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?
Canada,
As the world’s policeman (the USA) I am here to inform you that there has been warrant issued for your arrest. Please turn around and put your hands behind your back. You are under arrest. You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and may be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you can’t afford an attorney one will be appointed to you. Do you understand these rights I’ve just given you?
“Red Jeff says:
December 13, 2011 at 1:39 pm
Our old Prime Minister, the Right Honourable Pierre Elliott Trudeau had the proper response for this to the UnfCCCP…. fuddle duddle.”
When Trudeau passed away, a cartoonist in the Edmonton Journal had him meet St. Peter and St. Peter asked Trudeau if he really said “fuddle duddle”.
Torgeir;
Do you know what the difference between a totalitarian government and communism actually is?
Please let me explain. In a totalitarian government, there’s a small group of people who force everyone else to live their lives according to strict rules of the government.
This is completely different from communism. In a communist government, there’s a small group of people who force everyone else to live their lives according to strict rules of the government, and the people must say they like it.
See the difference?
Welcome to the Hotel California.
Dave Springer – given the relative competency of the Canadian and US governments of the moment I’d be inclined to suggest that the right approach would be for the US to invade Canada, then immediately surrender and demand to be taken over.
Quebec can have Lousiana, the rest of us get sanity.
Reed Coray says:
December 13, 2011 at 10:32 am
That’s funny!
As the world’s policeman (the USA) I am here to inform you that there has been warrant issued for your arrest. Please turn around and put your hands behind your back. You are under arrest.>>>
We fart in your general direction. We would also like to introduce you to our biggest customer and new best friend, China. They’d like to explain how a Security Council veto vacates your silly arrest warrant, and they also want to talk to you about some money you owe them.
While you’re thinking that over, we fart in your general direction.
Torgeir Hansson says:
December 13, 2011 at 12:38 pm
“There is no communist around every corner. Hell, there are hardly any communists left in the world.”
Really? Let’s start with some brass tack specifics. Who is Van Jones? Why was there mass protest in the US when Obama appointed him “Green Jobs Czar?” (Pre-answer: the fact that an outspoken, hardcore communist could be appointed Czar of anything should scare the pants off anyone who understands communism or Van Jones.)
There are hardly any communists left in the world? I guess the dozen people who gather down the hall in the Faculty Lounge every afternoon to pursue their goal of “understanding the ideology of the working class” are all that remain, right? By the way, the discussion is not about academic research but political action.
Just read Vaclav Klaus, …..
If it was not for the UN it is difficult to believe that the US would have dared to invade Iraq. The UN gave them what the US calls “legitimacy”. Would they have gone into Afghanistan, who knows, arguably that was different.
The hype around Iran is quite similar as the build up to Iraq was.
Libya was the same, the UN gave NATO the legitimacy. But ultimately that was an internal issue and even if Gadaffi was a dictator and let’s call him “international terrorist” it is not democratic for the “West” to decide who can or can not rule in a certain country.
No one in the “West” thought openly about invading South Africa during the Apartheid years and finishing off that regime.
And so on.
No doubt the UN has done good things and averted a number of military exercises but it can also be easily manipulated to allow similar as per above.
Torgeir Hansson says:
December 13, 2011 at 10:59 am
“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.”
Didn’t look up any activity about Kursk before posting but the Useless Nations had ZERO to do with any of the other aforementioned locations. ZERO, NADA, ZILCH. Noth-Ing! Have a great day!
They have just concluded period one of emissions controls under the Kyoto agreement. Under the Kyoto Treaty, any country that does not meet its obligations for period one must pay a 30% penalty in period 2 emissions controls. So Canada has to pay a huge reduction in emissions for failing to meet its obligations in Round 1. Any emissions reuctions agreements that are met, Canada will have to pay 30% extra.
Outtheback,
Agree completely. Where in NATO’s remit does it say “regime change”? NATO is a treaty against Soviet aggression.
Neither Liby nor Gaddhafi were any kind of a threat. Ever since Reagan bombed Gaddhafi for the Lockerbie attack, Gaddhafi has kept quiet. We certainly never declared war against Libya. So why did the U.S. suddenly lead the charge to get rid of him?
The reason is simple: Barack Mohammed Obama wanted an Islamic regime running Libya. And as we see, he got it.
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.
Really people, where is your sense of humour?
Many of you appear ready to drop your sticks and gloves, and have a go… … the time-honoured Canadian way of settling disputes, both on and off the ice.
But rather than being upset by the ridiculous effrontery of the UN, consider how funny this is.
The watermelons are having a mass seizure – they are writhing in agony in their own apoplectic putrescence.
Let them.
It is payback for their incredible deceit and breathtaking stupidity.
Torgeir Hansson says:
December 13, 2011 at 12:38 pm
“The UN is not the Antichrist. There is no communist around every corner.”
You are aware that the Greens in the UN draw up documents that describe a bureacracy with the power to cause sovereign nations to adopt various Green policies, are you not? You are aware that the EU has done the same and has successfully enforced those requirements, are you not? If yes, what do you think of those documents? And do not take the easy road of trivializing them. If No, then you should read before you write.
The Green vision of political organization is necessarily collectivist. If everyone who accumulates wealth can be taxed by a worldwide bureacracy for use of the atmosphere or whatever and the money redistributed to compensate those without wealth then you cannot get more collectivist than that.
johnnyrvf says:
December 13, 2011 at 1:14 pm
@Torgeir Hansson 10:49 am; Kursk was a tank battle…
Yes, it was a tank battle where hundreds of thousands of soldiers died. It had nothing to do with the United States. It had everything to do with the gigantic waste that was World War II, and therefore a lot to do with why the U.N. is a good idea.
Just like the League o’ Nations!
Tellya what, Torgeir, you Europeans can start telling Canadians to make climate guilt payments the day you all compensate your former colonies for the vast amounts your countries looted from them. It’s easy for Europeans to contemplate GHG reductions – your populations are stagnating and your economies are shrinking. For Canada, not so simple. I’m really happy the Canadian government gave the metaphorical finger to the climate change industry, and I look forward to massive increases in Alberta oil sands production and a somewhat warmer world.
Keep yer stick on the ice…
John West says:
December 13, 2011 at 12:04 pm
Torgeir Hansson says:
“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.”
I am well acquainted with the history and have family that fought in those places, IMO, the UN has abandoned its original directive and has set its sites on being the global government. The UN is poorly organized for such a function being that there are no checks and balances, no population weighted representation, etc. Therefore, I would either disband or severely downsize the UN if it were up to me.
It’s a wee bit difficult to find an explanation that doesn’t take you into all the depressing background of the one banking family behind all of this, but here’s one that gives the flavour:
[SNIP: davidmhoffer was right on this one. Myrrh, the sites you linked to were vile. Do not do that again. -REP]
But as to Canada being held to their agreement of a voluntary set up, by agreeing with it they have a contract. The only way I can see out of that is for Canada to show that it was set up as a con.
JEM says: December 13, 2011 at 11:36 am
“Whatever the UN might have been thought to be at its founding, and whatever role it may have played in the early Cold War era, for the last three decades it’s ‘matured’ into little more than a postgraduate program for third-world kleptocrats looking to step up to a global role.”
Your comment reminded me of a humorous comedy act I saw about 20 years ago. Jonathan Winters, the precursor to Robin Williams, was performing one of his solo routines on stage. He was using a slender stick about four feet long as a prop. After performing a series of vignettes, he suddenly placed one end of the stick against the middle of his chest, held the stick with both hands, started staggering around the stage as if mortally wounded, and mouthed the line that started me laughing for five minutes: “The United Nations recognizes the delegate from New Galli Land.
Very little has changed in 20 years.
Hanging Head in shame…… living in Australalia and having to (gulp) admit we have a PM and Greens Partner supporting AGW and are therefore WATERMELONS and they support all the UN protocols etc….. I feel bound to tell you I am seriously thinking of moving to Canda so I can hold my head high…. let me know when your weather cycles improve, I am kind of partial to my sunshine…… Viva la Canada you done well guy’s………….. proud of you all
Torgeir Hannson,
RE disolving the UN.
I would point out that at the time it was founded, no other international body existed. Today that is no longer the case. There many organisations existing that allow governments to work together. Another significant change is the growth of multinational corporations, a global market place and the integrated flow of capital and good from one part of the world to another. In otherwords there are far more effective restraints and reasons for nations not to go to war, than than back when the UN was founded.
Then there is the second argument of trying to show exactly what wars and conflicts the UN has managed to prevent. It didn’t prevent Korea, Vietnam, Malaysia, the Sino-Vietnamese conflict, the Sino-Soviet Amur River conflict, El Salvador or Nicaragua, the Falklands (or Malvinas if you like), Kuiwait, Iraq, Afghanistan, India – Pakistan I, II and III, Sudan, Somalia, Kosovo and more Arab- Israeli fights than I can count. Not to mention other events of mass murder by governments such as Cambodia and Ruwanda or forced starvation as in North Korea. In other words, if the primary justification for the UN is to act as a body where the nations of the world can solve their differences peaceably, almost all of the evidence indicates it has failed miserably at that task.
Torgeir Hansson says:
December 13, 2011 at 4:41 pm
johnnyrvf says:
December 13, 2011 at 1:14 pm
@Torgeir Hansson 10:49 am; Kursk was a tank battle…
Yes, it was a tank battle where hundreds of thousands of soldiers died. It had nothing to do with the United States. It had everything to do with the gigantic waste that was World War II, and therefore a lot to do with why the U.N. is a good idea>>>
Are you seriously of the opinion that had the UN existed, it would have have prevented WWII? And you accuse ME of living in a fantasyland?
“you Europeans can start telling Canadians to make climate guilt payments the day you all compensate your former colonies for the vast amounts your countries looted from them.”
Well, as it was Asians who started off industrialisation thousands of years ago and Europeans (and then Americans) just continued where they left off (and now Asians are getting back into the game) then no guilt payments should be made to them at all. And as it was Africans who slaughtered, robbed and enslaved each other for centuries before the British, followed by other Europeans, outlawed slavery then no compensation should be paid there, especially as nearly every successful black person in the world today is a product of the importation of Africans and many others live on the welfare system of whites.
The whole compensation game doesn’t quite work out in the greater context. Nobody owes anyone anything (although the Islamic world isn’t doing a good job of compensating for its continued barbarism, theological imperialism, genocide and slavery today).
squarehead,
I have a hard time worrying about communists. Communism has proven a failure and the evidence is in the number of nations that have rejected it compared to the number that have recently (say past 20 years) embraced it.
I am more concerned with people who think that only government can solve problems and take care of people. You don’t have to be a communist or even a socialist to fall into that category. What I am not sure of is who concerns me the most – those who believe that since they are smarter, better educated and from the right parts of society, are the ones best situated (or more deserving) of making decisions on behalf of the rest of us, or those dumb enough to believe these people and agree to let it happen.