The agreement (seriously! 🙂 ): everyone can do their own thing –
After untold millions of dollars, years of essential travel to exotic holiday locations, and embarrassing failure after embarrassing failure, the world appears to finally be on the brink of signing a legally binding climate agreement.
The proposed agreement is, everyone can do their own thing.
According to the Sydney Morning Herald;
The United States is considering a proposal to combat climate change that would require countries to offer plans for curtailing greenhouse gas emissions on a certain schedule but would leave it to individual nations to determine how deep their cuts would be, said Todd Stern, the nation’s chief climate negotiator. … Negotiators are aiming to sign that deal next year in Paris.”
I guess we can all feel a sense of relief, that all that effort, time and money has not been a total waste of resources – that it has finally yielded something tangible.
h/t to Eric Worrall
Nope, it’s because they got ambitious bureaucrats, scheming politicians and greedy busnyshmen who are running a scam so jammy, they just can’t let it go.
‘Climate’ “Science” (TM) – It ain’t science and it’s not about the climate.
,
It’s a good compromise – at the moment.
It reminds me of the Church in Tonga. Everyone is free to donate what they can, but then the Church calls out loudly how much each family donates as they come forward. This forces people to borrow money to donate to the Church, so they won’t look bad to their neighbors.
This is the US agenda. Shame and blame, based on how much you can cut. Not on how much you emit. So big per capita emitters like the US can claim to be making big savings, while small per capita emitters like India cannot afford to make any cuts.
The US will make a big deal of how much they are cutting, then try and shame the developing world for not making any cuts. Much like Al Gore, huge carbon footprint, telling everyone else to cut theirs. Self-riches hypocrites.
Gluttons, living high off the hog, telling everyone else to eat less, to cut back from 1 meal a day to 0, because they have cut back from eating 10 meals a day to only 9.
Fwiw, I still don’t see China and India agreeing to any treaty no matter how watered down it is. They are still pushing for the possible benefits of their “Developing” nation status. They want our cash and technology, if that’s not part of the deal, they won’t sign.
Does this announcement mean that the IPCC panel of scientists have completed their deliberations on the new information and results that have appeared since the last report ?
Was there a cutoff date for considering the published data, which could have debarred some of the very recent reports mentioned on this site that are trending towards a much lower climate sensitivity figure ?
It will be like pledge time at NPR. Just give what you feel you can afford, but remember, the future of our planet is at stake! And, you get an eco- tote bag.
Don’t be so cynical. I’m still using my “Red Dwarf” mouse pad from 20 years ago!
Waaait a minute, …
every country that agrees to this is accepting that we are causing the climate to change in a detrimental manner.
Ultimately, accepting the guilt means one must pay some form of reparation.
I am not getting a good feeling about this.
By 2015 will Europe still be functioning.
For some odd reason this clip came immediately to mind…….
.
There can be serious consequences even to such apparently toothless agreements. If Australia had been signed up to this agreement with respect to its previous emissions trading scheme, then it would have been more difficult for them to terminate that scheme as they did recently.
The effect of such an agreement is that it makes it more difficult for countries to back out of commitments they may have already made. I see it as a sign that the ecoloons are on the defensive and have given up trying to push for more crazy restrictions and have decided to settle for trying to hang onto what they’ve managed to get so far.
Abbott really should be ‘shirt fronting’ these tossers instead of worrying about Putin. Nothing like a bit of ‘in your face’ to send them scurrying off to never show their pathetic backsides again.
Why does all this remind me of the situation comedy whereby failure to acheive A is avoided by not having a plan for achieving A. After all, if there’s no plan, then the plan cannot fail.
I’d watch out for the “fine print” no doubt at the back of the document.
To my fellow Americans, vote for Republicans for the U.S. Senate, and push them to pass new legislation that limits the EPA and overturns the endangerment finding for CO2.
By my reading from afar, the Republicans might not be the ones to fix this. The USA has Democrat and Democrat lite. What the USA population needs to do is put more tea party candidates into Washington so that individual liberty, small and cheap government get onto the agenda. Then they should support a constitutional ammendment that returns the control of the public service to the representative government (congress) and gives a representative government the power to remove a President by simple vote or referendum without the need for an impeachment. The POTUS has far to much power for a single person.
Just for the spooks, hi there… America needs to stay strong and free for our sake as well as your own, the fact that a misbehaving President can be politically protected by a partisan congress or senate is a real risk to your democracy, The POTUS being a single person is not representative, not democratic in any way, the powers that a single partisan person has must be minimised in favour of the representative parliament. Nor does the USA have a tidy method for resolving a government deadlock like going back to the electorate. I think that’s a big problem. Westminster democracies are much better in this respect. I am very PRO USA but I think your political system is a huge risk.
Seems like a trend for these climate conferences …
http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2014/09/29/what-was-actually-agreed-at-the-ny-climate-conference-of-2014/
The smell of desperation permeates the CAGW crowd. Despite controlling the media and politics supporting CAGW the meme is turning on itself as a caricature of the boy who cried wolf.
Hello! This is not going to work. The legally binding agreement was never about climate, it was about a massive transfer of wealth to developing countries. In Copenhagen most of the talk was about evil capitalism and climate justice(wealth transfer). Listening here in Sweden(as a US citizen) I was relieved to hear Hillary Clinton say that the USA would only agree to a substantial fund for developing countries if the developing countries were legally bound. The developing countries are still looking for their money, the UN machine still wants their world tax and control so how the heck is even this deal going to work out?
Oh wait… I know. In Paris they congratulate themselves on the historic legally binding agreement and will move forward with renewed fervor at future COP meetings at exotic locations to discuss a framework to redistribute the wealth of the developed world to the dictators of the developing world. This preserves the self-perpetuating machine of the UNFCCC keeping 10s of thousands of useless parasites pleased. Still the third world countries are not going to be happy.
Wow, I’m impressed. Bet they won’t send out the template and do it all by webinar though…
Love that “consensus decision making”. Everybody gets a piece of pie!
The goal has been achieved; the West has reached the Keynesian endpoint. Therefore, no further action will be necessary.
But still not enough to undo the whole UN/EU/IMF/IPPC Climate Fraud, as in:
http://cleanenergypundit.blogspot.com/2011/10/west-is-facing-new-severe-recession.html and
http://cleanenergypundit.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/tygerfound-whereas-1.html and
http://cleanenergypundit.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/eroei-or-iou-e-nergy-r-eturned-o-ver-e.html and
http://cleanenergypundit.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/eating-sun-fourth-estatelondon-2009.html and
http://cleanenergypundit.blogspot.co.uk/2014/08/tyger-growl-knowing-of-burt-rutansince.html etc.
Not to be overlooked is that virtually all states accept the IPCC bribe of Taxing Air (as the book with this title by Bob Carter* & John Spooner just published by Kelpie Press in Australia explains). Dead horse trading, if ever there was some: Carbon trading worldwide reached $126 billion in 2008 [Jo Nova’s SPPI paper Climate Money et al http://joannenova.com.au ], and just how much this IPCC collection of tributes costs the UK alone, is stated by Matt Ridley in his Angus Millar Lecture of the Royal Society of Arts Edinburgh, 31 October 2011: “Remember Britain’s unilateral Climate Change Act is officially expected to cost the hard-pressed UK economy £18.3 billion a year for the next 39 years and achieve an immeasurably small change in carbon dioxide levels.
http://cleanenergypundit.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/gleichschaltung-as-i-mentioned-thisword.html
what when there’s XMAS and nobody comes.
Happy New Year 2015!
This zone is for loading and unloading. Only.
This is “My United States of Whatever”:
Has it really come down to this? What a joke… We’re getting at the beginning of the end the CAGW scam:
New verse: So some UN dude comes up to me and says, ” Hey man, how much CO2 will you cut”, and I’m all like, “WHATEVA”…
The truth is the truth …. even when spoken by a minority of one. How long will it be before I hear a politician ask “are we really sure there is a problem ?”
That’s what happens when it doesn’t warm for 18 years – people yawn.
In Australia, the former Labor/ Greens minority Government took its advice on climate change from the Garnaut Review 2011, by Economics Professor Ross Garnaut, an update of his 2008 Report. The Review had 2 pillars –
1. The scientific case expounded by the UN IPCC has been confirmed ” beyond reasonable doubt”.
” The most important and straightforward of the quantitatively testable propositions from the mainstream science- upward trends in average temperatures and increases in sea levels – have either been confirmed or shown to be understated by the passage of time.” ( page 17 of the Review).Readers can gauge the accuracy of this from the “hiatus” debate.
2.” Against all odds, there is an international agreement on mitigating climate change ( a reference to the Cancun 2 degrees Agreement).The world is on its way towards substantially reducing emissions growth.” ( page 47).
It is difficult to overstate the impact of these documents on Australian public policy until Prime Minister Abbott’s government repealed the carbon tax this year. The likely cost to Australia of the former policy through to 2050 is estimated to have been one trillion Australian dollars.
Last year , Professor Garnaut wrote in the Australian Financial Review that the new model of national targets and international monitoring had much to recommend it. The following day , an apparent supporter of the CAGW hypothesis wrote a letter to the paper’s Editor stating that the new approach looked to be ” the child of failure”.
A perfect summary.