The climate change hysteria movement is expecting bold action at the COP 25 climate summit now on in Madrid. That is not how these protracted international negotiations work. One wonders what the hysterical reaction to inaction will be?

As I have pointed out, the climate alarmism movement is tearing itself into two camps..

They are not yet warring camps but after Madrid they well may be. COP 25 is real negotiations, by real countries, over real issues. The issues are stupid, but still real, because they can lead to really stupid national actions. This I call the moderate camp of alarmists. The hysterics want impossible actions, stuff that cannot happen, which sets them against the moderates.

For example, the hysterics want immediate drastic action to reduce co2 emissions. The nations meeting in Madrid have adopted very mild emission reduction measures, or promises at least. The big issue is whether they will increase their ambitions next year, at COP 26. Nothing is on the table this year. This has to infuriate the hysterics.

The hysterics want emissions to end by 2030 (which is impossible). The COP nations are dickering over maybe setting a goal of net zero emissions (which still allows emissions) by 2050. The hysterics have to hate this.

The biggest issue on the table at COP 25 is what the rules should be for a new emission trading scheme. I call this the sale of indulgences and explain in detail here.

Given that billions of dollars worth of indulgences are at stake for big countries like China and Brazil, this is a huge issue for the moderates. The hysterics damn it as just a way to avoid taking domestic action. In this case they are correct.

There are other huge issues of wealth transfer either on the table in Madrid, or hoping to get there, or standing beside the table, or something (the metaphor is getting away from me).

The developing countries want to see some evidence that the promised $100 billion a year in bribes from the developed countries will actually begin next year (it will not). The promises for emission reduction by the developing countries are predicated on that big money coming. The hysterics could care less about who pays for what. Funding is not part of their grand plans, like the Green New Deal.

Then there is the lumbering giant slowly approaching the Madrid table, the giant whose stage name is Loss and Damage. The giant’s real name is Compensation. This is the idea that the developed countries should compensate the developing ones for all the future damages due to human caused climate change. In practice this probably means pretty much all bad weather, all sea level rise, etc. The official estimate here is $400 billion a year but that could easily grow. I am not making this up.

Th last time the giant was on the table, it was exiled to a study-like limbo. But that study has now ended, so the biggest issue of all may find its way back to the table. What happens then is anybody’s guess.

But the hysterics have no need for the giant Compensation. Their avowed program is to quickly end human caused climate change, so the issue of future loss and damage simply does not arise for them.

There are more big differences, but these are enough to show the yawning policy gap between the two camps. The COP 25 negotiations and the hysterical climate emergency movement are about as far apart as two camps can get.

How the hysterics react to COP 25’s inaction remains to be seen. It could be quite a show. Stay tuned to CFACT for the blow by blow.

Author

  • David Wojick, Ph.D. is an independent analyst working at the intersection of science, technology and policy. For origins see http://www.stemed.info/engineer_tackles_confusion.html For over 100 prior articles for CFACT see http://www.cfact.org/author/david-wojick-ph-d/ Available for confidential research and consulting.