Climate Alarmists Admit They Want to Dismantle Our Free Enterprise System

The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is warning that the dire costs of climate change are going to be here sooner than we think.

The planet is close to reaching its alleged 1.5-degree Celsius warming threshold, and civilization only has 11 years to fix it.

Oh, yeah, and the solution is to tear down the global free-enterprise system responsible for human flourishing and raising levels of prosperity for billions of people.

Don’t take my word for it.

A writer for the eco-friendly Grist tweeted, “The world’s top scientists just gave rigorous backing to systematically dismantle capitalism as a key requirement to maintaining civilization and a habitable planet.”

Eric Holthaus

@EricHolthaus

If you are wondering what you can do about climate change:

The world’s top scientists just gave rigorous backing to systematically dismantle capitalism as a key requirement to maintaining civilization and a habitable planet.

I mean, if you are looking for something to do.

Eric Holthaus

@EricHolthaus

The world’s top climate scientists are about to announce that—without radical coordinated action—the world has locked in warming of at least 1.5°C.

Heroic efforts are now necessary to save the world from catastrophic climate change.
Be a hero.
Watch live: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12S3dKrxj7c 

View image on Twitter

4,026 people are talking about this

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report itself warns: “There is no documented historical precedent” for the transformation (aka de-development) necessary to curb global warming.

The Associated Press reported:

A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.

Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of ‘eco-refugees,’ threatening political chaos, said Noel Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program.

He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human control.

The year 2000? Oh, wait a minute. The AP article is from June 30, 1989. Scratch that last warning from nearly three decades ago.

The reality is that, though the new Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report and proponents of dismantling the free-enterprise system have been shockingly honest in revealing their true intentions over the past few days, the sentiment is not new.

In fact, three years ago, U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change Executive Secretary Christiana Figueres made similar remarks in a push for the Paris climate accord.

Figueres said, “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.”

The current economic development model that reigns supreme does so for compelling reasons.

People that freely exchange ideas and products, that have protection from government coercion and that have well-defined and protected property rights because of a strong rule of law have done quite well for themselves.

Free, competitive energy markets drive innovation and provide the affordable, reliable energy that families and businesses need, and yield a cleaner environment.

Conversely, international efforts to combat climate change have been centrally planned boondoggles. They’ve resulted in wasted taxpayer money, higher energy prices, and handouts for preferred energy sources and technologies—all for no noticeable impact on climate.

Eighty percent of all energy consumed by Americans comes from conventional sources, such as coal, oil, and natural gas. About 80 percent of the world’s energy needs are met by these natural resources, which emit carbon dioxide when combusted.

Levying a price on carbon dioxide will directly raise the cost of electricity, gasoline, diesel fuel, and home-heating oil. But the economic pain does not stop there.

When considering the impact of a carbon tax on individuals, it is important to note that carbon is intertwined in all parts of life. Energy is a necessary component for just about all of the goods and services consumed, so Americans would pay more for food, health care, education, clothes—you name it.

The latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report suggests policy proposals that would be economically cataclysmic.

It proposes a carbon tax of between $135 and $5,500 by 2030. A $5,500 carbon tax equates to a $50-per-gallon gas tax. An energy tax of that magnitude would bankrupt families and businesses, and undoubtedly catapult the world into economic despair.

Importantly, an extreme climate policy would also divert resources away from pressing environmental concerns, such as investing in more robust infrastructure to protect against natural disasters or new, innovative technologies that improve air and water quality.

Are those costs worth it? After all, having wealth, health, and affordable power don’t mean all that much if people don’t have a planet to live on. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimates the climate costs could total $54 trillion without action.

But is there any new revelation in the scientific literature that makes climate doom imminent?

Not according to climatologist Judith Curry, a former chairwoman of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.

Curry asserts that the main conclusion from the report is that “things would be a little better at 1.5C relative to 2C.”

Furthermore, she notes, “Over land, we have already blown through the 1.5C threshold if measured since 1890.

“Temperatures around 1820 were more than 2C cooler.  There has been a great deal of natural variability in temperatures prior to 1975, when human-caused global warming kicked in any meaningful way.”

Another critical point Curry highlights is the fact that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change largely disregards the lower thirds of likely climate sensitivity values between 1.5C and 4.5C.

Equilibrium climate sensitivity attempts to quantify the earth’s temperature response to carbon dioxide emissions, answering the question: How does the earth’s temperature change from a doubling of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere?

There is a lot of scientific debate about equilibrium climate sensitivity within the climate literature, with a fair amount of uncertainty. And, as Curry mentions, “Much of this problem goes away if ECS is actually 1.5 to 2C.”

What about natural disasters? The University of Colorado’s Roger Pielke Jr., who specializes in analyzing extreme weather trends, emphasizes that “the IPCC once again reports that there is little basis for claiming that drought, floods, hurricanes [and] tornadoes have increased, much less increased due to [greenhouse gases].”

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s politicization of policy actions presents another problem, and it is evident in the way the report treats nuclear energy.

Nuclear power provides nearly 60 percent of America’s carbon dioxide-free electricity, yet the climate panel engages in fearmongering about its expanded use. One would think that if climate change were an existential crisis, the world would need all the nuclear power it can get.

While the report acknowledges that any pathway to meeting carbon dioxide-reduction targets will include increased nuclear buildout, the report says more nuclear “can increase the risks of proliferation, have negative environmental effects (e.g., for water use), and have mixed effects for human health when replacing fossil fuels.”

Writing in Forbes, Michael Shellenberger documents the IPCC’s historic bias against nuclear power. Yet, the report unabashedly supports expanded wind and solar development and offers personal lifestyle changes to reduce the planet’s carbon footprint, such as air-drying laundry, eating less red meat, and biking to work.

Regardless of the cause, there are undoubted challenges from a changing climate.

Investing in coral reef protection or in preparation for extreme weather events can be worthwhile. However, the combination of fearmongering and offering solutions that would require a takeover of the global economy are unrealistic and counterproductive.

 

 

Commentary by Nicolas Loris. Originally published at The Daily Signal.

Why the BUILD Act Can’t and Won’t Achieve UN’s Sustainable Development Goals

As they continue to press for full Senate approval, proponents of a new U.S. International Development Finance Corporation, which would be established by the BUILD Act of 2018, assert that the new corporation would help the world realize the United Nations’ grand-scale “sustainable development goals.”

But seeking to gain support from conservatives for the International Development Finance Corporation—which would replace the Overseas Private Investment Corporation—by framing the sustainable development goals in a positive light is a dubious proposition at best.

Conservatives know that adoption by developing countries of policies promoting economic freedom is a far better approach than government spending on sustainable development goals programs, as The Heritage Foundation’s Index of Economic Freedom demonstrates year after year.

Perhaps BUILD Act promoters are not familiar with the spot-on critique of sustainable development goals by economics professor Bill Easterly of New York University. Parodying the U.N.’s “SDG” acronym, he rightly called them “senseless, dreamy, garbled” utopian goals.

Easterly noted that buried within the ponderous 35-page U.N. declaration of the 17 sustainable development goals, which was launched with great fanfare in 2015, are phrases such as “thematic reviews of progress,” “implement the 10-year framework of [programs],” and “accelerated modalities of action.”

The 17 goals, in turn, have 169 targets, a list that has both too many items and too little content for each entry, such as target 12.8: “By 2030, ensure that people everywhere have the relevant information and awareness for sustainable development and lifestyles in harmony with nature.”

Proponents of the International Development Finance Corporation actually concede that even spending trillions of taxpayer dollars every year would not be enough to achieve the amorphous and poorly defined U.N. goals.

But then, that’s not surprising, given Easterly’s observation that “the [sustainable development goals] are so encyclopedic that everything is top priority, which means nothing is a priority.”

Easterly thus confirms our commonsense intuition that neither an International Development Finance Corporation, nor any other government foreign aid program, should be based on achieving the sustainable development goals.

A Heritage Foundation analysis in 2015 echoed this conclusion, finding that:

Taken in whole, the [sustainable development goals] are, quite simply, a mess—broadly unusable as a framework for development.

They do, however, hold great promise for fulfilling the real purpose of their drafters: to justify the inevitable calls of development professionals and developing countries for more funding.

Trying to implement the [sustainable development goals] will cost a fortune. According to U.N. estimates, meeting the [sustainable development goals] will require $3 trillion a year.

In an era of declining budgets for development assistance, expectations at the United Nations and in some developing countries of huge, new sustainable development goals programs that would be heavily funded by American taxpayers and those of other Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development nations fly in the face of budgetary realities.

As the 2015 Heritage analysis concluded: “No matter how generous Washington is and plans to be, at Turtle Bay [U.N. headquarters in New York], the answer will always be “not enough.”

The private sector-led investments that the International Development Finance Corporation would encourage are certainly the more realistic way forward for development policy. Indeed, private sector investment to developing countries has far outstripped foreign assistance in recent years.

However, the best way to encourage foreign investment is not to subsidize it in countries that have access to international financial markets, but to encourage policy changes to attract private investment.

BUILD Act proponents would be better advised to make further substantial changes to the bill to focus it on projects that either have a compelling foreign policy and national security justification, or provide a bridge for those countries that lack access to international capital markets while encouraging them to adopt pro-market policies.

Specifically, the BUILD Act should be amended to:

  • Reduce contingent liability to $30 billion to maintain the current level of the Overseas Private Investment Corporation. (As it stands now, the BUILD Act would double that cap to $60 billion.)
  • Eliminate automatic growth in contingent liability.
  • Make foreign policy/national security policy (e.g., countering China) a mandatory factor in project approval.
  • Require congressional approval—not just congressional notification—for projects in upper-middle income economies based on a foreign policy/national security policy justification.
  • Eliminate the Development Advisory Committee that was added to the Senate bill. That could increase the influence of Beltway insiders at a new International Development Finance Corporation.

Just another piecemeal fix, the BUILD Act would only further complicate America’s already unwieldy development assistance mechanisms.

Congress should consider the more ambitious and effective approach of overhauling and improving U.S. foreign aid that Heritage has proposed.

The reason why many of the foreign aid projects funded by trillions of tax dollars since World War II have failed to lift countries out of poverty is because that spending has not been tied to incentives to improve policies and the rule of law in developing countries.

Those are the incentives that any new International Development Finance Corporation should prioritize.

Commentary by James M. Roberts. Originally published at The Daily Signal.

Trump may sign new UN dictate banning air conditioning coolants

Industry groups are ramping up efforts to have President Donald Trump send the Kigali Amendment—a change to the Montreal Protocol—to the Senate for ratification. The Amendment would phase out affordable refrigerants used in air conditioners and refrigerators for much pricier ones.

That’s good news for the patent holders of the new refrigerants and the heating and cooling industry, but bad news for you, the consumer.

The reality is the Kigali Amendment is a United Nations-imposed regulation that would take choices away from the customer while lining the pockets of special interests that have been gearing up for the change.

The 1987 Montreal Protocol was an U.N. agreement to phase out production of chlorofluorocarbons, believed harmful to the ozone layer. The Kigali Amendment is a U.N. treaty that would ban CFC’s replacement: hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and hydrofluoro-olefins (HFOs).

The new ban has hardly anything to do with protecting the ozone layer but instead is eliminating HFCs because of their potential impact on global warming.

Proponents of the Amendment have hailed the phase-out as a predictable path forward that will create jobs and give American manufacturers a competitive edge. They point to a study prepared for the Air-Conditioning, Heating, & Refrigeration Institute and the Alliance for Responsible Atmospheric Policy that new regulations will create 57,000 manufacturing jobs and an additional 33,000 if the U.S. ratifies Kigali.

Don’t believe the hype. Claiming that a U.N. mandate is an economic stimulus ignores the broken window fallacy.

In his essay “That Which Is Seen and That Which Is Not Seen,” French economist Frederic Bastiat outlines a scenario in which a shopkeeper breaks a window. He pays money to fix the window, creating a supposed “economic benefit” that circulates through the economy.

What is not seen, however, is what the shopkeeper could have spent that money on if the window hadn’t broken—for instance, a new pair of shoes. If the window wasn’t broken in the first place, the shopkeeper would have a window and new shoes.

Likewise, when the government subsidizes biofuels, what is not seen is that labor and capital could have been invested elsewhere in the economy, but are not. Private-sector investment that is not the result of regulations, subsidies, or mandates is the true root of economic growth and prosperity.

Another problem with the industry study is that it relies on a flawed input-output economic model.

First, there is the wrong assumption that regulation creates jobs. Sure, forcing a new refrigerant on consumers means businesses will have to comply with the new regulation. As households and businesses are forced to purchase new air-conditioning and refrigeration systems that use new alternative coolants, HFO manufacturers, equipment manufacturers, and maintenance and repair industries will all stand to benefit.

What the industry study ignores is the opportunity cost of the regulation. HFC alternatives are significantly more expensive. Even if the costs for HFOs or other alternatives fall over time with more widespread use, that’s hundreds of dollars more for a family to fix or replace an air conditioner. Alternatively, the family could have spent that money on a vacation or at the grocery store.

On the other hand, the regulation will prevent the hotel from hiring a new employee, or a restaurant from expanding its kitchen—or consumers will just bear the added costs as room rates and menu prices increase. Regulations force businesses to spend money that could have otherwise been spent elsewhere in the economy.

On net, the economic costs of the Kigali Amendment will outweigh the benefits. After all, if a newer, more energy-efficient technology were going to replace an older one, it would occur without a mandate from the U.N.

The input-output model makes the case that Kigali would produce economic gains by including “induced output,” which “represents the additional demand generated by the disposable income earned in the industry.” In other words, the those who work in the industry that would benefit from the regulation would receive higher incomes, and they’ll spend that money elsewhere, creating a positive ripple effect throughout the economy.

But again, an input-output economic analysis ignores where a family could have spent their money absent the regulation, and the ripple effect that spending would have had. If instead of paying for an exorbitantly more expensive A/C unit, the family took a vacation to Florida, the disposable incomes of the resort employees would similarly increase and they would spend their higher paychecks on a new bike and so on.

The difference is, one scenario is the market allowing for choice while the other involves an international body forcing decisions on households and businesses. One involves wealth creation, the other involves wealth erosion.

Note that even if the U.S. does not ratify the Kigali Amendment, U.S. companies will still be able to sell Kigali-compliant products to other countries that have chosen to phase out HFCs. So long as a domestic company chooses to produce HFOs or a different alternative compliant with the stipulations in Kigali, they could sell their product to any of those countries, including within the U.S.

By refusing to ratify Kigali, the Senate would ensure that Americans enjoy more choices and lower-cost options. Homeowners or businesses who need to purchase or repair an air conditioner or commercial unit will have the option of purchasing HFCs or costlier HFOs. Fixing or replacing an A/C unit or a refrigerator when it needs to be fixed will still create jobs, but it will be driven by the consumer’s actual needs—not regulatory dictate.

We’ve heard the “regulations create jobs” argument before from companies who stand to benefit from policies hatched by bureaucrats. Proponents of the energy-efficiency mandates like the incandescent light bulb ban, or excessive regulations on power plants, have similarly argued regulations will stimulate investment in these industries.

But these arguments always ignore the consumer, who will be made much worse off through higher prices and fewer choices.

The economic growth argument for Kigali is more of the same stale thinking.

Commentary by Nicolas Loris. Originally published at The Daily Signal.

Obama’s Climate Scheme Failed on All Accounts

The Trump administration is dismantling President Barack Obama’s climate legacy piece by piece, and this week it’s taking an axe to arguably the biggest piece.

In an expected move, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt officially began the process of rolling back the incorrectly named Clean Power Plan.

If the Trump administration is intent on achieving 3 percent economic growth and rescinding costly regulations that carry negligible climate benefits—and if it is concerned about preserving our energy grid—the Clean Power Plan is a must-go.

Under section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act, the Obama EPA formalized regulations to reduce carbon dioxide from existing power plants.

Using a name that surely message-tested well, the Clean Power Plan had nothing to do with eradicating hazardous pollutants from power generation. The U.S. already has laws on the books to protect Americans’ health from emissions that have adverse environmental impacts.

Instead, the Clean Power Plan regulated carbon dioxide, a colorless, odorless, nontoxic gas, because of its alleged contribution to climate change.

From Day One, Obama’s Clean Power Plan was fraught with problems—economically, environmentally, and legally.

For starters, families and businesses would have been hit with more expensive energy bills.

How so? The plan set specific limits on greenhouse gas emissions for each state based on the states’ electricity mix and offered “flexible” options for how states could meet the targets.

But no matter how states would have developed their plans, the economic damages would have been felt through higher energy costs, fewer job opportunities, and fewer energy choices for consumers.

The EPA’s idea of flexibility would not have softened the economic blow. It merely meant that Americans would have incurred higher costs through different mechanisms.

Environmentally, the climate impact of the Clean Power Plan would have been pointless. According to climatologist Paul Knappenberger:

Even if we implement the Clean Power Plan to perfection, the amount of climate change averted over the course of this century amounts to about 0.02 C. This is so small as to be scientifically undetectable and environmentally insignificant.

Legally, the Clean Power Plan was on shaky ground, to say the least. The regulation grossly exceeded the statutory authority of the EPA, violated the principles of cooperative federalism, and double-regulated existing power plants, which the Clean Air Act prohibits.

Take it from Laurence Tribe, Harvard University professor of constitutional law and a “liberal legal icon” who served in Obama’s Justice Department.

Tribe stated in testimony before Congress that the “EPA is attempting an unconstitutional trifecta: usurping the prerogatives of the states, Congress, and the federal courts—all at once. Burning the Constitution should not become part of our national energy policy.”

It’s no surprise that more than half the states in the country petitioned the Supreme Court to pause implementation of the regulation, and judges obliged, issuing a stay in 2016.

Pruitt, who led the charge against a rogue EPA as attorney general in Oklahoma, will respect the limits of the EPA as head of the agency. The EPA will now go through the formal rule-making and public comment period in order to repeal the Clean Power Plan.

What comes after that remains to be seen. State attorneys general in New York and Massachusetts, as well as environmental activist groups, are lining up to sue. The EPA could offer a far less stringent replacement regulation, which some industry groups are pushing for to buttress against lawsuits.

If members of Congress are fed up that policy continues to be made through the executive branch with a phone and a pen, they should step to the plate and legislate.

In this case, the solution is clear. The Clean Air Act was never intended to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions.

Congress should pass legislation prohibiting the EPA and other agencies from implementing harmful regulations that stunt economic growth and produce futile climate benefits.

Commentary by Nicolas Loris. Originally published at The Daily Signal.

GOP warns Trump: Staying in Paris deal preserves Obama-era regulations

Republican senators on Thursday morning warned President Trump that remaining in the landmark Paris climate pact will essentially guarantee that a host of Obama-era environmental regulations remain on the books for good.

In a letter to the president, the lawmakers urged Mr. Trump to withdraw from the deal, which calls on the U.S. to cut its greenhouse gas emissions by at least 26 percent by 2025. Mr. Trump, who vowed during his campaign to withdraw from the accord, has said he’ll make a decision after he returns home from the G-7 summit in Italy.

While some administration officials — including Secretary of State Rex W. Tillerson — want the U.S. to remain a part of the agreement, GOP senators argue that doing so could lead to the preservation of former President Barack Obama’s regulatory agenda, including the Clean Power Plan, the first set of national limits on carbon emissions from power plants.

Read more at The Washington Times.

Despite rhetoric, Trump still not pulling US out of UN climate scheme

There is only one way to eliminate the threat posed by U.N. schemes.  Click here to tell Congress to GET THE UNITED STATES OUT OF THE UNITED NATIONS! -ABE

Over the weekend, to the shock of many observers and loyal members of President Donald Trump’s base, The Wall Street Journal reported that the administration was seeking to avoid withdrawal from the Paris climate accord.

Top White House economic adviser Gary Cohn quickly sought to squelch these rumors, saying, “We are withdrawing, and we made that as clear as it can be. I don’t know how to say it any more clearly.”

Cohn’s assertion of U.S. withdrawal is encouraging, but if the Trump administration wants to end all internal and external speculation over Paris, it should withdraw from the entire United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

Moreover, if the administration wants to achieve its goal of 3 percent economic growth and give the coal industry an opportunity to compete, withdrawal from Paris and the Framework Convention is critical.

When President Barack Obama joined the Paris accord in 2016, he avoided sending the agreement to the Senate for advice and consent as the Constitution requires for treaties. The agreement committed the U.S. to reducing greenhouse gas levels across the entire economy by 26-28 percent below 2005 levels by the year 2025, all without legislative consent.

Following through to meet these targets would require the Trump administration to enforce a number of costly Obama-era energy regulations. Trump has promised to end such regulations—indeed, they would make no noticeable impact on global temperatures.

While the Paris Agreement is nonbinding, remaining in the agreement would provide justification for a future administration to pile additional climate regulations on the energy industry—on top of those that the Obama administration promulgated. Thus, it is essential to withdraw.

Trump campaigned on “canceling” the global warming agreement and then followed through by announcing his intensions to withdraw from the Rose Garden in June. Foreign leaders immediately slammed the decision, calling the move “a major fault against humanity and against our planet.”

Yet these criticisms proved to be an act of hypocrisy. According to a recent article in Nature“All major industrialized countries are failing to meet the pledges they made to cut greenhouse-gas emissions.”

And that’s just the industrialized world. To achieve any meaningful reduction in warming by reducing greenhouse gases, developing countries would have to remain de-developed or meet their growing energy needs without coal, oil, or natural gas.

Conventional fuels will be essential to meeting future energy needs in the developing world, where more than 1.2 billion people (17 percent of the global population) do not have access to reliable electricity. Pretending otherwise is simply ignoring reality.

The German environmental and human rights group Urgewald projects that 1,600 new coal-fired generation plants are either under construction or planned, resulting in 840,000 megawatts of new capacity.

It estimates that these new plants represent a 43 percent global expansion of coal spread across 62 different countries, 14 of which previously have not had any coal power at all.

For countries that do not have access to reliable power, the imminent threat of energy poverty is much more pressing than reducing carbon dioxide emissions. The Paris Agreement is not just poor economic and climate policy for the United States—it’s poor policy for the rest of the world, too.

To formally leave Paris, the U.S. must wait until November 2019 to submit a notice of withdrawal. The U.S. would then officially exit the agreement one year later.

Having such a large window of time leaves more opportunities for discussions of avoiding withdrawal, or potentially seeking a renegotiation of the accord. But renegotiating the agreement is a nonstarter, as there are no terms that could possibly assuage the economic concerns posed by the deal or achieve any meaningful climate benefit.

Rather than wait, there is a shorter, more effective solution than just withdrawing from Paris. Trump could end all speculation by officially withdrawing from the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, which includes the Paris Agreement.

Withdrawal from the Framework Convention would enter into force one year after the secretary-general of the United Nations receives notification.

Such a withdrawal would send a clear signal throughout the U.S. government, to the business community, and to every foreign leader that the current international approach to climate change is costly, ineffective, and unworkable.
Commentary by Nicolas Loris. Originally published at The Daily Signal.

Trump admin backs UN oceans plan

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) – The United States supported a global call to action at the United Nations on Friday to conserve and sustainably use oceans, seas and marine resources, even as it noted President Donald Trump’s plan to withdraw from a pact to fight climate change.

The first U.N. Ocean Conference ended on Friday with the adoption of a Call to Action, which said: “We are particularly alarmed by the adverse impacts of climate change on the ocean.”

“We recognize, in this regard, the particular importance of the Paris Agreement, adopted under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change,” it read.

After the consensus adoption, David Balton, deputy U.S. assistant secretary for oceans and fisheries, reminded the summit “that on June 1 our president announced that the United States will withdraw from or renegotiate U.S. participation in the Paris agreement or another international climate deal.”

Trump’s decision to pull the United States from the landmark 2015 Paris agreement drew anger and condemnation from world leaders and heads of industry.

Speaking after the United States, French Ambassador for the Oceans Serge Segura received applause from delegates in the U.N. General Assembly after stating climate change was real.

“France is committed to upholding all of our obligations under the Paris agreement both for our welfare, but also for the welfare of the international community as a whole,” he said.

The week long ocean summit promoted partnerships, such as between governments and businesses, to address issues such as marine pollution, ocean acidification, and marine research. More than 1,300 voluntary commitments to save the ocean were made.

Safegarding the ocean was one of 17 goals adopted in 2015 by the 193 U.N. member states as part of an agenda for the world’s sustainable development up to 2030. Another goal calls for “urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts.”

 

(Reporting by Michelle Nichols; Editing by Tom Brown)