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.
…every Soldier, Marine, Sailor, and Airman (past and present, General and Private) swears to uphold.
And a large chunk of this country wouldn’t mind having Gen. Petraeus as President and CIC.
“(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.”
The U.N. and their ilk have done more to kill Africans, in the name of
the environment, than the worst dictators in history. It’s time to hold
them accountable. By banning DDT and withholding aid if the bans are
violated, they kill in the worst racist, “let them cake”, elitist, way
imaginable. U.N. personal should be put on trial; Nuremburg style.
Have a look at their final solution!
http://www.achanceforeverychild.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/malaria1.jpg
Bed Nets! A nice slow, relentless, cruel death.
It’s the legal basis for civil wars.
This will pay for many mansions, prostitutes and crocodile shoes.
Sorry Jerome,
Australia is far too big and rich, whereas Te Wahi Pounamu (aka the South Island of NZ) fits on all criteria. Please start sending money now. Thanks.
JER0ME (03 10 09 17:31:36) :
“OK, but as long as Australia can be counted in teh ’small island developing states.
…
2. It’s an island. OK, a continent too, but still an island….
3. It’s small. Well, it’s population is small at 15M. Size wize it’s as large as the contiguous US states, but population is small. That’s because we have to ‘develop’ still…!”
Slightly OT, but, for the record, Australia is not a continent. The continent is Australasia, and includes Australia, New Zealand, and Norfolk Island.
Australia IS roughly the size of the US, but almost all the 15m people live in an area roughly equivalent to the eastern seaboard of the US. The rest is of the island is where the real Australians live 🙂
The Socialist Global bureaucracy can sniff victory. It’s so close they can taste it. Once they have the framework signed and the money……
There is a surreal quality in it….. To have finally arrive in a political era in which they have designed the power to tax the very air we breath….. It was once the stuff of science fiction novels.
We stop this folly quickly…. Or we will perish under the tyranny of such perverse people.
IF there was AGW, and IF we could make a difference by cutting back carbon dioxide and IF the cure of cutting back carbon dioxide was not worse than the disease, then it seems all this obfuscation, mixing of priorities throwing in unattainable objectives like ‘dignity’, ‘social justice’,1500 climate-change page bills would be the worst and least effective way to do it.
IF these people really believe in their own words, then create a carbon tax. Create it for the raw material (coal, oil etc), make it huge and promise to keep it there (so that it is worthwhile for companies to invest/change).
Cap-n-trade could work in theory, but it is far from the most direct method and really seems like a way to ‘slip’ in all sorts of exceptions, and political favors. It is a process that seems designed to be corrupted.
Here’s the big picture I got from what I’ve been reading.
Developed countries are going to pay (via cap-and-trade or some other method) huge sums of money as well as transfer technology and technological know-how to lower-income countries.
The bulk of this money will be used to build economic infrastructure in those countries. Once the infrastructure is in place, jobs are going to be offshored from developed countries to these countries so that they can build things to sell to us.
By the year 2100, they expect to drop “the ratio of income in developed to developing countries from 16 to 3.” Now ask yourselves this… Do you people think that the people in say, Burkina Faso, will be making US $30,000 to $75,000 by 2100? No way. Our incomes are expected to drop while theirs increases until they converge at some point. This is called ‘contraction and convergence.’
And right now, Joseph Stiglitz and others are working on redefining what a quality lifestyle is and from what I saw (via a quick glance), they are going to put less emphasis on income. Why? Because I believe that they see Americans making far less money in the future from us sending hundreds of billions of dollars per year to lower-income countries to pay for infrastructure so that they can then take jobs from us to build things to sell to us.
Nice to know that most democrats (and some certain republicans) are working for the economic welfare of foreign nations over ours.
Are these people serious?
Maybe they are living on some other planet and we don’t know.
The U.N. treats the U.S. and Israel in the most undignified ways. Obviously the intent is to compensate those two countries for the loss of dignity.
Jerome
Australia’s population is 22 million, not 15.
And to think I have always consistently stated that AGW was the means by which the Fabian Socialists will implement a world government. Looks like my assessment was spot on.
I have taken steps to adapt to this and right now downloaded the draft document to study it. Meantime I have activated the recently purchased solar panels to see if they can keep up with the 12 volt system in the caravan plus the inverter powering the computer (mini-mac with snow leopard). Monitor is a SGI flat panel I bought 8 years ago, still works but hey – both the multilink and the flat panel operate at 12 vols DC :-).
I expect not to have much running when the sun goes down to I suspect I have to rethink the battery storage system and probably augment it with extra capacity.
So J. Hansford, how the heck are we going to stop this? Rudd will sign on in any case and we lose our sovereignty to the UN if my hearing of Roy Green and Christopher Monckton is correct.
Anthony – excellent post but it’s frightening. No wonder the Lukians on Jennifier Marohasy’s blog are so confident – it’s a done deal.
Purakanui (21:03:22) :
Te Wahi Pounamu (aka the South Island of NZ) fits on all criteria.
I reckon Te Ika a Maui has a pretty good claim as well – that’s a good idea to divide the spoils, Purakanui.
The people who wrote this document have only one goal in mind. They intend to set themselves up as lords of the universe and we the unwashed are to pay them for the privilege.
David Segesta (20:19:20) :
Do you have a link for that story?
I looked but could not find the link. I do however recall that the procedural trick they plan to use is to classify a Copenhagen Agreement as coming under existing UN treaties already ratified by the Senate.
I don’t think this could be done without significant resistance from the Senate (both Rs and Ds), but the gist of the story was that administration was considering the idea.
After the failure of the US Senate to ratify the Kyoto agreement, this approach was proposed as a way to implement Copenhagen in the absence of Senate ratification.
I haven’t heard anything further on this since it was reported last spring. Maybe it was just a trial baloon or possibly a threat to the Senate like the EPA finding was originally advertised. Regardless, I think the idea will resurface soon if anything of substance comes out of Copenhagen and the Senate balks at ratification like they are on Cap and Trade.
After the separation of the State and the Church, now we have a separation of the State and th People… they are on their own.
The problem (AGW) is non-existent, the solution is a socialist utopia.
The solution is always a socialist utopia, regardless of the problem.
We have seen socialist utopias. They aren’t too bad, if you’re in charge of one.
It’s a shame so many millions have to die resisting what’s good for them.
Doug in Seattle
This is from Charles in Bainbridge Island -I have just been checking out Google News for any story that mentioned Obama making any sort of statement about the Copenhagen treaty. As of ear;u Se[te,ber I drew a blank. The one and only article I could find that was remotely on the subject was in BusinessGreen.com, and was as follows:
According to reports, Obama told world leaders that, while the Copenhagen meeting where an international deal is expected to be finalised remains important to the fight against climate change, it does not necessarily represent the “make or break” conference it has been widely billed as.
This is much more in line with the reports I have come across in the news. Possibly you were just passing along the latest rumor.
It’s beginning to look like . . . France, circa 1789
Freespeech (19:04:12) :
Jerome wrote about Australia:
“3. It’s small. Well, it’s population is small at 15M. ”
Australia’s population is just below 21M, it hasn’t been 15M since around 1981.”
As Louis Hissink said, Australia’s population has reached 22 million – just this week in fact.
You Americans would be best off with a friend called “Kurdy”, but i have no idea how his European counterpart should be named. Because we are heading to a world that would fit nicely into one of the comics written and drawn by Hermann. (http://www.hermannhuppen.com/ (french))
C Colenaty (22:31:10) :
This is much more in line with the reports I have come across in the news. Possibly you were just passing along the latest rumor.
This was 7 months ago.
Note the CEO of Shell was there.
The simple abstract is “teach a man to fish, and he will be able to fish for life” {unless Global Warming kills off all the fish!}, or else feed the unwanted fish to the starving……
The famines that are approaching as a direct result of AGW fear ramping up “biofuel” production in the last couple of years are frankly frightening.
This is not going to end well, as it is clear that the “left” has absolutely no regard to the po’ folk of Africa. Their only response appears to be to open the borders of the “wealthy” countries.
Until the mechanism for the distribution of wealth in “poor” African society (e.g. Mugabe in Zimbabwe) can be externally controlled, disaster is the only possible result.
Where is the United Nations when you really need it???
D. King
I checked the link and I gather the key thing is a video of Al Gore speaking. I don’t even have the speakers on my machine connected, and never use it to play videos since at my age I don’t have time to throw away. In any event, I cannot imaginie how anythibng Gore says would be of intereest to any other than to dedicated warmers. But thanks for the thought.
If Copenhagen passes this draft, and if Obama and Congress take it seriously, one unanticipated side-effect would be a revitalization of the 60’s-populist movement in the US to quit the UN.