The Paris climate agreement is dead — time to bury it for good



The Paris climate agreement was doomed to fail from its inception. It is long past time for all parties involved, as well as the media, to acknowledge this fact.

The mainstream media has lamented the Paris agreement’s fate since President Donald Trump’s re-election. Trump withdrew the United States from the agreement during his first term and vowed to do so again after Joe Biden rejoined it. While Trump’s withdrawal was a public rebuke that undermined the pact’s “effectiveness,” the agreement was effectively dead before the ink on the last signature was dry.

China’s rising emissions since 2015 all but guarantee that global CO2 levels will continue climbing through 2030 and beyond, no matter what other nations do.

The structure of the agreement itself ensured that it would be ineffective in preventing greenhouse gas emissions from rising.

As I noted shortly after its completion in 2015, even the architects of the Paris agreement quietly admitted that the emissions pledges made by signatory countries would fall short of limiting global warming to 2 degrees Celsius. At the time, their own estimates showed that if every nation fulfilled its commitment, the combined result would still account for less than half the greenhouse gas reductions needed to meet the 2-degree goal.

By 2017, the United Nations confirmed this shortfall. Its report projected that even if every country fully complied with its Paris agreement targets — an optimistic scenario — global temperatures would still rise by 3 degrees Celsius by 2100.

The agreement’s prospects have only worsened since. As the BBC has reported, several countries openly acknowledge that they will not meet their commitments. Nations such as Argentina, Indonesia, South Africa, and South Korea — all signatories that previously pledged to curb fossil fuel use — now plan to increase the production of coal, natural gas, and oil. Many also hope to import additional fuel from the United States.

These nations are now blaming Trump for their decision, but the data shows that every single country now seeking more fossil fuels had already increased its use long before Trump was re-elected and withdrew from the Paris agreement. In fact, no country that set specific emissions reduction targets in the first Paris commitment period has made significant progress toward meeting its goals.

What’s more, of the nearly 200 countries that signed the agreement, only 10 submitted their updated carbon reduction commitments by the deadline — meaning 190 nations failed to comply. Even the 10 countries that submitted their updated commitments failed to meet their previous targets.

Two of the world’s three largest carbon dioxide emitters — China and India — have made no firm commitments under the Paris agreement. Instead of pledging to reduce emissions, both countries offered vague assurances that they expect emissions to peak eventually. If carbon dioxide truly drives climate change, China’s rising emissions since 2015 all but guarantee that global CO2 levels will continue climbing through 2030 and the 2050, no matter what other nations do.

As Thomas Hobbes wrote, “Covenants, without the sword, are but words, and of no strength to secure a man at all.” Every climate agreement to date has embodied that idea — unenforceable promises with no mechanism to guarantee compliance.

The fact is that the Paris agreement was never a binding treaty. Countries set their own emissions targets, but the agreement included no international enforcement. Unless countries pass laws domestically to formalize their pledges, those goals remain legally meaningless — even within their own borders.

Ultimately, the Paris agreement demands long-term sacrifice without any clear or measurable benefit. Politicians focused on re-election hesitate to adopt policies that visibly harm their constituents today in exchange for hypothetical rewards decades after they’ve left office. That political reality is why the Paris climate agreement was doomed from the start. Now is the time to acknowledge its failure — without regret. The trillions already spent are sunk costs, but at the very least, we can stop wasting more.

Trump’s climate policy shift could save American farmers from disaster



While news about President Trump’s tariffs and crackdowns on the questionable financial management of federal agencies has dominated media reports in recent weeks, a quiet transformation has been under way in agricultural policy.

An order to remove climate change references from U.S. Department of Agriculture websites signals a departure from the red tape of climate regulations on domestic farming practices and strings attached to U.S. support of agriculture abroad.

Programs that seek to lower carbon dioxide levels are destructive — period.

Through the U.S. Agency for International Development, the federal government poured millions of dollars into climate-focused programs that could have no positive effect on the climate — promoting “green” orthodoxy over agricultural productivity.

Wasted climate dollars

Some of these programs have been intertwined with other activities in rural agrarian communities. USAID and the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation, for example, joined in a “$55 million credit guarantee to address the economic impact of COVID-19 by supporting loans to farmer producer organizations, ag-tech companies, and companies engaged in clean energy solutions for the agriculture sector.” A $1.5 million program aimed at "empowering" female climate activists in northern Kenya.

USAID also partnered with organizations like the Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security, which operates in developing countries and focuses on so-called research themes that include “low-emissions” development, climate services and safety nets, scaling “climate-smart” agriculture, and gender and social inclusion.

All these expenditures came under the umbrella of USAID’s 2022-2030 climate strategy, a $150 billion "whole-of-agency approach" to establish an “equitable world with net-zero greenhouse gas emissions.’

Climate mandates stifle farming

USAID's financial support for farmers and businesses has been contingent on adherence to an absurd climate agenda and perverse views of human nature that have nothing to do with feeding hungry people.

The administration’s freeze on this funding cuts off money to hundreds of such programs that interfered with the employment of sensible farming practices in places like Africa, Asia, and Latin America.

It’s not just farmers abroad who will benefit from the dismantlement of USAID’s climate initiatives. Among the first casualties of the current policy shift will be the unscientific $3.1 billion program to promote the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions on farms across 55 U.S. states and territories through 135 projects.

Imagine a program intended to help crops grow but that robs them of the carbon dioxide that enables photosynthesis. CO2 is necessary for plant life — and ultimately all life.

NASA credits the greening of much of the planet over the past 100 years to the increase in atmospheric CO2. Programs that seek to lower carbon dioxide levels are destructive — period.

Worldwide impact

Without President Trump’s bold moves, U.S. farmers likely would have fallen under the constraints of externally imposed climate frameworks that have, in many cases, stifled innovation and reduced U.S. farmers' competitiveness on the world stage.

The USDA targets greenhouse gas emissions under the Climate Smart Agriculture and Forestry program. These initiatives include forcing U.S. farmers to employ lower-pressure irrigation systems to decrease fossil fuel energy use. Other measures are aimed at manipulating the quantity and quality of dietary nutrients to reduce methane emissions from animal digestive tracts. It was probably just a matter of time before critically important nitrogen fertilizers were targeted as a source of greenhouse gas emissions — as they have been in some other countries.

By contrast, countries such as China and India have prioritized productivity and food security over such practices. They have invested heavily in fossil fuel-based agricultural technologies and products, achieving record crop yields for their massive populations.

Adding insult to injury, the climate money these nations received purportedly for “climate justice” may have financed fossil fuel projects. Too often, American taxpayers have paid the bill for overseas projects that do little if any good.

The highly politicized, fabricated climate crisis, which is based on erroneous climate models and exaggerations of a so-called greenhouse effect, should not overshadow the immediate economic and operational concerns of farmers in the U.S. and elsewhere.

Trump’s withdrawal from international climate initiatives, including the U.N.’s Paris Climate Accords, marked a win for American farmers and taxpayers. His decision ended U.S. participation in costly and unrealistic mandates — such as the Net Zero agenda — that have strained global economies and fueled unrest among farmers and the broader public.

Trump’s Tough-On-China Policy Will Be A Political Paradigm Shift

President Trump not only exposed the free trade fantasy as a farce, but rewrote the rules for decades to come.

Big Oil turns on Trump over Paris accord exit for all the wrong reasons



One of Donald Trump’s priorities upon returning to the Oval Office in January is to withdraw the United States from the Paris Climate Agreement. This move is welcome news for those who oppose the decarbonization agenda, which undermines freedom, prosperity, and mobility. Given that petroleum the bête noire of the global climate cult, you might expect major oil companies would support U.S. withdrawal from the agreement. That doesn’t appear to be the case.

Soon after Trump’s intentions for the Paris agreement became clear, major oil companies signaled their opposition to his decision. Instead, they favor continuing down the path of heavy regulation and government subsidies for their industry, aligned with the priorities of the global climate community. As reported by Fox News, “Big Oil is calling on President-elect Donald Trump to keep the U.S. in the Paris climate agreement after withdrawing from the treaty during his first term.”

It’s disheartening to see a once-iconic American oil company transform into a post-capitalist entity that depends heavily on government funding for its revenue.

Why would companies whose primary business is extracting and selling petroleum align themselves with an unelected body openly hostile to oil and committed to achieving "net zero" production within a generation?

Unfortunately, this approach is a betrayal to those who have long defended Big Oil as a pillar of capitalism. Big Oil’s actions now appear to be in direct conflict with free-market principles.

By supporting government-mandated climate compliance, major oil companies can eliminate competition from smaller players in the short term, consolidating their market dominance. In the long term, they aim to secure government grants and subsidies for carbon-related initiatives, positioning these as a significant revenue stream.

ExxonMobil has made it clear that it sees the government as its future largest customer, carbon-related initiatives as its primary product, and government funding as its main revenue source. In the short term, the company seeks to leverage government power, under the Paris Climate Agreement, to eliminate competition from independent oil producers.

The Wall Street Journal reports that ExxonMobil CEO Darren Woods opposes Donald Trump’s plan to withdraw from the climate accord. According to the article, Woods argues against the withdrawal, citing ExxonMobil’s efforts to expand outreach to government officials and advocate for “global carbon accounting measures.”

While the specifics of “global carbon accounting” remain unclear, it seems far removed from real-world generally accepted accounting principles. It is reasonable to assume that this concept involves government officials distributing taxpayer money to favored entities — a group Woods clearly intends for ExxonMobil to join.

The WSJ story goes on to say that ExxonMobil and other major oil companies are lobbying the incoming GOP leadership to preserve tax credits included in Joe Biden’s “signature climate law,” the Inflation Reduction Act. These credits reward technologies like carbon capture, in which the companies are heavily invested.

The IRA is a boon for Big Oil’s carbon-related projects. During an energy conference last March, Woods voiced his support for the legislation, stating, “I was very supportive of the IRA — I am very supportive of the IRA …”

In plain terms, ExxonMobil wants more taxpayer money and federal tax credits to fund its carbon mitigation initiatives. Meanwhile, you better believe small, independent drillers in West Texas are left out of these taxpayer subsidies. ExxonMobil, by contrast, is angling to make taxpayer subsidies a major source of revenue.

The Guardian in August highlighted how ExxonMobil has pivoted its business strategy to heavily rely on government subsidies for its carbon capture and storage operations. The company launched its Low Carbon Solutions division in 2021 and began lobbying for direct government funding. Through the Inflation Reduction Act, ExxonMobil secured a subsidy of $85 per ton of captured carbon. Dan Ammann, head of the Low Carbon Solutions unit, said the carbon capture business could eventually become “larger than ExxonMobil’s base business.”

It’s disheartening to see a once-iconic American oil company transform into a post-capitalist entity that depends heavily on government funding for its revenue.

Trump’s selection of Chris Wright as energy secretary offers a glimmer of hope for the American petroleum industry.

In the oil patch, Wright’s appointment has been met with much rejoicing. As the founder and CEO of Liberty Energy, Wright understands well the challenges faced by independent oil producers. Unlike major oil company executives who apologize for their industry and align themselves with climate activists, Wright unapologetically defends the petroleum sector. Described as a “dedicated humanitarian on a mission to better human lives by expanding access to abundant, affordable, and reliable energy,” Wright has earned respect across the industry.

But Wright’s fight to protect American oil won’t just involve battling left-wing advocates of net-zero policies. He will also face opposition from major oil company executives who have aligned with radical climate agendas, working to suppress independent producers while ceding control of the oil business to the government. He’ll need all the help he can get.

Lockdowns, Unpunished Crime, And Climate Hysteria: The Roots Of Our Three Biggest Disasters

Having completely failed to control disease, they’ve set their sights (and their newly enthroned scientific bureaucracy) literally higher -- on the global climate.

31 Days In, Democrats Haven’t Accomplished A Single COVID Promise To The American Worker

Biden told Wisconsin brewer Tim Eichinger, a Democrat who is struggling to keep his employees on and his business afloat, to give White House staff his address so they could mail him their COVID plan.

French court finds France failed to meet its own Paris Agreement climate commitments



A French court declared France was guilty of failing to meet its own climate change goals that it had committed to when it signed the international agreement named after its own capital city. The lawsuit brought by four environmental groups claimed that France was not living up to the terms agreed upon in the Paris Agreement.

France, which brokered the 2015 international treaty on climate change, committed to reducing greenhouse gases by 40% by 2030. France also pledged to be carbon neutral by 2050. However, four non-governmental organizations said the French government wasn't doing enough to curb climate change and was "responsible for ecological damage."

The NGOs include environmental groups Greenpeace France, Oxfam France, "It's Everyone's Business," and "The Foundation for Nature and Mandking." Two years ago, the environmental groups organized a petition to denounce "climate inaction" by the French government. The petition received 2 million signatures within a month. In March 2019, the organizations filed a lawsuit against France, according to CBS News.

The lawsuit alleges that France's greenhouse gas emissions "dropped at a pace that was twice as slow as the trajectories foreseen under the law."

On Wednesday, Paris' administrative court ruled that the French government was guilty of not living up to climate change expectations. The court ordered France to pay one euro ($1.20) for moral damage to each of the associations behind the lawsuit. Judges told the state to focus their efforts on meeting the greenhouse gas reduction goals set forth by the Paris Climate Accord.

The administrative tribunal declared that it would reevaluate the country's climate change efforts in two months and determine if further measures should be taken against the government over their climate crisis response.

"The judges examined whether there was a causal link between this ecological damage and the various breaches alleged against the state in the fight against climate change. They held that the state should be held responsible for part of this damage if it failed to meet its commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions," the court statement said.

Despite only symbolic punishments levied against the French government, the NGOs were excited over the court's ruling.

"This decision marks a first historic victory for the climate and a major advance in French law," the organizations said in a joint statement. "This judgment also marks a victory for the truth: Until now, the state has denied that its climate policies were insufficient, despite mounting evidence."

"This is the first recognition by the courts of the responsibility of the French State for its climate inaction," Clementine Baldon, a lawyer for one of the NGOs, said.

President Joe Biden signed an executive order on his first day in office to rejoin the Paris Agreement. Former President Donald Trump withdrew the United States from the Paris Climate Accord during his presidency.

Joe Biden’s Opening Moves Could Cripple The American Job Market

4 million jobs at stake?

‘Paris Over Pittsburgh’: Ted Cruz Criticizes Biden For Rejoining Paris Climate Accord, Gets Pushback

'It Is About Democrats' Plans To Destroy Jobs They don't Like'

Editor Daily Rundown: Biden Rejoins Paris Climate Accords, Expected To Sign Flurry Of Executive Orders

All the lates