030, and reduce CO2 emissions per unit of GDP by 60% to 65% of 2005 levels.

Because their economy has expanded so much since 2005, and is planned to grow much more up to 2030, their promise is likely to see emissions increase by at least 50% from current levels, (dependent of course on exactly how much economic growth there is).

For full analysis, see here.

3) Furthermore, because it is still, inexplicably, classified as a developing country, Paris imposes no obligation, whether legal or moral, on China to reduce its GHG emissions.

Barrister, Robin Guenier discussed this topic at length here.

As he points out, Paragraph 4.4 of the Paris Agreement merely encourages them “to move over time towards economy-wide emission reduction or limitation targets in the light of different national circumstances”.

4) Even for developed countries, there is nothing legally binding in the Agreement to enforce emission reductions. The relevant section is Article 4.4, which states:
 

image
http://unfccc.int/paris_agreement/items/9485.php

The key word is “should”, which means that it is not legally binding. The original draft read “shall”, which is binding. The USA delegation insisted that “shall” was replaced by “should”, as otherwise it would have been a legally binding treaty requiring ratification by Congress.

Effectively, the only parts of the Paris Agreement which are binding concern the requirement to submit new nationally determined contribution every five years, provision of “support” (unquantified) to developing countries, and stocktaking of GHGs every five years.

In short, nothing agreed at Paris, whether binding or not, will do anything to reduce global emissions prior to 2030. All it has succeeded in doing is kicking the can down the road for the next 15 years.


5) Reality Check: Britain Likely To Miss Climate Target As Motorists Shun Electric Cars
Financial Times, 1 September 2016
Peter Campbell

Motorists are shunning electric cars despite a generous subsidy, leaving MPs with “no confidence” that Britain will meet its climate change targets by the middle of the century.


Image result for climate target UK electric cars
Britain has a legally binding obligation to cut its greenhouse gas emissions by 80 per cent by 2050 compared with 1990 levels. To meet these targets, about 60 per cent of the cars and lorries on the roads must be electric by 2030. [...]
Sales of electric vehicles are heavily subsided by the government, which offers up to £4,500 towards the purchase of a battery-driven car under a scheme due to expire in 2018.

But public take-up of the vehicles remains very low — at less than 1 per cent of new car sales — largely because of the lack of charging infrastructure and “range anxiety”, where drivers are worried they will run out of power before reaching a charging station.

Full post

The London-based Global Warming Policy Forum is a world leading think tank on global warming policy issues. The GWPF newsletter is prepared by Director Dr Benny Peiser - for more information, please visit the website at www.thegwpf.com.



1 comment:

Peter Caulton said...

Great. Let us hope the world will wake up to the scam and it will never be ratified. Just another globalist scheme to tax us even more. I can't believe the idiots who want more tax on us all.