From Dr. Benny Peiser of the GWPF
Rich Nations Block Push To Count Past CO2 Emissions At UN Climate Summit
Japan set a new target for greenhouse gas emissions that critics say will set back United Nations talks for a treaty limiting fossil fuel emissions. The new target effectively reverses course from the goal set four years ago by allowing a 3.1 per cent increase in emissions from 1990 levels rather than seeking a 25 per cent cut. —Bloomberg, 15 November 2013
Japan’s decision added to gloom at the Warsaw talks, where no major countries have announced more ambitious goals to cut emissions, despite warnings from scientists about the risks of more heatwaves, droughts, floods and rising sea levels. —Reuters, 15 November 2013
Slow-moving U.N. negotiations on fighting climate change can advance only if rich nations fulfill their promise to provide billions of dollars in finance to developing countries, China’s chief climate negotiator Su Wei said Thursday. He told reporters in Warsaw that developed nations should make good on pledges made in 2010 and immediately pay the promised $30 billion to help poor countries cope with the effects of climate change. Rich countries also need to clarify how they intend to scale that up to $100 billion per year by 2020, he said. “That would be a very important starting point and key to the successful conclusion of the negotiation of a (post-)2020 agreement,” said Su. —Reuters, 14 November 2013
The U.S. and European Union blocked a proposal supported by 130 nations including Brazil and China that would use [CO2 emission] levels dating back to the industrial revolution to help set limits on emissions in the future. The proposal goes to the heart of one of the most divisive concepts in the talks — the notion of equity. Developing countries say that because industrialized nations have been emitting greenhouse gases for 200 years, they must bear the most responsibility to rein in the pollution blamed for global warming. Richer countries see a focus on the past as a tool by poorer nations to avoid making bigger efforts to curtail their own emissions. –Alex Morales, Bloomberg, 15 November 2013
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Russia will soon join, they’ve always been lukewarm about emissions mitigation, and the Russian Academy of Science has been warning about imminent global cooling since 2006
http://en.ria.ru/russia/20060825/53143686.html
thisisnotgoodtogo says (November 15, 2013 at 3:14 pm): “The Russians want their money”
Actually, they want our money.
It’s like a whole damn country of Obamas!
Mario Lento says:
November 15, 2013 at 4:20 pm
“Thank you for the post. I find it difficult to nail down the actual debt to gdp ratio. We have 17.15T in debt, and our GDP is 15.97T. The actual calculation comes to a bit over 107% when I do it.
Anyone here know how the number is supposed to be calculated?”
Go to
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html
into “economy”and “public debt”; where you find the remark
“if data for intra-government debt were added, “Gross Debt” would increase by about one-third of GDP “
Japan’s statement was a direct result of the closing of nuclear power stations following the Fukushima disaster, which had been supplying 30% of their power. This is not a rejection of climate science, but an unfortunate consequence of a natural disaster coupled with a failed nuclear safety policy.
J. Philip Peterson says:
November 15, 2013 at 4:04 pm
The smarter nations are beginning to wise up. Let’s see who’s next.
______________________
Won’t be US. Our statist/progressive administration is doubling down.
At a certain level of nations opting out, support will collapse. Not too many will wish to kick the can when “developed” nations refuse. Hopefully the conference ends in total disarray and collapse. Hopefully, with nations refusing to be sucked in to the green abyss they will start to think deeper in to the motives behind the cAGW scam.
Remember this?
“China and India are among a handful of countries threatening to release a “time bomb” of “super greenhouse gases” that will cause global rates to skyrocket, a new report warns.
The report, by the Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA), a nonprofit group based in Washington D.C. and London, warns that EIA investigators have found that China and India are already planning to release the gas HFC-23, which is a by-product created in the production of a chemical (HCFC-22) primarily used in air conditioning and refrigeration.
To give you an idea of how potentially damaging this could be, the EIA estimates that HFC-23 is around 14,800 times more damaging to the climate than carbon dioxide.
“Chinese and Indian companies are holding the world hostage by threatening to set off a climate bomb if they don’t receive millions of dollars for the destruction of the HFC-23 that they are producing,” said Mark W. Roberts, EIA’s International Policy Advisor.
This is in part due to a recent change to the trade of so-called emission and carbon credits.
Read more: http://www.care2.com/causes/china-and-india-threaten-super-greenhouse-gas-time-bomb.html#ixzz2klaPeJH4”
Go ahead China, sue, Su.
Alan Robertson says:
November 15, 2013 at 4:44 pm
“Won’t be US” and I am afraid you are right. When did the US stop being a smart nation?
We were pretty smart in the 50’s and maybe 60’s.
15 Nov: UK Financial Times: Japan in greenhouse gas emissions U-turn
By Jonathan Soble in Tokyo and Jan Cienski in Warsaw
In a poll published on Tuesday by the Asahi (Japan) newspaper, 60 per cent of respondents said they supported abandoning nuclear power altogether, against 25 per cent who favoured the technology’s continued use…
Even if the target is revised, the 2009 goal is almost certain to remain out of reach, since many reactors are too old or too close to Fukushima to be restarted. The most ardent supporters of nuclear power say that at most half of Japan’s facilities will be used again…
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/20dfeda0-4dc1-11e3-8fa5-00144feabdc0.html
thisisnotgoodtogo says:
November 15, 2013 at 5:10 pm
“The report, by the Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA), a nonprofit group based in Washington D.C. and London,”
So who are these clowns?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_Investigation_Agency
“The Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA) is an NGO founded in 1984 by Dave Currey, Jennifer Lonsdale and Allan Thornton, three environmental activists in the United Kingdom.”
” “EIA’s track record of investigative work, scientific documentation, and representation at international conventions has earned EIA a reputation for highly effective and successful campaigning. EIA continues to share these skills with local groups and government officials to help empower them in the fight against environmental crime.”
– The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2007″
“EIA is a highly-respected, hard-hitting, dirt-digging organisation”.
– BBC Wildlife Magazine”
ROTFLMAO! Hey, Fabians, maybe you should cover up your traces a little better. Hint, don’t be so blatant in your bolshevikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hegelian_dialectic
“If the developing nations want to see the industrial revolution as a purely negative event it is only fair that they should live in pre industrial circumstances and not have the benefits it brought. You can’t have it both ways.
tonyb”
—————————————–
Tony, it’s what’s known as an ambit claim – i.e. one where you hope to get a good outcome by starting from a ridiculous proposition and then pretending to be reluctantly beaten down to something more moderate. Very common in trade union negotiations, as well as commercial ones.
It’s surprisingly successful as a tactic, because the egotists on the other side think that they have “won” by only conceding a small part of what was asked for.
In reality, of course, they should have conceded nothing – as you point out.
DirkH says:
November 15, 2013 at 4:41 pm
Go to
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html
into “economy”and “public debt”; where you find the remark
“if data for intra-government debt were added, “Gross Debt” would increase by about one-third of GDP “
++++++++++++
Thank you! I’ve always thought the number that makes most sense is to compare actual debt to actual GDP when talking about debt to gdp ratios. Your search and explanation helps me get over this. So again, thank you.
“To give you an idea of how potentially damaging this could be, the EIA estimates that HFC-23 is around 14,800 times more damaging to the climate than carbon dioxide.”
——————————————————
Around 14,800 times more damaging to the climate? What does that even mean?
Junk science rools OK.
CO2 has little to do with any of this. China wants the west to pony up its billions into Third World development funds. In turn these countries will use the credit to buy up Chinese goods and services. It’s been happily feasting off western economic insanity for over a decade now. Why are German solar companies going bankrupt left and right? Because China’s supplying panels at much lower cost, at least it was until the renewable FITs were cut.
Kyoto has never been about CO2 reduction as its principal goal. That was merely the means to an end, which was and is a fundamental realignment of world trade patterns. And the author of all this lunacy? “Uncle Mo” Strong? He’s still hiding out in Beijing, afraid, lest he go anywhere else, one of several thousand subpoenas will drop on him over Oil for Food scandals.
johanna says:
November 15, 2013 at 5:33 pm
“To give you an idea of how potentially damaging this could be, the EIA estimates that HFC-23 is around 14,800 times more damaging to the climate than carbon dioxide.”
——————————————————
Around 14,800 times more damaging to the climate? What does that even mean?
Junk science rools OK.
++++++++++++
I think you nailed it! But, just my 2 cents. Change the word damaging to affect. Have 14,800 times the affect than something that is very beneficial might also be interpreted as EXTREMELY beneficial. But that makes no sense if indeed HFC-23 is bad substance. OK – back to the same conclusion – JUNK science rules!
Back bill* them for it, plus interest.
Meanwhile, send the Chinese a DVD collection of Burke’s work titled: “Connections” or point them to:
* “back charge” – http://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/back-charge.asp
.
The next scare, count on it: http://www.scidev.net/global/climate-change/scidev-net-at-large/ocean-acidification-set-to-spiral-out-of-control.html
Mario, leaving aside the absurd use of “damaging”, the point is that they make the ridiculous assertion that 14,800 times an input has 14,800 times the effect. Not that they can tell us what the effect is.
I’m guessing that these people have never mastered basic cookery, let alone maths or physics. If I put 14,800 pinches of salt into a cakemix, it doesn’t make it 14,800 times worse.
You don’t need a PhD in anything to see what a load of cobblers this is.
What’s a little Co2 when you’re openly leaking radiation into the environment…
http://enenews.com/
Insurance Industry has been on the phone to David Cameron. no-shame-Cameron!
16 Nov: UK Guardian: Cameron links typhoon Haiyan to climate change
Prime minister seemingly endorses stance that global warming is creating more extreme weather patterns
Rowena Mason in Colombo, and Damian Carrington
Asked on Friday whether climate change was linked to the Philippines disaster, Cameron said: “I’ll leave the scientists to speak for themselves about the link between severe weather events and climate change. But the evidence seems to me to be growing. As a practical politician, I think the sensible thing is to say let’s take preventative and mitigating steps given the chances this might be the case.”…
Cameron’s comments come after Ed Davey, energy secretary, said it was possible that rising sea levels caused by global warming may have made some islands more vulnerable and made storms more intense.
However, Lord Lawson, a former Tory chancellor and leading figure in the party’s climate sceptic lobby, claimed on Thursday that there was absolutely no link between Haiyan and global warming…
***In comments appeared designed to appeal to sceptics in his party, Cameron made the case that Britain should tackle climate change as an “insurance policy”.
“There is no doubt there have been an increasing number of severe weather events in recent years,” he said. “And I’m not a scientist but it’s always seemed to me one of the strongest arguments about climate change is, even if you’re only 90% certain or 80% certain or 70% certain, if I said to you there’s a 60% chance your house might burn down, do you want to take out some insurance – you take out some insurance. I think we should think about climate change like that.”…
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/nov/16/david-cameron-climate-change-typhoon-haiyan
15 Nov: UK Guardian: Japan under fire for scaling back plans to cut greenhouse gases
UN climate talks in Warsaw face setback as U-turn on emissions angers developing countries in shadow of typhoon Haiyan
by John Vidal in Warsaw and Terry Macalister
The UN climate talks in Warsaw, Poland, were faced with a new crisis on Friday, after Japan, the world’s fifth largest greenhouse gas emitter, slashed its plans to reduce emissions from 25% to just 3.8% on 2005 figures…
Britain’s energy and climate change secretary, Ed Davey, called the decision “deeply disappointing” and at odds with the need to tackle global warming.
He was still hopeful that the UK and other members of the G8 leading economies could encourage Tokyo to change its mind.
“It is deeply disappointing that the Japanese government has taken this decision to significantly revise down its 2020 emissions target. This announcement runs counter to the broader political commitment to tackle climate change, recently reaffirmed by G8, as well as the enhanced ambition we have seen from the world’s major emitters,” he argued in unusually robust terms.
“Yet I believe we can persuade Japan to change her mind again, to resume her leadership role in the world on climate change. Despite the challenges, if the public backs the government it can invest in low carbon electricity,” he added…
***The aid package is thought to include supplying developing countries with “green” technologies developed by Japanese firms, including offshore wind turbines, fuel-cell vehicles and high-tech housing insulation. No figures were given on the scale of the emission cuts that the package might achieve…
http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2013/nov/15/japan-scaling-back-cut-greenhouse-gases
Japan’s electrical generation capacity is diminished because of their shutdown of all their nuclear reactors. China is building coal fired plants. Australia is giving their alarmist bureaucrats the boot. Their economy is in the dump, their currency is crashing. Japan needs to burn some coal to compete. Period, I love saying “period” like that.
The best way to reduce pollution (real pollution not CO2) is more wealth, but there can be few worse ways to increase wealth than just giving poor countries money.
I thought we were diluting the oceans by melting glacial ice with our SUV’s.
‘To give you an idea of how potentially damaging this could be, the EIA estimates that HFC-23 is around 14,800 times more damaging to the climate than carbon dioxide.’
I think we need to use the atom or hydrogen bomb metric in comparing HFC-23 to CO2. Just how many more atom bombs is HFC-23 equivalent to compared to caaarbonnn? A thousand? A million? The public needs to know,
It ain’t over till General Electric says its over.
I mean GE is running the show, right ?
Or did they bail out ?