Globalist eco-progressives getting pretty excited about their prospects for that 2015 global climate treaty

posted at 1:01 pm on March 1, 2014 by Erika Johnsen

With their undying preferences for problem-solving via top-down, forcibly collectivized “expert” action that reliably leads to mutual impoverishment — rather than the bottom-up innovations and efficiencies that can both conserve and enrich — the ultra-progressive and self-proclaimed “green” international bureaucratic set is getting pretty excited about their chances to finally get everyone to come together for their ever-elusive endgame, The Global Climate Treaty. The United Nations has been pushing for a gigantically redistributive and economically self-flagellating treaty on behalf of global warming for eons, and now they have their sights specifically set on a big meeting that’s happening in Paris in 2015 — and a report that was released to much fanfare on Thursday has them all heartily slapping themselves on the back. Via Reuters:

An explosion in the number of laws passed around the world aimed at confronting climate change in the last 20 years was hailed on Thursday as a step toward building support for a United Nations climate treaty to be negotiated in 2015.

Countries that together account for most global greenhouse gas emissions have passed nearly 500 laws since the Kyoto Protocol climate treaty was signed in 1992, with emerging economies leading many of the recent efforts, according to a report released by the Global Legislators Organisation (GLOBE) and the Grantham Research Institute at the London School of Economics. …

The U.N. climate treaty to be negotiated next year is expected to consist of pledges of specific actions, or “contributions,” from nearly 200 countries, aimed at reducing greenhouse gases. …

Others at the report’s launch, including House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, said that with the U.S. House now controlled by Republicans and the Senate run by Democrats, efforts at legislation are likely to be stymied by policy gridlock.

An excellent point, Leader Pelosi, if disingenuously made: Our divided Congress does essentially mean that Americans are unwilling to go merrily along with whatever cockamamie scheme the powers that be at the United Nations can come up with — but hey, there’s an executive action for that! In keeping with their feeble go-it-alone strategy, the Obama administration is reportedly looking at ways to abide by the potential terms of the hoped-for treaty without the requisite Senate ratification. Via the NJ:

It’s possible that 2015 United Nations climate talks in Paris could produce a global agreement structured in a manner that does not need Senate ratification. …

“We don’t know yet what governments are going to decide, but it is very clear that they will have to find some way to have a draft in Paris that will be robust, that will give certainty, and that will be politically digestible in all countries,” Figueres, the executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, told reporters on the sidelines of a Capitol Hill event on this study.

…Riiiiiiight.

I think we probably need to step back and get a few things straight here. First of all, I don’t know that there’s much that President Obama could or would do via executive action that would accomplish the kind of sweeping, ahem, “reform” that the United Nations is looking for, on the level of carbon taxes and giant mandated renewable portfolios or making climate reparations or what have you. More importantly, however — whether it is via executive action or Senate ratification — what exactly is to stop the United States or any country from reneging on the terms of this lofty agreement when they inevitably figure out that it’s a costly, inefficient, and ineffective boondoggle? What is going to prevent a new U.S. president, Republican or Democrat, from immediately nixing the whole thing, especially if it was done via the executive branch? I might also add that Canada withdrew from the Kyoto protocol when they realized it was getting in the way of their prosperity; Germany was among the first to reach their Kyoto targets, and now their Energiewende is spinning out of control from overly pricey electricity, impractical renewables, and the coal plants currently coming online to fill the gap; and meanwhile, the United States didn’t even sign the Kyoto treaty, but has been achieving cleaner skies through the very same fracking technologies that so many self-styled environmentalists unconditionally abhor.

What I’m ultimately getting at here is the utter futility of trying to scaremonger everyone on the globe into agreeing to act against their economic and financial best interests as your main policy strategy, and I’m going to point you to two pieces for some further Saturday reading: First, to Ed Rogers at the Washington Post on the conundrum of “The Prudent Rational.” Few things get my goat more than liberals who lump all people who don’t automatically prescribe to the 98 PERCENT OF CLIMATE EXPERTS AGREE WE MUST IMMEDIATELY STOP USING FOSSIL FUELS OR WE’RE ALL GOING TO DIE BECAUSE THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED way of thinking into the category of knuckle-dragging, flat-earther “climate deniers.” It’s frustrating, considering that most people are not in fact “deniers” but will readily acknowledge that of course climate change is a thing. Planet earth is not and never has been a stable environment, and yes, the climate may very well be getting warmer at the moment — but is this cause for quite so much hysteria? The entire green movement is so thoroughly based off of reactionary emotionalism and bureaucratic control that they actually alienate would-be listeners and discredit themselves in the process, getting in the way of real-world solutions and causing the gridlock they claim to loathe so much.

Second, to Holman Jenkins at the WSJ, because the state of the green movement that he describes is an almost exquisitely painful facepalm for the ages. Oof.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

There’s only one way to stop this nonsense, as far as this country goes, and that’s to get a Republican House and Senate in such strength they can actually stop Obama and not just yell louder than they are now.

These people never stop. Every day its one thing right after the other. I think they feel with the last two elections they felt they had carte blanche to do anything they want. The only way to shut them up is to win, win big, and say NO MORE.

bflat879 on March 1, 2014 at 1:08 PM

Bishop

307wolverine on March 1, 2014 at 1:09 PM

There will be tasty treats and unattractive delegates of both sexes may get lucky. So they have that going for them in ’15.

BL@KBIRD on March 1, 2014 at 1:15 PM

There will be no eco treaty.

Putin has just seen to that.

Skywise on March 1, 2014 at 1:17 PM

Dream on, dream until your dream comes… true.

John the Libertarian on March 1, 2014 at 1:21 PM

Globalist eco-progressives getting pretty excited about their prospects for that 2015 global climate treaty

Um, nutjobs, doesn’t the Senate ratify treaties? And isn’t there a little thing called “2014″ that comes before 2015?

M240H on March 1, 2014 at 1:22 PM

So they show their concern for carbon emissions by flying 200 delegations to Paris? Who thinks they can crack a hundred million dollars spent for this conference? I mean all in, including booze, drugs and hookers? Ain’t no party like a UN party!

trubble on March 1, 2014 at 1:33 PM

2016 Senate race has a lot of vulnerable Republicans. With a switch in the House majority, at some point, and Hillary as president,….you see where this goes. We’re always going to be one or two steps away from disaster on this. The true believers are never gonna give up on climate change.

butch on March 1, 2014 at 1:33 PM

I am personally at the point with the UN where I would be down with expelling the whole body out of their buildings in NYC. YOu are going to propose things that are going to screw us to the benefit of some crapistan country then you can have your assembly in those crapistan countries.

Leopard1996 on March 1, 2014 at 1:36 PM

I am personally at the point with the UN where I would be down with expelling the whole body out of their buildings in NYC. YOu are going to propose things that are going to screw us to the benefit of some crapistan country then you can have your assembly in those crapistan countries.

Leopard1996 on March 1, 2014 at 1:36 PM

I’m all for that. Since they are the “United Nations”, let them go be united in some other country … Nigeria would be good. I’d bet that we’d save a lot of money by moving them out of NY. I’d bet we’d save even more money by not even funding the UN – more than $5 billion in 2005.

majorzot on March 1, 2014 at 1:46 PM

Climate Change is similar to Communism in that both ideologies require “scientific” consensus without dissent.

OBEY

mjbrooks3 on March 1, 2014 at 1:48 PM

When these Warmmongers stop flying to exotic locales on the taxpayers dime to do their scaremongering and setup virtual conferences instead, then I might start to believe them.

p0s3r on March 1, 2014 at 1:49 PM

Leopard1996 on March 1, 2014 at 1:36 PM

majorzot on March 1, 2014 at 1:46 PM

I’d settle letting them have Midway Island. We’ll toss in some tents to get’em started.

BobMbx on March 1, 2014 at 1:56 PM

Hmmm, last I looked, Ukraine was a UN member, as is Russia.

And last I looked, there were treaties that both are theoretically bound by that create problems if one invades the other.

So why is there nothing about that, and so much about the Eco-freaks?

northdallasthirty on March 1, 2014 at 1:57 PM

The AGW NAZIs are always on the march.

jukin3 on March 1, 2014 at 2:05 PM

Globalist eco-progressives getting pretty excited about their prospects for that 2015 global climate treaty

…I’m tired of their wet dreams!

KOOLAID2 on March 1, 2014 at 2:05 PM

But..but…but Al Gore said the North Pole would be ice-free by now. And…and…and polar bears are DYING! And don’t forget all those Katrinas……..

GarandFan on March 1, 2014 at 2:09 PM

Two words :

1) – Maurice

2) – Strong

listens2glenn on March 1, 2014 at 2:43 PM

There is a “memorandum of understanding” between Ukraine, the USA, and I believe the EU from years ago, committing us to Ukraine’s territorial integrity. I don’t think it was a formal treaty, but allowing Russian interference clearly violates our word and diminishes American prestige even further.

Of course, for President Sissyboy McStompypants, diminishing our prestige and influence in the world is a feature, not a bug.

Adjoran on March 1, 2014 at 2:48 PM

Global Hoaxial Warming

Brock Robamney on March 1, 2014 at 2:59 PM

“First of all, I don’t know that there’s much that President Obama could or would do via executive action that would accomplish the kind of sweeping, ahem, “reform” that the United Nations is looking for”

Well there is one thing, have the EPA fast track anyone that wishes to put up nuclear power plants. Make the construction of nuclear power plants one of our top priorities. That would do more in real terms in cutting co2 emissions then anything else they propose. It should be a no brainier.

lowandslow on March 1, 2014 at 3:18 PM

It’s frustrating, considering that most people are not in fact “deniers” but will readily acknowledge that of course climate change is a thing.

Yes but denialists (or “deniers, if you will) are very selective in what they choose to put their belief in. And they think that they know more than experts who have spent their lives acquiring their skills and plying their trades.

Sure experts can be wrong, and absolutely the science is not “settled”. But that’s true of all human endeavors at getting at the truth. You go with the best available knowledge and technology. Were Gore and Kerry (among others) justified in declaring the science to be “settled”? Absolutely not.

So “deniers” have one way of looking at the issue, and framing all they hear and see within the way they would like things to turn out (hey, I don’t want global warming and associated climate change either, but just because I don’t like it, that doesn’t mean that such doesn’t exist).

Now, skeptics, that’s a completely different matter. We need skeptics in the debate. Always. But there seem to be fewer and fewer of them all the time. They generally acknowledge the consensus (such as the darling of denialists Richard Muller) or – rarely – become completely close-minded.

As for me, I’ll be glad to entertain theories as to why we’ve had the warming that Ms. Johnsen admits we’ve had. But they have to be theories that are underpinned with modern understandings of how things operate in the natural world. For years denialists looked me in the eye and promised that the warming evident in the nineties would reverse when the sun went into a minimum. And the sun went into a minimum and the temperatures (still today) continue to rise as a global average.

Planet earth is not and never has been a stable environment, and yes, the climate may very well be getting warmer at the moment — but is this cause for quite so much hysteria?

True, but climate changes for reasons. The earth doesn’t just decide to run a fever on a whim. And there’s no good reason to doubt that humans – the 7.3 thousand million of us – can’t have an effect on the natural environments of the planet.

As for the “hysteria”, I would say “what hysteria”? I’m trying to find that “hysteria”. I go outside and everyone (including me) is driving our 300 HP cars while we leave our lights on inside at home. I see happy folks going about their daily business, planning for the future.

In fact, the only “hysteria” I see is articles like this one of Ms. Johnsen’s that bubble forth with panic attacks that result when their belief and data don’t seem to mesh. Scientists, speaking in a scientific voice, don’t express personal beliefs.

And for the record, Ms. Johnsen, I don’t think that those treaties and the UN are worth anything either.

oakland on March 1, 2014 at 3:18 PM

I can see it now.
Republicans capture the Senate in 2014!
RINOs seeking MSM approval vote to accept climate treaty in 2015
Republican voters puzzled again

philw1776 on March 1, 2014 at 3:21 PM

These guys are getting nervous; more and more people are seeing through the baloney. Go back 10-15 years and most models predicted temperatures much higher than we see today…a reason to rethink the initial conjecture? No, instead cue the professional excuse-making in order to save face, and just as importantly, keep the grant money rolling. Maybe the 1970s idea of an ice age will reemerge as people grow more uninterested.

Parting thought: I live near a lake that was once a glacier; it became a lake before humans…How could that have ever happened without AGW?

Entrephil on March 1, 2014 at 3:58 PM

Oakland you’re a parrot…by the way is “whim” a scientific term?
Really one day you’ll think for yourself. I hope for you that day comes soon.

A leaked report to the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) seen by the Mail on Sunday, has led some scientists to claim that the world is heading for a period of cooling that will not end until the middle of this century.

CWchangedhisNicagain on March 1, 2014 at 4:02 PM

As for the “hysteria”, I would say “what hysteria”? I’m trying to find that “hysteria”. I go outside and everyone (including me) is driving our 300 HP cars while we leave our lights on inside at home. I see happy folks going about their daily business, planning for the future.

…..
oakland on March 1, 2014 at 3:18 PM

Huh? Every where I go it is colder than it was last year.

Take your anecdotal shite and shove it.

CWchangedhisNicagain on March 1, 2014 at 4:03 PM

oakland on March 1, 2014 at 3:18 PM

*head ——–>desk*

98ZJUSMC on March 1, 2014 at 4:10 PM

oakland-

Former Greenpeace Official to Senate Panel: ‘No Scientific Proof’ of Human-Caused Global Warming

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2014/02/28/former-greenpeace-official-senate-panel-no-scientific-proof-human-caused#ixzz2ukT0jrXs

CWchangedhisNicagain on March 1, 2014 at 4:24 PM

Correct me if I am wrong, but hasn’t every big Climate Conference in the last 15 years had a huge build-up of expectations, with thousands flocking to it, only to have them wind up utter and complete failures? And haven’t most industrialized countries – Canada, Australia, Germany, Spain, Portugal, Italy, et al actively moved away from their environmental commitments when faced with costs that have no benefits?

Call me a skeptic, but I think the build-up is so that their plush travel budgets get approved and they have their two week elbow knocking parties where they sip their wine and pooh pooh the uneducated masses back home. Such a crock.

GlobalTrvlr on March 1, 2014 at 4:57 PM

oakland on March 1, 2014 at 3:18 PM

There are many scientific responses to your point — all quantitative. If you care to become educated, read up on what current regressions show the “climate sensitivity” to be. The alarmist projections assume a climate sensitivity significantly above what has been observed.

There is another term for the people you call “denialists.” It’s “empiricists.”

However, a better argument was made above — before your clueless post.

When these Warmmongers stop flying to exotic locales on the taxpayers dime to do their scaremongering and setup virtual conferences instead, then I might start to believe them.

p0s3r on March 1, 2014 at 1:49 PM

Unless the global temperature data starts to cooperate with the “consensus” projections (and soon), you guys are in deep kimchi. This whole thing could be “studied” the way Piltdown man is “studied.”

You got less than 6 years. In January 2020, the 2010-2019 decade will be compared to the 2000-2009 decade and the similarity in temps will be big news.

Pythagoras on March 1, 2014 at 5:10 PM

These guys are getting nervous; more and more people are seeing through the baloney. Go back 10-15 years and most models predicted temperatures much higher than we see today…a reason to rethink the initial conjecture? No, instead cue the professional excuse-making in order to save face, and just as importantly, keep the grant money rolling. Maybe the 1970s idea of an ice age will reemerge as people grow more uninterested.

Parting thought: I live near a lake that was once a glacier; it became a lake before humans…How could that have ever happened without AGW?

Entrephil on March 1, 2014 at 3:58 PM

Look at this article:

Has anyone alerted Mr. Steyer to the imminent threat of a New Ice Age? I get a finder’s fee.

de rigueur on March 1, 2014 at 3:36 PM

Here are two from the list of solutions to the threat of an ice age from that article:

-Outlawing the internal combustion engine and outlawing or strict control over all forms of combustion.
-Possibly even population controls, the number of children per family prescribed and punishment for exceeding the limit.

Sounds familiar? The opposite problem, yet the same solution.

slickwillie2001 on March 1, 2014 at 5:10 PM

So how much economic damage resulting in how many people starving to death is it worth to have the globe warm up 1 degree Celsius in 110 years instead of 100? Can I get a count of the number we need to have die due to this plan?

Even presuming that CO2 is the issue, and all the scaremongering is true; I’m still not on board. The solutions won’t reduce CO2 by a meaningful amount, but WILL result in a death toll to make any psychopathic ruler in history (or all of them put together) look like pikers.

Would a billion people slake the environmentalists thirst for blood?

That would be the largest genocidal act in the history of the world, for a minimal gain… would that be sufficient? Or would they still demand more blood be sacrificed to their goddess?

I’m just trying to figure out how many people we need to have die to do something that won’t actually solve the problem, or even reduce the problem by more than a small margin.

I guess I’m not a good environmentalist, I don’t want to see billions die due to my actions for no meaningful gain.

gekkobear on March 1, 2014 at 5:43 PM

Globalist eco-progressives getting pretty excited about their prospects for that 2015 global climate treaty

Yeah, like Communism is “dead”, for the umpteenth time we have a post here about how the Global Warming/Climate Change scam is dead, but yet again, heeeere it is.

There is no such thing as good news from these creeps, and there never will be again…and it won’t matter if an “R” is behind their name.

Get used to it. Adjust. Plan accordingly.

Dr. ZhivBlago on March 1, 2014 at 8:43 PM

Well there is one thing, have the EPA fast track anyone that wishes to put up nuclear power plants. Make the construction of nuclear power plants one of our top priorities. That would do more in real terms in cutting co2 emissions then anything else they propose. It should be a no brainier.

lowandslow on March 1, 2014 at 3:18 PM

Another thing government can do is fast-track anyone that want to build a natural-gas fired power plant. With all the gas available from fracking, it’s getting cheaper than coal and emits half the CO2 per megawatt produced.

Unfortunately, the EPA produced a “rule” in 2010 that prevents the permitting of gas- or coal-fired power plants. The only no-brainers are in the Obysmal Administration.

But look on the bright, white side. All that global warming falling from the sky is providing lots of shovel-ready jobs!

Steve Z on March 1, 2014 at 9:08 PM

Noticeably missing from the discussion, the largest carbon polluter, China, and it merry up & coming twin, India. Without these two, any climate treaty is thinner than piss on a rock.

J_Crater on March 2, 2014 at 12:27 PM

Give a heave ho to the U.N. Its time has come and gone.

geezerintraining on March 2, 2014 at 6:35 PM