From the Times of India – a “put up or shut up” moment – “we’ll go along if you pay us”.
Excerpts below:
BEIJING: In an unprecedented move, India on Saturday joined China and two other developing countries to prepare for a major offensive on rich nations at the Copenhagen conference on climate change next month.
The four countries, which include Brazil and South Africa, agreed to a strategy that involves jointly walking out of the conference if the developed nations try to force their own terms on the developing world, Jairam Ramesh, the Indian minister for environment and forests (independent charge), said.
“We will not exit in isolation. We will co-ordinate our exit if any of our non-negotiable terms is violated. Our entry and exit will be collective,” Ramesh told reporters in Beijing.
The move comes after reports suggested that rich nations led by Denmark are trying to set the agenda of the conference by presenting a draft containing a set of specific proposals.
…
The four nations issued a joint press release, which made it clear the developed nations should be ready to contribute funds and share green technology if they expected the developing and poor nations to take major actions on environmental protection.
…
The developing nations will also not accept any pressure from developed countries to establish legally binding emission targets at Copenhagen. Developing countries want to be allowed to reduce emissions voluntarily and take what they consider to be “nationally appropriate actions” he said.
Ramesh said India will under no circumstances accept the concept of a peaking year under which each country will have to indicate on what date they will reach the highest level of pollution before beginning to come down.
India will also not accept any unsupported mitigation actions without any effort by developed countries to provide funds and technology support to improve environment in developing nations.
Read the complete article at the Times of India
As an Aussie who has been sending anti-AGW emails to our senators and my local Federal member of Parliament, I’m feeling quite empowered with the Liberal party leadership change.
Unfortunately, emails to Labor politicians result in buck-passing to ‘the Minister responsible for the portfolio’ and then nothing further.
I dread what our illustrious Prime Minister KRudd is going to commit us to in Copenhagen.
Developing countries (India, Brazil et al.) repeatedly blame the Industrial Revolution in Britain, Europe and US for so-called AGW risks. One wonders where those countries would be now if there had been no large-scale industrialisation with all the other benefits, including revolutions in medicine and agriculture, that flowed from it.
To put it in simple terms, the U.S. has already cleaned up (over the past 50 years) its own pollution. Now it’s to pay to clean up on its own CO2, as well as the real pollution in India, China, et al as well as their CO2.
The Senate will never ratify such a treaty. Assuming such silliness is signed in Copenhagen, don’t expect the Senate to roll over and agree to it. It’s DOA (dead on arrival). Especially during an election year with a third of the Senate seats up for reelection.
B]rukidding[/B] (00:45:31) :
[I]Gee guys have you got to go.Watch the door does not hit you on the way out.
[/I][FONT=Arial][SIZE=2][FONT=Arial][SIZE=2]Enigmatic stuff. Thanks for contributing.
[/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT]
Surely we need to clarify this term “developing”?
Australia doesn’t have a nuclear arsenal, nor does it have nuclear power stations or a massive industrialised base. We largely subsist off agricultural production and mineral exhumation and certainly do not have a lunar space program in progress. But neither did we massacre 50 million of our own people on ideological grounds.
So when they mean “developing”, I take it they mean “developing” towards civilised governance and basic medical for all citizens.
And Australia is still struggling to provide basic medical and education to all it’s citizens. Surely this is more important than funding some poorly demonstrated hypothesis on global heat rise due to CO2?
Come the revolution !
Wait a minute. DECEMBER 7TH? They’re starting this on the anniversary of PEARL HARBOUR???
A day that will live in infamy… again?
My fear is that Obama will be a retard and hand over blank checks to get these countries (especially China, which is playing the weakling but can CRUSH us economically at any time) to get a “successful” outcome at Copenhagen.
This is nothing more but “negotiating tactics”.
They will all agree on the proposed 17% CO2 reduction by 2020 if “the price is right”.
The fact that China, India, South Africa and Brazil create a coalition only means that they take Copenhagen serious. That’s a very worrying sign.
We know that China has been pumping 30 billion dollars into some of the poorest African countries in order to “collect” votes. It’s an old trick and one of the reasons why the Japanese are still hunting whales.
It’s also the reason why we should never ever transfer any power to the UN.
They represent the biggest criminal corporation in the world.
theft, fraud, extortion, treason, bribe, racketeering, rape, drug smuggling, human trafficking and human trade are all on the scope of individual UN officials but they never have been prosecuted. This is the MAFIA on steroids.
And they can’t be prosecuted because this elite, just like the EU members enjoy diplomatic immunity.
This means they can hit you, but you can’t hit them back.
However, there will governments and individuals present at Copenhagen who will beat the UN on any level.
China is one of them and if you want to know the name of an individual, don’t look too far.
I believe the term that we’re looking for is “rent-seeking”.
With a global emissions trade, the less-wealthy nations would be in for a surprise. Carbon traders have sniffed the tailpipes and smoke stacks; and it’s the scent of new gold. The trickle of wealth that hasn’t shifted from the haves to the have-yachts, will be soaked up by the “necessary” expansion of the UN bureaucracy; imposing a greater dependence of the poor on handouts.
National leaders can’t possibly be so naif as to think that their country would ever benefit tangibly. The simplest conclusion is that they’re selling out to get a lifetime ride on the gravy train.
JB,
“Isn’t this basically imperialism? The western powers are creating a false fear and telling the developing world they will have to slow down… by what right can they do that?”
Absolutely right on the nail. This is basically what Piers Corbyn (I think) said on a recent interview. His angle is that the whole emissions targets thing is a scam by the developed nations to prevent the developing nations from catching up. These developed countries, he says, may or may not believe in man made climate change, but their thinking is, if we can make some money out of it, why not sign up? According to this viewpoint, these countries will be making a big mistake, because their whole development and growth will be thwarted.
The question at Copenhagen then is, how much money are the West prepared to cough up to buy off the third worlds development ambitions? Seems like some of these countries don’t want to play ball.
John Peter:
““Sea levels are likely to rise by about 1.4m (4ft 6in) globally by 2100 as polar ice melts, according to a major review of climate change in Antarctica.”
I first heard this on a news bulletin this morning – on a childrens tv channel. My 7 yr old son asked if it was going to happen. I said no. He then replied that scientists are not wrong. I replied that there are other scientists who disagree. He seemed content with that answer.
I’ve seen more robust scientific arguments cooked up by pub drinkers on a late Friday night:
Hey, Fred, you know, that ozone layer of the Antarctic starting to heal up.
Yeah, I know. I guess that could cause some warming.
You’re right. I bet the IPCC didn’t figure that one.
How much do you reckon then, warming wise?
Oh God! Several degrees at least.
Only several? You’ve gotta figure in the positive feedback loop you know.
Yeah that’s right. I’d go with 10 degrees at least.
And then there’s sea level rise. . .
Oh my God! Metres and metres of it. Got a pen?
Why?
I’m writing a paper to send to the BBC.
Hey China, India, Brazil, and South Africa, why not save everybody a lot of grief (not to mention the huge “carbon footprint”) and just not go to begin with? Oh, right, the only reason you were going along with the whole AGW fraud was so you could get wagon loads of cash and other freebies from the “rich” nations dumb enough to go along with the scam. Nice try.
As someone who lived and worked several years in two of those countries (Brazil and South Africa), I would say that such a position on their part is inevitable. First, even those of their poltical and intellectual elites who do buy the AGW “conventional wisdom” are mostly immune from guilt complexes and “we must save the planet” impulses. The idea that, in that case, it’s the most developed nations that must take most of the responsibility, is deeply ingrained – in fact, I would even say that, politically, it’s a position their leaders can’t afford *not* to take – they would risk being called “puppets of imperialism” or such by their political opponents. Second, while it is clear that no country could really afford to meet those targets without destroying its own economy, wealthier nations (or at least their present leaderships) suffer from a “we can do everything” self-delusion – as in, “yes, we can cut our CO2 emissions by 80% in 40 years and still generate green jobs” etc etc. Countries like Brazil and South Africa are much more aware of the fragility of their own economies and that there is no way they could afford going down that path. As for the bulk of their electorate, well, they are more concerned with things like proper water and electricity supply, jobs, etc, etc than with “preventing the planet from getting more than 2C hotter in one hundred years”. So a Kevin Rudd-like stance of making a big issue of going to Copenhagen will simply not work there.
jimbo (23:45:46) well said!!!!
The whole of the fraud of global warming is becoming a huge wealth transfer charade, quilting the western developed countries with the AGW hoax into paying off the undeveloped countries — Who would in fact be far better off with a few DDT production plants and electrification of their countries.
The Fed and the Bank of England will simply print lots of fresh money and charge Brits and Americans the interest.
NGO Sandbag has developed a target calculator which should help people struggling with the “1990 baseline” to understand what kind of cuts their politicians are actually committing to. For example, if the EU were to cut their emissions by 30% based on 1990 that would equate to just 23.7% compared to 2005. In comparison, because of its recent rapid growth an identical promise from Brazil would require cuts of 84.5% on 2005 levels.
It amazes me that there are still people who don’t understand why China and India are doing this – it’s a brilliant strategical move on their part, and guarantees that one way or another their economic goals will be met.
What are their goals? Unfettered economic growth for their large populations, and unlimited access to western markets. Neither country believes in, or cares even the slightest bit about the actual “science” of climate change. To them it is, like everything, all a matter of power politics – especially for China, since that is how they approach *everything*.
So, since China is leading this group, it seems clear that China was the one who put this together. Now, China can cause nearly 1/2 the worlds population to walk out of this conference at the snap of their finger – and they know, as does everyone else, that Copenhagen collapses into ignominious disaster if that happens. Guess what – when push comes to shove, Indonesia, all of South America, Central America and Africa are going to ally with China, not with Europe. They know where their interest lies.
China now owns the rights to edit the final document to its liking, and the conference hasn’t even started yet. No European country will dare stand up to them – who wants to make the argument that Barak will?? You don’t need to be some kind of psychic to know how this final doc is going to read.
And thanks to this alliance, China can now guarantee that it is either what China wants or nothing. China is fine with nothing, Europe is not, which is why China will win.
2300 years ago Sun Tzu wrote that a battle is won long before any of the actual fighting takes place. China’s never forgotten that lesson, and that’s why China has already gained a big victory here.
in fact there is already one head of state in africa acting as the agw clan or the ipcc – un – organisation is proposing : Mugabe of Zimbabwe . Did he receive a penny in return ? Ask him : Are not we all responsible for all of this ? Is not it the dream of any dictator to make others pay for their own stupidity and mistakes ?
From this point of view is it so unreasonable to ask for a commitment from another when you yourself are not willing to give a commitment ? To make others pay for their own stupidity ?
My question : Mr. Obama do you consider yourself to be smart ?
And the fiscally conservative Barrack Obama will balk at throwing billions at these nations? /sarc. One must remember the way the left views money. ie; someone else’s. No price is too great when saving the planet!
I expect China, India and the rest will come aboard as soon as somebody else offers to pay for it. I fully expect that offer to be made, too.
Shake hands with Al Gore for only $1,209: click
What an interesting logo they chose for Copenhagen: A quiet, spotless sun.
Looks a lot like the sun at this very moment:
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime/realtime-update.html
” Kasmir (23:49:11) : ”
Kill? How? There is not any death penalty in the suggestion I made. Also there are two sides to the equation. The number of tons produced and the efficiency of its use. Mongolia produces 7.9 kilos of CO2 per unit of GDP. The US produces 0.5 kilos per unit of GDP but the US produced 5802.08 metric tons in 2003 while Mongolia produced only 8.25 metric tons. Mongolia’s “tax” would be very low. While their rate would be 10 times out rate, they would pay on only about 1/500 of the amount of emissions.
(Above figures for 2003 and for CO2 generated for energy production only).
Opps, I believe those numbers were in thousands of metric tons.