For what it’s worth; the words consensus and science have no business occurring in the same sentence. As Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai, MIT PhD. and 14-year old inventor of email explains, the Neo-Caste-like membership structure of tenured academia has largely replaced scientific method with endowment chasing, peer-reviewed consensus, much to the diminishment of scientific achievement, now rarely seen. Please bear this in mind, exercising discernment when viewing politicized information.
For your convenience links are provided below to a PDF copy of the 2015 Paris Climate Accord, to the UN Climate Change website for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) as established in 1992 and the Kyoto Protocol of 1997.
The 2015 Paris Agreement, amid a multitude of reminders to enhance funding, fails to define a pathway toward its goals, though it’s assumed more specific objectives are being defined through the ongoing Conference of the Parties (COP). One earlier COP held in Doma during late 2012 does at least mention; Ways to incentivize non-carbon benefits in Part II, Section C, paragraph 29., subparagraph (b). though further clarity is neglected. A link to the Report of the Conference of the Parties (COP) at its eighteenth session held in Doha from November 26th to December 8th 2012 is provided below.
Unfortunately, it appears the UNFCC (1992), Kyoto Protocol (1997) and Paris Agreement (2015) have so far failed to effectively reduce global pollution, reduce global carbon emissions or reduce global poverty, but have successfully transferred significant funds from developed nation(s) to apparently unaudited accounts for vaguely specified or audited purposes. Tax payers, at least in the U.S., have a Constitutionally recognized right to government accountability relative to how Congressional appropriations are spent. Common sense suggests responsible U.S. tax payers demand our monies be spent wisely and those expenditures be transparently and appropriately accounted for.
Where is U.S. climate change money going? Why have solar panels seen only a pathetic increase in efficiency from the 1954 Bell Labs’ average of 6% to 2019’s average efficiency of 15% to 17%; a measly efficiency gain of 10% over 65-years, nearly 3/4 of a century despite more than $8 billion U.S. climate change dollars invested (or wasted) annually since 1993? Lab results as high as 43% efficiency are touted, but exotic material’s expense renders these experimental panels impractical and financially nonviable for real-world applications. Is this the best we can do? Really?
If Americans care about responsible environmental practices, clean, sustainable energy and anything resembling research & development fiduciary responsibility to tax payers – it’s time for Main Street to demand Washington D.C. transparency and accountability. The time is now. There is no other time.