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 …
A Real Example for the UN of a “CO2 Negative Office”
Redwood Tree House:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/n1won/5279151662/in/photostream/
Inside the Tree:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/n1won/5279152016/in/photostream/
A Candidate for the UN:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/n1won/5279152258/in/photostream/
The above example is cut down and on its side, but it still sequesters a lot of Carbon.
If it had been kept alive in place, it would continue to remove CO2 from the air and store carbon in its wood.
This idea has been “tongue in cheek”,
but this tree office would partially meet the task of being CO2 negative for the atmosphere.
I took photos out of the windows of the UN building in Geneva on 03.30.2012. Having examined all the ones that show grass, I can still see no sheep. Nor did I see any whilst I was there.
There was a big wooden chair outside that could do with fixing though.
The UN. UN-nations?
“Whilst” it’s nice that nations still have a forum to talk to each without losing face after they’ve severed diplomatic relations before they start shooting at each other, beyond that, what have they really done? Sucker kids into getting pennies for them instead of candy on Halloween?
“2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”
The danger is that this clause of the US Contitution will be used to force us to obey some BS the UN comes up with.”all Treaties made”. We need to quit the UN. What have they really done for us?
Gunga Din,
Yes, we need to quit the UN and evict them from our shores.
And you commented that “it’s nice that nations still have a forum to talk to each without losing face after they’ve severed diplomatic relations before they start shooting at each other”. But the UN is not necessary for that, either. Before the UN existed, neutral countries like Switzerland fulfilled that function, and more effectively than the self-serving UN.
I can think of no reason whatever that we should be a part of that corrupt kleptocracy.
Willis
Not completely faceless.
http://www.greeningtheblue.org/case-study/greening-fao-role-environmental-coordinator
I believe Mrs Julie Claire McKenzie is both the former New Zealand Ambassador to Italy and surprise the UN Food and Agriculture Organization Ambassador as well. Before that I could not find anything.
Smokey says:
April 28, 2012 at 12:42 pm
Gunga Din,
Yes, we need to quit the UN and evict them from our shores.
And you commented that “it’s nice that nations still have a forum to talk to each without losing face after they’ve severed diplomatic relations before they start shooting at each other”. But the UN is not necessary for that, either. Before the UN existed, neutral countries like Switzerland fulfilled that function, and more effectively than the self-serving UN.
I can think of no reason whatever that we should be a part of that corrupt kleptocracy.
=================
No arguement.
“Whilst” and “while” are still used interchangeably in the UK but the former has apparently died out in the US. See also “among” vs “amongst” and “amid” vs “amidst.” I think the “st” on the end is used more in the written word, and the other versions are the spoken/colloquial variety.
For those wishing to learn more about Agenda 21 E.M.Smith did an excellent post on the subject at Chiefio – well worth reading .
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/12/18/foia-agenda-21/
In the age of the internet, the UN don’t need no d***ed buildings! Let these morons work from home and use GoToMeeting.
Jim, you asked above about Agenda 21. I wrote a post on it in February called Rio+20 Meets Agenda 21.
Part of the problem is that they wrap their naked power grab in such flowery language. For example, here’s a translation from my cited article:
So you won’t find something that says “we want to institute a world government with the power to control the least of your activities” … but if you read and translate the bureaucratese, that is exactly what they are saying.
w.
“”””” Gunga Din says:
April 28, 2012 at 12:32 pm
The UN. UN-nations?
“Whilst” it’s nice that nations still have a forum to talk to each without losing face after they’ve severed diplomatic relations before they start shooting at each other, “””””
The most recent occasion on which the United Nations succeeded in stopping people from shooting at each other was August 15 1945.
Since that day, the UN has been batting zero in peace keeping.
The Government already confiscates assets without a trial. The burden of proof of someone accussed of a crime to get their belongings back is up to them, and if you are left destitute, how do you get your assets back?
Catch 22, the Government seizes assets first, and does not return them after a not-guilty verdict.
Here is the official link to the Governments page:
http://www.justice.gov/jmd/afp/05participants/index.htm
An old article on how this was abused when it first came out:
http://www.fff.org/freedom/1093c.asp
And a page on this from WUWT of all place on land confiscation going right towards agenda 21: (you can read off the relevant parts of Agenda 21 and see it applied as per a local official in California.)
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/06/the-ugly-battle-between-rural-residents-and-alternative-energy-mandates-in-california/
There are plenty of places to find stories of people who lost their land or their property without due process. Whether this is according to Agenda 21 can be debated or whether its the American people simply losing their rights to their own property, but I think the story is clear on that score.
“”””” dp says:
April 28, 2012 at 11:01 am
The tailplane of a typically configured aircraft creates aerodynamic force that pushes downward, not upward, to provide flight stability. Putting more weight aft creates less requirement for downward aerodynamic force (lift = drag – even downward lift) and so provides for greater efficiency of that flying surface. It also unloads the main wing which also becomes more efficient. Taken too far the aircraft can become unstable, leading to an uncomfortable porpoising effect in flight. They probably deserve it. Regardless of where they sit the airlines try to configure the center of gravity for greatest safety and flight efficiency. “””””
So if we restrict our attention to the “lift anomaly” ; being good climbat scientists, we subtract out the fuselage lift as being a background more or less long term average; then the lift anomaly is solely due to the wings and the tail surfaces, and since you say that the tail surfaces PUSH DOWN, that be the jungle language for negative lift, then the entire lift anomaly has to be provided by the “main wing”, and any 4-H club lecture on mechanics, would explain that the net lift must be zero if the plane is maintaining altitude, then it is inescpable that the wing load must be increased if the tail surfaces are pushing down.
I submit that the tail surfaces are indeed providing positive lift, to overcome the gravimetric weight of the tail, so that the tail doesn’t crash, while the main wing surfaces are also providing positive lift to support the rest of the plane weight (less of course the fuselage lift )
The only pushing down (negative lift) is being done by gravity; and in fact that is PULLING DOWN rather than pushing. Any other pushing down, simply wastes fuel.
Willis: This will go down as one of your classics.
The UN is a monumental waste of taxpayers’ money: travel; yak-yak-yak; banquet; write report full of cliches – ad infinitum.
@ur momisugly Willis Eschenbach says:
April 28, 2012 at 3:17 pm
Jim, you asked above about Agenda 21. I wrote a post on it in February called Rio+20 Meets Agenda 21.
Part of the problem is that they wrap their naked power grab in such flowery language. For example, here’s a translation from my cited article:
************************************************************************************
In a nutshell, it’s all about who is in charge. Nothing new there, been going on for millenia. So the only real question is who wins? And what does it take to win? Sun Tzu had a few things to say about that, as did many others. I suggest that the skeptic community could learn a lot about how to win by boning up on basic strategy. People should really understand that in the end, when diplomacy and “scientific” arguments and such don’t yield a win, naked force will determine the outcome. To ignore that is to admit defeat.
In this game, the most committed wins.
steveta_uk says: April 28, 2012 at 4:45 am
I like to refer to things according to how life *really* works. Therefore, I refer to “economy class” as STEERAGE. This is much more evocative considering how the passengers are packed in. Plus “steerage” also correctly reflects the manner in which the airlines (and the TSA) treat their customers.
Not so harmless. One of the major outputs is text for treaties and such, and when gov’ts sign on to them, bad things begin to happen. This is a several-steps extrapolated demonstration of the adage, “Elections have consequences.” So to the libraries full of agreements and international commitments said elected bodies are offered/urged/pushed to sign — by their very own Bureaucratic Corps, who object only when some of their own turf is threatened.
Danger, Pam Gray-Robinson!
typo: “so too the libraries…”
It could have been worse! It looks like the most recent good news communicated from “97% of Climate Neutral Scientists” by the UN’s newly minted “iconic” photo image “Vision” picturing the UN’s people so happily milling around and in a garbage bin is that sustainable production of Soylent Green can be achieved merely by “redistributing” all people over ~30-35 years old directly back to the remainder of the living! Or maybe only 4/5ths of such people. Whew, that was a close one! I almost had to go back to the Stone Age.
In this FAO document, Julie MacKenzie is represented as, “Her Excellency Julie C. MacKenzie, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of New Zealand to FAO. The document describes a meeting in Rome, by the way, that is a perfect exemplar of the pointless bureaucratic meanderings that cost money, produce nothing, and entertain many. One may be sure that Ms. MacKenzie saw the sights and enjoyed dining out while in Rome. All expenses paid.
September 2009 found Ms. MacKenzie in Geneva, Switzerland, where this pdf delegate list shows her in a most-serious confabulation about “Greening the UN.”
And here’s a good one: In 1998, Julie MacKenzie, as New Zealand Consul General, gave the opening address at Fifth OceaniaFoods conference held in Noumea, New Caledonia. Not Tahiti, but warm white sand beaches and appropriate diversions. I wonder why Sydney, AU wasn’t good enough. Inconveniently urban, maybe.
Paraphrasing Loius XIV, its good to be a politico-bureaucrat. What was that phrase? Oh, yeah: they did well by doing good. Ms. MacKenzie’s reality.
The UN… leading the world in sustainable jargon. Just look at all those impressive sounding titles… they must be so very important.
The only sustainability goal of the UN is sustainable spending.
Reblogged this on TaJnB | TheAverageJoeNewsBlogg.
My wife says “acrosst”, but she’s from New Jersey.
Louis Hooffsteter says:
April 28, 2012 at 4:02 am
What exactly does the U.N. do?
The United Nations itself has recently released reports documenting two of its worst stumbles.
Did they also mention that their own rules caused those “stumbles”? Ever since the debacles in the (former) Belgian Congo in the ’50s, UN Peacekeepers are allowed to carry weapons, but forbidden to have ammunition for them.