Recently an alert viewer asked whether it was true that the United States, despite withdrawing from the Paris Agreement, was in fact the only country in the world to meet its obligations. Which got us thinking, and researching, and we found something very interesting. No, not that comments randomly vanish from YouTube though in fact they do and this one did. We found that there’s no end of commentary online about Paris and why it’s great and what it means and how tremendously it’s not working and we are all going to die. But almost no attention to this surely pertinent but boringly practical question of who’s doing what they said they would and how and what difference it makes.

One important justification for this rapt inattention is that under the Agreement, countries set their own targets and are under no obligation to meet them. And when people not only get to grade their own work, but to write their own exam questions, the results tell you little about their accomplishments and much about human frailty.

Consider for instance this publication from the IMF. With time out, perhaps, to ask why the IMF is on this topic instead of various other key matters that might occupy something called the “International Monetary Fund”. You know, like ones involving money? Kind of an important subject and a big and complex enough one to keep a lot of fine minds fully occupied. Though not that of Mark Carney, central banker, green saviour and regular-guy hockey goalie. But we digress.) Naturally the document is all-in on man-made climate disaster; all the cool kids are. The summary starts “Urgent and aggressive action to cut greenhouse gas emissions this decade is needed.” QED. And there’s a “business-as-usual” disaster scenario not further identified. Could RCP8.5 be lurking in the gasses? Again, we don’t find out. But again we digress.

The point is, it’s number-, calculation- and chart-heavy, as one would expect from the kind of people who might apply for a job at an “International Monetary Fund” and get it. But it’s all about what might be going to happen if the world is different. It’s not about what actually did happen or why it matters. Read it in vain if you want to know who actually hit their Paris targets. Nobody cares, apparently.

Statista, for instance, did a “Which Countries Are Meeting Their Paris Agreement Goals” feature which, the naïve would suppose, would list which countries were meeting their Paris agreement goals. Instead you got a colourful chart showing “Target” expressed as how much global temperature would increase if whatever. And we say “whatever” because presumably it has to do with what would happen if everyone set and hit the same target. And then it has “Projected achievement” which presumably has something to do with what a hash they’re making of their promises. But in the end all you get is that Norway’s target is virtuous but its conduct is not, Morocco’s target is junk but its performance is stellar (unlike their spelling of that country’s name), and Nigeria and Kenya will save us or would if we were all as dynamic, efficient and noble as they are.

As for the US, a trash heap: bad yellow +2C Target and scary orange +3°C Projected achievement. Which is not a jab at Trump; Brazil and the UK get the same rating. Others are worse including Egypt, Mexico, Russia and the EU. So lots of colourful doom but no real data. Though you can download the… chart. And we are all going to die:

“Scientists believe that a global warming of 2° Celsius in total would already raise sea levels by 56 centimeters, increase heat days by 25 percent and threaten drought periods of an average of four months per year. A warming of 3° Celsius is believed to lead to massive disruptions of ecosystems, food production and weather patterns, while one of 4° Celsius might seriously limit the habitable zones on the planet.”

Scientists believe. Film at 11. But not data.

Climate Action Tracker is on board. They offer a “Find your country” feature though we already knew where Canada was. Admittedly it’s big so it’s easy to find. Top left corner, goes waaaay north etc. And their chart helpfully breaks countries down into “Critically Insufficient” (weirdly grey not red), “Highly Insufficient” (red), “Insufficient” (orange), “Almost Sufficient” (yellow) and “1.5°C Paris Agreement Compatible” (green and empty).

Total loser countries range from Argentina to Viet Nam, which they at least have as two words, and also something called Türkiye, along with Russia and Iran. Marginally less wretched ones include China, New Zealand and others, while the orange insufficients include the US as well as Kazakhstan, Peru, the UK, Australia, Canada and so on. Fortunately for us, Bhutan is almost sufficient, along with Ethiopia, The Gambia and yes, hooray, Norway. As noted, “Paris compatible” is a null set.

As for what any of them promised and then actually did, go fish. Data is for losers. Thus a lengthy Natural Resources Defense Council entry on Paris goes on and on about what’s in the agreement, why it’s vital, how “leaders from around the world collectively agreed that climate change is driven by human behavior, that it’s a threat to the environment and all of humanity, and that global action is needed to stop it” and that cost concerns including “the idea that it will hurt the U.S. economy” are “misinformation”, doesn’t say a word about who’s meeting their targets.

For that matter neither does the UNFCCC, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change that actually organizes the various COPs including Paris. And even good old Wikipedia, and despite its flaws we really do find it very useful on most topics, offers a colourful chart of “Probability that countries achieve their Paris Agreement Goals according to their nationally determined contributions as of 2021 (NDCs)” instead of some boring map of countries that actually are. (Russia gets greenlit here, the USA is bright red… and Greenland is grey in case anyone thought adding it to the US might help.) Doesn’t anyone care whether it’s actually, you know, working?

Here at CDN we are very practical people, at least in theory. Being academics, we don’t always walk the walk successfully. But in principle we think it is very important to have thought about methods before articulating aspirations. And we have frequently complained about the proportion as well as sheer number of climate alarmists who think wishes are carbon-free horses. That they aren’t even interested in who’s actually meeting their Paris pledges, while continually calling the pact itself crucial, seems to us to underline this point in ways that would make you reluctant to accept their help in, say, changing a tire, let alone a global climate.