Paris Panic: Governments Fail to Meet Their Climate Commitments, and Some Are Getting Farther Away

Published March 25, 2021

Political leaders and media personalities are fond of saying climate change poses an existential threat to humans and the planet. The weight of scientific evidence doesn’t support this oft-made claim, and national governments around the globe seem to acknowledge this by their actions.

Despite what is reported almost daily in the mainstream media, data from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration show no increase in extreme weather events as the Earth has modestly warmed over the past 150 years. In fact, the IPCC and NOAA data show cases of extreme cold spells, droughts, floodsheat waves, hurricanestornadoes, and wildfires have all declined modestly or remained relatively stable since the late 1870s.

Despite these irrefutable facts, leaders from nations around the world have signed multiple international agreements, the latest being the 2015 Paris climate agreement, intended to avert a supposedly pending climate disaster.

The problem is their actions, both as individuals and as shown by the policies they enact as government leaders, don’t match their words.

When President Joe Biden’s climate envoy, former U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, flies around the world on a private jet spewing tens of thousands of pounds of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, to accept awards for his climate leadership or to meetings where he calls for restricting average peoples’ air travel through an international tax on airline emissions, his claim he is concerned about the fate of the Earth rings hollow. Former President Barack Obama’s assertions that climate change will soon swamp coastlines and small islands seem equally insincere when one discovers that after leaving office he bought ocean-front property on a small island only inches above sea level.

It’s bad when political leaders’ personal hypocrisy on climate change is on full public display. It’s even worse when they sign treaties agreeing to restrict emissions from their countries, only to go home and enact policies that increase emissions. The U.N. reports this is precisely what world leaders are doing. Most countries are putting domestic economic growth ahead of the continued existence of a livable planet, the U.N. says.

A recent U.N. report on progress toward meeting the commitments governments made to reduce emissions in the Paris climate agreement says countries are failing to hit their targets. In this regard, the Paris climate accord is no different from past agreements, such as the 1997 Kyoto Protocol and the 1992 U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, in which countries also agreed to cut emissions by certain dates and blithely watched those dates come and go with their emissions still increasing.

Arguably, nowhere has Thomas Hobbes’ observation in The Leviathan that “covenants, without the sword, are but words” proven truer than with international climate agreements.

As of February 26, the U.N. says only 75 of the more than 190 countries that have ratified the Paris climate agreement have tendered firm commitments and detailed plans to cut emissions, despite having committed to deliver those plans by 2020. Most of the nations submitting such plans are developing countries, which account for less than 30 percent of global greenhouse emissions. Even there, the U.N. says, “the level of ambition … indicates that changes in these countries’ total emissions would be small, less than -1%, in 2030 compared to 2010 … [whereas the] IPCC, by contrast, has indicated that emission reduction ranges to meet the 1.5°C temperature goal should be around -45% in 2030 compared to 2010.”

Whether by large emitters or small, Paris climate commitments are insufficient to meet the target, and even those limited commitments are falling to the realities of nations putting poverty reduction and economic growth (rightly, in my opinion) ahead of climate action, which of necessity restricts energy use and economic progress.

Let’s look at some examples. India is the world’s third-largest greenhouse gas emitter (although for IPCC purposes, India counts as the fourth-largest emitter because the nations composing the European Union demanded they be counted as a single country). Under the Paris agreement, India did not pledge to cut its emissions, promising instead to reduce emissions intensity (emissions as a percentage of GDP). As a result, the U.N. observes, “with current energy targets and policies, [India’s] emissions are projected to keep increasing (by 24-25 percent above 2019 levels in 2030) and show no signs of peaking, in particular due to the lack of a policy to transition away from coal. Such an increase of emissions is not consistent with the Paris Agreement.”

Seventy percent of India’s electric power today is generated by burning coal, and the country is opening or expanding 32 new coal mines and dozens of new coal-fueled power plants. India’s most recent estimate is its use of coal for energy will increase by 40 percent by 2030.

The news is even worse out of China, the world’s biggest emitter. At approximately 25 percent of the world’s emissions, China’s carbon dioxide output is already approximately double that of the United States. China vaguely indicated it expects its carbon dioxide emissions to peak by 2030. That was its Paris climate commitment. Peak at what level, is the question?

Even stopping the increases by 2030 may be difficult: China’s recently released five-year plan for economic development includes no cut in coal use. It would be surprising if it did. In recent years, China has brought dozens of new, large coal-fueled power plants on line and has hundreds more in various stages of construction, development, and planning, in China itself and across Africa, the rest of Asia, and the Middle East.

Meanwhile, China is disincentivizing new wind and solar construction, which the National Energy Administration (NEA) referred to as “unreliables.” The NEA has told provinces they will be allowed to auction off grid capacity for new wind and solar projects, provided one-third of the contracts are reserved for developers willing to forgo money China’s government currently owes them for previously developed wind and solar power facilities. In addition, under NEA’s new policy, winning bidders will be limited to a fixed rate for the power produced by new facilities.

Even Argentina, a relatively small emitter, will have trouble squaring its development goals with its Paris climate commitment. At a recent conference, President Alberto Fernandez said Argentina had a “true conviction” to reach net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. Rigzone notes, “to get there, it will have to get a fifth of its energy from renewables by 2025, up from about 10 percent now.” Meanwhile, at Argentina’s Vaca Muerta shale deposit—far from the limelight of international climate conferences—Fernandez announced the government was doubling down on fossil fuels.: “Today we are relaunching the oil and gas economy,” he said, starting with $5 billion in government subsidies to develop shale fields.

The bottom line, according to the U.N., is unless countries large and small significantly step up their efforts and make real, as opposed to paper, emission reductions, the world is doomed. Although I think the evidence shows no climate apocalypse is on the way, the U.N. says otherwise, and all the countries in the Paris agreement say they agree.

In the end, governments are genuflecting to the climate gods while carrying on with the day-to-day business of putting their people to work and growing their economies. Economic growth is necessary to keep the masses from rioting, and it necessarily entails growing energy use, including fossil fuels. Simultaneously, in the background, political elites are accruing ever-more power and control over peoples’ lives, which is what the climate scare is and always has been really all about.

—    H. Sterling Burnett

SOURCES: United Nations; Climate Realism; Gizmodo; Rigzone; EnergyWorld; The New Indian Express




When Donald Trump was president, Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro followed a path similar to Trump’s, staking out a climate realist position that put Brazilian economic development ahead of expensive, futile actions to prevent the climate from changing. As Eric Worrell wrote on Watts Up With That, “Brazil[‘s] government [in this case Foreign Minister Ernesto Araújo] once described climate action as a ‘Marxist Conspiracy.’ … [Bolsonaro] had developed a close alignment with former US President Donald Trump and shared his disdain for climate change issues and international accords.”

Things changed with Joe Biden’s ascension to the U.S. presidency. In an online presentation to the Council of the Americas hemispheric business forum, Araújo said, “Something that was regarded as an impediment … is totally out of the way. We are now working together … as key partners towards a successful COP26 and fully implementing climate agreements.”

Specifically, Araújo said Brazil was looking to partner with the United States to promote “democracy and prosperity” while fighting climate change. All this partnership will evidently require is cash leaving the United States and flying down to Rio. Brazil wants the Biden administration to pay it to stop deforestation and keep the Amazon’s carbon sink intact.

Brett Bruen, former President Barack Obama’s director of global engagement, thinks this is a great idea and that Biden will get on board. In an interview with Business Insider, Bruen said,

International influence isn’t something that comes cheap—even when you’re a super power.

America’s badly blemished brand will only begin to get better if the government dedicates a massive amount of money to addressing the challenge. This is not even a one-billion-dollar problem. We are talking tens and probably even hundreds of billions. Despite the considerable price tag, it is both necessary and worth the extraordinary expense.

That’s an awfully expensive rebranding effort.

In the end, just as Trump was all about putting America First, Bolsanaro is putting Brazil’s interests first. With Biden in office, the geopolitical winds have changed, and Bolsonaro sees an opportunity for Brazil to get money from the United States. If Brazil makes some gestures toward fighting climate change, Bolsonaro is probably right to think the Biden administration is an easy mark. For the Brazilian government, though the policies change, the goal is the same: putting Brazil first. That’s the smart way to run a country.

SOURCES: Watts Up With That; SBS News


The $13 billion cannabis industry is big business in the United States. A recent study by researchers at Colorado State University (CSU) shows the cannabis business is also a large and growing source of greenhouse gas emissions.

Conducting a life-cycle analysis of the energy and materials used by indoor cannabis growers, the CSU researchers found greenhouse gas emissions from cannabis production are large and increasing, resulting primarily from the massive amount of electricity and natural gas used for indoor environmental controls, high-intensity grow lights, and the use of carbon dioxide to accelerate and enhance plant growth.

The study, published in Nature Sustainability, found pot growers’ greenhouse gas emissions, although large everywhere, vary quite a bit because of differences in the climate where the warehouses and greenhouses are located and the source of electric power generation. The researchers produced an interactive map showing relative emissions across the United States, defined as emissions per kilogram of cannabis.

Their research shows U.S. indoor cannabis cultivation results in life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of between 2,283 and 5,184 kilograms of carbon dioxide per kilogram of dried flower.

Putting this in perspective, CSU’s team estimates the greenhouse gas emissions associated with growing one ounce of cannabis indoors are about the same as burning seven to 16 gallons of gasoline, depending on where in the United States the cannabis is grown. Colorado’s booming pot industry emits more than 2.6 megatons of carbon dioxide per year, exceeding the 1.8 megatons from the state’s coal mining industry.

I would wager the vast majority of people growing and consuming marijuana and pushing its legalization wholeheartedly embrace climate alarmism and blame oil companies for killing the Earth. If many of the same people pushing for climate restrictions, grow, use, and push for the legalization of pot produced by the spewing of greenhouse gases, is it irony, or hypocrisy? Before this report, these pot proponents’ posturing might have been considered uninformed. If they don’t change their behavior now so that their actions match their words, it’s simply bad faith—and a bad trip.

SOURCE:; Smithsonian

The Climate Change Weekly Newsletter has been moved to Please check there for future updates!