Trump Vindicated; Now Even the UN Confirms That the Paris Climate Accord Was a Complete Waste of Space

protest
AP/Thibault Camus

The United Nations has officially confirmed what many of us, including President Trump, knew already: the Paris climate accord was a complete waste of space.

As UN Environment admits in its latest Emissions Shortfall report, even when you add up all the CO2 reduction pledges made by all the signatory nations at Paris, it still comes to only a third of what is supposedly necessary to stop the world warming by more than 2 degrees C by the end of this century.

According to UN Environment’s head Eric Solheim, the world is heading for disaster:

“One year after the Paris Agreement entered into force, we still find ourselves in a situation where we are not doing nearly enough to save hundreds of millions of people from a miserable future. Governments, the private sector and civil society must bridge this catastrophic climate gap.”

Another way of looking at it, though, is that President Trump’s decision to pull out of the Paris accord is now fully vindicated. Had the Agreement been ratified, the U.S. would have handed countries like China and India a huge competitive advantage over the American economy. But – as even the UN now admits – it would have made no discernible difference to the alleged problem of “global warming.” So what, exactly would have been the point?

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Paris – Trump Just Dodged a $2.5 Trillion Bullet

AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais
AP/Pablo Martinez Monsivais

Here’s more evidence that Trump did the right thing by pulling out of the UN’s Paris climate agreement.

Had the U.S. stayed in it would have been on the hook for a fair chunk of this eye-watering pay demand from India.

Yes, you read that right. Not billion but trillion. That’s $2,500,000,000,000 which India was expecting to be paid over the next 15 years by the Western nations – ie mainly the U.S. – as a bribe for pretending to decarbonize its economy in line with the U.N. Paris agreement.

And, inevitably, it wasn’t just India that wanted its climate Danegeld. So did every other country which could qualify for developing world status. Here, courtesy of Chris Horner, is a document from U.S. climate negotiator Todd Stern. He clearly thinks it’s funny, though I’m not sure I would if I were a taxpayer having to fund it…

In other words, Paris was never really about climate. It was a wealth-redistribution scheme in which rich nations were expected to shower poor nations with free money.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

UN Reveals Its Master Plan for Destruction of Global Economy

More dangerous than Al Qaeda

More dangerous than Al Qaeda

Former US secretary to the United Nations John Bolton once famously said: The [UN] Secretariat building in New York has 38 stories. If it lost ten stories it wouldn’t make a bit of difference. (H/T Milo)

But I’d say Bolton was being too modest in his aspirations. Far too modest. I’d suggest that if we lost all 38 stories the benefits to mankind would be almost incalculable. Right now, indeed, it’s likely that the United Nations poses a far greater threat to Western Civilisation and the worlds economic future than Al Qaeda does. Have a glance at its latest report World Economic And Social Survey 2011 and you’ll see what I mean.

The report argues that over the next 40 years our governments must spend an annual minimum of $1.9 trillion–that’s an eyewatering $76 trillion–steering the global economy onto the path of green growth.

But Green growth as the report more or less acknowledges is an oxymoron. That’s why, even though it was supervised by an alleged economist, Dutchman Rob Vos, the report is not at all ashamed to advocate limiting economic growth through rationing, punitive taxation and other forms of government intervention. Why? To combat Climate Change, of course.

Here’s the kicker:

Hence, if, for instance, emission reduction targets cannot be met through accelerated technological progress in energy efficiency and renewable energy generation, it may be necessary to impose caps on energy consumption itself in order to meet climate change mitigation in a timely manner. Proposals to put limits on economic growth can be viewed in this context. (P.19)

And if shaving off $1.9 trillion from the world economy each year (that’s 3 per cent of the world gross product in 2010) results in further economic stagnation and a lower standard of living for our children and grandchildren, well what the hell. As the report primly tells us, none of us actually needs to earn more than $10,000 a year. Anything more is greedy:

For example, taking life expectancy as an objective measure of the quality of life, it can be seen that life expectancy does not increase much beyond a per capita income of about $10,000. Similarlycross-country evidence suggests that there are no significant additional gains in human development (as measured by the human development index) beyond the energy-use level of about 110 gigajoules (GJ) (or two tons of oil equivalent (toe) per capita.

Are they seriously suggesting that developed economies should ration their people’s energy use? They surely are:

The Survey estimates that the emissions cap would be equivalent to primary energy consumer consumption of 70 gigajoules per capita per year, which means that the average European would have to cut his or her energy consumption by about half and the average resident of the US by about three quarters.

So, instead of being able to enjoy a hot shower every day all you Americans, you’ll now confine your warm ablutions to weekends only. Same goes for air-con in summer. And heating in winter. Welcome to the New Green World Order.

What’s amazing about this stuff and believe me, there’s plenty more where this came from is the unblushing shamelessness with which it advocates this economic insanity. Here is the world’s most powerful intergovernmental institution essentially arguing for the destruction of the global economy, enforced rationing, Marxist wealth redistribution, greater regulation, the erosion of property rights and global governance by a new world order of technocrats and bureacrats. And being so upfront about it they actually issue press releases, telling us what they’re planning to do and encouraging us to write about it.

This is the thing that amazed while I was researching my book Watermelons. If the global green movement is any kind of conspiracy, then it’s a conspiracy in plain sight. The people in power who are advancing its agenda–be it President Obamas house eco-activists John Holdren and Carol Browner, Green MP Caroline Lucas, and all those faceless apparatchiks at the UN and the EU–make absolutely no bones about what it is that they want to do to save the world from the peril of Climate Change: the end of Industrial Civilisation.

Which might be just about understandable if the crisis we were facing were so great that only the most extreme measures would suffice. But the crisis they describe is non-existent. As I argue in the second half of my book, economic growth and true environmentalism as opposed to the sick, bastardised, warped, hair-shirt perversion of it currently being dumped on us by the Greenies go hand in hand.

As economies grow richer, so they have more money to set aside for cleaner rivers, fresher air, as well as to invest in R & D projects for ever more eco-friendly forms of energy. Its no coincidence that quite the worst environmental damage in the last century was done in those countries behind the Iron Curtain. Free market economies tend naturally to be cleaner and healthier because clean and healthy is what people choose anyway if they can afford it. They don’t need government to step in and take their money in order to spend it inefficiently trying to achieve something which would have happened quite naturally anyway.

What this ludicrous UN report is advocating is the exact opposite of what the world needs if it is to become genuinely greener. All those people in the developing world, if they’re to live healthier, less environmentally damaging lives, the very last thing they need is hand-outs from richer economies. What they need are property rights and free trade and the chance to grow their economy to the point where cf. the Kuznets Curve they can afford the luxury of having to breed fewer children and to heat and light their homes without having to chop down the nearest trees. What they also need for us in the rich West to have thriving economies in order that we can import more of their produce.

Rationing and limits to growth are not the answer. The UN is a menace and we listen to its eco-fascist ravings at our peril.

Related posts:

  1. The real cost of ‘global warming’
  2. The global economy is collapsing. The solution is not more media studies graduates
  3. Miliband’s brilliant plan to combat climate change: ‘We’ll export unicorns to China’.
  4. The real reasons why one billion go hungry: wind farms, biofuels, sustainability…

2 thoughts on “UN reveals its master plan for destruction of global economy”

  1. Jakob Unger Jr. says:14th July 2011 at 8:22 pmJames, if you spend enough time delving through the voluminous UN publications, you come to the crux of this madness. The UN wants to reduce world population by 90%. Nine out of Ten of us must die, in order to “save the world”. Agenda 21, “Communitarianism”, UNESCO, and many other UN plans are thinly veiled preludes to genocide.
  2. Marina says:15th July 2011 at 6:41 pmI’ve downloaded today the report from the UN website and I can’t find two of the quoted texts in your article:“Hence, if, for instance, emission reduction targets cannot be met through accelerated technological progress in energy efficiency and renewable energy generation, it may be necessary to impose caps on energy consumption itself in order to meet climate change mitigation in a timely manner. Proposals to put limits on economic growth can be viewed in this context.” (P.19)
    “For example, taking life expectancy as an objective measure of the quality of life, it can be seen that life expectancy does not increase much beyond a per capita income of about $10,000. Similarly…cross-country evidence suggests that there are no significant additional gains in human development (as measured by the human development index) beyond the energy-use level of about 110 gigajoules (GJ) (or two tons of oil equivalent (toe) per capita.”

    They must have edited it, this is the title of the one I’ve downloaded:
    World Economic and Social Survey 2011
    The Great Green Technological Transformation
    Overview

    Is this the one you refer to?

Comments are closed.

When you hear the word ‘Biodiversity’ reach for your Browning | James Delingpole

October 28, 2010

It's OK: I don't want ickle wickle spotty wotty to die either....

It’s OK: I don’t want ickle wickle spotty wotty to die either…

This column comes to you from sunny Rajasthan, India, where I have taken my family to look for leopards (and crocodiles and monkeys and black buck…).

As you can imagine taking the kids somewhere so exotic at half term is costing me an arm and a leg I can ill afford. But I want them to share with me the almost matchless pleasure of seeing big cats (or big anything else: sharks are good too; and bears; and elephants…) in their native habitat. Being amid unspoilt nature, whether it’s walking in the Welsh or Scottish hills or going on safari in Africa or India, is what makes me truly happy, and I’m sure this will rub off on my miserable, ungrateful, ‘urrggh it’s spicy we hate spicy food isn’t there a Pizza Hut round here?’ kids eventually too.

Why am I telling you this? Well partly in response to the unutterable fatuousness of some of the comments I got last week below my post on ‘Biodiversity.‘ Some of the pillocks who chipped in their tuppeny happeny’s worth seemed to imagine that the world divides into two kinds of people:

Lovely, cuddly-wuddly, caring, WWF and Greenpeace types who want to save nature.

and

Hateful climate-change-denying, biodiversity-loathing types who want to destroy it.

Uh, no. With respect, morons, that is not how things work. When I attack the concept of ‘Biodiversity’ – and note the inverted commas, that’s kind of key – I’m not voting, as the eco-fascist would-be suicide bomber James Lee so touchingly put it, against “The Lions, Tigers, Giraffes, Elephants, Froggies, Turtles, Apes, Raccoons, Beetles, Ants, Sharks, Bears, and, of course, the Squirrels.” What I’m railing against is the way a noble-seeming concept has been subverted by the watermelons of the green movement in exactly the same way as “Climate change” has and with precisely the same aims: to extend the powers of government; to raise taxes; to weaken the capitalist system; to curtail personal freedom; to redistribute income; to bring ever-closer the advent of an eco-fascist New World Order.

I’ve got nothing against biodiversity. But I’ve an awful lot against “Biodiversity.”

To understand why it’s such a menace, download this PDF put together by the wonderful Donna LaFramboise. Her basic point is this: that the claims of mass man-made species extinction currently being bandied about by liberal activist bodies like the United Nations and the BBC are based on the flimsiest of science.

A few days I ago I wrote about the chapter in the 2007 Nobel-winning climate bible that concludes 20-30% of all the Earth’s species are at risk of extinction due to global warming. I explained that the research paper on which this finding depends has been demolished by experts in that field. According to one of the world’s pre-eminent biologists, the 2004 Thomas study isn’t just flawed it’s “the worst paper I have ever read in a major scientific journal.”

LaFramboise also recommends this essay by Stephen Budiansky, which concludes:

There is no scientific dispute that extinctions are occurring, that they are occurring at a rate above the natural level due to human action, and that strenuous efforts are needed to protect critical habitats, to eliminate invasive competitors that threaten species, and to prevent overexploitation.

But the egregiously bad science that is still being invoked to shore up wholly unsubstantiated predictions of catastrophic mass extinctions is only undermining the credibility of environmentalists, and is already causing a dangerous political backlash that has handed ammunition (exactly as in the case of global warming) to those who want to reject any and all evidence of human impacts on the natural environment.

Are you with me now?

Biodiversity is climate change is ocean acidification is welcome to the New World Order.

Related posts:

  1. Fracking: why have we allowed the left to make it a dirty word?
  2. ‘Biodiversity’: the new Big Lie
  3. Nazis: the gift that goes on giving
  4. Surface pleasure

One thought on “When you hear the word ‘Biodiversity’ reach for your Browning”

  1. Roger says:16th September 2011 at 3:13 amJames,

    Did you find any wildlife? I am curious to learn why you thought it was worthwhile going to India to see leopards etc. when you consider trying to conserve them to be a scam.

    Roger