Peter Gellis of NYT has a useful report “Trump whiplash looms over global climate talks” on the lead up to the COP in Baku. [1]
Points from the report are in italics, my comments not.
“During his first term, Trump withdrew the United States from the Paris climate accord, promoted the expansion of fossil fuels and renounced American leadership on environmental issues.”
This was deeply unfortunate. The US can and should be a leader in reforming the COP Process. Intermittent participation can’t help.
“Over the past four years, the Biden administration reversed course, rejoined the Paris accord, invested heavily in renewable energy and looked for ways to limit oil and gas production.”
Rejoining was good. So too was the investment, but US incentives in the “inflation Reduction Act” are not optimally structured as they are given for _investment in_ CO2 reduction instead of _reduction itself_. Likewise, limiting oil and gas production, per se is not a proper objective. We (the world) need to limit _demand for_ not the _supply of_ fossil fuels. This is one of the things about the COP approach that needs to be reformed.
On the campaign trail, Trump continued to call climate change a hoax, said he would pull out of the Paris accord again, pledged to expand oil and gas production and roll back pollution controls, and threatened to eliminate federal incentives that promote renewable energy and electric vehicles.
When a politician utters a falsehood about a subject when they ought to know what is true, this is a _lie_, even if they have persuaded themselves that it is true. Trump lies that climate change is a hoax.
Pulling out of the Paris Accords again will again be a mistake.
Removing obstacles to US supply of fossil fuels in not a mistake. The mistake will be failing to reduce demand by cost effective incentives that promote zero CO2-emitting (not “renewable”) energy and electric vehicle use or reversing such incentives. In other words, in not having a tax on net emissions of CO2.
“All of this may make it less likely for other countries to spend money and political capital combating climate change.”
Probably the case, but that, too, would be a mistake, and would only compound Trump’s error. If the US is doing less (at least temporarily) to reduce demand, the rest of the world should do more. Namely each country should enact a tax on net emissions of CO2, concretely place an excise tax on sales of fossil fuels in proportion to the carbon content. The tax on net emissions should be accompanied by a border adjustment on imports from non-cooperating countries (in this case the US). While this policy does require spending “political capital,” it does not entail “spending money.” On the contrary, the tax on net emission raises revenue that governments” can use for other things – like adapting to the effects of CO2 already emitted.
What to watch for in Baku
Climate finance: This was supposed to be the year that the world figured out how to pour huge amounts of money — estimates range from $100 billion a year to $1 trillion or more — for climate mitigation and adaptation into the developing world. Will the momentum still be there?
It is just for countries that have caused the most damage by emitting CO2 and benefited from doing so, to compensate people in countries that have been most harmed. Current GDP is probably a good approximation to who and how much to contribute. Who should benefit and by how much depends on costs in each country as indicated by NPV of adaptation projects. The World Bank is the logical vehicle for managing this fund. [N.B. Finance of net CO emissions reduction projects (including nuclear) ought to be outside this fund and driven by usual Bank investment decisions processes.]
Country updates: Every nation at COP will be offering an update on their plans to reduce emissions. Overall, the world is falling short, according to a new U.N. report. Will any countries, especially India, China or Brazil, ratchet up their ambition in the face of an overheating planet?
The setting of COP emission reduction plans is presently not well conceived. The plans should consist of specific policies adopted and the projected reduction in emissions flowing from those policies.
[See comments on COP 28: https://thomaslhutcheson.substack.com/p/cop-28-and-counting]
Image prompt: people sitting around a table in Baku looking perplexed
[Standard bleg: Although my style is know-it-all-ism, I do sometime entertain the thought that, here and there, I might be mistaken on some minor detail. I would welcome comments on these views.]
[1] “Conference of the Parties (COP) to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC),
Nice post, sir. Thank you. At your invitation, and with all due respect, sir, I offer these comments, structured around two over-arching questions: First, is climate change a hoax. Second, does the benefit of COP conferences justify the cost?
A particularly troublesome problem in climate communications today is the fundamental definition of “change.” Many believe “climate change” to mean “a catastrophe is waiting just around the corner that will end life on earth as we know it.” That belief is accompanied by demands that only by stopping the consumption of fossil fuels can this catastrophe be averted.
Others take a more measured approach, believing that the climate is changing and has been since the atmosphere formed. What we are experiencing today is well within the changes demonstrated over time. That belief is supplemented with the urge to prepare for those changes through adaptive measures.
There are also those who believe not only that the climate is NOT changing, but who believe a completely stable climate is the only prerequisite for man’s survival. Indeed, we are to believe that the most adaptable species that has ever existed, a species so sophisticated it can survive in outer space, requires an absolutely stable average temperature and sea level in order to survive? This belief defies common sense, but nevertheless persists.
I will not speculate where Mr. Trump falls within the spectrum of those extremes. I will say, however, that my dictionary defines a “hoax” as something intended to deceive or defraud and I believe those who espouse climate change as catastrophic are indeed perpetrating a hoax. Since man first stood upright, he has been taking measures to adapt to his climate, beginning with his use of caves for shelter and protection. Over time, man has mastered his climate by providing shelter with warmth in the winter and cool in the summer; protection from storms and weather extremes; and by understanding how to move about within different climates yet still thrive.
Therefore, I would conclude that “climate change is a hoax” is an accurate statement when speaking of those who would have us fear climate change rather than understand it. The intent of those who speak of catastrophe is not to prevent catastrophe from happening but rather to control those of us who disagree. Before we assess what is or isn't true, we need to first have a common understanding of the very meaning for the words. Then, and only then, can we say it is an undeniable truth, or it is a lie.
The purpose of the Conference of the Parties (COP) is to negotiate and assess progress on addressing climate change. The COP is the decision-making body for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), an international treaty that includes nearly every country in the world. We will soon commence the 29th edition of this conference.
It is a well-known axiom that however beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results. After 29 conferences, has “climate change” been stopped? No. Have emissions been reduced? No. Has the use of fossil fuel declined? No; in fact, it has increased. Do those measures indicate any sort of success in “addressing climate change?” You are aware, I’m sure, of the definition of insanity – doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. In essence, the COP has become the world’s largest gathering of climate evangelists and purveyors of virtue signaling extraordinaire.
Over the past 150 years, the use of fossil fuels has greatly improved our lives! The entire climate argument was born from the fears of death and destruction wrought by expected coming extreme weather. Yet, the deaths from such events have been REDUCED by two orders of magnitude. Are we living longer, have we greatly expanded our abilities to feed billions of people? Are we healthier? Do more people live above poverty? The answer to all of these questions is yes. Further, those improvements have occurred in spite of the fact that carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere have increased by over 50 percent, and global mean temperatures have increased by over 1 degree Celsius.
Those who attend the COP and who believe a decarbonized society is man’s only hope for survival might do well to understand that until a few hundred years ago, nearly all the energy used by humans was renewable, and life was certainly not a utopian heaven on Earth. Members of the COP might make far better use of their time, expenditures, and private-jet emissions if they asked the climate question differently: how can we improve our methods of burning fossil fuels for energy in ways that minimize effects to climate while maximizing our benefits to the lives that climate supports? Environmentalist have long been crying for sustainability. Is it sustainable to base our livelihoods on the least energy dense resources available (wind and solar)? Are there measures available to economically reduce emissions without reducing our access to reliable and affordable energy?
This is what the COP needs to address. Not climate change, per se, but how can we continue to find, develop, and use safe, reliable, and affordable energy sources to allow humanity to thrive and adapt to those changes when they inevitably arrive at our front door.
My two cents, adjusted for inflation.
Hi Thomas -- nice piece -- but we all know it already -- been there, done that