The Futility of the Paris Climate Talks

Starting on November 30th, world leaders convened in Paris at the behest of the United Nations to come to some agreements on countering Climate Change.  The semi-stated goals of those talks are as follows:

• Reduce green houses gases by 20 to 45% by 2030.
• Agree to limit global temperatures to no more than 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels by 2030.
• Wealthy countries should agree to redistribute $100 billion of their own wealth a year to poorer countries so they can contribute to the fight in global warming.

So, that's all that's needed to save the world!

The problem with the above is that it contradicts past statements made by the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which is made up of 2000 scientists.  As reported by the SFGATE.com -- one of the San Francisco Chronicle's online news sites -- the IPCC believed the following 11 years ago:

• It's already too late to stop extreme global warming because it would take 50 to 100 years to reverse the amount of CO2 already in our atmosphere.
• To avoid extreme global warming, the world must act now by reducing CO2 levels by 50% to 70%.
• A 2 degree Celsius rise would cause extreme and catastrophic weather events throughout the world.
• A new focus should be on preparing the world on the inevitability of our global warming fate.

Obviously, there is an extreme disconnect between what was said 11 years ago and the stated goals of this year's Paris talks.  In the Paris talks the earth's temperatures would be allowed to rise to the catastrophic levels of 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.  Instead of a recommended 50% to 70% reduction in CO2, the Paris' goal is between 20% to 45%. Also, it should be pointed out that, as of 2015, the world is supposedly already at 1 degree Celsius+ above pre-industrial temperature levels.

In my opinion, getting the world to abide by whatever the Paris attendees try and agree on, will be a lot like herding cats.

Some might achieve or even exceed the targets while many others won't.  There's a long time between now and 2030.  Recessions, war, changes in political leadership and governments can easily alter a county's priorities away from focusing on global warming.  And, there will always be corruption.  Poorer countries, run by despots and receiving climate change funding, will never see those monies applied to the cause.  Instead the funds will be diverted to corrupt leadership.  Already, Latin America is asking for reparations from rich countries for any damage done to their countries.  Even if its unable to prove it was caused by global warming.

I think Paris will, in retrospect, turn out to be an exercise in futility.  Just as the original global warming initiative in Kyoto, was a farce.

References:

Paris climate summit: world leaders told to iron out differences before talks end: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/nov/28/paris-climate-summit-world-leaders-talks-france

Warming set to breach 1C threshold: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-34763036

SFGate: It's much too late to sweat global warming / Time to prepare for inevitable effects of our ill-fated future: http://www.sfgate.com/green/article/It-s-much-too-late-to-sweat-global-warming-Time-2699599.php

LatAm hands climate bill to rich world at summit: http://news.yahoo.com/latam-hands-climate-bill-rich-world-summit-050003973.html

The global warming dividend: Canada abandons Kyoto Protocol to protect its lucrative oil reserves: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2073520/Canada-abandons-Kyoto-Protocol-save-14bn-penalties-missing-greenhouse-gas-targets.html

Bush Taunts EU Over Missed Kyoto Targets: http://neurope.eu/article/bush-taunts-eu-over-missed-kyoto-targets/

Kyoto Protocol, 10 years later: Did deal to combat greenhouse gases: http://news.nationalpost.com/news/kyoto-protocol-10-years-later-was-the-deal-to-combat-greenhouse-emissions-successful-and-what-of-its-future

Like It or Not, Obama's Nuke Deal Will Give Iran the Bomb and Worse..

In order to have an effective nuclear weapons program there needs to be three elements.

First, the program must be capable of producing 90% uranium isotope U-235 in large enough quantities to build a bomb by using gas centrifuges.  Or, be capable of producing the platinum isotope PU-239 by operating a heavy water nuclear reactor.

Second, the program must include the development of a detonation device that is compact enough and limited in its weight to be put atop a ballistic missile. 

Third, the program must create a viable delivery system such as a ballistic missile.

In the case of Iran's nuke program, we know they can enrich uranium to 20% U-235 because they have already done so.  Many experts believe that given the current number of centrifuges, they could breakout to weapons grade U-235 in just two to three months if left to continue producing large quantities of 20% U-235.  Also, they are building a heavy water reactor in Arak that is quite capable of producing weapons grade PU-239.  Additionally, Iran has an active ballistic missile program.  Whether or not any of those currently developed missiles are capable of carrying a nuclear warhead is anyone's guess since that program is highly secretive.  Some, who have looked at satellite images of the launch site, believe the missiles are too lightweight to actually carry a bomb.  But, what is known, is that their latest missile has a long enough range to hit Europe.

That brings us to the detonation device.  It has long been suspected that Iran has already built and tested a nuclear detonation device at its Parchin military complex.  This is probably true since, to date, they refuse to allow UN weapons inspectors any access to the Parchin site.

Throughout the negotiation process, the sole focus has been on Iran's enrichment program; leaving them  free to keep developing improved missile delivery systems and detonation devices.  In terms of enrichment, the currently known "deal" would allow them to continue to enrich uranium to the 5% level. Existing 20% material would have to be either chemically neutralized or exported to an existing nuclear country.  Of course, if that is Russia, there's no guarantee that Russia, sometime in the future, couldn't just ship that material right back to Iran without the world knowing.  Especially, if trading sanctions are lifted.  Also, the neutralization of the 20% U-235 is reversible.  There may also be down-scaling of the Arak reactor site to slow the production of PU-239.

The bottom line is that the final agreement will only slow Iran's bomb making program; and, only that part of it that is related to enrichment.  No way will it dismantle it.  The Obama Administration has already admitted that the intent of the agreement is to extend the 2 to 3 month breakout time for enrichment to weapons grade material to a one year time frame. So, essentially, the President is saying that Iran can have its bomb in the future.  It just might take a little longer. A fact that won't sit well with either Israel or their neighbors in the region that see Iran as a threat, such as Saudi Arabia.  This, then, may leave them and others with no other choice but to build themselves a bomb as a deterrent to Iran's possible threats.

If a nuclear arms race develops in the Middle East, it will definitely sour Obama's legacy of having achieved a deal with Iran.  Think about it.  A nuclear arms race in the most unstable and war-prone part of the world.  That will be President Obama's real legacy.

References:

Fact Sheet: Iran's Nuclear and Ballistic Missile Programs: http://armscontrolcenter.org/publications/factsheets/fact_sheet_irans_nuclear_and_ballistic_missile_programs/

AP Exclusive: Draft agreement cuts Iran's nuclear hardware [extends breakout time to one year]: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/4c7ad2158ed944579dc1e7ed6c550899/ap-exclusive-iran-limited-6k-centrifuges-draft-accord

Iran signs agreement with IAEA to allow broader inspections of nuclear sites [but not Parchin and other sensitive military sites]: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/irans-signs-agreement-with-iaea-to-allow-broader-inspections-of-nuclear-sites/2013/11/11/fef81002-4ad5-11e3-ac54-aa84301ced81_story.html

Prince Hints Saudi Arabia May Join Nuclear Arms Race: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/07/world/middleeast/saudi-arabia-may-seek-nuclear-weapons-prince-says.html

Bolton: Middle East Nuclear Arms Race Is Already Underway: http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/03/17/bolton-middle-east-nuclear-arms-race-already-underway