Why the Paris Climate Change Agreement Will Fail

In Paris, In mid-December, after two weeks of talks between 195 countries, ended with an agreement on climate change, there were high-fives and pats on the back for all those politicians, from all those countries that attended the summit.  The media called  it "historic".  CNN proclaimed "The End of Fossil Fuels", as if the world will somehow toss all their gasoline-powered cars to the wayside; commercial jets will find some way to fly without fuel; people will find something other than natural gas to heat their homes and cook their food with; and cement and steel will, I suppose, be created without high-carbon coke as fuel.  Also, somehow, we will figure out how to pave our roads without the asphalt that is a by-product of refining oil.  All before 2030, in order to keep the global temperatures from rising another 1/2 degree Celsius.

Of course, those items mentioned above, and many others, are just many of the impossible hurdles facing the Paris agreement.  Then, there's the toothlessness of the agreement itself.

• The agreeing parties will set their own goals and targets to reduce carbon and "do their best" to implement those reduction targets "as soon as possible".  
• Progress towards the stated targets/goals will be on the honor system with each country self-monitoring its own progress and self-reporting such progress.
• Those failing to meet their goals will be "named and shamed" and, supposedly, spat upon by the world community as a polluter; assuming that each country will honestly report their progress. 
• The 55 dirtiest countries will ante-up $100 billion a year to be handed over to the other 140 of the total 195 participating counties, so they too, can fight climate change.

There you have it; and I'm quite sure that last item was a real crowd pleaser among the 140 countries who are now licking their chops in anticipation of billions of dollars coming their way that will surely be used solely for fighting climate change.  More importantly, this agreement is like having no agreement at all.  Especially since most of the "politicians" involved probably won't be around over the next 15 years of initial commitments.  For sure, Obama and his people won't be around past February 2017 to insure that the U.S.'s progress toward our targets and goals will be met.

But, here's the two biggest reasons that the Paris agreement will fail:  (1) Growing populations and (2) Growing affluence in emerging economies.

Take India for example.  By 2028, India is expected to overtake China in total population.  Also, by 2030, a 2012 BP study projects that automobile ownership in India will grow from just 20% in 2011 to 65% by 2030.  That's just one country and a massive growth in affluence.  China will also see huge growth in automobile ownership; nearly 300% on a per capita basis by 2030. All told, there will be 2 billion cars on the world's roads just 5 years later in 2035; according to a Navigant Research study published last year.  That's a 66% increase in automobile ownership and a presumed growth in affluence in just 21 years.  So, with this in mind, every car sold going forward from today has to be more than 66% more fuel efficient just to keep automobile emissions the same as they are today.  If that's not an impossible task, I don't know what is.

However the growth in affluence doesn't just stop with the world buying more cars. Air travel demand is expected to double by 2035.  And, as a result, emissions from commercial aircraft will substantially increase unless fuel economies are at least halved.  Even so, most of today's aircraft will probably still be flying in 2035.  Just as improving automobile fuel inefficiencies is an impossible task, improving jet liner fuel efficiency would be even more difficult; especially when you consider that many of today's planes (and some cars) will still be operational for the next 15 to 20 years.

Simply, growing populations and even faster growth in affluence will be the downfall of the Paris agreement. The growth in affluence won't just be with cars and air travel.  It will be seen in all other forms of human activity.  There will be larger, better heated, and well lit homes with more electrical appliances, and highly unreliable wind and solar will not be able to keep up with the demand without the assistance of energy produced by fossil fuels.  So much for CNN's "End of Fossil Fuels" folly. Also, do we really think that building nuclear power plants is the solution?  The inherent problems and risks make the choice not a good one.  Just look at the Chernobyl and Fukushima disasters.

In my opinion, the Paris agreement is historic alright.  A historic failure!


References:

2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_United_Nations_Climate_Change_Conference

COP21: Paris climate change deal is end of fossil fuels - CNN.com: http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/12/opinions/sutter-cop21-climate-reaction/ 

India To Overtake China As Largest Populated Nation: https://www.google.com/search?q=2030+population+india&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

India will add more cars than China in 20 years: http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/economy/india-will-add-more-cars-than-china-in-20-years/article2939216.ece

Two billion vehicles projected to be on roads by 2035: http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/In-Gear/2014/0729/Two-billion-vehicles-projected-to-be-on-roads-by-2035

Air travel demand projected to double in 20 years: http://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/flights/2015/06/08/demand-to-fly-will-likely-double-but-industry-may-not-be-ready/28680637/

Obama Calls Cliimate Change An Immediate National Security Risk

Recently, President Obama told the graduating class of Coast Guard cadets that climate change and global warming are immediate risks to our national security.  Well, if that is true, and they truly endanger the security of the U.S., why aren't we at war with India and China over their massive increases in carbon output?

The fact is that, no matter how much we do to control our CO2 output, China and India will easily offset our lowered  levels.

And, I only made that "war" comment to show how ridiculous the President's "national security" argument is. Of course, if he truly believes what he is saying, then maybe we should be at war against the polluters.

References:

Obama: Climate Change an 'Immediate Risk' to National Security: http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/05/20/obama-climate-change-an-immediate-risk-to-national-security

Global CO2 Emissions: Increases Dwarf Recent U.S. Reductions: http://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2013/07/global-co2-emissions-increases-dwarf-recent-u-s-reductions/

U.S. Carbon Dioxide Reductions Outpace Rest of World: http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/u-s-carbon-dioxide-reductions-outpace-rest-world/

Our Futile and Silly Attempts At Reducing Coal Consumption

Talk to any global warming alarmist and they will tell you that coal is, by far, the dirtiest power producer of all.  So, it is only logical that -- in their minds -- the world should abandon this planet-killing form of power production.  However, while the U.S. and Europe are busily forcing coal out of business and out of existence through various forms of legislative actions such as carbon taxes and severe limits on emissions, Asian counties like China and South Asia/India are increasingly producing and consuming more coal than the U.S., Europe, and the rest of the world could possibly eliminate; and, at a very fast rate.  Here is the "worth-a-thousand-words" picture that tells that very story:

Click on image to zoom

With global temperatures flat for 18 years and, at the same time, coal usage exploding in Asia, it is really hard to see the connection between coal consumption and global warming. 

References:

Chart Source: International Business Times: Coal Growing Its Share Of Global Energy Mix Despite World's Greening Efforts: http://www.ibtimes.com/coal-growing-its-share-global-energy-mix-despite-worlds-greening-efforts-1607184

August 2014: Global Temperature Update – Still no global warming for 17 years 10 months: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/02/global-temperature-update-still-no-global-warming-for-17-years-10-months/

Obama Broadly Paints Romney As An Overseas Outsourcer

In a revamp of a previous campaign tactic, Barack Obama has decided to try and turn America against Romney because he outsourced jobs while he was the head of Bain Capital, and as the Governor of Massachusetts.

Politifact has already debunked the Massachusetts claim by calling it a half-truth.  But, I think, given the facts, they're being overly lenient with Obama.  When Romney became its Governor, the State of Massachusetts had already contracted with Citigroup to process debit cards in support of the state's food stamp program.  In setting up customer service support for the program, Citigroup created a call center in India.  This was not unique.  At the time, 43 of our 50 states were involved in outsourcing certain services overseas.  But, let's be clear, neither Romney nor the State of Massachusetts outsourced the jobs to India; the contractor, Citigroup, did. Where the Obama campaign thinks they have Romney on the hook for outsourcing, is in regard to his 2005 veto of a bill that would forbid any state contractors from outsourcing.  Romney did it because the State budget couldn't afford premium, U.S.-only contracts; resulting in millions of extra taxpayer expenses. To anyone's knowledge, no jobs were actually outsourced since the Romney veto. And, the India call center?  It was shutdown in a new contract with jobs outsourced (from Mass.) to Utah.

Now, it is true that some companies that Bain was involved with while Romney was the chief did outsource jobs to both China and India.   But, so did most all of the Fortune 500 companies of this nation.  In fact, Obama's General Motors makes its Chevy Camaro in Canada and the GMC Sierra in Mexico.  And, oh yes,  Obama handed the American Chrysler Corporation over to the Italian company, Fiat. How long do you think it will be before Fiat starts making the most of the Chrysler parts (or, cars) in Italy?

On the Bain/Romney outsourcing, Obama and his surrogates should really back off.  That's because several of Obama's stimulus programs used products and parts that were made in China; and, consequently, created Chinese jobs.  Take, for example, a $2 billion program in the Obama stimulus package to build enough wind farms to support 2.4 million American homes.  The wind turbines, themselves, weren't built here.  Instead, they were built in China; creating 6000 Chinese jobs.  In the U.S., only about a couple of hundred jobs were created in installing all those Chinese-built wind turbines.   So, in essence, Obama, too, is an outsourcer!

The wind turbine story can be found at: http://abcnews.go.com/WN/wind-power-equal-job-power/story?id=9759949#.T-oX8fWDpkg

Pakistan: Friend Or Enemy?

There's an old proverb which states: "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."  But, conversely, one could also say: "The friend of my enemy is no friend of mine."  And, when it comes to our relationship with Pakistan, the latter is surely true.

They proved this when they decided to convict a Pakistani surgeon of treason for his help in allowing us to locate and kill Osama Bin Laden.   This conviction speaks volumes to the fact that Pakistan never wanted us to find him.  Pakistan is not our friend.  The Pakistanis are simply the friends of our enemies: Osama Bin Laden, Al Qaeda, and the Taliban; all of which have found refuge and cover in their country.  The enemy of Pakistan is India.  Just maybe we should hold true to the old "enemy of my enemy" proverb by befriending India.  We could easily do this by rewarding India with the billions in foreign aid that was originally destined for Pakistan.  Maybe, then, Pakistan would stop taking us for granted.

I Was Wrong On Cash For Clunkers

I have to apologize. I thought that the Cash For Clunkers program would fail because I wrongly believed that people wouldn't just run out, in the middle of a recession, and take on new debt and new monthly payments, new higher insurance rates, and new vehicle taxes by trading in their inexpensive and old, yet running, vehicles for a new one that might get them 4 miles-per-gallon over their old clunker's mileage. I guess I was just dead wrong. I guess I was wrong in thinking that people would have learned their "debt" lessons of the past year-and-a-half and kept their money for the important things in life like paying off their mortgages or their credit card bills. But, I guess I was stupid. The Congress was right and they knew that people just couldn't help themselves when the government decides to almost dump money out of helicopters over their heads. Recession? What recession? Lose my job? You've got to be kidding me?

But, the program was so wildly successful that the 250,000 clunkers are now off the road in just 4 days; using up a billion dollars in taxpayer money. Of course, the intelligentsia of our Democratic Congress thought this program would really take up to 4 months to eat up a billion dollars. Boy, were they wrong! I guess, based on experience, they thought this program would be as slow as the Stimulus Package that they had passed, earlier this year.

When you think about, you've really got to wonder what all these clunker-traders are really smoking.

First off, I would hope that the car that they are trading in has a resale value that is "less" than $3,500 or, really, they are getting screwed. Of course, this is if the new car that they are buying is 4 miles per gallon better than the old one that they are clunking. A resale value of $4500 would have to apply if there is a 10 mile-per-gallon differential. The $3500 or $4500 is all they are going to get on their trade-in because, under the conditions of the Cash For Clunkers program, the dealers are legally obligated to destroy all the trade-ins; once the sale is done. They will not be able to resell them and get any profit from the car that is being traded in. Of course, the "clunkier" the car that you are trading in, the better off you are in making the deal. After all, if your piece of s**t is only worth $1000 dollars on a normal trade, you just got a $2500 or $3500 gift from Uncle Sam; depending on the mileage differential. If your car was worth $3500 or more in value as a trade, you literally got screwed by our Congress.

Secondly, I would hope that these "new car" owners are prepared for the future shock of all the new costs that are associated with their new, government-subsidized car. That $3500 or $4500 clunker that they just traded in was probably paid for. My guess is that the new car will put these owners in hock for monthly payments that are in excess of $250 a month for the next 5 years. And, then there's all the taxes and the higher insurance rates. Didn't we get into this recession because people took on too much debt?

As a result of how successful this program has been, our Congress is now in the process of allocating another $2 billion to extend the program. In effect, and assuming they get Senate approval for another $2 billion extension, there will be a total of 750,000 old and perfectly running cars that will be destroyed and taken off the road as a result of this program. The impact of that fact won't be known for awhile. But, our Congress has unwittingly created a reduced inventory shortage of nearly a million used cars in America. Given the law of supply and demand, this newly reduced supply means that the average used car will be more costly in the future. This is inflationary and the people most hurt by this will be the poor who can't hardly afford to buy a new, fuel efficient car. But, thank God, we saved the planet by shearing off 4 miles-per-gallon on almost 1 out of every 240 cars on the road. Never mind the fact that first-time new car sales in both China and India ate up the CO2 savings of this country's Cash for Clunkers program in, probably, just a few hours of one day.

As I said before in this blog, the Cash For Clunkers is bogus program. Much of what is being done will just be a benefit to those who were already going to buy a new car. What's worse, it may have pushed people into irresponsibly buying a new car that they really cannot afford. Further, the amount of CO2 savings is minimal' at best. And, lastly, the poor of America will ultimately pay for this program in higher used car pricing in the future. Only people, like the Democrats in Congress, who don't understand business, would do something so stupid and, then, repeat their own stupidity with another $2 billion program.