Good article. Here is another point of view. That this “Emperor of Climate Alarmism” had no clothes was exposed in plain sight by Climate alarmism claims as early as 2015 by Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the UN's Framework Convention on Climate Change: "This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution." That would mean the destruction of capitalism and the world economy, however long that takes. And in the time of the Great Awokening, any journalists or commentators who dare to question or oppose the climate change orthodoxy were immediately shunned as "climate deniers" and met in the legacy media with an instant end to their careers. It is no wonder that the climate change scam won the day. Few people have been willing to risk their livelihoods to fight against the manipulation. At the previous UN Climate Conference, COP29, which took place in Baku, Azerbaijan in November 2024, the agenda to destroy the world's economy and the West by forcing wealth redistribution made new strides.... [Developing countries] apparently demanded $1.3 trillion annually. In the words of energy expert Alex Epstein: "The basic idea here is what they call 'climate reparations,' which is the idea that the US and others have ruined the world with fossil fuels, and so we have to pay a trillion dollars a year to make up for it. Bjorn Borg is the “go to guy” on this subject and has pointed out whether you believe that Climate Change is real, and may be harmful, he pointed out that countries are spending an enormous amount of money on climate policies but achieve almost nothing. “We should fix climate smartly, but right now we are just fixing it stupidly,” Lomborg told Sky News host Peta Credlin. “It is increasingly becoming obvious to voters and to politicians that this is not the right way to go about it.” Others say “Climate Control” is a fantasy. It's a rationalization for altruist ethics and the demand for all its ensuing sacrifices are by authoritarian control. It's taken on faith, meaning that logic and objectivity have no effect. Modelling reality is an alternative bible of the same method, cherry-picking correlations to produce desired results on paper. Correlations are beguiling to some but are not causation, not rational epistemology to guide science. Bill Gates, for what it’s worth has broken ranks and agrees with Lomborg that there should be and emphasis and a shift in climate strategy, advocating for a focus on improving human welfare and reducing suffering rather than solely on limiting emissions. Both argue that spending trillions of dollars to “fix something that humans cannot fix” is a huge waste of funds that could be addressing issues like poverty and disease that should take precedence, as these have a more immediate impact on people's lives, especially in poorer countries. There is a lot of truth in what Lomborg has been saying for years about climate alarmism.
You just pivoted from decrying alarmism to accusing your opponents of plotting the destruction of capitalism and the world economy within a couple of sentences. Chapeau!
Nobody is plotting to destroy anything. People are stumbling in the dark trying to think up solutions to a fantastically difficult and wholly unprecedented type of problem and they're making a lot of mistakes at it because the problem is fantastically difficult and wholly unprecedented.
One begs to disagree. This sort of change in the planets climate is not "unprecedented." The Seine River experienced significant drying in 1725, similar to other droughts in Europe during that period. This event was part of a series of severe droughts that affected many regions, leading to low water levels in several rivers, including the Seine. Was this due to rising CO2 levels for it can't be claimed that it was the Industrial Revolution that caused these "climatic" catastrophes. Can it? In certain scientific circles the “Dawn of Time” was 1979! There is a consensus that they are uncertain when the dawn of time actually was, "so the science is settled " and requires no further research? Refer back to Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the UN's Framework Convention on Climate Change: "This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution." Why did she say this?
"Beyond the partisan shouting matches, beyond the catastrophism and the denialism on the left and the right, we’re running a vast, uncontrolled experiment in atmospheric chemistry with results we can only guess at."
We're not running an experiment. We are actually giving people massive improvements in their lives in developing countries. Our energy production systems are the single most important factor that enables us to live better than our ancestors four hundred years ago. THAT is the thing against which we need to compare the costs of climate change.
I also feel like there is still trapped in this a sort of catastrophism. I think prudence is indicated, given the possible bad outcomes, but without knowing HOW things will take shape and where, and where the lines even are, it's impossible to know how much of our power should be devoted to which parts of the risk. The only thing we are fairly certain is likely to reduce the risks is reducing the carbon, which is presumably why that's where the focus is, but we can definitely put ourselves in a position where over-investing now will make us less agile in the future when we have a much clearer picture of the risks and costs.
"we can definitely put ourselves in a position where over-investing now will make us less agile in the future when we have a much clearer picture of the risks and costs."
That's the pickle, alright. Look up "decision-making under deep uncertainty." Serious people are thinking seriously about it.
Why not just admit that no one knows how the climate will change. Scientists can't even agree on how much it already has changed, and how much of that change is due to human activity. The climate changes without human activity as we know ( the little ice age back in the 17th century for example).
Suppose the climate really does get hotter. Melting ice would make sea levels rise. Only problem is- they dont seem to be rising. Other than that, why couldnt people and agriculture adapt ?. Canada grows more food, while Florida is as hot as the Caribbean. Changing climate patterns will create winners as well as losers. How do we know it doesnt balance out?
I wish the environmental movement would focus on the KNOWN problems which are being ignored. For example he chemical tsunami from agriculture and developed world lifestyle. The plastics disaster. These are not high tech problems to solve. These could be solved. As for population, fertility is declining. While Bill Gates wants to vaccinate every person on the planet against every possible disease, he also talks about the population problem. Paradoxical, no? Not saying people should die of preventable diseases ( assuming the vaccines actually prevent). Questions....
"Why not just admit that no one knows how the climate will change."
Because that's not true, either. If we knew nothing, it would be relatively simple. We don't know nothing. We have very partial, maddeningly incomplete knowledge which points to difficult-to-quantify but irresponsible-to-ignore risks. I fully get it that this is a deeply unsatisfying state of affairs. I get it that there's deep thirst for certainty. That we're desperate for this to be simple, even if it's not easy.
Certainty is the one thing nobody can offer with regard to climate risks.
"assuming the vaccines actually prevent". I know you have a bit of a bee in your bonnet about the covid vaccine (the data completely contradict your concerns), but even if we put that to one side, surely the fact that the introduction of vaccines coincided with the virtual eradication of deaths from childhood infections such as polio, whooping cough, diphtheria, measles make your parenthesis sound either uninformed or suggest unwilling to look at the data without trying to create a more tortuous explanation.
Food for thought, if you are interested to go deeper on the questions you raise above. But maybe you already "know". Vaccines are a commercial product that is sold for profit by big companies. They are not some magic holy grail. Its legitmate to ask questions, to critique. But anyway, below are very high level critiques:
Who suggested they were a "magical holy grail". I'm interested in what the data tell us. Everything is sold for a profit. Do you not take any medicines or buy any products for that matter because somebody might make a profit?
Debunked by an industry funded fake non profit. Joe Rogan is the most listened to podcast in America, and Americans are open minded and waking up. Can you explain the following: why is it that in 1962 children got 5 doses of vaccines between 0 and 18. , in 1983 they got 24 doses between 0 an d 18. In 1986 an immunity shield was given to vaccine makers by Congress after the swine flu debacle By 2019 Children are getting 73 ( !) doses of 234 Viral and bacterial strains. Look it up.
Can you also look up childhood deaths from diseases such as measles, polio, diphtheria, whooping cough in the presence and absence of vaccines. Also cholera, typhoid etc. Do you think all vaccines are ineffective, or is it the number of vaccines you object to. Is it OK for people to make money publishing books, giving lectures etc refuting the stack of data against them, but not for companies to make money from developing vaccines? Do you think it's at all suspicious that many of the anti-vaxxers have later been shown to be accepting money from shady people who have an interest in debunking vaccines?
You should listen to this podcast, which is not only informative but entertaining as well. It may not be the most listened to in the US, but just because something is popular doesn't make it true.
If the increase in measles deaths in the US is a sign of the country "waking up", then I despair for the children. Should I congratulate you on joining the ranks of the woke?
This is an interesting provocation, but it ultimately misrepresents both the purpose and the impact of the COP process. All the challenges the author raises (structural constraints in the Global South, uncertainty in climate modelling, the complexity of decarbonisation) are well known to people who actually work in climate science, climate finance, and implementation.
But the argument overlooks the counterfactual, which COP30 itself communicated clearly this year: the Paris Agreement is working! On Day 1 of COP30, the UNFCCC released a graph showing just how much difference Paris has already made. Without the Paris Agreement, global emissions would be heading for a 20 - 48% increase by 2035 (relative to 2019). With Paris (and with the 113 new climate plans submitted ahead of COP30) we are now on track for a 12% emissions reduction over the next decade.
We are still not going fast enough, but as you write, every percentage point of additional emissions brings more harm, so why not welcome everyone contribution? The UNFCCC, in my view, being the most important one? Not in competetion with the other activities you mention, but complementary to them. The international climate regime has already helped the world avoid a much worse trajectory.
I note a common misconception in your piece - COP is just one event; the real work is year-round through the UNFCCC, its member states, and the IPCC and all the private industries, academics, NGOs and civil society groups that follow and contribute to that conversation.
Nobody in those processes imagines that emissions are a simple dial. Negotiators work every day with the reality that we are dealing with complex adaptive systems. Your framing implies that because the system is complex, governments have no meaningful ability to govern it. Yet governments routinely shape economic, technological, political, and infrastructural systems through regulation, pricing, subsidies, and standards. Complexity does not make carbon “ungovernable”.
As for deep uncertainty: this is similarly not news to anyone in the UNFCCC or the IPCC. If you have ever read an IPCC assessment report, you’ll see that uncertainty is deeply embedded in the science - it’s the origin of the precautionary principle. Essentially, the Paris Agreement is the way countries collectively aim to 'avoid the unmanageable and manage the unavoidable'.
We should absolutely welcome viewpoint diversity and constructive dissent about how to tackle climate change. Moonshot technologies and carbon removal have a legitimate place. But this isn’t a zero-sum game. You can champion carbon capture without dismissing the UNFCCC or the COP process.
And as for COP being a “travelling circus”: why shouldn’t it be rotating and inclusive? Why shouldn't a tragedy of commons at this scale attract a large following (I would worry if it didn't). I have seen host countries, by vitue of them being involved in the UNFCCC process, engage meaningfully in climate action years before the COP and years after. The alternative would be closed-door discussions in a handful of high-income countries.
If you’ve ever attended a COP, you know that the whole conversation is not about mitigation at all. It’s about adaptation, loss and damage, health, resilience, finance, capacity building - and yes, even geoengineering. It is one of the few places where all solutions are on the table.
Instead of attacking multilateral institutions for not having solved climate change already, strengthening and supporting them is a far better and far more pragmatic path forward. The UNFCCC, IPCC, members states and yes, COPs are a very important part of that.
Yesssss! A really substantive take down! I'm so happy!!!
Thank you, Trish.
The counterfactual is obviously a bit tricky to talk about since, y'know, it never happened. But as far as I can tell, the vast bulk of the credit for getting off of RCP 8.5 and closer to RCP4.5 goes to things that have nothing to do with Paris:
-Population growth coming towards the lower end of the estimate.
-Fracked gas displacing coal
-Chinese subsidies making solar pv panels nsanely cheap
Hilariously, the the carbon intensity of GDP has kept falling at a steady rate across the developed economies since the 1970s.
Many strands of evidence suggest we're probably on very much the same emissions trajectory we'd have been on with no UNFCCC. Because the things that determine GHG emissions have very little to do with anything that happens at UNFCCC.
Thank you for acknowledging that – and welcoming the debate.
You are right that the counterfactual situation is hard to prove.
Working in public health (and climate change) I would add that this is why prevention is more easily shot down and defunded, due to the ‘prevention paradox’: the fact that successful prevention looks like 'nothing happened'. This feeds the unfortunate human preference to address issues downstream – to cure rather than to prevent. Which is more expensive, less effective, less equitable etc.
If I understand correctly, I essentially more pro-prevention (mitigation) and you are more of a treatment-guy (carbon removal/geoengineering). But it's false logic for either of us to argue one over the other - we need all actions on that spectrum now (including adaptation and loss and damage, unfortunately).
On the point about the long-term decline in carbon intensity of GDP: yes, that trend has been called the Environmental Kuznets Curve, where countries shift to less polluting economies as they develop. But this doesn’t mean carbon 'falls by itself'.
Those declines emerge through deliberate policy, structural change and regulation. And this trend is not enough to rely on because the real concern is emissions trajectories of rapidly developing economies and the historical responsibility of high-income countries.
You’re right that other trends feed into emissions trajectories - demography, technology, subsidies and domestic politics matter. But the best available evidence shows that Paris and the broader UNFCCC regime have materially bent the curve downward, largely by shaping the very same technologies, investment patterns, policy instruments and political incentives you credit to 'other' forces.
We can (and should!) debate whether Paris is ambitious enough, how to complement it with carbon removal, and how to fix its weaknesses. But the idea that we’d basically be on the same trajectory without thirty years of UNFCCC architecture just doesn’t match what the data and counterfactual modelling show.
Before you argue that I have falsely attributed our shift in emissions trajectory to the UNFCCC – this is not just correlation! We actually do have causal evidence that climate policies (including those introduced or strengthened because of Paris) reduced emissions. Counterfactual modelling, ex-post evaluations and quasi-experimental methods all show that policies aligned with NDCs have bent emissions downward relative to a no-Paris world, even when controlling for population growth, economic structure and the other confounders you mention.
And one final note, said with full collegial warmth: pieces that suggest climate governance 'does nothing' or that emissions trends would be identical without Paris can unintentionally slide into a newer form of climate denial – not the old 'is climate change real?' denial, but a subtler kind that denies the effectiveness of collective action and multilateral governance. I know that’s not your intent, and critique of the UNFCCC is not denialism. But this line of argument risks undermining the very institutions we need to strengthen, not abandon. Undermining global governance partnerships like the UNFCCC, or scientific collaborations like the IPCC, is precisely what we don’t need at this moment in geopolitical history and in the natural world.
Good article. Here is another point of view. That this “Emperor of Climate Alarmism” had no clothes was exposed in plain sight by Climate alarmism claims as early as 2015 by Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the UN's Framework Convention on Climate Change: "This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution." That would mean the destruction of capitalism and the world economy, however long that takes. And in the time of the Great Awokening, any journalists or commentators who dare to question or oppose the climate change orthodoxy were immediately shunned as "climate deniers" and met in the legacy media with an instant end to their careers. It is no wonder that the climate change scam won the day. Few people have been willing to risk their livelihoods to fight against the manipulation. At the previous UN Climate Conference, COP29, which took place in Baku, Azerbaijan in November 2024, the agenda to destroy the world's economy and the West by forcing wealth redistribution made new strides.... [Developing countries] apparently demanded $1.3 trillion annually. In the words of energy expert Alex Epstein: "The basic idea here is what they call 'climate reparations,' which is the idea that the US and others have ruined the world with fossil fuels, and so we have to pay a trillion dollars a year to make up for it. Bjorn Borg is the “go to guy” on this subject and has pointed out whether you believe that Climate Change is real, and may be harmful, he pointed out that countries are spending an enormous amount of money on climate policies but achieve almost nothing. “We should fix climate smartly, but right now we are just fixing it stupidly,” Lomborg told Sky News host Peta Credlin. “It is increasingly becoming obvious to voters and to politicians that this is not the right way to go about it.” Others say “Climate Control” is a fantasy. It's a rationalization for altruist ethics and the demand for all its ensuing sacrifices are by authoritarian control. It's taken on faith, meaning that logic and objectivity have no effect. Modelling reality is an alternative bible of the same method, cherry-picking correlations to produce desired results on paper. Correlations are beguiling to some but are not causation, not rational epistemology to guide science. Bill Gates, for what it’s worth has broken ranks and agrees with Lomborg that there should be and emphasis and a shift in climate strategy, advocating for a focus on improving human welfare and reducing suffering rather than solely on limiting emissions. Both argue that spending trillions of dollars to “fix something that humans cannot fix” is a huge waste of funds that could be addressing issues like poverty and disease that should take precedence, as these have a more immediate impact on people's lives, especially in poorer countries. There is a lot of truth in what Lomborg has been saying for years about climate alarmism.
You just pivoted from decrying alarmism to accusing your opponents of plotting the destruction of capitalism and the world economy within a couple of sentences. Chapeau!
Nobody is plotting to destroy anything. People are stumbling in the dark trying to think up solutions to a fantastically difficult and wholly unprecedented type of problem and they're making a lot of mistakes at it because the problem is fantastically difficult and wholly unprecedented.
Nickelrus is kind of a crank. Your article is very well balanced and informative 🙂
One begs to disagree. This sort of change in the planets climate is not "unprecedented." The Seine River experienced significant drying in 1725, similar to other droughts in Europe during that period. This event was part of a series of severe droughts that affected many regions, leading to low water levels in several rivers, including the Seine. Was this due to rising CO2 levels for it can't be claimed that it was the Industrial Revolution that caused these "climatic" catastrophes. Can it? In certain scientific circles the “Dawn of Time” was 1979! There is a consensus that they are uncertain when the dawn of time actually was, "so the science is settled " and requires no further research? Refer back to Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the UN's Framework Convention on Climate Change: "This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution." Why did she say this?
"Beyond the partisan shouting matches, beyond the catastrophism and the denialism on the left and the right, we’re running a vast, uncontrolled experiment in atmospheric chemistry with results we can only guess at."
We're not running an experiment. We are actually giving people massive improvements in their lives in developing countries. Our energy production systems are the single most important factor that enables us to live better than our ancestors four hundred years ago. THAT is the thing against which we need to compare the costs of climate change.
I also feel like there is still trapped in this a sort of catastrophism. I think prudence is indicated, given the possible bad outcomes, but without knowing HOW things will take shape and where, and where the lines even are, it's impossible to know how much of our power should be devoted to which parts of the risk. The only thing we are fairly certain is likely to reduce the risks is reducing the carbon, which is presumably why that's where the focus is, but we can definitely put ourselves in a position where over-investing now will make us less agile in the future when we have a much clearer picture of the risks and costs.
"we can definitely put ourselves in a position where over-investing now will make us less agile in the future when we have a much clearer picture of the risks and costs."
That's the pickle, alright. Look up "decision-making under deep uncertainty." Serious people are thinking seriously about it.
In a few centuries we will likely have fewer than one billion people on the planet. I am sure they can adapt. The planet will live on happily.
Why not just admit that no one knows how the climate will change. Scientists can't even agree on how much it already has changed, and how much of that change is due to human activity. The climate changes without human activity as we know ( the little ice age back in the 17th century for example).
Suppose the climate really does get hotter. Melting ice would make sea levels rise. Only problem is- they dont seem to be rising. Other than that, why couldnt people and agriculture adapt ?. Canada grows more food, while Florida is as hot as the Caribbean. Changing climate patterns will create winners as well as losers. How do we know it doesnt balance out?
I wish the environmental movement would focus on the KNOWN problems which are being ignored. For example he chemical tsunami from agriculture and developed world lifestyle. The plastics disaster. These are not high tech problems to solve. These could be solved. As for population, fertility is declining. While Bill Gates wants to vaccinate every person on the planet against every possible disease, he also talks about the population problem. Paradoxical, no? Not saying people should die of preventable diseases ( assuming the vaccines actually prevent). Questions....
"Why not just admit that no one knows how the climate will change."
Because that's not true, either. If we knew nothing, it would be relatively simple. We don't know nothing. We have very partial, maddeningly incomplete knowledge which points to difficult-to-quantify but irresponsible-to-ignore risks. I fully get it that this is a deeply unsatisfying state of affairs. I get it that there's deep thirst for certainty. That we're desperate for this to be simple, even if it's not easy.
Certainty is the one thing nobody can offer with regard to climate risks.
"assuming the vaccines actually prevent". I know you have a bit of a bee in your bonnet about the covid vaccine (the data completely contradict your concerns), but even if we put that to one side, surely the fact that the introduction of vaccines coincided with the virtual eradication of deaths from childhood infections such as polio, whooping cough, diphtheria, measles make your parenthesis sound either uninformed or suggest unwilling to look at the data without trying to create a more tortuous explanation.
Food for thought, if you are interested to go deeper on the questions you raise above. But maybe you already "know". Vaccines are a commercial product that is sold for profit by big companies. They are not some magic holy grail. Its legitmate to ask questions, to critique. But anyway, below are very high level critiques:
https://vtru.org/media_pages/itm_19027591.shtml
and also Joe Rogans interview with Suzanne Humphries
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=207W1A_bJqI
Who suggested they were a "magical holy grail". I'm interested in what the data tell us. Everything is sold for a profit. Do you not take any medicines or buy any products for that matter because somebody might make a profit?
https://science.feedback.org/review/suzanne-humphries-debunked-claims-vaccines-polio-joe-rogan/
Debunked by an industry funded fake non profit. Joe Rogan is the most listened to podcast in America, and Americans are open minded and waking up. Can you explain the following: why is it that in 1962 children got 5 doses of vaccines between 0 and 18. , in 1983 they got 24 doses between 0 an d 18. In 1986 an immunity shield was given to vaccine makers by Congress after the swine flu debacle By 2019 Children are getting 73 ( !) doses of 234 Viral and bacterial strains. Look it up.
Can you also look up childhood deaths from diseases such as measles, polio, diphtheria, whooping cough in the presence and absence of vaccines. Also cholera, typhoid etc. Do you think all vaccines are ineffective, or is it the number of vaccines you object to. Is it OK for people to make money publishing books, giving lectures etc refuting the stack of data against them, but not for companies to make money from developing vaccines? Do you think it's at all suspicious that many of the anti-vaxxers have later been shown to be accepting money from shady people who have an interest in debunking vaccines?
You should listen to this podcast, which is not only informative but entertaining as well. It may not be the most listened to in the US, but just because something is popular doesn't make it true.
https://www.patreon.com/posts/106425613?collection=933027
If the increase in measles deaths in the US is a sign of the country "waking up", then I despair for the children. Should I congratulate you on joining the ranks of the woke?
This is an interesting provocation, but it ultimately misrepresents both the purpose and the impact of the COP process. All the challenges the author raises (structural constraints in the Global South, uncertainty in climate modelling, the complexity of decarbonisation) are well known to people who actually work in climate science, climate finance, and implementation.
But the argument overlooks the counterfactual, which COP30 itself communicated clearly this year: the Paris Agreement is working! On Day 1 of COP30, the UNFCCC released a graph showing just how much difference Paris has already made. Without the Paris Agreement, global emissions would be heading for a 20 - 48% increase by 2035 (relative to 2019). With Paris (and with the 113 new climate plans submitted ahead of COP30) we are now on track for a 12% emissions reduction over the next decade.
We are still not going fast enough, but as you write, every percentage point of additional emissions brings more harm, so why not welcome everyone contribution? The UNFCCC, in my view, being the most important one? Not in competetion with the other activities you mention, but complementary to them. The international climate regime has already helped the world avoid a much worse trajectory.
I note a common misconception in your piece - COP is just one event; the real work is year-round through the UNFCCC, its member states, and the IPCC and all the private industries, academics, NGOs and civil society groups that follow and contribute to that conversation.
Nobody in those processes imagines that emissions are a simple dial. Negotiators work every day with the reality that we are dealing with complex adaptive systems. Your framing implies that because the system is complex, governments have no meaningful ability to govern it. Yet governments routinely shape economic, technological, political, and infrastructural systems through regulation, pricing, subsidies, and standards. Complexity does not make carbon “ungovernable”.
As for deep uncertainty: this is similarly not news to anyone in the UNFCCC or the IPCC. If you have ever read an IPCC assessment report, you’ll see that uncertainty is deeply embedded in the science - it’s the origin of the precautionary principle. Essentially, the Paris Agreement is the way countries collectively aim to 'avoid the unmanageable and manage the unavoidable'.
We should absolutely welcome viewpoint diversity and constructive dissent about how to tackle climate change. Moonshot technologies and carbon removal have a legitimate place. But this isn’t a zero-sum game. You can champion carbon capture without dismissing the UNFCCC or the COP process.
And as for COP being a “travelling circus”: why shouldn’t it be rotating and inclusive? Why shouldn't a tragedy of commons at this scale attract a large following (I would worry if it didn't). I have seen host countries, by vitue of them being involved in the UNFCCC process, engage meaningfully in climate action years before the COP and years after. The alternative would be closed-door discussions in a handful of high-income countries.
If you’ve ever attended a COP, you know that the whole conversation is not about mitigation at all. It’s about adaptation, loss and damage, health, resilience, finance, capacity building - and yes, even geoengineering. It is one of the few places where all solutions are on the table.
Instead of attacking multilateral institutions for not having solved climate change already, strengthening and supporting them is a far better and far more pragmatic path forward. The UNFCCC, IPCC, members states and yes, COPs are a very important part of that.
Yesssss! A really substantive take down! I'm so happy!!!
Thank you, Trish.
The counterfactual is obviously a bit tricky to talk about since, y'know, it never happened. But as far as I can tell, the vast bulk of the credit for getting off of RCP 8.5 and closer to RCP4.5 goes to things that have nothing to do with Paris:
-Population growth coming towards the lower end of the estimate.
-Fracked gas displacing coal
-Chinese subsidies making solar pv panels nsanely cheap
Hilariously, the the carbon intensity of GDP has kept falling at a steady rate across the developed economies since the 1970s.
Many strands of evidence suggest we're probably on very much the same emissions trajectory we'd have been on with no UNFCCC. Because the things that determine GHG emissions have very little to do with anything that happens at UNFCCC.
Thank you for acknowledging that – and welcoming the debate.
You are right that the counterfactual situation is hard to prove.
Working in public health (and climate change) I would add that this is why prevention is more easily shot down and defunded, due to the ‘prevention paradox’: the fact that successful prevention looks like 'nothing happened'. This feeds the unfortunate human preference to address issues downstream – to cure rather than to prevent. Which is more expensive, less effective, less equitable etc.
If I understand correctly, I essentially more pro-prevention (mitigation) and you are more of a treatment-guy (carbon removal/geoengineering). But it's false logic for either of us to argue one over the other - we need all actions on that spectrum now (including adaptation and loss and damage, unfortunately).
On the point about the long-term decline in carbon intensity of GDP: yes, that trend has been called the Environmental Kuznets Curve, where countries shift to less polluting economies as they develop. But this doesn’t mean carbon 'falls by itself'.
Those declines emerge through deliberate policy, structural change and regulation. And this trend is not enough to rely on because the real concern is emissions trajectories of rapidly developing economies and the historical responsibility of high-income countries.
You’re right that other trends feed into emissions trajectories - demography, technology, subsidies and domestic politics matter. But the best available evidence shows that Paris and the broader UNFCCC regime have materially bent the curve downward, largely by shaping the very same technologies, investment patterns, policy instruments and political incentives you credit to 'other' forces.
We can (and should!) debate whether Paris is ambitious enough, how to complement it with carbon removal, and how to fix its weaknesses. But the idea that we’d basically be on the same trajectory without thirty years of UNFCCC architecture just doesn’t match what the data and counterfactual modelling show.
Before you argue that I have falsely attributed our shift in emissions trajectory to the UNFCCC – this is not just correlation! We actually do have causal evidence that climate policies (including those introduced or strengthened because of Paris) reduced emissions. Counterfactual modelling, ex-post evaluations and quasi-experimental methods all show that policies aligned with NDCs have bent emissions downward relative to a no-Paris world, even when controlling for population growth, economic structure and the other confounders you mention.
And one final note, said with full collegial warmth: pieces that suggest climate governance 'does nothing' or that emissions trends would be identical without Paris can unintentionally slide into a newer form of climate denial – not the old 'is climate change real?' denial, but a subtler kind that denies the effectiveness of collective action and multilateral governance. I know that’s not your intent, and critique of the UNFCCC is not denialism. But this line of argument risks undermining the very institutions we need to strengthen, not abandon. Undermining global governance partnerships like the UNFCCC, or scientific collaborations like the IPCC, is precisely what we don’t need at this moment in geopolitical history and in the natural world.