https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-11-04/after-10-years-and-10-trillion-what-did-the-paris-agreement-achieve
By Akshat Rathi, Laura Millan, and Oscar Boyd
Excerpt: The Paris Agreement was a huge deal when it was signed in 2015 at COP21. But after 10 years and $10 trillion dollars invested into decarbonizing our economies, what has it accomplished?
As we approach COP30 in Belem, Bloomberg Green’s Laura Millan and Akshat Rathi look back at a decade of the Paris Agreement and speak to Christiana Figueres and Laurence Tubiana, two of the architects of the deal.
Akshat Rathi 0:00
Welcome to Zero, I am Akshat Rathi. This week: 10 years from Paris.
Given the climate vibe you might not have clocked that it has been 10 years since the Paris Agreement was signed at COP 21 in 2015. It was a huge deal at the time, and as we embark on COP30 at Brazil, I wanted to take a look at what impact the Paris Agreement has had on the world. And to do that, I am joined by my colleague Laura Milan, who has written an extensive article with our colleagues in Bloomberg Green looking at the impacts of Paris. Laura, welcome.
Laura Millan 0:40
Thank you.
Akshat Rathi 0:43
What was it like when the Paris Agreement was signed?
Laura Millan 0:50
Well, one of the things I’ve done several times as a climate journalist has been to go back to the video on YouTube of the exact moment when the Paris Agreement was signed. And you can see and hear the screams of joy, and people getting up and the smiles. And I think that these videos capture how it was an extraordinary moment, and the people leaving it were aware of it. It also shows that probably the people that were at the forefront of the negotiations didn’t quite believe that that would happen up until the very last minute. So I think that explosion of happiness that the video shows kind of captured the fact that it was an extraordinary moment, and it could have well not have happened. It required so much energy and negotiation power to put that together.
Akshat Rathi 1:55
But even when it was signed, there were all these skeptics talking about: look, it took 20 years to get an agreement where all countries said, yes climate change is real, and we’ll do something about it. And they put in some temperature targets, but it was all voluntary. All countries were supposed to come up with their own climate plans. And when has that ever worked on a global forum, right?
Laura Millan 2:16
Right, and that’s the beauty of the agreement and what people that are in favor of it and that defend its legacy, that’s what they will say, right? No one knew that it would work at the time. No one knew that voluntary commitments would push countries to be even more ambitious than their neighbors, their allies. It was all just a hope. And in a way, that’s how multilateralism in the post World War era has worked. So it had that kind of spirit. No one knew it would work. And in a way, and we will talk about it more now, of course, but in a way it did work. So countries did put forward ambitious targets, and some of them weren’t ambitious enough at the beginning, and then they became more ambitious, as they saw that others, again, allies or other countries, were being more ambitious.
Akshat Rathi 3:12
So some of the theory that was hoped for did come to fruition. But there were also hard, clear targets. There was a temperature target which was either 2°C of warming or ideally below 1.5°C compared to pre-industrial times. If we measure it based on the temperature goal, how have we done?
Laura Millan 3:33
Not good. Or not good enough, I should say so. The world is currently heading for a warming of just under 3°C by the end of the century compared to pre-industrial times. So that’s below what it was heading to when the Paris Agreement was signed, which was around four degrees. So we have averted the worst case scenario, but we’re also not on track to reach the goal of Paris, which was 1.5/2°C. Close to 1.5°C was the wording. So that 1°C of warming that separates the 4°C we were heading for in 2015, and the 3°C slightly less that we are heading for now, that was possible, that reduction in the temperature increase, was possible thanks to at least $10 trillion in investment into the clean energy transition. That’s something that BloombergNEF has calculated, adding up all the global investments that we’ve seen over the past decade. And this money, while it is a huge figure, is still not enough. It hasn’t been enough. $10 trillion invested over the past decade hasn’t been enough to slow climate change enough to meet the Paris target. But again, one of the main victories of Paris was putting a number to it, something measurable that could be looked at in 10 years, as we’re doing now, and say, ‘Okay, how did we do over the past decade?’
Akshat Rathi 5:06
So you get Paris agreement with this big temperature target, and really it’s a very short, readable PDF, written in plain English that was then translated into concrete targets that could be followed. Not just a temperature target, but targets for all sorts of sectors of the economy that needed to change if we are to meet that temperature target. So let’s do a review of some of those targets that were set either by Paris directly or by the COP forum (where Paris was agreed), but the COP events that have happened since. One of them is to triple renewable energy by 2030. How are we doing?
Laura Millan 5:48
We’re almost there, not quite yet, but it is possible to get there. We will talk about other targets where technically, technologically, maybe it’s harder. But in the case of tripling renewable power, it can be done. There’s just a difference between how much it’s invested now and how much needs to be invested. But if enough is invested, that target could be reached.
Akshat Rathi 6:09
So that is probably the best news in our list of things that is going to come. The other one that was also agreed in the same COP was to transition away from fossil fuels. How are we doing there?
Laura Millan 6:21
We are not doing well, because that is really complicated. While adding renewable power to any grid is relatively easy from a technical perspective and from a political perspective, taking away fossil fuels from the grid is the hard part. Phasing down coal — which the UK did recently — and other countries are on their way to doing takes a long time, costs money. And it’s even more complicated when we’re talking about oil or gas.
Akshat Rathi 6:51
Talking of gas, we should talk about methane, which was never mentioned in the Paris Agreement, just like fossil fuels were never mentioned in the Paris Agreement. But we know that carbon dioxide is only two thirds of the warming that is the problem. Other gasses, other greenhouse gasses, also contribute, and methane is the second biggest contributor. And we now have a goal to reduce methane emissions, how are we doing?
Laura Millan 7:14
So we now have a way of measuring methane leaks from space using satellites. Companies are aware that they have leaks, and they have committed to reduce them, but from there to actually doing that and reducing them, that’s the hard part. So more are being reduced every year. They’re being plugged. They’re being brought under control. It’s actually something that brings efficiency, economic benefits to companies and climate at the same time. So it makes economic sense for companies to do it, but to plug all of them, that’s the hard part.
Akshat Rathi 7:48
Another goal that governments agreed on was to try and phase out the sale of fossil fuel cars. Some countries, like the European Union, want to do it as soon as 2035/ Developing countries later, maybe 2040, maybe 2045. How are we doing?
Laura Millan 8:04
This is a very interesting one, and one which I like very much because it’s a complex one. Some countries are doing way better than expected. So for example, China has set a goal for the sale of electric vehicles, but has way surpassed it, practically doubling it. Whereas other countries, even developing nations, are going much, much slower and will not meet that goal in time. So it’s a mixed bag, but there are some cases that are surprising, where electric vehicles are taking off.
Akshat Rathi 8:33
And another aspect of climate that very rarely gets discussed is land. What’s happening on agriculture, what’s happening on deforestation? At COP26 in Glasgow, there was a goal that countries wanted to end deforestation by 2030. How are we doing?
Laura Millan 8:50
We’re actually going in reverse, so not progressing, but going in the other direction. And why this is bad is because we rely on natural ecosystems from the oceans to forests and rain forests, especially, to absorb a great share of the carbon that we emit. If trees are being cut and forest disappears, then the Earth has less of an ability to absorb that carbon, which means the planet keeps getting warmer and warmer. So in terms of deforestation, again, it’s going in reverse. It’s increased over the past few years, and this COP is being held in Brazil, home to the Amazon rainforest that is being wrecked by agriculture and other human activities, including wildfires and so on. So it’s going to be one of the main themes of this COP that will hopefully highlight that this goal is not going well at all.
Akshat Rathi 9:50
It’s also worth noting that climate scientists had estimates about how quickly warming will happen, and that estimate had a range. And we are at the worst end of that range, because warming is happening faster than many climate scientists’ average expectations were supposed to be. It might be to do with us not being able to absorb as much greenhouse gasses in the oceans and the forests, or it might be to do with something like clouds, which we still don’t understand very well, but it’s a worrying sign for the Paris Agreement. There is a finance goal that I want to ask you about. You said $10 trillion was invested in clean energy technologies, which helped shave off maybe 1°C of worst case warming. But the Paris Agreement also says that all financial flows should align with the climate goal, and specifically developing countries said they need climate finance. There was a goal to reach $100 billion from rich countries giving money to poor countries. How did that go?
Laura Millan 10:50
That went actually, not too bad, by some measures, or even well. That goal of $100 billion in climate finance was achieved a couple of years later than it should have. But the thing is that when you look at how much developing nations need, and let’s remember that developing nations are the least responsible for climate change because they emitted less greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere — that’s the whole reasoning behind why developed countries should pay more. When you look at what they need, it’s just a drop in the ocean. So the new goal that has been set is $300 billion in climate finance by 2035. That’s three times the previous goal, which was already hard to achieve, and it’s going to be even harder to achieve it in the current geopolitical context.
Akshat Rathi 11:40
There are a whole lot of sectors that we didn’t touch upon, because either there’s been very little progress or there’s been no target setting. So on agriculture, for example, a very touchy topic, regardless of whether you’re rich or poor, we are not making good progress on plastics, which you know, are not directly a climate problem. They are indirectly a climate problem, because we use a lot of fossil fuels to make plastics. We were supposed to have a treaty but that fell apart. So not doing really well. Nuclear is one solution — the only solution that the US government kind of wants to back for decarbonizing technologies. It’s a very recent goal, but it’s not clear whether tripling of nuclear power by 2050 will actually happen. Then there are sectors which are not in the Paris Agreement — shipping and aviation — which, without bringing under the Paris target, we will not be able to stop temperature rise, because if shipping and aviation continue to put out greenhouse gas emissions, meeting all the climate targets that countries want to meet will not be enough. And finally, sustainable fuels, which could be a solution for shipping or aviation. We don’t really have much production capacity, so there’s a whole lot of things that still need to be done. So we have these layers and layers of measures — technologies, targets, temperature goals. But I want to spend a little time reporter to reporter, we work on covering climate change around the world. If you had to put your hand on your heart and say whether you think the Paris agreement so far has succeeded or not, what would you say?
Laura Millan 13:18
I mean, from my point of view, I think the answer is clear. You look at the numbers, and it hasn’t succeeded. We’re still headed to close to 3°C by the end of the century. Where it has succeeded, and I think that has to be recognized, and I guess celebrated, is in building the momentum that the world needs to really get started on climate action. It got things moving in a way that is impossible to turn back, even if we’re now in a world that politically is very different from where it was 10 years ago, or even five years ago. There’s a reality, and it is that the climate movement is not stopping. It’s not stopping in the economy, it’s not stopping in politics. So in that way, it was successful. It just wasn’t successful enough to stop, or slow down climate change. And then in the other sense that it was also successful in showing that multilateralism works and that countries together can make change, even though the US left the Paris Agreement and the accord twice — or one and a half, you would say as it hasn’t officially left it for the second time. But I personally think it still shows that getting together, talking about things, is something that works and is better than just everyone doing things on their own. What do you think?
Akshat Rathi 14:48
Well, I also have mixed feelings about it. On the one hand, the numbers make it clear that success hasn’t happened. And the perspective of island nations, which were crucial in getting the 1.5°C target in Paris, is it clearly has not succeeded. But I also worry that while the numbers were necessary, you needed a target. You need a target to be translated into national climate plans, into corporate plans, into net zero by 2050. It comes with a tyranny of numbers, because the fact that we have shaved off 1°C of warming doesn’t feel as big an achievement when we are failing to reach 1.5°C. When we look at corporations setting these net-zero targets and then failing to reach them, we can see that’s a failure, but not a success. That corporations that have no regulations in most parts of the world to actually do anything about climate change even set a target that, to me, is a failure versus success. That is really hard for people to grapple with, to assume that a global forum that has existed for nearly 30 years, continues to produce really on a year to year basis, so not much progress is a failure. But it takes away from the fact that still 200 countries meet every year to make sure that they talk about a global problem that cannot be solved any other way but globally, and shame the one rogue actor in the US, that is a huge success. So to me, the Paris Agreement is a necessary step that the world had to take. Was it sufficient? Of course, not. But things don’t stop here. What do you think the next 10 years look like?
Laura Millan 16:44
I think the last 10 years, like you were saying, have shown that COP worked in some ways and didn’t in some others. I think in the next 10 years the trend is likely to continue. COPs have their things that don’t work so well. And I think what will be important over the next 10 years are not so much the decisions adopted at COP, that very convoluted language that negotiators discuss for days and nights, but what happens in the private sector, because the progress that needs to happen now is concrete progress. And thanks to the Paris agreement, we know where that progress needs to happen. It needs to happen in renewable power. It needs to happen in electric vehicles, transmission grids, methane, hydrogen, plastics, whatever you can think. But these are concrete things that have companies working on them, that touch citizens. And so I think that the private sector will become increasingly important over the next 10 years to achieve these goals and slow climate change. Because it’s important, but also hopefully, because it makes economic sense for them to do that.
Akshat Rathi 17:53
Well, that’s preaching to the choir. I wrote a book called Climate Capitalism, which says that market forces need to be crucial to making climate action work, but the thesis also only works if governments are able to shape those markets. So this hand-in-hand between governments and markets in places where sometimes more government work is needed and places where more private action is needed, they can vary, but they do need to work hand in hand. This was a fun chat, Laura, thank you for all your reporting and all the work.
Laura Millan 18:24
Thank you for having me as always.
Akshat Rathi 18:31
After the break, we hear from Christiana Figueres, architect of the Paris Agreement, about whether she thinks the agreement has worked and what the future holds in store for it.
Akshat Rathi 18:52
As part of her reporting, my colleague at Bloomberg Green, Laura Millan spoke with Christiana Figueres. She was head of the UN’s climate body, the UNFCCC, when the Paris Agreement was signed, and was crucial in getting it over the line. Laura wanted to know from Christiana how the Paris Agreement has worked since it was signed a decade ago, and where to look for progress in the next decade.
Laura Millan 19:14
My first question to you is, you know, COP, I think we can agree, managed to mobilize an unprecedented amount of political capital and build momentum around climate change. What’s happened to all that energy that came together with the Paris Agreement and that for most of the past 10 years, has managed to advance the fight against climate change? What’s happened to all of that? Where are we now?
Christiana Figueres 19:42
Where we are now is in a new period of progress, and that is the mistake that we make, that we always want to put progress into the clothes that it has already grown out of. So when we worked toward the Paris Agreement, it was very clear that what we needed was for national governments to be in the lead. At that point, it was necessary in order to have all governments agree to a common decarbonization path for the global economy, it was very necessary to have the governments in the lead, and what I call ‘be the pull factor.’ We also, additional to that, although it wasn’t necessary, but additional to that, we mobilized an immense push factor, which was all of all of the other stakeholders in addition to national governments. Those were sub-national governments. It was industry, it was finance, it was women’s groups, it was religious leaders, it was the medical community, the youth, all of them who were in a push mode to support national governments reaching an agreement that was as ambitious as possible 10 years ago. So 10 years ago, we had national governments being the pull and all of the stakeholders being the push. Today, 10 years later, we have a complete reversal of that which is the way it should be today, national governments are no longer the pull. They have already done their job. They have agreed to the details under the Paris agreement called the rule book. They have agreed on how much it’s going to take to protect humanity and all the rest of life from increasing greenhouse gasses. All of that has already been agreed at the multilateral level, and that is what we are used to. We’re used to progress coming from the multilateral level of all of the nations in concert with each other. We have to open our eyes to understand that we’re in a completely different chapter. Now, if you go to Belem and you ask the question, what is the big agreement going to be? There is no big agreement. That’s the wrong question, because we have actually moved to a completely new chapter, which is, how do you now take the decisions that were taken at the international level, at the multilateral level, how do you take them to the ground? How do you actually make emissions reductions? How do you actually increase adaptation? How do you actually mobilize finance? That is something that is now in the hands of the other stakeholders, not national governments. So now we’re in a chapter of the other stakeholders being the pull force and national governments being the push force. Because it’s not that their role has disappeared, it’s that their role has changed. They no longer need to agree with everyone there, they no longer have to agree to a unanimous, legally binding text. What their role is now is very much of a transparency, accountability role. So they’re more in the push, they’re not in the pull. And that’s really important to understand, because otherwise we’re expecting the COP to do something that it can’t do, and it shouldn’t be doing because it already did. So we’re victims of our own success. Let us look for progress elsewhere.
Laura Millan 23:37
So within the Paris Agreement, one of the rules was that emissions plans, these NDCs, would be updated every five years. And this year was the year when that was supposed to happen. And I know that you’re saying that the focus now should be elsewhere, but that guidance from the governments from the top is still embedded within the Paris Agreement. And what we are seeing right now is that countries haven’t put forward their NDCs. Those that have done it represent a very small share of the global economy and of global emissions. So what can this COP achieve? Realistically, to call it a success?
Christiana Figueres 24:20
You’re asking the wrong question, my friend. You see, it’s not about what national governments are doing. So yes, the NDCs have to be filed every five years. Yes, national governments have to put forward what their ambition is, and they will continue to do so. Does that represent the actual reality on the ground? Does it represent progress in the real economy? Does it represent the progress in advance of technology dramatically? No. The best example is China. China has put in an NDC that is inconsequential because of the political, geopolitical situation that they have with the United States right now. That does not mean that China is not pushing forward. China has a very, very long, well-established tradition of under promising and over delivering. This year, they have under-promised radically, they have taken that to an art form, but they’re also over delivering. They’re doing much more to contribute to global decarbonization that all other countries put together. So that is what we have to begin to understand. One thing is what national governments say, because they’re looking over each other’s shoulders and they have to play the geopolitical game etc, etc, etc. Fine. What is important for my boss? Who is the atmosphere? She looks down and she says, ‘I don’t really care about geopolitics. I want to know, are emissions being reduced?’ That is the question that we should be asking, are emissions actually being reduced? Are the technologies being developed to address climate change? Is the finance flowing? Those are the questions. It’s not the smoke and mirrors of national governments. It just isn’t anymore. 10 years ago, they were definitely in the lead. Now they’re no longer in the lead.
Akshat Rathi 26:26
My colleague Laura also spoke with Laurence Tubiana, France’s special ambassador for climate at COP21 in Paris, and discussed how to deal with a rogue United States and what reforming the COP process could look like.
Laura Millan 26:40
…
Related:
Flashback 2019: UN admits ‘historic’ Paris climate pact did not save Earth after-all! Now says: Cutting CO2 ‘not enough’
UN in 2019: We must change food production to save the world, says leaked report – Cutting carbon from transport and energy ‘not enough’ IPCC finds
But in 2015, the UN Paris climate pact was supposed to be enough.
Al Gore in 2015 on Paris pact: “Years from now, our grandchildren will reflect on humanity’s moral courage to solve the climate crisis and they will look to December 12, 2015, as the day when the community of nations finally made the decision to act.”
Secretary of State John F. Kerry in 2015: “This is a tremendous victory for all of our citizens–not for any one country or bloc, but a victory for all of the planet, and for future generations.”
French foreign minister, Laurent Fabius in 2015: “History is coming, in fact, history is here,” he said. “On 12 December 2015, we can have a historic day, a major date to go down in the history of mankind. The date can become a message of life.”
But Climate Depot’s Morano warned in 2015 that the UN Paris climate pact was only the beginning: Flashback 2015: ‘Does this mean we never have to hear about ‘solving’ global warming again!?’ – Morano: “Now that the United Nations has officially ‘solved’ man-made global warming, does this mean we never have to hear about ‘global warming’ fears again!? Does this mean we can halt the endless supply of federal tax dollars funding ‘climate change’ studies?…Can we finally move on to other issues?…Now that the UN treaty has ‘solved’ global warming, can we all just move on to something else?’
By: Marc Morano – Climate Depot – August 5, 2019 5:24 PM with 0 comments
The United Nations is now admitting that the much-hailed “historic” UN Paris climate pact did not “save” the planet and is instead “not enough” to prevent a climate change catastrophe! Despite being praised by former Vice President Al Gore, former Sec. of State John Kerry and many others, it appears the UN is demanding even more climate “action” to address what it claims is a climate problem.
Update: UN Paris Climate Accord debunked by former UN IPCC chair Bob Watson – ‘Insufficient to address climate change’
Reality Check:Every UN Climate Summit Hailed as ‘Last Chance’ To Stop ‘Global Warming’ Before It’s Too Late– Previous ‘last chance’ deadlines turned out to be — well — not the ‘last chance’ after all. – “This was the last chance,” said Miguel Arias Canete, Europe’s climate chief about the UN Paris pact. “And we took it.”
WaPo 2018: ‘The surge of optimism that came with UN Paris pact has faded – ‘Promises that are widely acknowledged to be too weak to begin with’
The UN Paris pact was supposed to have saved the Planet and “solved” global warming. Here is a small sampling of praise for the alleged “historic” climate pact.
Flashback: 2015: World leaders hail ‘historic’ Paris climate deal as ‘major leap for mankind’ –
U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon: “History will remember this day,” Ban Ki-moon said after the pact was gaveled through to thunderous applause. “The Paris agreement on climate change is a monumental success for the planet and its people.”
Al Gore on Paris pact: “Years from now, our grandchildren will reflect on humanity’s moral courage to solve the climate crisis and they will look to December 12, 2015, as the day when the community of nations finally made the decision to act,” Gore said.
The Washington Post in 2015 reported on the final passage of the Paris pact: ‘Cheers echoed up and down the tent city where thousands of journalists, activists and business leaders awaited news of the deal, which was sealed during the final 48 hours of nearly non-stop talks.”
WaPo reported: President Obama, in an appearance at the White House, hailed the agreement as a “turning point for the world,” adding, “We came together around the strong agreement the world needed. Together we’ve shown what’s possible when the world stands as one.”
Secretary of State John F. Kerry said after the accord was announced: “This is a tremendous victory for all of our citizens–not for any one country or bloc, but a victory for all of the planet, and for future generations.” “The world has come together behind an agreement that will empower us to chart a new path for our planet: a smart and responsible path, a sustainable path.”
Economist Lord Stern added: “This is a historic moment, not just for us but for our children, our grandchildren and future generations. The Paris agreement is a turning point in the world’s fight against unmanaged climate change which threatens prosperity.
Former French president, François Hollande, said: “This is a major leap for mankind.”
Fmr. British prime minister, David Cameron, also welcomed the deal, praising those involved for showing what ambition and perseverance could do. “We’ve secured our planet for many, many generations to come – and there is nothing more important than that,” he said.
French foreign minister, Laurent Fabius: “History is coming, in fact, history is here,” he said. “On 12 December 2015, we can have a historic day, a major date to go down in the history of mankind. The date can become a message of life.”
Newsweek OPED: THE PARIS AGREEMENT WILL SAVE OUR LIVES
Flashback 2015: ‘Does this mean we never have to hear about ‘solving’ global warming again!?’ –
Climate Depot’s Marc Morano: ‘Now that the United Nations has officially ‘solved’ man-made global warming, does this mean we never have to hear about ‘global warming’ fears again!? Does this mean we can halt the endless supply of federal tax dollars funding ‘climate change’ studies? Does this mean we can stop worrying about ‘global warming’s’ ability to end civilization and cause wars, and increase prostitution, bar room brawls, rape, airline turbulence, etc.? Can we finally move on to other issues? I spent the last week in Paris marveling at how so many believe a form of modern witchcraft: That a UN agreement or EPA climate regulations can alter Earth’s temperature and the level of storms. But now I realize that if they truly believe the UN has solved ‘climate change’ even skeptics should rejoice! Now that the UN treaty has ‘solved’ global warming, can we all just move on to something else?’
Flashback 2015: Rush Limbaugh praises Morano for understanding UN Paris climate treaty – Rush Limbaugh: “You know Marc Morano — since you bring that up — our former man in Washington. At Rush Limbaugh the TV show we had a roving man in Washington with a camera and a microphone that went around and harassed Democrats whenever he could find them, and usually he found them when they were a little tipsy, they’d been consuming adult beverages. It was funny. Well, Morano now runs a global warming website, an anti-global warming website, and he asked a great question…My only point here, Morano says, since they signed this deal, since they’ve now fixed it, can we stop hearing about it? And I think that is a brilliant question, because we will not stop hearing about it…But, anyway, it’s just a good question. Okay. So you guys in Paris, you got a deal, and it’s done. Can we please stop hearing about it? And the fact that we will not stop hearing about it means it isn’t about global warming. Just mark my words on this.
Flashback 2019: UN admits ‘historic’ Paris climate pact did not save Earth after-all! Now says: Cutting CO2 ‘not enough’
UN in 2019: We must change food production to save the world, says leaked report – Cutting carbon from transport and energy ‘not enough’ IPCC finds
But in 2015, the UN Paris climate pact was supposed to be enough.
Al Gore in 2015 on Paris pact: “Years from now, our grandchildren will reflect on humanity’s moral courage to solve the climate crisis and they will look to December 12, 2015, as the day when the community of nations finally made the decision to act.”
Secretary of State John F. Kerry in 2015: “This is a tremendous victory for all of our citizens–not for any one country or bloc, but a victory for all of the planet, and for future generations.”
French foreign minister, Laurent Fabius in 2015: “History is coming, in fact, history is here,” he said. “On 12 December 2015, we can have a historic day, a major date to go down in the history of mankind. The date can become a message of life.”
But Climate Depot’s Morano warned in 2015 that the UN Paris climate pact was only the beginning: Flashback 2015: ‘Does this mean we never have to hear about ‘solving’ global warming again!?’ – Morano: “Now that the United Nations has officially ‘solved’ man-made global warming, does this mean we never have to hear about ‘global warming’ fears again!? Does this mean we can halt the endless supply of federal tax dollars funding ‘climate change’ studies?…Can we finally move on to other issues?…Now that the UN treaty has ‘solved’ global warming, can we all just move on to something else?’
By: Marc Morano – Climate Depot – August 5, 2019 5:24 PM with 0 comments
The United Nations is now admitting that the much-hailed “historic” UN Paris climate pact did not “save” the planet and is instead “not enough” to prevent a climate change catastrophe! Despite being praised by former Vice President Al Gore, former Sec. of State John Kerry and many others, it appears the UN is demanding even more climate “action” to address what it claims is a climate problem.
