Global greenhouse gas emissions are growing and will continue to grow.

This stems from the 1970s when Western environmentalists, wishing to bring the ‘Third World’ into the fold, exempted it from the obligations thought necessary for the ‘developed’ economies. But, once established, the concept couldn’t be changed. It was formalised at Rio in 1992 and culminated at Copenhagen in 2009. Then the ‘developing’ economies – including China, India, South Korea, Brazil, South Africa, Saudi Arabia and Iran and now responsible for 67% of global emissions – humiliatingly routed the West. The EU wasn’t even involved in the final negotiations.

‘There was a clear victor. Equally clearly, there was a side that lost more comprehensively than at any international conference in modern history where the outcome had not been decided beforehand by force of arms.’

Rupert Darwall: The Age of Global Warming, 310

The victors have been in the driving seat ever since. They were adamant at the UN climate conference in Warsaw last November that they were would not accept binding commitments to reduce emissions. So, as Canada, Russia, Japan and probably Australia are moving away from commitment, countries responsible for nearly 75% of global CO2 emissions are most unlikely to agree to binding emission reduction. And the US, responsible for about 14% of emissions, will not agree to unilateral reduction. So essentially only the EU (a mere 10%) is left.

The Copenhagen victors now have the perfect excuse for continuing business as usual, while blaming the West. Hence China’s current demand that ‘developed’ countries must immediately commit ‘without any conditionality’ to reduce emissions by at least 40% on 1990 levels by 2020, whereas ‘developing’ countries need do no more than implement their ‘already communicated … nationally appropriate mitigation action’. And that involves no reduction commitment. All this, made worse by a demand for ‘100 billion US Dollars per year by 2020 … for developed country Parties …’, is wholly unacceptable to the West: an impasse confirmed last week at UN-sponsored negotiations in Bonn. In any case, the concept of the vast worldwide regulatory and social engineering project that would be necessary to make a global deal possible has always been hopelessly fanciful.

Thus the dream of a binding global deal in Paris in 2015 is shattered: CO2 emissions will continue their inexorable rise.

For Britain the only rational response now is to stop bickering about the science and to focus on politics and policies. The object should be to determine our optimum course in a world where we are rapidly losing influence, where emissions will rise and where our trying to prevent that from happening is pointless. Far better to face up to the reality that there’s no longer much point in emission mitigation and instead take account of what’s actually happening in the world by an overall strengthening of our economy, energy supply and infrastructure and the prioritisation of long-term adaptation to whatever climate change may occur.

I’ve been disappointed but not surprised by the relative lack of interest in this post. Disappointed because I believe my point is of considerable importance. Not surprised because I’ve found for some time that ‘sceptic warriors’ are not really interested in a solution to the challenge we face that does not involve a continuation of debate about the science. I suspect they’re enjoying it too much.

Of course much depends on the definition of the challenge. For me it’s this: persuading Government that, in view of international political reality, it’s in the UK’s best interest to abandon its pointless obsession with reducing emissions and instead prioritise a strong economy, underpinned by reliable affordable energy.

Doubtless most ‘sceptic warriors’ would agree with that aim – but they somehow expect to achieve it by a battle about the science that will eventually force the warmists to surrender. I’m sure that’s wrong: perhaps the warmists will give up one day – but not for a very long time (and, even then, they’re most likely to quietly abandon the field rather admit defeat). And we don’t have a long time. The poorest and most vulnerable people are already struggling to cope with unnecessarily high energy bills – and, unless something changes, that’s likely to get much worse. We’re already losing jobs to places where energy costs are low. We face the prospect of power cuts, which in today’s world could mean misery for millions – especially, again, the most vulnerable.

No, our only hope of fixing all this in time is to sidestep the science and focus on the hard reality that there’s nothing we can do to reduce global emissions. And I couldn’t ask for a better illustration of the effectiveness of this approach than, as discussed elsewhere on BH, Benny Peiser’s participation in an RTE climate debate yesterday. And it was encouraging that George Osborne's Budget indicated an understanding of that reality – the door may not be open, but it may be susceptible to a firm push.

In my view, it’s all about whether people really want to bring about a critical change in our society – or whether they’re more interested in a fascinating intellectual struggle.

Richard: thanks. But I’m not yet convinced that sceptics will listen or that it will make an enormous difference. But I intend to go on banging that drum.

Paul: I liked the Lilco article – and unsurprisingly agreed wholeheartedly with that quotation. But I thought he spoiled it somewhat by overcomplicating the message. As for those possible reasons:

1. I think so: science often is far more interesting. But, in this case, the (boring) politics may be leading us to disaster.

2. Yes, I’ve been saying it for years. But much of the sceptic argument is not new either.

3. There’s probably some truth in that. See my ‘door may not be open, but it may be susceptible to a firm push’ comment – confirmed by Tiny’s other examples. So surely now’s the time to give it that push?

4. Do you know any sceptics who don’t think we face an absurd set of policies? I don’t.

rhoda/Tiny: ‘I don't know what I'm supposed to do about it.' Simple: mention it whenever the opportunity arises. Every little helps. And it doesn’t mean you have to give up on the science message.

ssat: ‘only time will reveal that.' But wait until we discover that nothing’s happened and you'll have to live with a ruined economy. Surely preventing that is worth a try?

ssat: so how about injecting a little more sanity?

Here’s a test.

First, assume my argument is successful and Britain starts a radical reversal of its current crazy climate policies – renewable subsidies are, so far as possible, abolished, fracking proceeds and even some ‘clean-burn’ coal power stations are built. Then what happens? I suspect it would be likely to be this:

1. The greenies, MSM, scientific establishment etc. are furious: they blame continuing international inaction squarely on our backpedalling – “the UK was an example to the world”, etc. Which, of course, would be the opposite of reality. But who cares about reality?

2. However, the greenies also recognise the game is up and (with a few diehard exceptions) give up their ‘save the planet’ campaign and quietly tiptoe away. Secretly, of course, they’re delighted to have an excuse to get off of what for them was becoming an increasingly embarrassing bandwagon. Now they don’t have to defend it any more – but they can, and will, retain their mantra: ‘the evil fossil fuel funded deniers left us with no choice.’ And any future damaging climatic events will be entirely our fault.

So, in a way, the greenies win. They retain their reputation and, in many cases, their position. No need to backtrack or apologise. No humiliation, no shame. And, when in 30/50 years the global climate is largely unchanged, we’ll all either be dead or too old to care. In the meantime, Britain rebuilds a successful economy based – as successful economies are – on cheap abundant energy.

Now the test: would it matter that the greenies were not defeated?

My answer: No.

Yours?

(Stern voice) - Good man, Matthews. Keep it up!
(Serious voice) - Shame that article was in the DM. Greenies will reject it for that reason alone.

Mike: I used to regard myself as an environmentalist. Still do really - but it's embarrassing (and misleading) to say so now.
One day it may be possible to call some of these people to account. But I fear I'll be long gone by then.

Tiny: it didn't work so well for the EU when it tried to tax foreign airlines. And see this.

Anyway, it's irrelevant to the main point of this discussion. Ignore it.