Many delegates here at the Paris climate conference must have leapt with joy when actor and former Californian governor Arnold Schwarzenegger published a Facebook post this week that went viral, titled “I don’t give a **** if we agree about climate change.”

The politicians and bureaucrats meeting here – now in extra time – must speak in measured language, seldom saying what they really think. Former politicians, on the other hand, get a lot more leeway.

Outside the Paris climate conference center, organizers have erected a ‘Wind Tree’ (Arbre a Vent) which produces electricity using the power of the breeze. In doing so, they have summed up exactly what is wrong with the conference.

The tree will only produce 3,500 kWh per year and it costs about €25,000. So, at a production price of about 7 cents per kWh , it will take 89 years to make up just the capital cost. Or put differently, the cost is 300% more expensive than even traditional wind power, which still struggles without subsidies.

Fuera del centro de conferencias donde se desarrolla la Cumbre del Clima en París, los organizadores han erigido un 'Árbol de viento' (Arbre a Vent) que produce electricidad a partir de la potencia de la brisa. Al hacerlo, han resumido exactamente el enfoque equivocado de la conferencia.

Uden for klimakonferencecentret i Paris har arrangørerne opsat et ‘Vindtræ’ (Arbre a Vent), der producerer elektricitet ved hjælp af brisen. Ved at gøre dette har de opsummeret akkurat, hvad der er galt med konferencen.

Træet vil kun producere 3500 kWh om året, og det koster omkring 27.000 amerikanske dollars (€25.000). Med en produktionspris på omkring 8 amerikanske cents om året vil det tage 89 år bare at tjene anskaffelsesudgiften ind igen. Eller sagt på en anden måde er prisen 300% dyrere end selv traditionel vindkraft, der stadig har det vanskeligt uden subsidier.

Det skærer monsterbeløb af den årlige vækst, hvis klimaaftalen går igennem på COP21 

KRONIK - I officielle materialer til decembers klimakonference i Paris erklærer Bolivia firkantet, at "for at få en varig løsning på klimakrisen må vi udrydde...

In the build-up to Paris, activists and celebrities have been banging the drum for action. Part of this has involved talking up the effects of global warming.

US presidential candidate Bernie Sanders' warns that “climate change is directly related to the growth of terrorism,” while Prince Charles believes that “one of the major reasons for this horror in Syria” is global warming’s effects

El suburbio de Alajo, en la ciudad capital de Ghana, Accra, está muy alejado de los hoteles de lujo de París. Pero los burócratas y políticos aquí, en Francia, están negociando un tratado sobre el clima para "ayudar a los más pobres del mundo", incluyendo miles de millones de dólares en garantías de ayuda climática a las naciones en desarrollo.

The suburb of Alajo is about as far from the posh hotels of Paris as you could get. But the bureaucrats and politicians here in France are negotiating a climate treaty to ‘help the world’s poorest’ including billions of dollars of guarantees of "climate aid" to developing nations.

I’ve argued in this blog that this kind of aid isn’t what’s wanted. I’ve pointed to a massive global survey of 8 million people showing that people in the world’s poorest countries rank climate policy last after other policy priorities.

La réduction des émissions de carbone est-elle vraiment la priorité des citoyens, notamment en Afrique? Par Bjorn Lomborg, directeur du Copenhagen Consensus Center et professeur adjoint au Copenhagen Business School. Bjorn Lomborg commente chaque jour l'actualité de la COP21 pour La Tribune.

Her i Paris er der mange velmenende mennesker, der er overbevist om, at vi har brug for store nedskæringer i CO2 og subsidier til grøn energiproduktion, både nu og i mange år fremover, for at få verden tættere på at tackle klimaforandringerne. Men samtidigt argumenterer de samme mennesker for, at sol og vind allerede er konkurrencedygtigt, eller at de vil være det inden ret længe.

Disse to argumenter er uforenelige, og mange mennesker, der tilsyneladende taler for begge dele er simpelthen galt på den i forhold til den første eller den anden.