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.
Also from American Thinker:
October 05, 2009
Social justice on the agenda at Climate Change Treaty meeting
By Aaron Gee with a thanks to WUWT!
“A draft of the Copenhagen Climate Change Treaty dated September 15th is currently available for inspection here. (H/T Watts Up With That). Some of the draft language is best described as a communist manifesto dressed up in UN leotards. Some notable quotes”:……
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/10/social_justice_on_the_agenda_a.html
Patrick Davis (20:35:27),
Thank you Patrick,
Very well said.
Actually, I thought were always on the same wavelength – I was just trying to focus the discussion.
Best personal regards, Allan
P.S.
While Yeats was not referring to Africa, he accurately described the post-colonial era in the first verse of his poem “The Second Coming”:
TURNING and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity…
Page 58 and 59 are well worth reading i think..
Smokey,
Yes, you did say polar region. No hard feelings…I have no doubt we’re on the same side of this issue.
The Achilles heal for the Constitution right now is the clause that grants that “Treaties made and this Constitution shall be the supreme law of the land.”
I am no legal genius, but I think an amendment should be adopted which simply limits the term “Treaty” to mean only treaties with individual countries. Otherwise, we will continue to oblige Congress to follow garbage like this from the UN every time Obama wants to pick up a pen and sign his name (and they have a majority in Congress for ratifying everything right now).
Put that another way, we should amend the Constitution so that it does not allow agreements with the UN to be defined as a treaty.
Otherwise, the UN will be determing US domestic policy, not you and I.
And never give up.
[snip – not gonna have somebody reference WUWT as saying that, it will be misused even with the *]
*The Riders of Rohan 🙂
The UN created the global warming scare with the goal of funding an actual global government. Unfortunately the obama administration is falling into the UN trap. See: http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/GlobalGovernance.htm
obama’s climate czar Carol Browner was on the board of the Socialist International – Commission for a Sustainable World Society, whose position on global warming is: “Global governance is no longer a concept but an urgent necessity. … Reiterating its firm conviction that the international agenda for climate change has to be linked to eradicating poverty”
“As a result of its astouding success in developing a free and vibrant economy, the U.S. is to be punished.”
Won’t matter. We won’t be able to afford to pay anyway.
That ringtone is too cool. Thanks.
[Bad Zeke. Over the transom–agreed. :)]
“36. All Parties..shall develop and regularly update and submit a national inventory of anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals…”
Wish I had my glasses on. I could swear that is talking about all emissions, not just greenhouse emissions.
Current levels may be the last hiccup in CO2’s decline. If true, what can we do about it? Burn carbon credit certificates perhaps.
Margaret Thatcher’s comments on the “Idiocracy of the New Millennium”
She is still “The Iron Lady” and a skeptic! (from icecap.us)
Comments by “Margaret Thatcher” in the Economist:
Well, the voting gap is closing fast. But not fast enough. I suppose the Greenpeace-bots, taking their emailed marching orders from Greenpeace Director Mr Liepold, are fizzling out. [Or perhaps it is due to the Economist’s very user-unfriendly website.]
This debate was based on a preposterous question, which could have been better framed by a moron advised by idiots. But in reality, the question was deliberately framed by intelligent people with an agenda, in order to appeal to the unthinking eco-Luddites who wouldn’t know “carbon” [by which is meant carbon dioxide, a gas] from their craniums. Idiocracy rules the new millennium.
There is no way the average person would voluntarily give up his or her electricity in the false hope of a slightly cleaner environment. Thus, the bogus question before the house, made intentionally vague in order to be palatable to do-gooders everywhere.
Further, it is ethical for each side to select their spokesperson. But that was not allowed. Ms Amy has done a fine job of appearing somewhat less left of center than Liepold, but she was selected specifically for that purpose by exactly the same people who selected Liepold and the Moderator.
And as many commentators have pointed out, the Moderator is heavily biased in favor of the question. Thus, all three are of the same general opinion, only separated by a degree.
None of the three are permitted to take the position that the use of fossil fuels has greatly increased human health and life-span, and have taken much of the drudgery out of life. Those believing that we should stop using fossil fuels should do their laundry for a few weeks using a washboard. And for the men, try baling hay by hand for even six hours. You will bow down in grateful praise of fossil fuels.
The ethical course of action would be to allow each side to select their spokesperson, and to have a black and white question such as: “This house believes that every citizen must immediately forfeit their fossil fueled transportation, and all electricity derived from fossil fuels.”
Of course that would result in a very heavy preponderance of No votes; thus, the loaded question in the current debate, which is vague enough to appeal to wishful thinkers raised on television, Hollywood, the BBC and People magazine.
It will be quite a spectacle watching the tax sucking elite jetting first class to Copenhagen from around the world, feasting on caviar, lobster and brie, clinking their champagne glasses whilst toasting their commitment to everything “green” – just so long as being green means that we working stiffs must give up much more of our earnings to these doubleplusungood scam artists, who could not care less about their “carbon footprint,” as they party the week away in gluttonous luxury that would excite even the most depraved ancient Roman senator, whilst promoting fads that will grind the poor into even more abject poverty, and reassuring each other that they are being good and saintly for doing so.
The UN’s shenanigans will be on the world’s stage for all to see, and will elevate “hypocrisy” to a new level. And now, with carbon credits selling for under ten pence – just 1/70th of their price last spring – they can buy cheap “carbon” indulgences to salve their guilty consciences as they connive to make our lives more miserable, based on the repeatedly falsified notion that CO2 is harmful.
http://www.economist.com/member/Margaret%20Thatcher/comments
Not entirely OT:
For a “communist manifest” to be executed, the USA Economy and the reign of the dollar have to be destroyed:
Well, the attack on the dollar has started:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/the-demise-of-the-dollar-1798175.html
Also from the current ICECAP: click
Well there are quite a few too many “visions” in this diatribe to appeal to me; and none of them are my vision.
In the first place, the “developed countries” and in particular the USA are NOT disproportionate contributors to whatever imagined problems these seers have a vision of.
In fact the USA is more efficient than most in converting energy and other raw material resources into goods and services that are accessible to all.
So when “carbon emissions” are apportioned on the basis of output goods and services, then the USA is NOT the world’s worst “polluter”.
In fact the USA is the only sizeable land mass on earth which is a net sink for carbon; so we are taking care of our own emissions plus a good deal of those emitted by other countries; by means of our extensive agriculture and tree farming.
So get off our backs; and maybe if we were using even more of the world energy resources; we could turn out even more goods and services for all mankind, and at lower environmental cost than the rest of the world.
Response to Mark: –
You made this inaccurate comment about Contraction and Convergence: –
“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.’ ”
As the author of the Contraction and Convergence [C&C] model I can tell you that C&C says nothing about income at all. C&C will simply predistribute the emissions-entitlements globally available within the limit required by the objective of the UNFCCC [contraction] on the basis of moving internationally from shares as they are at present, to shares equal to population [or a give base-year thereof] in the future [convergence]. Subject to this framework the shares created are tradable and the rates of C&C are negotiated by the parties to the UNFCCC.
Source reference here: –
http://www.tangentfilms.com/C&C29sept.pdf
“Ron de Haan (16:44:19) :
Margaret Thatcher’s comments on the “Idiocracy of the New Millennium””
She still seems to be bitter about the way she was ejected from the party, and it is rather ironic that it was when she was in power the whole Hadley CRU and then the IPCC was formed. Thanks Thatcher the milk snatcher.
Allan M R MacRae and Smokey, we are on the same page however, to fully understand a culture, you have to be involved with it to full understand it. You cannot read a book of wiki page, and in fact, I’d say human culture is far more complex than climate IMO.
Also, as to “slaughter and barbarism”, yes I do mention the past, but there are plenty of examples in recent history.
If we want to save the planet we will need to put it in a bank.
If we want to invest the planet we will have to get an army of space aliens to surround it.
Another possibility is setting up a series of artificial banks often referred to as dikes. If we can get the dikes and the space aliens together perhaps we can get compound growth and eventually withdraw more than we put in.
A truly excellent piece on the subject of “the white man” in Africa.
http://pajamasmedia.com/richardfernandez/2009/10/03/the-power-of-legend/
The comments are good too.
The short version: the natives don’t trust each other. They do trust the white man. And the white man is not necessarily white. He can be a black American.
M. Simon (02:04:49) :
A Jamaican friend of mine once found himself in a crowd in Bamako. He commented to his local collegue that it was strange for him to be among only blacks and see no whites anywhere. His collegue was taken aback: ‘but you are white’ he said. His skin may have been blacker than most of the natives but his home in NY, job with the UN, etc, etc, made him white.
Ron de Haan (16:56:08) :
Not entirely OT:
For a “communist manifest” to be executed, the USA Economy and the reign of the dollar have to be destroyed:
Well, the attack on the dollar has started:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/the-demise-of-the-dollar-1798175.html
*******************
Ron – Please see
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/BASE
The St. Louis Adjusted Monetary Base doubled in just a few months last year. It took about 230 years to reach this point and then doubled in about 120 days.
Seems to me this just printing money, and should ultimately result in a devaluation of the US dollar (by about 50%?).
Those foreigners who hold US dollars in large numbers, particularly foreign govenments, must feel they are being robbed, and they are looking for a way to minimize their losses.
Hopefully, some will revisit this thread to see the latest from The White House issued today, 6 OCT 2009:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/President-Obama-signs-an-Executive-Order-Focused-on-Federal-Leadership-in-Environmental-Energy-and-Economic-Performance/
After reading, you will see that the President is requiring all US governmental agencies to move toward “greenhouse gas” reductions through contracts, procurement of goods and services, also setting reduction of such gasses through other means. So, the adminstration is making good on thier implementation pledge, by requiring mandatory compliance through the admistrative mandates palced uipon government agencies. Not such a surprising development, but significant in it’s implications for how industry (that wants to work with US federal government agencies) will react to this new requirement!
Good post Michael – I’ve emailed it (with credit to you) to Anthony, Lubos and a few others.
My immediate comment: “Ya, that’ll really work!”
It always amazes me how impractical these “orders” are, and how little thought goes into the cost and effort needed to implement them, assuming that the orders were even possible (these goals may be unattainable).
Then there is the question of necessity – it is apparent that Earth is now cooling, or at least not warming, yet the Global Warming juggernaut rolls on – a phenomenon I call “Climate Dyslexia”.
You all know the signs of this affliction.
Watch for people who say:
1. “The science is settled”.
2. “Warming is warming, not-warming is warming, and even cooling is warming”.
and
3. “Anyone who disgrees with the above is a very bad person”.
Regards, Allan
And the truth announced here in Australia too;
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/carbon-aid-australia-to-help-others-pay-20091006-glfj.html
How about the IMF and the World Bank pay for the third world help, they are the ones who made the current exploitation possible in the first place, and made economic development impossible.