The Paris Climate Agreement Won't Change the Climate

Dennis PragerPragerUPrager UniversityBjorn LomborgParis Climate TreatyParis Climate AgreementClimate ChangeGlobal WarmingEPACopenhagen Consensus CenterCO2Barack ObamaGreen EnergyFrackingNatural GasCoalOil

The Paris Climate Agreement will cost at least $1 trillion per year, and climate activists say it will save the planet. The truth? It won't do anything for the planet, but it will make everyone poorer--except politicians and environmentalists. Bjorn Lomborg explains.
Donate today to PragerU! http://l.prageru.com/2ylo1Yt

Joining PragerU is free! Sign up now to get all our videos as soon as they're released. http://prageru.com/signup

Download Pragerpedia on your iPhone or Android! Thousands of sources and facts at your fingertips.

iPhone: http://l.prageru.com/2dlsnbG
Android: http://l.prageru.com/2dlsS5e

Join Prager United to get new swag every quarter, exclusive early access to our videos, and an annual TownHall phone call with Dennis Prager! http://l.prageru.com/2c9n6ys

Join PragerU's text list to have these videos, free merchandise giveaways and breaking announcements sent directly to your phone! https://optin.mobiniti.com/prageru

Do you shop on Amazon? Click https://smile.amazon.com and a percentage of every Amazon purchase will be donated to PragerU. Same great products. Same low price. Shopping made meaningful.

VISIT PragerU! https://www.prageru.com

FOLLOW us!
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/prageru
Twitter: https://twitter.com/prageru
Instagram: https://instagram.com/prageru/
PragerU is on Snapchat!

JOIN PragerFORCE!

For Students: http://l.prageru.com/29SgPaX
JOIN our Educators Network! http://l.prageru.com/2c8vsff

Script:

Much has been made of the Paris Climate Agreement signed by the leaders of 178 countries in 2016. French foreign minister Laurent Fabius, speaking for many, called it a "historic turning point."

The head of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Gina McCarthy, echoed the minister's remark when she testified before the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology. The Paris Agreement was, she said, an "incredible achievement." But when pressed by committee members to explain exactly how much this treaty would reduce global temperatures, she would not –  or could not – say.

This combination of grand pronouncements and vague specifics is a good strategy for Paris Agreement fans to take. Because the agreement will cost a fortune, but do little to reduce global warming.

Consider the Obama administration's signature climate policy, the Clean Power Plan. Using the same climate prediction model that the UN uses, I found that the power plan will accomplish almost nothing. Even if its cuts to carbon dioxide emissions are fully implemented – not just for the 14 years that the Paris Agreement lasts, but for the rest of the century – the Clean Power Plan would reduce the temperature increase in 2100 by just 0.023 degrees Fahrenheit.

The President has made further, and grander, promises of future U.S. carbon cuts, but these are only vaguely outlined. In the unlikely event that all of these extra cuts also happen, and are adhered to throughout the rest of the century, the combined reduction in temperatures would be 0.057 degrees.

To put it another way, if the U.S. delivers for the whole century on the President's very ambitious rhetoric, it would postpone global warming by about eight months at the end of the century. 

Now let's add in the rest of the world's Paris promises. If we generously assume that the promised carbon cuts for 2030 are not only met (which itself would be a U.N. first), but sustained, throughout the rest of the century, temperatures in 2100 would drop by 0.3 degrees – the equivalent of postponing warming by less than four years. Again, that's using the UN's own climate prediction model.

But here's the biggest problem: These miniscule benefits do not come free; quite the contrary.

The cost of the Paris climate pact is likely to run to 1 to 2 trillion dollars every year, based on estimates produced by the Stanford Energy Modeling Forum and the Asia Modeling Exercise. In other words, we will spend at least one hundred trillion dollars in order to reduce the temperature, by the end of the century, by a grand total of three tenths of one degree. 

Some Paris Agreement supporters defend it by claiming that its real impact on temperatures will be much more significant than the U.N. model predicts. But this requires mental gymnastics and heroic assumptions.

For the complete script, visit https://www.prageru.com/videos/paris-climate-agreement-wont-change-climate

impicker
Paris Climate Agreement won't work for people who don't believe in man-made climate change.
Maryann Blankley
environmentalism is the new communism.
Camel76
ClimateDepot Fndr: Paris Accord Is About Wealth Redistribution, Not Climate (Newsmax)
Sam Man
Where are the links to their resources? I went to their link about getting the “full script” but I was unable to find a resources page.
SozoFlow
For the rest of the world who uses Celsius, it would take 146,956.5217 years for the Earth to cool down in 1º C with the Paris Agreement
Amor Royer
What if it only takes a 0.20 degree difference to save the world...? Then NOT doing this will doom us all....
aida6450 aida6450
Why are you so dumb?
INFINITE ANIME REVIEWs AND Games
How did humans become so stupid.. we put cost over future and love ..from extended family to nuclear family because of money .. from nuclear to side chick because of pleasure, no climate agreement because of cost .. money is not real .. only life is
bacaca23
Another place for Trump supporters to feel they have a brain.
Jacob Lee
For once I actually agree with a PragerU video. Paris Agreement was a joke and would cost American tax payers billions! I am not a climate denier, humans dominate this planet and it is ignorant to think we are not having a negative impact on it! But we need smart and drastic changes, don't have a clue what that should be but we do need to do something.
Rod Martin, Jr.
We live in an Ice Age! And the UN is worried about a meager amount of warming. History has shown that warming generally leads to prosperity. Heck, 11,600 years ago, massive global warming of +10C in 10 years made civilization possible for the first time in 90,000 years.
LemonGameshark
as a person with a degree in environmental science, i recognize the effects of climate change. As a rationally thinking conservative, I also recognize the counterproductive methodology that the left is using to combat the issue. The paris agreement is garbage. Do your research people.
Jeremy Uchiha
the paris climate agreement didn't do a damn thing except put this country further into debt and steal from the american taxpayers
slctdmbntwrx
Everybody knows the concept its to incentivize thinking green at a CO2 level. Companies already do this by going "paper free" and "think about the environment before printing this email", now you're going to incentivize business by doing the same via CO2. If you can't understand this basic concept and how it's a good thing, you should probably question your entire reason for being and start over.
Rodney Johnson
Thank God president Trump pulled us out of the Paris agreement
Andrew Barnett
The Paris Agreement was basically just a verbal promise for most countries while he;ping smaller ones who cant afford to update.......While its not enforceable its more of a shame kinda thing letting the world know your products and such arent made with clean power.....then there is the VOLUNTARY Green fund which countries put money in to again help the weaker ones (who tend to create more emissions) to go cleaner............its not the best but it is a massive step forward and even if it is only helps climate change by 1% it did something and cost the individual nothing
DemonCisco
Really, fracking is good for the environment? Wow.. Prager U..
QuizMaster
Correct me when if I’m wrong but isn’t fracking also bad for the environment in its own way?
Ikhsan fahri pratama
Dude, fracking is quite dangerous to nature. You can try building water source next to fracking area
Asish Pradhan
Don't worry ..it will help us use renewable sources of energy.
2910687
how about 100 trillion dollars going towards developing actual alternatives rather than starving our economy
MrTableturns
Now only 2 countries are not part of the Paris climate agreement. Syria and the United States. This fact speaks for itself.
Ivium
The fact is USA is becoming the number one obstacle to a world where the human race can live on the long term. You don't care about climate change, you don't care about the fact that earth's ressources (oil) are coming to their end, you just want to suck every dollar from those ressources until you'll find another way to make money, because that's what runs your country, M-O-N-E-Y, your country don't even care about it's native people: YOUR POLICE kills them, YOUR JUNK FOOD kills them, the GUNS YOU SELL AS TOYS KILLS THEM. Your country is the example of "what NOT TO DO" to survive on the long term. It's not really hard to be more clever than you, that's why the entire word won't follow you anymore, because the model you've built everything on is destined to fail. But in a way, your failure allowed us to avoid doing the same mistake. So thank you america for showing the entire world WHAT NOT TO DO to keep the planet a good place for human race.
Jane Madison
Liberals be like:

We have to keep the world clean for all the future children we'll abort.
alexander shekhtman
BTW, if global warming is real, then people like Hillary Clinton should be first in line to sell all her private jets and fly only commercial. But I will bet a million bucks she will never do it. Hypocrite = no such thing as global warming.
alexander shekhtman
Al Gore should be given the death penalty for causing this multi quadrillion (that's 1000 times a trillion) dollar scam
Justin Egan
Propaganda U
xenon127
That's because it is NOT designed to decrease temperatures. Fool.
Calvin Yang
Bjorn.. An Icelandic name, eh? He is now a disgrace to our country.

On a serious note, fracking, as mentioned in the video, will have a detrimental effect on our environment.Not only does it pollutes our groundwater, but it also releases methane into the atmosphere. Now, 1 methane molecule is 23 times more potent than a CO2 molecule. I could go on for days but if you are intelligent, you will get why his arguments are flawed. Cheers.

P.S: My PhD was climate science.
Nipun Kothare
I'm a simple man.. I see a white guy saying this won't work, I believe it works. :D
Oskar Steingrimsson
CO2 doesn´t cause a global warming and is as necessary on our planet as oxygen, the more of it the better for the vegetation.
Sphagnum P. I.
Report: Most Signatories Are ‘Ignoring’ or ‘Abandoning’ Paris Climate Commitments

by Thomas D. Williams, Ph.D. 22 Oct 2017

Following President Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Paris Climate Accord, a number of other nations have quietly begun ignoring the Paris energy goals, according to a new report out of Canada.

According to Lawrence Solomon of Energy Probe, a Toronto-based environmental organization, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is one of the only signers of the Paris agreement who is actually abiding by the exacting demands of the accord.

Meanwhile, Solomon notes in an essay in Friday’s 20 October 2017 Financial Post, “most signatories are ignoring, if not altogether abandoning Paris commitments, undoubtedly because voters in large part put no stock in scary global warming scenarios.”

“Trudeau now stands almost alone in sincere support of Paris,” Solomon writes. “The populist backlash — a revulsion at top-down governments laden with jet-setting politicians landing in posh places to preach restraint to the masses — has swept America with Trump’s election, Great Britain with Brexit, much of Europe, and Australia.”

“In the process, global warming enthusiasts are being swept out,” he writes.

Last week, Australia rejected its Clean Energy Target (CET), a lengthy proposal that would have forced electricity utilities to rely on renewables and other low-emission sources for a substantial percentage of their production. The measure had been put forward as a way of complying with requirements of the non-binding Paris agreement.

Earlier this month, the prominent Australian economist Judith Sloan wrote a scathing essay decrying renewable energy as the greatest “scam” being perpetrated against taxpayers and consumers, greater even than Ponzi, Madoff or Enron.

While sinking enormous financial resources into propping up renewable energy prospectors, national governments are providing no perceptible benefits to their citizens, Sloan wrote.

“With very few exceptions, governments all over the world have fallen into the trap of paying renewable energy scammers on the basis that it is necessary, at least politically, to be seen to be doing something about climate change,” Sloan writes, before providing readers with an avalanche of economic data to back up her assertion.

Apparently, Sloan’s arguments and those of like-minded analysts prevailed on policy makers, and the country rejected the CET with its taxpayer funded subsidizing of renewables.

A second blow to disciples of the Paris Climate Accord was last week’s Austrian election, Solomon argues, “which saw two conservative parties with no interest in climate change — it wasn’t even an election issue — come in first and second, making them likely to form a pro-carbon coalition government.”

Germany, too, which has been a staunch proponent of anti-climate change regulations, has fallen “hopelessly behind in meeting its carbon targets,” according to a leak. The current state of affairs has not only undermined Germany’s climate policy, but also jeopardizes “Germany’s international reputation as a climate leader,” Solomon asserts.

According to the analyst, popular opinion against German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s “Energiewende” (energy transition) policies, which had doubled electricity prices, played no small part in Merkel’s terrible showing in last month’s national elections. Costs of the ill-fated Energiewende now total some €650 billion, a bill that weighs heavily on the shoulders of German taxpayers.

Late last year, to their national embarrassment, the Germans had to be bailed out of a small energy crisis by Poland when the wind failed to blow for several days and a thick fog surrounded many parts of Germany, driving the output from renewables to just 4 percent of total demand. It was coal-fueled Poland that had to rescue Germany from its self-induced energy crisis.

“Merkel may now be unable to form a government without the support of the libertarian Free Democratic Party, which demands an end to renewables subsidies,” Solomon notes.

And so around the world—except in Trudeau’s Canada—nations are once again turning back to inexpensive coal rather than pouring more money into costly “renewables,” and coal plants are being built at five times the rate that old plants are being decommissioned.

This quiet revolution may simply be a welcome return to common sense and realism.

After all, once the photo ops are finished and the politically correct accords are duly signed amidst solemn brow furling, political leaders must get back to the business of meeting the real needs of their citizens—which all depend on the availability of affordable energy.

Follow Thomas D. Williams on Twitter
ayy lmao
You can see in this video the assumption that the co2 levels after the years of the Paris climate change agreement will increase in the same rate as it would if the Paris climate change agreement didn't exist which is wrong speculation at best and manipulative nonsense in reality :D
Michael Priest
Entire world tricked to be economically inferior compared to USA! BRAVO!
Young Tang
President Trump absolutely made the right decision to withdraw from the Paris Climate Accord. The US got an oil reserve of 264 billion of barrels, larger than Saudi and Russia. Now, tell me why we, the American people should not be energy independence and enjoy the prosperity like Saudis have been for many decades.
Slick Pickle
meanwhile in India...
Ben McClure
Climate Change:
Its not caused the most by people.
Its caused the most by the climate... changing.
That shouldn't be a surprise.
Wimpy Banana
Y not just build a fuking CO2 plant that sucks up the CO2 in the air and exhaust at least almost pure oxygen and be done with the whole climate problem, we only need to decrease the amount of carbon in the air by a massive amount so the paris climate agreenment wont do shit, a large amount of people will probably resist the switch to green energy considering the cost and reliability, and even then it'll take centuries for the air to clear up, y not just build a technology that reverses our blunder rather than just trying to not worsen it.
billj696
Thank you President Trump for exiting this wasteful agreement. Take the allowance away from world socialism one bad idea at a time.
Elijah
I watch this channel just to listen to other people's obscure beliefs
Joseph Gallagher
0.3 degrees, may seem miniscule, but to the planet, it means a LOT
Micka the kitten
Say that to Jews. They are behind everything. And tell them to stop muslim invasion of europe, we europeans are your allies, islam's not. They want you all dead.
Laura Bunyard
Glad President Trump dumped it.
Captain Planet
The two major funders of PragerU are multimillionaires that made their money through fracking... Of course they're going to make a video like this.
Tyler Wallace
1 degree is more likely, but even if 0.2 C was the relevant figure, it’s not a negligible quantity when it comes to tropical coral reef bleaching or Arctic sea ice melting.
Lukas R
I love how there are 6,000 dislikes on a video that has no opinions, just facts, there is not one opinion in this video. Liberals cant handle facts.
EYE-IN-THE-SKY PRODUCTIONS
Typical Christian Chanel disgusted
Rasmiranjan Rath
greedy white pigs
The Yeti King
Meanwhile Kim jun un is doing nuke tests and launching rockets either way or not the Earth will get warmer it's happened before there were Ice core samples at least a thousand down in the Arctic showing that the Earth has been much warmer before so it doesn't exactly exist
Ross Nunez
Wow, this channel has alot of revisionist history and psuedo science and far right leaning opinions posed as intellectual thought, without providing logical arguments or credibility.
Related Videos