Article content continued

In addition to targeting CO2 emissions, the Paris Agreement aims to transfer wealth. Developed countries have agreed to transfer $100 billion annually to developing countries, starting in 2020, to help them reduce emissions. The U.S., which had been expected to pay about $45 billion annually, recently announced it is quitting the agreement. With the U.S. out, this key part of the agreement will probably fail.

Getting the entire planet completely off fossil fuels by 2050 would require a complete global energy overhaul from the current mix of 80 per cent fossil fuels and only 1.3 per cent wind and solar. That is highly unlikely. As Canadian energy expert Vaclav Smil has put it: “As in the past, the unfolding global energy transitions will last for decades, not years, and modern civilization’s dependence on fossil fuels will not be shed by a sequence of government-dictated goals.”

Greta Thunberg and other eco-celebrities and protesters focus on the wrong political leaders. The developed countries account for about a third of global CO2 emissions, the developing countries two thirds. China, not Sweden or the U.S., is where most new emissions come from. Yet no one is allowed to protest in front of the Chinese legislature in Tiananmen Square against China’s massive new coal plants.

Human-caused climate change can only be controlled through universal global action. Every country should do its part, but how much is our part and, for that matter, what is the whole? Without knowing we cannot rationally determine what our part should be. And, with most other countries not doing enough, should we be the exception and do more, or should we also do less? If the planet’s capacity for additional CO2 emissions is limited and needs to be rationed, how do we do this, who does it and by when? Blocking traffic or taking a day off school to carry placards provides drama but not answers.