Cancun ends with “low hanging fruit”, but fails to renew Kyoto

Maybe the failure had more to do with the caliber of people attending…like these McKibben zombies. Heads go in the sand at 8:45 in the video: 

From Politico:

Negotiators from about 190 countries reached a modest set of agreements early Saturday in Cancun on how to tackle global warming but punted some of the most controversial questions for a later date.

A year after U.N.-led talks all but collapsed in Copenhagen, delegates from countries large and small signed off on a package of low-hanging fruit that includes establishing a program to keep tropical rainforests standing, sharing low-carbon energy technologies and preparing a $100 billion fund to help the world’s most vulnerable cope with a changing climate.

“What we have now is a text that, while not perfect, is certainly a good basis for moving forward,” Todd Stern, the top U.S. climate official, said during the all-night bargaining session that culminated in approval of what’s known as the Cancun Agreement.Stern’s reluctant endorsement was echoed over and over into the early morning hours as diplomats scarred by the chaos in Copenhagen accepted a deal that fails to ratchet down greenhouse gas emissions anywhere close to scientific recommendations.

It also fails to establish a firm date for negotiators to reach a conclusion on a new climate treaty.

Diplomats struggled over the last two weeks at the Mexican resort town on some of those key questions and had essentially reached a standoff, forcing them to pick around the edges at ideas like technology, trees and adaptation, all of which could garner sufficient consensus.

The Cancun Agreement, for example, puts off until next year’s meeting in Durban, South Africa, or 2012, the debate over whether to extend the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. Russia, Canada and Japan insisted throughout the Cancun negotiations that they wouldn’t agree to a new set of commitments under Kyoto until the world’s three biggest polluters – China, India and the United States – accepted a role in the mandatory system too.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1210/46269.html#ixzz17psQflAU

About these ads
This entry was posted in Cancun Climate Conference and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

110 Responses to Cancun ends with “low hanging fruit”, but fails to renew Kyoto

  1. PaulH says:

    Looks rather chilly for a tropical Cancun beach. ;-)

  2. Lady Life Grows says:

    We are NOT polluters, not on carbon dioxide anyway–that is good for living things.

  3. e. c. cowan says:

    ‘….and preparing a $100 billion fund to help the world’s most vulnerable cope with a changing climate.’

    Is this some sort of wealth redistribution from the western nations to 2rd, 3rd and 4th world countries?
    Is it in the form of a Treaty, which would have to be ratified by the US Senate?

    Lord Monckkton reported:
    Monckton’s words in full as reported at SPPI (see below).
    ‘…The UN wants nothing less than 1.5% of our GDP.
    That’s $212 billion from the USA every year ($2700 per family of 4).
    That’s $32 billion from the UK every year ($2000 per family of 4).
    That’s $13 billion from Australia every year ($2400 per family of 4).
    Figures calculated from the CIA world Factbook
    The Secretariat will have the power not merely to invite nation states to perform their obligations under the climate-change Convention, but to compel them to do so. Nation states are to 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….’

    THAT would be serious – more than ‘low hanging fruit’ – if this $100 Billion is just the usual ‘camel’s nose under the tent’ approach of the world government types.

  4. Moemo says:

    What a messed up young lady at the end there. Social Justice is all she really wants even though she really doesnt know what that means.

  5. Douglas DC says:

    Hint:Russia, Japan and Canada want out of Kyoto. Russia is “Carbon credits ‘R’ us”as is Japan and Canada. If they can’t sell the thin air and it can’t be converted to money,it ain’t going to happen. I suspect there will be even less enthusiasm next year
    Maybe the hold it in Durban in July-hehehe…

  6. Mike from Canmore says:

    The Ostriches sticking their heads in the sand is a fitting metaphor because much like catastrophic AGW, it is a myth. What they do do is lay on the ground and blend in with environment and it seems to be pretty successful. Pretty close to the “Do Nothing” option. A much better action than anything the alarmists are proposing.

  7. harrywr2 says:

    The reality is that we don’t need a ‘climate treaty’ to control emissions even if we believe in Global Warming.

    Steam Coal on Global markets is now at the $120/tonne range which yields a fuel cost of $50-$60/MW for coal. Coal is no longer cost competitive with Nuclear or Hydro.

    The wording in the Cancun document about ‘technology transfer’ is just diplo-speak for Gen IV nuclear technology without having to contribute any funds to the GenIV nuclear research currently being funded by the US,Canada,South Korea,Japan and the EU.

  8. Hank Hancock says:

    Because I don’t believe I could say it any differently, I’ll repeat what I opined over at the Air Vent…

    Having been spellbound by prayer to the moon goddess Coyolxauhqui, filled to the gills with exotic foods, exhausted by the extravagant parties, and intoxicated with strong drink, how could they resist signing what their gracious UN party planners placed before them? With all the back patting and high five’ing over (not to mention barfing up last night’s hors d’oeuvres and mezcal), they must now go home and sell their deed to their respective governments and people. At this juncture, the party is over literally and figuratively. With the U.S. 112′th congress promising to cut the government budget, place on hold the sending of climate related funding to foreign governments, disbanding of congressional climate change committees, and the EPA starting to receive the jaundiced eye, this pig ain’t going to fly, no way, no how. They knew it when they signed. It’s another empty face saving press endearing farce these Corinthians have become so well known for.

  9. Mike from Canmore says:

    E.C. Cowan:

    “THAT would be serious – more than ‘low hanging fruit’ – if this $100 Billion is just the usual ‘camel’s nose under the tent’ approach of the world government types.”

    And that would just be the beachhead. Like Oliver, they would be back asking for more annually and hence committing 3rd world countries to perpetual begging.

  10. Gary Pate says:

    These people must not watch the news, climategate blew their hoax out of the water.

    They must REALLY like that kool-aid….

  11. Steve from Rockwood says:

    Hi I’m from the Sierra youth group and I’m wearing a cool shirt and I’m a complete moron and I talk like a California girl and I think like a California girl.
    “Some countries are going to lose their shoreline and their lives”.
    There is too much money in the world when these people are paid to talk like that in Cancun. I prefer to pay for my own holidays.

  12. kwik says:

    Douglas DC says:
    December 11, 2010 at 12:35 pm

    “Maybe the hold it in Durban in July…”

    I wonder…..what are the chances for a big Gore Effect in Durban, in July?

  13. MarkG says:

    “Like Oliver, they would be back asking for more annually and hence committing 3rd world countries to perpetual begging.”

    Which is presumably the plan. There are few things the Left love more than addicting people to life-long welfare.

  14. bucko36 says:

    “I Fear for My Country!”

  15. Louis says:

    These top scientists, with all their computer models and scientific concensus, can’t even pick a meeting place that is experiencing record highs rather than record lows during their conference. And we’re supposed to believe that they can predict what is going to happen in the distant future?

    If these people are wrong about global warming, they would have us destroy the world’s greatests economies by drastically limiting energy use to reduce carbon for no good reason. And even if they are right, I would rather have the effects of global warming starve me to death in the future than allow these enviromentalists to kill me now. That’s exactly what will happen to many of us if we allow them to send us back to the stone age in a vain attempt at reducing CO2 to forestall global warming.

    Population control is what they’re really after. It’s what the environmentalists have always been after. They’re not willing to wait for global warming to reduce the population because they don’t really believe their own propaganda. Only the useful idiots in hollywood and the media actually believe them. Global warming, climate disruption, global cooling, ddt, china syndrome, endangered species, acid rain, global famine, ad infinitum… are all just means to an end — to limit the population.

  16. Athelstan. says:

    Bog standard thinking = BS outcome.

    We know its 888p, they know its c777p, we know, ‘they know’.

    Reality?………………………..or NO!!!!!!!!

    Let’s all, have another jolly!

  17. CRS, Dr.P.H. says:

    …I keep seeing references to a “Mexican standoff,” including a quote from former Pres. Bill Clinton. Uh, isn’t that a slightly insulting term to the Mexicans?

    Recall Jimmy Carter’s wisecrack about having “Montezuma’s Revenge” during a state visit to Mexico! That raised a fuss!

    This decision to punt is not a surprising outcome by any means, climate action will now become a tool of diplomacy & end up in regional trading agreements.

    Interesting letter sent to Sec. Clinton by Jim Inhofe etc.:
    http://barrasso.senate.gov/public/_files/12_2_10_barrasso_climate_bailout_letter.pdf

    Can you spot the typo?

  18. Jeff says:

    Something the kid from Pennsylvania said struck me: “The young people in schools have caught it from the teachers.” The leftist propaganda in the schools has taken hold.

  19. CRS, Dr.P.H. says:

    Here’s the quote from former (errrr, assistant??) Pres. Clinton:

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20025374-503544.html

    “The numbers will only get worse in January in terms of negotiating,” he said. “And the president — look, if we had 5 percent growth and unemployment was dropping like a rock, maybe you could have the so-called Mexican stand-off and you could say, it will be you not me the voters will hold responsible for raising taxes on middle class people if they all go down next year.”

  20. John F. Hultquist says:

    Another myth:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostrich

    When threatened, Ostriches run away, but they can cause serious injury and death with kicks from their powerful legs.[11] Their legs can only kick forward.[27] Contrary to popular belief, Ostriches do not bury their heads in sand.[28] This myth likely began with Pliny the Elder (A.D. 23-79), who wrote that Ostriches “imagine, when they have thrust their head and neck into a bush, that the whole of their body is concealed.”[29]

  21. Fred from Canuckistan says:

    Obviously the results of too much fiesta & tequila & playa . . . combined with the very cold resulted in only low hanging fruit . . . probably from the bottom of the punch bowl.

  22. DirkH says:

    I liked the next video in the playlist even better, where Rajendra K Pachauri describes the IPCC as a “grass roots effort” (his words, literally), costing not a single penny because scientists devote their time for free.

    I guess that’s the kind of statement that goes down well with the McKibben crowd. Not one owner of a brain amongst them.

  23. AJB says:

    Heads set in some fantastic cloud formations in the background of that vid :-)

  24. Brad says:

    The thing I find most infuriating is the giveaways to poor countries. We can’t afford this stuff anymore!

  25. Bruce says:

    There may indeed be lots of future low hanging fruit…REDD+ seems to be an eminently rortable program. I can’t wait for the first scandals (eg. What exactly did you say happened to that forest we were paying for? Eaten by polar bears you say?) to hit the media.

    The Green Climate Fund may be likewise cheerfully rortable. I imagine many small countries will be finding sea level rising very very fast around them. Extremely lucratively fast, in fact.

  26. Dave Springer says:

    If they really wanted to help the world they’d pledge to never have any children.

    Imagine the carbon savings alone to say nothing of how much that will eventually raise the average IQ of the human race.

  27. 1DandyTroll says:

    You mean that fruit that is so low hanging it has already been trampled upon by ten thousand climate hippies?

  28. Ray says:

    All of those people are so disconnected from reality, especially the scientific reality that debunks this climate scam. They are so dumb that they don’t realize that THEY are the ones with their heads in the sand. Talk about a bunch of screwed up people in need of a major reality check and no amount of publicity stunt like this will change the true science and the fact that it’s has been a money crab scheme all along.

  29. Cold as ice - London UK says:

    I’m sorry but I wouldn’t be able to tolerate one of these people (sheep) if they started preaching that kind of rubbish to me. How come there’s never any protest from the skeptics point of view. Why don’t we have rallies like them, we need to rise up people, we need to have our own demonstrations and get our points across to the media one way or another. Rant over.

  30. James Evans says:

    Can these people really not communicate any more without some sort of ridiculous “performance art”? It’s utterly nauseating. And what exactly is it supposed to achieve?

  31. Breckite says:

    CO2 is not a pollutant.

  32. Dave Springer says:

    Sustainable GDP growth is thought to be at most 3% per year. So the 1.5% the new global carbon government wants is fully half of all GDP growth in the developed world. Not to mention that their plans on controlling carbon will put a big strain on those economies so you can kiss 3% annual GDP growth goodbye.

    This is nothing more than wealth redistribution on a global scale – take from the developed world and give to the developing obviously hoping the result is some idyllic fantasy where everyone around the world is happy, healthy, peaceful, and content. Obviously some kind of mass channeling of John Lennon from beyond the grave.

    I just threw up in my mouth a little.

  33. Tom in Texas says:

    Did she say that the people of some countries don’t deserve NATURAL disasters?
    (I couldn’t watch it again).
    They should have filled in those holes while they had their heads in them.

  34. the_Butcher says:

    Maybe we shouldn’t be that nice to retarded people after all…look at them.

  35. Graeme says:

    The next meeting should be held in the Falklands, there is too much partying and not enough deal making…

    Then again – how about Vegas, we might all be better off with the attendees well and truly distracted.

  36. Robert of Ottawa says:

    I wonder what Brasil thinks of the preservation of rainforests? I’m sure the third world despots can’t wait to get their hands on that $100 bullion billion.

  37. Anoneumouse says:

    The Cancun agreement

    My Lords (Oxburgh) Ladies (Slingo types) and gentlemen (Muir Russell) …it all comes down to ….dotting the i’s and crossing the t’s

    However there is no ‘I’ or ‘T’ in Cancun

    unless…….you are particularly skilful in spin.

    I CAN ………………………………..

    Note:…a low hanging fruit = low to the ground.

    Strange fruit….green is the new black

  38. Pamela Gray says:

    This Climate Conference appears to be in perpetual search of a warmer climate. They’re lucky they could reach the low hanging fruit in that weather, with shrinkage and all. Since Cancun didn’t pan out to be especially warm, I would suggest Hell. The way things are going, South Africa will be in the middle of a blizzard when they meet next time.

    The bad thing about all this is I had promised it would be a cold day in Hell before I ever vote the Democratic ticket again. I am beginning to worry!

  39. Tom Jones says:

    Gee, it kind of reminds me when I was in college a long time ago. We were full of the same kind of nonsense about different issues. None of it ever amounted to anything, but college students haven’t changed much. Different cause, same BS.

  40. TomRude says:

    The Canadian Globe and Mail is trumpeting this as a “breakthrough”… Really their reporter is writing anything to try boosting his employer’s green investments!

  41. Bulldust says:

    I have a new fear to be honest… if this is a representative sampling of the IQ of the upcomming generation we are all screwed.

    I am not sure whether to laugh or cry after watching that video. They had the conviction of religious missionaries, but they have no grasp on reality. Sad…

    But comments so provably stupid, like the polar bears are dying… make me happy… maybe it is schadefreude.

  42. Pamela Gray says:

    No, no, no. This isn’t a video about putting your head in the sand. It’s a video about the proper position for accepting the tenants of AGW! Come on Anthony, you are such a hold out. Now get into the proper position!

  43. dbleader62 says:

    As I look at the sand, water, and (this December’s not quite so) warm Cancun sun, I am reminded of Rex Murphy’s observation in the National Post last Saturday in which he said:

    “Does not one of the great minds decoding next century’s weather see the brain-splitting contradiction of holding a conference warning of the imminent threat of global warming in a venue that mainly exists because people fly there to get warmer? That’s right, people spend money to fly to Cancun mainly because it’s warmer there, than where they live. In essence, Cancun is what the global warming crowd are, otherwise, warning us about.”

    Apparently these Sierra Club “great minds” do not.

  44. D. King says:

    Vacuous!

    Moemo says:
    December 11, 2010 at 12:30 pm
    What a messed up young lady at the end there. Social Justice is all she really wants even though she really doesnt know what that means.

    Someone should give her a dime, so she can buy a clue.

  45. d says:

    as a muslim i am offended by the mockery of this video of the way we pray. this video should be banned. It is offensive.

  46. Terry says:

    They should have left their heads in there.

  47. DirkH says:

    Dave Springer says:
    December 11, 2010 at 2:05 pm
    “Sustainable GDP growth is thought to be at most 3% per year. So the 1.5% the new global carbon government wants is fully half of all GDP growth in the developed world.”

    They would basically siphon off half a years growth; from where growth would continue. Not too dramatic. OTOH, where would the money end up? As i said before, it would feed approx. 90,000,000 new bureaucrats and these people would do nothing but damage – after all, every little bureaucrats dream is to one day author his own piece of regulation. So we would end up with more laws, regulations, organisations, masterplans and new invented problems than the Soviet Union, which would inevitably lead to the global collapse of civilization. The only thing that would thrive would be a global black market.

    Which is an interesting opportunity of its own. Think Connie Heedegards 9 bn carbon scam…

  48. MikeH says:

    Leave it to these irrational groups to use one myth, Ostriches do not bury their heads in sand, with another myth that the Global Climate Disruption is man made. Clearly shows they do not use facts in their arguments, or their examples. Are these people on Fantasy Island? This is a house of cards and the wind of truth is knocking it down.

    Can Global Climate Disruption qualify as a Man Caused Disaster? If so, our President may give a strongly worded speech telling us to stop.

  49. Robert of Ottawa says:

    Pamela Gray,

    I’m sorry but Hell is colder than heaven!

    http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/hell.htm

  50. Ric Werme says:

    Jeff says:
    December 11, 2010 at 1:18 pm

    Something the kid from Pennsylvania said struck me: “The young people in schools have caught it from the teachers.” The leftist propaganda in the schools has taken hold.

    Hmm, that kid may be my daughter’s classmate! She’s having final exams this week, what’s he doing in Cancun? (Besides putting his head in the sand.)

  51. JRR Canada says:

    Hug a polar bear TV. These people are so gullible they would voluntarily hug a wild meat eater, alright thats good, can we film it and profit from their idiocy?Shades of the Grizzly Man who got et with his girlfriend a few years ago, except he forgot to point the camera in the right direction. If human population is the real concern behind these UN farces then they could act upon their beliefs and remove themselves, thus solving their problems, we would consider their fine example and act accordingly.

  52. beesaman says:

    Do I sense a drift back to environmental issues and away from climate ones going on? Which would be a good thing. I’d happily pay to have a cleaner more ecologically friendly world. I just don’t want to spend billions on carbon crapology.

  53. Glenn says:

    Terry says:
    December 11, 2010 at 2:50 pm

    “They should have left their heads in there.”

    They probably have, they were there all the time.

  54. dbleader61 says:

    @Ric Werme says:
    December 11, 2010 at 2:59 pm

    “Hmm, that kid may be my daughter’s classmate! She’s having final exams this week, what’s he doing in Cancun? (Besides putting his head in the sand.)”

    —————————————-
    Ric,

    I actually think you should thank (the Mayan?) gods that your daughter is safely some distance away…but since your daughter obviously has a dad like the one my daughters have – you probably needn’t worry. My 19 yr old in university and my 17 year old in high school brook no fools when it comes to boyfriends or teachers and AGW – am immensely proud of that (if not a little worried sometimes about the effect on their marks)

  55. Theo Goodwin says:

    Is it likely that the USA will pay its share of the 100 billion? Can the president decide this matter on his own? Does Congress have to approve the expenditure? Would someone please explain?

  56. dbleader61 says:

    Re the SC video…not much knowledge of politics (or perhaps geography) on the part of the Sierra Clubs boy wunderkind….

    @7:15:

    “…In the United States, we are the only western industrialized nation whose right wing party does not adhere to climate science…”

    We, the lovers of the Great White North (and the White Sands of Cancun) doth protest!

    “It sets irresponsible targets, doesn’t lay out any measure of achieving them other than … by shutting down sections of the Canadian economy and throwing hundreds of thousands and possibly millions of people out of worPk,” Harper said. “Of course, we will never support such legislation.” Stephen Harper, Prime Minister of Canada and leader of the Conservative (ie right wing – at least by most definitions) supporting Canadian Conservative Senators that voted down Bill C311 on November 16, which was set to hamstring the entire Canadian economy based on so-called climate science.

    http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/11/17/senate-climate-bill.html

    Perhaps this brainiac might have asked why there was a Canadian flag on one of his fellow ostriches?

  57. Reality says:

    Why can’t the stupid simpletons speak without saying “you know”?
    What is it that I know?
    If I already know, why are you telling me?

  58. harrywr2 says:

    Theo Goodwin says:
    December 11, 2010 at 4:03 pm

    “Is it likely that the USA will pay its share of the 100 billion? Can the president decide this matter on his own? ”

    The State Department had a ‘discretionary’ budget of $48 billion in 2009. Congress decides how big the ‘discretionary’ budget should be and they’ve already written to Mrs Clinton(Head of the State Department) and informed her if she wanted to have any budget at all next year she should avoid writing checks to the UN for climate change.

  59. Strewth says:

    The “Green Fund” establishes more than a consensual UN right or power of taxation upon western democracies, it also creates an “Express Lane” to the world’s first unemployment benefits scheme, which, may or may not include a few African dictators and their administrations. Topping up their Swiss bank accounts never became so easy.

    You have gotta love this type of ‘Collective’ approach for the collection and distribution of other peoples money regardless of beneficiary regime status and governance.

  60. Jon says:

    Global Warming morphed to Climate Change and has now been reduced to its bare roots of reparational theology as espoused by the brainwahed ramblings of young trust funders who serve as useful idiots for leftist professors trying to prove that they now know how to make socialism work where all others have failed.

    Cancun seems to have cornered the market on the irrational and uninfomed.

  61. Australis says:

    All reports focus on the adamant statements by Japan, Russia and Canada that they will not accept any extension to Kyoto obligations imposed on Annex 1 countries. Under the radar, Australia’s Climate Minister Combet is saying exactly the same – no second commitment unless USA China and India are similarly bound.

    The countries with existing Emission Trading Schemes – Europe and New Zealand – are being rather more equivocal. Europe has nothing to lose because it is still sitting on many ‘hot air’ credits from the soviet bloc industrial collapses of 1990-2.

  62. Que says:

    Pity they didn’t complete the scene by filling in the sand around their heads. I guess they believe in the cause,.. but not THAT much.

  63. ceasley7 says:

    This is from a wikileak cable guys, dated 02-17-10 USG embassy Paris

    (C) Borloo(French) argued(to the Americans) that the key to implementing the “equilibrium”
    revealed at Copenhagen was an arrangement that would be voluntary but
    also automatic in implementation and would include tradable emissions
    quotas (with linked carbon markets), a forestry mechanism (REDD
    Plus), and financing, including innovative financing and a fast start
    mechanism. He commented that China would agree to such a system as
    far preferable to a U.S. and EU carbon border tax or tariff
    arrangement.

    I wouldn’t underestimate these one world Luciferians if I were you. They are going to try to use this Copenhagen Accord to backdoor World Government and their abominable carbon trading scheme. The Wall Street banks have to much invested in this and that is where the true power lies. They don’t care about the science, they never have, it’s all about power, money, and domination. Got Georgia Guidestones?

  64. Scarlet Pumpernickel says:

    Give the 3rd world energy and wealth, then they won’t have to live in flood plains and breed so much! The reason they populate so much, is because in the past natural disasters used to kill them all the time, since most of the 3rd world lives in volatile areas of the planet or near volcanoes, but these are also the most productive areas of the world.

  65. Patrick Davis says:

    Well it’s being reported in Australia as a complete success, and “Kyoto” has been retained. We’ll see what cooling the next year brings.

  66. It is quite moving the sheer naiveté of those youngsters, growing a beard to look like grown up “real” scientists (Gavin, Mann?), and reciting the Old Green Litany. But the older f*r*ts, especially the guy from the Sierra Club, well… it is a disgrace. Worried about an imaginary risk and completely ignoring real dangers and problems as the advance of narco countries and the increase in drug addiction in all countries in the world. Not to mention people starving to death, diarrhea, malaria, tuberculosis, all kind of parasitosis, thirsty children without hope of any amelioration in their life conditions.

    These people should spend the next 30 years in a reeducation gulag.

  67. Brian H says:

    Brad et al;
    About those “poor countries”, here’s a dramatic 4-min. illustration of what the last 200 yrs have done to them, and what the Greenies want to reverse:

  68. Brian H says:

    Note, however, his leftist “aid” and “green technology” plugs, notwithstanding that they have demonstrably had nothing to do with the improvements. The actual lesson is: maximize exploitation of carbon resources, and you will get wealthy and healthy.

  69. savethesharks says:

    “Russia, Canada and Japan insisted throughout the Cancun negotiations that they wouldn’t agree to a new set of commitments under Kyoto until the world’s three biggest polluters – China, India and the United States – accepted a role in the mandatory system too.”

    =============================

    Russia??? Russia????? Hahahahaha.

    Calling the United States one of the “world’s three biggest polluters”….WTF?

    The most polluted sites on the planet are in China, India, and Russia…..not in the USA.

    Oh….I see….they are talking about CO2 as a “pollutant.”

    Idiots! But hey, our own idiotic EPA has led the charge on that one.

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  70. richard verney says:

    The trouble is that we will need many many years of stable or cooling temperatures before there will be mainstream acceptance that the AGW theory is wrong. By the time the results are in, much money will have been wasted and heaven knows what stupid political treaties will have been forged. It is all very depressing.
    There should be some system in place which, when the AGW scam is finally proved to be false, would entitle ordinanry people to recoup green taxes and other subsidies which they have been forced to pay from all those engaged in pursuing the AGW agenda (activists, politicians, media groups, sponsors etc).

  71. Foley Hund says:

    Fortunately, we are, at least at this blog, I would judge to be at least in the three digit I.Q. category. Furthermore, the crowd observing their lovely gathering was impressively void.

    How about the green speaking on green. Old enough to be vocally inept.

    Blind and thoughtless are these sheep. So remarkably sad it defies the reason of a clear mind.

    God help them recover from such youthful vigorous ignorance.

  72. Moemo says:

    The folks would be well served to check out this site, might save them some heartache and some sand mites.

  73. Kforestcat says:

    Dear Harrywr2

    Per your December 11, 2010 at 12:40 pm comment. Where you say:

    “Steam Coal on Global markets is now at the $120/tonne range which yields a fuel cost of $50-$60/MW for coal. Coal is no longer cost competitive with Nuclear or Hydro.”

    Regards your view that coal is not economically competitive with nuclear or hydro. Meeting electrical power demand is bit more complex than simply building the lowest cost power source. Had you said that nuclear and hydro units will generally dispatch ahead of coal units, you would have be correct. Unfortunately, U.S. Nuclear plants are not designed to operate with varied load (i.e. their power output is fixed). Hence, nuclear plants are strictly “base load” units. In sharp contrast to nuclear plants, coal units can vary electrical production with load. Because utility loads vary considerably throughout the day; having a mix of coal, gas, and nuclear units is essential to ensuring the delivery of reliable and cost competitive power.

    Regards, hydro versus coal. Usable hydro resources are quite limited in terms of available capacity. Even in regions with abundant hydro capacity, intermediate and base load coals or gas units are constructed to “back up” hydro units — particularly in regions prone to occasional drought.

    Regard your quoted “$120/tonne” coal price, I strongly suspect you’re looking at price quotes for very high quality steel/coke grade coal. Power plants burn much lower grade/cost coals. For example, in the south-eastern United States, medium grade (11,800 Btu/lb) Illinois Basin (ILB) coal can be obtained for a delivered price of about $45-$48/short ton (U.S. dollars). Lower grade (8,800 Btu/lb) Powder River Basin can be obtained for $13-15/short ton. Even high quality (12,500 Btu/lb) Central Appalachian (CAP) coal sells for roughly $71-75/short ton. For an accurate current prices of U.S. coal see: http://www.eia.gov/cneaf/coal/page/uscoal.pdf

    (Note: for our non-U.S. readers 1 metric ton = 1.10231 short tons — so you may need to increase the prices above by 10%)

    Perhaps, you are looking at the delivered export price of high grade coals used in steel production?

    Kindest Regards, Kforestcat.

    P.S. Contrary to common belief very little “mountain top” CAP coals is burned to produce electrical power. This high grade CAP coal is generally too costly to burn in U.S. plants power plants. Most CAP coal is used for steel production and a good deal is exported for that purpose.

  74. pat says:

    give thanx nothing happened at Cancun.

  75. Eric (skeptic) says:

    ceasley7 asked “Got Georgia Guidestones?”

    Never heard of them. Now I have. It nicely complements the etched in stone theory of catastrophic CO2 warming.

  76. Eric (skeptic) says:

    richard verney said “The trouble is that we will need many many years of stable or cooling temperatures before there will be mainstream acceptance that the AGW theory is wrong.”

    You are thinking of the principle of statistically significant trends that the catastrophists insist on but violate themselves whenever it is convenient to do so. The answer to that it fairly simple, we need to frame and win the political battle. Ask the next ordinary people you meet if they think money should be sent to third world thugs to pretend to plant trees? Or ask them if they think that gas prices should double to theoretically save a polar bear in reality saving nothing. This is not rocket science or any other kind of science.

  77. M White says:

    10 days to establish a wish list.

  78. cmacrider says:

    I am contemplating setting up a new organization which I trust the UN and all the left wing eco nuts in the world will contribute at least 10 percent of their annual gross income to help me get it off the ground.. The organization is the People for the Ethical Treatment of Plants. The proposals put forward at Cancun, if adopted and implemented, are going to result in a catastophic shortage of CO2 for the plants of this world. Just because these plants can’t speak and represent themselves does not mean that they don’t have rights. These rights should be respected and if this war against Co2 continues and massive carbon sequestration occurs, this is going tor result in plant genocide and human starvation of epic proportions. All those perpetrators of programs to restrict Co2 should be immediately brought before a war crime commission. We need to have the UN immediately organize a world conference to save Co2 for the sake of the plants. Those countries who are not contributing their fair share of Co2 to the atmosphere should contribute moneys to those countries who have the capability of producing more Co2. In the event a country which has a Co2 deficit fails to pay for their Co2 deficit, those countries who do produce Co2 can set that amount off against the UN’s proposed carbon tax. My quick calculations show that this would result in a net transfer of $0.00 dollars from any single country to any other country. I was hoping that fluffy the teleprompter guy would lead the charge to transform People for the Ethical Treatment of Plants into a world wide organization. But when I see that he has to call in Daddy Clinton to help him with his press conferences I’m not so sure anymore.

  79. AlanG says:

    Cancun was never about climate change so no surprise. If you had tried to persuade Lenin that communism might not be a good idea, he might say that you are missing the point – communism isn’t about communism. Climate isn’t about climate.

  80. EW says:

    Jeff said (December 11, 2010 at 1:18 pm)
    Something the kid from Pennsylvania said struck me: “The young people in schools have caught it from the teachers.” The leftist propaganda in the schools has taken hold.

    Jeff, did you notice, that one of the Cancun proclamations called for creating citizens more aware of climate through appropriate education? Apparently it already functions this way…

  81. R. Farr says:

    The global warming party line mantra continues unchanged and is picked up across the country and published by newspapers, and news websites…this corespondent has apparently not gotten the Climategate memo yet.

    http://www.waff.com/Global/story.asp?S=13656706
    Analysis: On climate, the elephant that’s ignored
    Posted: Dec 11, 2010 11:25 AM Updated: Dec 12, 2010 6:05 AM
    By CHARLES J. HANLEY
    AP Special Correspondent

    CANCUN, Mexico (AP) – “The latest international deal on climate, reached early Saturday after hard days of bargaining, was described by exhausted delegates as a ‘step forward’ in grappling with global warming.”

    If they step too far, however, they’re going to bump into an elephant in the room.

    That would be the U.S. Republican Party.

  82. Rabe says:

    richard verney, the money wouldn’t be available any more to give it back to you and me. It has been spent. And who would forge a fallback system? Those politicans who knowingly introduce the nonsense laws to make it possible they can be made accountable? Dream on.

  83. tarpon says:

    CO2 is not a pollutant. When we clear the air of CO2, we will have a planet devoid of carbon lifeforms. like those with their heads in the sand in the icy beach.

  84. epigenes says:

    Stalin had his ‘useful idiots’ and the people interviewed in the video are the environmentalist equivalent.

    Their repetition of the same slogans and the obvious fact that none of them were in any way qualified is disturbing.

  85. Henry chance says:

    This drama is not about climate. like the girl said, it is about social justice. Her brain doesn’t know we have had famines and floods before we had tv news.
    There is no way 10 trillion dollars in taxes could change the climate.

  86. Pointman says:

    “Cancun will be a very low-key affair. The attendees going there expect to achieve exactly nothing. I’ll repeat that; exactly nothing. ”

    http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2010/12/03/cancun-and-the-chinese-perspective-on-it/

    Apart from a vague end of conference fig leaf, nothing.

    Pointman

  87. John_in_Oz says:

    That’s not a $100 billion dollar fund, it’s a $100 billion dollar per year fund.
    The UN had caimed that we could provide education, food and clean drinking water to every person on earth for less than this price.
    I’m sure all those who watch their children die of diesease and hunger will be consoled that we chose instead to reduce Carbon Dioxide.
    Foretelling the future from the entrails of a computer we know that we’ll reduce the year’s temperature increase from 0.012 degrees Centigrade to 0.01128 degree Centigrade. But I still find it hard to comprehend that there’s anyone who prioritises that change above saving millions of children from agonising early death, and i cannot agree with them.

  88. Spen says:

    The UK parliament passed a Climate Change Act a couple of years ago. Parliament was almost unanimous with ony 2 or 3 MPs dissenting. This Act commits the government to reducing carbon emissions by 34% by 2020. £18 billion per year is being spent to achieve this. In order to achieve this we have decimated our defence capability (including building an aircraft carrier which will sold off on completion because we cannot afford the aircraft). Savage cuts are to be made across the board.
    So beware of complacency you other countries – yes it appears that some governments are indeed prepared to ruin their country in the name of the carbon godess if the UK is anything to go by. Still the prime minister is happy to trumpet that this is one area where Britain leads the world! It certainly did last week, the coldest on record and our wind energy output got to 0.2% of demand.

  89. Paul Birch says:

    harrywr2 says:
    December 11, 2010 at 12:40 pm
    “Steam Coal on Global markets is now at the $120/tonne range which yields a fuel cost of $50-$60/MW for coal.”

    Not only are you exaggerating the price paid by electricity producers for coal, $120/tonne would anyway only equate to $20-$30/MWhe.

  90. Enneagram says:

    Next stop GUYANA and drink the beverage of oblivion…

  91. Jimmy Haigh says:

    Oh! The naïveté!

  92. Olen says:

    They commit 100 billion dollars that we don’t have for a crisis that does not exist.

    That sounds like a crime.

  93. Kirk W. Hanneman says:

    The “commitment” of $100 billion is a joke. A treaty containing it would never, ever pass the U.S. Senate, and funding for the U.S. portion won’t either (and definitely won’t pass the U.S. House from next year). The fact is we are just about broke and simply don’t have this money to give to other countries even if it were a good idea, which it’s not since 90% of it would be lost to corruption and graft. This part of the “agreement” will never happen.

  94. Smokey says:

    The excellent Maggie’s Farm links to several WUWT articles.

  95. Kforestcat says:

    Gentlemen

    Regards my December 11, 2010 at 8:26 pm post. I accidently provided the wrong post to current U.S. coal prices the correct site is:

    http://www.eia.doe.gov/coal/page/coalnews/coalmar.html

    I do apologize.

    Regards, Kforestcat.

  96. harrywr2 says:

    Kforestcat says:
    December 11, 2010 at 8:26 pm

    “Perhaps, you are looking at the delivered export price of high grade coals used in steel production?”

    No, I am looking at 5500kcal steam coal. Coking coal(used to make steel) is well over $200/tonne on global markets.

    Global markets and US markets are completely different.

    Coal is expensive to transport you might want to look at the delivered price of coal by state to get a feel for how expensive coal is to transport.

    http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/page/acr/table34.html

    What’s economic to do in the US is completely different then what is economic to do in the rest of the world.

    I.E. The Saudi’s burn oil to generate electricity. If we look at Saudi extraction costs oil is cost competitive with coal and natural gas as a way to generate electricity. Unfortunately, the rest of the world pays significantly more then ‘Saudi extraction cost’ price.

    The same goes for coal, the US is the Saudi Arabia of coal. By the time you put $15/ton powder river basin coal on a train for 1,000 miles to the nearest boat then float it half way around the world the price is nowhere near $15/ton.

    South Africa is one of the world leading steam coal exporters. Their current energy plan for the next 15 years is to add 10GW of coal and 10GW of nuclear. Presumably the nuclear will be baseload and the coal will be ‘peaker’ units.
    China’s got $500 billion in it’s nuclear build budget. It’s going to take them 20 years to spend it simply based on how long it’ll take to ‘ramp up’ the necessary industrial infrastructure.

    Japan is bumping it’s nuclear capacity to 40% of total by 2020 and South Korea is bumping it’s nuclear capacity to 48% of it’s total by 2024. Fossil fuels will be relegated to ‘peak load’.

    5500kcal steam coal was $27/tonne ‘on the boat’ in the Chinese port of Qinhuangdao in 2002. It bumped up past $120/tonne on November 28th,2010.

    http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-11-28/china-s-coal-prices-rise-to-two-year-high-on-winter.html

    No one expects the price of steam coal to drop because India, the worlds 4th largest coal producer is expected to have a domestic shortfall of 200 Million Tonnes by 2015.

    In ‘coking coal’ news Taiwan just agreed a $225/tonne contract price, FOB Australia. http://www.platts.com/RSSFeedDetailedNews/RSSFeed/Metals/8272690

  97. Peter Miller says:

    The good folks with banks in Switzerland will be happy with this result

    Funds pumped into the Third World have a depressing habit of turning up in numbered accounts in Zurich and Geneva. If anyone tries to stop the process, they are branded as racists, colonialists, capitalist pigs or enemies of the environment.

  98. John M says:

    Kirk W. Hanneman says:
    December 12, 2010 at 7:16 am

    This part of the “agreement” will never happen.

    I wouldn’t completely dismiss it. Depending on the political climate (if you’ll pardon the expression) over the next decade, there may indeed be foreign aid given in the name of “climate adaptability”, but it will most like be existing foreign aid “reframed” (again, pardon the expression) as climate money.

    Never underestimate the path of least resistance when it comes to politics.

  99. Kitefreak says:

    Robuk says:
    December 12, 2010 at 3:25 am

    BBC take on Cancun, is this the turning point.

    http://s446.photobucket.com/albums/qq187/bobclive/?action=view&current=cancumbbc2.mp4
    ————————————
    I don’t think it’s a turning point at all. Remember, the globalists work incrimentally – what they do not achieve one year they try to achieve the next. When they do achieve what they want it is usually written into law (somewhere) so there is a rachet effect, in terms of their working towards their not-so-secret agenda. Let’s face it, none of these anti-this-thing-and-the-next-thing laws are ever going to be rescinded, are they?
    .

  100. John M says:

    The NYT has figured it out.

    What climate pushers need to do is a better job of getting in the pocket of “Big Green”.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/13/business/energy-environment/13green.html

    Evidence of green-business profits and more direct industry engagement may be needed to push United Nations climate talks out of stale rich-poor rivalries and into a global agreement.

    The extensive peppering of the web page with flashy ads from Shell adds a nice touch.

  101. GBees says:

    People over 30 don’t agree with you young man because they read the science for themselves instead of accepting what Greenies try to force upon them. I’m sure your teachers would have been more than accommodating in brainwashing you in their leftist views. Get a brain. Read and think for yourself …..

  102. E.M.Smith says:

    I object to the phrase “scientific recommendations” as, IMHO, there is little scientific about them. I think “consensus recommendations” would be closer…

    BTW, I think we can all borrow that “justice” money from China for a couple of more years before we blow off the debt. Yeah, that’s the ticket…

  103. Patrick Davis says:

    Still being reported as a complete success in Australia it seems.

    http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/un-deal-sets-pace-for-emissions-20101212-18u2b.html

    I wonder if Ms Gillard knows that we’re still free to source other articles?

  104. Jeremy says:

    “I think just sort of, not to offend anyone over 30, um, but its very much a generational breakdown at least from where I am from ..I think we are ‘getting it’… but it’s the young people in schools that first caught it from their teachers…” – - – Shane Hall 2010

    LOL, no you’re not. You’re young and you haven’t been sufficiently betrayed yet to understand what lies look like. It may be hard to grasp at your age, but lies are older than the internet. People you trust in real life will lie to your face. Its been this way since humans first spoke.

    “It’s very clear that our leaders are not following the science… the consensus that’s …happening in the rest of the world…”

    —> News flash to the college-age, leaders follow what is politically advantageous for them… ALWAYS. There is no exception. Even on good causes they do this. This is part of the ugly system of compromise we’ve created. It’s hideous, but it’s more functional for everyone than all the other kinds of government that have been invented.

    “I have nothing to smile about, the sea ice is melting…. our ice is melting and we are starving…” – - some dude, 2010

    Polar bear numbers are increasing.

    “…we talk about the environment, but what we really want is social justice for all the people that are suffering in the developing countries and to protect them from all the natural disasters and hurricanes, and it’s just unfair.” – - – some European-accented girl 2010.

    LOL. Life is unfair. No one really deserves everything they have. Many people work their ass off their entire life only to see utter failure. Some people do nothing and fall back-asswards into solid wealth. There is no equity of situation, only an ideal of equity of opportunity. Learn how to help give people opportunities and you’ll do far more than you feel you’re doing jet-setting around the world screaming about equity of situation. You’ll also likely become wealthy in the process (it’s true). If you want to give thanks for what you’ve got in life, try to extend what you have into an opportunity for someone else. That’s how it’s supposed to work, not a handout for food, an opportunity.

    Bum’s ask for money on the street, but what happens if you give them time instead of money? No one ever asks this question because time is more valuable to us.

    BTW, this video, of young people digging holes in the sand to put their heads in… It reminds me of what cults do. They make people do ridiculous rituals in the name of their cause. These rituals have been shown to re-enforce the belief system in the true believers. Those who comply cannot easily rationalize what they just did any other way. To accept that their belief could be wrong is to accept that that absurd ritual that would otherwise be horrifically embarrassing, was totally worthless and nothing but humiliation. It is SO blatantly obvious, and it’s right on the video. The only problem is that as a race of humans, we haven’t quite defined the threat of cults to humanity yet. The conditions for maintaining a cult haven’t reached the common ear enough that this behavior is so obvious.

  105. Jimash says:

    The Sierra Club is a heinous organization that will steal your personal information and use it to lobby the congress ( as they did to me ) and then pretend they did nothing wrong.
    Bringing these numbskulls and their polar bear costume ( real polar bear ?)
    to Cancun just highlights the hypocrisy of the entire movement, since it created tons of CO2 for them to get there and do a stunt that quite apparently no one saw.
    But it is beautiful there. Despite the haha record cold brought on by these political sheananigans, one can easily see that it is lovely ( been there).
    I would bet hard money that the creeps left garbage on the pristine beach.

  106. Kforestcat says:

    Dear harrywr2

    Regards harrywr2 says:
    December 12, 2010 at 8:23 am

    Harry, it think this is a case of our both being correct. It is simply a matter of perspectives. (View of the elephant if you will). You are correct with respect to the Southeast Asian Pacific market. I am correct with respect to the U.S./European Atlantic markets.

    This fig leaf offered, I still wouldn’t take the “blanket” position that coal has ceased to be viable fuel source for future electrical production. Please keep in mind that the growing Asian coal market accounts for 59% of total world import market. Most of this demand is in undeveloped nations – with the exceptions of South Korea and Japan [the largest Asian importer]. The Asian markets have unique problems and these problems distort the “import” market. Some of these problems are relatively short-term others are more serious. All contribute to highly inflated prices in that sphere of the world. For those interested in this subject please see a detailed analysis of the international market I recommend the following site: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/coal.html

    Take China for example. China’s primary coal producing area is Shanxi province. Coal production from Shanxi has been declining since 2008 due to the closing of closure of small, inefficient, and unsafe mines. This has lead to domestic shortages and the current high level of importation. China’s chronic inability to overcome internal transportation issues and political pressures arising from the severe 2009-2010 winter also played important roles. China has also had difficulty in obtaining access to a sufficient number of bulk coal carriers (ships). My understanding that more carrier capacity was expected to lower importation cost in 2010; but, given the cost you reported, it doesn’t look like this capacity materialized. In my view, China’s more serious long-term problems are: a very poor transportation system (unreliable rail) and a chronic inability to manage and operate coal mines. These are classic problems in communist run states; so, I don’t expect them to be overcome for some time.

    You are also correct with regards to India’s coal price situation. However, please keep in mind that India is facing serious transportation challenges that will require the expanded use of smaller ports to satisfy its increasing demand for imports. India’s highly socialist government tends to create more problems than it fixes; so, I don’t expect India’s outlook will be all that much better than China’s for quite some time to come.

    Given the Asian situation, I think it’s reasonable to conclude that Australia and Indonesia will remain leading Asian suppliers and will continue to benefit economically – assuming Australia come to its senses politically.

    Regards the United States, you are correct in stating that the comparatively high transportation costs associated with shipping coal from the U.S. limits exports to Asia. However, the U.S. and Canada are well situated to supply themselves and other sources along the Atlantic seaboard. For example the free alongside ship price for coal sold to the United Kingdom in 2010 was $55.35/ton and in Germany at $67.32/ton. See: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/quarterly/html/t10p01p1.html

    Naturally, if one is going to build a power plant, I would always recommend one examine the benefits of nuclear and gas as well as coal. After all, there’s nothing special about coal – it’s the economics that count. For example, even in the U.S, any proposal to build new a power plant will have to take into account proximity to shale gas reserves – assessing potential for cheap gas verses the risk of inflated expectations. It’s the classic coal verse gas debate – with a new twist.

    In the end, the power plant to build in your respective country/region depends upon your relative position in the “fuels” market and deciding what make the most economic sense.

    In this sense, I believe we fully agree.

    Best Regards, Kforestcat.

  107. Brian H says:

    Kforestcat;
    Yes, in the end energy is fungible; the problem is commitments to big capital expenditures for Type X generating plant. The shale gas revolution is going to change a lot of min-max LP formulations and outputs, though.
    http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2010/1108/opinions-steve-forbes-fact-comment-energy-crisis-over.html

    Btw, for years I’ve been following a dark-horse fusion project at LPPhysics.com . If it continues to progress at current velocity, within months a cusp will be reached, and then within a half-decade the entire world energy situation will be unrecognizable. Here’s hoping! (P.S.: the CO2/AGW issue will virtually evaporate overnight.)

Comments are closed.