It’s time to party. At this time, in the French armored capital, the great and the good are starting to pose for the flashes and then discuss with the firm intention to agree on the following agenda:
- Defeat terrorism
- Permanently delete world hunger
- Put an end to any kind of armed conflict
- Turn all the weapons factories in chocolate factories
- Delete all kinds of social and economic inequality
Would you like to huh? And yet nothing, the gathering of powerful will take place, but none of these arguments will be subject of negotiation. They will talk about saving the world from being warmer, that is, according to the unique facts hitherto attributed to increase in average global temperature as a result of an increased concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, from being greener. It will be a case, for heaven’s sake, but while we’re all here waiting that the gloomy predictions of a climate ‘disrupted’ by reason of heating comes true, the only thing actually measured is the benefit that the plants around the world, be it forests or crops, are benefiting from increased availability of the substance they eat, precisely CO2 and favorable climatic conditions like those, up to a thousand years ago, allowed and facilitated the development of our civilization.
Something that, of course, the powerful of the earth they are going to reverse. Or not? This is also to be seen. So it would be if at the end in Paris, they really came to a legally binding agreement on reducing emissions, because – is pretty clear to to everyone – the decarbonisation as you would like is not economically viable. None of the available energy resource guarantees the amount of energy equal to current demand, not even to speak of the future, at costs comparable to those of fossil fuels. So we will use less energy and, given that welfare is in the availability of large amounts of cheap energy, we should feel worse. We do it for the world’s poor? No, because despite some high official of the IPCC claims that summits like the one in Paris are not on the climate but on redistribution of global income (Oppenheimer, co-chair of the IPCC, nomen omen), what we would call the most are the poor, for whom the cheap energy today need to grow up and stop being poor.
So we are going to have an agreement, but not in the form in which it would make sense, if not granted you could decide around a table what the weather will be in 10, 50, 100 years or more. But, no one will come away defeated in its picture, the only thing that politically really matters, and the signatures will shine on a document where all will commit, voluntarily, to do what they promised to do and that it’s already known that is not going to help.
This, in summary and with some additions, the idea that Matt Ridley and Benny Peiser put just yesterday in the Wall Street Journal.
Attention, to read it in full you need a subscription, but you find it almost in its entirety on the website of the GWPF.