Guest essay by Eric Worrall
The proposed draft UN climate agreement is reported to have ballooned to 100 pages, from the 38 page draft discussed at the Lima holiday conference.
According to the Sydney Morning Herald;
“… It’s like 195 authors trying to write a book together,” said Ahmed Sareer of the Maldives, chair of the 44-nation Alliance of Small Island States, which added text including stress on a need for deep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions.
“It’s to be expected,” Elina Bardram, head of the European Commission delegation, said of the additions.
The European Union added text, for instance, outlining proposals for cutting emissions from aviation and shipping under a global deal to avert more heatwaves, floods and droughts. The United Nations says 2014 was the warmest year on record.
The new text, of about 100 pages, swells a draft of 38 pages from talks in Lima last year, complicating the task ahead of a Paris summit starting in November that is due to agree a UN deal to limit global warming.
Given the fact that countries are free to write their own terms, including joke effort’s like China’s agreement to do nothing until the 2030s, in return for America agreeing to commit economic suicide, the greatest contribution to CO2 reduction Paris is likely to produce, will be the sequestration in some dusty filing cabinet, of all the carbon copies, of what promises to be the longest climate agreement ever written.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Reblogged this on Aussiedlerbetreuung und Behinderten – Fragen and commented:
Glück, Auf, meine Heimat!
I think this individual better used another name and abstained from referring to the National-Socialist link.
Who is the manipulator here? The truth is the same no matter where it’s gets published.
You might want to look into the history of Danzig from WW I on, fellksch, because you’re wrong.
Have the southern oceans signed on?
It’ll just be the tip darling, I promise!
The IPCC is like a Perpetual Motion Machine mindlessly barking out the same ole same ole over and over again, without regard to its diminished authority, lack of consensus, and political irrelevance. It is like a ever persistent automaton…. a green zombie terminator.
As Paul Driessen quotes in his excellent factual denunciations of climate alarmism. He says [square brackets – mine] . . . .
” . . . . Why isn’t the IPCC completely revamped or simply scuttled? Because tens of billions of taxpayer dollars [plus sterling & euro’s] are devoted annually to climate change and renewable energy programs. There are just too many professional and political budgets and reputations to be protected, too many companies and universities and government agencies [globally] with huge stakes in keeping this money train on track. They [are all in desperation] to keep the ‘dangerous man-made climate change illusion’ alive.
https://www.cfact.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Climate-Hype-Exposed.pdf
Extract from: Page 13; Last paragraph.
Whether or not CAGW is shown to be total crap (which it has bearing in mind IPCC surface temp projections and climate sensitivity dial down) there is going to be no surrender. Even if the world began strongly cooling it would not matter. Why?
a) The aim is not about climate but about money, agendas and power. Set up those institutions and controls before the fat lady sings.
b) The utter embarrassment to be faced by those who called us the D word.
In any other science Climastrologists would have been shunned by their community and called pseudo scientists. Once you understand these issues it’s easy to see why they will NEVER raise the white flag. They will shift goalposts constantly from global warming to climate change to extreme weather to whatever.
Instead of a train I think of it as a snowball rolling down a mountain. Once it gets going it’s impossible to stop as it gains mass and speed.
No bureaucracy was ever dismantled because it was useless. Bureaucracies are evolutionary wonders, kind of like the spleen, they are organs that have an amazing ability to persist even after their usefulness (if any existed) expires. At this point a few billion dollars in spending is easily absorbed in multi-trillion dollar budgets which is no different than a lot of other questionable spending whose primary purpose is buying votes and power. Bureaucracies are only dismantled when there is not enough funds and something has to go in a round of budget cuts.
One can only hope the snowball runs out of snow before like a spleen can, it becomes infected and kills the host.
Except not we have a President who is on board with the US (and probably all of Europe) committing economic suicide so he’ll probably Presidential Memo and agreement.
not = now
I can’t see UKIP signing up for that.
The (Aquamarine) Tories – possibly. Just – probably not.
Labour – let’s bash and smash wealth creators – oh – for sure.
Scot Nats [who seem a big bit left of Lenin to me (I could be misguided, but every time Sturgeon or Bass or Trout or Salmon or Chubb or Barracuda open their mouths – it seems not!)] – ditto.
The Welsh Plaid Cymru – very likely, although one or two have noticed the damage the bird-choppers are doing to tourism, for a very [repeat ‘very’ as many times as YOU need to get YOUR Blood Pressure well controlled!] small power input . . . . . . .
Greens – Yes. Squared.
Plus various other mini-minuscule groupings:
Free Alma Taverda – maybe;
Wessex Regionalists – possibly – but probably not.
Dim Lebs – ditto.
Monster Raving Loonies – dunno. I don’t know if they know although I suspect not!
Outwith the UK [even Great Britain} – things may be different . . . . . . . .
Auto
Love the last sentence.
Every politician needs to add language that they can spin in a way to support their own agenda. For example: Al Gore will stress the need to greatly reduce emission levels from aircraft, exempting the Gulfstreams that are used by environmental evangelists used in doing their good work.”
Climate bloviation is what the IPCC does best.
The juxtaposition of sequestration with aviation gave me the image of jets trailing poop bags like are frequently required on big city carriage horses .
Oh, I so see a Josh cartoon on this!
I vote we sequester the CO2 from soft drinks first, I’ll bet the warmists drink more than their fair share of Mountain Dew, Red Bull and SodaStream.
What about beer Paul. We add Co2 to beer.
“We add Co2 to beer.” It’s a byproduct of the fermentation stage. Don’t give them any ideas.
So how does that work for shipping given the UK is/will importing/import wood chips from the US given we know ships, once not in port and out in international waters, burn a “dirtier” diesel?
Which brings up an interesting question…. Does it take more energy to transport (i.e., ship) wood pellets from the U.S. to Great Briton than is contained in the wood?:
Wood has a lower calorific value than either coal or gas, and therefore produces considerably more CO2 per unit of energy produced. Thus to switch to biomass, results in more UK emissions of CO2, not less. On top of this, the sea voyage emits CO2 and even with low sulphur fuels, considerable sulphur emissions.
Burning biomass is a crazy solution and relies upon false accounting, namely that wood during its lifetime absorbs as much CO2 as it emits when [subsequently] burnt. However, this fails to take account of the fact that if the forest was not being cut down for fuel, the forest would in any event be a carbon sink.
That depends. If the container holding the wood pellets is made of wood……….and if the shipment is subject to CO2 cap and trade……….. The only getting rich off of this scam will be the banks.
Richard Verney is correct. To generate the same power more wood has to be burnt. Drax supplies ~7% of total UK demand. Burning wood from the US, when there is coal right underneath the plant, is utter loonacy! Maybe I *do* live in the lucky country (Australia)?
As a rider to the question:- a) what cargo/destination do the ships have after delivering ‘chips to Brits’ and b)why not build a lot of sailing ships to sail the ‘chips to brits’ in a steady delivery flow then pick up a new cargo and sail via a different route (Africa / cargo ?) thence to US and continue the circuit?
No
to say nothing of the effect of major deforestation in SE United States and loss of sequestration capacity
No, it takes far less energy to transport wood pellets by ship than the energy content of the wood. In recent news, the daily charge out rate of a 70,000 ton Panamax bulk carrier is about $3500 per day. If you assume a 20 day round trip (returning empty) that works out to about $1 per ton, so you can see that the ship fuel cost cannot be over $1/ton or the ship would not be running, as it minimally has to cover the operating costs even if losing money overall. The BTU value of one ton of pellets is way over $1.
Some commenters assert that forests are carbon sinks. This is only true of rejuvenated forests which are adding biomass. Old forests are in steady state, with decadent trees falling and rotting and emitting CO2 and methane, while new trees grow in their place. Unless carbon is being sequestered in the form of peat (or ???) a mature forest is a store of carbon but not an ongoing carbon sink.
Best to transport the wood chips in sailing ships made of wood, which are themselves fed into the boilers as fuel. It generates lots of good high-paid union jobs building the ships (and breaking them up at the other end), as real seamen manning the sails (got to have hemp/cotton sails/lines on these ships) and high-paid union teaching jobs in the US because the seamen have no way to get back to the US. Net outflow of capable people back to the old country, ultimately depopulating the continent and leaving North America to revert back to nature.
What is not to like about a plan like this, from a true environmentalist perspective?
Let’s see, on the one hand we have ISIS, and on the other, ASIS. But, ASIS at least just uses emotional blackmail and temper tantrums to get their way.
to c.mofat-every tree in the U.S. is replanted by new trees(approx.1000) by regs. from Fed/gov. agencies.So there are no bald spots forever. Maybe one day the Gov’t will ask us to hold our breath for only one day to stop global warming.People who believe in this agw should try it!
And what are they going to DO about India building huge numbers of coal-fired power stations??
Anything??
All this bullshit is just paid for junkets. Destroying jobs in Europe to create them in India and China.
Turn off the tap funding this rubbish…….
rtj1211, that is the final cure. No one would do this were it not for the money. Those who would do it ‘for ideological reasons’ would be far less of a threat because there would not be thousands jumping on board merely to get their hands on the dough. They would be picking other pockets.
My expectation of the document is practical: it will say everything necessary to cover any eventuality that may arise. That is not to say there will be ways to avoid reducing CO2 emissions – not at all! No, there will be things in there which guarantee large numbers of people have to pay to use certain patents and other IP.
Everyone figures they are smarter than everyone else. Agreements like this are filled with cleverness with hidden agendas Foreign aid surprisingly generates a net wealth transfer from the recipient to the donor country. Aid programs are crafted like that. In 1980 Japan gave the Zimbabwean Police 1000 good quality Hilux pick-up trucks. Within 3 years they dominated the market, displacing the locally assembled ‘kit-car’ product.
Everyone is running around trying to work out how to get their product made mandatory and everyone else’s banned. The only thing that is different is the scale. It is the new ‘Big Game’.
Destroying jobs in Europe to create them in India and China.
==========
but the beauty of it is that when you destroy jobs in the EU you get a carbon credit for all the CO2 you are not emitting. This subsidizes the cost of moving your plant from the EU to India or China. EU taxpayers are paying companies to export their jobs overseas. But of course they blame Greece or Italy or Spain for their woes. Never Brussels.
Moving jobs from the EU (As well as Aus/NZ etc) to China and India started (For Aus) in the late 1990’s. So the trend will continue.
You are mixing up India with China. India probably has the lowest number of coal fired power stations in the world, bar Central Africa and Antarctica
Such contradictions! Scrub the atmosphere of CO2: Starve the plants and freeze to death. Smart
It would be funny if it wasn’t so scary.
The Paris climate meeting later this year is like an event asking everyone to sign up for another Great Depression, and for everyone to do this knowingly and willingly.
The scary thing is that there are a lot of western leaders who think this is a great idea, from Obama to Cameron to Hollande, the message is the same, “Let’s follow the trendy dodgy science of climate change and force everyone to switch from safe, cheap and reliable energy sources to bird killing, unreliable, expensive sources.”
Fortunately Article II, Section 2 of the U S Constitution requires that 2/3 of the Senate must concur with any treaty made by the President. So Mr Obama will support this treaty to look good to his financial supporters knowing full well it is an empty gesture.
Our Dear Leader will implement as much of any ‘climate treaty’ as he can force by ‘Executive Directives’ to the regulatory agencies, effectively by passing congress.
White House Says Climate Change Is A Bigger Threat To National Security Than Terrorism
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/conncarroll/2015/02/10/untitled-n1955567
Our National Security position:
http://images.onset.freedom.com/ocregister/gallery/njkgue-benson.snowball.jpg
Only if it is a treaty. If it is an “Agreement” (as with the PRC recently), then advice and consent isn’t invoked. And, of course, if it is a treaty, and the Senate rejects it, then the POTUS will attempt to impose it via Executive Memos, stating that the Republicans / Tea Party are the “Party of NO”.
The only thing that is a bigger Threat To National Security Than Terrorism and climate change combined is the two party system as presently manifested.
Think of American politics as a human body, think of the two party system as the left and right lungs and now the lungs have cancer that is spreading to other organs.
Peter, the operative word is ‘expensive’. “I can save you, but you understand it is going to be expensive.” To sell that you have to convince the one still holding the money they are in grave danger. It is like the life insurance salesman using the story of Nat King Cole to sell his ware. Nat died about 7 months after purchasing a $1m policy. “See? He really scored! Buy now and you might score too!”
It is a campaign that runs on irrational fear. Even calling it ‘climate snake oil’ raises the prospect of fangs. Argh!
Yes, but the confidence trick is not working, the mass of people are skeptical. The game now is to move to enforcement.
I’ve never been fond of any game that requires me to die in order to “win”.
There may be a Great Depression before Paris making Paris a no show.
October 1st 2015.
A warning to the world about the Paris conference by Christopher Monckton:
http://kingworldnews.com/lord-christopher-monckton1-10-15/
Being able to do such things involves the science of “control” as it exists in engineering, yet I’ll bet not a single person involved knows a jot about control. They are claiming here, essentially, that rate of CO2 emission is the control variable for managing unpleasant weather events. They also claim in other contexts that CO2 mixing ratio is the control variable for average earth temperature, and by association, climate itself in its many faceted forms.
None of this is remotely plausible. No, this always has been, and is becoming obviously more like “control” as it exists among primitive and superstitious people–sacrifice to appease the gods.
I like the sentence following the one you quoted…
“The European Union added text, for instance, outlining proposals for cutting emissions from aviation and shipping under a global deal to avert more heatwaves, floods and droughts. The United Nations says 2014 was the warmest year on record.”
Classic non-sequitur; the only two sentences in that paragraph. The UN did not, note, say “2014 was the worst year ever for heatwaves, floods and droughts.” Similarly the EU did not insert text to avert “warmest ever years.”
Good catch.
Like Copenhagen, it will be a massive failure, yet it will be trumpeted as a dazzling success.
Depends on your definition of failure and success and what the players really want out of the Paris event, which will not be what has been published and pored over here. There is a lot of advanced political maneuvering going on.
Ian
What they really want is another status quo year of earning.
And then they will schedule the next extravaganza, demand more money and crank out more doom scenarios with absurd solutions.
Politics like Climate science does not have to prove or be right about anything, they only have to win the next election.
This whole thing reminds me of psychiatry’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) of “mental disorders,” an ever-growing compendium of “diseases” — for which no tests exist — that are basically new and improved ways to bill health care insurance companies and the government for throwing darts at a dartboard.
It’s such an awesome scam! In two minutes any psychiatrist can label any person as having a “chemical imbalance of the brain,” for which there is “no cure.”
Presto!! A patient (read: victim) for life!!!
Can you say $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
I knew a fella once who was involved in social work, especially with families. In conversation, I got him to admit that the various definitions and criteria were so set up that NO ONE could be labeled as “normal”. I said, “So the folks who get paid to fix things define what needs fixing?”. He saw nothing self-serving in that at all. Nice guy, but thick as two planks.
I fear that there is a need for “fossil” fuel companies to stop supplying a small area of the western world with their products. If, for example, the energy companies stopped supply to New York State, New Jersey, Maryland, Georgia and North Carolina the people would rebel and put the politicians firmly in their place. You might say that the companies have contractual obligations, but it is my understanding (possibly incorrectly) that contracts that require illegal or immoral activities are unenforcible. Also there is no obligation for transport fuel companies to provide their wares. Nothing can be more immoral than destroying the world. There is a saying “Don’t put off ’til tomorrow what can be done today” even though this is exactly what the International treaties are attempting to do.
A mere week or less would bring most, if not all, people and politicians to their senses and make them realise just how vital carbon based energy really is.
Won’t work!
I was in Houston, TX during the 1973 oil crisis. Natural gas, heating oil, etc. was in very short supply (in some areas) and the North East U.S. was freezing that winter. Houston Power & Light (I think that was the name) told it’s customers not to worry, use all the natural gas you wanted. HP&L had 10 or 15 years supply stored in local salt mines. They also said to ‘screw the N.E.’ since, at the time, they would permit no refineries or pipe lines, so there was no way to get oil or gas there or for them to use it if you could.
As far as I know the N.E. didn’t learn much from that. New York has outlawed fracking for natural gas wells and New Jersey (6) and Pennsylvania (7) are the only states that permit refineries (at least from the wiki). I think they did loosen up on the pipelines though.
Joe, you seem to have missed the point. The electricity generators refuse to burn their fuels to produce electricity. The transport fuel suppliers refuse to supply oil, gas and petrol. Their stocks are immaterial if the final product cannot reach the end-user.
Joe Crawford, Oh we learned, oh did we learn. No we did not have pipelines or refiners, We built tank farms to store refined fuel. In the late sixties and early seventy’s no one was fighting development. The Northeast had no refineries because the oil companies had built them in the Gulf close to the American oil supplies. It was just more economical to ship foreign crude to the Gulf where the refineries were. Even if there had been refineries in New England, what would they have refined? When the Arabs did their boycott, the country was thrown back on it’s own resources, Texas used the crisis to settle a score with the Northeast. They launched their own boycott . I remember the Governor of Texas stating that New England can freeze in the dark. The people of the Northeast acted (as always) magnificently.Texas acted like pack of Ferengi. Like others, my Dad bought a Franklin stove that could burn wood or coal. Our friends in Pennsylvania sold us coal dirt cheap. I remember pouring the hundred weight bags into an old toy-box in the cellar. I will never forget it, the coal was glossy, black, and hard. Everyone should make a fire with coal, the warmth is better the wood. Oh, it gets better, gas stations that were owned by Texas based companies, first they closed all their filling stations. Then they started removing the fuel and shipping it out of state. (CT) Our Governor ordered the state police to stop the removal . And that is a part of the reason why so many in the Northeast hate the oil companies.
I still hold a grudge To this day I will not spend a penny in Texas if I can help it.
sorry wrong word not boycott embargo I still see red after all these years.
“… It’s like 195 authors trying to write a book together,” said Ahmed Sareer of the Maldives, chair of the 44-nation Alliance of Small Island States, which added text including stress on a need for deep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions.
About 20% of the Maldives GDP is generated from tourism. I strongly urge all potential tourist to assist the Maldives with ‘deep cuts to green house gas emissions’ by not traveling to the Maldives or any of the other 44 nation Alliance of Small Island States.
Give them all exactly what they ask for… and the +20% cut to their island economies that ‘no tourism travel’ will induce. The reduced stress on their water resources and waste processing facilities will be a bonus.
Mac, my mind went in the same direction yours did but I think tourism should be allowed. The Maldives and other ASIS parties should immediately restrict all tourists to arrive by wind and solar powered vessels (human powered should be allowed too) originating from any port on the seven continents. In additional all goods being shipped to or from these island states should also have the same restriction.
MJP
for sustainability reasons, all tourists must come from within 100 miles.
Ferd,
Must they be all organic, free range, no GMOs, and 100% recyclable also?
“… It’s like 195 authors trying to write a book together,” said Ahmed Sareer of the Maldives, chair of the 44-nation Alliance of Small Island States, which added text including stress on a need for deep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions.”
It takes a really brilliant light bulb like this one from the Maldives to make a statement like that without perhaps realizing that he shooting his own country’s tourist industry in the foot with his demand for cutbacks in greenhouse gas emissions. Since the Maldives are in the Indian Ocean, I would guess that much of the island nation’s tourists probably come from greenhouse-gas-emitting Europe, and cutbacks in unnecessary trips such as vacations to destinations like the Maldives would be a logical topic of discussion for greenhouse gas cutbacks in Europe.
If the Maldives representative and his govt back home understood this properly, one might think that the Maldives govt would take a skeptical position on the subject of CAGW. Somehow though, I guess they think they can do better financially by using CAGW as an excuse for international wealth redistribution as the U.N. is doing. The Maldives of course would be on the receiving end of things.
I can only wonder how they would react if this all backfires on them and they get no payoffs from the planned global wealth redistribution and their their tourist industry starts to suffer from climate change fears in Europe.
Really brilliant light bulbs, all of them.
Actually, we have to give the Maldives credit where credit is due – they have been playing climate moneyball like the pros.
First, they conducted a bogus “underwater council meeting” to publicize their plight, which went viral on Youtube. With that PR visibility, they attracted investment to build, as I recall, five (5) new international airports and 65 or so brand new waterfront resorts on their “drowning” islands.
Next, I would expect them to use their position as lead inmate running the asylum to lobby for “compensation” based on the damage to their high value airports and resorts done by “expected” rise in sea level.
The fact that “Ahmed Sareer of the Maldives, chair of the 44-nation Alliance of Small Island States” was selected to lead the effort speaks volumes about the aspirations of the participants: GIVE US YOUR MONEY – or we will try to shut down your shipping and air transportation. Pirates without boats are still pirates…
Absolutely marvellous, a 100 page document of suggested ways of extracting taxpayer money without seeming to do so. The essential problem is they’ll be so busy fighting each other for their own fair share, nothing much of consequence will ever be agreed.
https://thepointman.wordpress.com/2013/11/28/cop19-the-grubby-truth-behind-it-all/
on a lighter view …
https://thepointman.wordpress.com/2012/11/23/the-real-doh-about-doha/
Pointman
Brevity is the soul of wit, verbosity is the soul of politics.
An elephant is a mouse designed by committee.
And a camel is a horse from the same design stable…
Europe’s energy reliance on Russian natural gas has created an awkward situation with respect to its ability to put teeth into it’s sanctions against Russia’s involvement in Eastern Ukraine. Compounding this, Germany’s decision to shut down its nuclear electricity generating capacity has seen it aggressively embark on a big expansion of coal-fired electricity generating capacity. Then to add yet another layer of complexity to this whole issue, the vitriol against fracking puts the subterranean sequestration of carbon dioxide into a real mire. It would appear that any semblance of strategic planning has long gone out the window.
I agree. EU hostile actions against Russia sure seem a bit dumb if one considers how dependent they are on Russian supplies. The USA seems to push Europe into really impractical foreign policy moves.
I think the EU was warned about relying too heavily on Russian gas back when it was initially offered. Some’em about selling you soul to the devil, or something like that.
Oh Bummer
As I know total dependency of EU on russian gas is around 35%. It is not so much as presented. Actually it looks like good diversification value. Problem is mostly in states like Poland, Slovakia, Czech Republic, Hungary which were dependant up to 100% on russian gas. Recently pipeline network in those countries was updated to allow transfer of gas in sufficient amounts between them and rest of EU.
Anyway this is not justifying absolutely dumb behavior of EU in energy management and distribution.
Do not underestimate the capabilities of bureaucrats greedy for headcount and regulations being supported by venal big banks and hedge funds and third rate politicians desperate for more power. Paris may well turn into a fudged treaty yet.
I agree
Politicians treat the people they are supposed to represent like mushrooms. They keep them in the dark and keep piling on the ****.
Damn,these idiots are sick and out of control. I hope for the worst for them and their endeavors.
OK, I’ve got to ask:
how much carbon is sequestered in the carbon sequestration document (and all of its prints and reprints)?
There is hope. The EU has predominantly right-wing parliament for the first time ever. The tune in the violin is unlikely to be the same with new Commissioners either. Barroso and Juncker are like night and day.
The EU parliament is a subterfuge it is a pretense at democracy but it has no power. The Members of the European Parliament are kept docile with large allowances and no work. The real power is vested in the European Commission who can and do override anything from the ‘parliament’. The European Commission is not elected but appointed. I do not expect there to be any real change despite the Barroso/Juncker differences, the commission is the power in the EU. The EU like Etats Uni, is also strapped for cash, and the lure of the potential for carbon taxes/carbon trading is extremely strong. Without the potential for money and power from taxing carbon dioxide the entire ‘global warming’ edifice would collapse in seconds.