Will Paris COP21 cost more to host than it raises in Green Pledges?

Cop21-paris

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Christopher Booker, one of Britain’s most prominent climate skeptics, has written a brilliant expose about the shambolic leadup to the Paris COP21 conference. One of the most striking features of Booker’s expose, is just how little money countries have pledged towards the “$100 billion” green fund.

According to the Australian Financial Review;

At the end of this month 40,000 politicians, officials, green activists, lobbyists and journalists from 195 nations will converge outside Paris – at Europe’s largest airport reserved only for private jets – for a conference they hope will change the world.

Their declared aim is to agree on a treaty that commits to such a massive cut in greenhouse gas emissions that the earth’s temperature is prevented from rising more than 2 degrees Celsius higher than when the climate began naturally warming again two centuries ago.

The chief obstacle to such an agreement is exactly the same as it was at Kyoto in 1997, and at that last mammoth conference at Copenhagen in 2009, which so signally failed to get Kyoto renewed. The vast majority of countries have argued all along that, if man-made CO₂ is causing a problem, the fault lies with those “developed” nations that became rich before everyone else by burning fossil fuels to power their industrial revolution.

It is therefore up to the developed countries of the West to make the most drastic cuts, leaving the still “developing” nations to catch up. They say they are prepared to make some contribution to reducing CO₂, but only if they are paid to do so out of a $100 billion a year “Green Climate Fund”, financed by the rich countries that originally created the problem.

And what about that Green Climate Fund, supposed by 2020 to be dishing out $100 billion every year to help developing countries to “adapt to climate change”? Firm pledges received so far total just $700 million, leaving $99.3 billion still to go.

Read more: http://www.afr.com/comment/climatechange-treaty-will-be-flop-of-the-year-20151101-gkod0l#ixzz3qJ4qIZNu

Obviously $700 million is a lot of money – but consider the cost of hosting the great Paris climate Jamboree.

40,000 politicians and flunkies, being hosted for a week 11 days. I’m assuming they won’t be going for the budget end of Parisian accommodation, and no doubt enterprising Parisian hoteliers will be putting their prices up, in anticipation of the expected influx of guests. So lets allow $1000 / night, for 7 nights.

That immediately puts our budget up to 40,000 people x 11 nights x US $1000 = $440 million dollars.

Of course, we have to add meals to the total. I’ve been to Paris, you can order a decent meal for a restaurant for about US $40, but we know these conference types on an expense account are unlikely to opt for the budget option. Many of the delegates will be armed with big expense accounts, which their host countries will expect them to use to win influence for their agenda. So I don’t think its unreasonable to suggest meals will cost an average of US $500 / day / person.

Cost of food: 40,000 x 11 days x $500 = $220 million dollars.

Then of course there is the cost of flights. This is a little harder to pin down, but its reasonable to assume airlines will see an opportunity to make a quick profit, from such a large influx of people, and that many of the delegates will be arriving on private jets from remote locations. Even if you can’t swing your own private jet, if you have enough pull to get a seat at the COP21, it seems unlikely you will be travelling cattle class.

Shall we say an average of $2000 / delegate, to fly to and from Paris?

Cost of flights: 40,000 x $2000 = $80 million dollars.

And of course, there is the cost of limousine hire. Limousine drivers, like everyone else, will undoubtably charge a premium from their well funded conference clients.

Say $800 / day / delegate

Cost of limousines: 40,000 x 11 x $800 = $352 million dollars.

Finally, there is, how shall we put it, entertainment. France prides herself on her social liberty, the social acceptability of transactional activities which are sometimes frowned upon in stricter countries. What happens in Paris might stay in Paris – but the cost of any nocturnal journeys of personal discovery will undoubtably make its way onto various taxpayer and donor funded expense accounts.

Lets assume that only 10% of the delegates decide to partake on any single night. I think it reasonable to assume that they are unlikely to choose the budget option, so lets say a rather conservative $1000 / night.

40,000 x 11 x $1000 x 10% = $44 million dollars.

There are other costs, such as the cost of hiring the conference facilities – but I doubt that comes to much, compared to the other expenses I’ve identified – lets say $10 million.

Total cost: $1146 million

Its possible some last minute pledges, possibly from delegates who have been especially well lubricated with the most sophisticated entertainment facilities Paris can offer, may drive the green pledge commitment total up a little. On the other hand, perhaps I have underestimated some of the costs – the excitement of all that frantic late night negotiation might drive delegates to expensive excesses far beyond my rather conservative estimates.

And of course, even firm pledges of green cash may wither, if other parties hesitate to fulfil their pledges, or if a change of government forces a reassessment of the budget options.

If you accept my model parameters, it seems no exaggeration to suggest that the cost of hosting the Paris COP21 party conference may match or exceed, the actual money raised for any UN green fund.

EW – The official dates of the Paris conference are November 30th to December 11th, so the calculation has been updated to use 11 days rather than 7 in the costings…

Advertisements

169 thoughts on “Will Paris COP21 cost more to host than it raises in Green Pledges?

  1. You cheated.
    You decided what answer you wanted from your ‘model’, then adjusted the input data to get the prescribed result.
    No reputable scientist would do that, would they?

      • Eric

        I am sure that many of us would argue that there are more pressing issues for 40000 people to discuss than climate change, but your figures seem unrealistic.

        Whilst the politicians will no doubt want expensive hotels (for the couple of days they appear at the end to sign things) the majority of ‘flunkies’ wont be staying in 1000$ a night hotels and neither will they be spending 500$ a day on food without serious questions being asked.

        Having said that I would imagine the security bill will be astronomical, as it would be for any high profile international event

        tonyb

      • Surely the preamble meetings in Bonn need to be factored in as a facilitation cost. I’m unsure of the details but undoubtedly the Paris fest would be much longer without them.

      • the majority of ‘flunkies’ wont be staying in 1000$ a night hotels and neither will they be spending 500$ a day on food without serious questions being asked.
        ________________________________

        The food and entertainment figures are too high. But the hotels, perhaps not so.

        The last time I had the misfortune of booking in Paris during some conference, when all the hotels were booked, the charges went through the roof. My little 3-star, that has maximum 2 feet of floor-space around the bed and no fire-escape, went up to an eye-watering £440 a night. In pounds sterling. I was priced out of the city.

        R

      • climatereason says:
        November 2, 2015 at 1:53 am

        … Whilst the politicians will no doubt want expensive hotels (for the couple of days they appear at the end to sign things) the majority of ‘flunkies’ wont be staying in 1000$ a night hotels and neither will they be spending 500$ a day on food without serious questions being asked.

        The example that comes to mind is Bev Oda. She lost her cabinet position in the Harper government because she pigged out on expenses and then tried to hide the fact. Globe and Mail

        Having said that I would imagine the security bill will be astronomical, as it would be for any high profile international event …

        Again, the Harper government gives us the example of security for a G20 summit costing more than a billion dollars. CBC Mostly it costs way less to host such an event; it was $18 million to $381 million for previous summits.

      • Commiebob

        bearing in mind the recent terrorist atrocities in Paris, the authorities are going to be very nervous and rightly will want to ensure the maximum protection possible for such a high profile event where the PR potential for a terrorist group wanting to disrupt it is considerable.

        Bearing mind the possible disruption and the attendant costs, and that this group, above all others, should want to be seen to be green ,it is surprising there is such a large physical presence rather than a largely virtual one.

        Perhaps the technology does not yet exist to manage it all?

        tonyb

      • Eric,

        Did a quick Expedia search and found that 5 star hotels are increasing their normal room rates by about 800% during that time period. See post below 11-2@8:28

        Bryan

    • True, but it’s an estimate. I think that it’s an overestimation for food, but an underestimation for travel and entertainment. While your average reporter won’t be living it up, there are significant numbers of personnel that will be chartering trans-oceanic flights at up to ten times that amount.

      For entertainment, the estimate comes to 100 dollars per person per night. A single theater ticket will cost that much or more, with box seats or private shows costing up to ten times that.
      Also, this ignores costs for security, which I am guessing will be in the 8-digit range, and the sheer numbers of bribes that will be flung about, which will almost certainly number in the hundreds of millions.

      I question the final number’s accuracy, but unfortunately it does seem to be on the right order of magnitude.

      • Just did a quick Expedia check Nov 29 to Dec 12
        Business class to Paris average $5500 – $8500
        First class ticket to Paris average $12000 – $21000
        Hotels running from low $166 per night to $2636 with 24 highest priced hotels sold out
        Oh, and that $2636 per night hotel is $387 per night the prior week

      • Another cost is fuel. Presuming that all the delegates managed to get every available first class and business class seat on the fewest flights possible, the typical 747 has 12 first class seats and 28 business class seats, 40 seats per flight. 44,000 delegates equates to 1,100 flights though COP15 had 140 private jets and 1200 limos

    • sonofametman You cheated.
      You decided what answer you wanted from your ‘model’, then adjusted the input data to get the prescribed result. No reputable scientist would do that, would they?

      Don’t know if we are talking “reputable scientist”, this is IPCC after all. And if he wanted to get a prescribed result, the late edition to the story would have been included

      November 30th to December 11th

      So the True Estimated cost, with the required range is 1,130 to 1,211 million. Now that is an adjusted prescription.

  2. Neglected in the accounting is the purchase cost of Xmas gifts that you can be sure will acquired by the 40,000 attendees. Even the cheapskates will end up with around $250.00 in credit card gift deductions for souvenirs, presents, jewelry, adding a cool Ten Million Dollars to the estimate.

    France ends up being the big winner, which is why M. Hollande is desperately trying to keep it all intact!!!

  3. Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
    One of the basic tenants of the UN and that of most ‘catastrophic global warming’ believers, is that we should all curb our carbon footprints to live “Sustainably” so that Malthus would be proud.

    Their holy advice on how to achieve this includes – switching from red meat to bugs and insects, no AC, sleeping with pets for warmth (Gillard AU Gov), even cutting back on vacations. etc etc etc.

    If the global warming zealots, those organising and attending the Paris gabfest, are so convinced that Mother Earth is going to hell in a hand basket, WHY don’t they use conference technology like Skype to help “save the planet”?! And I’m not being facetious.

    Practice what you preach UN, UNEP, IPCC, WMO, Sierra Club, Greenpeace et al.

  4. This is utterly ridiculous. I live in France and know what hotels and food cost in Paris. $1000/night and $500/meals/day and assuming $800/person/day for a limoosine for a green activist? Come on get real! Maybe those numbers apply to the highest officials but not for Tom, Dick and Harry attending the conference.

    • Happy to see your alternative calculation. Remember prices will be higher during the conference. Its not difficult to spend $1000 / night on a luxury hotel room in big European cities, nor is it difficult to spend $500 per day on breakfast, lunch and dinner at expensive restaurants (including wine bill). The most expensive single meal I ever ate in France was $200 each for a delicious 9 course meal in Montreuil-Sur-Mer, which is a country town compared to the glorious luxury of Paris.

      • Check the Rack Rate that is often posted on the hotel room door with the fire exit instructions. This can easily be twice what you paid.

      • Did a quick Expedia search and found that 5 star hotels are increasing their normal room rates by about 800% during that time period
        Most high end hotels are already sold out
        Hotels like:
        Hôtel San Régis
        Shangri-La Hotel Paris
        Hôtel de la Trémoille
        Hôtel Plaza Athénée (nice place)
        https://www.expedia.com/Paris-Hotels-Hotel-Plaza-Athenee.h27528.Hotel-Information?chkin=11%2F29%2F2015&chkout=12%2F12%2F2015&rm1=a1&hwrqCacheKey=df11b5ba-fd09-49ca-9f43-5c0e1330fbe2HWRQ1446486899487&c=f567282f-edba-4425-9edc-af962a4dbec1&&price=2%2C636&ts=1446486903004
        Though still available for $2600 per day it is only $990 the prior week

      • And what are the chances that all those vegetarian vegan PITA (pain in the as*) parasites won’t decide to have a little duck confit or foie gras?

        Do you seriously believe that these, no doubt virginal, conference attendees and protestors would refuse to order quality top CRU Cognac, Burgundy or Champagne along with their meals?

        Plus every one of those visitors would deny themselves a few beignet, crullers, Éclairs or Profiterole to help them drink a few French pressed Café au lait?

        Who could visit gay Paris without visiting and enjoying a lunch at the Louvre? Surely not these world traveling burlap wearing honest ascetics? Burlap couture sourced from the finest Parisian second hand shops, of course.

        No one can visit Paris and ignore visiting a few chocolate shops. Why they might even hop a train down to Lyons to visit ‘Bernachon’s chocolate house’ while completing their burlap complementing apparel purchases.

        Remember, these conference attendees are parasites. We are their sources of money. They haven’t shown us any consideration yet, why would they start in Paris?

      • I just checked on Booking.com and found many 3 and 4 star hotels in Paris for about 300 Euro/night.
        Do you really think there are 40,000 limosines available in Paris at a day rate of 800$? Most attendents will probably take the metro anyway. I am ashamed to admit that my son went to the Copenhagen meeting in 2009 representing one of those NGO’s and I can assure you he was not staying in 5 star hotels.

    • But in France, the refugees from Syria (now called “les migrants”) travel in private jet, 5 refugees at a time, for 1.5 millions € per year:

      http://www.europe1.fr/societe/calais-quand-letat-transfere-les-migrants-en-jet-prive-2532519

      Michel Sapin, minister of finances, said: “why would only CAC40 executives travel in private jets?” The French minister of finances apparently wants syrian refugees to live the life of CAC40 executives.

      “It’s free, the State pays” as François Hollande once said.

      • Last week, one of the prisoners from Guantamano was returned to the UK by private jet at a cost to the UK tax payer of £70,000.

        This jamboree is being held at an airport, you can bet your bottom dollar there will be lots of private jets and helicopters.

    • Not grubby green activists but politicians – COP21 is a political event. I too live in Paris and indeed can see preparations going on all around me. Not a centimes being spared.

    • commieBob November 2, 2015 at 6:09 am
      Again, the Harper government gives us the example of security for a G20 summit costing more than a billion dollars. CBC
      ===========
      You’ve hit the nail on the head. Post 911 it is security that costs the money. What with Al Jazeera claiming that 400,000 people are killed each year by climate change, what better way to gain world attention than an Al-Qaeda style bombing attack.

      All the world leaders from the industrialized west are going to be there, pressed together in a small space. All of them. Imagine the temptation for ISIS to take them all out, claiming that they are saving the world from climate change caused by the corrupt, immoral, godless west.

      This would be the biggest terrorist opportunity in history, dwarfing 911, and it would likely be cheered by billions worldwide. So you have to think that security is going to cost a bundle. This could have all been avoided if the delegates had simply used the Internet to teleconference. Security costs would be near zero, and there would have been tens of thousands of tones less CO2 created.

      • Teleconferencing! But doing that would indicate an actual belief in the things they proclaim, and we cannot have any of that, can we? ;->
        /snark

    • So you live in France and are unaware that prices for hotels and food go up during these events. Right now you can still get a room for a fair price, in 5 days you wont find a hotel room in the city for less than $750. In 10 days you won’t find one for less than $1250 and the day before the start of the conference you won’t find one available for less than $2500 and that’s at a flop house.

      The price for food goes up by as much as 1000% during these events, if you lived in France and had been through Paris during one of these things, then you would know that. So, if you do live in France, I suggest avoiding Paris and the surrounding area from the 28th of November through the 13th of December.

  5. Kyoto 97, and the agreement to stop global warming. 97 was the year global warming stopped. Well done Kyoto. So who needs Paris 2015?

    • Sorry, but global warming did not stop in 1997. Just because you folks refuse to include anything prior to 98 doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. Change the start date of your graph to January 1, 1900 and then tell me where global warming stopped.

  6. You forgot the cost of “entertainment”-bands, hookers etc. Really, you can not be serious to expect the esteemed delegates who are there to save the planet to “go without” for 11 days. Really. No low grade street hookers for these VIPs. Top grade $1,000 an hour girls thank you.Good 20 million here- being very conservative.Could get up to 150 million for this “entertainment.” Since the issue of gay marriage would appeal to a lot of the delegates, I am assuming there are a number of delegates who would “not be interested” in the hookers, if you get my drift. Anyone who claims the men will seek out the female delegates- if they are anything like Christiana Figuerres,…. I think my point about the hookers is quite valid.

    Security as well. There are the Muslim hordes imported to destroy Europe to keep away as well as those horrible climate deniers.

    There will be multi-million dollar public fireworks as well. These “saviours of the planet” need to be honoured and welcomed.

    It would be really good if the monies raised did not even cover the cost of staging the big junket. I have not even factored in the “carbon cost” of the plane flights and big gas-guzzling limousines. It would be really good if the People see this and see the irony-taxes on air to fund a spectacularly self-indulgent party, with nothing left to “save the planet.”

    May Paris fail miserably.

    • I have been told that the ministry of external affairs used to have a civil servant in charge of keeping a list of “bar à hôtesses” for visitors from emirates…

    • Leigh
      The crops grow too well for the sack-cloth wearers . . . .

      Auto – not even hitch-hiking to Paris.

  7. The daily subsistence rate commonly called DSA for Paris is 245 euro. The official delegation from developed countries is very small, normally one or two persons with one person paid for for UN or one of its agencies and another one normally paid for by the government. The delegation becomes big as a number of NGOs would like to insert their members into the official delegation of a UN member country so that their member will have the privilege of going to various meetings including negotiations. Normally NGO .access is very limited to side events, and general meetings, Press have additional access to briefing rooms and to the delegate’s room if they are invited by a delegate for an interview. As the Paris meeting is a culminating meeting of all the meetings to replace Kyoto, some head of states and ministers may come. The average would be something like 300 euro per person per day and that includes the transportation and everything. I know from experience.

    • “….some head of states and ministers may come. The average would be something like 300 euro per person per day and that includes the transportation and everything.”
      /////
      One thing is sure is that that expense does not apply to Ministers, still less to Heads of State. These guys do not drink bottles of wine at less than €300.

      In fact, what is the security budget if senior Ministers and Heads of State attend?

    • 300 euro a day ! good luck with getting anything other than a room for that .
      Meanwhile many of these governments will tapping into UN funds for all of their people , including the ‘hangers-on’ looking for free holiday .
      The numbers may be OTT, its a ‘ton of taxpayer cash ‘ which going to be required to fund this event.

    • I recall that our beloved Department of Energy and Climate Change (UK) sent some 35 delegates to the Lima jamboree.

    • EO, while that would be a good estimate for a reporter or anyone on modest means traveling on their own dime. We aren’t talking about normal personnel, but people of wealth, privilege, and power, as well as those who wish to influence them. This has one meaning: bribery. Due to laws against such things, these bribes tend to take the form of expensive entertainment, lavish parties, and bottles of wine more epensive than my entire wedding.

      While I think that the original post is probably overestimating quite a bit, my back of the envelope is that he might be double the actual cost, not adding zeroes.

    • some head of states and ministers may come.
      ==================
      It is reported that Obama and Trudeau are scheduled to lead their delegations. Hard to see any leader giving this a pass. They would be criticized for not wanting to save the world. I expect they will all be there, falling over each other trying to outbid the other for how much their country will pledge.

      http://www.inquisitr.com/2521797/paris-climate-change-conference-obama-trudeau-to-lead-delegations-catholic-leaders-call-for-change/

      • If O goes, there’s Air Force 1 and a backup, the Navy on the move, F14s and F15s with refueling tankers for protection while airborne, numerous cargo planes for the ground vehicles, whole floors of hotels and a food and drink supply for all the butt kissers tagging along. Not to mention the “entertainment”. I could imagine an easy $300-350 million above board and who knows how much more under the table we will probably never know of. This man does not travel on the cheap.

        PS: How many businesses will be affected when the streets get closed?

      • Our esteemed Prime Minister(whom we never got to vote for)Malcolm Turnbull,Julie Bishop,Greg Hunt and who knows what other “Flunkies”are going to this Gab Fest,are ready and willing to sign our lives away.

      • If Obama goes, he will be flush with cash from the budget deal just passed. And we know the kind of entertainment expenses his secret service detail can rack up.

  8. How much does a top class Paris hooker/Toyboy with impeccable Green credentials cost these days – I think we should be told…

  9. Irrespective of whether these figures are correct or not, we can be sure the overall costs of this jamboree is going to be in the region of hundreds of millions of dollars. Funnily enough if you think about it, not far from the sum pledged to the Greenwash Fund. How ironic.

  10. Somebody doesn’t understand. Ratcheting up the expense account with fancy hotels, food & drink (and sundry) enables the intrepid delegates to digest the enormous burden of climate guilt they must shoulder for the rest of us for an intense 1 1/2 weeks! Have some compassion for the front line climate warriors!

  11. First, it seems to me that the number of days should be 12, not 11 (Nov 30, Dec 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11), so multiply your totals by 12/11. Second, an occasional apostrophe would help: “Let’s” for “Let us” and “it’s” for “it is.” Contractions do take apostrophes, and those words without the apostrophes are different words: The word “lets” is the singular form for “permits”, as in “This stratagem lets him skip the next payment” or “She only lets [leases] this room to people she knows well.” “Its” is the neuter singular possessive pronoun, as in “The poor goose lost its way back to Canada.” There are no apostrophes in possessive pronouns (no one writes “hi’s” or “he’r” or “m’y”).

    Aside from that, I found the article interesting. I shall avoid Paris during those dates.

  12. I just put in the COP 21 dates into Booking.com and I can get 11 nights in a suite at the 5 star Grand Hotel for £5570 down to 11 nights for a 2 star for £600. So room costs which you can still book today, vary from about $780 per night for top luxury to about $85 for a reasonable room. So Paris isn’t full and plenty of rooms available for a range of prices. But you can try it yourself

  13. A couple of weeks back, I saw an article in the French press which claimed that the cost of holding the event was €185 million, and that the French government was seeking to persuade business to contribute 40% of that sum. The balance presumably being paid by French tax payers.

    Of course, holding the event in Paris, especially shortly before Christmas, will generate a lot of business/service so will be good for the local economy and thus some of that expense will be retrieved through the back door.

    Of course, government estimates are usually out by a factor of 2 or 3, so it is likely to end up more than the official €185 million. Further, some of the items that you have set out are probably not in the government accounts since some of those expenses will be viewed as being paid by others.

    It is clear that it is a complete waste. Why 40,000 delegates? The more there are, the more unwieldy the process becomes, especially as it was intended that almost everything would be agreed in advance.

    Surely 2 key negotiators from each country is all that is required. That would put the number of people required at 400. The 2 key negotiators could be backed up by backroom staff who would remain in their own country and could be contacted by phone, email or even video link.

    I think that the public would be horrified by the amount of money wasted, and it would be good to get this into the MSM.

    • richard verney:

      I agree with everything in your very fine post but write to comment on your conclusion that says

      I think that the public would be horrified by the amount of money wasted, and it would be good to get this into the MSM.

      Yes, but despite all your excellent points, I think the figure of the cost to publicise is the ‘official’ €185 million. This is because that low estimate cannot be seriously challenged as being an exaggeration. Indeed, if it were challenged as being an exaggeration then that challenge would invite responses which make the points you have made.

      Publicising any higher figure other than the ‘official’ €185 million invites rebuttal of the kinds seen in this post where arguments concern the validities of different calculations of the cost. Such arguments could not be used to obscure publicity that says the ‘official’ €185 million cost of the Conference is comparable in magnitude to the total $700 million of pledges which is an insignificant response to the desired $100 billion of pledges.

      The purpose of the warranted publicity is to inform the public that the Conference is a waste of money and, therefore, making that message clear requires publicising the low but ‘official’ €185 million estimate of the cost: explanation of why the estimate is low can wait until needed.

      Richard

      • Richard

        Your observation that “…the total $700 million of pledges which is an insignificant response to the desired $100 billion of pledges…” is the crux.

        If one was sane and wholly accepted cAGW (a contradiction in terms), one would nonetheless seek to postpone Paris given the economic backdrop of the world. Any sane person can see that it is doomed to failure because the developed West simply does not presently have the money to throw €100 billion PER YEAR, at this issue, and why push ahead with something that is bound to end in failure. Once you have failed once, it is more difficult to succeed a second time round. Paris should be staged when there is a realistic prospect of success.

        However, Paris really is the last chance saloon for cAGW because of growing storms. There will be no quick way out of the present economic doldrums which the developed West face since China is slowing down and may be heading for a hard landing, and the mad energy policy which has driven up the cost of energy is just beginning to bite and will soon get far worse. The developed West is already seeing the impact of this with the steel closures, and in the UK, the government may be paying business to reduce its working hours if the national grid becomes strained due to the recent closure of many fossil fuel plants. To add on top of these problems is the recent influx of migrants into Europe which will only get worse, and which will reap havoc on Europe given that in many European countries youth unemployment is already circa 50%. Europe can’t employ its own people, so how is it going to cope with the influx of migrants? Not only will there be an increasing welfare bill, regretfully there is likely to be social problems with a lot of unemployed migrants and a lot of unemployed youths. Adding on top of that is the healthcare problem and expense of obesity, old age, and alcoholism which are increasingly being felt and which can only get worse, and only partly set off by a reduction in smoking. The finances of the developed West are becoming ever increasingly strained so it may be decades before it is in a position to throw $100 billion Per year on this.

        But Paris can’t be postponed since many experts privately accept that there may be no resumption to warming before 2030 and natural cycles are stronger than have been given credit. Even Julia Slingo (chief scientist at the UK Met Office) stated that there may be no resumption to warming before 2030.

        Thus, if the current strong El Nino does not result in a step change in temperatures 9as was seen coincident upon the Super El Nino of 1997/8), we can easily see that the high temperatures of 2015/early 2016 will be a mere blip which will be counteracted by a following La Nina such that the ‘pause’ will continue into 2019 when AR6 is being prepared. Indeed, if solar and/or ocean cycles dominate, then there may well be cooling coming into 2019. As you are aware, the satellite data suggests slight cooling (not statistically significant) this century, and the ‘pause’ will by the time AR6 comes around be over 21 years in duration.

        But it is not the length per se of the ‘pause’ but rather what it says about Climate Sensitivity and model projections that is significant. As the ‘pause’ continues Climate Sensitivity must be less and less. And as the ‘pause’ continues, the discrepancy between model projections and reality widens.

        The upshot of this is that more and more papers will be published with ever lowering Climate Sensitivity. All these papers will be suggesting a Climate Sensitivity of less than 2 degC, and most under 1.5degC. All the models will be outside their 95% confidence band (have a look at the few models that are running coolest and how these project rapid warming as from 2018). this will cause insurmountable problems for the IPCC and AR6.

        AR5 simply ignored the problems, but of course could not attribute a consensus view on climate Sensitivity. But when AR5 was produced there were only a handful of papers suggesting modest Climate Sensitivity, and therefore it was easier to ignore these. That will not be the position for AR6. It is difficult to see how the IPCC will be able to simply ignore the recent papers on Climate Sensitivity 9and more will be published in 2016, 2017 and 2018 with ever lowering figures).

        IF, and this is a big IF, there is not a step change in temperatures coincident upon the current strong El Nino, it is easily foreseeable that the ‘pause’ will probably extend and run through to 2019 when AR6 is being prepared with significant problems for the IPCC. This is why Paris is the last chance saloon. If no firm agreement can be reached at Paris, the real world observational data is likely to be so convincing that Climate Sensitivity is not a ‘scary’ 2 degC (let alone the ridiculous 4.5deg C or even 6 degC sometimes mentioned), that it will prove impossible to make a binding deal acceptable to the greens. The issue will fade out with a whimper. If Paris results in a binding agreement, the IPCC and AR6 may quietly be dropped since to go ahead with it would be an embarrassment, and there would be no point to it, since a binding deal had been made at Paris.

      • richard verney:

        It seems that you and I have been agreeing on much recently. And we agree again now.

        As you say

        IF, and this is a big IF, there is not a step change in temperatures coincident upon the current strong El Nino, it is easily foreseeable that the ‘pause’ will probably extend and run through to 2019 when AR6 is being prepared with significant problems for the IPCC. This is why Paris is the last chance saloon. If no firm agreement can be reached at Paris, the real world observational data is likely to be so convincing that Climate Sensitivity is not a ‘scary’ 2 degC (let alone the ridiculous 4.5deg C or even 6 degC sometimes mentioned), that it will prove impossible to make a binding deal acceptable to the greens. The issue will fade out with a whimper. If Paris results in a binding agreement, the IPCC and AR6 may quietly be dropped since to go ahead with it would be an embarrassment, and there would be no point to it, since a binding deal had been made at Paris.

        Yes, indeed so. And the Paris CoP being their “last chance saloon” is why we need to be effective in publicising how and why the Paris CoP is a waste of money.

        I suspect you remember my views following the Copenhagen CoP but I repeat them here for newbies.

        The AGW-scare was killed at the failed 2009 IPCC CoP 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.

        The Paris CoP is the “last chance saloon” attempting to establish the $100 billion a year “Green Climate Fund” that will fulfill the objectives of those promoting the AGW-scare after the scare has faded away. The total of $100 billion a year cannot be obtained and, therefore, the Paris CoP is a waste of money.

        However, countries that agree to the “Green Climate Fund” will establish their internal rules and bureaucracies to raise and operate their agreed parts of that fund. So, the effect of any agreed “Green Climate Fund” can be expected to be similar to – but more severe than – the existing effect of the LCPD on the UK.

        I stress that we need to be effective in publicising how and why the Paris CoP is a waste of money.

        Richard

    • Its interesting to compare this bean feast with a real conference that carved up the world for the next 40 years.

      At Yalta in 1945 the main players were

      USSR
      Joseph Stalin
      Vyacheslav Molotov

      USA
      Franklin D. Roosevelt
      General George C. Marshall
      Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy, USN

      UK
      Winston Churchill
      Field Marshal Sir Alan Brooke
      Admiral of the Fleet Sir Andrew Cunningham
      Marshal of the RAF Sir Charles Portal

      In total around 700 diplomats, military leaders and support staff attended a series of meetings that lasted 8 days and the venue was a city that still had large amounts of war damage and unexploded bombs. One attendee discovered a steel helmet in the street which still had the unfortunate wearers skull inside.

      • richard verney

        Admad’s video would be “Brilliant” if it were amended to replace all the pictures of Southern France with pictures of Paris.

        At present it can be attacked as being misleading propaganda.

        Richard

      • Admad:

        Of course you are entitled to your opinion.

        But rejection of constructive criticism of your video does not help your video to convince others of your opinion.

        I repeat, your video would be “Brilliant” if it were amended to replace all the pictures of Southern France with pictures of Paris.

        At present it can be attacked as being misleading propaganda.

        Richard

  14. I consider that some of these figures excessively high, and I doubt that there are 40,000 limos in Paris. Most delegates will use taxis, obviously some will use limos, and some rides will, of course, be shared and not met individually.

    But even if hotel, food, and subsistence is taken down to around $500 to $700 a day, and the budget for cars taken down to $150 per day (the airport is out of town so there will in effect be 2 city centre transfers), one can see that it all adds up to mega bucks.

    You have not included the venue hire. Presumably that is a commercial operation and it will charge the government for its use. Also, there will be the cost of purchasing carbon credits. There will be a lot of CO2 emitted to stage, attend, and incidental to this jamboree and we know that Big Green will want to be carbon neutral so it will have to purchase carbon credits.

    In my above post, I mentioned the official figure of €185 million. I think that was the hosting cost and did not include airfares. When I saw that, I thought that that was an outrageous amount to spend. Having thought about this post, I can now see that it is unlikely to cost less than €400 to €500 million. Wow, what a waste of good money. That is enough to build a hospital or do something else worthwhile.

    It would be good to see a series of posts in MSM setting out what could be done with this money if it was not wasted on this jamboree. Eg., one day it would detail the number of hospitals that could be build, another day, the number of schools, another day, the number of doctors and nurses that could be employed, another day, the number of policemen, another day, the number of starving Africans it could feed, another day, the number of Africans that could be given access to clean water, Another day, the number of African children that could be given basic medicine etc etc.

    When you stop and think about the waste, it truly is depressing.

    • I recall that for the Copenhagen conference there were around 1200 limousines that had to be brought in from across Europe. The normal number of limos working in Copenhagen was just 12. The French delegation alone required 42. Their were just 5 electric/hybrid cars booked by attendees. So many private jets flew in that there was insufficient space for them at Danish airports so that after dropping off their passengers they had to fly to other European destinations to refuel and park up. The standard hotel rate for most was $1000 per night This conference was less than half the size of the Paris jamboree with only 15,000 delegates.

    • All of the hot air of political operatives will over heat Paris and cause the asphalt roads to melt! :0

    • Most of the 40,000 will take the Metro, it is much fast than going by taxi during busy times, and far cheaper. I agree many of the senior officials will have limos or taxis, but not the masses.

  15. The whole focus of the conference seems misplaced.

    The Oil and gas Industry is far larger than the Arms Industry. So why pick a fight that’s harder to win? Instead of abolishing fossil fuels the world should come together to abolish War.
    • This has less entrenched opposition.
    • This is substantially cheaper in terms of damage to the economy.
    • This is more urgent – we already have war refugees.
    • And it’s just as feasible.

    If all the world can come together to make a deal on climate then they can make a deal on War.
    Especially as some countries will benefit from a warmer climate but no-one benefits from more War.

    • Could not agree more! As I had noted not too long ago:

      On the “climate change” vs unmet needs of an alarmingly increasing number of refugees front, so to speak … Here’s a radical thought exercise …

      Can you even begin to imagine how much better off all these refugees would be if the UN had decided to forgo even half of the glitzy “climate change” gatherings of thousands over the last 20+ years? So that the funds expended could have been re-directed towards meeting the immediate needs of the real refugees that the UN’s bureaucratic and highly paid personnel have – in no small measure – in effect, created and perpetuated.

      At the very least, surely serious consideration should be given to cancelling the next BIG gathering in Paris,

      But, France’s President Hollande evidently has convinced himself that:

      – the point of the conference is to reduce global temperatures by 2°C.
      – smart meters, subsidies for home insulation, electric cars and public transport will make people richer
      the majority of refugees are fleeing climate change [h/t Geoff Chambers and my bold -hro]

      Not to mention that the UN’s very own Charter (and mandate) makes absolutely no mention whatsoever of “climate” or anything remotely connected thereto – as I had discovered sometime within the last year or so!

      P.S. Speaking of the UN … There’s an excellent exposé, docu-flick, called “U.N. Me” made by Ami Horowitz. Great C-Span interview with Horowitz (long, but well-worth the watch, and includes some excerpts) which I had captured last year.

    • War is just the odd human’s ruthless competitive nature and desire to reform others in their “image” taken to an extreme at an international level. Afraid history doesn’t agree, even today, that such a thing as canceling war is possible. Best anyone can hope for is to avoid the big one and since, eventually, even the small and nastier guys will have city busters, good luck with that.

      • Won’t matter about the “civilized” nations as they will just try to avoid the “big one” with each other. Jeez, look at all the recent “small” scale wars by the likes of the US/Europe &Russia. And as long as there are the 10 to 20 per-centers who no one can correct (50 per-centers in the case of Islamics) and who intolerantly and forcibly insist on forcing their brand of (usually religious) thought or politics onto others then I don’t see any universal peace happening (re Indonesia today). It’s also amazing that there are always supporters of those 10-20 per-centers, kind of like abusive police who are always upheld by their unions and usually their bosses or repeatedly incompetent doctors who are usually protected by the AMA. You realize that these people are also through out government, J, Edgar Hoover for example and also what have become relatively rouge sub-governments such as the CIA. FBI, SS, DEA and most all intelligence agencies who will go to almost any length to protect their manpower & turf.
        However it is just a matter of when, that a smaller nasty nation or group will obtain one or more block busters and really upset the cart. And what just do you predict will happen to a country that happens to do so, do you actually think that the French, for instance, will just sit back and negotiate with those after half of Paris is wiped out…..

  16. Thank you for an excellent, it simplified analysis. I’m not concerned about the numerous miscellaneous things you skipped for simplicity. They don’t significantly change the result.

    However, you did miss a couple of major items:
    – security
    – social cost

    That is, how much would the tens of thousands of police, counter-terrorist officers, etc, etc, cost?

    And then, you can’t just dump tens of thousands of politicians, hangers-on and security forces into a city and expect to get away without major social upheaval. It’s like running an olympics. There is a significant cost to the social lives of the city’s residents; not least in terms of traffic disruption.

  17. Let’s face it £10 a day is to much to spend on this utter Con fidence trickery of fools and liars.

  18. With NOAAgate, NASA showing no global warming in Antarctic, with the gagging of NOAA, French weatherman Philippe Verdier, it looks like the “Dead Parrot Talks” are quickly turning into a fiasco before they start.

  19. Ah, but this is Socialist waste. It is only the money dipped out of the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. The leprechauns will keep refilling it.

  20. This article is a joke. Not only does it massively exaggerate the amount of money that would be spent by pretending every person mentioned would spend sums like $1000 a night on lodging and $500 on food, it grossly exaggerates matters by claiming there will be “40,000 politicians and flunkies” despite quoting a source which says:

    At the end of this month 40,000 politicians, officials, green activists, lobbyists and journalists from 195 nations will converge outside Paris – at Europe’s largest airport reserved only for private jets – for a conference they hope will change the world.

    Activists, lobbyists and journalists are not covered under “politicians and flunkies.” They are people attending this conference as part of their jobs, paying their own costs. It is completely inappropriate to count the money they’d spend as a cost of hosting the conference.

    If you can’t account for the fact many of these people aren’t going to be attending the conference on the public’s dime, and many of them won’t be attending for the full length of the conference, any estimate of costs you come up with will be worthless. This isn’t any sort of real analysis. It’s nothing more than petty point scoring.

    • Brandon,

      Your comment is rather naïve since everything is either directly or indirectly at the public dime.

      So for example, one reason why BBC licence fee is so high, or SKY satellite (or other cable channels) set their subscription charges at the rate they charge, or a newspaper charges as much for its copy as it does is because of the money paid to journos and their expense account.

      Ditto for all the Big Green businesses which will be attending such as energy companies, solar, wind turbine manufacturers, those seeking to persuade government to support a windfarms or perhaps Carbon Capture schemes and the like, who will be wining and dining delegates and taking them out to nightclubs etc. The expense account of these big business is eventually passed onto the customer as part of their energy bills or being offset against profit thereby decreasing the amount of tax which would otherwise be paid by these businesses and which larger tax payment would have benefited the general public.

      Charities such as Greenpeace, or WWF may have a very large budget for this event, but again that money which comes from either public donation or through government hand out, is being wasted when it could be better used on real environmental issues or saving the habitat of some truly endangered species.

      The real issue is how much money will be spend by everyone who is attending and who may have representation there, even if that representation is on the side lines, since eventually in one form or another, the general public will have to pick up the tab for every single expense made at or incidental to this jamboree.

      • Greenpeace does not receive government funding, they rely on donations. If they believe they AGW is real, then obviously they don’t think attending COP21 is a waste of their money. And since a large percentage of their donor base believes that AGW is real, they would support Greenpeace attending this event.

      • And since a large percentage of their donor base believes that AGW is real, they would support Greenpeace attending this event.

        No, true donors of an alarmist bent should expect Greenpeace to insist on using Skype. But hey, Skype isn’t as much fun as visiting Paris.
        Greenpeace and all the other troughers at this bean-feast are complete hypocrites.

      • Sorry, but this is idiotic. All businesses in the world ultimately pay for things on “the public dime” if we use this logic. That means you can literally call everything a cost to the public. A journalist flies to St. Louis to cover protests out there? That flight is on “the public dime” because the newspaper he works for will pass the cost onto the consumer by way of selling advertisement space.

        Your company throws a holiday party at the office? That’s on “the public dime” because the costs of the food and your work hours are passed onto the consumer by way of increasing the price of some widget you sell.

        It’s idiotic. You’re literally saying we should count every cost of every person who attends the event as a cost of the event. That’s not how anyone measures the costs of anything. Try doing it for a sporting event. Or a concert. Or anything else. You’ll always get numbers that seem exorbitant. Heck, try doing it for the cost of this website. The amount of man-hours spent on this website by viewers would probably equal millions of dollars in value. Does that mean Watts Up With That has cost millions of dollars?

    • >>Brandon,
      >>Your comment is rather naïve

      Indeed, Brandon’s comment is a bit like saying wind energy is free. Or that shop-lifting is ‘free’ (a victimless crime). Everything has a cost, and those costs are all lumped into the charges you eventually pay – whether it is the cost of government taxes, the cost of a newspaper, or the cost of a gallon of petrol.

      But the costs here are overstated, which completely detracts from the point of the story.

      The hotel may well be $1000, because I have seen those kind of rates during a Paris conference season, even for very ordinary 4-stars. But if you stay away from the bollinger during the evening, you can easily have a good meal for $100 and entertainment for $100. The taxi to and from the venue, when shared between two or three will only be about $60 – unless you look very naive and then the driver presses the ‘night’ button and it goes up to $150.

      I would imagine most companies giving $300 – 400 a night expenses. Unless you are in the airlines, were many still give a standard $50 a night to their crews.

      R

    • Brandon Shollenberger
      Hello, First, unless the person attending the conference is paying out of their own pocket, then yes in one form or another the costs fall on “John Q Public”
      For example, many of the Rico 20 are booked for this conference, how will they be paying? Grant money anyone?
      And Brandon anyone who can weasel a way to justify going will. Truth be be told I’d jump up and down screaming I’M A GREEN! just to spend a week and a half in Paris on someone elses dime.( okay I really wouldn’t since I haven’t tried that angle) I’ve been there a few times. Love the museums, I tend to spend hours in them.
      michael

    • Brandon, yes this is a bit high and a very rough estimate.

      However, please note that the French government has already released a report saying that their government’s costs will be $185 million. That is in addition to the travel, lodging, and entertainment of the majority of attendees who are not in the employ of the government of France. Don’t forget that at Copenhagen, there were so many chartered jets that they had to shift them to other airports just to have enough space to park them, and over a thousand limos were imported from across Europe to handle the burden.

      As much as I hate to say it, given the sheer volume of high powered people and international travel involved, we are at the very least looking at a grand total of half a billion.

    • Brad, while activists & lobbyists may not be covered by the umbrella of “politicians and flunkies”, they are suckers on the teat insofar as they avoid tax and, in some cases accept tax funding for their activities!
      I would seriously doubt that, apart from the naive oddball, any lobby group pay their way without subsidy.

  21. I think it is reasonable to assume the top 10,000 officials would run up £30,000 each during their 11 day jolly. Add £100,000,000 (£5,000 each) for 20,000 flunkies and £20,000,000 for 10,000 Paris-ites. Ok, we’re still £280,000,000 away from the target, but world leaders don’t travel light.

    I don’t think you’re far out Eric.

  22. Is it feasible to hold conferences of this sort (for negotiations) on big tour boats in the Mediterranean (or a fleet of them, communicating electronically)? Has it ever been done? If so, it would seem cheaper, and more convenient for attendees than buzzing around town.

  23. To be fair much of this money will be pump into the local high class hotels , high end restaurants and if past experience is anything to go by then the local laddies of ‘commercial entertainment’ , so costly yes but much of the money will end up in the Paris anyway . And of course the Christmas shopping opportunities this event presents will mean that the local shops may do well out of it has well, and someone has the use the small forest of ex-carbon sinks to print out all the BS that the event will generate .

    The big loser will of cause be thee suckers that pay for it all , that would be you an me !

  24. All you guys arguing about the figures…I think you’re missing Eric’s essential point. It’s a godawful waste of money which goes to the hypocrisy of this whole endeavor. If they were serious, you’d see much more in the way of firm pledges by now. I think on some level even these moonbats can see what a scam the co-called developing countries are attempt to run…..

  25. Not to worry. Maybe costs will exceed voluntary pledges, but increased taxes & academic grants will make that up 1000x over.

  26. I personally know somebody who works for a major UN body based in Geneva.
    This person told me that he/she receives $400+ per night spent away from home – as a basic expenses cover.
    Whether any expenses occurred or not.
    It occurred to this person, that since many of the participants had numerous friends and relations at various locations around the world – then this sum, in addition to their generous tax-free salaries may help to explain why so many of the employees like to devise ways to go and conduct “business” away from home.
    It all adds up.
    Meanwhile, of course, the self-declared intent of the exercise, is that the U.N. is rescuing the poor from the dire conditions brought about by the extreme imbalance of global wealth.
    Yeah, sure y’all are doing just that. With yer fancy limousines and all your jewellery and marble bathroom suites.
    The fly bitten, starving African children, whom YOU have effectively bred in great numbers must be really really delighted about all your self-sacrifice and hard work.

    Let’s conduct a thought experiment.
    Imagine that we had a vast cage full of rats provided sparsely with restricted supply of rat-food.
    NOW – imagine that the rats become very great in number, run out of food and start fighting.
    So we divide off 1/3 of the cage and guard that section and prevent those rats from fighting. Every day we pour a big heap of extra rat food into the new rat “enclave” aka “safe zone” aka “refugee camp”.
    The rats in the safe zone section continue to breed and the rats in the remaining section continue to fight (and breed). Plus, occasionally fighting rats attack the enclave and occasionally young rats leave the enclave to join the fighting rats.
    Over the course of several generations of rats, we will notice that:
    the quantity of extra food required and the quantity of rats, both starving and fighting, has not diminished. In fact, oddly, we now have many more rats starving, fighting and breeding than when the experiment began.
    Luckily, nobody has ever been daft enough to attempt this experiment using human beings. (sarc)

  27. I think that the Paris summit should focus its intent on just one simple key issue, in order to achieve its goals. I would choose sea level rise and threatened island nations.
    Here’s my attempt to construct a clear demand for action that they can present. (sarc)

    “During the entire history of the existence of planet earth the oceans have risen and fallen repeatedly. They have risen over 100metres in just the last few thousand years.
    And mysterious, we idiots, have just noticed that – COINCIDENTALLY – they happen to be at just the exact same height as several small island nations built atop of coral atolls.
    Well – what an AMAZING coincidence.
    BUT, if they rise just one tiny bit further then those islands will disappear forever – AND – that means that we must immediately STOP the ocean from continuing to rise and fall as it has done for billions of years.
    It’s time to STOP climate change – NOW.
    And that is why we need to take all of your money away and spend it on ourselves as we stop the climate from changing.”

    How’s that. That’s about the level of it.

      • “How hard is it to build floating houses?”

        Floating houses; they are also called ‘boats’ or ‘rafts.’ Stilts would work, too. Nahhhhh…. all that stuff is too practical.

        I know! Let’s take all that $100-billion climate change slush fund, stack up the bank notes, build houses on top of the bank notes, and Bob’s your uncle.

      • Tuvalu is only about 10 sq miles.
        Sea level rise is currently 3.4mm/year max, non-accelerating.
        What’s 26 sq kilometers x 3.4mm?
        If for some reason they have disrupted the process of atoll generation, then let’s just send them that much rubble fill and top soil every year.
        Surely that’s got to be a better idea than trying to stop the post-glacial sea level rise.
        Well – anything is a better idea than that!!!!

  28. I think Eric Worrall’s figures are pure invention – just speculation, so let’s halve the total costs he predicts. That still suggests something north of $500m in total (taxpayer) spend, and that’s before we even begin adding up the numbers for the aggregate ‘carbon footprint’ of so many eco-zealots criss-crossing the world’s air lanes to make it to the Paris jamboree – and the ‘filthy’ fossil fuels and electricity they’ll consume (totally without irony) whilst there.

    It’s the hypocrisy of these True Believers that almost certainly irritates the most. Half a $billion could feed a good number of the world’s poor, save quite a few boatloads of so-called ‘climate refugees’, etc, etc.

  29. My only real criticism of Eric’s original costing is the Car costs as a lot of the “flunkies” will car share and not have individual limos.
    Another statistic that is not included is the cost in “CO2” that all these people are supposed to be so paranoid about.
    All those flights, train and car journeys will use 1000s of gallons of fuel.

  30. Don’t worry. They’ll all give a few dollars to a man in the Dominican Republic to plant a tree and then call themselves carbon neutral. ( the man will buy a packet of Luckies and sit staring at the bush and not give a rats ass of course)

  31. It would be easy for countries like Canada and Australia to commit significant amounts of money “to fight climate change” but to let everyone know the money will be spent by the respective countries within their own borders.

    Need a new highway? We are constructing a new highway to fight global warming.

    A new conference centre? We are building this new conference centre using green technology to host (among other things) many conferences on global warming.

    etc

  32. I can not think of anything on the planet which produces more CO2 than executive jets (and I have included F1 cars in the thinking bag).
    So, it sure is a good place to hold the festival, love-in, gang bang, fiesta, carnival, side show, or whatever it is.

  33. 40,000 people going to this conference? that is a lot of meeting rooms. Well, after the conference there will be lots of interesting reading on WUWT and other sites, I can’t wait!

  34. Just checked – 5 star Paris hotel from 6th – 10th December from approx £700 – £1400 ($1000 – 2000) for 4 nights. Approx 25% – 50% of your model.

    Not all delegates will have so generous a sponsor and may be reduced to 3 and 4 star. Just goes to show the inadequacy of a process which starts with the outcome and generates assumptions to fit.

    • Just checked – 5 star Paris hotel from 6th – 10th December from approx £700 – £1400 ($1000 – 2000) for 4 nights. Approx 25% – 50% of your model.
      ______________________________________________

      Not sure where you got those figures from. Just been on ‘Bookings com’ and for the four nights 6th to 10th a 5-star is between £1,500 and £5,000. Multiply by 1.5 for dollars. So if a minister wants a good room, $1,000 a night is easily surpassable, rising to $2,000 a night if they want to push the boat out.

      For the serfs down in the 4-star accomodation, it is from £500 to £2,000 for the four nights. So even the secretary can rack up $700 a night.

      R

  35. I’d love to know who is in my country’s Official delegation and send them some Email. I assume that information is essentially unavailable. Due to security concerns and whatnot.

    It would be nice to find one of the “flunkies” who would be willing to share their expense report. I wonder if some would be available via FOIA request.

    A sympathetic journalist might do also.

  36. A State politician in Western Australia was recently shamed for spending AU$25,000 for a 3 day trip to France to do nothing more than have a look at a light rail system. For all you who think that $25,000+ per person is an inflated figure due to many being on lower budgets, you forget this is just the average. For every 4 spending $5,000-$10,000 there will be someone spending $100,000. Private jet or first class ticket. Penthouse suite and bottles of Cognac or Champagne.
    I worked for the Hilton group in Geneva for a while, it would disgust you just how much money can be spent by government officials!

    • Ah – a good “teaching moment”. It’s important to remember the mean is not the mode or median! While the flunkies may be paying something close to the mode, which will be below the median, the top shelf delegates will be significantly elevating the median to keep things unbalanced.

  37. Dominique Strauss-Kahn should clearly have a great set of business opportunities present themselves to him at COP21……..

  38. The most important thing about this conference is that it looks to be their last chance to destroy the western economies. In another year or two the lack of warming will be obvious, as will the ongoing cooling.

    For those who can pray for the poor, offer up a prayer that this conference fails to do anything. After that, mother nature will handle the rest I wager.

    ~ Mark

    • It’s not just mother nature that is against them.
      New and improved measurement techniques and more exacting data analysis methodologies ARE slowly emerging.
      As seen in the ICEstat result yesterday.
      Things which formerly looked way out of whack are settling neatly into the bigger jigsaw of trends observed over geological time.
      Slowly but surely it is beginning to appear as though the “climate change” in this era is not exceptional after all.
      Mother nature is against them. And now science is working against them too.
      They really do need to act now – whilst they still have plenty of junk science to shove down our throats.

  39. Sounds like a great party, how do I get in on it ? I used to believe in the tooth fairy, I am sure I can find a way to believe in imaginary green houses.

    • “how do I get in on it” – O.K. here are the instructions.
      Go back to before you were born. Now get born, but this time, try not to think about anything from first principles. Just go to school and learn all the lists of facts provided.
      Continue to learn to repeat the consensus opinion on all topics – especially relating to socialist political theory.
      Now you will doubtlessly be selected as the ideal “useful idiot” to represent the agenda of invisible power brokers. You will find that you are given an astonishingly generous salary for doing relatively little work.
      Things will mysteriously work out very well for you.
      Just make sure that you never ask any questions about what might REALLY be happening.

  40. Also checked figures. According to Booking.com, which I’m told is the best of the booking web sites, it is possible to get a 3 star hotel room for the duration of the conference for CAD$2,400 (@ GBP1200) plus tax. A 5 Star room can be had for as little as CAD@4,220 (GBP2,110 plus tax. Nightly rate @ CAD$383 + 3.30 per night residency tax @ GBP196 per night) for the conference period (Hotel Pont Royal), with deeper discounts available.

    There’s also AirBnB or VRBO, where some quite pleasant city centre apartments can be booked for CAD$700.

    Last time I looked, room occupancy in listed Parisian hotels 30th Nov to 11th Dec was running at 78%.

    However, the above are bargain basement prices and it is easily possible to pay well over a thousand Canadian a night (@ GBP500+) and more at places like the five star Hotel Barrière Le Fouquet’s and over CAD$2,000 per night (GBP1000) at the five star Four Seasons.

    • Isn’t it becoming obvious why these events are held where they are:
      “Paris red light districts aren’t just for tourists. Sure, the world famous Pigalle district entertains thousands of newcomers each night. And yes, Paris red light districts (there ARE more than one!) offer some of the finest prostitutes and brothels in Europe, if not the world. You’ll soon find out that the good Paris brothels house some of finest specimens from all over Europe and Asia. You can find many delightful teenage eastern European beauties and even Thai and Cambodian girls, anxious to fulfill your wildest fantasies for very reasonable prices.”
      http://parisredlightdistrict.com/brothels-guide/

  41. Airport for private jets? Gee. I naively thought that given the nature of this conference, they would all be arriving in sail boats and/or taking horses and buggies over land.

  42. climatereason November 2, 2015 at 1:53 am

    I am sure that many of us would argue that there are more pressing issues for 40000 people to discuss than climate change

    It’s like the 21st Universal Peace Congress scheduled to September 1914 in Vienna, in Bertha von Suttner‘s honor.

    Diotima is to organize a parade on the theme “the clans of Austria and Hungary pay homage to internal and external peace,” which is to be followed by a procession of the armed forces. In order to ensure that the Peace Congress will not get out of control, the government will push through an ordinance to rapidly modernize Austria-Hungary’s artillery. General Stumm has his way. Meanwhile, Arnheim hurries to finalize his deals. His factories will deliver the arms on favorable terms, on condition that his “World Corporation” obtains access to the oilfields in Calicia near the heavily fortified Russian border.

  43. No need to argue about various estimates of costs for the Parisite Climate Coven. According to this item in eenews, the balance between dream/nightmare and reality will come from “private financing”.
    http://www.eenews.net/tv/videos/2040/transcript
    [begin quote]
    International:
    CCAP’s Helme discusses need for private financing to meet Paris goals
    OnPoint
    Aired: Wednesday, October 14, 2015
    Video_asset_5335_medium
    How will private-sector investments factor in to the overall success of December’s anticipated Paris climate agreement? During today’s OnPoint, Ned Helme, president of the Center for Clean Air Policy, discusses the financing framework that will be needed to ensure the goals of a Paris agreement are met. He also talks about the role of coal internationally and how its expanding use in some countries impacts efforts to reduce emissions.
    [. . .]
    Ned Helme: Well, you know, the biggest piece to me is the breadth of activity. One hundred fifty countries, almost 90 percent of the emissions are in. You know, we wanted it back in the Copenhagen days, you know, five, six years ago. We wanted all the countries to join together and rise up and we couldn’t do it, and now you’re seeing it. Everybody’s in. Everybody — you know, a dime or a dollar, but everybody’s in to this deal. And we’re seeing some very bold plans. I mean, Brazil has an absolute target tougher than the United States’ target. Would you have ever predicted that five years ago? I mean, they’re saying 37 percent below 2005 by 2025. Our target is 26 to 26 by 2030 below 2005. So you know, it’s a new world out there. India, the one who’s dragged its feet the most over all these years, saying 40 percent of our energy will be non-fossil by 2030. That’s quadruple how much they have today. I mean, and this is a country that’s growing, that’s got to use coal and so on — amazing.

    And then you look at the little guys, you know? Morocco — 32 percent, big renewables, Laos doing all this stuff, local stuff with forestry, 30 percent reduction. It’s spread and there’s a real sense, a palpable sense that everybody’s on board. And I think they’re beginning to see this as an opportunity not just to do greenhouse gases but also sustainable development, health, other things. So that’s the story line. It really is exciting.

    [More tub-thumping]

    Ned Helme: Well, I think the key is, you know, the way the French have built this. You’ve got the announcements from other countries and those kinds of things. You’ve got a separate effort where private sector’s coming in and making their announcements. You’ve got the cities playing in this. You’ve got sub-nationals playing. So — you’ve got the pope and the religious movement behind this. So a huge set of forces helping us set a real political agreement, OK?
    [. . .]
    You know, 10 years ago solar was too expensive. Today it’s firing off crazy in California, unbelievable the penetration. That same opportunity is out there for developing countries.

  44. Here in and Ireland we’ve had a few exceptionally mild days during the last few days of October and the start of November – after a pretty normal Autumn thus far.The reaction from the media and CAGW supporters has been predictably hysterical and disproportionate. The usual wild claims of records being shattered – a DJ on Radio 1, a state run radio station in Ireland, claimed that yesterday was ” the hottest day in November in Ireland in history”.
    This kind of weather is being considered,needless to say, as climate with all kinds of commentary on it being ‘freakish’, ‘bizarre’ and above all ‘unprecedented’. As I pointed out to a CAGW believer friend, if this weather is so unprecedented how come it has a name – ‘Indian Summer’.
    In any event I have no doubt that this brief spell will be clutched to the breasts of true believers and produced as ‘evidence’ at some point in Paris. Particularly if the conference coincides with a cold snap which if Al Gore is present it almost certainly will!

      • A temperature of 20.1 degrees, recorded in Dooks, Co Kerry, on Sunday is the highest temperature ever recorded in Ireland for the month of November.

        Temperatures in parts of the State on Sunday were more than 10 degrees higher than the average for this time of year.

        The previous record high for November was 20 degrees, recorded in 1946 on the 4th of the month at Rathfarnam Castle, a spokeswoman at Met Éireann said.

        You call that “records being shattered”?

      • And the accuracy is? Don’t you just love seeing those records being “broken” by a tenth, a hundredth or a thousandths of a degree with measurement uncertainty of one degree or more. Ah well, the ski hills in the mountains around here will be open next week; Mount Rainier in Washington State got 13.5 feet of snow this week, California Sierra Nevada resorts were expecting 2 feet this past weekend. Instead of worrying about COP21, I may go skiing in all the CAGW that is falling. Winter Storm Warning west of Calgary, Alberta.

        http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news/snowfall-warning-issued-for-k-country-and-canmore
        http://snowbrains.com/noaa-california-storm-upgraded-up-to-24-of-snow-forecast-today-tomorrow/

      • Chris says:

        You call breaking the all time record for November “exceptionally mild”?

        Yes. For the past 150 years the planet has been in a true “Goldilocks” climate, with exceptionally benign temperatures. Throughout the geologic record it is almost impossible to find a century-long time frame where global T has flutuated as little as 0.7ºC. That is as close to ‘flat’ as you will ever see.

        But your mind has been colonized by the ‘dangerous AGW’ scare, so rather than accept our good fortune, you wring your hands in mental agony.

        Too bad you can’t think for yourself. The climate alarmist clique has your mind under their control, and they’re leading you around with an invisible ring in your nose.

        Good boy! You’re their perfect eco-parrot: “…breaking the all time record!! EEEK!

        Carry on…

      • clipe – the UK has broken its all time record for both July and November this year. I think that is highly unusual – perhaps you do not. I agree that the November all time record was broken, not shattered.

      • Toronto airport records go all the way back to 1937.
        Notice how the coldest winters are occurring now in this age of “global warming”? What were the Irish doing in 1946?

        Again, how old is the record?

        Directors of Met Éireann, 1936-present
        1936-1948 Austen H. Nagle
        1948-1964 Mariano Doporto
        1965-1978 P.M. Austin Bourke
        1978-1981 P. Kilian Rohan
        1981-1988 Donal L. Linehan
        1989-2009 Declan J. Murphy
        2009-Present Liam Campbell

      • the UK has broken its all time record for both July and November
        ===============
        all time? sit at a cafe on the sidewalk and watch the girls walking by. the longer you watch, on occasion a girl will come by that is prettier than all you have seen so far. does this mean that girls are getting prettier with time, or that the time you have been watching is getting longer?

        here is the problem. you think temperatures are going up, just like girls are getting prettier, without stopping to consider that what is actually changing is the length of time you have been watching.

  45. Until these hypocrites practice what they preach and use some form of web conferencing for their meetings so they can reduce their carbon footprint and donate the money saved to developing countries, I have no interest in listening to what they have to say.

  46. Let’s see 40,000 attendees, 195 countries, that is 205 people per country for this useless and wasteful (other than for producing numskull green talking points) event.

    And I thought being green meant not being wasteful of resources…silly me.

    I guess it’s the old “do as I say not as I do” for this new enlightened climate change movement.

  47. I think the hotel numbers are over-estimated as many of the European delegates can spend their nights at home.

    And it doesn’t stop there. Who can forget the uproar when it was discovered that these pillars of the anti-capitalist movement had lost a small fortune in foreign exchange speculation? Or that a Greenpeace director was commuting to work in Amsterdam by air from the tax haven of Luxembourg?

    http://blogs.new.spectator.co.uk/2015/02/how-green-and-how-peaceful-really-is-greenpeace/

  48. … “Will Paris COP21 cost more to host than it raises in Green Pledges?”…

    It doesn’t actually matter whether it does or not. It has already cost around 150m, which is 150m that we now can’t spend on real good works….

  49. One of the most striking features of Booker’s expose, is just how little money countries have pledged towards the “$100 billion” green fund.

    And this is why ‘Paris’ will fail like all the others. Once the ‘Nations’ realise that there will be no ‘box of free Western money’ they will be on the first plane home to build more Hotels and Airports on their ‘dangerously exposed’ Islands.

    Pants on fire in Paris. Just watch them all run as it becomes clearer that there will be no free cash. So much for halting CO2 emissions. It was never about CO2, just ‘free’ money for all.

Comments are closed.