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?
Athelstan says:
December 14, 2011 at 12:36 am
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.
+++++++++++++
Bravo. As an Australian I am thoroughly ashamed that my government has proved to be the most idiotic in the Western world by unilaterally introducing an economy wide carbon tax at $23 a tonne. The word ‘madness’ comes to mind.
Canada’s environment minister, Peter Kent, says “To meet the targets under Kyoto for 2012 would be the equivalent of … the transfer of $14bn (£8.7bn) from Canadian taxpayers to other countries – the equivalent of $1,600 from every Canadian family – with no impact on emissions or the environment,”
They may try and hide the decline, they may try to call skeptics deniers, but when it comes to the crunch the whole corrupted science of global warming is being brought down by the financial ponzi scheme it created. Al Gore’s ponzi scheme collapsed first, now the UN’s transfer of weatlh ponzi scheme.
Bravo Canada.
AndyG55 says:
December 13, 2011 at 1:53 pm
hmm, just wondering how the US would respond if the UN tried to enforce their will on Canada.
Could be interesting.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Very much so indeed.
Obama would try to provide troops.
He would find the troops deserted to the man and went over to join the Canadians.
He would then call upon progressives to fight only to find the are all pacifists and will not touch a gun and had all run off to Mexico to avoid being drafted.
Well done Canada!
Spot-on brilliant. Well stated.
Well it looks like that comment was actually addressed at the UN, now wasn’t it? Why exactly did you change the subject midstream? Perhaps you should not tell people what to think about the UN and not misconstrue what their original comment was.
Canada throws a monkey wrench into the UN extortion racket and we get treated to a visit from yet another threadjacking statist troll. (sigh) Highlights of a glittering jewel of colossal ignorance …
ROTFLMAO. Every liberal talking point in a single thread. There are no communists, the UN is great (toothless, expensive *and* cheap insurance), the danger is right-wing fascism. Marxist shared sacrifice. Blame the west, as if we haven’t already spent a fortune *giving* (not lending) money to the utterly thankless 3rd world (and where kids are not getting vaccinated!). A Treaty caused WWII. Oh the irony of pushing another treaty in the Trillions (he swerved into that, LOL!! Leftist ‘Neocon’ scapegoats. Oh, and Israel can defend itself but. ’nuff said.
The only way to believe the rantings of neo-communist progressivism is if you were born yesterday. Torgeir Hansson, has a lot of bad days ahead as all his beliefs are crushed in the coming months and years. Meanwhile the Vikings are rolling over in their graves.
Torgeir Hansson says:
December 13, 2011 at 10:59 am
I am a little puzzled by talk about dissolving the UN.
Unless this forum is full of thirteen-year olds with no sense of history, it should be unnecessary to remind people that the U.N. was founded by the United States, in the United States, as an instrument for international collaboration, BECAUSE IT IS SO DAMN EXPENSIVE TO SEND AMERICAN BOYS AND GIRLS TO DIE IN SOME GODFORSAKEN PLACE WHEN A WAR BREAKS OUT!!!!!
The IPCC needs to be gutted, no question. But don’t give me this nonsense that the UN should be dissolved. Crack a history book. Learn about places like Normandy, Iwo Jima, Birkenau, Bastogne, Hiroshima, and Kursk. Until you have done so, don’t bother me with this dissolution talk.
====================================================
the USA created and pushed the UN, oddly enough the usa seems to be a LOT behind how it chooses who to go beat up too,. its a little private army doing the behest of a select few who probably should be behind bars themselves, answerable to no one but themselves?
misused and misled seriously, from what it was meant to be.
the recent issue with new laws re usa and anyone elses citizens being able to be held tortured and extradited all over the place?
so will the UN chaps and chapess’s be acting on that crime against the people of america and their own constitution?
nah don’t think so. yet its a crime.
theyre quick to send em into the oil countries to save certain butts though..
Massive oil wealth = no poverty, lots and lots of money in the bank, a large and healthy energy industry, etc. Even a socialist government can’t outspend the gusher’s it’s got. For now.
(Norway’s sovereign wealth fund made a valiant stab at it last year, though, investing hundreds of millions in Greek bonds. Paraphrase: “We’re going to hold them until maturity, so there’s no risk, and the opportunity presented by those high yields makes them a great bargain.”)
For more insight on Canada-US relations, the following book is a great read. Seems like a lot of Americans stayed behind and became Canadians after the war of 1812. The Canada-US link is stronger than we think.
The Civil War of 1812 by Alan Taylor – ISBN: 978-1-4000-4265-4
Also, don’t forget that the US is the main contributor to the UN and would play the greatest role in restructuring it – which is long overdue.
Finally, while Canada has walked away from Kyoto it still faces some perplexing problems. For example, one of the largest polluters AND greatest emitters of CO2 is the coal-fired generating station in Southern Ontario. It is owned by the Provincial Government through Hydro One. All this talk of CO2 and pollution reduction without even addressing the single greatest problem? It is not the jurisdiction of the Federal Government, the Provincial Government tried to close it once (but needs the electricity) and any attempts to deal with this problem will cost Ontario tax payers directly and dearly. All this from the “greenest” Premier ever (with accolades from David Suzuki no less). I have noticed he is quietly opening new gas-fired generating stations in the meantime. I guess the $700 million he allocated to solar and wind turbines ran out.
‘Legally binding..’
In whose jurisdiction..?
Blade says:
December 14, 2011 at 4:31 am
Re: Torgeir Hansson says:
What most people don’t seem to understand is that Communism (everything run by the government) and Fascism (everything run by corporations) is really the same beast.
Gary Mount says:
December 13, 2011 at 4:24 pm
In 2002 a farmer in Canada went to jail for selling his own grain.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/story/2002/10/31/farmers_021031.html
A few days ago, 120 members of Canada’s parliament voted to keep the communist Wheat Board system running.
There are at least 120 communist still active in Canada.
==============
weve got their relatives in Aus!
same deal the grains crowd take a fee even if you sold your own, which is illegal anyway.
i sure didnt agree to that1
we now have Viterra and cargil owning our biggest silos and sales.
bet your boards are full of their shite too.
Torgeir Hannson;
“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.>>>
So, you admit that there is not a single instance of the UN succesfully preventing conflict or genocide. You argue that it is better to have the UN in order try and prevent these things, while admitting in the next breath that they are completely and totaly ineffective.
Then you have the audacity to put words in the mouths of your critics, claiming that they are arguing for more power in the UN, not less. No such argument was made. The argument that was made was that the UN has failed in the very tasks YOU support itz existance for, and that is true by your own admission.
However noble the goals of the UN might have been at one time, those goals have never been served. The only purposes served today by the UN are to employee thousands of sycophants and lend an air of legitimacy to 3rd world dictatorships who use their majority votes in the general assembly to hijack every positive initiative while covering up the very misdeeds the UN was supposed to prevent. The UN is expensive, ineffective, and being used to facilitate exacty the things it was supposed to prevent. Why matters not one wit until you admit that is in fact the end result.
I want to address also your mind numbingly stupid remark that corporations have too much influence, citing the business dealings of Al Gore and Pachauri as proof. That is as backwards as the rest of your nonsensical arguments. You’ve cited examples of lobbyists with influence taking advantage of that influence in their business dealings. How is that an example of corporations having too much influence? It isn’t even an example of corporations HAVING influence. It is an example of lobbyists having influence, and using it to further their own personal business dealings, liniing their pockets with tax payer money. That you accuse the corporations of the world with a blanket statement attempting to incriminate them for something a select number of lobbyists have done to enrich themselves says everything one needs to know about your politics.
Gail Combs says:
December 13, 2011 at 9:06 pm
“Marion says:
…And one last thing try typing in the name of your local council along with Agenda 21 – you may be surprised at just how much the UN has already imposed on local planning!! (also an EU resident).
______________________________________________________
If you are in the USA try the word “Sustainable” too. It is the code word for Agenda 21.
President’s Council on Sustainable Development: http://clinton2.nara.gov/PCSD/”
Yeah, in the tradition of “Diversity Deans,” every little college no matter how obscure now has a “Sustainability Professor.” If it were not so harmful it would have all of us ROTFLOL.
Ontario is Canada’s embedded mini-EU. Stupidity on stilts. But the Invisible Hand’s brass knucks are drawing blood with its initial jabs. When the hard right, followed by an uppercut. land, it’ll be lights out.
The UNFCCC can shove its treaty where the sun doesn’t shine. Canada is a world leader.
Torgeir Hansson says:
December 13, 2011 at 9:29 pm
…..The real issue in the U.S. is not communists infiltrating our government or the public discourse. It is corporations having undue influence over our government…..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On that we agree.
However what most people miss is that the Bankers are NOT capitalists and they actually supported the Bolshevik Revolution with gold. (I think they wanted to wipe out the Czar of Russia for supporting the USA against a banker takeover via England and France during the civil war.)
Socialism/Communism or the more correct term collectivism was seen as a means for yanking the reins out of the hands of individuals and giving the “Elite” complete power. The Committee for Economic Development, was officially established in 1942 as a sister organization to the Council on Foreign Relations. CED has influenced US domestic policies in much the same way that the CFR has influenced the nation’s foreign policies.
Now the elite have progressed to pull the strings from behind the scenes using NGOs. Social activism is just a mask the elite wear to fool the innocent into thinking they are “Fighting” the “Capitalists” while they are actually the foot soldiers of the bankers and corporate CEOs.
NGOs REPLACE VOTERS in USA
By Presidential Executive Order the USA was divided into ten regions. These regions are governed by an unholy mix of unelected government bureaucrats and NGOs. The regions were set up by President Nixon but the implementation of the “regional governance concept began in earnest with the Clinton-Gore administration. “On the heels of the President’s Council on Sustainable Development , came the President’s Community Empowerment Board, chaired by Vice President Al Gore,” [ http://www.rense.com/general63/ree.htm ] These quasi-governmental regional authorities are slowly transforming the US from representative government to government by United Nations sponsored and directed NGOs and appointed bureaucrats.
THE BEHIND THE SCENES PLAYERS
BTW there is actually no difference between the “Democrats” and the “Republicans” both represent the moneyed elite and not us. But try telling a progressive that.
While I see Nixon, Reagan and Bush as similar to Clinton, “Progressives” can not get their head around the fact that not only Clinton but Obama sold them out to the “Corpocracy” why else did Clinton push the ratification of NAFTA and the WTO or sign the five banking laws that created the present economic mess? Why else did Obama tap General Electric CEO Jeffery Immelt to lead a newly created Council on Jobs and Competitiveness?
Talk about the grizzly guarding the hen house!
Torgeir Hannson;
You raise some interesting point, many of which could be the subject of whole threads. However, when you wrote, regarding Brievik “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 feel I must respond to this. Since you refer to Brievik, right wingers and Nazis in the same breath, I assume you are implying that Nazis are right wing. Although this seems to be a common perception, especially in Europe, it is also wrong. A right wing philosophy is one that espouses free markets, small government with low taxation and individual liberty. It would be no exageration to say that Nazis occupy the opposite extreme. Fascists – which is where I would place Brievik – certainly do not believe in free markets, much less individual liberty.
Fascism is a totalitarinist ideology, espousing a large government control over the citizenry, who are to be whipped into line with violence if necessary. Economy is further to be controlled by the government, who will regulate what is to be produced and how the products are to be distributed.
Will you not agree that fascism has nothing to do with “right wing” as I have defined it above, and is more akin to communism, the major difference being that the former is overtly racist?
OT about OT discussions:
This thread has been overwhelmed with OT comments about political, ideological, and international relations issues, etc.distant from anything to do with Canada and the UNFCCC email.
Does anyone know if there is software that would allow the mods to easily start a spin-off thread for people who want to discuss OT issues? I think it is great that ppl are inspired to discuss other issues together, but I wanted to read about the topic of THIS thread and it became difficult to do that. Ideally one could have a software solution which is a win-win if people who wanted to go OT had a new thread to follow while ppl who wanted to stick to the current thread topic didn’t have to wade through loads of extraneous comments.
Torgeir Hannson says:
[SNIP: Back to the topic of the thread, please. -REP]
Hey UNFCCC! Stay ooout of our hooouse, eh?
davidmhoffer says:
December 14, 2011 at 6:13 am
(in response to Torgeir Hannson)
“So, you admit that there is not a single instance of the UN succesfully preventing conflict or genocide. You argue that it is better to have the UN in order try and prevent these things, while admitting in the next breath that they are completely and totaly ineffective.
Then you have the audacity to put words in the mouths of your critics, claiming that they are arguing for more power in the UN, not less. No such argument was made. The argument that was made was that the UN has failed in the very tasks YOU support itz existance for, and that is true by your own admission”
Unfortunately, David, this is always the socialist response – when their BIG Government policies fail they claim it was because they needed BIGGER Government and MORE money ie more Socialism. And so it is in the EU (or UN for that matter), the answer to any crisis (mostly self-inflicted as in the current Euro crisis) is more EU or ‘ever greater union’.
It seems to me that the choice we face is between right wing Small Government and Democratic Capitalism or left wing Big Government and Crony Capitalism. And unfortunately many countries these days only seem to offer a ‘choice’ of the latter, so it is in the UK with their ‘compassionate conservatism’ (socialism in disguise). Political turkeys don’t vote for Christmas and have become too attached to their ability to buy votes. If you ever watch a clip of an MEP making a speech in the European Parliament you’ll find he’s talking to a virtually empty chamber, such is our ‘representation’ these days – they’re mostly out being wined, dined and courted by various lobbying groups, usually Big Corporates, Finance or NGOs, not many small businesses can afford the time out or the expense of the trip.
We need to stop this trend towards Totalitarianism by downsizing Government (and therefore reducing the effectiveness of lobbying groups), removing the multiple layers of parasitic bureaucracies that have been created and putting a stop to Government funding of NGOs.
Come on guys! Could we has some mature comments?
The UN has a major role to play, and even if it is only to “discuss” and propose ways forward. Policy making is a game that is affected by many actors, and even if we pt down the UN as useless, it has its role in shaping the direction that world should move towards.
It is easy to criticize the body, since it is immersed in so many conflicts and tackles so many issues ( disarmament, human rights, culture, refugees, etc.).
Instead of complaining, I don’t see many of you proposing solutions and ideas.
Climate change is real. Who will decide to tackle it? The UN is the only body which is willing to take this on, and who has the capacity.
If you believe that no countries should be constrained in their actions, fine. Then let everybody act for themselves and you’ll end up with a huge mess in no time. Much like an individual enters in a social contract with society, a state also has a duty to act in a responsible way in the international arena.
duntonj:
Utter and complete hogwash! To pick just two of your comments:
“Climate change is real. Who will decide to tackle it?”. NOBODY will, because nobody can and that includes the UN. It’s just an excuse to tax the useful world more and more.
“… immersed in so many conflicts and tackles so many issues … culture..”. CULTURE! What has culture to do with the UN?
The UN are growing too big for their boots and need to be put in their place. Stick to sending blue helmeted expensive troops in to trouble spots to watch genocide take place.
Back on the topic now.
From the Edmonton Journal, December 14:
http://www.edmontonjournal.com/technology/Commons+receive+report+Kyoto+pullout/5857492/story.html
Commons to receive report on Kyoto pullout
Commissioner eyes legal implications
Two paragraphs from this article:
“Even if Canada officially withdraws from the agreement, a Kyoto-implementation act remains in place that currently requires the environmental watchdog to report on whether the country is meeting its obligations.
“If the act remains, then we will in-form Parliament, and the question will be: How will we do this? We have lawyers looking at this actually right now on what the implications will be,” Environment Commissioner Scott Vaughan told reporters in Ottawa following the release of his annual report.”
duntonj says:
“Climate change is real.”
That is the only unarguable comment duntonj made in his childlike UN apologia. However, there is no verifiable evidence that human CO2 emissions have anything to do with “climate change”. If duntonj believes otherwise he needs to post his evidence here. It is only the climate alarmist bunch, led by Michael Mann, who believe that the climate never changed until the industrial revolution.
The UN is the biggest corrupt organization on the planet. It is thoroughly anti-U.S., spreading hatred and animosity while always having its hand out for more U.S. dollars. It has never allowed an independent audit of its finances.
There is nothing that the UN does that individual countries cannot do better, more efficiently, and most importantly, more honestly. The UN is an opaque, unaccountable, corrupt organization run by self-serving kleptocrats who take a large cut of every dollar that goes into the UN. Anyone who believes otherwise is extremely naive.
An interesting thread, which in the end has me thinking that Robin Kool’s comment carries the most import.
One reason I enjoy reading the climate blogs I do is the opportunity to see working scientists and highly accomplished people in engineering and technology fields sharing their opinions. It reminds me of how little I know. What I find unnecessary is the frequent name calling, which unfortunately is common to the blogsphere no matter the subject matter. I prefer sites like this, Bish Hill and Judith Curry in part because the moderators allow freedom of expression (with only minor constraints to maintain civil discussion) and do not talk down to commentors. And generally the people commenting do a better job at refraining from name calling than is seen at the so called real climate science sites. I think we can do better.
For example, I most likely disagree with squarehead on the issue of being threatened by communism. But I bet that in a face to face discussion we might find more points of agreement than disagreement. The same with Torgeir and the UN. (Which by the way I am not arguing for giving more power to, Tor.) And even if we may not have many points of agreement, there is no cause for discourtesy or name calling or assuming the other person is an idiot because they don’t agree with you.
Sorry if I went on too much about this, but after experiencing the need to take a shower everytime I visit sites like Real Climate and SkS, I hate to see the same sort of behavior from folks who I find I side with on many subjects.
dontonj;
It is easy to criticize the body, since it is immersed in so many conflicts and tackles so many issues ( disarmament, human rights, culture, refugees, etc.).
Instead of complaining, I don’t see many of you proposing solutions and ideas.
Climate change is real.>>>
Let’s go through the list shall we? Let’s see what the track record is:
disarmament: FAIL
human rights: FAIL
culture: FAIL
refugees: FAIL
world hunger: FAIL
peace keeping: FAIL
intervention in armed conflicts: FAIL
prevention of armed conflicts: FAIL
inventing climate change: GOLD STAR!
DOING anything about it: FAIL
So the only thing they’ve done well is invent a fairy tail. They can’t even come up with a way to solve a problem that they made up in the first place. Why should I propose solutions and ideas to fix an organization that is so clearly and is obviously completely ineffective and incompetent while at the same time being morally and ethically bankrupt?
If you paid a mechanic to fix a flat tire, and when you picked the car up, it had two flat tires, would you promptly hire the guy to fix two flat tires? If you hired the mechanic to fix two flat tires, and it came back with three flat tires, and a broken windshield, and he said the problem was that it needed an engine overhaul, would you hire him to do the engine overhaul? If you threatened to take the car to a different mechanic, and he said he couldn’t “allow” you to do that, would you just fork over the money for the engine overhaul? If you complained to your neighbour about the mechanic, and your neighbour criticized you for not coming up with good ideas to help the mechanic do a better job, would you listen and conclude the three flat tires, the broken windshield, and the engine overhaul were all your own fault for not having been nicer to the mechanic and paid him more money in the first place?
You would? Can I be your mechanic?