This article is an extended and substantially revised version of a comment made at Wattsupwiththat to the article The Consensus Strikes Back: Climate Empire Launches Legal Assault on EPA.
Whilst Anthony Watts was speaking on the Climate Realism show, the main screen was scrolling through the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) and the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) “COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY, INJUNCTIVE, AND MANDAMUS RELIEF” document. Part of Paragraph 27 stood out.
EPA’s final finding rested on a vast body of rigorous, peer-reviewed scientific research confirming that greenhouse gas pollution is driving destructive changes in our climate that pose a grave and growing threat to Americans’ health, security, and economic well-being.
Let us follow the “Consensus Science” on this one. Hansen et al. 1988 (the paper behind the 1988 staged event that really launched the global climate hysteria), states that greenhouse gases are well-mixed. That means it does not matter where in the world anthropogenic emissions originate; each unit of these trace gases affects the levels in equal measure. Capitalist countries do not emit a more pernicious form of CO2 than, say, communist ones. Yet, International law related to climate is written as if this were the case. A detailed exposition of that international law is contained in a recently issued Judgement by the International Court of Justice, “OBLIGATIONS OF STATES IN RESPECT OF CLIMATE CHANGE“. Paragraph 179 states
The principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities is a cardinal principle of the climate change treaty framework, which is incorporated in several provisions of the climate change treaties (see UNFCCC, preamble, Article 3, paragraphs 1 and 2, and Article 4; Kyoto Protocol, Article 10; Paris Agreement, Article 2, paragraph 2, and Article 4, paragraphs 3, 4 and 19; see also paragraphs 148-151 above)……
What does “the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities” mean? This is spelt out in the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) 1994 Article 4.7
The extent to which developing country Parties will effectively implement their commitments under the Convention … will take fully into account that economic and social development and poverty eradication are the first and overriding priorities of the developing country Parties.
Similarly, Paragraph 4.4 of the Paris Agreement 2016 states
Developed country Parties should continue taking the lead by undertaking economy-wide absolute emission reduction targets. Developing country Parties should continue enhancing their mitigation efforts, and are encouraged to move over time towards economy-wide emission reduction or limitation targets in the light of different national circumstances.
That is, under UN law, there is a two-track approach to cutting emissions. Only developed Western countries have an obligation to cut their emissions in the near future. The rest of the world following on at a some yet to be agreed upon point in the future. The idea of a unified global approach to emissions reductions are an illusion in the mind of climate activists. Therefore, net zero policies, or talk of achieving following some 1.5 °C and 2 °C emissions pathways are just narratives to impose costly and pretty much useless policies on a few countries.
How has this played out? Under the UNFCCC Treaty, the developed (or Annex 1) countries include the more developed parts of the former Soviet Union. But Russia, Belarus and Ukraine have been temporarily excluded for the last 30+ years as “economies in transition”. That leaves the USA, EU, Japan, Canada, Australia and UK as the main radical emissions-cutting countries, along with Mexico and Türkiye, whose emissions have massively increased since 1990. How does that work out? US CO2 Emissions declined 3% from 1990-2023, but have declined as a share of the global total from 18.5% to 12.0%. The share declined due to CO2 emissions in the “developing countries” increasing during 1990-2023 by 105%. In other words, now seven-eighths of the CO2 “pollution” affecting Americans emanates from outside the USA. Further, the EPA endangerment finding covers just a part of the national policies. These consensus scientists should realise that the EPA Endangerment Finding is severely limited territorially. If policy is evaluated from the standpoint of achievable goals, then any emissions constraint policy by the US in whole or in part that aims to stop “climate change” will fail.
ManicBeancounter 