Leaking, again? These aren’t the CRUTape documents, but secret docs from “the Circle of Commitment” describing the way some manipulators wanted Copenhagen’s agreement to pan out. See it here
This quote (from the Guardian article) sums it up pretty well:
“It is being done in secret. Clearly the intention is to get [Barack] Obama and the leaders of other rich countries to muscle it through when they arrive next week. It effectively is the end of the UN process,” said one diplomat, who asked to remain nameless.
At least one person had scruples, or we wouldn’t be hearing about it now.
From news.com.au
Copenhagen conference in ‘disarray’
TALKS at the United Nations climate change conference in Copenhagen have broken down over leaked documents indicating that wealthier nations would be given more power in future climate change negotiations.
The documents seem to allow a handful of rich countries to have larger emissions and more control over future talks within a “circle of commitment” and have enraged delegates from developing countries.
The US, UK, and Denmark are among the countries included in the so-called “Danish text.”
The document also sets unequal limits on per capita carbon emissions for developed and developing countries in 2050; meaning that people in rich countries would be permitted to emit nearly twice as much under the proposals.
The secret draft agreement worked on by a group of individuals known as “the circle of commitment” – understood to include the UK, US and Denmark – has only been shown to a handful of countries since it was finalised this week, The Guardian reports.
The agreement, leaked to the paper, is a departure from the Kyoto protocol’s principle that rich nations, which have emitted the bulk of the CO2, should take on firm and binding commitments to reduce greenhouse gases, while poorer nations were not compelled to act.
The draft hands effective control of climate change finance to the World Bank; would abandon the Kyoto protocol – the only legally binding treaty that the world has on emissions reductions; and would make any money to help poor countries adapt to climate change dependent on them taking a range of actions.
The document was described last night by one senior diplomat as “a very dangerous document for developing countries. It is a fundamental reworking of the UN balance of obligations. It is to be superimposed without discussion on the talks”, the paper reports.
I think the time has come to get out the pitchforks and sharpen the tines.
The line “Circle of Commitment” sounds too much like “Coalition of the Willing” to me.
I’ll fetch the torches
The UN document is all about the more powerful nations making the decisions… but also the corrupt elites gaining total control.
un-fccc-2009:
38. The scheme for the new institutional arrangement under the Convention will be based on three basic pillars: government; facilitative mechanism; and financial mechanism, and the basic organization of which will include the following:
(a) The government will be ruled by the COP with the support of a new subsidiary body on adaptation, and of an Executive Board responsible for the management of the new funds and the related facilitative processes and bodies. The current Convention secretariat will operate as such, as appropriate.
203. Expert review teams referred to in paragraphs 200–202 above shall be coordinated by the secretariat and shall be composed of experts selected from those nominated by Parties to the Convention and, as appropriate, by intergovernmental organizations, in accordance with guidance provided for this purpose by the Conference of the Parties.
SO, Haiti et al., whom have ZERO experts to participate in the “Expert review teams”, are governed by those nations which do have the educated elite, from which to draw. Thus little, to no representation in determination of their energy production and usage.
Does that make sense?
Future thoughts stuff:
49. [Nationally appropriate mitigation actions shall incorporate the development and diffusion of low greenhouse emitting technologies, particularly renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies.]
50. [Nationally appropriate mitigation actions shall not include technologies that have adverse impacts on the environment, including, inter alia, nuclear power and large-scale hydro-electric power.]
(no nuclear, no large hydro in Utopia)
(also, the addition of lots of square brackets “[ ]”, without a list of options, does not mean there is not full intent to implement the content of the brackets.)
Why does the balloon say “Hopenhagen” instead of “Hopenchangen”? That’s my burning question for the evening.
Torches and pitchforks… don’t forget the marshmallows.
Oh, and the tar ‘n feathers.
Anthony, this is about Cap and Trade but this is scary…
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2009/12/woman-who-invented-credit-default-swaps.html
Well if you are going to apportion the burden on a per capita basis; it should at least be factored by the GDP per person in each country.
The US gets slammed for having 5% of the world’s population but emitting 25% of the pollution and using 25% of the world’s energy. So clearly we aren’t using nearly as much of the world energy as we should be; considering our GDP per capita. Give US more energy, and we’ll make more G&S (including food for countries unable to grow their own).
Well in the first place when it comes to CO2 pollution; we aren’t even close to being the worst; we are in fact the only good guys since our net carbon emissions are negative (We’re a carbon sink; not a source).
And maybe we should cut our GDP of total goods and services to the same level as the rest of the world’s average GDP per capita.
That of course would include investments in our National defence; which we would limit to the defence of just OUR country; every body else can provide for their own national defence.
You want to start playing a blame card; you are once again going to awaken a sleeping tiger.
Do the words “criminally insane” seem to fit any of the blowhards who are running this scam in Copenhagen. They certainly fit a good number of unelected individuals in Washington DC, that neither the people nor the Constitution ever authorised to wield the tyrannical power they exude.
The citizens elect a Congress empowered to make the laws of this country; We have never authorised them to delgate that law making power to any unelected person.
If beurocrats, such as this greenie wacko dimwit who runs the EPA are going to dictate the law of the land; what on earth do we need a Congress for ? We don’t need them, do we ?
This whole process sucks – its all about politics and green-washing the biggest players.
The most outrageous action by the so called NGOs was the recent “Fossil of the Day” nominations by so called Climate Action Network. They blamed Austria, Finland and Sweden for… what? Not agreening with NGOs’ stand for carbon sinks?
Anyhow, this seems to be all that you gain by maximizing renewable energy use is just – nothing… (Austria, Finland and Sweden happen to be the most advanced countries in this area – e.g., renewable sources contribute about 27% of all energy use in Finland compared to the super powers of green energy, e.g., Denmark 14% and Germany 5.8%).
In Norht American news the last few days, there’s been steady reports on the few spots warmer than normal. There was even coverage of some swamp land in Louisiana, the media reported the native peoples were being forced to move because of man made global warming.
It continues to be a movement hell bent on selecting the data they report on. these news reports run like infomercials.
I think Obama, et al, must be thinking, “I want AGW so I can tax people, not change my lifestyle. Let’s not get stupid about it.”
Gender equality, you say? Try this for a thought balloon: gender equality … better educated women … lower fertility … depopulation. What better (or more benign) way to manage the alarming increase of third worlders with their noisy claims to parity at the world’s table? Plus a slam at Islam. A twofer!
Sean Peake (13:15:38) :
Robert: re Cone of Silence
What?
It’s a reference from the spy comedy TV series “Get Smart”. It was supposed to be a secure way of communicating but never really worked properly…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cone_of_Silence
It dates me, but I did enjoy the series
———————————————————–
What?…can’t hear you.
OT and interesting, but I wonder how long it’ll be before this is spun into an AGW scare story?
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/giant-iceberg-headed-for-wa-20091209-kj87.html
If the “Danish text” is a hoax, it’s well designed to stoke all the paranoia of the developing world. If the governments claimed to be part of the “Circle of Commitment” aren’t denying it, then the document may contain enough truth that they fear inquiry into it.
China, India, and Brazil have been handed a golden opportunity to storm out in a huff, and the rest of the developing world might well follow.
And the thieves of the UN nomenklatura, seeing this as an attempt to cut them out of the loot, will turn on the “Circle of Commitment”.
More popcorn!
ShrNfr (09:29:05) :
> I propose we commit all those who attended this conference to an extended stay at McLean Hospital in Belmont.
Not enough space & Too warm.
I propose that recently mothballed SAC base in Alaska.
hro001 (10:11:23) : “An excerpt from the preamble: [snip]… Hmmm … gender equality, eh? How does this fit into the overarching goal of reduction of the dreaded CO2 emissions? Amazing, simply amazing.”
Yes, that did just come out of the blue, didn’t it? That was one point that made me do a doubletake, and I thought of this quote…
“Life is one crushing defeat after another… until you just wish Flanders was dead!” –Homer Simpson
Now granted, gender equality is a trait of developed nations, and developed nations are richer nations… I guess they figure that saying things will be equalized will reduce carbon, but that clearly contradicts that the richer the nation, the more carbon emissions it has!
So I’ve no idea what they mean by that. Then again, when did socialists ever make any sense?!
CEI to file suit against EPA over C(rack)O2
http://ow.ly/IIPL
With regards to the posters saying this was never about science, but rather a political movement? That may or may not be true, but it is the science where you are going to catch these guys. The unholy trinity has always been the politicians, mass media, and scientists. You aren’t going to catch the politicians or media. They are way too savvy at this sort of thing. But the scientists are vulnerable. They got rowed aboard with promise of funding and fame, but never bargained for international scandal…and these uber-brains are not at all prepared to deal with it like the other two points of the trinity. See how fast Mann turned on Jones? All you need is a couple lawsuits or even better, a couple indictments…even if minor…and they will sing. These guys aren’t professional crooks. They started out as very smart scientists and lost their way at some point. They wanted to be the rockstars of science and it blew up in their faces. Give them a good solid shove, and they will bring down the whole ugly bag of snakes.
Steve (20:43:38) :
ShrNfr (09:29:05) :
>>”I propose we commit all those who attended this conference to an extended stay at McLean Hospital in Belmont.
>”Not enough space & Too warm.
>”I propose that recently mothballed SAC base in Alaska.
How about putting them up in a nice AGW heated igloo in polar bear territory? We can sell tickets to the Eskimos – heck, let ’em watch for free!
Up to now all the climate change talk has been just that. Talk. It was always obvious that the fight would really get going when countries actually had to do something. It’s also been fairly obvious that the industrial countries are running an energy policy masquerading as a climate policy. ‘Whatever you do, don’t use your energy yourself but it to us’. This sums it up:
Not allow poor countries to emit more than 1.44 tonnes of carbon per person by 2050, while allowing rich countries to emit 2.67 tonnes.
Oops. Left out ‘sell’ in the above
Benjamin (21:07:15) :
So I’ve no idea what they mean by that. Then again, when did socialists ever make any sense?!
One of the pressure groups at Hop’n’shaggin is ‘Women for Science’ who want more women amongst the higher echelons of climate scientists.
The politicos and eurocrats are paying lip service to them so they don’t go home telling tales of drunkenness and debauchery.
While I’m an equal opps kinda guy myself, I think the quality of people’s contribution to science should determine their status, rather then some kind of bean counting exercise.
i have not see anything on tv in n.z on this.
Regarding the World Bank in this context:
The “Danish paper” availible at the Guardian’s site do not say anything about the World Bank. In paragraph 22 it talks about a Climate Fund whose board should be set up by the COP.
In a follow up article the Guardian gives the source for the World Bank, it is the suspicion of Antonio Hill that the board exchanged for the World Bank.
Here is the relevant quote:
Antonio Hill, climate policy adviser for Oxfam International, said: “This is only a draft, but it highlights the risk that when the big countries come together, the small ones get hurt.”
Hill added: “It proposes a green fund to be run by a board, but the big risk is that it will run by the World Bank and the Global Environment Facility [a partnership of 10 agencies including the World Bank and the UN Environment Programme] and not the UN.