From Politico:
Negotiators from about 190 countries reached a modest set of agreements early Saturday in Cancun on how to tackle global warming but punted some of the most controversial questions for a later date.
A year after U.N.-led talks all but collapsed in Copenhagen, delegates from countries large and small signed off on a package of low-hanging fruit that includes establishing a program to keep tropical rainforests standing, sharing low-carbon energy technologies and preparing a $100 billion fund to help the world’s most vulnerable cope with a changing climate.
“What we have now is a text that, while not perfect, is certainly a good basis for moving forward,” Todd Stern, the top U.S. climate official, said during the all-night bargaining session that culminated in approval of what’s known as the Cancun Agreement.Stern’s reluctant endorsement was echoed over and over into the early morning hours as diplomats scarred by the chaos in Copenhagen accepted a deal that fails to ratchet down greenhouse gas emissions anywhere close to scientific recommendations.
It also fails to establish a firm date for negotiators to reach a conclusion on a new climate treaty.
Diplomats struggled over the last two weeks at the Mexican resort town on some of those key questions and had essentially reached a standoff, forcing them to pick around the edges at ideas like technology, trees and adaptation, all of which could garner sufficient consensus.
The Cancun Agreement, for example, puts off until next year’s meeting in Durban, South Africa, or 2012, the debate over whether to extend the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. Russia, Canada and Japan insisted throughout the Cancun negotiations that they wouldn’t agree to a new set of commitments under Kyoto until the world’s three biggest polluters – China, India and the United States – accepted a role in the mandatory system too.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1210/46269.html#ixzz17psQflAU
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Kirk W. Hanneman says:
December 12, 2010 at 7:16 am
I wouldn’t completely dismiss it. Depending on the political climate (if you’ll pardon the expression) over the next decade, there may indeed be foreign aid given in the name of “climate adaptability”, but it will most like be existing foreign aid “reframed” (again, pardon the expression) as climate money.
Never underestimate the path of least resistance when it comes to politics.
Robuk says:
December 12, 2010 at 3:25 am
BBC take on Cancun, is this the turning point.
http://s446.photobucket.com/albums/qq187/bobclive/?action=view¤t=cancumbbc2.mp4
————————————
I don’t think it’s a turning point at all. Remember, the globalists work incrimentally – what they do not achieve one year they try to achieve the next. When they do achieve what they want it is usually written into law (somewhere) so there is a rachet effect, in terms of their working towards their not-so-secret agenda. Let’s face it, none of these anti-this-thing-and-the-next-thing laws are ever going to be rescinded, are they?
.
The NYT has figured it out.
What climate pushers need to do is a better job of getting in the pocket of “Big Green”.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/13/business/energy-environment/13green.html
The extensive peppering of the web page with flashy ads from Shell adds a nice touch.
People over 30 don’t agree with you young man because they read the science for themselves instead of accepting what Greenies try to force upon them. I’m sure your teachers would have been more than accommodating in brainwashing you in their leftist views. Get a brain. Read and think for yourself …..
I object to the phrase “scientific recommendations” as, IMHO, there is little scientific about them. I think “consensus recommendations” would be closer…
BTW, I think we can all borrow that “justice” money from China for a couple of more years before we blow off the debt. Yeah, that’s the ticket…
Still being reported as a complete success in Australia it seems.
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/un-deal-sets-pace-for-emissions-20101212-18u2b.html
I wonder if Ms Gillard knows that we’re still free to source other articles?
LOL, no you’re not. You’re young and you haven’t been sufficiently betrayed yet to understand what lies look like. It may be hard to grasp at your age, but lies are older than the internet. People you trust in real life will lie to your face. Its been this way since humans first spoke.
—> News flash to the college-age, leaders follow what is politically advantageous for them… ALWAYS. There is no exception. Even on good causes they do this. This is part of the ugly system of compromise we’ve created. It’s hideous, but it’s more functional for everyone than all the other kinds of government that have been invented.
Polar bear numbers are increasing.
LOL. Life is unfair. No one really deserves everything they have. Many people work their ass off their entire life only to see utter failure. Some people do nothing and fall back-asswards into solid wealth. There is no equity of situation, only an ideal of equity of opportunity. Learn how to help give people opportunities and you’ll do far more than you feel you’re doing jet-setting around the world screaming about equity of situation. You’ll also likely become wealthy in the process (it’s true). If you want to give thanks for what you’ve got in life, try to extend what you have into an opportunity for someone else. That’s how it’s supposed to work, not a handout for food, an opportunity.
Bum’s ask for money on the street, but what happens if you give them time instead of money? No one ever asks this question because time is more valuable to us.
BTW, this video, of young people digging holes in the sand to put their heads in… It reminds me of what cults do. They make people do ridiculous rituals in the name of their cause. These rituals have been shown to re-enforce the belief system in the true believers. Those who comply cannot easily rationalize what they just did any other way. To accept that their belief could be wrong is to accept that that absurd ritual that would otherwise be horrifically embarrassing, was totally worthless and nothing but humiliation. It is SO blatantly obvious, and it’s right on the video. The only problem is that as a race of humans, we haven’t quite defined the threat of cults to humanity yet. The conditions for maintaining a cult haven’t reached the common ear enough that this behavior is so obvious.
The Sierra Club is a heinous organization that will steal your personal information and use it to lobby the congress ( as they did to me ) and then pretend they did nothing wrong.
Bringing these numbskulls and their polar bear costume ( real polar bear ?)
to Cancun just highlights the hypocrisy of the entire movement, since it created tons of CO2 for them to get there and do a stunt that quite apparently no one saw.
But it is beautiful there. Despite the haha record cold brought on by these political sheananigans, one can easily see that it is lovely ( been there).
I would bet hard money that the creeps left garbage on the pristine beach.
Dear harrywr2
Regards harrywr2 says:
December 12, 2010 at 8:23 am
Harry, it think this is a case of our both being correct. It is simply a matter of perspectives. (View of the elephant if you will). You are correct with respect to the Southeast Asian Pacific market. I am correct with respect to the U.S./European Atlantic markets.
This fig leaf offered, I still wouldn’t take the “blanket” position that coal has ceased to be viable fuel source for future electrical production. Please keep in mind that the growing Asian coal market accounts for 59% of total world import market. Most of this demand is in undeveloped nations – with the exceptions of South Korea and Japan [the largest Asian importer]. The Asian markets have unique problems and these problems distort the “import” market. Some of these problems are relatively short-term others are more serious. All contribute to highly inflated prices in that sphere of the world. For those interested in this subject please see a detailed analysis of the international market I recommend the following site: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/coal.html
Take China for example. China’s primary coal producing area is Shanxi province. Coal production from Shanxi has been declining since 2008 due to the closing of closure of small, inefficient, and unsafe mines. This has lead to domestic shortages and the current high level of importation. China’s chronic inability to overcome internal transportation issues and political pressures arising from the severe 2009-2010 winter also played important roles. China has also had difficulty in obtaining access to a sufficient number of bulk coal carriers (ships). My understanding that more carrier capacity was expected to lower importation cost in 2010; but, given the cost you reported, it doesn’t look like this capacity materialized. In my view, China’s more serious long-term problems are: a very poor transportation system (unreliable rail) and a chronic inability to manage and operate coal mines. These are classic problems in communist run states; so, I don’t expect them to be overcome for some time.
You are also correct with regards to India’s coal price situation. However, please keep in mind that India is facing serious transportation challenges that will require the expanded use of smaller ports to satisfy its increasing demand for imports. India’s highly socialist government tends to create more problems than it fixes; so, I don’t expect India’s outlook will be all that much better than China’s for quite some time to come.
Given the Asian situation, I think it’s reasonable to conclude that Australia and Indonesia will remain leading Asian suppliers and will continue to benefit economically – assuming Australia come to its senses politically.
Regards the United States, you are correct in stating that the comparatively high transportation costs associated with shipping coal from the U.S. limits exports to Asia. However, the U.S. and Canada are well situated to supply themselves and other sources along the Atlantic seaboard. For example the free alongside ship price for coal sold to the United Kingdom in 2010 was $55.35/ton and in Germany at $67.32/ton. See: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/quarterly/html/t10p01p1.html
Naturally, if one is going to build a power plant, I would always recommend one examine the benefits of nuclear and gas as well as coal. After all, there’s nothing special about coal – it’s the economics that count. For example, even in the U.S, any proposal to build new a power plant will have to take into account proximity to shale gas reserves – assessing potential for cheap gas verses the risk of inflated expectations. It’s the classic coal verse gas debate – with a new twist.
In the end, the power plant to build in your respective country/region depends upon your relative position in the “fuels” market and deciding what make the most economic sense.
In this sense, I believe we fully agree.
Best Regards, Kforestcat.
Kforestcat;
Yes, in the end energy is fungible; the problem is commitments to big capital expenditures for Type X generating plant. The shale gas revolution is going to change a lot of min-max LP formulations and outputs, though.
http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2010/1108/opinions-steve-forbes-fact-comment-energy-crisis-over.html
Btw, for years I’ve been following a dark-horse fusion project at LPPhysics.com . If it continues to progress at current velocity, within months a cusp will be reached, and then within a half-decade the entire world energy situation will be unrecognizable. Here’s hoping! (P.S.: the CO2/AGW issue will virtually evaporate overnight.)