UN Climate Agreement balloons into a carbon sequestration document

pile-paperGuest 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.

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/un-deal-to-combat-climate-change-complicated-as-length-of-draft-text-balloons-20150211-13cdbn.html

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.

Advertisements

126 thoughts on “UN Climate Agreement balloons into a carbon sequestration document

  1. 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.

      • … 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.

        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.

      • 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

  2. 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.”

  3. 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?

      • 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?

  4. 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!

  5. 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

  6. 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.

    • 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.

  7. …cutting emissions from aviation and shipping under a global deal to avert more heatwaves, floods and droughts….

    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.”

    • 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.

    • 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.

  8. 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.

  9. 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.

  10. “… 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

    • “… 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…

  11. 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.

      • 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.

  12. 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.

  13. 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.

  14. That first graph from NASA’s Orbiting Carbon showed us that the increase in carbon dioxide is coming from poor countries, not rich ones, and while some is coming from China’s coal, more is coming from the Killing Of Life via slash-and-burn agriculture in Southern Hemisphere countries; and from dams.
    Restoration Agriculture, such as found in the Permaculture videos and books; and animal rotation, such as found in the books by/about Joel Salatin or Schwartz’s “Cows Save The Planet;” sequester carbon back in the soil for health-improving results.
    The Alarmists, however, recommend life-destroying anti-solutions such as storing carbon dioxide deep underground. We are carbon-based life forms, which begins with the biochemical reduction of CO2 in plants, so a more directly anti-Life activity than underground carbon sequestration is hard to imagine.
    The alarmists do make an attempt with their hard work to destroy coal and other “fossil” fuels. These are the basis of a significant fraction of the American and worldwide economies.Since strong economies are positively correlated with care for the environment, these activities are an assault on the biosphere.
    The damaged economies are a severe threat for WAR. Howe and Strauss’s books, such as “The Fourth Turning,” show that in the next decade or so, war could be so passionate as to become nuclear war. While that threat was exaggerated in the 1970’s scares about “nuclear winter,” the damage would be severe and Earth’s carrying capacity would be sharply reduced for all forms of life.
    So. Skeptics, you are not merely fighting for the restoration of the Scientific Method, nor for truth and accuracy. You are fighting for your very life, and all your tribe.

  15. Like all UN bodies the IPCC main task is to ensure that they are there tomorrow and for many days afterwards, its next most important task to ‘grow ‘ , endless streams of BS paper are the fertilizer of bureaucracy that helps this growth .

  16. 11 Feb: UN Dispatch: Meet a 2015-er: Ronny Jumeau, Seychelles Ambassador to the United Nations, who often represents the Association of Small Island States (AOSIS)
    Q. So, we’re sitting here in a snow storm in New York and you are headed to equally cold Geneva for the adaptation meeting of the UNFCC. Let’s talk about the climate change SDG (Sustainable Development Goals). What is your role in all these negotiations?
    JUMEAU: My job is to explain things in a way that people understand, without the jargon. We need to move past that and look at the people involved in climate change. We can’t just focus on the science or graphs and figures…
    Another example is the airport in Seychelles which [ according to the data] will need a new runway to be built at a level that is higher than the whole airport is currently. We need the additional runway to increase tourism, but how do you build it without knowing how high the ocean level will rise and when?
    The Secretary General gets it. His Cabinet gets it. But politics comes into play…
    Q. Is it really about finance?
    JUMEAU: It’s all about finance…
    Q. Is it necessarily a bad thing to be so focused on finance?
    JUMEAU: When countries like China and U.S. are interested in solar power, its not because of climate change – it’s business and economic development. I’m not going to argue with that though – whatever it takes to get you to the table!…
    http://www.undispatch.com/meet-2015er-ronny-jumeau/

  17. The BBC (on BBC4) will soon be showing their usual propoganda on climate change no doubrt to help brain wash the public in the run up to Paris 2015..

  18. So they’ve given up on the goal of reducing CO2 output and have moved on to Mitigation.
    There’s progress.
    Someone in the government(s) will eventually figure out how many $Billions it will cost to reduce the world CO2 concentration by 1 ppm, and how many millionths of a degree C each 1 ppm will reduce global temperatures (modeled global temperatures). The cost in $ trillions for virtually no noticeable improvement in living conditions for the average worker will be impossible to swallow.
    Mitigation will then be dead.
    So we’ll then move from mitigation to acceptance.
    Let the rich people living on the coast move a block back from the current beach line.
    Problem solved!

  19. You’ve got to hand it to the propagandists: they have managed to make the stuff of life (i.e. carbon) into a bogeyman and the weather a political football. I think former generations might have thought it simply impossible to do such things.

  20. 12 Feb: Financial Times: Shell chief urges industry to speak up in climate debate
    Pilita Clark in Geneva and Christopher Adams in London
    The head of Royal Dutch Shellis urging his industry to spell out why the world needs it, as talks intensify on a global climate deal due to be signed this year.
    In a speech on Thursday night at International Petroleum Week — one of the biggest events on the industry’s calendar — Ben van Beurden, Shell’s chief executive, is expected to say that big energy companies have not been assertive enough in the global warming debate and some need to take a critical look at themselves.
    “In the past we thought it was better to keep a low profile on the issue. I understand that tactic but in the end it’s not a good tactic,” he will say, in a robust departure from the more muted statements senior energy executives normally make about climate change.
    His comments come as representatives of more than 190 countries meet in Geneva …
    Mr van Beurden will say the industry must make the case that the world’s energy needs will underpin the use of fossil fuels for decades to come, so instead of ruling them out there should be a focus on lowering carbon emissions.
    Shell has long been in favour of a price on carbon and technologies to capture and store CO2 emissions, though its Arctic drilling efforts have also made it a large target of climate change campaigners…
    ***In a mark of the growing tendency for oil and gas companies publicly to point the finger at coal producers, Mr van Beurden is due to argue on Thursday that the most important way to cut emissions is to shift from coal to natural gas…
    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c3bda478-b205-11e4-8396-00144feab7de.html
    ***it always boils down to killing off the competition…..coal.

  21. ***still trying to pull off another market “fix” to kill coal.
    12 Feb: Bloomberg: Ewa Krukowska: EU Draft Deal Proposes Carbon-Market Fix by End of 2018
    The European Union should start a mechanism to curb oversupply in the carbon market by the end of 2018, sooner than 2021 as proposed by the bloc’s regulator, under a compromise plan proposed today in the European Parliament.
    Ivo Belet, who is steering the draft measure to introduce the emissions market stability reserve through the legislature, put forward a proposal aimed at building cross-party support before a Feb. 24 vote in the assembly’s environment committee…
    “It is a balanced agreement,” said Peter Liese, lead lawmaker on the file for the EPP, the biggest group in the EU parliament. ’’We will encourage investment in low-carbon economy because the ETS will work again. At the same time we took care that energy intensive industry is protected from carbon leakage.’’ …
    ***The 28-nation EU is seeking to strengthen its cap-and-trade emissions program after the price of permits plunged almost 70 percent since 2008 to levels that fail to deter industry from burning coal, the most-polluting fossil fuel…
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-02-12/eu-draft-deal-proposes-carbon-market-fix-by-end-of-2018
    12 Feb: Metro News Canada: Carbon tax part of part of Ontario Environment Ministry discussion paper
    A controversial carbon tax is included in a climate change strategy discussion paper released Thursday by Ontario Environment Minister Glen Murray.
    “Putting a price on carbon assigns economic value to our atmosphere and environment,” the discussion paper stated.
    “A well-designed carbon pricing system is the most cost-effective approach to reducing greenhouse gas emissions,” it stated…
    He told a news conference Thursday there is no “greater threat” to mankind than climate change.
    ***“Our children will be the first to never know a normal climate‎,” he said after the discussion paper was released…
    The consultation paper contends there is a “growing global consensus” in favour of carbon pricing.
    The Progressive Conservative have made it clear they will vigorously oppose a carbon tax….
    The discussion paper also puts forward a cap-and-trade system as another way of putting a price on carbon…
    http://metronews.ca/news/canada/1286407/carbon-tax-part-of-part-of-ontario-environment-ministry-discussion-paper/

    • the EU solution reminds me of a very similar plan from the earth’s distant past:
      “So in order to obviate this problem,” he continued, “and effectively revalue the leaf, we are about to embark on a massive defoliation campaign, and…er, burn down all the forests. I think you’ll all agree that’s a sensible move under the circumstances.”

    • @pat
      Carbon tax part of part of Ontario Environment Ministry discussion paper
      Discussion on Metro 2 comments
      Carbon tax part of part of Ontario Environment Ministry…
      clipe
      clipe 31 minutes ago Pending
      “Our children will be the first to never know a normal climate‎,” he said after the discussion paper was released.
      Now where have I heard of this ‘think of the children” cr@p before?
      Oh yes! The famous climatologist Dr David Viner
      Monday 20 March 2000
      “Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past”
      “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,”
      http://www.independent.co.uk/e

  22. Jimbo comments on February 12, 2015 at 11:52 am:
    “Whether or not CAGW is shown to be total crap …. 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.”
    Sadly I believe this is true. There’s too much inertia to stop the hoax now. The best we can achieve is to shame those responsible but I have the feeling that once they accomplish their goals they won’t even care. The only hope is for the skeptic nations to multiply once the unintended consequences are fully realized. You can bet China and India will be laughing all the way to the bank. All they have to do is sit back and watch the ‘West’ deteriorate while they thrive. CO2 emissions will continue to rise and the cry for action from the Greenies/Socialists/United Nations/Whatever will just shift to another bogeyman.

  23. Give me an hour, and two paragraphs, and I too might attempt to entice a riot.
    With the same results.
    The “warmists” say it is all about communication, it probably is, that is why it (communication) scares the hell out of them.
    Just need to get the facts out there.

  24. The explanation of what’s happening is here being read by over 800 visitors to the site each week.
    [Which user_id will you use for your replies? You are allowed only one per site policy. .mod]

  25. I once read an intriguing definition of anarchy in government: If good governance is a laughing girl, then anarchic governance is a hysterical girl who can’t stop laughing.
    The IPCC as exponent of the AGW pseudo scientific hype is a prime example of such anarchic governance. They simply can’t stop.

  26. If the global climate cools … naturally … over the next decade or so, you
    can guess who will claim the credit …

  27. they’ve given up, it seems!!!
    13 Feb: UK Daily Mail: Reuters: Alister Doyle: U.N. climate deal set to rely on persuasion, not coercion
    A U.N. deal to fight global warming due in 2015 is set to avoid tough penalties for nations that fail to keep their promises, relying instead on persuasion and peer pressure, delegates at climate talks said on Thursday…
    “We are moving towards a system of institutionalised peer pressure,” said Elliot Diringer, executive vice president of the U.S. Center for Climate and Energy Solutions think-tank. “It’s an approach that is not trying to impose penalties.”…
    A draft text of about 100 pages includes many options for compliance, including that it should be “non-confrontational and non-judicial” in following up plans to limit greenhouse gas emissions linked to heatwaves, floods and rising sea levels.
    Bolivia’s left-wing government this week added the idea of setting up an International Climate Justice Tribunal to judge violators. That idea is unacceptable to most…
    Mary Ann Lucille Sering, Secretary of the Philippines Climate Change Commission, said “moral persuasion” was vague but better than threats. “Every time you say ‘if you don’t do this I will sue you’ then I won’t do it,” she said.
    Still, Christiana Figueres, the head of the U.N. Climate Change Secretariat, said developing countries needed assurances that the rich will keep promises for action, including rising financial aid.
    But she noted that Paris deal will be built from nations’ voluntary contributions to act. “This … suggests to me that this (compliance system) will be less stringent than the Kyoto Protocol,” she said…
    French climate ambassador Laurence Tubiana said the Paris deal had to be built around a “rational expectation” of what was possible, rather than over-ambition.
    But then there is a risk that some nations may simply offer to do too little to cut emissions.
    “No one likes the idea of a total Wild West regime, where there no expectations, no rules, no standards,” said Alden Meyer, of the Union of Concerned Scientists.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/reuters/article-2951169/U-N-climate-deal-set-rely-persuasion-not-coercion.html

    • institutionalized peer pressure

      That’s good for a laugh this morning. Industrialized nations are destroying the planet and its people according to CAGW but institutionalized peer pressure is just the thing to stop it. Kind of like institutionalized peer pressure stops drug gangs from murder and selling drugs.
      There are no penalties because nobody believes this is a real problem needing any meaningful attention but understand the financial, bureaucratic, and political need to keep the CAGW snowball rolling.

  28. Desperation will ultimately be the IPCC’s downfall. As Paris gets closer we will be inundated with more fantastic claims and staged events. Along the way they will stumble as most political institutions do and they will hang themselves. ( I know its a half baked prayer.)

  29. It is urgent for the people of this world to retake control of their governments. Nothing else will stop this madness. We are walking towards a political and economic cliff.

    • Unfortunately, it appears that there is much truth in that. The problem is that it is easier to state than to do. People in the west/developed countries do not like revolution and there is no easy option available for taking back control of government since all political parties are much the same (they are all part of the ‘establishment’) and no political party is offering democracy in the sense of government by the people, for the people. .

  30. misery.
    13 Feb: Swissinfo: John Heilprin: Geneva negotiators prepare road to climate pact in Paris
    For the Swiss, who have hosted the week-long Geneva negotiations, the 86-page draft text posted Friday could be seen as a hopeful though somewhat muted sign of a breakthrough – or at least a thaw – in the glacially-paced UN climate talks…
    “My assessment of the Geneva outcome is mixed. First, we are glad that the meeting in Geneva succeeded to achieve the minimum that was necessary: to agree on a common negotiation text, the so-called Geneva text,” Perrez told swissinfo.ch on Friday…
    “However, on the other hand, we would have liked to advance the work here in Geneva more, to have a text that is not only reflecting all the different views, but a text that is also reflecting the emergence of a consensus. This is not yet achieved, there is therefore still a lot of work to be done up to Paris.”…
    Another key issue is how to pay for cutbacks, preparations and adaptations for climate change. Many of the developing nations, which argue their inhabitants are the least responsible for creating the problem of an overheating planet, want rich countries to help them grow using cleaner industries. Rich countries have previously pledged to give poorer nations $100 billion (CHF93 billion) in annual climate aid by 2020…
    http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/geneva-negotiators-prepare-road-to-climate-pact-in-paris/41272114
    PDF: 86 pages: Negotiating text
    Advance unedited version
    12 February 2015
    http://unfccc.int/files/bodies/awg/application/pdf/negotiating_text_12022015@2200.pdf

  31. 13 Feb: BBC: UN agrees negotiating text for Paris climate summit
    “I am extremely encouraged by the constructive spirit and the speed at which negotiators have worked during the past week,” said Christiana Figueres…
    “We now have a formal negotiating text, which contains the views and concerns of all countries. The Lima Draft has now been transformed into the negotiating text and enjoys the full ownership of all countries,” she added…
    ***Three special sessions have been added to this year’s schedule of climate meetings. They include talks about “intended nationally determined contributions”, the commitments to reduce emissions that are meant to pave the way towards a low-carbon future…
    The World Meteorological Organization confirmed this month that 2014 had been the hottest year on record, part of a continuing trend. Fourteen out of the 15 hottest years have been this century…
    The next meeting will be held in Bonn in June.
    http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-31456369
    Reuters has less spin than BBC, apart from Figueres’ contribution:
    13 Feb: Reuters: Alister Doyle: Governments face test of green promises amid low oil prices
    “The very safe assumption that every country can make about oil prices is that they will continue to be volatile,” Christiana Figueres, the U.N.’s climate chief, told Reuters.
    By contrast, solar or wind farms, once built, “have a clear and predictable price of zero dollars”, she said.
    “Slowly but surely that is being understood.”…
    A test will come when governments outline national plans for combating climate change beyond 2020 as part of the Paris deal. ***They have set an informal deadline of March 31 to submit plans, but many are likely to be late…
    Low oil prices make renewables seem relatively more costly “but it’s not only about that. We need to reinvent what are stagnant economies,” said Elina Bardram, head of the European Commission delegation…
    http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/02/13/us-climatechange-energy-idUKKBN0LH19U20150213

  32. I am trying to imagine how the AGW/green scam/IPCC/warmist propaganda irrational tangled mess is going to change in response to abrupt, Dansgaard-Oeschger cooling. Rhetoric, propaganda, name calling and so on does not change the physics of what is currently happening to the sun. The planet will cool and it will cool abruptly.
    Meanwhile back in the twilight zone, this madness continues to play out. The warmists are now appealing to luck as the reason why their incorrect general circulation models predicted warming and there is no warming. How will the warmists spin significant in your face global cooling. Bad luck? Ignore the cooling, hope warming will return?
    http://dailycaller.com/2015/01/30/excuse-64-for-the-pause-in-global-warming-its-pure-luck/

    A recent study by German-based scientists argue that luck, not systematic modelling errors, is why climate models failed to predict 15 years of flat global surface temperatures and more than 18 years of no warming in the lower atmosphere.

    http://phys.org/news/2015-02-global-slowdown-systematic-errors-climate.html#ajTabs

    Sceptics who still doubt anthropogenic climate change have now been stripped of one of their last-ditch arguments: It is true that there has been a warming hiatus and that the surface of the earth has warmed up much less rapidly since the turn of the millennium than all the relevant climate models had predicted. However, the gap between the calculated and measured warming is not due to systematic errors of the models, as the sceptics had suspected, but because there are always random fluctuations in the Earth’s climate.

    This is an interesting article that discusses why green scams do not work. I am curious when the light bulb moment will occur and the politicians will stop back scams that do not work. It is a fact that green scams do not work for fundamental engineering and economic reasons.
    http://notrickszone.com/2015/02/04/germanys-energiewende-leading-to-suicide-by-cannibalism-huge-oversupply-risks-destabilization/#sthash.8tE9YRDj.o78pt3X2.dpbs

    Germany’s “Energiewende” Leading To Suicide By Cannibalism. Huge Oversupply Risks Destabilization
    Capacity without control The problem with the “renewable” power sources of wind and solar is their intrinsic volatility coupled with their poor capacity utilization rates of only 17.4% for wind and 8.3% for solar (average values for Germany).

  33. solar or wind farms, once built, “have a clear and predictable price of zero dollars”, –Figueres

    Who knew solar panels and wind mills grew wild like weeds, just free for us to pick and use as we need. Free energy for everyone. Yey! Ok she did [say], “once built” but that doesn’t it free does it. To keep the energy “free” either the UN has a global fleet of volunteers who work to maintain these installations for no wage or are bringing back slavery. Also spare parts and such will be handled by donation drives at local supermarkets.
    Figueres apparently does not understand a very large part of energy cost is collecting and distributing energy reliably. Yes the sun is free in helping your garden grow tomatoes, but is far from free if you need to provide dependable energy to a populace. Please explain how such an idiot can have a job more complicated than sharpening pencils.

  34. Let’s start with people who denigrate individual dignity (e.g. diversity) and debase human life (e.g. pro-choice). We already sequester the carbon of several million unwanted, wholly innocent human lives annually. Not only should the proponents of global warming lead in any carbon sequestration scheme, but there is a predictable overlap between them and pro-abortion service providers, consumers, and supporters. With the sequestration of pro-abortion clumps of carbon, we not only stop an unprecedented genocide, but also restore integrity to science. Well, not quite, but there will be observable, reproducible positive progress.

Comments are closed.