PART-1: WHAT THE THE BBC REPORT SAYS ABOUT HIS SPEECH TO THE UN

Boris Johnson: Humanity is reaching a turning point on climate change. Boris Johnson: It’s time for humanity to grow up. A climate summit of world leaders in 40 days’ time will be the “turning point for humanity”, PM Boris Johnson has said in a speech to the United Nations. He warned that global temperature rises were already inevitable, but called on his fellow leaders to commit to major changes to curb further warming. Four areas needed tackling – “coal, cars, cash and trees”, he said. Countries must take responsibility for “the destruction we are inflicting, not just upon our planet but ourselves”. “It’s time for humanity to grow up,” he added ahead of the UK hosting the COP26 summit in Glasgow. The prime minister also said it was time to listen to the warnings of scientists. “Look at Covid if you want an example of gloomy scientists being proved right. What do world leaders need to agree to stop climate change? World on course to heat up to dangerous levels. Setting the tone for November’s meeting, he said countries must make “substantial changes” by the end of the decade if the world is to stave off further temperature rises. “I passionately believe that we can do it by making commitments in four areas – coal, cars, cash and trees,” he said. Mr Johnson praised China’s President Xi Jinping for his recent pledge to stop building new coal-fire energy plants abroad. But he called on the country – which produces 28% of global greenhouse gas emissions – to go further and end its domestic use of coal, saying the UK was proof that it could be done. The UK used coal to generate 25% of its electricity five years ago – but that is now down to 2%. Mr Johnson said it would be “gone altogether” by 2024. The prime minister also said he did not see a conflict between the green movement and capitalism, saying that: “The whole experience of the Covid pandemic is that the way to fix the problem is through science and innovation, the break-throughs and the investment that are made possible by capitalism and by free markets.” “We have the tools for a green industrial revolution but time is desperately short,” he added. Elsewhere, the prime minister made a series of calls for action to his fellow leaders, including: to allow only zero-emission vehicles to be on sale across the world by 2040 for every country to cut carbon emissions by 68% by 2030, compared to levels in 1990 to pledge collectively to achieve carbon neutrality – or net zero – by the middle of the century to end the use of coal power in the developing world by 2040 and in the developed world by 2030 to halt and reverse the loss of trees and biodiversity by 2030. Amid the serious warnings, Mr Johnson also attempted to strike a humorous note at points, including saying Kermit the Frog had been wrong when he sang It’s Not Easy Bein’ Green. ‘We missed our cue’ The prime minister reiterated that the world must curb the rise in global average temperatures to 1.5C – the stricter of the two targets set by the UN in the 2015 Paris agreement. However, the world is already 1C hotter compared with pre-industrial levels. “If we keep on the current track then the temperatures will go up by 2.7 degrees or more by the end of the century,” Mr Johnson said. “And never mind what that will do to the ice floes… we will see desertification, drought, crop failure, and mass movements of humanity on a scale not seen before, not because of some unforeseen natural event or disaster but because of us, because of what we are doing now. “And our grandchildren will know that we are the culprits and… that we were warned and they will know that it was this generation that came centre stage to speak and act on behalf of posterity and that we missed our cue and they will ask themselves what kind of people we were to be so selfish and so short sighted.” line Analysis box by Roger Harrabin, Environment analyst Boris Johnson is fashioning himself as a leader on climate change. He has set a benchmark by phasing out sales of most new conventional vehicles by 2030. The international alliance he’s formed to get rid of coal power is gathering support – though not yet enough. And by setting aggressive targets to cut carbon emissions overall (78% by 2035) he is encouraging others to follow. Yet, in his own backyard, the prime minister is stumbling. He previously pledged “never to be lagging on lagging”. But his plan for insulating homes is badly delayed – along with other vital initiatives on issues including aviation, farming and financing the low carbon evolution. Recent research showed his government had imposed less than a quarter of the policies needed to clean up the economy. And some policies – like not opposing a coal mine in Cumbria,cutting taxes on flying and building HS2 – will send emissions up when they are supposed to be going down. At COP26, leaders from 196 countries will be asked to agree action to limit climate change and its effects, like rising sea levels and extreme weather. A recent report from UN scientists warned that global temperatures have risen faster since 1970 than at any point in the past 2,000 years.

PART-2: CRITICAL COMMENTARY

IN RELATED POSTS LINKED BELOW WE DETAIL THE HISTORY OF THE COPS AND NOTE THEIR SEQUENTIAL 100% FAILURES RECORD FROM COP-1 TO COP25. WE FURTHER NOTE THAT THE MORE GRAND THE SETTING, THE MARKETING, AND THE SPEECHES, THE GRANDER THE FAILURE. WHAT WE SEE SO FAR IN THE GRANDNESS AND GRANDEUR OF THE ASSUMPTIONS, THE SETTINGS, AND THE SPEECHES FOR THE 26TH COP IS THAT IT IS RIPE FOR THE GRANDEST DEMISE OF ALL. AND THEN WE WILL JUST SHAKE IT OFF AND START MAKING PLANS FOR A GRAND COP27.…. JUST AS WE HAD DONE IN COPENHAGEN AND ELSEWHERE SO MANY TIMES BEFORE.

THE PARIS AGREEMENT

Posted by: chaamjamal on: June 5, 2021

• In: Uncategorized
• 3 Comments

The only AGREEMENT in the Paris Agreement is that the participating countries AGREED TO SUBMIT INDCs. That is all that the participating countries agreed to do. And in fact all the countries that had agreed to submit INDCs did in fact submit INDCs.

The key to understanding the Paris agreement is to understand what an INDC is and what it isn’t

(1): First of all, the way we understand what the word agreement means is that there is one document – one statement, that all the participants signed and agreed to abide by but there is no such document in the Paris Agreement.

(2): This oddity of what is called an agreement is a creation of the failure of the COPs (United Nations Conference of Parties to the UNFCCC) and that failure is best understood in the context of the history of the UN’s ambition to be a kind of global Environmental Protection Agency by way of the UNEP (united nations environment program).

(3): The UNEP began life with a bang when the UN put together a Global Agreement called the Montreal Protocol where all the nations signed the same document agreeing to change refrigerants. This agreement is credited with having solved the ozone depletion crisis. This apparent success of the newly formed UNEP led to the assumption that the UN could likewise put together a “Montreal Protocol for climate change” (MPFC) with a global agreement to reduce global fossil fuel emissions.

(4): To get such an agreement signed by all nations, the UN put together a global agreement signed by almost all nations called the UNFCCC where the signatories agreed that climate change is a global problem that needs a global solution. The nations that signed this agreement are called Parties to the UNFCCC. The next and final step in resolving the climate crisis was to call a “Conference of Parties” or COP, for the parties to sign a binding emission reduction agreement. Sadly, the COP ended without a signed “Montreal Protocol for the Climate (MPFC).

(5): This failure was a significant event. Flustered and confused in the abject failure of the COP, the UN bureaucrats decided to call for another COP to be called COP2 and line up some more impressive speakers about the dangers of climate change and make some modifications to the emission reduction agreement to get the parties to sign the modified MPFC. But COP2 also failed.

(6): The UN bureaucrats were unable to comprehend the enormous difference between changing refrigerants and overhauling the world’s energy infrastructure. and ventured into a program of tweeking the contract and bringing in more impressive speakers and more scary assessments of what will happen to us and the world and maybe the planet if we don’t do the MPFC. The short version of this story is that after COP3, COP4, COP5, COP6, COP7, COP8, COP9, COP10, COP11, COP12, COP13, COP14, and the very dramatic COP15 in Copenhagen that was described by climate scientists, climate activists, and the UN bureaucrats as a DO OR DIE meeting. It died.

(7): But the climate movement and the UN could not accept this devastating failure and the UN bureaucrats decided that what they needed was a change in strategy. It was the devastating failure in Copenhagen that convinced the UN bureaucrats that more and more speakers with greater and greater fear of climate change will not work and will not deliver the MPFC. It was in Copenhagen that the subtle shift in strategy had to be made to keep toning down the demands in the MPFC until the all the Parties would sign the climate agreement.

(8): And so the climate agreement dream was not over yet and on we went to COP16, COP17, COP18, COP19, COP20, COP21, COP22, COP23, and COP24. But still no MPFC and still without an agreement.

(9): A dramatic shift in strategy came in COP25 in Paris. The new desperate strategy was this: If they won’t sign the contract we wrote let them write the contract that they will sign. And so it was that in COP25 in Paris, France that this new strategy was implemented where each nation could independently and in isolation write the agreement that it was willing to sign and then sign it. The collection of these “INDC”s that don’t agree is then assumed to be an AGREEMENT of some kind so the UN can say that they did their job and delivered the MPFC..

(10): The contradictions in this claim have gone unchallenged and so it is to this day that we still accept a collection of INDCs that don’t agree and that are not binding as some kind of global climate action contract that can be claimed to be the delivery of the promised MPFC.

(11): The reality is that the Paris Agreement is not an Agreement to agree but an agreement to disagree and that therefore there is no MPFC and no global agreement to cut global emissions and that this is why we are in an illogical climate action plan of the climate heroism of nation states without a MPFC to reduce global emissions.

(12): The new strategy of climate heroism of nation states is something to which the UN fully agrees as the UN Secretary General has framed his new climate action program as some kind of cheerleader making speeches for “AMBITION” of nation states to cut emissions. This is now the confused state of affairs in the expectation that the UN would deliver the MPFC. That didn’t happen. We do not have an MPFC.

(13): THE PARIS AGREEMENT:

RELATED POST ON COPS: LINK: https://tambonthongchai.com/2021/08/21/cop26-glasgow-2021/

#5: HERE WE PRESENT THIS COMICAL HISTORY OF COPS FROM THE RELATED POST LINKED ABOVE.

UNFCCC: For a global climate action agreement signed by all nations, the UN put together a global agreement signed by almost all nations called the UNFCCC where the signatories agreed that climate change is a global problem that needs a global solution. The nations that signed this agreement are called Parties to the UNFCCC. or just “parties” for short. The next and final step in resolving the climate crisis and to get the Montreal Proocol for the Climate signed by all Parties was to call a “Conference of Parties” or COP for the parties to sign a binding emission reduction agreement. That the COP would produce the global climate action agreement was a given since the UN had produced the Montreal Protocol and since the Parties had signed the UNFCCC.

#6: But SURPRISE SURPRISE SURPRISE, the CONFERENCE OF PARTIES that the UN was sure would yield a global climate action agreement just like the Montreal Protocol and the UNFCCC, ended without a signed “Montreal Protocol for the Climate (MPFC). NOW WHAT????

#7: IT WAS THIS UNANTICIPATED FAILURE OF THE UN THAT BEGAN THE LONG AND COMICAL SEQUENCE OF COP AFTER COP NUMBERED FROM 1 TO 25 AND NOW EXTENDED TO 26. AFTER THE SURPRISE SURPRISE SURPRISE FAILURE OF WHAT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE THE FIRST AND ONLY COP, THE UN BUREAUCRATS DECIDED THAT ALL THEY NEEDED TO DO WAS TO HOLD THE COP AGAIN WITH SOME CHANGES TO THE CLIMATE ACTION CONTRACT, TO OFFER FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO THE POOR COUNTRIES AND CHARGE THE RICH COUNTRIES FOR THAT ASSISTANCE, AS WELL AS TO SCHEDULE SPEECHES BY CLIMATE SCIENTISTS WITH GREATER FEAR APPEAL AGAINST FOSSIL FUEL EMISSIONS.

#8: COP2 2006: SO THE COP WAS HELD AGAIN IN 2006, THIS TIME IN GENEVA SWITZERLAND, WITH CHANGES THE UN BUREAUCRATS WERE SURE WOULD YIELD A GLOBAL CLIMATE ACTION AGREEMENT. ACCORDING TO THE UN, THE REPEAT COP, NOW KNOWN AS COP2, ADOPTED 18 DECISIONS ABOUT EXEMPTIONS, FINANCE, TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE, AND SOMETHING CALLED “EFFECTIVE EVALUATION” BUT SURPRISE, SURPRISE, SURPRISE, THE SECOND ATTEMPT AT THE COP YIELDED NO CLIMATE ACTION AGREEMENT. THE REPEAT COP, NOW KNOWN AS COP2, HAD FAILED JUST AS THE ORIGINAL COP HAD.

#9: SO THE UN HAD TO MAKE YET ONE MORE ATTEMPT TO GET THE PARTIES TO SIGN A GLOBAL CLIMATE ACTION PROGRAM. THIS NEXT MEETING WAS HELD IN KYOTO JAPAN IN 1997 AND IT IS KNOWN AS COP3. THERE THE UN IN CONCERT WITH ITS IPCC CLIMATE CHANGE SPECIALISTS HAD DEMANDED A 60% REDUCTION IN FOSSIL FUEL EMISSIONS BY 2012 BUT SURPRISE, SURPRISE, SURPRISE, IN THE END ALL THEY COULD GET THE PARTIES TO SIGN WAS A REDUCTION OF 5.2%.

 #10: THE SHORT OF THE STORY IS THAT The UN bureaucrats were unable to comprehend the enormous difference between changing refrigerants in the Montreal Proocol and overhauling the world’s energy infrastructure, and the idea that the Montreal Protocol could be repeated in the climate issue encouraged the UN bureaucrats to continue the process of tweeking the contract, of bringing in more impressive speakers and more scary assessments of what will happen if we don’t do the MPFC. The short version of this story is that after COP3, COP4, COP5, COP6, COP7, COP8, COP9, COP10, COP11, COP12, COP13, COP14, and the very dramatic COP15 in Copenhagen that was described by climate scientists, climate activists, and the UN bureaucrats as a DO OR DIE meeting. It died. But the climate movement and the UN could not accept this devastating failure and the UN bureaucrats decided that what they needed was a change in strategy. It was the devastating failure in Copenhagen that convinced the UN bureaucrats that more and more speakers with greater and greater fear of climate change will not work and will not deliver the MPFC. It was in Copenhagen that the subtle shift in strategy was made. The new strategy was to keep toning down the demands in the MPFC until all the Parties would sign the climate agreement.

#11: THE NEW DESPERATION STRATEGY OF THE UN BUREAUCRATS WAS THEN, THAT IF THEY WON’T SIGN THE CONTRACT WE WROTE, WE MUST WRITE THE CONTRACT THEY WILL SIGN AND IN COP25 IN PARIS, THIS DESPERATE STRATEGY BECAME TRANSFORMED INTO THE TWILIGHT ZONE. THE DESPERATION OF THE UN TO HAVE SOMETHING IN THEIR HAND THEY COULD CALL AN AGREEMENT TOOK THEM TO THE TWILIGHT ZONE STRATEGY OF “IF THEY WON’T SIGN THE CONTRACT WE WROTE AND IF THEY CAN’T AGREE ON A SINGLE CONTRACT LET THEM EACH WRITE THE CONTRACT THEY WILL SIGN SEPARATELY. THESE SEPARATE AND INCONSISTENT CONTRACTS WRITTEN SEPARATELY BY EACH PARTICIPATING COUNTRY WERE THEN COLLECTED INTO THE SAME BOX AND THAT BOX WAS THEN CALLED THE PARIS AGREEMENT, THE FIRST AGREEMENT THAT THE UN WAS ABLE TO GET FROM THE PARTIES SINCE COP1 AND THIS BOX SOON BECAME FAMOUS AS THE SO CALLED “PARIS AGREEMENT” WITH THE UN VINDICATED AND EVEN CONGRATULATED FOR HAVING FINALLY DELIVERED THE GLOBAL CLIMATE ACTION PROGRAM, THE SO CALLED MONTREAL PROTOCOL FOR THE CLIMATE.

#12: The new desperate strategy was this: If they won’t sign the contract we wrote let them write the contract that they will sign. And so it was that in COP25 in Paris, France that this new strategy was implemented where each nation could independently and in isolation write the agreement that it was willing to sign and then sign it. The collection of these “INDC”s that don’t agree is then assumed to be an AGREEMENT of some kind so the UN can say that they did their job and delivered the MPFC. The contradictions in this claim have gone unchallenged and so it is to this day that we still accept a collection of INDCs that don’t agree and that are not binding as some kind of global climate action contract that can be claimed to be the delivery of the promised MPFC. The reality is that the Paris Agreement is not an Agreement to agree but an agreement to disagree and that therefore there is no MPFC and no global agreement to cut global emissions and that this is why we are in an illogical climate action plan of the climate heroism of nation states without a MPFC to reduce global emissions.

#13: The new strategy of the UN Secretary General of a role as cheerleader for climate heroism of nation states is now the confused state of affairs in the expectation that the UN would deliver the MPFC. That didn’t happen. We do not have an MPFC. THE ONLY FUNCTION OF THE PARIS AGREEMENT IS THAT IT ALLOWS THE UN TO PUNCH OUT WITH A FACE SAVING CLAIM OF HAVING DELIVERED THE EXPECTED MPFC SUCCESS. AND YET, THAT WE NEED A COP26 IN GLASGOW IN 2021 IS THE EVIDENCE THAT THERE IS NO MPFC. AFTER BILLIONS OF DOLLARS AND MORE THAN 25 YEARS OF THE PROMISE OF DELIVERING THE MPFC, ALL THE UN CAN DO IS TO SCHEDULE YET ANOTHER COP.

RELATED POST ON THE PARIS AGREEMENT LINK: https://tambonthongchai.com/2021/06/05/the-paris-agreement/