The annual UN Conference of the Parties (COP-21) on climate change will bring together representatives from over 190 countries and more than 100 heads of state. Estimates put total attendance at 40,000 or more. The objective is to reach agreement on the global legally binding agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions so that global temperatures do not rise more than 2 degrees C above pre-industrial levels.

COP-21 is no more likely to achieve this objective than have the other 20 that preceded it. The Paris meeting will be an inevitable failure. The history of these meetings and compelling realities explain why.

A legally binding agreement, along the lines of the Kyoto agreement, would have to be a treaty ratified by 190 or more nations.

In the United States, ratification is not going to happen because there are not 67 supporting votes in the Senate. With 2016 a presidential election year, a resolution such as SR-98 in 1997, which passed 95-0 opposing Kyoto, would certainly pass with a large plurality. The reason is simple. No senators running for re-election would want to explain why they voted for higher energy prices, slower economic growth, and higher unemployment.

Countries such as France, Germany, and some northern European countries might want to accept a binding agreement, but after the failure of the Kyoto Treaty, there is no reason why they should make the same mistake again. Germany is the poster nation for adverse consequences. It has electricity prices that are almost three times the U.S. average, it is experiencing a flight of capital, and its economic growth is more anemic than ours.

Other EU nations such as Spain and Italy have paid a heavy price for adopting the green agenda and their economies cannot take another hit. Eastern European nations along with the UK that want higher levels of economic growth have seen the problems caused by the green agenda and want no part of it.

In the developing world, China and India give lip service to emission reductions policies but their actions, namely building more coal plants, speak louder than rhetoric. China, for example, issued permits for 155 new coal-fired plants in the first nine months of 2015—one every two days.

Other developing countries face devastating poverty—no potable water, no commercial electricity, and high disease and mortality rates. They rightly want a higher standard of living and to achieve that, they will need to consume fossil fuels.

These nations have made it clear for years that they are not going to buy into the climate agenda unless they are paid to do so. The current price tag is $100 billion annually. At a time where the strongest economies have economic growth of 2 percent or less, where is that money coming from? President Obama can use eloquent rhetoric in Paris, but he cannot write the check for the U.S. share.

The pursuit of significant emission reductions represents an agenda of the arrogant and crony capitalists who want to further enrich themselves by promoting subsidies, mandates, and loan guarantees to encourage solar, wind, and electric vehicles—even though these vehicles are not commercially viable and have no near-term prospect of being so.

Bill Gates in a Financial Times interview was very clear that the cost of these alternatives was “beyond astronomical”. Translating what that means in real dollars, environmental scientist and author, Bjorn Lomborg, puts the price at $1 trillion annually. The economic devastation that would cause is so evident that it foreordains the outcome of COP-21.

Cost is one just reason for failure. The other is that a problem poorly defined will be poorly solved. The climate problem has been poorly defined because the advocates’ agenda is to curtail fossil fuel use by claiming that atmospheric concentrations of CO2 will cause a climate catastrophe. Lomborg concluded that significant reductions over the rest of this century would reduce warming by only 0.306 degrees F. Those reductions would harm plant and crop growth since CO2 is an essential nutrient.

In their pursuit of an extreme agenda, the most important factor that advocates ignore is scientific reality. The complexity of the climate system is well beyond the capabilities of the best models to forecast future climates. To assume otherwise is the height of arrogance. Advocates downplay the important role of oceans, clouds, and solar irradiance, and over-estimate climate sensitivity, as demonstrated by actual temperatures. Their promotion of images of catastrophe is irresponsible.

Instead of pursuing CO2 suppression, delegates in Paris should focus on the real climate problem—how to use knowledge and technology to adapt to whatever climate the world experiences in the future. That would be a significant contribution to future generations.

William O'Keefe is the President of Solutions Consulting. You can follow him on Twitter here.

Interested in real economic insights? Want to stay ahead of the competition? Each weekday morning, e21 delivers a short email that includes e21 exclusive commentaries and the latest market news and updates from Washington. Sign up for the e21 Morning eBrief.