Political Temperature Control: Boon or Boondoggle?

Dick Baynton
Dick Baynton

Speaking on TV on a recent Sunday night, Secretary Kerry was using effusive language to describe the leadership of President Obama in persuading more than 190 nations of the world to embrace a ‘climate deal.’

Notice that this climate debate, discussion and oratory convergence started on November 30 and concluded with an agreement on Saturday, December 12, 2015. Most reports boast of the contributions made by the French including President Hollande who has apparently coaxed nations of the world into reaching agreement on climate change. President Obama’s name hasn’t been associated with much of the so-called climate ‘deal’ named Conference of Parties #21 or (COP #21).

The Paris ‘summit’ on climate change was coordinated by the United Nations, an organization of 192 nations with more than 51,000 employees that practices analysis without action. The budget of the basic UN is $5.53 billion but peacekeeping and 19 other agencies absorb another $7 billion+. The World Health Organization (WHO), the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the World Trade Organization (WTO) are some of the well-known agencies of the UN.

In an article by the Director of the Global Warming Policy Forum based in London, England, Benny Peiser recounts that the U.S. administration has pledged to reduce carbon emissions by 26% to 28% by 2025. According to Peiser, Obama’s pledge is unconditional and indifferent to the actions of China, India and other world economies. Peiser adds that the 28 nations of the EU, having adopted the restrictions of the Kyoto protocol that expires in 2020 have suffered severe costs of increased energy due to decarbonization.

In the future, in accord with recommendations of EU Energy Commissioner Günther Oettinger, members will adhere less to the disastrous carbon restrictions unless other emitters are committed to the same onerous guidelines. The pact leaves most countries in charge of their own behavior regarding how energy is produced and utilized. Stephen Eule, Vice President for Climate and Technology at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce stated that many obstacles to ‘the climate deal’ remained, especially the cost of renewable energy such as solar and wind.

Something of interest is that although the nations and their representatives at the ‘Paris summit of ‘temperature control’ apparently have little to no interest in the science of modifying current energy sources. Benjamin Sporton, Chief executive of the World Coal Association mentioned that renewed financing is working to capture and store carbon emissions in coal-burning operations such as power plants.

Coal over the past decade has become the villain of energy sources as third and fourth generation miners in Appalachia retreat into unemployment. Little thought is apparently being given to the economic havoc caused by the tectonic shift from coal, one of the primary components of the industrial revolution.

Affected are railroads, exports, small businesses in coal mining regions and the re-training of men who have been digging this energy resource for a lifetime as an occupation. The last deep coal mine in Britain, the Kellingley Colliery in North Yorkshire is closing after 50 years, costing the jobs of 450 miners.

The U.S. insisted upon legally enforceable restrictions and regulations at the beginning of the conference but Todd Stern, head of the U.S. negotiating team in Paris ruled out any legally binding commitment. Washington is divided on funding a long-term legally binding world agreement considering that industrialized nations must provide at least $100 billion annually to assist developing nations in the quest for lower emissions.

It is also clear that a long-term agreement would engage future administrations to adhere to the funding commitments; the overall cost is estimated in the range of $13.5 trillion+. A mechanism will require emissions reduction reports from participating nations every five years starting in 2018.

The UN Framework on Climate Change, COP 21 in Paris (Conference of Parties #21) was intended to achieve a maximum of 2?C (3.6?F) increase in world temperatures. In order to achieve this goal about 195 countries must agree to substantial increases in costs of consumer and industrial goods and taxes while reducing their personal (and collective) demand for energy in the long run.

The challenge of getting this done is the rough equivalent of herding cats using mice as shepherds.

Latest Articles

- Advertisement -

Latest Articles

- Advertisement -

Related Articles