I suppose that it is good that 190 countries meet on climate and try and reduce carbon emissions , not withstanding the increased carbon emissions in holding the conference in the first place. But tis a bit unreal isn’t it?
According to the Wall Street Journal to meet the goals set out by the so called scientists all fossil fuel generation would have to come to zero by 2050. Are you kidding me? China and India are still building the Coal plants. Coal production increased in the last five years. Germany has had to open some because of their nuclear power plant reduction. And what happens to all the conversion from coal and oil to natural gas? Natural gas is a fossil fuel.
You mean it will all be solar panels, wind farms , and some nuclear where it is allowed. What about the cars, ships The planes? The whole earth will be an exaggerated Ontario , California, or Spain . But aren’t these places essentially bankrupt?
Don’t these people attending such conferences ever realize the bubble in which they live? And then to take incredulity to utter foolishness all the plans to reach the goals are voluntary. Oh, yes . Not binding. So each nation goes home and trys to develope a plan . But it’s not a binding plan. Lots of luck with that . You see Obama could never get a binding one with financial commitment through Congress . So voluntary it must be. Now he will try and bypass Congress, something he seems to revel in doing.
So , in our case the Federal Government , now projecting deficits for years , no one really knows how many , how long, will have to sit down with the Provinces and work up some plan . It will cost more money. All the Provinces show deficits coming into this year and beyond and have long term debts. Think the Provinces are going to do this without more money from the Feds , who don’t have any ?
Oh, there are provisions in the agreement that any country can opt out after three years. You mean all this talk for years, all this talk in Paris , and their commitment is so stong that any country that is a signatory to the agreement can just cancel if they so choose after three years? Think I am exaggerating?
Here is the last draft of the Agreement I read:
Article 25 (WITHDRAWAL)
1. At any time after three years from the date on which this Agreement has entered into force for a Party, that Party may withdraw from this Agreement by giving written notification to the Depositary.
2. Any such withdrawal shall take effect upon expiry of [one year from the date of receipt by the Depositary of the notification of withdrawal][the then current mitigation commitment of that Party, the Party having discharged all of its duties connected to this commitment], or on such later date as may be specified in the notification of withdrawal.
3. Any Party that withdraws from the Convention shall be considered as also having withdrawn from this Agreement.
To do injustice to Kipling , but nevertheless less use him, I quote a line from his poem ‘If’.
‘If You Can Dream , And Not Make Dreams Your Master———–.’
Sheer Fantasy Globally Displayed.