‘Regret’ as US begins exit from UN climate accord

Posted: November 5, 2019 by oldbrew in climate, government, News, Politics

The pretence that humans have some kind of power over the global climate is put in the spotlight once again.

The US has begun the process of withdrawing from the Paris Agreement, notifying the UN of its intention to leave, as other countries expressed regret and disappointment at the move, reports BBC News.

The notification begins a one-year process of exiting the global climate change accord, culminating the day after the 2020 US election.

The US government says the deal puts an “unfair economic burden” on Americans.

The agreement brought together 188 nations to combat climate change.

France and Japan have led international condemnation of the US move.

The Paris accord, agreed in 2015, committed the US and 187 other countries to keeping rising global temperatures below 2C above pre-industrial levels and attempting to limit them even more, to a 1.5C rise.

The decision to withdraw – taken by President Donald Trump after he came to office in 2017 – made the US the world’s sole non-signatory and prompted high-level efforts by the European Union to keep the agreement on track.

However, hundreds of local governments, businesses and organisations in the US have joined the We Are Still In movement, pledging to cut emissions and move to renewable energy.

UN climate envoy and US entrepreneur Michael Bloomberg said in a statement posted on the movement’s website that he was working to fill the funding gap left by the Trump administration’s withdrawal, which he described as an “abdication of leadership”.

Why is this happening now?

The US issued its formal notification on the first day it was possible to do so.

Mr Trump had made withdrawing from the agreement one of his election campaign pledges but UN rules had meant it was not possible for the US to start the withdrawal process until 4 November 2019.

The withdrawal is still subject to the outcome of next year’s US presidential election – if Mr Trump loses, the winner may decide to change course.

Continued here.

  1. pochas94 says:

    Climate Accord – An excellent vehicle for those who wish to destroy their nation.

  2. Graeme No.3 says:

    All those pledging to reduce emissions should explain how they would do better than the USA’s progress over the last few years thanks to fracking, not renewables. And their economy is booming.
    Compare this with, say, Germany where 29,900 wind turbines haven’t reduced that nations CO2 emissions in the last 10 years. Might be different next year when Germany will be in recession.

  3. oldbrew says:

    Having a reliable electricity supply system is not compatible with having a lot of reliance on part-time renewables which are dependent on the weather and/or the time of day.

    Nothing new there, but policymakers plough on regardless.

  4. JB says:

    “unfair economic burden”, like the tariff policy has placed on the American consumer. Same old lie I got from Norwegian customs decades ago–it is supposed to protect the professional importer. But THEY do not get the tax. All they get is an artificial price support which does nothing to increase their business volume.

    The electorate never learn–they keep putting people in office just like them.

  5. Bob Greene says:

    I thought we were out. The Paris Accords must have been successful, the world didn’t end from global climate apocolypse since 2015

  6. Steven Fraser says:

    The BBC article has this almost funny statement:

    ‘The withdrawal is still subject to the outcome of next year’s US presidential election – if Mr Trump loses, the winner may decide to change course.’

    Sorry, BBC, but no. The withdrawal is effective the day after the 2020 election day, and, unless some action is taken by the Trump administration before then, will be ‘done’. Any other President elected will enter office without the US as a party to the Paris Agreement.

    The Paris Agreement is an income distribution agreement, or, using an older name, ‘foreign aid’, where the developed countries pay in, and the ‘developing’ countries take out. Because China and India’s statements of ‘commitment’ don’t reduce CO2 emissions for a very long time, if at all, its largely a sham.

  7. gbaikie says:

    “The agreement brought together 188 nations to combat climate change.”

    Why are 188 nation trying to change climate?
    It’s unlikely 188 nations are making an equal effort to change climate, which nation is doing the most to change climate and which one is doing the least?

    I googled “solar capital of the world” and I got:
    “Lancaster (California) Is “Solar Power Capital Of The Universe” Lancaster, California, produces more solar power per capita than any other city in the state.”
    Obviously California is not the universe nor the world.
    Another result gives top 10 countries, and Germany leads China which is second:

    So there is apparently some truth to idea that Germany is the solar capital of the world. Germany also has a lot wind mills, which Germans are increasingly become opposed to having these monstrosity, any where near them.
    Anyhow is the retarded Germany, a nation leading the world in fighting climate change? Or could one pick China as least near the top of the list of top combatant nations in the fight against climate change? Does the fact that China emit the most CO2 emission count against such a title?
    Or how about the obvious lack and inaccurate reporting from the totalitarian state- does that diminish it’s title, or does count as the better way to fight climate change {in war it’s good plan to keep secrets}.
    It doesn’t seem like a good idea to combat climate change.
    Can we simple label the 188 countries idiots for fighting a war against Nature?

  8. oldbrew says:

    IPCC chair says (in effect) it was all a pile of poo anyway…

    NOVEMBER 5, 2019
    Paris climate pledges ‘too little, too late’: report

    Three-quarters of national commitments under the Paris climate accord to curb greenhouse gases will not even slow the accelerating pace of global warming, top climate scientists said Tuesday.

    The warning came a day after President Donald Trump formally notified the United Nations of the US withdrawal from the 2015 Paris climate pact, triggering concerns of how other nations might react.

    “With few exceptions, the pledges of rich, middle-income and poor nations are insufficient to address climate change,” said Robert Watson, who chaired both the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the UN’s science body for biodiversity.

    “As they stand, the pledges are far too little, too late.”

    – – –
    That’s what they always say anyway 🙄

  9. ivan says:

    In fact the Paris accord has very little or nothing to do with climate change but has everything to do with getting money from the rich nations to support the UN in its aspirations towards a one world socialist government by the UN.

  10. hunterson7 says:

    As I reflect on the emerging world order it doesn’t seem to be communist in the traditional sense. But it is obsessed with committees selected out of selected insiders, and is run by oligarchs and Uber rich. This new order is anti-scientific but claims the opposite. It is extremely imperialistic towards developing countries. Whereas original communism, in a mechanistic sense was about human triumph but always ended in dystopic tyrannies, the new system seems to be going straight towards the dehumanizing dystopic tyranny as its blatant goal. All Lent and no Easter.

  11. ivan says:


    Ayn Rand described that future in her novel Anthem (http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/1250). A chilling view of where we are heading.

  12. Coeur de Lion says:

    The Accord has now been running for four years- what has been the effect on atmospheric CO2 level?

  13. oldbrew says:


    Paris Climate Accord — A Blank Check For CO2 Emissions By China And India

    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 new paper by Law Professor David Campbell (Lancaster University Law School) and published today by the Global Warming Policy Foundation.


    They say ‘new paper’ but it’s dated 2016 😐

  14. oldbrew says:

    Coeur de Lion says: November 6, 2019 at 9:45 am
    The Accord has now been running for four years- what has been the effect on atmospheric CO2 level?
    – – –
    Data from BP, more info here:

  15. oldbrew says:

    Escape from model land
    Posted on October 29, 2019
    by Judith Curry

    The ‘experts’ are currently stymied by the latest round of CMIP6 climate model simulations, where about half of them (so far) have equilibrium climate sensitivity values exceeding 4.7C – well outside the bounds of long-established likely range of 1.5-4.5C.

    – – –
    Excessive heating compared to the real world seems to be a constant theme with these misfiring models – but what are they doing about it? If not much, then surely they have little value beyond propaganda for the climate crisis industry :/

    JC writes:

    My report Climate Models for Laypersons, addressed the issue of fitness for purpose of global climate models for attribution of 20th century global warming:

    “Evidence that the climate models are not fit for the purpose of identifying with high confidence the relative proportions of natural and human causes to the 20th century warming is as follows:

    — substantial uncertainties in equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS)
    — the inability of GCMs to simulate the magnitude and phasing of natural internal variability on decadal-to-century timescales
    — the use of 20th century observations in calibrating/tuning the GCMs
    — the failure of climate models to provide a consistent explanation of the early 20th century warming and the mid-century cooling.”
    – – –
    Re substantial uncertainties in equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) – aka: we have no idea. Is the assumption that there is such a thing even correct?

  16. oldbrew says:

    Delingpole: Obama Dragged U.S. into Paris Climate Accord Illegally, Claims Lawsuit
    6 Nov 2019

    Finally, we may have solved the mystery of how former President Obama managed to drag the U.S. into the Paris Climate Accord – effectively a form of binding international treaty – without the necessary Congressional ratification.

    According to a lawsuit filed Monday, the Obama administration fudged the issue by misrepresenting U.S. Senate instructions set forth in 1992 to pretend that what was a treaty somehow wasn’t a treaty. The implication is that the Obama administration lied in order to railroad through a policy that it feared might get vetoed by Congress.

    The case, brought by the public interest law firm Government Accountability & Oversight, centres on an Obama-era State Department Circular 175 memo.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s