Socio-Economic Determinism and Climate Change

The global warming problematic is in reality decided not by the UNFCCC or IPCC with its mastodon meetings. The decisive players are the states of the following BIG polluters of CO2: China, India, Indonesia, Brazil, Russia Mexico, South Korea, Canada, Australia and the US, despite the fact that its present government already has defected from the common pool regime, set up in Paris 2017, These countries together with international shipping and aviation are putting out more than 50% of the CO2s. However, they are little interested, because they emphasize the policy-making of socio-economic development, either economic growth with rich countries or the “catch-up” strategy with poor or emerging economies. Resilience will decide which countries can support the consequences of climate change.

iv) Decentralised implementation under international oversight, financial support and technical assistance.
These are enormous goals, as only one country, Uruguay, is near GOAL I and GOAL II. Some countries have lately had stalling or even decreasing CO2s, but many other still face an upward sloping curve.

Global Predicament: Energy-Environment Conundrum
The Greenhouse Gases (GHG) have strong anthropogenic sources, being linked with socio-economic development or economic growth via the consumption of energy generally, especially the burning of fossil fuels, use of cement and emission of methane from landfills, cows, microbes, etc. The UNFCCC has focused on halting CO2s and decreasing them in a gigantic decarbonisation policy globally in this century. CO2 emissions are closely connected with energy consumption, globally speaking. Projections for future energy augmentation in the 21st century are enormous, especially for Asia (EIA, BP, and IEA).  There has been a widespread hope that the augmentation of CO2s would "stall", but now China reports ominously that its CO2s are set to increase again. Thus, Figure 1 may lead to the planet not fulfilling GOAL I in 2020.
Burning fossil fuels is today essential for affluence and wealth, being vital to poor and rich countries. If energy consumption is reduced, we will have economic recession and mass poverty as well as of course unemployment writ large with social unrest. Planet Earth consumes simply far too much energy from burning the fossil fuels-see Table 1.

GHGs and Methane
There are several types of GHGs, but the UNFCCC has concentrated upon the carbon dioxide particles (CO2s). They are considered responsible for the human induced temperature rise that is global warming.
It is true that the CO2s constitute the largest part of the GHCs. They are now stalling in some countries but far from all, not increasing any longer globally. Oxide and very small amounts of F-gases. Methane and F-gases are more powerful in preventing sun radiation to exit the Planet, but they are not as long lasting as the CO2s. The oceans swallow much CO2s, but this leads to acidification.
One may predict that methane emissions will increase significantly in the next decades, as the
With methane emissions rising, it is all the more urgent to not only halt bot considerably reduce CO2 emissions. Can all nations do it? Probably not. Any decrease in methane concentration is improbable, i) Agriculture emissions increase with the increase of population, the increase in meat diet in developing countries and the temperature increasing the metabolism of microbes in rice agriculture; ii) Wetlands emissions do not diminish with the microbial chemical activity on increase with temperature rise; iii) Fossil fuel production and use do not diminish; iv) Forests diminish in the tropics, resulting in a decrease in animal, vegetal and cultural (Indigenous People) assets; v) Melting permafrost releases methane from land and see.

Thirst for Energy: More Efficiency and Renewables
GDP increases with the augmentation of energy per capita. Decarbonisation is the promise to undo these dismal links by making GDP and energy consumption rely upon carbon neutral energy resources, like modern renewables and atomic energy can this promise be kept or fulfilled? Figure 3 shows the almost iron law type link.

Kuznets' Curve for GDP and GHC? No
In the general debate about environmentalism, the pro-economic growth argument states that increasing affluence will take care of the environmental problematic by itself: more wealth, more care for the environment. But Figure 5 shows that there is no Kuznets' curve (first rising with GDP, then descending with GDP) for CO2: richer countries emit more CO2 than poor ones. International aviation is a very major source of CO2 emissions, and it is booming with augmenting GDP everywhere.

Decarbonisation Srategies
The UNFCCC suggests a decentralized management strategy for decarbonisation. Reflecting the enormous differences in available energy resources in the member states of COP21 Treaty, each government must develop a strategy for achieving Goal I, Goal II and Goal III. The COP may wish to concentrate upon the following measures start credible decarbonisation:

7)
The promise of financial support-Super Fund-has to be clarified about both funding and budgeting. A management structure has to be introduced for oversight of the entire decarbonisation process. As the emissions of methane increase, the reduction of CO2s is all the more important.

8)
The resort to atomic power plants is highly contested. Nuclear power gets safer and safer, but the problem of storing the used uranium has no solution. If global warming becomes really bad, all these radioactive materials could be released back in our social systems and nature. Some countries expand atomic energy, whereas others dismantle it. Germany and France should stop dismantling their atomic power stations and concentrate upon eliminating coal at one.

Solarpower Parks-A Model Example
Consider now Table 2, using the giant solar power station in Quarzazate as the benchmark-How many would be needed to replace the energy cut in fossil fuels and maintain the same energy amount, for a few selected countries with big CO2 emissions? If countries rely much upon water or geo-thermal power or atomic power, the number in Table 2 will be reduced. Table 2 displays the dependency upon fossil fuels that may go over 90% in some countries.
Each country energy predicament is both situation dependent and path dependent, reflecting natural resources and past policies.
The key question is: Can so much solar power be constructed in some 10 years? If not, Hawking may be right. COP23 did not decide to embark upon an energy transformation of necessary colossal size.
Solar power investments will have to take many things into account: energy mix, climate, access to land, energy storage facilities, etc. Geo-thermal power comes from volcanic power and sites.
It has been researched has much a climate of Canadian type impacts upon solar power efficiency. In any case, Canada will need back-ups for its many solar power parks, like gas power stations. Mexico has a very favourable situation for solar power, but will need financing from the Super Fund, promised in COP21 Treaty. In Latin America, solar power is the future, especially as water shortages from the Andes may be expected. Chile can manage their quota, but Argentine needs the Super Fund for sure.
Uruguay has the best number globally, relying upon water and biomass.

Conclusion
The COP23 meeting of the UNFCCC resulted in basically NOTHING. It is NATO: no action, talk only.
The COP21 Treaty states constitute a common pool club (CPR = common pool regime) where each member country faces the dilemma in Figure 6: more energy gives higher economic growth but also more CO2s. If countries continue to prioritize fossil fuels induced socio-economic development, they will defect in this CPR as in an ocean PD game and bring about Hawking irreversibility. Figure 6 displays the expansion of the various GHGs.