Rupert Darwall writes in “Real Clear Politics”
Tuesday’s climate summit at the U.N. may well mark a turning point in the long-running talks as the reality sinks in that they are heading nowhere. For sure, the rhetoric is unchanged. Recently appointed U.N. peace messenger Leonardo DiCaprio is the show’s newest star, telling the meeting that it was “humankind’s greatest challenge.” But the older acts sounded stale. Former Vice President Al Gore demonstrated his green credentials when he said that political will was “a renewable resource,” recycling a line he’d first used at the 2007 Bali climate conference.
Underneath the overheated rhetoric and the U.N. platitudes about acting together, the signs of failure are already apparent. The original intent of the summit was to put world leaders on the spot. With the eyes of the world upon them, they would feel compelled to make ambitious pledges to cut greenhouse gas emissions that could be inked in to a legally binding text. Instead, the leaders that came were let off the hook. Now they are only expected to submit their proposals by March next year. All the talk was of reaching “agreement” in Paris, which is a long way short of agreeing to a treaty. Countries were going to agree to make contributions to tackle global warming, not hard and fast commitments to cut greenhouse gas emissions. Contributions are much weaker than commitments. For developing countries, it means listing the sorts of things they are doing anyway – a bit of reforestation here, some solar panels there.
All these are signs of slippage.
…
There were quite a number of empty seats in the chamber as the president spoke. Secretary of State John Kerry played with his BlackBerry. Many looked bored. At the end of the president’s remarks, the most enthusiastic applause came from DiCaprio. Perhaps that’s because he’s good actor. The climate change talks might be attracting dwindling audiences. But there’s one thing you can bet on: the climate change show will run and run.
“But there’s one thing you can bet on: the climate change show will run and run.”
If it were just the “show”, we could live with (i.e. ignore) it. The climate taxes and regulatory bureaucracies, not so much. And those will still be going strong long after even the zealots have ceased pretending to care about the show.
Dav09
You wrote
Yes!
The AGW-scare was killed at the failed 2009 IPCC Conference in Copenhagen. I said then that the scare would continue to move as though alive in similar manner to a beheaded chicken running around a farmyard. It continues to provide the movements of life but it is already dead. And its deathly movements provide an especial problem.
Nobody will declare the AGW-scare dead: it will slowly fade away. This is similar to the ‘acid rain’ scare of the 1980s. Few remember that scare unless reminded of it but its effects still have effects; e.g. the Large Combustion Plant Directive (LCPD) exists. Importantly, the bureaucracy which the EU established to operate the LCPD still exists. And those bureaucrats justify their jobs by imposing ever more stringent, always more pointless, and extremely expensive emission limits which are causing enforced closure of UK power stations.
Bureaucracies are difficult to eradicate and impossible to nullify.
As the AGW-scare fades away those in ‘prime positions’ will attempt to establish rules and bureaucracies to impose those rules which provide immortality to their objectives. Guarding against those attempts now needs to be a serious activity.
Richard
Richard,
The lunatic governor(D) of Washington State has promised to inflict a draconian “carbon tax.” Informed commentary from insiders suggest he is contemplating the equivalent of an executive order because at least one of the legislative chambers would vote such a thing down.
…suggests…
Anyone see the picture of DeCaprio’s yacht? My guesstimate is ten gallons per mile, running at is most economical speed.
Here is his yacht. 🙂 The second image is a yacht which her rented, which according to the Mails is “the Topaz, the fifth largest yacht in the world to sail around Brazil for his World Cup trip. It is owned by a UAE oil tycoon” This is how to fight against climate change.
http://im41.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Leonardo-Dicaprio-Private-Yacht-600×444.jpg
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/09/23/1411496707550_wps_9_British_designed_and_Germ.jpg
Do you mean the yacht, Topaz? DiCaprio keeps turning up wherever there’s a yacht party, but even with his $200+ millions, he can only afford to rent the Topaz, not buy it. The yacht is bought and paid for by Arab oil money (just like Leo.)
http://www.arabnews.com/news/587226
A broader interpretation than France’s President is that skepticism appears to be dominate and growing in the general culture outside of the axis of the politicals and activists with their mythology serving scientists in tow. That means it isn’t the politicals and activists advocating climate change causes that are the ones doing a realized “mobilization of society”, it is instead those critical of that cause.
John
I need some help. I’m just starting to learn this side of the debate and I’m looking to understand how high the future atmospheric CO2 level could be. not in one hundred years, but say 200 and beyond. I am also curious about fossil fuel reserves, and how these two will play out.
I understand we have gone from about 280 ppm to 400 ppm, and I don’t suspect there is much issue going to a few thousand ppm, (As a horticulturalist, I’m good with higher CO2) but I don’t know what the upper limit of CO2 will be in the long term. What are the predicted fossil fuel reserves? how high can we (or natural systems) drive CO2 levels before we simply run out of the reserves?
I suspect much of the carbon will find home in the biomass of increasing plant matter, but what happens after the fossil fuels have all been depleted? What could the CO2 levels fall to after that? Will the CO2 levels decline to a point that it can’t support the biomass that was increased with higher CO2 levels?
I find it amazing that humans have such a short fossil record on this planet, yet nature has so quickly conspired to turn us into its little carbon miners. It’s like the plants and animals all got together and said, “look at these guys, they’ll never make it here unless they dig up our ancestors remains and use it for fuel and energy, lets farm them like ants and use them to put all our carbon back into the cycle…”
I personally would not concern myself about co2 levels beyond this century. Why? Because from what I have read from various sources the world population will stabilize between 2050 and 2100, then fall. Check out the plunging fertility rate for the Earth.
REFERENCES
“Don’t Panic – The Truth About Population”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03h8r1j
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-24835822
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-24836917
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-24303537
http://www.aei-ideas.org/2013/05/population-bomb-no-theres-been-a-massive-global-drop-in-human-fertility-that-has-gone-largely-unnoticed-by-the-media/
In doing the kind of calculations that you want a good data point is that the primeval atmosphere at the beginning of the photosynthesis period is thought to be about 10% CO2 (that is 25,000% greater than today).
http://books.google.com/books?id=5LSRjAbcG2wC&pg=PA152&lpg=PA152&dq=primeval+atmosphere+co2+amount&source=bl&ots=1GGxZilgzI&sig=A5djnhC2_BTm7njD-S8k7mbuaZo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=KiUmVKCJF-rLsAS1lYHoAg&ved=0CCEQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=primeval%20atmosphere%20co2%20amount&f=false
A ballpark estimate is that the bulk of that 10% CO2 atmosphere has been sunk as fossil carbon due to photosynthesis by plants. Burning fossil carbon has returned enough CO2 to the atmosphere to increase the level about 80ppm. Hence, we can conclude that we have in the industrial era burned somewhere on the order of 0.1% of the fossil carbon. The other 99.9% will, of course, become increasingly difficult to extract economically.
Maybe you should consider calcium carbonate in your analysis.
Maybe you have that backwards, the plants were so successful at sequestering carbon, they almost starved, they then conned the monkeys into digging up the missing carbon and setting free into the atmosphere again.
Plant heaven. monkeys eat good too.
Well, as far as I am concerned, there is little to choose between movie actors, and criminal defense lawyers. In my book of rules, there are NO exceptions to the applicability of one’s set of moral principles. You ARE what you practice. “I am just an actor, playing a role.” is not a defence. Nor is, “everyone is entitled to legal representation.”
Well I do accept BOTH of those rationalizations. And that’s what they are.
I have seen precisely one de Caprio film. In that he portrayed Howard Hughes, in some fashion. Well Hughes himself, became a bit of a nut job; but he DID accomplish many things; some totally invaluable.
His money came from the Hughes Tool Company; world renowned for inventing the tools, that make drilling for oil through solid rock, a practical reality. So de Caprio gets a fail, for putting aside his “water melon” aberration, just to make money by glorifying an accomplished genius, who is responsible for the nemesis of de Caprio’s green nirvana.
I’m not sure, but I think, he also sat astride the bow of the Titanic, while it was about to nose dive to the ocean floor; or something along those lines. Totally silly imagery of a great tragedy. (caused by “MMCGWACC”)
Didn’t see that flick. I remember the original one; “A Night to Remember.” (I think). And the ship still sank, so why redo it ??
In marketing, one tries to draw attention to unique aspects of one’s product or service that consumers will make decisions against. Things like lower price, or longer lasting products, or unique features that the competition doesn’t have. Anything and everything that will differentiate you in the market. And what does the marketing department do when they have nothing of substance to bring to the consumer’s attention?
Answer: Celebrity endorsements.
Sure Di Caprio is a good actor. He pretends to give a hoot whilst lording it up on his oil-rich billionaire buddies superyacht.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2656850/Leonardo-DiCaprio-borrows-one-largest-superyachts-earth-treat-pals-World-Cup-style.html
With a “carbon” footprint the size of Manhattan
I do wonder about all these multimillionaire climate activists. The hypocrisy of many homes and big cars and private jets is one thing, but it’s so obvious that they know “Climate Change”TM is not happening the way they claim. I mean, if the world is going to be dangerously hot, and we’re all going to be inundated by extreme sea levels, why are they not buying homes on mountains in the Northern Territories or Tierra del Fuego?
I’m still waiting for the price of beachfront property to drop. Prices would drop if the sea level were really a threat.
Thanks, Rupert Darwall. Yes, the show must go on!
But this show is dangerous, to humans and democracy.
And the actor spokesman could not be better, I saw him in “Titanic”.
So the proposals are delayed until the next meeting in March. That’s GREAT! There will another winter under our belts and it’s shaping up to be a bruiser. Excellent chance that as they complain about all the warming and how everyone’s going to flagellate themselves about it, winter will hammer them. Might even get a notable Gore Effect. Can hardly wait.
I do hope that this coming ‘bruiser’ of a winter doesn’t cause too many deaths of poor pensioners in UK or elsewhere.
They are, of course, conditioned by the wonderful so-shall-eests to believe that they will be looked after to the end of their days.
Out of the tax payers’ money, which the said lefties slashed in 2008-9.
AND.
Unless it follows natural cycles, and gets cold . . . . .
Thought this needed to be opined.
Auto
Hey, no one wants ‘Global Warming’ ™ more than I do! I lived in the Yukon for the better part of a decade. Trust me, warm is better than cold.
Michael,
Please remember that, according to the alarmists, the cold winter in the US was caused by global warming and it was irrelevant anyway because everywhere else it was hotter’nhell.
Thanks! For a moment there I forgot.
“…
With the eyes of the world upon them, they would feel compelled to make ambitious pledges to cut greenhouse gas emissions that could be inked in to a legally binding text. Instead, the leaders that came were let off the hook. Now they are only expected to submit their proposals by March next year.
…”
Meanwhile, the leaders probably had many nice partys in the Big Apple – at our expense, mind you – so, not a total failure.
/sarc
“Oh, you are one of those.” – Bernie Sanders
Thanks a lot Bernie. But if I must be one of “those”, I must say, you must be one of “those” typical politicians; blissfully ignorant and full of dishonest rationale.
Leonardo DeCaprio is a brilliant,intelligent actor. I like him alot as an actor. As a scientist/politician he is making terrible decisions and to me looks like an idiot.
Kind of like Micahel Jordan, greatest there is at basketball, sucked at baseball.
I will still watch DeCaprio movies.
U.N. peace messenger Leonardo DiCaprio is the show’s newest star, telling the meeting that it was “humankind’s greatest challenge.”
By ‘humankind’ perhaps he meant environmental activists. Their greatest challenge is to convince the world of climate catastrophe and that our salvation lies in eliminating fossil fuels. Like it or not, the reality is the whole world including the politicians and activists who attended the UN conference is happily burning fossil fuels. Words are cheap. Actions are harder. They should stop using cars, airplanes and electricity. Until they do that, it’s all a big joke and showmanship. The show is a waste of money and it isn’t even funny.
DiCaprio is such a little twit, flying to Rio during the world cup to party on his billionaire giant yacht, emitting more co2 in a week than the rest of us do in a lifetime. He can take his arrogance and shove it.
Not that enamored with DiCaprio and his movie, The Titanic. I was raised by folks who became acquaintances with the celebs on the Titanic that survived the trip. Decidedly less glamorous than the movie.
Maggie (the name Molly was a Hollywood movie invention) was in New York working with young actresses the same time my grandmother was trying to make it in the entertainment industry. It was because of Maggie’s work with young actresses that grandma strongly advocated for a move to Hollywood out West in California. So she and her new husband (my grandpa) drove out West. It wasn’t long before she began working for Cecil B. DE Mille. She conveniently forgot to tell Cecil that not only was she married, she was 5 months pregnant when they eventually fired her for getting “fat”.
Seems the women folk in my family have a habit of doing that. My great-grandmother got fired as the Principal of the Lostine High School in Oregon. Why? She got married.
I liked Titanic the movie quite a lot, well, Kate Winslet who I thought was perfect for her role. DiCaprio I hardly noticed but at the time thought competent. I thought DiCaprio was good as Hughes in Aviator. But then I never knew Howard Hughes personally so I could be wrong.
I went to see the film too to find out what happened.
Anthony writes about “the signs of failure” in the Climate crusade, but it is important to keep in mind what makes these folks tick. In two words: moral posturing. It is not necessary to successfully pass legislation to gain status as someone who cares more deeply than the rest of us,. You get to win REGARDLESS of the outcome.
Think of the death penalty protesters. They are protesting to prevent punishment of the vilest sort of murderers, even though society MUST punish murderers if we are to maintain civil order.
The key is that we are supposed to judge these protesters, not by the true outcome of their recommended policies on society, but on whether they, personally, 1st person singular, mean well.
DiCaprio’s very public preening is a perfect example.
Leo DiCrapio says it all. A dunce of a stool. It’s getting near Xmas; DiCrapio to audition for Mr. Hankey role.
I wonder who wrote his speech.
I also wonder how much he is being paid.
I went to the following link, seeking information.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_Summit
It contains zero content about what actually happened at the event. One more sign the event was a bust. Irrelevant.
richardscourtney
September 28, 2014 at 1:37 am
Gary Pearse
You also assert….etc.
Hi Richard, I have a towering respect for you as an intellectual and a person of high integrity. I want you to know this so that argument doesn’t get yellowed with wrong nuances. Moreover, I also have socialists in the family whom I love dearly and respect. They of course get some argument from me, you can be sure. Despite divergence in our political philosophies, probably you wouldn’t suspect that, although I believe the best course for humankind is a freedom to do and compete with regulations that keep things as fair as possible without killing the golden goose, I’m also a believer in political competition. Both ends of the political spectrum and the middle, without free and fair competition to form the government, WILL drift inexorably to totalitarianism because of an innate trait to do as we would like – the selfish part of human nature.
To me, socialism has the upper hand in attractiveness of message – “you aren’t getting your fair share” and ready demons to point to – those who make a lot of money (although there is disingenousness and opportunism in it). They also have the upper hand in education K to Grad School, the UN, nearly all NGOs and most public institutions. Indeed, it is a miracle that the right wing survives at all – I think this is a measure of the strength of self-interest in the individual that I alluded to.
Re- who was first in the climate change business. Surely Margaret didn’t do some sensitivity calculations in her off time? My man, Maurice S was away ahead in spotting the opportunity in the environmental movement meet his Dr. Evil type goals. Dr. Evil failed because he didn’t have Moe’s networking skills.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_Strong#Stockholm_Conference
Read his biography. He is the definition of socialist elitist – wealthy and a seeker of ways to effect world government. He used the environmental movement cynically in an effort to achieve his goals. Here’s a quote:
“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
Gary Pearse
I suspect we may have more in common than you think.
Elitists are wrong whatever political philosophy they claim to espouse. And elitism is a denial of socialism in that it assumes the desires of some are more important than the needs of others.
And it is plain evil to assert
““Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
No political ideology can excuse that.
Richard