Clexit for a Brighter Future: The Case for Withdrawing from United Nations’ Climate Treaties

$9.95

Clexit for a Brighter Future: The Case for Withdrawing from United Nations’ Climate Treaties

(1 customer review)
5.00 out of 5 based on 1 customer rating

$9.95

Shipping begins March 1st!

Clexit is a follow-up to Dears’ 2015 book, Nothing to Fear. Clexit book explains why the United States should withdraw from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) treaty.

Dears describes the impossibility of cutting carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions enough to slow or stop climate change. Since the UNFCCC’s purpose is to “achieve, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Convention, stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system,” and since achieving that purpose is impossible, the United States should withdraw. Dears explains why participating in, and funding, a failed treaty is immoral.

Additional information

Weight .5 lbs
Dimensions 5.5 x .45 x 8.5 in
Pages:

104

Preface:

Bryan Leland, consulting engineer, New Zealand

Other:

Three figures, four tables, five appendices, endnotes, and index

Donn Dears began his career at General Electric testing large steam turbines and generators used by utilities to generate electricity; followed next, by manufacturing and marketing assignments at the Transformer Division. He led an organization of a few thousand people servicing these and other GE products in the United States. He then established facilities around the world to service power generation, transmission equipment and other electric apparatus. Later, he led an engineering department of several hundred people that provided engineering support to nearly a hundred service installations around the world.

At nearly every step, Donn was involved with the work done at customer locations: at steel mills, electric utilities, refineries, oil drilling and production facilities and open pit and underground mining operations. At every opportunity, he learned of the needs of these industries.

Donn has had a close-up view of the eastern province of Saudi Arabia with its oil producing and shipping facilities. He has investigated many of the other oil producing countries in the Mideast and Northern Europe, as well as examining iron-ore mining locations and major shipping centers in Europe and Asia. All told, Donn has visited over 50 countries and has knowledge of their need for the technologies that can improve their well being and their use of equipment manufactured in the United States.

Following his retirement as a senior GE Company executive, he continued to study and write about energy issues.

Donn is a graduate of the United States Merchant Marine Academy and served on active duty in the U.S. Navy.

Chapter 1, The UNFCCC, explains what the treaty is, what it aims to accomplish, and what it means for the United States.

Chapter 2, Worldwide CO2 Emissions, answers the question: Can CO2 emissions be cut 50% worldwide by 2050, or will there be a climate catastrophe?

Chapter 3, Cutting U.S. CO2 emissions 80%, answers the question: Can U.S. CO2 emissions be cut 80% by 2050 – as former President Barack Obama and the Environmental Protection Agency insist we must do. Dears concludes the United States cannot cut electricity emissions 80 percent.

Chapter 4, Cutting U.S. Gasoline Use 80%, discusses electric vehicles and fuel-cell vehicles, concludes the United States cannot cut emissions from its transportation fleet by 80 percent.

Chapter 5, Comments on the UNFCCC Treaty, offers commentary on several provisions of the treaty.

Appendix 1 discusses the unworkability of carbon capture and sequestration

Appendix 2 discusses alternative uses of CO2, explaining, “Nothing is on the horizon to convert CO2 to some other product that would affect how to dispose of captured CO2 between now and 2050.”

Appendix 3 discusses options for energy storage.

Appendix 4 discusses the decline of nuclear power in the United States.

Appendix 5 is the text of the UNFCCC Treaty, annotated for easy reference to the comments made in Chapter 5.

1 review for Clexit for a Brighter Future: The Case for Withdrawing from United Nations’ Climate Treaties

  1. 5 out of 5

    In the preface to Clexit, New Zealand climate realist Brian Leyland succinctly describes the 2015 Paris climate agreement as “nonsense,” noting, “if the United States stands by the commitment made by Barack Obama it will cost the country billions of dollars, increase the price of electricity, reduce the reliability of the power system, and virtually do nothing to slow down mythically dangerous man made global warming.”

    It’s difficult to disagree with Leyland’s assessment, especially after reading the 99 pages of author Donn Dears’ new book, Clexit for a Bright Future. One must wonder how this wacko conspiracy can hold the attention of any sane individual without their breaking out laughing.

    Most of us recognize that low-cost energy has allowed the entire developed world to live better today than kings did centuries ago. Constraining low-cost energy, as the Paris agreement intended, ensures billions of people in the developing world will continue to face starvation, disease, and misery. Do not doubt Dears on this point.

    Clexit (echoing Britain’s exit from the EU) explains why our government must walk away from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) – the granddaddy of all climate change policy. The full text of the UNFCCC is presented at the end of the book.

    Dears offers a mere 36 pages of true narrative in tearing the document apart and then supports his every opinion with five appendices of factual scientific and economic data. Those appendices include Carbon Capture and Sequestration, where he shows that capturing and sequestering carbon emissions requires mountains of cash. In the appendix titled Alternative Uses of Carbon Dioxide, he shows there are none. In the appendix on Storage, he discusses pumped storage, compressed air energy storage, and other mechanisms for storing the electricity produced by alternative energy sources like wind and solar. He shows those mechanisms to be rather leaky, falling “far short of the storage capacity needed for eliminating a large portion of fossil
    fuel generating capacity.”

    The Paris climate accord went into effect on November 4, 2016, when 55 countries, representing at least 55% of worldwide CO2 emissions, ratified the agreement. Although the U.S. Constitution requires Senate approval of any such treaty, the U.S. Senate has never ratified the Paris accord. Nevertheless, the United States was counted as a signatory once then-President Barack Obama personally signed it.

    Before my readers become ill over this unjust action of our past president let me calm your nerves by quoting from the treaty: “Any country can withdraw from the treaty by providing written notification of its withdrawal which will go into effect one year after submission.” That is what Clexit is all about.

    The UNFCC establishes as its purpose:

    The ultimate objective of this Convention and any related legal instruments that the Conference of the Parties may adopt is to achieve, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Convention, stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. Such a level should be achieved within a time-frame sufficient to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, to ensure that food production is not threatened and to enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner.

    To achieve that goal, it is estimated global emissions of carbon dioxide would have to be cut by 50 percent, and U.S. emissions by 80 percent. In Chapters One and Two, Dears proves those goals to be unachievable. He explains that 70 percent of global CO2 emissions are emitted by China, the European Union, India, Japan, Russia, and the United States. China and India contribute more than the others combined. The remaining 30 percent of CO2 emissions come from countries whose populations are struggling to survive, among them SubSaharan Africa, which has 13 percent of the world’s population but 48 percent of global poverty lacking access to electricity.

    In Chapter Three Dears calculates the cost of having wind and solar energy replace natural gas and coal. Of course that cost is in the trillions of dollars and may make you double over in laughter by the absurdity of it. He also covers nuclear power, which is in decline in the United States because of unwarranted fear and exorbitant redundant unnecessary safety requirements.

    Chapter Four is even crazier, as Dears tells how the treaty essentially would require gasoline-powered automobiles to be replaced by electric cars and those powered by fuel cells … without considering where the electricity will come from to run the cars or to separate hydrogen from water or natural gas for fuel cells. Interestingly, Tesla electric cars – a favorite in Hong Kong – emit more CO2 than gasoline-powered cars there, as coal provides all the energy to charge the batteries.

    No serious reader will ever make it through the UNFCCC treaty duplicated on 41 pages of this book. Here are some “highlights”:

    • The treaty allows any country to sue the United States if it is deemed U.S. emissions entered their air space.

    • It establishes that the U.S. will bear the bulk of all costs, as it will have to contribute the most to the so-called “Green Climate Fund.” It records that under Obama, the United States has pledged $3 billion to the fund, of which $500 million has been received.

    • It establishes a “precautionary principle” requirement that no country may use a new technology without first proving that technology does not contribute unreasonably to CO2 emissions.

    • It requires that all U.S. companies developing useful new technologies relating to CO2 reduction “share” those technologies with other countries without remuneration.

    • It provides that any disagreement the United States may have with any party to the treaty will be adjudicated by other members of the treaty, such as Iran.

    It makes no sense, Dears concludes, to continue with the UNFCCC charade. Its goals are not achievable, but aiming for those goals will consume huge quantities of financial resources that could otherwise be used to make people’s lives better around the world.

    We must withdraw from this treaty … and in this reviewer’s opinion, the next step should be to withdraw entirely from the United Nations.

Add a review

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

CAPTCHA: *