Warmist Institute Admits That An Effective Climate Agreement In 2015 Is Not Likely

What little science there ever was behind man made global warming has been shown to be wrong, yet the Green political machine still thunders on.

More bad news for warming alarmist central, this time from a pillar of the Church of Climatology, the Norway based Center for International Climate and Environmental Research (Cicero).

A report by Cicero has concluded that the chances of an effective international treaty being signed in 2015, are about as likely as the Arctic being ice free in 2012, or was it 2020?

The world is actually further away from a climate deal than it was 16 years ago when the Kyoto Protocol was adopted, decades of the annual UN Climate Circus have achieved nothing it is against this background that the Cicero researchers decided to try an ascertain what an effective climate agreement would consist of.

Their findings are really bad news for the UN backed AGW boondoggle:

According to a group of Norwegian researchers, the prospects for achieving an effective international climate treaty are poor. The measures that are politically feasible are ineffective and the measures that would be effective are politically infeasible.

As with all bad news the Greens sweep it under the carpet with scarcely a murmur and continue with optimistic wish projection about what Ban Ki-Moon’s toothless climate summit will achieve, as a precursor to the climate agreement the whole world is allegedly expecting from COP21 in 2015.

Professor John Hovi led the project which identified 3 key components of a robust climate agreement:

1. It must encompass all key countries, i.e., all major emitters of greenhouse gases.

2. It must require each member country to cut its emissions substantially.

3. The member countries must comply with their commitments.

History has shown that not all countries ratified the Kyoto Protocol, others failed to make the promised cuts, in politically correct Green speak this is called free riding:

The researchers have outlined five types of free riding:

Some countries never ratified the Kyoto Protocol (e.g. USA).

Some countries ratified but later withdrew from the agreement (e.g. Canada).

The developing countries ratified the Kyoto Protocol, but without assuming any substantial commitments.

The countries of Eastern Europe ratified the Kyoto Protocol, but at no cost as the transition from a centrally planned economy to a market economy inherently entailed drastic cuts in emissions.

It is also conceivable that some of the countries which agreed to take on relatively deep commitments under the Kyoto Protocol failed to completely fulfil these commitments.

The final figures for compliance are not yet available.

So the voluntary system does not work, so the only answer is the usual Green appeal to authority:

“Free riding must be met with concrete sanctions. This was not the case when the US refused to take part in the Kyoto Protocol, for example. Canada’s withdrawal from the treaty also entailed no repercussions. The question is what type of enforcement could conceivably work and, if such a system exists, would it be politically possible to implement it,” Dr Hovi states.

Such a system would be politically impossible to implement for as a long as the democratic process remains, the Greens and environmentalists know that democracy will always stop their scam. That is why from the top down the warming alarmists frequently try to make a case for the temporary suspension of democracy to save us from ourselves.

Advertisement