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%.
Well, I was dumb enough to read some of the document. What a load of tripe! I like the title of Annex I, “UNFCCC biennial reporting guidelines for developed country Parties” I take that to mean that since I live in a developed country (they never list which are), every two years, I would have to submit a report, in accordance with those guidelines, on all the parties I’ve attended. They really seem to like the word modalities. I guess the third worlders don’t know that those of us who actually speak English reject as nonsense any prose that includes such words.
There are hints that 2011 will be cooler than was authoritatively projected a few weeks ago (i.e., not the 10th warmest on record, but below that), and that 2012 may fall off the plateau of the past decade or so. If it does so decidedly, and if Arctic ice does a noticeable rebound despite its reaching a low volume-level this year, much of the steam will go out of alarmism. A couple more years below the plateau and its goose will be cooked–and the alarmists will have to ramp up oceanic acidification.
Roger, AGW says there is a lot of missing/additionally heat “in the pipeline” and the heat
is “masked” and computer programs cannot rip down the mask to see the missing/or in hiding
energy……
For how many more years can this “pipeline-masking-hiding” argument be repeated?
Would 3 more cold years be a wake up call?
Incidentally, I read here a while back that these “airports” in the Maldives may actually be heli-ports, which would make them less damning than they seem. I.e., they’d be mere, inexpensive postage stamps.
For Canada’s position following Durban, see
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/12/11/durban-climate-canada-reaction.html
Some highlights from here:
“Environment Minister Peter Kent said he is cautiously optimistic a new global climate agreement can be reached by 2015, following the conclusion of a UN summit in Durban, South Africa.
Kent reaffirmed the Canadian government’s opposition to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol — which was set to expire at the end of next year but will be extended under the Durban Platform — and that it would not renew its commitment to the accord.
Kent also said the government would not contribute to a global fund designed to help developing nations mitigate the effects of climate change.”
Now there’s a problem crying out for the attention of the UN–and one it would deal with (piracy) without politics complicating things.
Or would it? Has it?
“in this decade when scientists say we need emissions to peak
Apart from asking “Which scientists? I honestly don’t believe this man. Having lived with the EU and it’s machinations for the last 30+ years, this is the sort of statement frequently made to “buy off” protest until such time as they have mugged you with the real deal. I would advised everyone to go through the whole document with a fine tooth comb. I guarantee they are laying a whole minefield of traps for those who oppose this.
[SNIP: Policy. -REP] brains.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kumi_Naidoo
DirkH says:
December 11, 2011 at 3:24 pm
davidmhoffer says:
December 11, 2011 at 2:42 pm
“It seems to me that some fairly pragmatic politicians have suckered the green movement this time around. ”
It only seems so. The Green movement is financed by Soros, Rockefeller, the EU commission, and do the bidding of their masters. This time, the masters had no interest in masses of Greenshirts yelling and storming the conference centre. Why not? Well, CAGW seems to have outlived its usefulness.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Throughout all of this, I keep wondering if the “Cold War” is really over. Where DOES all the funding come from? Russia? China? Venezuela? Drug Cartels? Importers and Exporters of restricted goods? The Fundamentalist religion of your choice – pick one of the hundreds available. Anarchists in addition to those Foundations listed above. There are lots of groups who would like to see this CAGW thing carry on for a few more years distracting the majority of people from the end game from which these funders might benefit. Crazy? Maybe. But where is all that money coming from and WHY? They will use CAGW until its usefulness has run its course then move to the next scary thing they can use to make money or further their cause. Altruism is hard to find these days.
“This could take us over the two degree threshold where we pass from danger to potential catastrophe.”
Aha, a religious person, believing in tipping points.
There is a threshold at 2 degrees! Gee, I’m impressed.
And I’m not so sure that jacket is a sign of a sustainable way of life………green or not green.
Kwik, you just beat me to it!
I was going to say that good ol’ Kumi’s lovely green jacket definitely wasn’t made out of hemp and lentils – it looks to be made from evil Big Oil’s (c) fossil fuel products.
I’m sure Kumi would burn it as a form of protest, but that would increase the size of his carbon footprint…..
JimF says:
December 11, 2011 at 6:02 pm
Let’s see now, they haven’t been to Dubrovnik or Perth (WA) or many other party spots. I think they now have a ten-year planning horizon.
Not Dubrovnik, please, it’s suffered enough.
“This could take us over the two degree threshold where we pass from danger to potential catastrophe.”
I have always been of the opinion that a certain percentage of a given human population are inherently mindless, stupid and (morally) vile: would it not be typical of the hippies to blame the ‘evils of religion’ on a subset of themselves who happen to be classically ‘religious’, as opposed to their more modern Church of Gaia, aka Humanist Ideology?
Just saying: hippies are likely more of a problem than commonly realized for all those who do not take pleasure in human torment and death.
“Is it wise to stall actions which can alleviate the risks, which are now clearly identified?”
Paraphrasing Lord Monckton: meteor strikes are a clearly identified risk – shall we being construction of the orbital cannons immediately then? Alien invasions are also a possible risk. So is the clear possibility of a large number of humans spontaneously turning into highly intelligent, rapid-breeding, land-piranhas.
Possibility detached from probability is… being a hippie.
In short:
They have agreed not to agree
I was looking at photos of the protesters in Durban and noticed two african woman holding up placards with the works “create and retain climate jobs!” and it struck me after hearing of 1000 new paid delegates position made for Durban.
I don’t know how this juggernaut can be stopped?
There are more then I can count NGO/NFP organization(also paid) involved with lobbying and political influencing, hundreds if not thousands of positions/jobs being formed around CAGW enforcement every day AND universities churning out minions of indoctrinated and GIS infected students looking for employment in the climate industry. It is now effecting all areas of our lives through increases in taxes, transportation, food, heating, info structure, etc., plus the nonstop media attention ramping up the doom and gloom.
And all orchestrated by…………. world banks, big money supported enviro NGO’s, subsidy hungry energy companies and government flat earth scientists/activists. And here we are with unelected environmentalist activists think tanks making laws in other countries to make binding agreements to pay them the money to support their religious belief for the good of us all. I’m sure poor people in all parts of the world might see that differently. Like me!
All this money and effort to stop a non existent problem ……You just cant make this stuff up?!
And do we have to pay for clean up on any natural disasters that they deem caused by our sins???
So who can blame some poor africans who haven’t got a lot of prospects cashing in? Mr. Kumi Naidoo should know that he is condemning people to poverty. Cheap accessible(coal) energy is the only way out of poverty, so clean water and dependable power generation will save lives in africa. All this money is robbing from the poor that could have been spent on heath care and hungry bellies instead of being wasted on a carbon tax system built around the IPCC BS(bad science)
I feel it wont stop there, will they be the ones who sign the papers for us to give up other rights and privileges our ancestors fought hard for and died for? Can all liberties and prosperity be swept away with the stroke of a pen? Poof!
You wonder what they will agree to control next? Internet, our laws, dietary enforcement, population control, a minority report?
You can only push the populace so long before they start pushing back, viva la revolution!
What fascinated me were the reports that the delegates finalised their draft at 5 AM local time. It shows how idiotic these UN bureaucrats are: as if anybody has a clear head at 5 AM after staying up all day and all night!
Maybe this is the UN’s modus operandi. Maybe this is why the world has been lumbered with treaties and protocols that nobody wants: UN flunkeys simply have been trained to outlast normal people who usually sleep at night.
Missing the point I think guys (the word `guys` should be read as including `those of all sexes`),
They have all signed themselves their own employment contract for the next 8 years at least,
They have signed themselves their own travel arrangements for the next 8 years ,
There is not now any need to raise the issue or discuss the science of climate change for the next 8 years,
The next 8 years of meetings will be simply “to flesh out the wording of the agreement”
The Developed countries will know they are (on paper) currently (slowly) reducing their CO2 output so its a done deal that by the time 2020 comes around they can show a net output reduction, I can hear their words now… “shame about the atmospheric CO2 going up but we have done our bit, it must be the developing countries what did it”
I heard again that the BBC this week talking about the CO2 “pollution” . I have a strange feeling they have lost the plot !
but thank god we have been told they have “now saved the planet for our children” I will sleep well tonight.
regards
Willis says “I’m still real real curious, though … where is this stinkin’ agreement to be found? What did they agree to?”
Willis, you will have to support the agreement to find out what is in it. (-;
You are just not a member of the club.
“This could take us over the two degree threshold where we pass from danger to potential catastrophe.” Hmmmmm, let’s see…
“This could maybe take over the rather arbitrary two degree threshold (which has yet to measured – if it can) where we might pass from a perceived, yet undefined danger to theoretical and unproven potential unknown catastrophe. Then again, it might not happen.” Yep, fixed now.
Isonomia says:
December 12, 2011 at 1:04 am
In short:
“They have agreed not to agree”
Almost, but they are not that concise. They do not even agree on what they disagree about. Colour them confused with their only clarity being a determination to have their confusion further funded. If millions wasted on these miseducated idiots producing inane proposals was their only harm, I would almost agree that such meeting were worth it for entertainment purposes. Unfortunately green policy is costing hundreds of billlions in malinvestment of resources and creating international tensions as economies collapse. This is not amusing.
he Bear just hopes this most vauable of blog on this topic, does not allow its editorial standards to drop, driven down by hubris.
Please keep the dissent rational and reasonable.
Do not commit the sins of the opposition. Stick to the facts and fair interpretation of them.
Mr Watts: be on careful watch, from here on (the dissent is `maybe’ now in the ascendant) for bare polemic attempting to hide behind the skirts of fair comment/opinion.
Best,
The Bear
Silly me… I thought all those references to Annex I and non Annex I countries, that somewhere in Annex I or Annex II or Annex III or any of the silly Annexs they would have explicitly identified which country went where. Nope, not even a decision tree for determining which annex a country would fit into.
Draft, of what? This document is so squiggly that Daft is more proper a description. The meaning of each paragraph and phrases are so involuted convoluted and polluted that only a climate kangaroo court (Sorry. no offense intended to our Aussie pals) could possibly believe they have jurisprudence.
Normally when I would professionally review a document that played this lead off with a positive defining action word, I’d strip out all the paragraphs into their own little action word groups and then analyze the statements by category. This daft draft’s paragraphs may lead off with optional phrasings like “suggests, agrees, invites, recognizes, recalling, urges…” but the contents of those innocuous paragraphs are filled with twisting little phrases; for example, “44. Urges and requests the Global Environment Facility to make available support” er, Global Enviroment Facility? This so-called facility along with a number of others are silkily slipped in all of these chewy sentences, but where is the org chart that defines each groups role, members, budget?
As a single working document, this document, in American country boy terms is best described as “This dog won’t hunt”. In less polite American country boy terms, “It sure looks like a hawg got your bitchdog pregnant, cause those hairless pups all got a ferocious appetite and curly tails”
For those that lead rather than led, do you also suffer angst when lighted instead of lit? Y’all must be Walt Kelly and Pogo fans… Me, I go Pogo and Thurber too.
I tried plodding through the document provided by Willis http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2011/awglca14/eng/l04.pdf and here is my interpretation of what they agreed to:
1. “Agrees… to continue to work towards identifying a global goal
for substantially reducing global emissions by 2050, and to consider it at its eighteenth
session”
This document essentially says that all parties agree to continue talking about this, share information, and produce technical reports and review those technical reports. In other words, all the paid delegates have provided themselves with ‘green jobs’ for the foreseeable future. There are no ‘reduction targets specified even though the convention agreed to ‘review progress in meeting those targets annually.
While I was reading this I couldn’t help but think I was reading the part of “Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy” that dealt with the ‘management consultants’ and the reports they produced concerning the impending destruction of the planet they occupied.
I started reading the draft(?) but hadn’t managed the first sentence before realizing I would have to pop down to the local area quasi legal substance distributing stake holder in the hope of procuring his agreement to forward sell me something to keep me from becoming sleep advantaged until funding was in place.
Its contagious.
Here is “the agreement” you are looking for.
http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2011/awglca14/eng/crp38.pdf
17. Reduce global greenhouse gas emissions more than 100 per cent by 2040 by Annex
I Parties; sustained by short-term mitigation by Annex I Parties of more than 50 per cent by
2017; ensuring stabilization of the global temperature at a maximum of a 1 degree Celsius
increase;
Please take note, the UN is calling for industrialized countries to GHG by MORE THAN 100 PERCENT. Within 5 years the industrialized countries must cut GHG by 50 percent.
[REPLY: Many thanks, Fred, much appreciated. I’ve put a link in the head post. -w.]