The agreement (seriously! 🙂 ): everyone can do their own thing –
After untold millions of dollars, years of essential travel to exotic holiday locations, and embarrassing failure after embarrassing failure, the world appears to finally be on the brink of signing a legally binding climate agreement.
The proposed agreement is, everyone can do their own thing.
According to the Sydney Morning Herald;
The United States is considering a proposal to combat climate change that would require countries to offer plans for curtailing greenhouse gas emissions on a certain schedule but would leave it to individual nations to determine how deep their cuts would be, said Todd Stern, the nation’s chief climate negotiator. … Negotiators are aiming to sign that deal next year in Paris.”
I guess we can all feel a sense of relief, that all that effort, time and money has not been a total waste of resources – that it has finally yielded something tangible.
h/t to Eric Worrall
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
At this point they are settling for everyone just agreeing it’s a problem! Amazing.
De ja vu? A few weeks back I pointed out this very problem. They are preparing us for failure.
Well, If all nations can do their own thing…
Since the US is a Union of States operating under a Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution, It seems to me that each State could and should do their own thing.
Well I agree it’s a problem, but disagree on what the “it” is.
Don’t forget to define also, what “is” is.
“I used to be with it, but then they changed what it was. Now what I’m with isn’t it, and what’s it seems weird and scary to me, and it’ll happen to you, too.”
I think Alx and neil have got it right.
If someone could give us the plans to build an LENR we could just do our own thing at home. That way whatever happened in Paris would be utterly irrelevant.
If we could all just agree to be agreeable. 😉
Maybe this brilliant conclusion will trickle down to state/provincial and municipal levels and individuals will be left alone to choose their own religion?
It is really very funny, and the clearest sign of all that this is about nothing but politics anymore.
From a political perspective, it is important for the Politicians to be able to say “We Have An Agreement!” with the hope that they will be able to convince the LIV’s (low information voters) back home that They Are Doing Something.
What is actually in such an agreement is trivial to them, and the result of that is an “agreement” which is nothing but empty words and moral preening. What politician wouldn’t agree to that? That’s like a boiled down version of their life’s vocation. And who’s going to fight it? Why waste time and energy fighting such a big nothingburger? It’s kind of nice to see our opponents wasting their time and energy on something so trivially useless. (Napoleon: Never interfere with your enemy when he’s making a mistake.)
And it’s also an admission that there aren’t enough “true believers” left out there for anyone to worry about annoying them – where else do they have to go? So they can get tossed a picked over bone like this every once in a while, and everyone knows that the True Believers are going to have sit out in the rain, chewing on it and telling everyone How Much they Love This and what a Great Victory it Truly Is.
Because it’s either that, or quit the movement completely.
They might have been wasting their time and energy, but they’re continuing to waste our money.
If they had to pay for their own trips and conferences, they would have no more.
I have come to the sad conclusion that as long as we live under a government which depends upon vote-buying to stay in power (and what western nation today doesn’t), then our money is going to be wasted no matter what we do.
It’s just a question of what it gets wasted on. Perhaps dinners and trips to exotic locales for the nomenklatura are some of the least harmful things they can do to the rest of us. Heaven save us from those crusaders who think they actually have to “Do Something!” The fact that they are all layabouts and frauds may be our best defense.
“From a political perspective, it is important for the Politicians to be able to say “We Have An Agreement!” with the hope that they will be able to convince the LIV’s (low information voters) back home that They Are Doing Something.”
From this passage, Neville Chamberlain, in 1938, with the Munich Pact in hand and proclaiming “peace in our time” comes to mind.
I propose we shoot for zero cuts in emissions and 100% containment and cure for ebola and other infectious diseases. I also propose we build cheap fossil fuel electric generation and distribution for the poor nations of the world so they can leave the stone age behind and live as well as our public servants.
I propose increased emissions and the accompanying prosperity gains we are sorely needing worldwide.
Prezackly. Happy plants, happy life.
but would leave it to individual nations to determine………..how much money they are going to give to developing countries
So in effect, an agreement to do nothing.
Is that anything like a show about nothing?
I was wondering how long it would be until this little trick would be employed …
1. Get a treaty in place that is meaningless but everyone can agree to and endorse.
2. Get the meaningless treaty the Senate’s approval (what’s the harm … it’s just a show piece w/o teeth).
3. In subsequent years, the negotiators can then agree to administrative “adjustments” and “amendments” that would not require the Senate’s approval … voilà, cap and trade by administrative fiat (or worse).
agree
I also agree. Any form of agreement simply puts the camel’s nose under the tent.
The entire CAGW scam is in a full rout. Their ship is sinking fast and they will soon be fighting over the lifeboats. More torpedoes now, not any form of salvage operation or rescue.
A treaty requiring that there be no treaty requirements? That’s a neat trick.
Leon Brozyna on October 16, 2014 at 9:24 am
– – – – – – –
Leon Brozyna,
I tend to agree.
I think the US proposed plan “require[s] countries to offer plans for curtailing greenhouse gas emissions on a certain schedule but would leave it to individual nations to determine how deep their cuts would be” would allow creeping expansion within bureaucracy toward a total control of carbon.
John
I dunno – it might be the thin edge of the wedge. Once they have established a worldwide climate accord, no matter how tepid, they will be able to increment it up, little by little, until we are all in shackles.
This crap needs to be repudiated wholesale.
You’re right. It is not an “agreement”. It is an acknowledgement.
An acknowledgement that other nations (China, India, Brazil, Russia, etc, etc) are going to do their own thing, come what may… And patronizing, neo-imperialist western environmentalists can take a running jump.
FFS, when will they get the message? Green-central need to focus on trying to actively make the world a better place, and not on trying to tell people how to live. You can’t legislate the world greener. Go out and get a fricking engineering degree, or something else useful. And at least get out of the way of people who actually make life better for other humans.
Rant over.
I’ll second that…………………
Move for unanimous consent…
They cannot get an engineering degree. Being mathematically and economically illiterate is a required deficiency for membership of the green brigades.
And there are still people on this planet (leftists) that think there exists a group of enlightened individuals qualified to run our lives. Fascinating.
Themselves
It will be interesting to see what comes of the US proposal. I doubt that the present administration is taken very seriously by other leaders worldwide. Especially interesting will be the reaction of Euro leaders.
I think a good old fashioned brutal winter will help to sharpen some brains.
It’s a glorious failure.
If ignorance is bliss, Paris will soon surpass Disneyland as the happiest place on earth.
In fact some countries have already given this idea some though and as an exclusive I can share with you what they will say.
China , its short but to the point
We promises that sometime in the future we mean consider a review of how we may go about an assessment of the country’s C02 emissions. Following this, we plan to review the process by which we can plan for possible reductions in these emissions, providing such emissions targets met the needs of on-going consideration of national interest.
Russia goes for the simple approach, NO
India , we agree with China but call for further consideration to be given to the review process and how such reviews will be organised.
France, we look forward to the cuts other countries will make in their fossil fuel generating capacity in effort to reduce their CO2 emissions.
An agreement to agree to disagree is an agreement.
So Paris? A Success…
It is impossible to for climate science/politics to not be successful based on the rules set up and bizarrely accpeted. It is like arguing with a evangelist; the bible said so, so there it is, the argument is settled, aong with the science. At the next conference, if half the attendees beat the other half senseless with hockey sticks, it would be construed a success because half of attendees did not have injuries.
And so it goes…
but they did beat attendees with hockey sticks…..hockey stick graphs that is.
They should go out to Versailles to sign the accord.
Great line Joel !
The only important decision that they all must agree on is the venue and date of the next jamboree. “We all have budgets which must not be underspent or else we will not be taken seriously”.
Well it is important to have enough five star hotels and somewhere to park the private jet and you need to consider their patterns to , for them enough high end shopping opportunities have to be available. So its not has easy a choice has you think .
I hope it fails. No agreement would be the only outcome I could be happy with. Any agreement would only get us further in the dead end that is called Global Warming. There is no problem, so we need no solution. CAGW and its solutions are only tools to further an agenda. That agenda must be stopped asap.
The proposed agreement is, everyone can do their own thing.
Which is what they do in any case.
Exactly!
It’s like Obama sits down with Putin, they both agree to do what is in the best interest of their respective countries and then have a joint press conference to announce success at coming to an agreement. (Leaving reporters spell-bound at the magnitude of the historic event.)
Here is my model for how all this works.
Climate science => politics => infinite absurdm.
Alx, I think you mean “absurdum”. In this context, never forget the “dum” in “absurdum”.
This agreement is like Global Warming/Climate Change: EVERY action proves the agreement worked, and NO action shows it didn’t work.
Send us plans and do a lot? Success!
Send us plans and then do little to nothing? Success!
Don’t send us plans, but do something? Success!
Don’t send us plans and don’t do anything? They’re working on the first part.
Success!
Now we need another conference to discuss the results of the last conference. See ya there!
Here’s their theme song (hope you enjoy):
It seems to me climate science has crossed into the realm of being a punch line to a joke that grew old and stale a while ago. How it seems to putt-putt along in science and politics after producing so little, is one of the great mysteries of our modern world.
It is not a mistery.
The strategy was unveiled in 1971 at the Stockholm summit of the UN – using environmental pseudocrises instead of military might to achieve world domination.
The climate scientists got drafted in 1975, at the time Schneider, Lovelock, Mead and Holdren decided that antropogenic CO2 would cause a new ice age. In the 80ies this was reversed to Global Warming.
It produced quite a lot: It wrecked the West and turned it into a corrupt crony system; ruined Europe; allowed large scale plunder (REDD, GEF a.k.a. World Conservation Bank).
A very convenient mass expropriation vehicle.
We should require that all climate change conferences be held in Minot, North Dakota. That would weed out the junketeers.
Agreed. New years celebration extending for a couple of weeks of balmy climate
The only agreement that I would approve of is to tell Todd Stern to STFU. The entire ideology has been based on fraud and misdirection. It’s time to close this chapter of corruption once and for all.