{"id":1631,"date":"2019-01-03T16:04:00","date_gmt":"2019-01-03T21:04:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/cuttothe-chase.com\/?p=1631"},"modified":"2025-06-30T16:33:49","modified_gmt":"2025-06-30T20:33:49","slug":"the-paris-agreement-a-wealth-redistribution-scheme-that-fails-dismally-in-reducing-co2-emissions","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/cuttothe-chase.com\/?p=1631","title":{"rendered":"The Paris Agreement- A Wealth Redistribution Scheme That Fails Dismally in Reducing CO2 Emissions"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Climate change- it\u2019s as real today as it was 4,000 years ago. (http:\/\/www.longrangeweather.com\/global_temperatures.htm<\/a>) What\u2019s in dispute is the degree to which anthropogenic (human) activities have had a significant influence over recent climate trends. Climate change alarmists are fond of bolstering their claims by citing specific articles and opinions and stating, \u201cFacts matter\u201d and \u201cScience matters\u201d. Not surprisingly, all of the \u201cfacts\u201d and \u201cscience\u201d referenced by the alarmists point to the burning of fossil fuels as the primary cause of carbon emissions and their effect on climate. And as expected, some form of taxation is cited as the primary means of reducing carbon emissions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The alarms being sounded about the consequences of climate change are largely inspired by studies and models predicting the future climate apocalypse based on historic patterns. Yet, in its 2007 report<\/a>, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) states,<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cwe should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled nonlinear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.<\/em>\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The report goes on to suggest that something akin to the Olympic scoring method (throw out the high and low scores and average the rest) be used to predict the probability future climate changes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For the moment, assume that human activities in general, and the burning of fossil fuels in particular are in fact major causes of CO2 emissions and that rising CO2 levels are the primary driver of climate change. Then consider the lack of effectiveness of the facts and science cited by climate change alarmists in ameliorating the effects of human activity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Climate change alarmists propose that it is essential for nations the world over to agree to reduce industrial emissions of greenhouse gasses such as CO2. With an abundance of chest-beating and back slapping, representatives of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) proclaimed that the <\/em>Kyoto Protocol<\/a> treaty would lead to a significant reduction in CO2 emissions. Perhaps in Fantasyland, but not in the real world. Implemented in 2005, the Kyoto Protocol s<\/em>et binding targets for 37 industrialized countries and the European community (the United States did not sign the treaty) for reducing greenhouse gas <\/em>emissions. Yet NASA Climate data<\/a> specifies that during the 11 years between the January, 2005 signing of the agreement and December, 2016, atmospheric CO2 levels increased from 371.21 parts per million (ppm) to 405.25, an increase of 34.04 ppm. In contrast, according to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration data<\/a> for the 11-year period preceding<\/em> the Kyoto agreement (January, 1994 through December, 2005) CO2 levels increased only 21.87 ppm, from 358.24 ppm to 380.11 ppm. That is, in the 11 years after the accord was signed, CO2 emissions increased at a 55.65% faster rate they did in the 11 years before the protocol agreement.<\/em><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The irony of the IPCC and the UNFCCC both operating under the auspices of the United Nations is that the position of one organization contradicts the position of the other. brings credibility issues to both organizations. The UNFCCC bases its recommendations for future actions on historical data, yet the IPCC\u2019s declaration is that climate is a chaotic system which renders prediction of future climate states, based on historical data, impossible.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The <\/em>Paris Agreement<\/a> is another UNFCCC initiative allegedly designed to keep the sky from falling as a result of excessive industrial CO2 emissions. Like the Kyoto Protocol, the Paris Agreement calls for all parties to reduce greenhouse gas emissions but also recognizes, \u201c<\/em>the importance of adequate and predictable financial resources, including for results-based payments, as appropriate, for the implementation of policy approaches and positive incentives for reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, and the role of conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks;\u201d.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The operative phrase in the previous paragraph is, \u201cadequate and predictable financial resources\u201d, which is a direct reference to the wealth redistribution intent of the agreement, as described next week in Part 2.<\/em><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n