Global Hot Air: Here’s a United Nations climate report that environmentalists probably don’t want anybody to read. It says that even if every country abides by the grand promises they made last year in Paris to reduce greenhouse gases, the planet would still be “doomed.”
When President Obama hitched America to the Paris accords in 2016, he declared that it was “the moment that we finally decided to save our planet.” And when Trump pulled out of the deal this year, he was berated by legions of environmentalists for killing it.
But it turns out that the Paris accord was little more than a sham that will do nothing to “save the planet.”
According to the latest annual UN report on the “emissions gap,” the Paris agreement will provide only a third of the cuts in greenhouse gas that environmentalists claim is needed to prevent catastrophic warming. If every country involved in those accords abides by their pledges between now and 2030 — which is a dubious proposition — temperatures will still rise by 3 degrees Celsius by 2100. The goal of the Paris agreement was to keep the global temperature increase to under 2 degrees.
Eric Solheim, head of the U.N. Environment Program, which produces the annual report, said this week that “One year after the Paris Agreement entered into force, we still find ourselves in a situation where we are not doing nearly enough to save hundreds of millions of people from a miserable future. Governments, the private sector and civil society must bridge this catastrophic climate gap.”
The report says unless global greenhouse gas emissions peak before 2020, the CO2 levels will be way above the goal set for 2030, which, it goes on, will make it “extremely unlikely that the goal of holding global warming to well below 2 degrees C can still be reached.”
Not to worry. The UN claims that closing this gap will be easy enough, if nations set their collective minds to it.
But this is a fantasy. The list of what would need to be done by 2020 — a little over two years from now — includes: Boosting renewable energy’s share to 30%. Pushing electric cars to 15% of new car sales, up from less than 1% today. Doubling mass transit use. Cutting air travel CO2 emissions by 20%. And coming up with $1 trillion for “climate action.”
Oh, and coal-fired power plants would have to be phased out worldwide, starting now.
According to the report, “phasing out coal consumption … is an indispensable condition for achieving international climate change targets.” That means putting a halt to any new coal plants while starting to phase out the ones currently in use.
Good luck with that. There are currently 273 gigawatts of coal capacity under construction around the world, and another 570 gigawatts in the pipeline, the UN says. That would represent a 42% increase in global energy production from coal. Does anyone really think developing countries who need coal as a cheap source of fuel to grow their economies will suddenly call it quits?
So, does this mean the planet is doomed? Hardly. As we have noted in this space many times, all those forecasts of global catastrophe are based on computer models that have been unreliable predictors of warming. And all of the horror stories assume the worst.
What the report does make clear, however, is that all the posturing by government leaders in Paris was just that. Posturing. None of these countries intended to take the drastic and economically catastrophic steps environmentalist claim are needed to prevent a climate change doomsday. As such, Trump was right to stop pretending.
Whether you believe in climate change or not, the Paris climate accord amounted to nothing, or pretty close to it. Even the UN admits that now.
By Fox News•
I’m not quite old enough to remember the “global cooling” scare of the 1970s and the media’s drumbeat of the coming ice age that would end mankind. But I have been told many times the end is near by doomsday prophets who have frightened people into green orthodoxy better than any cult leader.
As an 8-year-old kid I was particularly jarred by an episode of the TV show “Diff’rent Strokes” in which acid rain caused Kimberley’s hair to turn green. I lived in New York City just like the TV character, I believed my rain was poison.
Throughout high school I was told that chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and aerosols were tearing a hole in the ozone layer, and that it could never be repaired. Deadly UV rays would give us all cancer because I used spray deodorant. I switched to roll-on.
Then came the mother of all doomsday scenarios: global warming. It blew away other environmental issues like candles on a cake. Deadly heat and floods. Ice caps melting. Polar bears dying. Alligators and sharks invading. TV shows. Movies. Books.
Former Vice President Al Gore warned we were all going to die from global warming.
Thirty years ago this week, the United Nations issued a global warming report that I distinctly remember. It predicted worldwide disaster.
According to the report, the Great Plains of America would return to the Dust Bowl. The oceans would rise by several feet, causing low-lying countries like the Maldive Islands and Bangladesh to be underwater.
The report said North Africa would bake into wastelands. Rainforests would be gone, as would much animal life. And it was all because of fossil fuels. American greed. Us. Me. Switching deodorant did nothing to stop it.
Tough lessons for a 15-year-old high school sophomore.
And here we are 30 years later, and I look back at that 1989 report, I think only this: What happened?
The predictions in the report were not just a bit “off” – like my calculations in my high school math class, my understanding of Shakespeare, or my failed attempt to high jump. The U.N. report was flat-out wrong. It was 100 percent, complete opposite, 180-degree wrong.
Can I get an explanation, please?
The report claimed “even the most conservative scientists” said there was nothing we could do to stop the Earth from warming three degrees. But Earth didn’t warm that much.
The report claimed we had a 10-year window to fix this or it would be irreversible. It wasn’t.
The report claimed the Soviet Union would have a bumper crop harvest because of shifting weather patterns. The Soviet Union collapsed months later.
I’d be OK if this were a one-time mistake, but the U.N. continues to issue such hyperbolic reports. It’s International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued the latest one last December, and it, too, triggered a countdown clock.
The phrase “we have 12 years to fix this” is parroted by almost every 2020 Democratic presidential candidate and their party’s de facto leader, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York.
On the bright side, we were told we had 10 years in 1989, so at least the prognosis is better this time.
Why issue another report without correcting the first one? That’s not the scientific method. Can we ask for a correction? Here’s a simple question: What did the U.N. report get wrong in 1989?
After all, this is “science,” and one is expected to believe in science. So let’s lay out the facts dispassionately and objectively, as any unbiased scientist would. Please identify the error and methodological change or formula or data point that has been corrected. Show your work.
Otherwise, why should we believe you got it right 30 years later?
Surely the IPCC has the means to do an after-action review. Since the report was issued the IPCC has raked in over $150 million.
Looks like there’s a prophet making a profit.
No presidential candidate, and practically no politician, would ever say he or she is skeptical of these U.N. predictions. “Climate denier” is an accusation akin to “war criminal,” and with a leftist movement that is growing more violent and assaulting and doxing journalists, it’s almost imprudent to voice an alternative view.
But the U.N. has a 30-year track record of being wrong on this issue, so I take its reports on climate change and “we have 12 years left” with a grain of salt the size of the Maldives.
In 30 more years, I’ll be 75. I can’t wait to read the U.N. report.
by David Rutz • Washington Free Beacon
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu accused Iran of having a “secret atomic warehouse” in Tehran for its illicit nuclear weapons program during a speech to the United Nations General Assembly on Thursday.
Netanyahu castigated what he called “inaction” by the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N.’s atomic watchdog, in the face of Israeli intelligence about Iranian clandestine nuclear work, adding that he would reveal a new finding to the world by Israel in its battle to keep Iran’s nuclear ambitions at bay. Continue reading
by Brett Schaefer • The Daily Signal
National security adviser John Bolton didn’t mince words in a speech on Monday as he outlined U.S. policy toward the International Criminal Court.
In that speech, before the Federalist Society, Bolton said:
The United States will use any means necessary to protect our citizens, and those of our allies, from unjust prosecution by this illegitimate court.
We will not cooperate with the ICC. We will provide no assistance to the ICC. We will not join the ICC. We will let the ICC die on its own. After all, for all intents and purposes, the ICC is already dead to us.
Bolton’s announcement pre-emptively confronted the prospect of an International Criminal Court investigation of U.S. military and government officials.
The prosecutor for the International Criminal Court, Fatou Bensouda, announced on Nov. 3 that she had formally requested authorization from the court’s Pre-Trial Chamber to open an investigation into war crimes and crimes against humanity allegedly committed in Afghanistan since May 2003. Continue reading
by Adam Kredo • Washington Free Beacon
Senior Obama administration officials are scrambling to provide explanations after multiple reports, including in the Washington Free Beacon, identified the White House as being a chief architect of a recent United Nations resolution condemning the state of Israel, according to conversations with multiple former and current U.S. officials.
On the heels of the hotly contested resolution, which condemned Israel for building homes in its capital, Jerusalem, senior Obama administration officials, including Secretary of State John Kerry and Vice President Joe Biden, have been identified as leading the charge to ensure the anti-Israel measure won approval by the U.N. Security Council.
The administration’s denials of this charge broke down during the past several days as multiple reporters confirmed the Obama administration worked behind-the-scenes to help shape and forward the resolution. Continue reading
by Adam Kredo • Washington Free Beacon
Congress is already setting the stage to cut off U.S. funding to the United Nations in the wake of a contested vote last week in which the Obama administration permitted an anti-Israel resolution to win overwhelming approval, according to congressional leaders, who told the Washington Free Beacon that the current administration is already plotting to take further action against the Jewish state before vacating office.
Other punitive actions by Congress could include expelling Palestinian diplomats from U.S. soil and scaling back ties with foreign nations that voted in favor of the controversial measure, according to multiple sources who spoke to the Free Beacon about the situation both on and off the record.
The Obama administration is still under bipartisan attack for its decision to help craft and facilitate the passage of a U.N. resolution condemning the construction of Jewish homes in Jerusalem, a move that reversed years of U.S. policy on the matter. Continue reading
From time immemorial, human beings had been waging war on common sense for one reason or another. This has been especially true for the discombobulated collection of diametrically opposed socialist theories of the 19th and 20th centuries. While their fundamental demand for ubiquitous egalitarianism has appealed to the democratic notion of many individuals, the practical implementations of these theories in the former Soviet Union, Mussolini’s Italy, and Hitler’s Germany between the two World Wars, and their less dictatorial incarnations in Western Europe, Asia, Africa, and Central and South America after 1945, have proved the utter impracticality and even grotesque senselessness of purely intellectual governmental coercion.
The tired wind of these failed theories has reached its apex in the United States with the election to the presidency of Barack Hussein Obama in 2008. Hailed by his ideologically blinded followers as superhuman both in intellect and morality, the Obama phenomenon has been an intoxicating mixture of radically different traits. Youthful, yet in his nearly religious cadence seemingly mature, lawyerly and human, realist and dreamer, down to earth and rebellious, desirous of peace and harmony, yet ready to wage war against injustice, he has quickly captured the imagination of the war-weary and economically threatened majority of American voters.
For the intellectually less blinded and, therefore, more discerning American and European observers of the 2008 campaign, however, the warning signs have been there all along. From his tormented emotional attachment to his absentee father’s dubious legacy and his tragic demise to his intellectually inferior two books on his poetic life story, and his more than shallow political philosophy, they have sensed Obama’s hidden, yet in unguarded moments present, intense hatred for American society and its white majority. Especially, European writers have been quick to point out the outrightly idiotic elements in Obama’s campaign rhetoric. These and similar objections to Obama’s fishy change and hope message have been dismissed by his adoring supporters as racist manifestations of a bigoted minority. Unfortunately, those who opposed Obama’s candidacy have been proven correct by his policies during his eight year tenure at the helm of the American government.
The chief cause of President Obama’s total failure in domestic as well as foreign policies has been his belief that he is a transformative politician, who has been chosen by history to continually change the world without possessing the intellectual abilities, and the experience to distinguish between positive and negative changes. This unfortunate combination of self-generated delirium and the malicious stubbornness of a maniacal hater will mark Barack Hussein Obama a pseudo-politician and, indeed, an idiot. Moreover, his tragedy has been compounded by the fact that the more failures he has experienced the more hateful he has become. And the more hateful he has become the greater the destruction has been that he has wrought upon the United States and the rest of the world.
The case in point has been his visceral hatred against the Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu. Intellectually far superior and incomparably more experienced than President Obama, the Israeli Prime Minister has bested the former whenever they have met in front of the domestic and the international media. Displaying his inherent cowardness and petty-mindedness, President Obama has facilitated and approved the United Nation Security Council Resolution on December 23, 2016, to declare the construction of Israeli settlements on the West Bank of the Jordan River illegal under international law. Not unexpectedly, Resolution No. 2334 has been greeted by most of the Muslim states as binding condemnation of Israel by the entire international community. In the United States the Resolution has been viewed as another manifestation of the decline, corruption, and uselessness of the United Nations.
Generally speaking, this Resolution cannot be viewed in isolation as Secretary of State John Kerry and Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes would like the world to believe. Rather, Resolution No. 2334 is an integral part of a continuing campaign by the member states of the Arab League and other Muslim states to deligitimize the state of Israel, a member of the United Nation. As of 2016, Israel has been condemned by the United Nations General Assembly and its various councils at least fifty times. In particular, the United States Human Rights Council has appeared to be almost exclusively concerned with the state of human rights in the only democratic state in the greater Middle East and beyond. From a Resolution passed by the General Assembly on November 10, 1975, declaring that “Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination” to the ludicrous Resolution 37/18 of November 16, 1982, calling on Israel to abstain from attacking nuclear facilities in neighboring states, and culminating in several identical resolutions calling on all nations to cut ties with the state of Israel, an unholy alliance of the former Soviet Union, presently Russia, the unified bloc of Muslim states, and an assortment of totally uninterested states eager to dip into the pockets of oil rich Arab states, have misused the United Nations to make a mockery out of international law. Resolution No. 2334 is no exception. Voted on by Russia that since 1945 had illegally occupied the Kuril Islands, invaded and recently annexed two region of the Republic of Georgia and the Ukrainian territory of Crimea, and eastern Ukraine; by the People’s Republic of China that has constructed illegal military facilities across the Pacific and has continuously invaded and threatened sovereign states in Asia; by Venezuela that has been a living political and economic hell since Hugo Chavez seized power; and by other nefarious members of the Security Council, is further proof of the gradual break of the United Nations with its founding objectives and principles.
Legally, however, the Resolution is almost totally meaningless, since it does not contain any sanctions against Israel. The only faintly relevant provision of the Resolution is Paragraph 5 that calls upon all states “…to distinguish, in their relevant dealings, between the territory of the State of Israel and the territories occupied since 1967.” However, it is highly unlikely that this paragraph would substantially affect existing economic and trade relations between Israel and its partners.
The Obama Administration’s justification of approving the Resolution cannot be taken seriously. John Kerry’s assertion that “Israel’s occupation of the West Bank spawning terrorism” is laughable. Ben Rhodes in his sanctimonious statement emphasized that “We could not in good conscience veto a resolution that expressed concerns about the very trends that are eroding the foundation for a two-state solution.”
In political terms, the Resolution neither provides a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian question nor contributes to peace and stability in the Middle East. On the contrary, it only encourages Muslim radicals to push for the elimination of Israel. Yet, the existence of Israel in the Middle East is in the strategic interest of the United States, Europe, and the rest of the world. The alternative, namely, the abandonment of Israel would only serve the cause of Muslim radicals who view the reconquest of the territories they consider to be a part of the “House of Islam” as a first step in their expansion of Islam throughout the world. For this reason, it is time for the world to decisively reject the misleading propaganda of lies and ahistorical myths, stand up unitedly against the planned destruction of the Judeo-Christian civilization, and defend the political, economic and cultural values of the West.
By L. Gordon Crovitz • Wall Street Journal
When the Obama administration announced its plan to give up U.S. protection of the internet, it promised the United Nations would never take control. But because of the administration’s naiveté or arrogance, U.N. control is the likely result if the U.S. gives up internet stewardship as planned at midnight on Sept. 30.
On Friday Americans for Limited Government received a response to its Freedom of Information Act request for “all records relating to legal and policy analysis . . . concerning antitrust issues for the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers” if the U.S. gives up oversight. The administration replied it had “conducted a thorough search for responsive records within its possession and control and found no records responsive to your request.”
It’s shocking the administration admits it has no plan for how Icann retains its antitrust exemption. The reason Icann can operate the entire World Wide Web root zone is that it has the status of a legal monopolist, stemming from its contract with the Commerce Department that makes Icann an “instrumentality” of government. Continue reading
Stealth agenda to issue rulings on debt, finance, tech transfers
by Leo Hohmann • WND
At the upcoming United Nations Climate Summit in Paris, participating nations have prepared a treaty that would create an “International Tribunal of Climate Justice” giving Third World countries the power to haul the U.S. into a global court with enforcement powers.
Congress would be bypassed – left out in the cold – by this climate deal, critics say.
Policies once left to sovereign nations could be turned over to a U.N. body if the U.S. and its allies approve the proposed deal in Paris during the summit scheduled for Nov. 30-Dec. 11.
According to the proposed draft text of the climate treaty, the tribunal would take up issues such as “climate justice,” “climate finance,” “technology transfers,” and “climate debt.” Continue reading
By Ari Yashar • Israel National News
US intelligence officials revealed that during the ongoing Iran nuclear negotiations, North Korea has provided several shipments of advanced missile components to the Islamic regime in violation of UN sanctions – and the US hid the violations from the UN.
The officials, who spoke to the Washington Free Beacon on Wednesday on condition of anonymity, said more than two shipments of missile parts since last September have been monitored by the US going from North Korea to Iran.
One official detailed that the components included large diameter engines, which could be used to build a long-range missile system, potentially capable of bearing a nuclear warhead. Continue reading
Letting it get the bomb would be the most catastrophic decision in the history of humanity.
By Thomas Sowell • National Review
Recent statements from United Nations officials, that Iran is already blocking their existing efforts to keep track of what is going on in their nuclear program, should tell anyone who does not already know it that any agreement with Iran will be utterly worthless in practice. It doesn’t matter what the terms of the agreement are, if Iran can cheat.
It is amazing — indeed, staggering — that so few Americans are talking about what it would mean for the world’s biggest sponsor of international terrorism, Iran, to have nuclear bombs, and to be developing intercontinental missiles that can deliver them far beyond the Middle East. Continue reading
لقد حث قضاة في محكمة الجنايات الدولية مجلس الامن في الامم المتحدة “باجراء اللازم” للنظر في عدم تعاون السودان في تسليم الرئيس البشير لمحكمة الجنايات الدولية لتورطه في جرائم الابادة الجماعية في دارقور.
واضافة لذلك, يقول القضاة ان في حالة عدم تعاون مجلس الامن في القضايا التي تحال اليها, يرى القضاة فىى المحكمة أنه سيصبح لا معنى لإحالة تلك القضايا إليها.
ومن الغريب جدا انه بينما كان مجلس الامن نفسه هو الذى حث محكمة الجنايات للنظر الي قضية دارفور في عام 2005 إلا أنه لم يكن منتظراً أن ترسل الأمم المتحدة قواتها ذات القبعات الزرقاء للقبض على الرئيس السودانى عمر البشير وهو يقاوم ويصيح؟
هل لأن مجلس الامن بعد عقد كامل منذ تايسيس المحكمة وفشلها فى تحقيق اى نجاح ملموس رغم الاموال الطائلة المخصصة لها قد بات لا يؤخذ المحكمة مأخذ الجد الذى تأخذ به المحكمة نفسها؟
الا نذكر ان فانو بينسودا, المدعي العام للمحكمة قالت قبل 3 شهور انها تود تجميد النظر في هذه القضية للنظر في قضايا اخري هي ذات اهمية؟
هل فات علي محكمة الجنايات الدولية محاكمة الرئيس الكيني كان يعتبر شي مبكرا وقد انتهي بالفشل؟ وهل غاب عنها تحالق الاتحاد الافريقي ضد محكمة الجنايات لانها تسلط الضوء علي قضايا الافارقة فقط؟ وهل نسيت ان ما تفعله محكمة الجنايات الدولية اعاد القوة للرئيس السوداني؟
ان آية الفشل أن هذه المحكمة بعد أثنتى عشر عاماً وبميزانية بلغت ملياراً من الدولارات تمكنت من النظر فى قضيتين فقط لا أكثر ضد اثنين من امراء الحرب فى الكونغو.
إزاء ما تقدم فإنه من الصعب جدا أن تجد دولة من الدول تناسى هذا السجل البائس لتصبح أداة وسلاحاً لهذه المحكمة.
By Shawn Macomber • Lawfare Tyranny
Here is the opening paragraph of the AP’s latest report from the South Sudan beat:
Judges at the International Criminal Court on Monday urged the U.N. Security Council to “take the necessary measures” to tackle Sudan’s persistent refusal to arrest the country’s president and send him to The Hague to stand trial on charges of orchestrating genocide in Darfur.
Underscoring a growing frustration at the court over the lack of support from the Security Council, the judges stressed Monday that “if there is no follow-up action” by the council in cases it sends to the court, any referral “would never achieve its ultimate goal, namely, to put an end to impunity.”
And yet despite these cajoling admonitions — and the fact that it was the Security Council itself that “urged the court in 2005 to investigate widespread atrocities in Darfur” — the United Nations is not expected to scramble a crack team of blue helmets to extract Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir and drag him kicking and screaming to the Hague.
Nothing can work without tough inspections and enforcement. And for that we must rely on … Vladimir Putin.
By Charles Duelfer • Politico Magazine
We don’t yet know all the details of the nuclear agreement that Iran, the United States and five other world powers announced Thursday they are aiming to complete by June 30. What we do know is that any acceptable final deal will depend on a strong weapons inspection element. In his remarks in the Rose Garden, President Obama declared Tehran had agreed to precisely that. “If Iran cheats, the world will know,” he said.
Yet weapons inspectors can be no tougher than the body that empowers them—in this instance the UN Security Council. And herein lies the agreement’s fundamental weakness—and perhaps its fatal flaw. Do we really want to depend on Vladimir Putin? Because Russia will be able to decide what to enforce in any deal—and what not to.
Like so many things in in life, one can learn a lot from Saddam Hussein. Certainly Tehran will have learned from Saddam’ s experience in trying to evade the scrutiny of the UN Security Council, weapons inspectors, sanctions, and individual governments. Continue reading
At first glance, the case appears to be that of Nero and the burning Rome. A team of United Nations weapons inspectors sits in a luxury Damascus hotel just 20 minutes’ drive from what appears to be the deadliest use of chemical weapons since Saddam Hussein’s barbarity against the Kurds of Halabja in 1988. They are there, but they do nothing.
What fault there is, however, does not lie with the inspectors. Nor does it lie with the UN – although it might appear so to those who fondly imagine it as a genuinely supranational authority capable of halting atrocities against innocent civilian populations and bringing contending parties to the negotiating table. Continue reading