Guest essay by Eric Worrall
As the upcoming Paris COP21 climate conference hurtles towards an inevitable train wreck of green disappointments, climate activists are already starting to prepare the faithful, for the bitter upsets they are likely to suffer over the next few weeks.
According to Australian SBS;
There’s no question that we must hold our political leaders to account in Paris and push in every way possible for a strong global agreement, which includes Australia carrying its fair weight in emissions reduction and climate finance.
But, instead of expecting these talks to deliver final solutions to the climate crisis, we should also pay close attention to the many forms of action occurring all over the world, particularly on the streets where the largest ever People’s Climate March will take place in cities from Melbourne to Montreal, from Brisbane to Barcelona.
What occurs inside the negotiating rooms of the Paris climate conference is obviously crucial, but the real barometer of global momentum is taking place elsewhere.
All over the world we are hearing from people who have found themselves impacted by climate change and are increasingly frustrated by governments pressing on in a ‘business as usual’ mode, ignoring accumulated and compelling climate science and blithely approving new coal mines and thwarting the transition to clean energy.
Given the dramatic Asian race for coal, driven by billions of poor people demanding a better life, it seems very likely that Australian coal production, and coal production elsewhere, will rise dramatically in the near future. Greens are in for a lot more disappointments, if they expect politicians to stand in the path of this coming deluge of new resource tax revenue.
The question for us Americans is: What kind of ‘climate’ abomination will The Puppet President attempt to sneak past the Congress as an ‘executive order’? And will the Timid Nellies in the Republican leadership let him get away with it?
/Mr Lynn
Very good TE
And will it be targeted at a particular voting block to get his party 8 more years.
Hmmmmmmmm ???
Better yet, is the GOP being timid because they want the same voting block ?
L.E. ???
Knute, I know you said, above,
But I have seen nothing that suggests that ‘Latinos’ (who might be less of a voting block than glib pundits and overpaid consultants suppose) are at all interested in CAGW/CO2.
The Dems want to keep the Soros-funded Trotskyite ‘activists’ and the deluded corporatists who make and bundle huge donations (like Tom Steyer), and the academic Useful Idiots happy. And of course all the urban dwellers who want to keep the stream of Free Stuff coming—some of those are Latinos, to be sure—which has nothing to do with CO2.
/Mr Lynn
LE
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/10/us/politics/climate-change-is-of-growing-personal-concern-to-us-hispanics-poll-finds.html?_r=0
That link should get you started.
if you dig deeper into membership and support for local ngos surrounding industrial areas you’ll start to also find the latino connection
Knute:
“according to a poll conducted last month by The New York Times, Stanford University and the nonpartisan environmental research group Resources for the Future. The survey … found that Hispanics are more likely than non-Hispanic whites to view global warming as a problem that affects them personally. It also found that they are more likely to support policies, such as taxes and regulations on greenhouse gas pollution, aimed at curbing it.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/10/us/politics/climate-change-is-of-growing-personal-concern-to-us-hispanics-poll-finds.html?_r=1
And polls are never rigged, for example, by wording that influences the answers, right? Or participant selection choices, right? And the New York Times is an unbiased source of news, which would make every effort to make sure the methodologies were unbiased, right?
Of course , they are skewed and rigged and full of bias. Everything man gets involved in typically is.
Nevertheless, they are clues, hints, lines of evidence. It’s not like a physics experiment, so expectations of a physical science uncertainty versus political science is not applicable.
The NYT has their own bias. As does FOXNews or the FInancial TImes.
Typically to ground truth and reduce the bias you can send out interview teams to localized areas that are representative of the demographic you are looking at. “Obama Zombies” (its a book) describes how the Dems did this in the run up to the 2008 election. It’s how they targeted distinct precincts.
The quickest way to do it without sending people out these days is by examining LOCAL NGOs and their memberships. Just by joining a group that identifies its objectives tells you the interest that the local community has. It’s also not linear, but it helps ground truth the reality of why you are being clued into.
You can tell this intel is being honed. If you notice, the GOP is not attacking Mr Rubio as much as you would expect. You could see it in the last debate. Punches pulled. At the same time, the Dems are slowing gearing up that he might be the challenger because they to see the courting of the Latino voter.
It’s messy and chaotic, but the one who hones in on the clues of a divided electorate wins these days.
That ‘poll’ eliminated doubters by asking,
and has a +/- 12% margin of error (for ‘Hispanics’) to boot!
Not to mention that ‘Resources for the Future’ is apparently a pro-government-action organization.
As for NGOs, are you talking about churches, charities, schools?—or ‘activist’ groups which are invariably far-left-wing and obviously going to spout the ‘climate justice’ litany. They are doubtless a teeny-tiny minority of people who call themselves ‘Latino’ or ‘Hispanic’.
My guess is that most ‘Latinos’, like most people not in government or academics or ‘NGOs’ have no interest in ‘global warming’ or ‘climate change’, and if questioned would agree that it’s a load of hooey. The Dems may get the majority of self-described Hispanics to vote for them, because they support amnesty and free stuff, not because of ‘climate change’.
/Mr Lynn
“The Dems may get the majority of self-described Hispanics to vote for them, because they support amnesty and free stuff, not because of ‘climate change’.”
Advantage Dems and thus CAGW.
Makes things like Paris progress all the more meaningless.
All the more reason to get a Republican in the White House, and hold his feet to the skeptical fire.
AFAIK, only Ted Cruz has publicly proclaimed he is a skeptic.
/Mr Lynn
This administration has already stated that they will mandate US climate measures by skirting Constitutional treaty requirements.
If this article is correct it has cheered me up immensely.
Don’t expect that to emerge from the PR and media coverage.
With contradictions in silence, they will hype impending doom and glorify the valient at COP21.
My expectation is that a lot of countries will sign up for this insanity. They’ll be backed into a corner via pressure from the United States and the prodigious negotiation skills of President Obama, anxious to leave office with both a legacy, and a brand new job at the United Nations running their Climate Enforcement division waiting for him. I expect, given Obama’s track record, that the agreement will look something like:
Countries will self inspect to ensure they are meeting their commitments
Countries suspected of circumventing their self inspection regime will be given a 3 month advance warning of an impending audit.
In order for an audit to proceed, evidence must be presented proving what the results of the audit will be, even though the audit hasn’t been done and is the only way to actually verify anything.
Countries who feel that the audit is unreasonable, will be able to appeal to a 5 country arbitration committee, such committee to be made up of themselves and at least two of their allies, which will vote on the need for an audit
The agreements will be signed by puffed up plastic officials with great fanfare, while the actual dictators running the countries will repudiate it (which the media will ignore).
Everyone will go home and do whatever they were going to do in the first place
one of the many reasons for climate talks to fail is the failure of climate science to explain the surface temperature record in terms of AGW.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2689425
“Everyone will go home and do whatever they were going to do in the first place.” Yep.
“…a brand new job at the United Nations running their Climate Enforcement division…” Yep, my thoughts exactly.
The only thing is, he will be less and less credible as time goes on…
Meanwhile back at the ranch
http://www.dallasnews.com/business/energy/20150818-epa-proposal-to-reduce-methane-emissions-targets-gas-oil-fracking.ece
I think the comment period is up on the 17th.
I was having a good evening until that… thanx for your ongoing reality check Knute.
Jairam Ramesh, minister of the environment under the previous prime minister, Manmohan Singh, told NYT’s Eduardo Porter yesterday: “By 2030 India’s coal consumption could triple or quadruple” and Fairfax Australia’s AFR has a piece today admitting “South-east Asia and India the mainstays of Australia’s future coal exports” on the IEA’s projections, which see Australia regaining the mantle of the world’s largest coal exporter from Indonesia by 2020 as surging domestic demand in south-east Asia absorbs more of that regions’ coal production.
meanwhile, that RENOWNED climate activist DiCaprio has flown to India:
9 Nov: Tech Times: Katrina Pascual: Leonardo DiCaprio Visits India To Witness Impact Of Climate Change
The ***renowned climate activist held extensive discussions with experts and local townsfolk about the links between poverty and climate change, as well as promoted renewable energy sources in the area…
DiCaprio, who visited New Delhi and then proceeded to Kheladi village in Mewat, Haryana, also attended a conference with Delhi-based organization Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) delving on climate change’s effects…
According to Chandra Bhushan, deputy director general at CSE, the per-capita emission of the U.S. per year would be 12 tons while the European Union’s would be five by 2030. **“Americans need to scale down their lifestyles,” Bhushan warned…
http://www.techtimes.com/articles/104436/20151109/leonardo-dicaprio-visits-india-to-witness-impact-of-climate-change.htm
***DiCaprio scale down his lifestyle? not when there’s a casino opening to attend in Macau:
27 Oct: LA Times: Julie Makinen: Did a Chinese casino really just pay $70 million for a 15-minute Martin Scorsese film?
Did a Chinese casino really just spend $70 million on a 15-minute film/advertisement directed by Martin Scorsese and starring Brad Pitt, Robert De Niro and Leonardo DiCaprio?
That was the eye-popping number that started circulating last year even before a trailer for “The Audition” was released online in January. Outlets including Page Six, quoting anonymous sources, said the actors pulled in a cool $13 million each for the gig — though the whole thing only took less than a week to shoot…
On Tuesday, as Melco Crown Entertainment threw open the doors to its $3.2-billion Hollywood-themed casino resort called Studio City in Macau, Scorsese, De Niro and ***DiCaprio were on hand for a red-carpet event…
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-fg-film-china-casino-scorsese-pitt-deniro-dicaprio-20151027-story.html
meanwhile, that RENOWNED climate activist DiCaprio has flown to India:
This particular tactic amuses me to no end. There’s an saying about lawyers and the law. When the facts are on your side, pound the facts. When the law is on your side, pound the law. When neither the law nor the facts are on your side, pound the table. Well there is a corollary in marketing.
When your product has a functionality advantage, sell on functionality.
When your product has a cost advantage, sell on cost.
When your product has neither cost nor functionality advantages, get a celebrity endorsement.
Will never *pay* to watch any of his movies…
GASP! Does this mean that some of them will have to, like, get jobs?
Oh the shame!
WHAT climate crisis?
every night on TV we have a program trying to convince us – to frighten us about insects, what going to happen to animals, trees, etc …….. so they want us to feel guilty if we do not adhere
According to Nat Geo its not a crisis, its climate meltdown. lol
“to deliver final solutions”, where have we heard that before; fascism is always lurking, waiting for the democratic guard to slip.
Not only have Politicians and central bankers to find a way to wean the world off loose money and QE, they need to find a way to draw back from the cAGW scam without pushing the globe into another recession. They are almost damned if they do, and damned if they don’t.
To commit the developed world to the reduction of CO2 on the scale suggested would be economic suicide, and would have drastic consequences, but so too would simply declaring that cAGW is a scam and will no longer be supported.
There are so many large companies and banks very heavily invested in the market that a pull back would have serious consequences for those companies and financial institutions. It might make the sub-prime mortgage issue look like small beer. Don’t forget that this is a multi billion, possibly even a trillion dollar industry worldwide, and to withdraw tax payer subsidies of that extent is bound to have knock on effects.
It is just possible that Politicians are aware of this, but have not yet been able to formulate an exit strategy and therefore need to give the appearance that the bandwagon rolls on but without doing anything of substance, or perhaps I am ascribing too much intelligence to the beast.
Great insight Richard
Not only have Politicians and central bankers to find a way to wean the world off loose money and QE, they need to find a way to draw back from the cAGW sc*m without pushing the globe into another recession. They are almost damned if they do, and damned if they don’t.
To commit the developed world to the reduction of CO2 on the scale suggested would be economic suicide, and would have drastic consequences, but so too would simply declaring that cAGW is a sc*m and will no longer be supported.
There are so many large companies and banks very heavily invested in the market that a pull back would have serious consequences for those companies and financial institutions. It might make the sub-prime mortgage issue look like small beer. Don’t forget that this is a multi billion per year, possibly even a trillion dollar industry worldwide, and to withdraw tax payer subsidies of that extent is bound to have knock on effects.
It is just possible that Politicians are aware of this, but have not yet been able to formulate an exit strategy and therefore they need to give the appearance that the bandwagon rolls on, but without doing anything of substance, a deal which is aspirational in nature with wishy washy targets and devoid of legal consequence that can be sold to MSM and the greens to keep the wheels on the bandwagon and keep it rolling on. Or perhaps, I am ascribing too much intelligence to the beast.
Richard
“They are almost damned if they do, and damned if they don’t.”
Strike out “almost” and I agree. I track money flow. Since the end of last year and continuing into this year there has been a net flow out of nasdaq and s&p. Later time I saw this was pre housing crisis.
Obviously, the current leadership doesn’t want a bubble pop prior to next November so insiders may be getting out while a the market is held up.
Can’t prove it because I’m not an insider but it’s the most realistic scenario to me.
Other sidebar trends are occurring. Traditional commodities have completed there multi-year cycle and the slow accumulation (buying has reappeared) aka Soros buying coal.
Top tier realtors are encouraging their sellers to not quibble over pricing.
I’ve never really thought about the effect of investment money leaving the green machine, but I do now. Thanks for the insight. Btw, that’s how crashes happen. They happen because people don’t see it coming and think all will be the same.
I’m no pro, just a guy refusing to be poor and trying to see the world for what it is.
Paris – just another expensive talkfest:
11 Nov: Financial Times: Paris climate deal will not be a legally binding treaty
by Demetri Sevastopulo in Norfolk, Virginia, and Pilita Clark in London
John Kerry, US secretary of state, has warned that December’s Paris climate change talks will not deliver a “treaty” that legally requires countries to cut their carbon emissions, exposing international divisions over how to enforce a deal.
He said it would contain measures that would drive a “significant amount of investment” towards a low-carbon global economy. But he stressed there were “not going to be legally binding reduction targets like Kyoto”, a reference to the 1997 Kyoto protocol…
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/79daf872-8894-11e5-90de-f44762bf9896.html
Yup, it’s all about money, and always has been, with the movement well supported by a seemingly endless supply of rabid useful idiots.
Our beloved PM Trudeau Junior will ensure that Canada, with 1% of the “pollution” willbear most of the cost…
And the rest of us will thank you.
Perhaps morbid humor on my part.
So Canada pays more annnnnnnd since we don’t have a pipeline they increase shipments via rail.
Pretty risky trade off in threat to da people’s made by the world’s leaders.
Such stupid decision making over a made up risk.
Clankity clank
Clankity clank.
There’s a reason why the DeadParrotTalks will be a failure:
https://youtu.be/4vuW6tQ0218
Crossing party lines: no political push works unless one can appeal across ideological lines. When ‘liberals’ like myself talk about how the global warming business is going to hurt poor people the most, I am concerned about the welfare of these people. I can warn ‘liberals’ that their push for the poor is being destroyed by their belief we are going to roast to death unless we freeze the poor, for example.
But all this is in vain if people on the right can’t see how their own actions isolate themselves! Mocking basic fundamental rights and actions of the left that improved the lives of say, women, means people are turned off of this message and they will reject anything and anyone the right endorses if this means losing basic human civil rights.
The mockery I got here when pointing this gently out is revealing. Being haughty and snide while attacking my suggestion reveals the ideological hatred of anything ‘liberal’ which is a big, big turn-off. When pushing for a coalition to support a change of direction, one has to be flexible on other elements. This is how movements are created, by appealing to the middle.
emsnews
Coming out against a catastrophic global warming that is a political fantasy of the socialist Democratic party, (it is just a huge Poop Swastika used to smear Republicans) is really big of you. I bet you think it would be reasonable to compromise — you know some solution halfway between socialist fantasy and science?
Saying that the Republican party is against birth control is a Poop Swastika. Painting the political fringe as mainstream Republicanism is a favorite Poop Swastika of people like you.
Implying that all the actions of the Democratic Party improve the lives of women and all the actions of the Republican Party harm women is a Poop Swastika. The inner cities have been under the control of the Democratic Party for at least fifty years. Crime? Education? Drugs? Welfare mothers? etc. Have any of those things improved? They have all gotten worse. There we have seen the “revealed” wisdom of the Democratic party at work Why doesn’t the Democratic Party tout its successes in the inner cities as a reason to vote Democratic instead of concentrating on spreading Poop Swastikas about Republicans?
No one is mocking you here. Pointing out what reality is to someone not living in it is not mockery.
Reminding you that forty years ago when you were suing school boards that those boards were composed of elected Democrats — that it was Democrats who stood in the school house door — and pointing out that you never mention that but always leave the impression it was Republican you were suing — well, is that mockery??? The old Jim Crow south was solidly Democratic and reform didn’t come until Republicans began making inroads. So is telling that truth making a mockery of you?
Eugene WR Gallun
Declaring something to be a fundamental right, doesn’t make it one.
Nothing that has to be provided by others can ever be a fundamental right, unless you are of the belief that enslaving others to serve you is acceptable.
BTW, going out of your way to insult those who don’t accept your distortions of reality is hardly “pointing this out gently”. But considering the fact that most leftists want to send to prison those who disagree with them …
No doubt the forthcoming COP 21 conference will have many enlivening moments, but after all the platitudes, beatitudes and pieties have been fulsomely expressed by the assembled troughers, I’m looking forward to the business end of it, the bit where pledges of funds are made.
The target of $100 billion a year, which UN Climate Change supremo Christiana Fugueres recently described as “peanuts”, should theoretically therefore be easy to raise. However, while this may not be very much gravy by the standards of a UN salary train, it may be enough to cause dyspepsia among certain financially beleaguered nations, i.e. most of the nations on Earth.
It will be instructive to view the contents of the hat after it’s been passed around the room for a whip-round. At best I can see a bunch of loose change, some Weimar Republic deutschmarks, a Zimbabwean trillion dollar note (= 1 hamburger), some Monopoly bills, a bunch of IOU’s from Europe, and one of Xi Jinping’s trouser buttons. Trumping them all, of course, will be a handwritten note from that nice Mr Barry O’Barmy, promising to keep the printing presses running over the weekend and knock out a few extra bucks for them, at least enough to finance the early planning stages of the next conference.
To the struggling Indian villager wondering when she will have enough light to cook the the family curry over the smoking dung fire in her living room I say, “Patience, my dear. Much more important people than you are gathered together to delay your illumination indefinitely, in the interests of you and your children, and your children’s children.” I can already hear her two-word response ringing in my ears.
Putin has accepted the invitation to speak at the Global Warming Policeman’s Ball Fundraiser COP 21. Here is the Briefing his Scientists and economists gave him at the 2004 Kyoto AGW Other Policeman’s Ball, COP 10: (Seriously, this IS the Briefing):
http://iccfglobal.org/ppt/Illarionov-013004.html.ppt
Will Putin have the courage to present the 2015 update to that briefing?
Frankly I think that other than a lot of dead tress , used to print out all the BS it generates , and welcome boast to Paris’s high end hotels and rental outlets at the tax payers expense , what will come out is the oxymoron of claims that it was a ‘great success ‘ and claims that ‘it was not enough’ and we are still doomed .
My super duper models , and we know models are ‘never wrong’ , have told me the result of this meeting , they are.
Indian , no but shows us the money
China, yes but shows us the money and by yes we mean no
USA, Obama , yes but in practice its never going to get implemented and we can always blame the republicans
Russia, no and ‘pi** off ‘
Africa/South America , shows us the money
Europe, we can promise the world but cannot give you a deliver date
Asia, no , yes’ish , no , yes’ish , and a bag of peanuts , and shows us the money
Has with this year was ‘ALWAYS ‘ going to be the hottest on record , no matter what the facts were , the script for Paris has already been written it remains only for it to be read out .
A far more positive (if that is the correct word) picture is being given however by the British press , as illustrated by the article today from one of the daily telegraph’s main journalists , Ambrose Evans-Pritchard .
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11989469/Saudi-Arabia-risks-destroying-Opec-and-feeding-the-Isis-monster.html
He has been expressing admiration of China’s defeat of CO2 pollution by its transformation to renewables as a source of energy for quite a while and now is attacking Saudi Arabia’s oil price policy and along the way predicting the near extinction of fossil fuels by 2040 .
Just one excerpt will give the flavour :
-“The next leap foward in technology is going to be in energy storage. Teams of scientists at Harvard, MIT and the world’s elite universities are in a race to slash the cost of batteries – big and small – and overcome the curse of intermittency for wind and solar.
A team in Cambridge says it has cracked the technology for lithium-air batteries that cut costs by four-fifths and enable car journeys of hundreds of miles on a single charge. By the time we reach 2040, it is a fair bet the only petrol cars still on the road will be relics, if they can find fuel at all.
“Everything will be electrified. The internal combustion engine is a dead-end. We all know that, and the car companies ought to know that,” said one official handling the COP21 talks. ” –
His reputation as a journalist was damaged for some people by constantly claiming the exit of Greece from the euro and the collapse of the euro itself , whereas in fact the whole Greek default business has been relatively easily defused and presents no further problems . In this case however he is quoting in the article some impressive projections for the growth of wind and solar power, which strengthen his forecasts , so he may be on stronger ground.
“…enable car journeys of hundreds of miles on a single charge.” I can do that in my diesel. And then I can fill the tank again and go off for another few hundred miles while Mr electric car is sitting there waiting for his battery to charge. And in every claim of range for electric cars you then find the speed restriction required in order to eek out the range and you can forget heating or aircon.
Agreed , Gerry , and as someone on , I think Bishop Hill(but it may have been here) , pointed out there will not be the capacity to allow every commuter to charge his/her vehicle overnight for the morning’s commute .
However the Govt has a cunning plan : smart meters. So, on a rolling basis, postcodes will be allowed power at different times so you will have to queue up for your charging slot and your morning tea/coffee and microwaved porridge and croissant.
Of course there will be exceptions for essential workers like MPs, Party officials, town councillors and anyone associated with a Green movement.
“whereas in fact the whole Greek default business has been relatively easily defused and presents no further problems.”
It was kicked down the road, and is in the process of re-emerging. Greek unions are now demonstrating against the cuts agreed to by the gov’t., and the IMF (one of the troika) hasn’t changed its position that it will not contribute to the bailout unless the EU agrees to debt forgiveness, which it has said it won’t do. Evans-Pritchard will have the last laugh. (PS: Portugal is now getting into the act, with its new gov’t. saying it won’t accept the austerity the previous bunch had agreed to.)
Evans-Pritchard’s reputation will be more damaged by his gullibility about battery breakthroughs. Those things have been “on the verge” for ages, but they never make it to production. Maybe a battery that’s 50% better will be developed, but that’s not good enough to massively displace the ICE. (A much more effective battery would be an explosive hazard in a crash.)
Roger I was a bit surprised by the mention from AEP of significant improvements of Li based batteries . I am a member of the electrochemicals Society ( but not the battery division) and have noticed mention of the Al-ion battery as a more suitable replacement to Li – ion for storage and EVs – some of the work being done in India and China .
There is a recent review of metal air batteries I notice :
http://jes.ecsdl.org/content/160/10/A1759.abstract?sid=0e59bd1b-ade4-4b96-a5e5-c7ecdc125fce
which suggests that improvements in this general field can be expected, but not immediately, to judge from the short extract of the abstract:
“In the last few decades, there are some exciting developments in the field of lithium (Li)-ion batteries from small portable devices to large power system such as electric vehicles (EVs). However, the maximum energy density of lithium-ion batteries is insufficient for the extended range of EVs propulsion. On the other hand, metal-air batteries have a greater power storage capacity, a few times more than the best performing lithium-ion batteries. Mechanically rechargeable zinc (Zn)-, magnesium (Mg)-, and aluminum (Al)-air batteries are receiving increasing attention, due to the advantages of using safe, low cost and abundant materials. If successfully developed, these batteries could provide an energy source for EVs comparing that of gasoline in terms of usable energy density. Nevertheless, there are still numerous scientific and technical challenges that must be overcome, if this alluring promise can be turned into reality. ”
interestingly , for those who in recent times have despaired of Australian science , the paper is from a university in Victoria . The authors have Indian and Chinese names . This does not of course mean that they are not Australian citizens rather than visiting post docs.
Sarah’s 15 minutes of fame, plus plenty of CAGW propaganda from the writer, Jamie:
12 Nov: New Zealand Herald: Student sues Government over climate targets
by Jamie Morton, science reporter
Sarah Thomson wasn’t happy with the targets the Government has set to combating climate change – so now she’s taking it to court.
The Waikato University law student, 24, doesn’t consider herself a climate activist but felt “urgent action” was needed over climate change.
“I guess I just saw something needed to be done and I felt like I couldn’t stand by and watch the country pretty much just do nothing.”
***Backed by a group of lawyers, she filed papers with the High Court this week, in a law suit believed to be the first of its kind – but today dismissed as a “joke” by Prime Minister John Key…
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11544334
I can clearly imagine the examination of this peroffspring (must be totally non-sexist) being examined by Mr. Keys barrister about her personal activities to reduce her “carbon footprint”. The hypocrisy she exhibits should make her a pariah in all civilised communities. Unless she uses no more fossil energy products than the world average she does not have a leg to stand on as she is suing the wrong peroffspring which should be herself.
Too funny. I recall a good few years ago a “political science” student tried to sue Parliament House (The Beehive) because the seats were not the right size for her “ample figure”. She lost!
The reality is that the climate change we are experiencing is caused by the sun and the oceans and no one knows how we can possibly change it. There is evidence that the climate sensitivity of CO2 actually equals zero but the IPCC will not admit it for fear of losing their funding. There are many good reasons to be conserving on the use of fossil fuels but climate change is not one of them. The real ecological problem is Man’s out of control population in a world of finite space and finite resources but the meetings are not about that.
The solution to that is birth control which happens to be a liberal issue, they support this. The GOP is against this.
See how the two extremes clash? Both are quite illogical.
emsnews
You just can’t see your own goosestep Democratic Party bias.
The GOP is a political party that has a manifesto. Nowhere does the GOP come out against birth control. Therefore when you say the GOP is against birth control you are lying. Or you are just dog dumb. The GOP political party takes no such stand.
It would be a safe bet that most of those who are against birth control are ardent Catholics — and ardent Catholics populate both the Democratic and Republican party. So using your ludicrous standard it is safe to say that both the Democratic and Republican parties are against birth control because both have small numbers of members who oppose it.
You keep blindly making these Poop Swastika smears against Republicans Don’t you ever stop to think about what is coming out of your mouth???
Eugene WR Gallun
Unfortunately for you, the real world shows that there is no correlation between the availability of birth control and the number of babies being born.
Population growth is not out of control and never was. In fact it’s slowing down and will stop in a few more decades.
Regardless, the earth could easily support 10 to 20 times more humans than we have at present.
The you tell me, what is the optimum human population and what exactly is controlling it? We are already way over the amount required to live well and perpetuate our species. 20 times more humans means that each of us will have only .05 times the amount of space we now enjoy and Mankind will require 20 times our current resource usage. When we reach 20 times what is going to stop our population from increasing even further? Then what about other species on this planet? Our already huge numbers have caused drastic habitat loss and even extinction for many other species. I would understand if we had other worlds to populate but we don’t.
Agreed: And willhass’ rhetorical question, which seeks to imply we should limit the mankind species, is short sighted. Education and a higher standard of living has been shown to limit polulation increases… as you can see all of the major population growth is in the poorest of countries where living standards are very low. I have a good solution. Let’s increase the CO2 in our atmosphere, which will increase bio-life and so called diversity… More stuff of life, which the anti humans camp has flat wrong.
US Says Paris Deal Will Not be Binding
US secretary of state John Kerry has warned that December’s Paris climate change talks will not deliver a “treaty” that legally requires countries to cut their carbon emissions.
The EU and other countries have long argued that the accord should be an international treaty with legally-binding measures to cut emissions. But in an interview with the Financial Times, Kerry insisted the agreement was “definitively not going to be a treaty.” He said it would contain measures that would drive a significant amount of investment towards a low-carbon global economy. But he stressed there were not going to be legally binding reduction targets like Kyoto. (The Kyoto treaty failed to stop emissions rising.) The US signed but failed to ratify that treaty, largely because it did not cover China.
The Paris deal is supposed to cover all countries, but Mr Kerry’s comments underline the differences between the US and other nations over how to shift billions of dollars of investment away from fossil fuels and towards “greener” energy sources.
Kerry also knows that any treaty coming out of Paris will not be ratified by the current Senate and that would give Obama another failure, this one coming in his last year. Once again it is politics over substance.