The cost of the Treaty of Paris

The Paris Convention is the most expensive convention to date, but is it even enough? Even if all the recommendations are implemented, not even one percent of what is needed to stop global warming by 2 degrees will be achieved

There is a contract... and the price? Bjorn Lomburg is a Dane who writes and publishes articles on environmental matters. Since his skepticism matches my feelings, I found it appropriate to bring his concise response to the "celebration" that was in Paris.

After two weeks of positive speeches, after extensive activity behind the scenes, there is an agreement. Although the activists are celebrating, the Paris Agreement has little chance of stopping the warming. The Paris Agreement promises to keep the temperature increase below two degrees, but the promise lacks backup since it is estimated that to stop the warming below two degrees, carbon dioxide emissions must be reduced by 6,000 gigatons.
According to the estimates of the UNFCCC, the organizers of the convention, even if all the promises of the Paris Agreement are fulfilled, between 2016 and 2030 emissions will be reduced by 56 gigatons. In a simple calculation, even in the most positive case, the reduction in emissions will be one percent (1%). That means 99 percent of the problem will continue to exist and the warming will continue. That's why the statement that the Paris Agreement will stop warming before two degrees is at best a flamboyant show that doesn't really exist, "as if announcing the success of a slimming diet after the first salad."

The Paris Convention will be the most expensive of all the treaties that have existed so far. Economic studies and analyzes show that by 2030 the cost of the treaty (the decrease in implicit domestic product) will be about two trillion dollars. Our duty to the world is much greater, in the need to stop the damage of warming as well as in our duty to use the resources wisely.
The good thing that came out of the conference in Paris is the announcement by Bill Gates along with other rich people that they will invest in the development of green and renewable energy. The announcement was also joined by China, Australia, France, Saudi Arabia, Germany and more. The declaration that will be fulfilled is indeed a most blessed and good initiative. For a long time, the claim has been made that there is a need for greater investments in green energy, which will enable the creation of clean energy that will be competitive with the burning of fossil fuels. Without such competitiveness, there is little chance of reducing emissions.

The claim that reducing emissions will have no cost or even an economic profit does not correspond to today's industrial and technological reality. It is clear that if the green energy production technology had a chance to compete with the burning of fossil fuels, there would be no need for the Paris conference. Because "every country would reduce emissions out of an aspiration to get rich." The initiative of Bill Gates is a right step to deal with the warming through activity to reduce those 99% of the emissions that the Parisian treaty misses.

The agreement to allocate 100 billion dollars a year for the benefit of the poor countries also relies on the intention and initiative to distribute solar panels to generate electricity. The residents of the states claim that "distributing solar panels seems immoral" since there are cheaper and better ways such as: investing in education (especially for girls), in vaccinations against diseases, in providing clean water, and above all investing in education for proper family size planning.

So much for Bjorn Lomburg's words, and I will add that the time has come that instead of controlling the environment for the sake of the human population, there will be control of the human population for the sake of the environment!