People send me stuff… UPDATE: See below for another interpretation
Remember how this was phrased? “sign it, it’s just voluntary!”
Recall Rio 1992 “Earth Summit” where the meme was “hey, it’s voluntary!…with a negotiating schedule attached”. Apparently, like a Roach Motel, “countries check in but they can’t check out”. This email is from UNFCCC’s list server and note my bolded section below. The arrogance, it burns.
—–Original Message—–
From: globalmedialist-all <globalmedialist-all@lists.unfccc.int>
To: globalmedialist-all <globalmedialist-all@lists.unfccc.int>; germanmedialist <germanmedialist@lists.unfccc.int>
Sent: Tue, Dec 13, 2011 4:46 am
Subject: [UNFCCC medialist] STATEMENT BY UNFCCC CHIEF ON CANADA’S ANNOUNCEMENT TO WITHDRAW FROM KYOTO PROTOCOL
STATEMENT BY UNFCCC CHIEF ON CANADA’S ANNOUNCEMENT TO WITHDRAW FROM KYOTO PROTOCOL
The Durban agreement to a second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol represents the continued leadership and commitment of developed countries to meet legally binding emission reduction commitments. It also provides the essential foundation of confidence for the new push towards a universal, legal climate agreement in the near future.
I regret that Canada has announced it will withdraw and am surprised over its timing. Whether or not Canada is a Party to the Kyoto Protocol, it has a legal obligation under the Convention to reduce its emissions, and a moral obligation to itself and future generations to lead in the global effort. Industrialized countries whose emissions have risen significantly since 1990, as is the case for Canada, remain in a weaker position to call on developing countries to limit their emissions.
I call on all developed countries to meet their responsibilities under the Climate Change Convention and its Kyoto Protocol, to raise their ambition to cut emissions and to provide the agreed adequate support to developing countries to build their own clean energy futures and adapt to climate change impacts they are already experiencing.
==================================================
UPDATE: There’s some ambiguity here in the announcement, upon further reading it could be interpreted that they are saying this:
“I see you withdraw from Kyoto but you are still legally bound to reduce emissions UNDER THE 1992 ‘VOLUNTARY’ RIO UN FRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE (UNFCCC)”.
So maybe it isn’t Kyoto they’re saying they can’t leave, but its parent treaty, Rio’s UNFCCC, which is the model for this Spring’s upcoming UNCSD ’12.
But that’s voluntary too, so how can a “voluntary” agreement be legally binding?
davidmhoffer says:
December 13, 2011 at 9:46 pm
“Still waiting for you to name a single instance in which [the UN was] successful.
I have already addressed that point, David. Nothing happens in the UN, especially when it comes to international conflict, unless all permanent members of the Security Council agree. Any one of the five permanent members can veto anything, and do so with monotonous regularity.
I’ll say what I said to timg56 a ways up the thread: you are advocating for giving the UN more power and not less, if you really want the UN to be effective in solving international conflicts.
I’ll address one single point from the rest of your comment: the building of the Israeli border fence constitutes a de facto land grab. The UN Human Rights Commission has it right in this case. This is not an endorsement of Palestinian practices or actions, by the way. Not by a long shot.
To the Canadians on this thread, I don’t know whether Dave Springer is making a bad joke or not, but some of us have learned our history and know that the US tried to invade Canada twice in our history and recognize that – perhaps – this is not something that should be joked about.
@James Baldwin Sexton:
Andreas Behring Breivik was first and foremost an opponent of Islamic immigration to Europe in general, and Norway in particular. His 1500-page manifesto was influenced, among many others, by Pamela Geller (Atlas Shrugs web site) and Glenn Beck.
I have some experience with Norwegian right-wingers. My grandmother on my father’s side was the Minister of Culture in the Quisling government for a time. A full-blown Nazi.
I never said Andreas Breivik was a product of conservative ideology. If he was anything, he was a fascist or a neo-nazi, or perhaps we should call him a Christian extremist. He believed himself to be an officer of some sort of Knights Templar lodge.
As to your point that he was just another lunatic looking for an excuse to be a lunatic, I hear what you are saying, but I am not sure I can agree entirely. That may be the case, but the vehicle that fit his dementia was a right-wing philosophy—fascist, not conservative, just to repeat myself.
Torgeir Hansson says:
December 13, 2011 at 10:09 pm
That’s one way of looking at it, as you admit. The other is that it does indeed take “a long shot” now for Palestinians to kill Israelis in that area, whereas before the fence was built the “UN Human Rights Commission” didn’t lift a finger or file a single complaint on the bloody mess that existed there–the dispute was all one-sided. Land indeed is valuable, but less valuable than human life (unless you’re an Israeli in a Palestinian’s gunsight).
@ur momisugly Rocky Road:
For every Israeli that dies in the ongoing conflict, five Palestinians die, and that is a fact. Israel does not hold the high ground in the conflict.
Israelis have a right to defend themselves, but need to adhere to UN Resolution 181 (how about that for a UN success? Or fiasco?) and the land they were given under that resolution.
Israel can be reached by artillery and missiles from a whole number of countries. The argument of defensible borders does not hold water.
[MODERATOR’S NOTE: This discussion has wandered far from the topic of the thread. Please save this discussion for some other more appropriate forum. -REP]
Torgeir Hansson says at:
December 13, 2011 at 10:59 am
I posit that the creation of the UN might have been more along the lines of “keep your friends and your enemies closer.”
tell them to jump in the lake and we see you in court
“But that’s voluntary too, so how can a “voluntary” agreement be legally binding?”
All contacts generally are voluntary…of course if you put nothing in a contract to remedy lack of performance then it really is not “legally binding”.
What does the Rio agreement say about enforcement? My guess is that it says nothing.
Torgeir Hansson,
You make some good points.
I would add to your concern regarding corporations the issue of the so-called NGO’s: They are no longer the fuzzy idealistic guys working for low wages and a mighty cause.
The big NGO’s are in the billions-of $-per year range of budget, and all they have to do is spend money on political power and staff. They are often homes for politicos in-between political posts, as well as highly influential on corporations.
A big part of the AGW meme is from the power of the NGO’s to influence media and politics, as well as corporations. Look at the goofy Coca Cola-Greenpeace scam regarding polar bears for a small example. The 10:10 kill-the-skeptic film was funded by huge corporations as well govt. grants. It is too easy to simply say ‘bad corporations’. Corruption at all levels is what permitted an idiotic idea like AGW to take hold in the first place. AGW is a symptom that also spreads the social disease.
Thank you moderator for that timely notice.
My final point of the night:
As Winston Churchill said: “It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.”
Maybe it is the same with the U.N.
The IPCC is clearly bankrupt, and needs to be terminated or radically reformed—probably the latter. It is not a bad idea to have a clearinghouse on climate science, if it is honest and relevant. It is a densely populated planet by now, and to understand how climate, warming or cooling, will affect us seems to be a good idea. We agree that today the IPCC is neither.
As for the U.N. as an institution: it seems to me that the most powerful nation in the world, and the founding nation of the U.N., has a responsibility in trying to reform it so it can meet the challenges of the 21st century. The world is in fact becoming more peaceful and more safe. An international organization that can perpetuate that trend should be well regarded by all people of good will.
Peace.
Torgeir Hansson says:
December 13, 2011 at 10:20 pm
@James Baldwin Sexton:
As to your point that he was just another lunatic looking for an excuse to be a lunatic, I hear what you are saying, but I am not sure I can agree entirely. That may be the case, but the vehicle that fit his dementia was a right-wing philosophy—fascist, not conservative, just to repeat myself.
——————————————————————————-
In many parts of the world, right-wing and conservative are synonymous. We run into this communication barrier often. As much, so as left-wing equates to communism. I fear this may be the case in much of the conversation occurring.
However, I would point out, the solutions to the perceived problem of CAGW always entail collective sacrifice. They always entail an arbitrary global governing body. And, is openly hostile to industrialization and the liberties that accompany wealth accumulation, both on a national and personal scale. This is, by all reckoning, totalitarian communism.
albertalad says:
December 13, 2011 at 10:03 am
[SNIP: I asked nicely. The thread is about the UN email to Canada. Drop this conversation. -REP]
Torgeir Hansson says:
December 13, 2011 at 10:09 pm
[SNIP: Sorry, but this discussion is very far from the thread topic. Please let it go. Thanks. -REP]
cgh says:
December 13, 2011 at 9:00 pm
Theo, what you say is true, except for this. PM Harper has already made it very clear what he thinks of the opinions of the glitterati et.al., and it leaves him entirely unmoved. The US has already acted as a bad neighbour to Canada over the Keystone decision. Which simply makes Canada’s pushing through the Gateway project all the more important. And the best part is that China and India pay a better price for oil than the US does
And all of this has been accompanied by a very fundamental shift in Canadian foreign policy as well. Canada now finds itself at odds with EU nations over a great many issues and is increasingly identifying itself as a Pacific Rim nation, not a North Atlantic one. Europe had one last gasp at maintaining strong relations with Canada through the free trade pact, but the EU blew that with their sanctions on Canadian oil.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
There is a lot more than first meets the eye, cgh.
The three western provincial Premiers are meeting to discuss how to make the Gateway Pipeline to the west coast happen; as well as how to deliver both gas and oil to the US – including Alaskan gas. Americans are working to reverse the Keystone delay. And delay is all it is as several companies are already doing “work arounds”. The biggest damage to the delay will actually be to American companies that were counting on the Keystone to get the Bakken Oil to market from Montana and the Dakotas more efficiently – it will have to be trucked or taken by rail or through other existing pipelines – again, delayed but not stopped. The US wants Keystone as much as we do and given that they are 10 times the size of Canada, they need it more than we do. (Maybe Obama publicly says green is “the way”, but let’s see what he actually does.)
In deed, as the early Americans used to say: “Go west young man.” Canada is increasingly looking westward for trade and that means working with the US as well given that the ports in the Pacific Northwest are huge and we now have north south rail transport as well as east west transport. Harper and Obama have just met to discuss how to make north south movement of goods between our two countries easier and less costly. Canada is becoming much less Eurocentric. Go to Vancouver, BC (not Vancouver, Washington) and it is quite clear that we (Canada) are becoming increasingly tied to the Pacific. The Asian market is over 3 billion people. The European market is 800 million, but they are broke. Canada is a paltry 32 million domiciled in 10,000,000 square kilometres (3 people per kilometre) versus 315 million in the US (large neighbouring market for our Canadian goods). Seattle, Tacoma and Portland ship about 50 million tons a year …. Vancouver BC handles over 80 million tons per year, 60% of which is trade with Asia. Montreal and Halifax do 28 million and 10 million tons respectively, and declining as trade with Europe shrinks – Halifax was sustained through coal exports to Europe. Of interest is the fact that the US ships about 40 million tons of coal to Europe, a drop in the bucket compared to the 1 billion tons of coal consumed in the US, 90% for electricity generation.
Europe was never going to be a big market for our Canadian oil, their actions on classifying Canadian Oil as “dirty” is purely Green party politics. Norway exports more oil than we do (2.2 million bbl/day versus 2 million bbl/day). Russia exports 5.5 million bbl/day, Canada imports 1.2 million bbl/day (eastern Canada is supplied from Middle East etc. by tankers); the US imports 11 million bbl/day. Europe has a huge demand for oil, but it can be supplied from Russia, Norway and the Middle East far cheaper than oil from Canada so the European position is simply for media and local consumption and meaningless in terms of demand for our oil. However, there are HUGE European and Chinese investments in the Alberta Oil Sands – for the Europeans it is likely purely economic as they see the Chinese as a buyer just like we do. For the Chinese, it is securing future supplies just like the Americans. Keystone will be built and so will Gateway and other pipelines. The Canadian supply is rather small in the whole scheme of things. Doubling our exports won’t even get us up to Russia or Norway plus Venezuela or Nigeria. Interestingly, the US actually exports about 1.7 million bbl/day while importing 11 million bbl/day.
And so back to our topic – where does the UN, Kyoto, Durban and the IPCC fit into all this? Nowhere. We need the energy. We will use it. We have the technology to keep it clean. The IPCC can go suck rocks. (is that a Canadian expression?)
Unless my knowledge of geography is mistaken, the USA is the only sensible place from which to launch an invasion of Canada.
Can somebody with access to the latest satellite photos reassure me that UNFCC tanks are not massing on the border somewhere near Duluth.Mn and that Ban-ki Moon does not have access to an independent nuclear arsenal?
If not, then Canadians can sleep easy in their beds over this toothless threat.
James Sexton says:
December 13, 2011 at 10:56 pm
Torgeir Hansson says:
December 13, 2011 at 10:20 pm
“However, I would point out, the solutions to the perceived problem of CAGW always entail collective sacrifice. They always entail an arbitrary global governing body. And, is openly hostile to industrialization and the liberties that accompany wealth accumulation, both on a national and personal scale. This is, by all reckoning, totalitarian communism.”
___________________________________________________
Not quite. We won WWII through collective sacrifice. We put a man on the moon through collective sacrifice. We created Medicare and Social Security through collective sacrifice. We developed agricultural methods and medical treatments through collective sacrifice.
It would be entirely appropriate to solve catastrophic global warming through collective sacrifice. There is nothing that would entail a greater sacrifice than to not solve catastrophic global warming if it was indeed real. It would limit our freedom, hamper our development, and rob us of our prosperity. It would endanger our children and forfeit our hope if we did not collectively band together and solve it. The means that the warmists are proposing are mostly appropriate, though certainly debatable, if the problem was real.
The reason this web site exists is that the very notion that there is catastrophic global warming is so remote and unproven that it desperately needs the scrutiny of skeptics, in the best tradition of Western science. Anyone with a brain can see that the notion of CAGW is disproven by the facts: it is not particularly warm, it is not warming at any alarming rate, some warming is not unusual, and there is no empirical data to suggest that the environment is being degraded by such a warming.
The point is that we live in a society and not an economy. If there was convincing evidence for catastrophic global warming, we should and would act as a society to address it.
Many people have bought into the illusion that there is, but there is no evidence. That is the point.
Simply reading the comments shows why a global government NOT imposed by totalitarianism is unlikely to succeed in the near future. So much for the idealism that is touted to bring world peace. It is just too good a money earner when you hijack the driving seat to ever be honest.
re: UNFCCC
well this thread has gone off the rails but let me just say that (1) I applaud Canada’s withdrawal from/repudiation of the Kyoto Protocol, and (2) the email that is the topic of the thread does seem to be about re-affirming UNFCCC from which Canada has not (yet) withdrawn.
Now the pressure should be on countries to repudiate the UNFCCC which has given us the flawed and biased IPCC process of excluding inconvenient science and trumpeting ‘politicized’ conclusions which are not supported in the scientific papers. The IPCC evolved with ‘position’ statements as summaries which were not scientific reports but merely political glosses after the long scientific reports had been written.
Media and politicians only cite the summary statements, if that, and they are not genuine summary statements at all.
Best is to repudiate UNFCCC and IPCC entirely. Short of that, criticize them and reject their dictates.
“As yet the hounds are still playing in the courtyard, but their prey will not escape, however fast it may already be charging through the forest.” Franz Kafka
Cripes, I think I may have kicked-up a maelstrom – albeit completely unintended.
Canada is an autonomous country, the Kyoto protocol is not worth the paper it was written on, legal targets? It is all guff and the very idea [cutting Man made CO2 emissions to de-warm the world is a preposterous one at that.
Canada’s withdrawal from this idiot UN [agenda 21] process is to be welcomed and is a refreshing diplomacy with integrity – something very much lacking in all of the EU’s and UN’s/IPCC’s dealings in this whole sorry UNFCCC affair.
Canada, its people and government imho, are to be congratulated, a few more honest and ‘braver’ countries – averring a similar line and this whole shebang [UNFCCC] could be ‘put to bed’.
Canada’s withdrawal from Kyoto was a pleasant surprise as it means that Prime Minister Harper (PMSH) has just waited for the right time to ensure that Canada doesn’t commit economic suicide in the pursuit of a watermelon agenda. Anyone who’s lived in Canada knows that we have winters here and it gets cold. To live in a northern climate requires lots of energy for heat and solar cells don’t function very well during days when one might get from 0 – 6 hours of light/day. Windmills don’t do much on those breeze-free -40 C days that the interior of Canada is noted for. Asking Canadians to reduce their CO2 emissions is simply idiotic.
What I’m hoping the next move will be is Canada’s withdrawal from the UN as this is an institution that seems to only be interested in creating a totalitarian world kleptocracy. The other significant move that the Canadian government has made recently is to introduce legislation to eliminate the firearms registry which served only to waste $2 billion on the creation of an error-riddled database and criminalize (on paper) large portions of the western population who only registered a token number of their total firearms. Given that the Conservatives have a majority government, this legislation will pass. This is another area where Canada is at odds with the UN and it’s attempt to outlaw civilian firearms ownership. We’re not even close to the US with the ability to defend ourselves, but OTOH, we don’t have waiting periods after buying a gun.
PMSH has had an interesting history as he was head of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation before becoming Prime Minister. While head of the Taxpayers Federation, his views on CAGW would not have been out of place on WUWT. What he’s done is to simply wait until the opportune time to take steps to remove Canada from a process which has nothing to do with climate and everything to do with giving UN statists control of world energy use. I’m sure that Canada will continue to make the proper noises dealing with the topics of “sustainability” and other phrases that sooth the watermelons while making moves to ramp-up oilsands production dramatically.
Perhaps the best way to deal with the UN’s outrage over our CO2 production would be to take a large group of UN bureaucrats and have them spend a winter in Inuvik using only “sustainable” forms of energy. All they’d have to do to get evil CO2 producing heating would be to withdraw the letter they’ve sent to Canada.
The UN is a self sustaining entity, it will fight tooth and nail for every penny it can get its hands on.
I would not disband the UN , I would however seriously reduce its budget say by 50%. This would limit the non jobs who float around the place and force it to re focus on its core, keeping stability and nations talking to each other.
I guess my question is (rhetorical) to whom is the UN accountable?
The answer ought to be its members.
If that is correct then can we say the members are to blame for the situation they now find themselves in, because they have not called on the UN to ACCOUNT for its actions?
Perhaps it is a case of what my Mother used to call ‘passing the buck’…..
Not having time or inclination to do the tasks themselves, member nations have passed the buck as it were and expected – then allowed the UN to set the direction / forward planning.
The UN has accreud (?sp) power unto itself….. another Mother-ism – a little power goes to the head and is a dangerous thing…… now the power is so strong that they are the driving force instead of the other way around, and their ego will not let it back down. They are used to their luxurious lifestyles, big offices, holidays (oops sorry) conferences in exotic climes, and money in their bank accounts!
Sadly in some ways we are responsible for the monster we now see, but how can we reign this in?
Take away its funding and it has no power.
Money is the root of all evil.
The solution to those nasty e-mails demanding money is simple, Canada. Pick one: change your e-mail address; update your spam filter.
Joke:
How many people work at the Un Secretariat?
About half.
(The Guardian, 28 November 1982)
Before Canada’s PM responds, I think that he should brush up on his Anglo-Saxon vocabulary.