07 Jul 2017

Clarifying Paris, Parts 1 and 2

Climate Change, Shameless Self-Promotion 5 Comments

The sequel to my post on the Paris Agreement is now up at IER. For your reference, here is Part 1 and now here is Part 2.

In this latest article, I focus on the 2 degrees Celsius target, which is the centerpiece of the Paris Agreement. Some surprising stuff in here. For example:

As the diagram indicates, even if all governments satisfied the climate policy pledges they’ve made, the globe would still warm by an estimated 2.8°C (with an uncertainty band of 3.5°C on the high end and 2.3°C on the low end).

What’s worse, if we look at the current policies of the world’s governments, then this website estimates warming of 3.6°C, with an upper bound of 4.9°C and a lower bound of 2.6°C.

So to reiterate, the notion that the world was doing just fine, until Donald Trump came along and ruined the fight against climate change, is simply not true. Whether we look at what the other governments have promised or we look at what they’ve actually put into place, the world was not anywhere close to respecting the 2°C target.

5 Responses to “Clarifying Paris, Parts 1 and 2”

  1. DZ says:

    Between this and 2% inflation target. Why the obsession with policy growth of 2?

  2. Harold says:

    ” the notion that the world was doing just fine, until Donald Trump came along and ruined the fight against climate change, is simply not true.”

    Did anyone think it was true? I thought there was universal cries of “we are not doing enough” from believers in problematic AGW and universal cries of “Trump is doing the right thing” from disbelievers. I doubt there were many in the middle who thought we were doing enough until Trump ruined it.

    • Major.Freedom says:

      You have not seen all the “Trump just destroyed the planet” rhetoric all over the dinosaur media and social media?

      • Harold says:

        Have you sen the “we are not doing enough about climate change” rhetoric?

  3. Harold says:

    You say:
    “It was a largely symbolic ritual” and “How can one possibly reconcile these two views?”

    Quite simply by believing that symbols are important.

Leave a Reply