Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
I haven’t yet found a copy of whatever agreement they signed at Durban. But thanks to Kumi Naidoo, the radical head of Greenpeace International, I know that there’s nothing to worry about. He’s done the analysis for me.
Figure 1. Kumi Naidoo, Greenpeace International Executive Director PHOTO SOURCE NYT
DURBAN, South-Africa, December 11, 2011/African Press Organization (APO)/ [emphasis mine] — On the closing of the latest round of UN climate talks in Durban Greenpeace today declared that it was clear that our Governments this past two weeks listened to the carbon-intensive polluting corporations instead of listening to the people who want an end to our dependence on fossil fuels and real and immediate action on climate change.
“The grim news is that the blockers lead by the US have succeeded in inserting a vital get-out clause that could easily prevent the next big climate deal being legally binding. If that loophole is exploited it could be a disaster. And the deal is due to be implemented ‘from 2020′ leaving almost no room for increasing the depth of carbon cuts in this decade when scientists say we need emissions to peak,”
said Kumi Naidoo, Greenpeace International Executive Director.
“Right now the global climate regime amounts to nothing more than a voluntary deal that’s put off for a decade. This could take us over the two degree threshold where we pass from danger to potential catastrophe.”
A “voluntary deal that’s put off for a decade” that contains a “vital get-out clause”… as a compromise that works for me. The real threat now is the “Green Carbon Fund”.
I am curious, though, about the location and nature of the “vital get-out clause”, I want to know how that part works for when we need it … reader’s contributions invited. Anyone have a copy of the actual agreement? I heard it was 100 pages long at one point …
Overcast morning here … what a crazy world. It’s Sunday, I’m gonna watch football and hope the sun comes out.
w.
UPDATE: What I think is the final copy of the document is available here.
UPDATE II: How foolish of me not to realize that in the UN system, something only 55 pages long can only be a draft agreement. The actual agreement is 138 pages long, and is here (h/t Fred Berple). It requires developed countries to
Reduce global greenhouse gas emissions more than 100 per cent by 2040,
Truly, you couldn’t make up useful idiots like the Durban delegates if you tried. Me, I’m shooting for a 137% reduction in global innumeracy …
UPDATE III: Once again, fooled by the UN. That was not the final, final, really final document. What I find for the really final one is here. They’ve removed the requirement to reduce emissions by more than 100%.
Willis Eschenbach quotes:
December 11, 2011 at 1:41 pm
“The Conference of Parties …
33. Decides to continue in 2012 workshops, in a structured manner, to further the understanding of the diversity of mitigation actions as communicated and contained in FCCC/AWGLCA/2011/INF.1, underlying assumptions and any support needed for the implementation of these actions, noting different national circumstances and the respective capabilities of developing country Parties;”
Well, the Maldives need to build luxury vacation homes for rich foreigners and to build eleven new regional airports. So, their mitigation actions will be far different from those of other countries. No doubt some other country will need to build the world’s largest mosque at sea level so that citizens can spend as much time as possible praying for mitigation. Of course, there will be much theoretical discussion of underlying assumptions and any support needed for implementation of these mitigation actions. /sarc
so?
Hi crosspatch
interesting would be, according to your opinion, the process of as you put it:
” The complete discrediting of the IPCCs AR4, the GISS and CRU climate model projections, and the sea level rise scare. By 2020, I am fairly well certain, we will see such a wide divergence between the observations and those projections as to completely discredit them once and for all.”
Give a few clues of what we can expect during 2017 – 2019, before 2020, and how these guys will finally leave the stage……
Scott says:
December 11, 2011 at 12:18 pm
Is it cold in Durban? Look at the jacket.
72 f, which is average this time of year, according to Accuweather.
Am I the last English speaker who knows the past tense of lead is led? I have noticed the miss-usage so often recently that what what was simply an irritation has become an inflammation, then an open wound and packed in salt.
Ack! Complain and watch your own screw-up bite you. Obviously “that what what was simply” should be “that what was simply”.
Let us hope that when, as and if this idiocy comes up in the U.S. Senate for ratification enough of us will contact our Senators and remind them that we are still allowed to vote against them. Just in case anyone isn’t getting the point: until and unless a treaty – whether bilateral or multilateral – is ratified by the U.S. Senate, it has no legal effect in the U.S. No matter how many times the President signs it. No matter how many folks run around screaming that the sky is falling. And just to drive the point home for the genuinely mis-informed, any international agreement requires such approval, no matter if every other nation on the planet signed the treaty and ratified it according to their own laws. Without the ratification of the U.S. Senate, it has no legal effect within the U.S.
I got worse news for you, Kumi. This has absolutely zero chance of passing the Senate as a treaty and less than zero if presented as a budgetary item in the House.
Hugh Pepper says:
December 11, 2011 at 12:03 pm
‘Consider the enormous risks Willis, and then ask yourself:” Is it wise to stall actions which can alleviate the risks, which are now clearly identified?”’
Hugh, if Jehovah exists and you are not a Christian then you face an eternity in Hell. Have I convinced you to become a Christian? No? What about the risk of infinite torment?
crosspatch says:
December 11, 2011 at 1:17 pm
One of the better rants I think I have ever read. I.m putting this zinger into the pot for “quote of the year”:
“This issue is about money and about how smaller third-world despots can charge larger countries rent for the atmosphere.”
You tore me from the frame with that one.
Willis Eschenbach says:
December 11, 2011 at 12:55 pm
> Kinda depressing that Al Jazeera has the in-depth article.
My wife has been spending more and more time there. It used to be, back when I was a kid, I could read US news and then get a better take on things from BBC on my shortwave radio. Merging the two would give me a decent idea of what was happening and what was more important to different countries. (I managed to pick up Radio Moscow’s English language broadcast briefly one day and learned more about propaganda in 30 seconds than I ever did in school!)
The Beeb has lost its way, and I’ve sort of replaced them with The Christian Science Monitor, figuring they may have the resources to keep going for a while.
Al Jazeera, with it’s worldwide demographic, may be doing a good job reporting the news without a militant Islamic coating. I’m not sure how much international news they report and how much they steal, but I think they generally have links back to the sources they use.
Willis Eschenbach;
Could someone please put these people out of their misery?>>>
If one stops to think about it, what better outcome could we have possibly hoped for?
It seems to me that some fairly pragmatic politicians have suckered the green movement this time around. The major players for the most part sent token delegations with nothing in the way of authority to negotiate, just a free license to spout green propoganda. Their plan seems to have been clear in my mind.
On the one hand, the politicians could tell their consituents at home that they tried as hard as they could, so as not to lose the green vote. Every country has multiple other countries to blame for not reaching a deal. By not committing to a deal, those same politicians get to keep their skeptic voters, without having to publicly denounce CAGW. In other words, they arranged for an innefective negotiation doomed to failure that they can blame on others, while doing exactly what they know they should do, which is nothing. But they get to keep their cloak of political correctness while doing nothing. Genius!
But the best part is that without any serious intention to get much of anything done, the green hoards were left to run amok. In a frenzy of confirmation bias, they actually convinced themselves that world disarmament to fight global warming was possible to achieve just by getting everyone to agree to do it. They actually convinced themselves that they could get world governments to submit to a world “climate court” that would have the power to levy monstrous fines against industrious nations for the sin of being industrious. They actually convinced themselves that they could extort money from the first world to be given, not to the third world, but to themselves, despute their track record of having mispent and squandered the billions they have been given for other causes such as world hunger.
The greens were sent to Durban with no authoritym and no controls on what they said to who. They made total and complete fools of themselves while pigging out at the public trough, came up with draconian proposals that are unenforceable, unpractical, and unrealistic for any democracy to sign. Durban did more to discredit the green movement, WWF, Greenpiece, and their ilk than any other event in recent memory, and they doomed any global action on climate change in the process.
Willis your link to the 56 page document is a draft not the final text. unless it was adopted as is.
what one needs to do is compare it with whatever is the official text. I had a quick look through it and fail to find anything that resembles what the chairperson was quoted as saying in the press or at the conference. However that may be me not understanding the literary drivel that is UN speak.
JustMEinT Musings says:
December 11, 2011 at 12:54 pm
Dear Me… surely Mr. Bernancki (?sp) can print some more US worthless funds to support a few more free loaders……
If those dollars Congress allows Bernake to print are so worthless, why is it that all the freeloaders covet them?
Think carefully…
Well, I haven’t heard of the Azolla event.
But a quick search over the internet seems to indicate that:
So, 22 °C drop caused by a decline of CO2 levels from 3500 ppm to 650 ppm is not a bit too much?
That looks like a Somali “seaman” of the sort you’d not want to meet on the high seas.
Oh well, we’ll see what kind of parties they have next year in Qatar.
When will the green simpletons realize that decreasing temperatures do NOT constitute warming.
The true denialism is not with the skeptics, it’s with the clowns who simply think money should be thrown at them for coming up with a fairly flimsy fantasy.
Any bets on how many more COP’s there will be. The site is easy – it should be a camp put in the middle of a UK wind farm at this time of year. There’s be half a chance that they would have snow to deal with as well as the womp-womp-womp of the wind turbines. Maybe they could dance to the beat.
Having been to the wind turbines on Vinalhaven, ME there is no doubt that I would oppose any and all such idiotic devices. On Vinalhaven they are end-user situated and simply decrease the island’s grip usage; that’s a good thing. However, there are no sites that are not near homes and the effects are reported regularly.
Hugh Pepper says:
December 11, 2011 at 12:03 pm
Sorry, the United States approved the “historic document” too. My guess is that there are several other countries interested in the same escape clause. Also, keep in mind that the delegates at Durban didn’t all represent the interests of their countries, many were representing NGOs who managed to wrangle a seat on various countries delegations. Few, if any, represented my interests.
Up here in New Hampshire, I have a vested interest in converting natural gas into heat and greenhouse gases each winter. Sadly, the GHGs never seem to come through for me. Fortunately, the cost of natural gas keep dropping from its year-before figure.
“cui bono says:
December 11, 2011 at 1:28 pm
How is one supposed to find out whar deal was made when the BBC prints reactions only from:”
Bishop Hill today has released a report “CONSPIRACY IN GREEN”, which tells the story of this emerging bias, along with his (and others) attempts to uncover it. I would recommend people fork out the GBP 0.75 ($1.20) for the download.
Confluence of Pirates….
I think the get out clause may be that they refer to the …”science, as documented in the FAR”….
Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn’t Kumi also the guy who delivered that ‘we know where you [skeptics] live’ threat?
Blimey, I have never read 56 pages of text of such low informal and actionable content density in my life …
I recognize that the outcome of the work of the AWG-LCA in the form of the draft conclusions proposed by the chair (FCCC/AWGLCA/2011/L.4 pages 1 to 56 inclusive) to be a Brobdingnagian scale squandering of time and money.
Further I request that the planned eighteenth session, including all workshops, working groups, committees, sessions, meetings, forums, breakfasts, lunches, dinners, dances and conferences be completely abolished in their entirety and funding of said prior referenced workshops, working groups, committees, sessions, meetings, forums, breakfasts, lunches, dinners, dances and conferences be returned to the original contributing parties in proportion to the original contributing funds in a form ready convertible to the currency of the country of origin (or legal registration) of the original contributing party in each case and without exception.
gofer says:
December 11, 2011 at 2:03 pm
“Why is there no discussion from these “earth savers” just how we are supposed to end our “dependence on fossil fuels.”?”
Yes. Well. Let’s agree to talk about that in 2021. In the meantime, at least they used the word “dependence” instead of “addiction,” their usual brain-freezing bad-as-possible sounding term.
You know. Like our addiction to food.
If this is true, I have only one word: YES!
GreenPeace is nothing more than a lobby group who will sell its support to the highest bidder. Just ask Dr. Patrick Moore, ecologist and co-founder of GreenPeace. Or, the Chinese Communist government. How do you think GreenPeace got access to China? That’s right kids, by being party shills.