The Manhattan Contrarian posted “Looks Like Global Action On “Climate Change” Is Dead by Frances Menton. There is not much in the posting that I have not already covered. However, there are two things that do standout that I want to pass on. Menton’s posting is relative to the members of the G 20, that have just reaffirmed their support for the Paris Agreement in the Summary statement at the end of the G 20* meeting. The US did not join in the reaffirmation.
Menton notes that Russia’s intended reduction is based upon their CO2 emissions in 1990 before they collapse in 1991 of the Soviet Union.
“Then they closed down all that inefficient Soviet industry. According to a graph at Climate Action Tracker here, by 2000 their emissions were down by almost 40% from the 1990 level, and they have only crept up a little from there since.”
That was their ploy back in the days of the Kyoto Pact, too.
And the other thing is from the comment section of Menton’s posting. It was made by Robin Guenier and is as follows:
The NYT, like most commentators, also overlooked what was agreed in 2015. Article 4.4 of the Paris Agreement exempts developing countries, responsible for over 65% of global emissions, from any obligation – legal or moral – to reduce those emissions (http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0958305X16675524?journalCode=eaea and https://ipccreport.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/cop-21-developing-countries-_-2.pdf)
Nine of the countries meeting in Hamburg last week (Argentina, Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, South Africa and South Korea) are in that category – a category that means they are obliged neither to cut their emissions nor to provide funding and technical help to poorer countries. It’s hardly surprising therefore that they were happy to endorse the Agreement at the conclusion of the Hamburg summit. It’s also been clear for some time that, although they are developed countries and are (cynically) willing to endorse the Agreement, Japan and Russia (responsible for about 8% of global emissions) have little, if any, practical interest in reducing their emissions (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/may/17/japans-coal-fired-plants-to-cause-thousands-of-early-deaths-greenpeace and http://tiny.cc/767bmy).
Therefore, now the US has changed its position, it would seem that, of G20 members, only Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Italy and the UK regard climate change as a serious problem. Yet they are responsible for only 8% of global emissions. I suggest it is they, not the US, that are “completely isolated”. ( My highlighting)
(National shares of global emissions can be found here: http://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/overview.php?v=CO2ts1990-2015.)
*Wikipedia describes the G20 as follows: Membership of the G20 consists of 19 individual countries plus the European Union (EU). The EU is represented by the European Commission and by the European Central Bank. Collectively, the G20 economies account for around 85% of the gross world product (GWP), 80% of world trade (or, if excluding EU intra-trade, 75%), two-thirds of the world population, and approximately half of the world land area.