This is the draft of the Copenhagen Climate Change Treaty currently out of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change working group dated September 15th.
Thanks to Alan MacRae for providing it to me. To get an idea of the kinds of things being proposed, I provide it here with some excerpts below. Readers that wish to highlight some other excerpts should do so in comments.
Page 62:
33. Each Party’s national schedule shall include:
(a) A long-term national greenhouse gas emissions limitation or reduction pathway;
(b) A country-driven nationally appropriate mitigation strategy, differentiated in terms of the ambition, timing and scope of its mitigation commitments or actions, which could be, inter alia, project-based, sectoral or economy-wide.
(c) Each Party’s nationally appropriate mitigation strategy shall include:
(i) Except for the least developed countries and small island developing States,
quantified emissions limitation or reduction commitments for 2020, consistent
with its long-term national greenhouse gas emissions limitations or reduction
pathway, subject to regular review; and
(ii) Measurable, reportable and verifiable mitigation policies and measures to meet its quantified emissions limitation or reduction commitments for 2020, as appropriate, and to support its national greenhouse gas emissions limitations or reduction pathway, subject to regular review.
34. All countries prepare low emission development strategies. Note that further paragraphs would be required to describe in more detail their function and relationship to the national schedules described above and a potential facilitative/matching platform.
35. All Parties shall develop and regularly update and submit information relating to the implementation of their nationally appropriate mitigation strategies. Such information shall be reviewed and verified according to agreed rules and guidelines.
36. All Parties, except for the least developed countries and small island developing States, shall develop and regularly update and submit a national inventory of anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of all gases not controlled by the Montreal Protocol.
37. National inventories shall be:
(a) Undertaken in accordance with the latest agreed Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories; and
(b) Submitted, reviewed and verified according to agreed frequencies, rules and guidelines.
===
Page 122, Item 17 is quite troubling.
15. [Developed country Parties [shall][should] provide support to developing country Parties, particularly those specified in Articles 4.8 and 4.9 of the Convention, in order to allow developing country Parties to address issues related to social and environmental development, economic diversification, risk assessment, modelling and insurance to prevent the adverse effects of the spillover effects.] Alternative to paragraph 15:
[In the implementation of paragraphs 11 (c)11 and 11 (d)12 above (159.1 and 159.2 in FCCC/AWGLCA/2009/INF.1) , through the provision of financial resources, including for access, development and transfer of technology, at agreed full incremental costs in accordance with Article 4.3 of the Convention;
Recognizing that there are ways and means to reduce or avoid such impacts through careful and informed selection of policies and measures, to evaluate the effectiveness of existing tools, and to consider new ones, in order to assist developing country Parties in addressing these impacts.]
16. [Adverse economic and social consequences of response measures [shall][should] be addressed by proper economic, social and environmental actions, including promoting and supporting economic diversification and the development and dissemination of win-win technologies in the affected countries, paying particular attention to the needs and concerns of the poorest and most vulnerable developing country Parties.]
Alternative to paragraph 16:
[Adverse economic and social consequences of response measures shall be addressed by various means, including but not limited to promoting, supporting and enabling economic diversification, funding, insurance and the development, transfer and dissemination of win-win technologies in the affected countries, such as cleaner fossil fuel technologies, gas flaring reduction, and carbon capture and storage technologies.]
17. [[Developed [and developing] countries] [Developed and developing country Parties] [All Parties] [shall] [should]:]
(a) Compensate for damage to the LDCs’ economy and also compensate for lost opportunities, resources, lives, land and dignity, as many will become environmental refugees;
(b) Africa, in the context of environmental justice, should be equitably compensated for environmental, social and economic losses arising from the implementation of response measures.
Sponsored IT training links:
Actualtests offers complete 650-177 exam package with latest 70-648 dumps and 70-293 lab tutorials to provide guaranteed success.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Is this OUR Anthony?
In any case, good post.
REPLY: no, somebody else – A
/Mr Lynn
Well its about time! So now what can really happen when this is attempted to be inforced is the true and final revolution to remove those who support suppression of others, any human, will finally be laid to rest and everyones true colors as the human animal shall rise and squash the evil out of this planet. Those people who wish to control others by all means are soon to perish from existance along with their born and unborn seeds and eggs.
[snip -policy]
None of this b/s is necessary, seems like a tool for something conspicuous…..
My greatest fear is that this agreement will be signed by our President. This is the only way our enemies can destroy our way of life. Perhaps it is time for us to refuse to obey our Government and refuse to honor the agreement in the event that it becomes our reality. The least we can do as citizens is remove all those who espouse this from our government and elect those who will stand and refuse to honor it for us.
Wow, I had no idea there were people who still deny global warming who aren’t being funded by oil industries. I know, let’s deny science, and let’s deny the fact that much of America’s wealth is built up at a cost that will be paid by others, either in the past (Native Americans et al.) or in the future, or in the present, in other parts of the world. Sinful self-exceptionalism
Green Advocate,
Take an aspirin and lie down. The fever will pass.
Green Advocate,
You know, in the 1970’s the issue was global cooling. Based on that lie, we should be in a frickin’ ice age right now but that didn’t happen. The real premise behind this whole thing is wealth distribution and control. If we were really in danger, real solutions would be the answer here not taxation. This whole thing is a liberal progressive agenda that has been going on for decades. Now, people have become more aware of this agenda because of the one last true free source of information that a person can get and that’s the internet. Maybe you like being controled, but more of us don’t and we won’t go down without a fight.
Gee, I’m feeling pretty indignant about the whole so-called climate debate and proposed “solutions”. Please direct me to the nearest compensation agency so that I can claim my cheque.
The real science deniers would be those the continue to be mesmerized by their beautiful and elegant models that are continuing to diverge with reported observations. Perhaps we should put a ban on scientific exploration and observation – after all we’ve apparently found out everything we need to know.
There’s no dictator like a pompous dictator. We are heading for a Lysenko moment if the alarmists get their way.
Wouldn’t we, and these under-developed countries, be far better off if we were to take the money that will be squandered fighting (questionable) global warming and using it instead to help these people fight real threats like malaria, dysentary, jungler fevers, and help them with food production, access to clean water and energy?
Is this nonsense really the best application of resources?
Lord Monckton is not a scientist (see his profile on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Monckton,_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Brenchley) and has often been accused deliberately manipulated and cherry picked data to further his argument (see http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/05/moncktons-deliberate-manipulation/). Futher, the one paper he ‘published’ on the topic was never peer reviewed (see Wikipedia article above) and is riddled with errors (see http://altenergyaction.org/Monckton.html)
Global Warming is real, there is incredibly strong consensus amongst the genuine scientific community (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change ). Like the theory of evolution, the fact that a few people (I’ll avoid calling them either crackpots or scientist) argue against it does not mean its not the theory that best fits the observations. Indeed Wikipedia notes:
With the release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 2007, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change.
In relation to the one world government claim, you can read the proposed text of the treaty at http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2009/awglca7/eng/inf02.pdf .
Searching through, the only reference to ‘government’ that relates to Monckton’s claims seems to be on page 18, where one of the two options for clause 38 state that “The scheme for the new institutional arrangement under the Convention will be based on three basic pillars: government; facilitative mechanism; and financial mechanism”. Clearly they are referring to the how the new arrangement will be governed, not trying to sneak in a New Word Government though the semantically correct use of this word.
However. if the Copenhagen treaty actually managed to get the world together to fight climate change through a democratic and representational world government – that can finally resolve the constipation of the UN security council and the inability to enforce human rights might actually be able to stop some of the evil that still goes on in the world today – then I say DO IT.
As for the accusation that this treaty will cede sovereignty, as with all treaties, the document has to be signed by the executive and then ratified by the legislature. This is the case in the US, the UK and Australia. Thus, if this treaty actually did transfer powers to the UN that should legitimately be kept within the nation, I suspect that our elected representatives might take objection.
That said, depending on how you use the word ‘cede’ it is arguable that many UN treaties, such as the universal declaration on human rights take certain powers away from – or more accurately impose certain requirements on – national, state and local governments.
What’s more I personally think this can be a good thing, as my experience suggests that the claim of sovereignty is often used to prevent interference when the government of country is abusing its citizens – take the ‘ethnic cleansing’ in the former Yugoslavia as an example.
You might also be interested in some of Monckton’s other views as cited by the Wikipedia profile reference above:
• On AIDS: “there is only one way to stop AIDS. That is to screen the entire population regularly and to quarantine all carriers of the disease for life. Every member of the population should be blood-tested every month … all those found to be infected with the virus, even if only as carriers, should be isolated compulsorily, immediately, and permanently.”
• On the EU he would “leave the European Union, close down 90 per cent of government services and shift power away from the atheistic, humanistic government and into the hands of families and individuals.”
In conclusion, I must dismiss this as the sort of pseudo scientific claptrap that tends to buzz around right-wing websites and talkback shows, and would suggest you do the same.
That is, of course, unless you also a believe in the other notions that creation of a world government as a precursor to end of days the rise of the anti-Christ, as in the biblical book of the Rapture. If you believe that, I can point you to some websites and videos that ‘prove’ President Obama is a Muslim and that gun control is a step on the slippery slope to loosing the freedoms that America so cherishes.
As an aside, in relation to those so called “freedoms”, my personal favourite is the one that allows corporations to act as social psychopaths – as described in the documentary “the Corporation” available for free viewing online (see http://www.thecorporation.com/index.cfm?page_id=46).
This treaty is the greatest danger to human kind right now. One world government is what the power forces (Illuminati) want.tThis treaty creates the one government that controls all nations that sign this treaty. God help us all!
Helen.
He will help those who appeal to His mercy, but this has got to be, as it is in keeping with the prophecies and hence taken into account in His plans for the salvation of all who acknowledge the One True God, who walked as man amongst us in the person of Jesus, the Living Christ, the Saviour, the Sacrificial Lamb who is soon to return to the fields of corrupt humanity as the Conquering Lion of Judah.
Be not afraid, though these be wicked times. Let those who consider themselves wise stumble on their foolishness and let those whom the world casts as foolish pray for the salvation of those still open to His grace and mercy. Peace and all good to you, good people.
And for those who scorn , and put their trust in silver and in gold. This same world government will see you cast your fine riches in the streets and beg for food and water. The ruler of this world is the principal of darkness, which hates every trace of God’s humanity in our kind , our human kind. Your Faustian bargain will cost you your soul, lest you repent while there is time and reach out to your brother and your sister while you can. If any of you has two coats, give one to he or she who has not. What’s so hard to understand about that ? No need to go into the questions of where the coats came from. Whose land, labour and suffering went into providing two for the few while those who made them went without not only coat, but sufficient food and drink as well. Sufficient unto the day though, is the evil thereof.
Make amends or make ready for your destruction. For there are two doors out of here, and only two. There is the door of mercy and the door of justice. Your choice. I choose Mercy, by the grace of God. That is the way advised by Christ, who is both doors. When the Age closes, the Mercy door closes with it, and there is only one door left. Your choice. That’s what free will-Freedom- is all about. I hope you make the right choice. That’s what compassion is all about. Whatever choice we make , we live or die by it. That’s what justice is all about.
http://www.raptureready.com/soap/g3.html
And they say a million monkeys could come up with the complete works of Shakespeare given enough time – if this blog is anything to go by then they have no chance – the level of incoherent paranoid hysteria here is breath taking.
Some of you would benefit from some quiet time in a darkend room.
REPLY: Thanks, we’ll send that suggestion along for KGM – cheers
Terry,
Sorry if I don’t agree with all the scripture mumbo jumbo you’re rattling off, the second coming is manifest through those of us on this Planet who use our free will to choose love over fear in every situation, no mater what. Evil is unreal and its illusions have no power other than the power we give it through our minds and attention. Lets not forget we are co creators with God, not victims!
graeme
monkeys could never write shakespeare.
Helen
We are not co-creators with God.
People are assuming that the treaty would not have an effect on the constitution, please look up the Bicker Amendment in the 1950’s. And page 18 A,B,C does point towards a world government, even though the name World Government is not used. As it is describing the body of nations belonging to that treaty. If that is not the world government then please inform me to which government it is pointing. The matter of the word government in this treaty without specifying a country is proof enough!!!
Excellent editorial in Wall Street Journal. Let’s hope Inhofe is right!
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/11/27/cap_and_trade_is_dead__99322.html
I don’t know where the global warming skepticism is stemming from, but I’d be interested to find out. If you have any articles or information against global warming, could you please post them?
Now. I am NOT a leftist or a communist or a socialist or a conservative or a fundamentalist or an atheist or a fascist or a neoliberalist, or an environmentalist. I don’t identify with any group or political or religious persuasion, but I do identify with good values. I am Australian and feel lucky because of it, but often I feel sad, because others – e.g. my friends in India, Vietnam, and China (I lived in each of these countries for at least a year) – cannot experience the life I lead. And as an Australian, I share the Australian perspective, that EVERYONE deserves A FAIR GO.
And it bugs me, because that’s just not happening right now – not in this forum, nor in the world. So I’d appreciate if it you could hear me out before you judge me and call me stupid names as others in this forum have done.
How is it that a sports-star can earn millions of dollars each year in one country, while a child in another can’t even live past the age of 2 due to malnutrition? Everyone knows that there are some horrible inequities in the world. Inexcusable ones. That’s why I just can’t stomach that “freedom” argument espoused by Ann Smith and others of that persuasion in this blog. We cannot and will not lose our freedom by helping others. We gain something from giving, and learn something from it. We learn how to be proud. If you are Christian or follow any other religion, you should be able to understand something of this. Good Samaritans would not sit idly by while others suffer. Jesus Christ would not be pleased with the way the world operates if he walked amongst us today. Nor would Mohammed, or Buddha, or Confucius.
I think we’re all horribly spoilt, and we all need to be reigned in a bit, in my opinion. We NEED restrictions. I’m not saying they need to be drastic ones, but it would indeed be nice to see some of our $$$ diverted to the less fortunate. Share some of our freedoms with the other 5 billion people on the planet… And conspiracy or not, global warming may be the push we need to initiate some change for the betterment of humanity. I think that given the impending freshwater crisis, there has to be some sort of globalisation of government starting soon – ie a treaty, or pact, to ensure we look out for one another – or we’re going to have some serious famines on our hands.
Our governments, our politicians – perhaps they do have ulterior motives. They are, indeed, careerists and intellectuals. But ultimately, their focus is purely utilitarian. We are the legs they stand upon. Without us, there IS no government. So, their goal is: protect humanity. Aim for PREVENTION of a crisis situation. And I agree with them wholeheartedly.
I’m sick of band-aid solutions. The earth’s climate is changing. That’s been established. Who cares if it’s human-induced? That argument is redundant now. No matter what, we’re gonna have to adapt!
Fossil fuels are not a sustainable resource, and create more pollution and health risks than are necessary. Developing nations – and indeed, developed nations – need to think about the long-term, developing clean technologies and fuels to sustain a large population well into the future. We need to look after the environment that looks after us. Don’t we?
Personally, I’m excited about Copenhagen and the promise it could bring. This is the trigger we need to make some change in the world.
You sound like you have bought into the whole New World Order thing! Its a conspiracy! Aliens are causing climate change! Liberal left wing communists are conspiring to kill all the conservatives! The right wing conspiracy has been embraced by the left wing.. hang on? im confused
John Gorton,
Yes, you are confused. Totally.
Take an aspirin, lie down, and think happy thoughts.
Kate, I would like to give my two cents worth on this.
You said:
“I don’t know where the global warming skepticism is stemming from,”
Me:
I don’t think anyone is disputing that the earth isn’t warming because if it hasn’t, we would still be in an ice age and the world’s population would probably be real small. The dispute is that global warming is man-made. I am not convinced that man is responsible for it. (It was global cooling in the 70’s and according to the scientist then, we should be in an ice age now) It has come out now that the numbers have been fudged and the global warming reports are really false. I am convinced that this has been the ploy all along to distribute wealth in the world. To whom is not really clear. They say poorer countries need be propped up by the rich countries. Who’s to say that whoever gets the money in the poor country isn’t just going to use it for themselves in the first place? I don’t think giving wealth to a poor country is going to guarantee a better life for the poor people living there. All that does is make the people from the rich country poor and in the same boat.
You said:
“How is it that a sports-star can earn millions of dollars each year in one country, while a child in another can’t even live past the age of 2 due to malnutrition?”
Me:
The only answer I can think of is probably corruption in their government keeps people down. That’s how it works. It’s a progressive ideal where big government is going to save the people. (Progressivism is a form of fascism). In reality, its the opposite and it keeps people from getting out of that “poor” hole. If people need help, then people need to help people not the government. No government produces anything. They just take. The smaller they are, the less they take, the more people have.
You said:
“We NEED restrictions. I’m not saying they need to be drastic ones, but it would indeed be nice to see some of our $$$ diverted to the less fortunate. Share some of our freedoms with the other 5 billion people on the planet… And conspiracy or not, global warming may be the push we need to initiate some change for the betterment of humanity. I think that given the impending freshwater crisis, there has to be some sort of globalisation of government starting soon – ie a treaty, or pact, to ensure we look out for one another – or we’re going to have some serious famines on our hands.”
Me:
Restrictions are what have gotten us here right now. The problem is, they’re the wrong restrictions. The restrictions should be on the government, not the people. We shouldn’t be bailing out “too big to fail” corporations. Let them fail like they’re supposed to. That’s how the system is supposed to work. It hasn’t worked like that in a long time and now there’s this great big financial bubble that we’re living in that’s about to pop anytime now. Its not the governments job to forcibly spread your wealth around. If you want to help people by giving your money away, that’s up to you the individual. The government doesn’ t own you. They can’t give you your natural born rights as a human being and they can’t take them away. The government is supposed to work for the people and protect their rights. At least that’s how its supposed to be in America. That has come under question recently..
You said:
“Fossil fuels are not a sustainable resource, and create more pollution and health risks than are necessary. Developing nations – and indeed, developed nations – need to think about the long-term, developing clean technologies and fuels to sustain a large population well into the future. We need to look after the environment that looks after us. Don’t we?”
Me:
I think we need to use less fossil fuels because of pollution, not carbon emissions. Plant life loves carbon dioxide and needs it to survive. In return, they give us oxygen. There has been an explosion of plant life on earth since the ice age because the earth warmed and more carbon was produced. We already have technology to replace gas powered automobiles. Fuel cell technology is available and was ready to be introduced to the public in America but got squelched when Obama got elected. I don’t buy the argument about “logistics” for getting the hydrogen out to the people for the new fuel cell cars. Instead of spending trillions on bailouts, maybe they should have spent that on infrastructure for hydrogen filling stations. No, I think this is a control issue. The government is trying to control the economy and everything tied to it. Its not going to get better until they stop trying to “fix” everything. Their meddling is what’s holding it all back. Nothing makes sense. I swear, I think they’re trying to collapse the system in America and for what purpose?
You said:
“Personally, I’m excited about Copenhagen and the promise it could bring. This is the trigger we need to make some change in the world.”
Me:
I dont think this is what we want. It will mean less freedom for everyone. A tax on “air” will kill the global economy. If people have less money, they spend less. Again, this is a progressive thing. They’re trying to control the invisible hand so to speak. It’s never worked throughout history and it won’t work now. They might as well go with it and leave it alone..
United States out of the UN, NOW.