Saturday
Dec112010
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Cancun deal
Dec 11, 2010 Climate: WG3 A number of people have asked for a dedicated thread for discussing the deal at Cancun. I'm out tonight, so behave yourselves while I'm away.
Reader Comments (171)
Do these guys never look beyond the end of their noses? Where does this figure come from and in the light of all we have seen and heard in the last couple of years (including from the IPCC) where is the evidence?
And what does it mean? 13-16% over what period? And compared withe what and when? And when does the "more than 4C" kick in? This Christmas? 2015? 2050? 2100?
It was never about climate - this was only ever a covering story for these creepy one-world uber-bureaucrats to grab power and money.
Ottmar Edenhofer spilled the beans in November:
$100 billion a year will buy a lot of tinpot dictators, their wives, girlfriends, extended families, and cronies a lot of new Mercedes'
Bolivia needs us to pay for its reduction in retirement age !
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9JSI7G00.htm
BBC have been 'mis' reporting the result fron Cancun - as usual. That Idiot Black leading the way.
Quite so golf charley
"....includes an agreement to set up a green climate fund as part of efforts to deliver 100 billion US dollars (£60 billion) a year by 2020 to poor countries to help them cope with the impacts of global warming and develop without polluting. " (Independent)
Once it is found that mild global warming is/was harmless and that the improved crop yields and population health was very welcome; will they give us the money back.......:-).........:-((. Thought not.
And when we have run our industries down to fulfil the 2008 Climate Act and we have nothing else to give can we then join the 'poor countries' looking for a handout in Durban next time round ?
Sounds like a good wheeze ;-))
The big question is just where is this $100 billion going to come from? Some how I doubt if UK, Ireland, USA or Greece are going to chip in. In fact, all may ask for aid, as may California.
What I am looking for how this funding will work. Anybody have some insight? One plan was a 1% tax on all financial transactions. As someone who is active in the stock market, I will guarantee that does not happen -- Even George Soros would be against that.
The message I am seeing is "We got to do something, anything, to make it look like we are doing something."
And the fact that they kicked the can for the renewal of Kyoto down the road a year is very telling.
I did a handful of posts looking at REDD and Cancun.
'Key architect of REDD': Dan Nepstad
The story of a key architect of REDD
I posted this on another thread - sorry if this is a repeat for you.
But I am deeply concerned about some of the consequences of the treaty that Chris Huhne and others appear to have been negotiating in Cancun.
Because regardless of the extent to which they are successful this time around, it is apparent that they are intent on empowering the Secretariat, if not this year then in some following year, not merely to invite nation states to perform their obligations under the climate-change Convention but to compel them to do so.
Nation states will be ordered to collect, compile and submit vast quantities of information, in a manner and form to be specified by the Secretariat and its growing army of subsidiary bodies.
There will be no assessment of the extent to which any of the proposed actions are cost-effective and no termination provisions in the treaty whatsoever so they appear to be copying the European Union by installing in perpetuity powers which will forever be beyond the reach or recall of any electorate.
Have we really learnt nothing?
I have written to my MP asking him to find out for me the extent to which each of David Cameron, Nick Clegg and Chris Huhne would be prepared to support any such transfer of power or competencies to another supranational entity (such as the UN) without a referendum of the British people.
For further analysis by Lord Monkton who has been attending the conference in Cancun:
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/12/breaking-the-abdication-of-the-west/
The Guardian fundamentalists, led by Randerson have already admitted defeat, amid much highly amusing wailing and gnashing and US-bashing:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/audio
You can leave a comment and recommend others' comments.
I don't object to the principle of the rich world committing $100 billion per year to a world fund, but not for AGW. The money would go to the wrong countries and for the wrong projects. It would be utterly immoral to detract attention and money from real problems in this way.
Shub is apparently too well-mannered to advertise the fact, but he has much of interest to say about Cancun and REDD on his blog. The Bish links to it under 'Science blogs'. I recommend a look at the last several posts.
Richard North and Christopher Booker provide a useful background here:
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/03/amazongate-part-ii-seeing-redd.html
Unintended synchronicity with Shub. This is not a conspiracy, honest.
Their press release is on;
http://unfccc.int/2860.php
Half-way down under 'News' and marked "For use of the media only." The ten bullet points are;
• Industrialised country targets are officially recognised under the multilateral process and these countries are to develop low-carbon development plans and strategies and assess how best to meet them, including through market mechanisms, and to report their inventories annually.
• Developing country actions to reduce emissions are officially recognised under the multilateral process. A registry is to be set up to record and match developing country mitigation actions to finance and technology support from by industrialised countries.
Developing countries are to publish progress reports every two years.
• Parties meeting under the Kyoto Protocol agree to continue negotiations with the aim of completing their work and ensuring there is no gap between the first and second commitment periods of the treaty.
• The Kyoto Protocol’s Clean Development Mechanisms has been strengthened to drive more major investments and technology into environmentally sound and sustainable emission reduction projects in the developing world.
• Parties launched a set of initiatives and institutions to protect the vulnerable from climate change and to deploy the money and technology that developing countries need to plan and build their own sustainable futures.
• A total of $30 billion in fast start finance from industrialised countries to support climate action in the developing world up to 2012 and the intention to raise $100 billion in long-term funds by 2020 is included in the decisions.
• In the field of climate finance, a process to design a Green Climate Fund under the Conference of the Parties, with a board with equal representation from developed and developing countries, is established.
• A new “Cancún Adaptation Framework” is established to allow better planning and implementation of adaptation projects in developing countries through increased financial and technical support, including a clear process for continuing work on loss and damage.
• Governments agree to boost action to curb emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries with technological and financial support.
• Parties have established a technology mechanism with a Technology Executive Committee and Climate Technology Centre and Network to increase technology cooperation to support action on adaptation and mitigation.
Don P: "The message I am seeing is "We got to do something, anything, to make it look like we are doing something."
That's the message that Monckton doesn't seem to get. Is "Lip Service" or "talking the talk, but not walking the walk" really that surprising. In fact, Don Pable, do you really mind if they issue all sorts of proclamations while doing nothing?
If they make all manner of commitments without providing the mechanism for their enabling, have they really done anything? I don't think so.
And the beauty of it is that the supporters of these schemes to improve the lot of petty third world dictators will never realize that they won't happen.
We have two publications here in the states which pander to the pathologically ignorant. One is the National Enquirer and the other, the Huffington Post. Huffpost, as they call them selves, is a blog for the terminally liberal. Today's reaction to Cancun therein was way way down the chain of hysteria which I suspect means Huffpost was not as happy about the results and the fangless agreements as it was about Mark Madoff's brief excursion with a leash but no dog.
Hunter, be advised, we have more material than ever. Not at all at the ends our our ropes, so to speak.
If I'm not mistaken this looks virtually the same as the statement at the end of Copenhagen.They have simply again agreed to agree. Why can intelligent people be so stupid ?
Hunter, per the above, I might have admonished you to hang in there, but it wouldn't have meant you specifically and certainly not in that connection.
And who do they think will pay their ransom?
Slightly o/t - but there is a certain irony in the resignation this evening of Scotland's Climate Change minister because of his response to the recent record snow and cold temperatures in central Scotland.
His resignation letter reflects on his achievements - especially taking pleasure in having steered the groundbreaking (at the time) Climate Change (Scotland) Act through the Holyrood parliament.
http://climateedinburgh.blogspot.com/2010/12/climate-change-minister-resigns-irony.html
And from the BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-11976328
"And the fact that they kicked the can for the renewal of Kyoto down the road a year is very telling."
Pablo, I do pray, that, you are right sir.
BTW, amongst all the estimable contributors to, this blog... simple but great comment (as usual).
Booyah! Hockey Team Rules!
I'm rooting for the Bolivians - with their sheer intransigence and hardline position, they promise to help derail Kyoto II in Durban next year, especially if other nations such as Cuba and Venezuela rejoin them.
Just before or at Copenhagen the Met Office predicted that 2010 would be the "warmest" on record. Whilst HadCrut might not make an out and out warmest, it will be close.
Now, has anybody seen a Met Office prediction for 2011? Nice place to launch a prediction Cancun, especially on the back of a bulls eye?
Anybody heard or seen a Met Office 2011 prediction? I wonder....
Shub
I want to thank you for the pointer to the REDD article, which in turn points to something near and dear to my heart, California's insane level of debt.
I was not aware of a MOU between CA, Acre and Chiapas regarding REDD so I read it and laughed and laughed and laughed. The impressive text started
Read it for yourselves -- it is nothing but nice words with no meaning, no commitment and NO FUNDING. They do sound nice, but meaning less.
What I want to see is the actual words this great "commitment to save mankind" has in it. Having read the one Arnie signed while his state was all but bankrupt, my guess it there is no funding it it as well.
This does not mean that the progressives don't want to impose an international tax which would be spent by them however they wished, but not yet.
ferdinand
If I'm not mistaken this looks virtually the same as the statement at the end of Copenhagen.They have simply again agreed to agree. Why can intelligent people be so stupid ?
Yes, yes, and exactly correct.
@Cllr Cameron Rose. I agree, an irony indeed. Interested to read your blog. I note you are a Conservative. Further O/T but just wondered how you feel about the present bizarre consensus situation regarding climate policy on both sides of the border. Under normal circumstances, a situation like the one we've faced over the last few weeks (unprecedented cold juxtaposed with the UN jolly to sunny Cancun) should offer rich pickings for right-leaning types* (and strike a chord with the voters), but Dave C's enthusiastic adherence to the CAGW faith must temper this to a very considerable extent I imagine.
*Not only right-wingers. To be honest, I struggle to work out Alex Salmond's position to 'climate change'. I don't agree with him on many things but one thing I'd never accuse him of is stupidity - he is without doubt one of the sharpest politicians, not just in Scotland but in a UK context as well. He's a former oil economist to boot. His overriding priority, I think it can safely be said, is furthering Scotland's economic interests. He also represents a constituency in the NE of Scotland - a part of the world where oil is the major economic driver. Any thoughts on the motivation behind his stance on energy?
How's the sheep, bcl?
bigcitylib
Booyah! Hockey Team Rules!
Let me guess -- you are actually Jim Cramer. If so, short AGW. The futures market for it is 50:1 PUTS.
(several in-jokes in a row, for those of you not into the stock market and such. Hint: goggle "Jim Cramer")
DougieJ "wondered how you feel about the present bizarre consensus situation regarding climate policy on both sides of the border."
Answer: Unhappy.
DougieJ: Any thoughts on the motivation behind his (Alex Salmond's) stance on energy?
Answer: Groupthink.
@Cameron. 'Groupthink' I can absolutely get with regards to Cameron, Clegg and Milliband - they are all of an uncannily similar background, but Salmond? Less so.
DougieJ
He is leader of a minority government and needs to keep the Green Party MSPs on-side. Lunacy rules OK?
@DougieJ. See his reply to Stewart Stevenson's resignation letter:
" Above all else, your successful championing of our world leading Climate Change legislation is an achievement of which any politician in any parliament should be immensely proud."
Just as with Cameron, Clegg, Milliband et al, Salmond just does not get it. He is not a scientist and is advised by the coterie of scientists who claim a consensus. (Remember, the Muir Russell report was pretty well an 'Edinburgh enquiry'.) Alex, like the others you mention, is a politician. All of those mentioned can lead - and often do - against the wind, but their leadership can ultimately be modified by pressure from voters. They will respond to that. But we may be a bit away from a tipping point.
Resignation exchange: http://stewartstevenson.blogspot.com/2010/12/stewart-stevenson.html
I am probably about a trillion miles to the left of your average climate sceptic. The reason as I often have to repeat is the carbon trading is primarily an oil/banking scam, so Salmond is exactly the kind of chap to support it.
James Hansen in the Guardian
Governments today, instead, talk of "cap-and-trade with offsets", a system rigged by big banks and fossil fuel interests. Cap-and-trade invites corruption. Worse, it is ineffectual, assuring continued fossil fuel addiction to the last drop and environmental catastrophe.
International Emissions Trading Association (IETA)
BP, Conoco Philips, Shell, E.ON, EDF , Gazprom, Barclays, JP Morgan Chase, Morgan Stanley.. Goldman Sachs.
http://www.ieta.org/ieta/www/pages/index.php?IdSiteTree=1249
My history of carbon trading page
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/sealed/gw/business.htm
Thanks BBD. We posted right one after the other!
Don Pablo,
I thought the MoU was a different beast. Firstly, I am not sure states can negotiate treaties between each other directly.
Secondly, the key text in the MoU is this (in my view): (Article 2)
and
The key word is the "or" that separates 'sector-based REDD programs' and 'California state'. California is not a necessary participant - which is the beauty of the whole thing. The aim is to develop a model of carbon offset sales from Brazil to private corporations and business entities in California state, and not to the state itself. The state itself only 'co-ordinates' the 'collaboration'.
How did confusion about left and right in arise climate? Simply because corporations now own everything including first world governments. The fact that govenments are administrating carbon trading is virtually an irrelevance.
Some views from the left
Putting the hippies on the payroll -Green Capitalism: Manufacturing Scarcity in an Age of Abundance, by James Heartfield
"In other words, green capitalism is not a passing fad adopted by a few corporate bosses, too spineless to stand up to the hippies; it expresses an essential feature of the social system. As Heartfield reminds us, the origins of modern environmentalism lie in the 1970s when the elite industrialists of the Club of Rome commissioned The Limits to Growth report. As the long post-war boom ended, arguing that the world was running out of resources was another way of saying that there was nothing left to redistribute, and that trade unions must settle for lower wages (p27). (Needless to say, the Club of Rome’s predictions about the exhaustion of natural resources were all confounded [p13]).
http://www.culturewars.org.uk/2008-03/heartfield.htm
Amory Lovins' negawatt revolution in California was Enron's wet dream. Having shut down its own generation capacity, PG&E was at the mercy of Enron's market manipulation. Buying surplus electricity on the open market PG&E was royally fleeced, losing US$12 billion. Utility bills rose by nine times between May 2000 and May 2001. Enron took advantage of the restricted market and cut electricity to California. They even invented reasons to take power plants offline while California was blacked out. Enron officials joked that they were stealing one million dollars a day from California.[6] The PG&E that Lovins held up as a model went bankrupt and had to be bailed out by the State of California.
James Heartfield
http://curezone.com/forums/fmp.asp?i=1691985
The oil companies were members of an anti global warming organisation called the Global Change Coalition until just before Kyoto was signed . Many jumped ship after the Americans managed to insert cap and trade into article 17 of the Kyoto Protocol on ther insistence of Enron and BP, even though the Senate was complete against it and voted 95-0 against ratification. The Global Change Coalition eventually disbanded in 2000, four years before Kyoto was ratified.
Opposing Views on Global Warming: The Corporate Climate Coup
by Prof. David F. Noble - York University, Toronto, Canada
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=5568
Here's a science reporter who wrote several articles from Cancon: http://reason.com/people/ronald-bailey/all
Don Pablo de la Sierra
The message I am seeing is "We got to do something, anything, to make it look like we are doing something.
Bingo. The current price of steam coal on world markets is $120/tonne and expected to reach $140/tonne by 2012. Nuclear power is cheaper then coal and that reality is reflected in how many 'developing' countries are ordering nuclear power plants. Disguising the fact that capitalist pig market forces are doing more to 'address climate change' is an absolute necessity for the 'We are the world' Kumbaya crowd.
The 'short list' of expected new 'Nuclear Power Countries'.
# Power reactors under construction: Iran.
# Contracts signed, legal and regulatory infrastructure well-developed: UAE, Turkey.
# Committed plans, legal and regulatory infrastructure developing: Vietnam, Jordan, Italy.
# Well-developed plans but commitment pending: Thailand, Indonesia, Egypt, Kazakhstan, Poland, Belarus, Lithuania.
# Developing plans: Saudi Arabia, Israel, Nigeria, Malaysia, Bangladesh, Morocco, Kuwait, Chile, Venezuela.
# Discussion as serious policy option: Namibia, Kenya, Mongolia, Philippines, Singapore, Albania, Serbia, Estonia & Latvia, Libya, Algeria, Azerbaijan, Sri Lanka, Tunisia, Syria, Qatar, Sudan.
@Cameron Rose: Salmond's quote demonstrates once again the astuteness of rebranding (for such it undoubtedly was) from Global Warming to Climate Change. If the former - he would come across as a laughing stock. If the latter - all options open.
"Disguising the fact that capitalist pig market forces Disguising the fact that capitalist pig market forces are doing more to 'address climate change' is an absolute necessity for the 'We are the world' Kumbaya crowd. "
Without the 'capitalist pig dogs' at Enron, BP and Goldman Sachs, global warming would be slowly steaming out of sight , never to be heard again. What we see in the media is full throttle corporate propaganda promoting carbon trading. There is no public will for any of this nonsense.
Some extracts from an interesting read in Der Spiegel of 12 December
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,734008,00.html
At UN climate summits, thousands of people are locked up in spaceship-like convention centers for two weeks. Then they are jammed into over-stuffed halls with no natural light, and are forced to survive on wilted sandwiches. They are worn down with endless acceptance speeches completely lacking in any substance. Their defenses are broken down through a bombardment of working groups and abbreviations. Meanwhile they are placed under ever-increasing time pressure.
But in the Moon Palace in Cancun, where the political negotiations are being held, it is easy to forget all of that. Even the venue can seem like a travesty. The Moon Palace is a luxury hotel whose pools, bars and sterile lawns cover an area that was previously home to species-rich mangrove forests. Ironically, questions of survival that affect millions of people are being discussed in a place that symbolizes Western extravagance. It's no wonder that, in this artificial five-star environment, there is not much direct talk about disappearing rainforests, polluting power plants and starving people. The problems are concealed behind pleasant-sounding acronyms like LULUCF, AWG-LCA and REDD
In the end, everyone is so exhausted and burned out that decisions come to depend partly on pure physical stamina -- as if the climate summit were an Olympic event.
There are even more radical proposals that involve locking up a few hundred negotiators in a kind of climate-protection prison -- perhaps on a unused oil rig -- with bad food and little sleep, until they have found a sustainable solution. But it is doubtful if a constructive working environment would exist under such conditions.
Future climate conferences shouldn't land like space ships on Earth, taking place in sterile artificial worlds like luxury hotels or conference centers.
They could, for once, take place in a location where climate change is visible, such as on an island in the Pacific that is at risk of disappearing, in a slum in India, in the rainforest, or in the middle of the oil-contaminated Niger Delta. That would bring the delegates down to earth, and would also give normal citizens of the world a better view of what they are doing. That would help end suspicion that a tiny, elite group of people are trying to impose something on everyone else.
To make the texts more understandable, one could present them to people from the general population -- preferably the children and young people who will be making the decisions in the years to come. The negotiators could then explain what it is all about. Only when these auditors can understand the texts should they be put up for a vote. And one could incorporate a day when the negotiators have to swap positions: for example, the Chinese would negotiate on behalf of the US, the Indians for Germany, the Germans for the Ethiopians. That would help everyone see the world from a different point of view.
@JohndeFrance,
This blog ain't big enough for both of us.
Meet you at the OK Corral.
only richard black on bbc news could manage to spin an exact repeat of the headline following copenhagen as a new and exciting development in the fight to reduce carbon as the "science" demands, according to richard. i turned off all media after his comment and went back to christopher booker's "the real global warming disaster" which is difficult to put down anyway.
the money will never go to the undeveloped countries - why would it when previous pledges have never been honoured.
eventually the world bank will disperse some funds to friends and cronies in the west more than in the poor nations, and to NGOs to keep them onside, and will do its bit - $100m maybe - towards trying to get that carbon market up and running by any means necessary:
11 Dec: GMA News Philippines: No to WB fund, civic groups insist as Cancun climate talks end
Philippine civil society groups on Human Rights Day joined a huge network of thousands of international groups roundly opposed to the World Bank’s creation of a multimillion-dollar climate change fund...
On Wednesday, World Bank President Robert Zoellick launched a new multimillion dollar fund meant to expand the carbon market concept by encouraging emerging market countries also set up their own carbon markets.
In a statement, the Bank said that the fund, which could reach up to $100 million, will provide technical and other support to developing countries to develop their own carbon markets...
http://www.gmanews.tv/story/208111/no-to-wb-fund-civic-groups-insist-as-cancun-climate-talks-end
AFP: World Bank launches emerging carbon market drive
Friends of the Earth, an environmental advocacy group which is strongly critical of carbon markets, said the World Bank was playing a "perverse role" in efforts to fight climate change.
"Carbon markets are an irreparably flawed means of addressing climate change," said Karen Orenstein of Friends of the Earth US.
"They further entrench the economic arrangements that facilitate the North's over-consumption and have landed us in this climate crisis in the first place."...
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jYLA81nerXRKsuPVrBDdvDqlpyNg?docId=CNG.5ecbda1132f2622b919e251d461cca6c.681
Wikipedia: World Bank
From 1989, World Bank policy changed in response to criticism from many groups. Environmental groups and NGOs were incorporated in the lending of the bank in order to mitigate the effects of the past that prompted such harsh criticism.[14] Bank projects "include" green concerns.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Bank
meant to say "eventually the world bank will DISBURSE some funds" tho 'disperse' will probably do just as well.
e smith,
I agree with you and, for what it's worth, I'm also more liberal/left on most issues than most climate sceptics appear to be.
CAGW has had such power because it is perfect for so many diverse people's agendas. For politicians of any stripe it is great for a power grab, for capitalists a vast pot of easy profits, for the left a wealth redistribution scheme and a way to stick it to the "rich", for environmentalists a self-righteous source of vast influence and funding, for climate scientists fame, influence and funding... the list goes endlessly on.
It just so happens that, after the initial spark from a rogue "scientist" or two the environmentalists, closely followed by the left were those most likely to fall for the whole thing because it so easily fit their worldview and aspirations. It may have taken the capitalists and politicians a little longer to catch on, simply because the scale of the possibilities for their benefit wouldn't have been so obvious at the start.
The right are simply lucky that the CAGW idea did not so easily fit their world view at the start or they would have been as entirely suckered as the left.
Because of the multiplicity of benefits for both the scientifically illiterate and the unscrupulous I am no longer surprised by anyone who believes in CAGW, sadly.
Oil companies and banks will profit from UN forest protection scheme
Redd scheme designed to prevent deforestation but critics call it
'privatisation' of natural resources
http://tinyurl.com/2g68w8r
Gazprom and Vitol to start trading rainforest
A scheme to trade chunks of the world's rainforest on the financial markets will sell its first credits to Gazprom and Vitol, two of the world's biggest commodity companies.
http://tinyurl.com/23l2shz
REDD alert for India's forest-dwellers
The agreement over Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD) — a global regime to protect forests — likely at the climate summit in Cancun may create livelihood issues for Indian tribals and forest-dwellers, experts have warned. The feared alienation has started in Indonesia, where oil companies have taken over forestland to neutralise emissions from their plants in Russia. "The project is expecting to prevent 75m tonnes of carbon being emitted over 30 years, which could earn the firms $750m at a carbon price of $10 a tonne," a report by NGO Friends of Earth (FOE), released before the summit, said.
http://tinyurl.com/26h27st
Amazongate II - Seeing REDD
http://tinyurl.com/yf2hsko
Privatize the Amazon rainforest says UK minister
mongabay.com
October 1, 2006
At a summit this week in Mexico, David Miliband, Britain's Environment Secretary, will propose a plan to "privatize" the Amazon to allow the world's largest rainforest to be bought by individuals and groups, according to a report in The Telegraph newspaper online.
The scheme, which has been endorsed by Prime Minister Tony Blair, would seek to protect the region's biodiversity while mitigating greenhouse gas emissions to fight global warming.
According to The Telegraph the plan would "involve the creation of an international body to buy the rainforest before setting up a trust to sell trees" and buyers would become "stake-holders" in the rainforest.
http://tinyurl.com/plxgy
We nearly threw it away. We must be more radical'
Labour must fundamentally change to be re-elected and climate change could be the spur, minister says
Mr Miliband sees the climate change issue as a way of reinvigorating the government and of reviving its radicalism.
snip
Climate change is the mass-mobilising movement of our age
snip
Climate change is about social justice
http://tinyurl.com/22lwqx8
Cloak of Green
CLOAK OF GREEN: The Links Between Key Environmental Groups, Government and Big Business
by Elaine Dewar
http://tinyurl.com/38gjdnv
Cloak of Green The Links between Key Environmental Groups, Government and Big Business
http://tinyurl.com/2974xu7
Cloak of Green can be read on line here
http://tinyurl.com/2uctb9x
Where can I download a copy of the actual agreement??
I've checked Guardian, COP16, BBC, Googled, and can't find it. All I can read is other people's interpretations of it.
Green sand: Not a proper forecast, but they do talk about 2011 (amongst the drivel)
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2010/pr20101202b.html
Alex Cull
What’s it coming to, when we have to root for the Bolivians (and Venezuelans and Cubans) under the guise of sceptic red moles? Remember how the centre left media like the Guardian used to hold their noses when the likes of Morales and Chavez were supporting the oppressed for socialist reasons? Now that they’re using ethnic and catastrophist arguments, the same pseudo left media are all over them.
ArtWest , thanks for coming out. I, too, have long felt uncomfortable at being slightly to the left of Delingpole.
e smith. Thanks for the references, and for keeping it (more or less) polite.
reposted from EU Referendum but, I hope, also relevant here:-
You have to wonder how well a refrigerator full of vaccines will fare in central Africa when the wind drops for a few days. And you have to wonder who will get the electricity anyway - villagers who now have to cook using wood and dung fires and sit at night in the darkness, perhaps? Or could it be lower order kleptocrats? (The elite will stick with their nice efficient generators, believe me.)
Last year when it was announced after Copenhagen that we were setting up this fund to "pay our carbon debts" to Africa, it slipped out that aid funds for education, disease prevention and clean water supply were being slashed to contribute towards the cost.
Really sensible.
And really sensible to signal to every hopeless, jealous, anti-west malcontent in the world that the greatest problem they have isn't their incompetent kleptocratic government but those nasty people in Europe and the US refusing to pay their 'debts'. And that every flood or drought wasn't caused by a complete failure of their government to address water resource and management issues but was the fault again of those greedy people in the west. Nothing like feeding the flames of terrorism, eh?
Richard [North] is absolutely right. The vast majority of the 'yoof' has swallowed the cAGW myth, hook line and sinker. And the more of a priviledged background they come from, the more likely they are going to be supporters of 'leave it in the ground' or 'plane crazy' or tuition fees demos.
.........
All of this and all the othe posted comments on here should remind us of how much of a mountain we still have to climb. Not with the science where the warmists are clearly on the defensive. But with the grubby issues of trading, policy and politics.
Interesting the discussion about left and right wing approaches. I've spent most of my life on the left but I see the cAGW thing (so wonderfully espoused by little Eddie Milipede) as the biggest betrayal of the interests of ordinary people (let alone the world's poor and vulnerable) ever.
I think the 'left' vs 'right' divide may be less important that the 'authoritarian' vs 'libertarian' divide. I'm fairly comfortable about where I stand on that.
I hope you had a good night out. Was it a romantic assignment with Your Grace's Missus sitting under a Scottish wind turbine in the moonlight as the vanes stubbornly refused to move? Or did you pick a time when it was consuming electricity to turn it and stop the bearings freezing/corroding up?
Anyway - hope you enjoyed it.
Jo Nova covers Cancun at http://joannenova.com.au/2010/12/cancun-in-a-nutshell-nothing-achieved-but-its-a-big-pr-success/#more-12224