Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
I haven’t yet found a copy of whatever agreement they signed at Durban. But thanks to Kumi Naidoo, the radical head of Greenpeace International, I know that there’s nothing to worry about. He’s done the analysis for me.
Figure 1. Kumi Naidoo, Greenpeace International Executive Director PHOTO SOURCE NYT
DURBAN, South-Africa, December 11, 2011/African Press Organization (APO)/ [emphasis mine] — On the closing of the latest round of UN climate talks in Durban Greenpeace today declared that it was clear that our Governments this past two weeks listened to the carbon-intensive polluting corporations instead of listening to the people who want an end to our dependence on fossil fuels and real and immediate action on climate change.
“The grim news is that the blockers lead by the US have succeeded in inserting a vital get-out clause that could easily prevent the next big climate deal being legally binding. If that loophole is exploited it could be a disaster. And the deal is due to be implemented ‘from 2020′ leaving almost no room for increasing the depth of carbon cuts in this decade when scientists say we need emissions to peak,”
said Kumi Naidoo, Greenpeace International Executive Director.
“Right now the global climate regime amounts to nothing more than a voluntary deal that’s put off for a decade. This could take us over the two degree threshold where we pass from danger to potential catastrophe.”
A “voluntary deal that’s put off for a decade” that contains a “vital get-out clause”… as a compromise that works for me. The real threat now is the “Green Carbon Fund”.
I am curious, though, about the location and nature of the “vital get-out clause”, I want to know how that part works for when we need it … reader’s contributions invited. Anyone have a copy of the actual agreement? I heard it was 100 pages long at one point …
Overcast morning here … what a crazy world. It’s Sunday, I’m gonna watch football and hope the sun comes out.
w.
UPDATE: What I think is the final copy of the document is available here.
UPDATE II: How foolish of me not to realize that in the UN system, something only 55 pages long can only be a draft agreement. The actual agreement is 138 pages long, and is here (h/t Fred Berple). It requires developed countries to
Reduce global greenhouse gas emissions more than 100 per cent by 2040,
Truly, you couldn’t make up useful idiots like the Durban delegates if you tried. Me, I’m shooting for a 137% reduction in global innumeracy …
UPDATE III: Once again, fooled by the UN. That was not the final, final, really final document. What I find for the really final one is here. They’ve removed the requirement to reduce emissions by more than 100%.
looks like good news then.
The Green Carbon Fund
This is a bureaucrat/consultant/politician’s dream come true. In go thousands of greedy snouts and what little is left of this fund won’t make much impact on a non-existent problem.
The good guys, like most of us who read WUWT and who actually do something worthwhile and pay taxes (bureaucrats, consultants, politicians and ‘climate scientists’ are specifically excluded here) will have to fund this nonsense.
The creation of this fund is supposed to give us all a warm fuzzy feeling in being able to support such a ‘noble cause’. As per usual, when this type of fund is created, we all know exactly where the money is going – into the pockets of the least deserving on the planet.
How much does this guy make with greenpeace?
Admittedly OT, but another bit of “Good” news from today’s Telegraph
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/8948363/1500-accidents-and-incidents-on-UK-wind-farms.html
Note that
“The figures – released by RenewableUK, the industry’s trade body – include four deaths and a further 300 injuries to workers.”
These figures come from the wind industry itself, which given the history suggests that “it’s worse than we thought”
What kind or Orwellian logic makes a deal with a “get out” clause a “good deal”? Why would a country, even the USA, want to subvert a deal that the entire rest of the world has accepted? Who could possibly benefit from such an action?
Consider the enormous risks Willis, and then ask yourself:” Is it wise to stall actions which can alleviate the risks, which are now clearly identified?”
REPLY: Consider Pepper, is it wise to toss money to shameless extortionists like the Maldives who build airports and new condos all the while screaming about how their island is sinking and they’ll have to leave as “climate refugees”.
Are you really that clueless?
-Anthony
You mean….. you mean that it might be better than we thought?
Good grief, whatever next.
I’ll feel better when the mainstream media start to report the actual science, rather than the politically spun stuff they are fed with by Government Press Departments.
And I have no idea how you get them to do that.
The “Get out Clause” is the simple fact that is would have an almost a zero chance of it being passed by Congress
Funny to see how a Postdam invention, the two degree limit to catastrophe, is now accepted as unquestionable dogma
Would you buy a used car from this man?
Why is it so difficult to find a copy of this superduper groundbreaking save the planet long live the polies up the whales etc etc agreement?
If it is indeed, only two pages long, have they cut off all the copiers to save emissions? And the internet?
Or is it that they need to wait a lonnnnng time before releasing it because the hype does not match the reality and they hope we might have forgotten?
Is it cold in Durban? Look at the jacket.
It’s all posturing, when the planet fails to warm because of the negative PDO over the next 20 years and a weak sun they will simply postpone it.
Permit me to more accurately edit that first paragraph…much like the editors of my local newspaper edit private editorial submissions “..for clarity”…
“On the closing of the latest round of UN climate talks in Durban Greenpeace today declared that it was clear that our Governments this past two weeks listened to the carbon-intensive polluting corporations instead of listening to the people …”
As usual, we’re taking this out of context. What he REALLY means to say is:
“On the closing of the latest round of UN climate talks in Durban Greenpeace today declared that it was clear that our Governments this past two weeks listened to the carbon-intensive polluting corporations instead of listening to the investment bankers, politicians looking for more lucrative committee appointments, special interest groups who capitalize on government grants, and speculators with inside knowledge of pending legislation…”
…..please note: Huge cabals flying off 10,000 conventioneers to the most remote place on earth for a week of talking and lobster is not carbon-intensive polluting.
I will say it here – I was WRONG about the US – if this proves to be fact in the official version then this is virtually a death blow to the AGW movement.
Hugh Pepper says:
December 11, 2011 at 12:03 pm
One can always depend on Hugh Pepper to offer some comic relief when the topic is serious.
Hugh Pepper says:
December 11, 2011 at 12:03 pm
What kind or Orwellian logic makes a deal with a “get out” clause a “good deal”? Why would a country, even the USA, want to subvert a deal that the entire rest of the world has accepted? Who could possibly benefit from such an action?
================================
I see your point….without the US paying money……no one would benefit
“I am curious, though, about the location and nature of the “vital get-out clause”, I want to know how that part works for when we need it … reader’s contributions invited. Anyone have a copy of the actual agreement? ”
I heard in a live stream the Indian negotiator accept that participants in a future deal MAY or MAY NOT make it legally binding (as far as I understood the legalese – her English was fine but of course it was UN-speak). After that, everybody was happy that they now knew what to agree on and had a chance to leave that desolate hall; further complications ensued and it dragged on and on and I quit watching but that was “the vital get-out clause”.
In other words, when they congregate again next year they can all agree on doing nothing, with the option of doing something.
@ur momisugly Latimer Alder
There’s a bit more detail in this article:
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/africa/2011/12/20111210201555253969.html#.TuQZ9t9CBqg.reddit
IMHO the choice quote that should relieve your confusion about a lack of a paper you can read is:
“However, key components of Sunday’s accord remain to be hammered out, and observers say the task will be arduous. Thorny issues include the still-undefined legal status of the accord and apportioning cuts on emissions among rich and poor countries.”
Here is a good , short read of what went on and was agreed to at Durban:
http://thegwpf.org/opinion-pros-a-cons/4532-philip-stott-the-basic-truth-about-durban.html
I agree with Latimer Alder — if the agreement is all so great ( from the AGW believers view point) why hasn’t it been splashed on the front page of the NYTimes ?
Hugh Pepper says:
December 11, 2011 at 12:03 pm
“Consider the enormous risks Willis, and then ask yourself:” Is it wise to stall actions which can alleviate the risks, which are now clearly identified?””
Winter nights might be getting warmer. Oh the humanity!
Kumi looks like he enjoys the finer things in life
Dear Me… surely Mr. Bernancki (?sp) can print some more US worthless funds to support a few more free loaders…… heaven help us I would dearly love to see the entire UN ediface sink under the waves asap!
Ryan says:
December 11, 2011 at 12:44 pm
Kinda depressing that Al Jazeera has the in-depth article.
I’m still real real curious, though … where is this stinkin’ agreement to be found? What did they agree to?
w.
Might the draft agreement be number 3 from the Friday midnight meeting here:
http://unfccc.int/meetings/durban_nov_2011/meeting/6245.php
Outcome of the working group… http://unfccc.int/files/meetings/durban_nov_2011/application/pdf/kp_text,_v1.2_(9_dec.2011).pdf
The Green Carbon Fund:
A tip jar for tipping points!