Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
The United Nations, progenitor of a thousand agencies, has released a report called “MOVING TOWARDS A CLIMATE NEUTRAL UN” regarding its success in reducing its own “carbon footprint” (full version , summary). The Head Prophet of the UN, Ban Ki-moon, has revealed the mysteries to us unwashed masses as follows:
We are making steady progress. In March, the main UN website launched a new section offering a wide range of information on the Organization’s sustainability performance. In April, I opened the new UN building in Nairobi – a beacon of sustainable construction. In May, a new position – UN Senior Advisor on Sustainability – was created to coordinate the Secretariat’s work on climate neutrality. In August, I presented the UN21 Award to the UN Environment Programme and the Department of Field Support for their efforts to green the UN. And in September, senior officials of the inter-agency Environment Management Group approved a Strategic Plan for Sustainability Management in the UN system.
The United Nations system is strongly committed to leading by example and ensuring that our operations are continuously monitored and improved – not just in terms of what we deliver, but also how we deliver.
Figure 1. A sheep contemplates the UN report whilst providing natural fertilizer for the flowers.
That all sounds wonderful … now, let’s parse his claims.
Here are the successes that he highlights:
1. The UN website launched a new section of its website, called “Greening the Blue“. It seems to be dedicated to the proposition that if you can’t do it yourself, you should tell others to do it.
2. A new UN building in Nairobi, Kenya, has 6,000 square feet of solar panels on the roof, and is rated (not measured but rated) at 515 kilowatts of power. No word on the cost, but it looks like a bureaucrat’s palace …
3. They have created a new bureaucratic position, “UN Senior Advisor on Sustainability”, at the usual high rate of pay and perks. This is in addition to their existing positions, such as the “Senior Advisor on Sustainable Development”, and the “Technical Advisor,Population & Sustainable Development”, and the “Advisor on Sustainable Water Development and Management”, and the “Second Committee Advisor on Sustainable Development”, and the “Consultant, Gender, Climate Change and Sustainable Development”, and …
The Senior Advisor post has been filled by a woman named Julie MacKenzie. Prior to this position, she had been an Environmental Management Coordinator and Climate Neutrality Advisor” for the FAO and an “Adviser” of an unspecified flavor for the UNEP. I cannot find a biography … classic faceless bureaucrat.
4. Mr. Ki-moon handed out a prize to one of the UN programmes for being really really good guys.
5. They put together a “Strategic Plan”, which is no doubt very strategic, and probably chock-full of brilliant plans.
6. He said that the UN is committed to leading by example … do you feel better now?
You may notice that in all of that, Mr. Ki-moon neglected to point out how much the UN has reduced their CO2 emissions …
…
…
… and there is a very good reason for him saying nothing about that:
UN CO2 emissions in 2009: 1.7 million tonnes.
UN CO2 emissions in 2010: 1.8 million tonnes
So if they didn’t reduce their emissions in the slightest, what did they do?
Well, they held a photo competition looking for “images reflecting the theme ‘Visions of a sustainable UN’ “. Here’s the winner:
That works, shut the lid and be done with the UN, sounds eminently sustainable to me …
w.
PS—There was one other achievement noted in their report, viz:
Once again, the UN office at Geneva invited hundreds of sheep to graze the grasslands surrounding the Palais des Nations. The sheep cut the grass in an ecologically sustainable manner whilst providing natural fertilizer for the grass and flowers to grow in spring.
“Whilst”? Who says “whilst” these days? In any case, trust the UN to boast about inventing animal husbandry …
Wouldn’t the UN cease to function and therefor exist if they were carbon neutral?
It’s an interesting concept “carbon neutrality” to a more intelligent person it means death.
hmmm
1 What is the carbon footprint of thousands of computers surfing the internet to find “Greening the Blue” and then spamming all your friends and encouraging them to do the same?
2 What is the carbon footprint the construction a new building compared with refurbishing an existing building? A 2 bed cottage is 80 tonnes according to the guardian, so multiply by 1689.000495, carry the 3, square the hypotenuse, add date of birth – 67,4746 Gt of CO2 for a new building (approx – maths isn’t my subject)
baa baa
Willis, you missed the biggest saving:
Everyone knows that economy class passengers use less fuel than 1st class, don’t they?
So good to see our money being so well spent.
I missed something. What the heck is climate neutrality? The only thing that seems sustainable is limitless supply of BS from the UN and the growth of bureaucrats in new and wonderful positions.
Of course I sort of lost interest when these wise people started telling me that they could control the climate.
When they come for the MONEY…we’ll all be fleeced.
Sorry, baaaaaaaad joke. (OK, OK, let’s get serious – don’t let them pull the wool over your eyes!
But remember, with a UN “Peace Keeper” force, “Sheep may (NOT) safely graze…”
Max 🙂
They should have used Geese, you get a more even sward and better “fertilizer” – it waters straight in. Sheep Poo on the other had is mostly undigested fibre which takes for ever to degrade. That is why they can build businesses like this (http://www.creativepaperwales.co.uk/) out of it.
There’s that weasel word again:
‘Sustainability’
We need to genuinely be aware. The warmists are shifting the goalposts (yet again).
Because the globe is resolutely refusing to warm at an astronomical rate (maybe even cooling), the hotspot can’t be found, and all the ‘missing’ heat has gone to hide in the oceans, the watermelons have just re-named their cause so that they can continue their efforts to crush capitalism and hoard all the money for ‘true socialists’ such as themselves.
The UN have been employing sheep for years, but most of them sit in offices.
They churn out plenty of fertiliser, though.
Many of them even perform miracles in that some sheep provide bovine fertiliser.
There’s still space for the Sustainable Advisor on Sustainability.
Ah yes,
The United Nations system is strongly committed to leading by example and ensuring that our operations are continuously monitored
bringing Big Brother to you, one bureaucrat at a time…
“If one sheep leaps into a ditch, all the rest will follow.”, an old Klingon proverb. How appropriate.
Does the report say anything about the farting and belching of the sheep?
I use “whilst” from time to time.
Did they count the grazing sheep’s emissions in determining that this was reducing their carbon footprint?
How many legs did each sheep have?
I think they are on the right track here, it is of paramount importance they reduce the UN carbon footprint, as luck would have it, unlike most of what the UN emit this is do able. All we need to do is to stop feeding it any money at all and very soon the footprint will be zero and all our countries deficits will be reduced. A win win situation with no downside I can see!
Willis wrote:
2. A new UN building in Nairobi, Kenya, has 6,000 square feet of solar panels on the roof, and is rated (not measured but rated) at 515 kilowatts of power. No word on the cost, but it looks like a bureaucrat’s palace …
Looks like?????? Bawhahahaha!
Willis: Okay, I’ll bite: Were the “invitations” to the hundreds of sheep engraved? More importantly, did a UN Task Force conclude that sheep emitted methane ( a dangerous GHG) was less harmful than allowing the grass to achieve its natural height? Was an assessment performed to determine the threat to the underlying aquifer from fecal coliform? Was there a study performed on the harmful effects of noise pollution caused by all the constant bleating? It seems to me that this program was ripe for a full Environmental Impact Statement before it was implemented, and I have barely scratched the surface. Shouldn’t a protest be lodged with the State Department? NASA? NOAA? Somebody?
I have ceased using the word “whilst” and I shan’t use it in the future. Based on my experience I must eschew its use.
“The term climate neutrality is used in this book to mean living in a way which produces no net greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. This should be achieved by reducing your own GHG emissions as much as possible, and using carbon offsets to neutralize the remaining emissions.”
http://www.unep.org/publications/ebooks/kick-the-habit/Default.aspx?bid=ID0ELAAC
So, this is just more of the same old BS. I so wish the US would cut its contribution to the UN by 90%. Why are we ‘sustaining’ these idiots?
Ban: family name, meaning (roughly) “a clan”.
Ki-Moon: given name; Ki means “the basis”, and Moon “literature” or “a sentence”.
The sheep are there to provide a sustainable supply of ‘sheep disguises’ for the pending increase of UN wolves.
[H/T….Edwin R Murrow…”A nation of sheep begats a government of wolves”]
Well worth whilst reading. Thank you Willis. Is the sheep illustration your creation? It’s great.
From earlier this week:
thenewamerican.com/tech-mainmenu-30/environment/11637-tennessee-passes-resolution-slamming-socialist-un-agenda-21
steveta_uk says:
April 28, 2012 at 4:45 am
I’d say that a business class seat weighs at least a person’s weight more than an economy class seat. That makes their argument valid in this case. It is a foolish thing, as all we really want is enough room to be comfortable, not an extra 100 kilos of mechanics. My armchair at home is a lot less heavy.
I’ll travel first class* in that case, as the difference in weight between business and first is not that great. Logic fail, but I’m just following UN protocol….
(*not ‘first class’ as you get in US domestic flights – that is ‘economy plus’ for the rest of the world)