Just in time for Obama to announce it, and it only cost the USA 100 billion dollars. Thanks Hillary.
UPDATE: Statistician William Briggs points out in an email to me that he mentioned in an essay here that Lord Monckton had predicted this sort of outcome a month ago:
The forces of darkness will realize that some deal is better than no deal. Lord Monckton, on a guest appearance on the Glenn Beck program a month ago, had it right. He predicted the early stalemate, but said it would end at the last possible minute, after an all-hours marathon session:
From which the bureaucrats would emerge, their ties over their heads, where they will announce, “We’ve done it. We’ve come to an agreement.”
Leaders and ministers from 28 countries including Australia have outlined a draft accord to fight global warming.
The details of the draft are not known yet but the move came hours before some 130 world leaders were set to convene in the dying hours of the climate summit at Copenhagen.
Representatives from key blocs, covering both rich and developing countries, embarked on late-night negotiations in a desperate bid to hammer out a draft climate change agreement.
UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon was also participating in the talks, which continued into this morning.
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, French President Nicolas Sarkozy and Brazilian President Inacio Lula da Silva were all seen as the talks got underway shortly after 11pm in Copenhagen.
Among industrialised countries, the participants were Norway, Russia, Spain, Britain, the US, Denmark, Australia, Germany, France, Sweden and Japan.
Representing small island states were the Maldives and Grenada, with Sudan, Algeria, Ethiopia and Lesotho from Africa. Sudan is also the leader of the G77 group of 130 developed countries, Algeria heads the Africa Group, and Lesotho leads the bloc of Least Developed Countries.
Major emerging present economies included China, India, Brazil, South Africa and Mexico. Besides Brazil, other countries in which deforestation is a major source of greenhouse gas emissions include Colombia and Indonesia.
There are two transnational groupings included: the European Commission and the Secretary-General of the United Nations.
More than 130 heads of state and government will convene today for the final day of the climate summit talks.
AFP
h/t to WUWT reader Patrick Davis
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
From the BBC again, Richard Black’s blog as he is live blogging the event’s last day:
as of 11:42 CET:
Sticking points seem to be
[quote]Many scientists analyses – including the IPCC’s suggest it should be no later than 2020, possibly 2015. The initial draft of this agreement said “as soon as possible”.
(firm date wanted by many)
On finance, developing countries as seeking for a specific pledge on how much of the $100bn by 2020 figure that Hillary Clinton endorsed yesterday should come from public finances – as yet, there’s no number, and there’s concern that funds from the “innovative mechanisms” suggested for private financing would not be reliable.
Some developing countries are also determined to have a commitment to achieving a legally binding treaty with a specific time-frame – a year at most.[/quote]
Paul Vaughan (23:45:08) :
Re: J. Peden (22:35:48)
You’ve gotten a little carried away in extrapolating my words …but I understand that folks around here are alarmed today. Note to comedians: Throw the troops a bucket of ice.
Not sure what you mean, Paul, either with your original remark (about capitalism not working), or here, saying that pointing to the difference between South and North Korea as evidence that capitalism work is “a little carried away in extrapolating” your words. I think your first remark was too cryptic to reveal what you really think, or meant to imply. In any case, it would be a huge task to debate whether capitalism works, beginning with what one thinks “capitalism” is, and what one means by “works.” I do believe that capitalism has a tendency to sow the seeds of its own destruction, but in a Schumpeterian sense, not a Marxist sense. But I’m not as pessimistic as either Marx or Schumpeter about capitalism. I think the history of Europe in the past 50 years disproves both of their visions as to the evolution of capitalism. In the end, as I age, I’ve come to appreciate the vision of capitalism promoted by Milton Friedman. Unlike the deterministic visions of Marx or Schumpeter, Friedman makes the case, in my view, that capitalism does work. But has anybody ever really tried it? That’s the real question.
*****************
anna v (02:29:02) :
J. Peden (00:24:30) :
[I hope I’m misreading Dilby, too.]
This is supposed to be a science blog, but this particular thread is highly political.
Please listen to me. In the same way that the mass media are shielding the population of the US from learning the truth of AGW , they are shielding them from learning about the great animosity in most of the world against the US policies after the fall of the iron curtain, i.e. 1989.
People who were staunch supporters of US policies during the cold war, were mightily disillusioned with its policies after the end of it.
You may not see it from in there, but the policies were and are imperial policies of total control. What other country has over 250 military bases on foreign soil, when there is no longer a communist takeover threat? except for trying to impose complete control the world over?
The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, based on chasing red herrings but really trying to secure geopolitical control over energy routes, were bloody, destroyed the countries and the people. We, who are close to the middle east, have had our eyes opened to the brutality and hypocricy of preaching democracy with bombs , and coddling up to dictatorships the world over otherwise.
Do not get me wrong. I would prefer a US imperium to a chinese one any day.The US lost its chance of becoming a peaceful imperium after 1989. It had already conquered with McDonald’s and Holywood most of the world, it could have had everybody eating out of its hand, imo. Instead it decided on bloody invasions to protect its energy interests.
The bad thing of trying to wed capitalism with imperial ambitions is what you see written on the wall now for the west: outsourcings and borrowings from China make China the rising star, and the US will join the list of short lived imperia, following the fate of the UK imperium much faster.
*****************
We in the US don’t like some of what Europe, China, Russia, tyrants in Africa and South America, and elsewhere do. They don’t change because we want them to, why should we change because others don’t approve of what we do? It is perfectly reasonable for the US to look after its interests in oil. Of course we should be developing nuclear power to beat the band, but that’s a different issue. We helped rebuild Europe after the last WW and US dollars have gone all over the world. We have not obligation to give until we have no more. In fact, we have no obligation to do anything other than what we want. Until other countries don’t feel that way, there is no reason we SHOULD feel that way.
So they going to issue light sabers to the liars club?
J Peden,
Not to put too fine a point on it, but you are an idiot.
We are leaving, and have left, countries that we invaded as fast as possible, too fast to actually set up an ‘imperium’.
We set up bases too small to invade, barely large enough to defend.
We are not charging tribute, fees or taxes or even special pricing on oil.
Now we have a President embarrassed of American power, dedicated to not winning a war.
Read history of how real empires are set up and run and then get back to me.
When and if the Chinese actually go imperial, not only wil this conversation not take place, it will not need to because you will, if still alive, see the difference so plainly that even you will notice it.
Dilby (22:42:52) :
I totally agree tht man made GW is a scam, but some if you guys from the US need to realise your dream run has come to an end. You are the biggest consumers in the world and give nothing back to anyone else, your economy is failing due to your greed and ridiculous credit bills and the rest of the world is looking forward to your collapse. You need to stop trying to control other countries with wars and look after your own people.
and China are just going to take over, my friend. They will (have already) adopt capitalism and will happily screw the world once they are in a position to. At least the US was just posturing and being a bully. These guys mean business.
I’m just glad I’m in Oz where we have things they need like coal, gas, iron and uranium (and solar once we get the idea). The US has …… ?
Toho (01:08:26)
Sorry about my assumptions on big-endian, I think you are absolutely correct. I do recall something along those lines in pre-historic lectures. I’m getting old….
***************
Paul Vaughan (20:20:05) :
As for capitalism: If it works, no one has proven it to me yet – (i.e. I remain a skeptic – I’ve heard of the theory & the related computer fantasies, but I haven’t yet seen a shred of empirical evidence — please feel welcome to try to convince me otherwise, but I assure you words won’t do the job).
***********
I would submit to you that the ascendancy of the US is proof that capitalism works. Is it perfect? No. Can it be twisted and mismanaged by government? Yes. And is has been. I’m not arguing for “pure” Ayn Rand-style capitalism. Some regulation is necessary and I do believe a society should help those who can’t help themselves. So, in my way of thinking, capitalism is good and does result in economic vitality if it is managed well. It is certainly better on average for citizens than socialism or communism.
A draft political agreement drawn up by a small group of countries was rejected during overnight discussions.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8420714.stm
Hey!
All you’re seeing here is Animal Farm, 21st century style.
All the true environmentalists left, kicked out by Napoleon and his sheep.
After calling the oil companies the greatest evil since Farmer Jones, they’ve invited them back to help them run the party. Go read Orwell’s last sentences again. Recognise anything there?
‘There is nothing new under the sun’. The good book says it and it’s the way of the world.
All power is about is assertion of preferential rights. Those who have it determine what is ‘moral’, ‘just’, ‘acceptable’, ‘treasonous’ etc etc etc.
A few people write about idealised power situations.
They rarely, if ever, exist.
But those without power often dream that they could, to keep enough optimism to bring their kids up healthy and happy.
The one question is: where will litigation on climate fraud get us?
It’ll just modify son-of-Copenhagen into a new mask.
Where will carbon credits get us?
A fraud to make 2008 seem like a stroll in the park. It’s the most outrageous way to print money yet known.
You ‘create’ a carbon credit, you’ve created an ‘asset’ with ‘value’. Out of thin air.
They called it ‘quantitative easing’ post credit-crunch.
I call it GRAND LARCENY.
No doubt Mr Mugabe will be salivating at the prospect. After bankrupting his country and murdering all opposition. Now he’s got a new wheeze.
I’m a bit surprised about Hugo Chavez. Venezuela has done well from oil. Even sold it to you folks in America, which he taunted you all about a bit back. What does he care – he can sell some more oil AND sell some carbon credits too. I guess he deserves a bit of gloating – he’s taken a bit of heat from the Yanks over time…..
What I hope this conference acts as a spur to, though, is sentient, decent, upstanding, honest folks realising that THEY have to mobilise if they want to counter this. Weblogs have some influence, but they don’t yet have the influence of a 1 million+ membership, do they?
Every survey out there shows 50% of folks DON’T believe in global warming. Right or wrong, that’s a hell of a receptive audience to go after, isn’t it??
Provided that any such movement rejects socialism, rejects fascism and stands for good old-fashioned common sense, honesty, decency, rewarding hard work, invention and satisfying customer needs, it can still prevail.
What’s sure though: all the forces who infiltrate every organisation since time immemorial will infiltrate that one if they thought it ever reached a size to constitute a threat.
If I were building it, though, it would be a loose association of local/regional organisations. I would never presume to tell Americans how to run their local communities, although I would point out if something they did was damaging MY community.
I wouldn’t tell Americans what sustainable energy is best for California, Iowa, Montana, Tennessee or Wisconsin, because each is different to where I come from. But I would want to help them remain in good health, prosperous and self-sufficient.
I wouldn’t tell Islamic folks how to finance their energy needs, because they see things a bit different to us folks. But I would sell them solar panels if they needed them and I could make them competitively.
And I’d tell the Germans to stop trashing our approaches to things when all they want to do is take over our domestic markets.
What would you lot do?
It is 10 billion/year for US’s part of the 100billion. That is still $33/yr for every man, woman, and child in America. To be sent to some dictator’s swiss bank account, count on it.
It will not be raised by taxes. Absolutely not. They don’t want to increase the burden on America’s working class!!
It will be raised by fees on businesses and the fat cat banks, who go home every night and swim in their pools full of money. We’ll stick it to the evil businesses! They don’t do anything other than collect all the money and give it to the poor people that are drowning!
They’re going to outlaw the sun.
“The declaration will likely call for preventing global temperatures from going up more than 2.0 degrees Celsius compared to pre-industrial times, according to a participant in the meeting.”
Rick:
You’re right, that must be something like $33 per person in the US.
Now, the average GDP per capita is approximately $47,000 per year.
It means that the US would “lose” around 0.07% of its GDP.
How the hell is this going to destroy the US economy?
And this is not considering the fact that slightly richer third world countries also means a lot of potential new clients for the US.
May we get some chinese money in exchange of those green papers?
Rhys Jaggar (06:13:26) :
Hey!
All you’re seeing here is Animal Farm, 21st century style
Bravo! what a precise observation. However we do not see the OWNERS of these animals around…
[NOTE TO READERS: This is some sort of fictional interview – Anthony]
Bird: Professor George Parr, you are a climatologist working for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, is that right?
Fortune: (smug smile) that’s right – I decide what this century’s climate’s going to look like.
Bird: (astonished) sorry – doesn’t that depend on a few uncontrollable factors – the sun, cosmic rays, volcanoes?
Fortune: not if I’ve got anything to do with it, it doesn’t!
Bird: (shocked) Are you saying that climate in the future is decided by a group of SCIENTISTS?
Fortune: nope, by a group of financially savvy investor-politicians…….
Bird: what’s climate got to do with the politics of investment?
Fortune: in the 20th century, very little. In the 21st: everything!
Bird: I see……does anyone else know that?
Fortune: we’re making sure that everyone important gets the message!
Bird: and who is important?
Fortune: anyone in international politics, the mainstream media and every Big Swinging Dick around the world’s trading floors!
Bird: (confused) I’m sorry, I’m not familiar with that expression – ‘Big Swinging Dick’, did you say?
Fortune: the toughest, meanest, richest sonofabitch traders on Wall Street…..
Bird: and how do these…errr… ‘Big Swinging Dicks’… come to play a role in shaping the climate?
Fortune: in every way possible….they talk up stocks in renewable energy, they trade carbon credits and sooner or later, they’ll make up new product classes to trade so we can start our new casino after the credit crunch crash has run its course……..
Bird: I see…that shapes the climate does it?….and what about the politicians?
Fortune: well, they have to pass laws which mean that countries will want to trade the carbon credits, they look the other way when one of their own is looking to become a billionaire out West and they agree to bail out Wall Street in 40 years when the whole thing comes crashing down again!
Bird: (shocked astonishment) you’re saying that the next crash is already BEING PLANNED?
Fortune: well, not really, we don’t know when it’ll happen. Who cares? All we care about is that our children can lose $1 trillion without being out of pocket when it eventually DOES happen……….
Bird: I see……and what about the media: what do THEY do?
Fortune: well, they have to give the whole world the climatological equivalent of Delhi Belly!
Bird: you mean they make everyone around the world start crapping themselves uncontrollably?
Fortune: that’s right!
Bird: And what’s the point of that?
Fortune: well, then we have a world run on SCARED SENTIMENT so regular scare stories can be used to drive share prices up and down, increase the volume of carbon off-setting trades and give hundreds of politicians timely subject matter for a speech on prime time television!
Bird: I see. So you’re saying that there are certain stocks that I should buy then?
Fortune: of course, but I can’t tell you what they are, that would defeat the point of the whole thing!
Bird: but this carbon dioxide scare: it IS true, isn’t it? All the scientists say they agree with it, don’t they?
Fortune: well, all the ones that are ambitious do, because that’s where the research money is. No chance of becoming Mr Professor with a piddling $25000 grant from ExxonMobil if you can get $2m from a climate change initiative, is there? Tenure committees ALWAYS look favourably on high levels of grant income, ESPECIALLY in the climatological arena……..
Bird: No, I suppose not…….but the ARCTIC ICE IS MELTING MORE AND MORE, ISN’T IT?
Fortune: Absolutely – it’s never been lower than last summer!
Bird: And this summer?
Fortune: Well, unfortunately it wasn’t quite as bad, but we’re very confident it will be much worse in future!
Bird: And these floods we see on TV every year now – appalling isn’t it?
Fortune: no, it’s wonderful! Great coverage for the President, great scare stories for the green lobby, marvellous ammunition for new grant funding campaigns!
Bird: but what about the people WHO DIE FROM THESE FLOODS?
Fortune: well, it’s really very tragic, very tragic indeed. But it does hopefully teach people how DANGEROUS GLOBAL WARMING is. Especially if they live below sea level behind derelict levees on the Gulf Coast…..
Bird: then wouldn’t it be a good idea to relocate them somewhere safer?
Fortune: good God no! Then we might be solving the problem. Terrible prospects for grant income if the problem’s already solved – the whole point about academic research is to string it out as long as possible to maximise the amount of money spent!
Bird: (deep shock) Are you saying to me that TAXPAYERS’ MONEY is deliberately misspent to minimise the novelty value of academic research?
Fortune: no, I’m saying that it’s very important to highlight all the complexities of the research problem being addressed. But you mustn’t highlight all of them at the beginning, otherwise the problem would be too hard. And you mustn’t highlight the solutions in the middle, otherwise there wouldn’t still be a problem to solve. And when it has been solved, there needs to be independent confirmation that what has been solved can be relied upon. So as you can see, it usually takes at least 15 years to solve any academic problem properly……
Bird: I see. But if the problem to be solved never existed in the first place…..
Fortune: the problem existed in the minds of the Government, so it must have existed, mustn’t it?
Bird: I see………
Fortune: look, we can’t be TOTALLY CERTAIN that we’re right. But we can be totally certain that we MIGHT BE RIGHT and that IF WE ARE RIGHT and IF OUR COMPUTER MODELS ARE CORRECT, then we’re all up shit creek without a paddle……….
Bird: I see……..so what’s the likelihood that you ARE right?
Fortune: right about what?
Bird: dangerous climate change……
Fortune: well, we’re certain that temperature can go up or down rapidly…….and that if it keeps on doing that for too long, then that’s VERY BAD.
Bird: And what if it goes up rapidly for a while, then comes down rapidly for a while?
Fortune: ah, then we have to add some more complexity into the problem. You see: between 1940 and 1975, it got colder and everyone said we were going to have an Ice Age. Now of course, it’s got warmer again so that was obviously wrong, so we have to say that ‘it would have got colder even faster if it hadn’t been for global warming’…….
Bird: and if it’s actually getting warmer?
Fortune: ah, then it’s ‘getting warmer faster than it would have done without global warming’.
Bird: so whatever happens, it’s all the fault of global warming then?
Fortune: that’s right………now you’re understanding 21st century issues………
Bird: one final question, Professor Parr: where do YOU LIVE?
Fortune: Boulder, Colorado.
Bird: And why is that?
Fortune: well, it’s 6000ft above sea level, so I’m safe from rising sea levels if global warming happens. And if it doesn’t get any warmer, then the ski-ing in Colorado is fantastic, so I’ve covered my bets. And if my share tips come good, I can buy a lodge in Aspen and get there for weekends pretty darn easily……..
Bird: Professor George Parr, thank you very much….
Fortune: Thank you………
Obama has cleverly destroyed Hillary’s future election hopes.
I’m surprised she fell for it.
hunter (05:23:55) :
You are mistaking my post for JPeden’s post. Sorry, J.Peden that my italics did not work so the quote and myself could be clear.
You, Hunter, said:
Not to put too fine a point on it, but you are an idiot.
We are leaving, and have left, countries that we invaded as fast as possible, too fast to actually set up an ‘imperium’.
We set up bases too small to invade, barely large enough to defend.
We are not charging tribute, fees or taxes or even special pricing on oil.
Now we have a President embarrassed of American power, dedicated to not winning a war.
Read history of how real empires are set up and run and then get back to me.
When and if the Chinese actually go imperial, not only wil this conversation not take place, it will not need to because you will, if still alive, see the difference so plainly that even you will notice it.
This is what I said:
anna v (02:29:02) :
J. Peden (00:24:30) :
[I hope I’m misreading Dilby, too.]
“This is supposed to be a science blog, but this particular thread is highly political.
Please listen to me. In the same way that the mass media are shielding the population of the US from learning the truth of AGW , they are shielding them from learning about the great animosity in most of the world against the US policies after the fall of the iron curtain, i.e. 1989.
People who were staunch supporters of US policies during the cold war, were mightily disillusioned with its policies after the end of it.
You may not see it from in there, but the policies were and are imperial policies of total control. What other country has over 250 military bases on foreign soil, when there is no longer a communist takeover threat? except for trying to impose complete control the world over?
The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, based on chasing red herrings but really trying to secure geopolitical control over energy routes, were bloody, destroyed the countries and the people. We, who are close to the middle east, have had our eyes opened to the brutality and hypocricy of preaching democracy with bombs , and coddling up to dictatorships the world over otherwise.
Do not get me wrong. I would prefer a US imperium to a chinese one any day.The US lost its chance of becoming a peaceful imperium after 1989. It had already conquered with McDonald’s and Holywood most of the world, it could have had everybody eating out of its hand, imo. Instead it decided on bloody invasions to protect its energy interests.
The bad thing of trying to wed capitalism with imperial ambitions is what you see written on the wall now for the west: outsourcings and borrowings from China make China the rising star, and the US will join the list of short lived imperia, following the fate of the UK imperium much faster.”
About reading history:
Have you read about Alexander the Great’s empire? It lasted very little though it included the whole middle east and Egypt. He worked about how the US is working its empire: bring greek culture to the uncultured. (bring democracy to the totalitarians) All the areas where he passed and established kingdoms with greek rulers are full of hellenistic stuff that the tourists see. And he is called the Great. Except his empire must have been the fastest decaying in history.
And you have not read me through, seeing red from the first lines, as I said that certainly a US imperium is preferable to a Chinese one. The chinese one has lasted 2000 years and is going strong.
The news we get of Iran and Afghanistan are horrifying, and different from the news you get in the US. That is what I am pointing out.
Actually the US would have been successful in establishing an imperium if it were not a democracy. Democracies have internal struggles that in the end bring down imperial ambitions, beginning from Athens, the first democracy. And the US has the legacy of puritanism on top.
I do not want to continue this on this blog, which should be about science. It is just that you missatributed the quote to J.Peden.
Hey…..as of 1200 hrs Atlantic Time, the NY Times’ latest story (20 minutes ago) includes no mention of a “deal” or an “accord”.
Obama’s speech includes the mention of Hillary drumming up the $100 billion (from various sources, not just the US).
The Sydney Herald may have been a bit premature?
I hope our leaders here in BC take a hard look at this carbon tax. It is a tax grab and the failure in Copenhagen along with climategate should mean a totally new examination and overhaul.
Politicians trying to look cool and impress the NGO elite….. beware!
I suspect that those who attempt to gain political advantage by pleading this country guilty of the evils of the world in the court of global public opinion will not be spared when that court exacts its justice.
What a pity. Now the [snip] science of AGW will be enshrined in an international document. Ah but wait for the ratification process. Me thinks a tad bit of trouble be on the horizon.
The real lossers are the non-scientific world as they will equate ALL science with this BS done by a few. Back to the middle ages we go…
Why is it that this time all the bad ideas are coming out of the UK??!?!
We need another Napoleon. A new code that would make public services streamlined, tax systems simple and close to fair, lock down the whole thing with immunity from idiotic name changes, paper shuffles and misc. scullduggery.
All comers debate translated into every language back to back 18hrs a day. He’d sort this mess out inside two weeks. Maybe even mild military action against these “protesters” and in 20 days tops these green/red/watermelon/AGW/Marxist morons would be back in their holes and looking for another pseudo-theory to destroy modernity with.
Instead of complaining about what the US does or does not do, everyone who has a legitimate vote should use it to get rid of the socialists, get off the dole, and take on all the responsibility possible. Unleash capitalism in a controlled manner and become strong nations once again. Then we can band together and perhaps avoid the need to learn Chinese.
will (04:05:51) “I submit that the empirical evidence is overwhelming.”
I concur 100%; the empirical evidence (my bank account) suggests I have not sold out to the gravy train. Those looking to influence my view on capitalism might try putting their money where their mouth is.
Jim (05:44:14) “[…] socialism or communism.”
It is telling that my comments have been misinterpreted in this manner. I have not advocated these systems (which can also be criticized easily).
Basil (05:03:56) “[…] too cryptic to reveal what you really think […]”
Are you suggesting I should be in politics Basil? Indeed, the climate “issue” is more complex than a binary soundbite; I commend your ability to read between the lines.