Guest essay by Eric Worrall
The UN appears to be worried they are becoming detached from the real world, so they have created a climate “safe space” for enthusiasts to contribute their ideas for encouraging climate action.
UN makes open call for ideas on fighting climate change
Published on 30/01/2018, 4:52pm
A new portal poses three pressing climate questions, with governments to take part in open talks with those who present answers in May
By Megan Darby
Researchers, campaigners, business leaders and members of the public have an unprecedented chance to influence UN climate talks in 2018.
In a radical opening up of the process, groups and individuals will present their ideas on climate action directly to government representatives during a meeting in Bonn this May.
The plans are led by Fiji, which holds the rotating presidency of the talks. They draw on Pacific “talanoa” storytelling traditions in a bid to make the process more inclusive.
In an exclusive interview, Fiji’s chief climate diplomat Nazhat Shameem Khan told Climate Home News that one of the major criticisms of the UN process was the lack of connection between those taking action and the UN diplomats.
“Dialogue is the way to start to bridge that gap, both philosophically and substantively,” said Shameem Khan.
…
Fiji’s concept for the May meeting is unusual in the extent to which it brings the two worlds together. There are to be three working groups to address the questions:
- Where are we?
- Where do we want to go?
- How do we get there?
…
At UN climate talks in Bonn in November, one negotiator told Climate Home News: “In here, we are becoming detached from the real world.”
…
Read more: http://www.climatechangenews.com/2018/01/30/un-makes-open-call-ideas-fighting-climate-change/
The Talanoa mandate on the UN portal website is bureaucratic gibberish;
The Conference of the Parties, by its decision 1/CP.21, paragraph 20, decided to convene a facilitative dialogue among Parties in 2018 to take stock of the collective efforts of Parties in relation to progress towards the long-term goal referred to in Article 4, paragraph 1, of the Agreement and to inform the preparation of nationally determined contributions pursuant to Article 4, paragraph 8, of the Agreement. At COP23, the Talanoa Dialogue was launched, to start in January 2018.
In accordance with decision 1/CP.23, paragraph 16, the efforts of Parties in relation to action and support in the pre-2020 period will also be considered as an element of the Talanoa Dialogue. Further information on the pre-2020 implementation and ambition are available here.
Read more: https://talanoadialogue.com/mandate
The UNFCCC site makes the purpose of Talanoa a little clearer;
“Talanoa is a traditional word used in Fiji and across the Pacific to reflect a process of inclusive, participatory and transparent dialogue. The purpose of Talanoa is to share stories, build empathy and to make wise decisions for the collective good. The process of Talanoa involves the sharing of ideas, skills and experience through storytelling.
During the process, participants build trust and advance knowledge through empathy and understanding. Blaming others and making critical observations are inconsistent with building mutual trust and respect, and therefore inconsistent with the Talanoa concept. Talanoa fosters stability and inclusiveness in dialogue, by creating a safe space that embraces mutual respect for a platform for decision making for a greater good.”
Read more: http://unfccc.int/focus/talanoa_dialogue/items/10265.php
I suspect contributions like “climate action is a useless waste of money” would be rejected as it is a “critical observation”, whereas a heart rending story of how climate change killed your pet goldfish by triggering an algal bloom in your homeopathic fish tank might get star billing at the Bonn conference in May, maybe even free tickets to attend the conference.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
FANTASTIC!!!! Couldn’t make it up!
British readers will recognise this kind of self-serving, pseudo-intellectual, virtue-signalling bullshit from the wonderful parody series of the BBC called W1A and its predecessor (same writers and some actors) about the London Olympics, called 2012. These feature the appointment of such essential employees as “Director of Legacy”, “Director of Sustainability” and “Director of Better” and other roles created out of “reimagining” management structures.
More please. Who needs comedians when we have these sorts of idiots publicly making fool of themselves with such earnest twaddle.
Have heart. Why don’t we use Fijian practices, so successful in the past. Don’t you hope that your country would achieve their standard of living?
Kaizen comes to mind.
The question, what process/policies determine what is or isn’t considered and shared.
Sarcasm aside, there is a big scary stinky pile of people that think that “gaining” the Fiji standard of living would be an achievement, and that what we would give up to get there would be reasonable. (remember Obama telling us to get used to it … it’s the new normal).
Over the last 25 years or so we had been pushed into the consensus approach (Talanoa) to governance … “be nice and agree with me about the small emotional based issues, or else we don’t want to hear from you, you troublemaker. And by the way, we will indeed use the small (emotional based) issues to set the policy for the big important issues … but don’t tell anyone about that yet”.
If I proposed that CO2 is good for plant life, and humanity (not to mention almost every other living organism) and that burning coal produces more of this life giving elixir, would I have the red carpet rolled out for me?
Many Fijians who don’t like Fiji’s standard of living move to Australia. Unfortunately though Australia’s standard of living is falling due to an influx of the politically left and watermelon greens. (Not the Fijians)
“Steve B January 31, 2018 at 1:03 pm”
If it was not for Indians, the Fijians would not have any standard of living. And many Fijians move to New Zealand first.
Here is the best suggestion that can be made to ALL parties concerned or unconcerned:
If you are truly concerned about AGW and the climate…
Don’t utilize anything that is a direct product or byproduct of Fossil Fuels
(there are over 6000 of them so be careful. Here is a sample list http://whgbetc.com/petro-products.pdf )
If your house is electrified from the grid, pull your meter immediately, the grid is energized by fossil fuel and you can’t be 100% certain where your electrons have come from.
Walk Everywhere (all current conveyances have been built utilizing Fossil Fuels)
Do not fly to any more COP meetings (airlines cannot fly without using fossil fuels too)
Do not run the water in your house, the pipes have been created using Fossil Fuels)
Remove your toilet seats (install outhouse in your backyard)
Gather water from a nearby stream and distill it using a Solar Oven
In short completely divest yourself from all Fossil Fuel products or byproducts,
and do it now or obviously you really don’t care.
And – at least by implication – do not surf the interweb, or sully it with your – politely – somewhat odd opinions.
Auto.
How about this?
http://images.slideplayer.com/35/10290728/slides/slide_22.jpg
AGW is a hoax in as far as it claims it has a solution to an imminent problem.
That solution assumes the ultimate cause of this imminent problem but doesn’t include addressing this imminent problem directly, only indirectly through limiting the assumed cause íf the assumed cause is the ultimate cause at all.
If the assumed cause is not the cause at all, we still sit with the imminent problem because we haven’t focused any funding on dealing with it directly e.g. mitigation strategies for sea level rise, floods, droughts, hurricanes, etc, etc.
If the precautionary principle is anything to go by, then dealing with this imminent problem directly should be Plan A, and indirectly, Plan B.
All we’re doing now is “Going Green” but we’re not preparing for any Climate Change.
The problem with that cartoon is that the bullet points on the screen are as big a lie as catastrophic man made global warming.
Many many TONS of baggage built in to those bullet points, they could all be dismantled easily, and i love the vague word “renewables” which has no real meaning, except maybe energy dystopia.
John Bell: “Renewables” means millions of dollars for the energy/oil companies and billionaires that lap up subsidies while creating unreliable energy for the masses.
The problem with the bullet points is the assumption that they can be achieved without cost.
MarkW
It is worse than that, our obsession with CO2 is making many of those things worse. For example look at all the new pollutants we are creating in our efforts to reduce CO2.
SPP / Southwest Power Pool
Market Monitoring Unit
‘State of the Market’ Fall 2017, Pub. Jan. 22, 2018
P. 42, Special Issues: Negative power prices and renewable energy effect.
https://www.spp.org/documents/56353/spp_mmu_quarterly_fall_2017_v2.pdf
The problem w/that cartoon is, as I learned the hard way as an engineer, you must zero in on the exact problem(s) and start from there to get the best solution. If “climate” is a false flag, then it has to be omitted from the considerations.
+100
Solutions which resolve the true needs of the end user in an Insightful way.
Reducing C02 is going to give us “healthy children”? OMG what a crock!
We have been thru this the precautionary principle is a logical fallacy which is at best a hoax and myth and worst downright dangerous. It is always used by uneducated which usually translates to certain groups anti-vax and anti-science.
You are equating “precautionary” as having little or no risk and you have absolutely no basis to make that claim. Science is about assessing every risk including being stupid enough to invoke the “precautionary principle”.
If you are playing their own “precautionary principle” game back at them, them being AGW, and because we are talking of an imminent cataclysmic live and death situation here, shouldn’t we be seeing more direct physical measures being taken to mitigate possible climate damage?
Take SLR for example. With tens of millions of lives at stake, shouldn’t we be, as a precautionary measure, start moving those people back? Just in case CO2 reduction don’t reverse SLR in time. Moving that amount of people takes years of planning. Shouldn’t we start that with the same urgency as reducing CO2?
Shouldn’t this be a legitimate question in the UN’s discussion?
The woman in pink is an Owl.
Is it a “better world” if “fighting climate change” results in more expensive energy (in terms of human hours of work, and materials/land used)? Be aware that expensive energy will cause EVERYTHING else to be more expensive and in short supply. Is it a “better world” if there is less water, less food, less medicine, less invention, less technology, fewer tractors/combines, fewer labor-saving devices, fewer new drugs, and concomitant huge declines in human productivity? And then there is the looting of capital from productive enterprises (huge new taxes) to try to compensate for all the other losses. Not to mention all the restrictions on individual freedom that would be necessary.
I am convinced that “fighting climate change” would cause more death and suffering than has ever before been seen in the history of the world. These people seem to want a new world of no freedom and extreme limitations. In the 20th century, forced utopianism had a consistent history of causing enormous suffering. If you want the whole world to collapse into collectivist primitive barbarism, go ahead, “fight climate change”. Can mankind ever learn from previous such delusions?
SPP / Southwest Power Pool, Little Rock, AR., Est. 1941
May I quote the great Peter Green in the song “Oh Well”.
“…. don’t ask me what I think of you
I might not give the answer that you want me to… “
Where do we want to go?
The next exotic COP location.
How do we get there?
By business class air travel at public expense.
Now there is some input that we could give that may not be thrown out. “In order to reduce carbon pollution, I feel that the delegates should meet virtually through teleconferencing.”
Business class is for peons. Try private jet. Do not forget to reserve the private limousine for pickup at the airfield.
Where are we? Here
Where do we want to go? There
How do we get there? By car
Where are we? La-La Land
Where do we want to go? Over the Rainbow
How do we get there? Riding on unicorns.
“At UN climate talks in Bonn in November, one negotiator told Climate Home News: “In here, we are becoming detached from the real world.”
Hey, ain’t that the truth!
Correction: “…we are becoming more detached from the real world.”
The UN Charter should have forbidden this kind of overreach, in which the UN goes above the heads of govt and appeals to “the (right-on) people”. Questions should be asked about the funding for the UN’s World Govt activities.
+1 and not just this activity. The “charter” has expanded to world governance and they aren’t shy about it. What amazes me is the UN has accomplished nothing but growing itself into the world’s largest bureaucracy and no one is holding them to task for it.
this a million times over. the un is nothing more than an unaccountable quango with a penchant for wasting tax payer dollars. it needs to be disbanded in short order.
“In here, we are becoming detached from the real world.”
“Becoming”? Poor deluded fellow. The UN and its climate cotillion has been detached from the real world for decades. They live in a make-believe world, pretending to solve a make-believe problem. And now, in desperation, they want people to share their feewings about their make-believe world, but only if they Believe.
It is laughably pathetic.
Here is my input for the IPCC:
How to Discuss Global Warming with a “Climate Alarmist.” Scientific Talking Points to Win the Debate.
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/01/16/how-to-discuss-global-warming-with-a-climate-alarmist-scientific-talking-points-to-win-the-debate/
How Do You Know Climate Alarmists Are Lying? Their Lips Are Moving
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/01/13/how-do-you-know-a-climate-alarmist-is-lying-their-lips-are-moving/
Idea #1: Personal re-breathers will recycle CO2 into carbon-based white-wash to smear over one’s face which should then be turned toward the sun to increase the earth’s albedo.
Hilarious, but not sure a carbon-based white-wash could be made (that usually titanium-dioxide based). How ’bout carbon-black on the face turned skyward at nite to radiate heat out to space?
I think we all have a wonderful opportunity here to provide some valuable input. We should all submit stories of how our lives have improved due to the modest climate change that’s been observed. “I’m a farmer, and my crop yields have steadily increased as carbon dioxide levels have increased and the growing season has lengthened.” As long as you keep it positive, how can they reject it? (heh heh)
I thgink they’ve seen the real world. Becoming detached is no accident!
The only thing they need to discuss is the cost differential between mitigating Climate Change and adapting to Climate Change.
Since everything in this world boils down to money the best thing they can do is take the cheapest option.
The cheapest is the best for who pays. Not the best for who sells, and not the best for who manage the money (getting a % on it).
When did you saw a government setting for the cheapest, last time you checked?
I like those 2 terms: mitigate and adapt. And they should do both if it is such a crisis.
Here in Cape Town our water is almost finished. By reducing CO2 nów will not fix this imminent problem. But by adapting nów we might make it through until the rains come. These are the things we are currently doing and this is what I call a crisis;
Short term adaptation: we are restricted to 50 litres per person per day and we tank water in and filling pools from sources outside our affected areas so we have water when the taps are turned off.
Mid term adaptation: Boreholes, aquifer drilling, well points, emergency desalination.
Long term adaptation: Increase dam sizes, large desalination plants.
And here is the dashboard that they provide us to see what’s going on http://coct.co/water-dashboard/?ca_source=Website&%3bca_medium=affiliate&%3bca_campaign=Home%20page%20trends%20-%20Day%20Zero%20Dashboard&%3bca_term=Day%20Zero%20Dashboard&%3bca_content=Day%20Zero%20Dashboard”
All I see in the world is people working on CO2 reduction and not adaptation. Then it CANNOT be a crisis.
Simple soluton! Show they’re not hypocrites by eliminating all non green energy. They’ll be spending their time washing clothes by hand and hanging them out on clotheslines, and have no free time or money to spend on climate propaganda porn.
They want more magical thinking. Because that’s all they’ve got, and has worked out so well for them.
Another suggestion that would probably be rejected as it is a “critical observation” would be for them to remove their heads from their butts.
/grin
Hey, that answers all 3 of their questions of “where are we”, “where do we want to go”, and “how do we get there”!
Stop climate scientists from jet setting around the globe to, err, save it… free advice, take it !
Seems really tertiary, like the project given to the wallflowers that are three layers removed from the real doings. The chances any real policy would be generated on this feelgood nonsense is zero.
Some ideas: Since carbon seems to be the source of feared climate change, all climate scientists should demonstrate how they can immediately reduce their personal carbon footprints by 50%, to serve as an example to everyone how this can be comfortably achieved. In the spirit of leadership by setting an example to all people and business organizations, all future climate conferences should also reduce their carbon footprints by 50%. Import bans should be imposed on all nations that do not sign or participate in climate change agreements. All nations requesting reparation money due to climate change damage should first demonstrate a reduction of their own overall carbon footprints by 25%, to show how they are truly concerned about carbon-created climate change. Due to the increasingly large carbon footprint created by mining crypto-currency, all member nations should be called upon to ban all activities related to it (cypto-mining is estimated to have consumed 32TWh last year, and this is growing quickly) .
What do you think about these suggestions?
I guess I am tired of being asked to apologize for my carbon footprint and of being forced to pay a carbon tax to those that create the concern but do not demonstrate it. This UN initiative may be a good way to send it back to them.
How do we get there?
The UN should create a crapto-currency called BUTTcoin (Build Up a Terrific Tomorrow) that would be traded in a virtual economy called Uranus (the Greek deity of the atmosphere). Climate scientists would convert their grant miners (climate models) into BUTTcoin miners to mine BUTTcoin from Uranus. Mining BUTTcoins from Uranus would be climate scientists highest scientific achievement. The number of BUTTcoins would be limited to 350 to symbolize the target of 350 ppm CO2. Any BUTTcoins mined above the 350 threshold would automatically be spent on climactic solutions. Since only climate scientists could mine BUTTcoins, they would become fabulously wealthy, and then everyone would want to become a climate scientist. They would save the world and become heroes like Bill Nye and Al Gore. I’m cereal.
Brilliant.
The future is scary indeed.
What a complete load of nonsense. The UN should be defunded. It is a complete waste of resources which could be put to much better use.
Fifty years after spending other peoples money they will probably still be at this point in their pathetic excuse for meetings and breakout sessions…….
Where are we?
Where do we want to go?
How do we get there?
They already include the likes of Greenpeace to tell some pretty tall stories at the IPCC. In fact it seems the only people they don’t include are those who might disagree with their predetermined outcomes. Somehow I don’t see that changing.
With all due respect to Fijian traditions and culture, did the Enlightenment not come about because people needed to be liberated from belief-based perceptions of reality to one founded on reason and the scientific method? Listening to and telling stories will not challenge the veracity or otherwise of what is said. The foundation of all religion is story after all, and look how doctrinal stories have become!
You are so yesterday. Surely you are not employed by the University of California, Harvard, or other institution of higher torch bearing.
I suspect this tradition is one that works best with small groups of people. You get beyond a tribe, not so much. The other thing that should be considered is that this tradition sounds like it is more for dealing with social issues and problems.
Regardless, it does not sound appropriate for real scientific dialogue. And any time the phrase “collective good” is used, it is probably best to start running.
“Talanoa is a traditional word used in Fiji and across the Pacific to reflect a process of inclusive, participatory and transparent dialogue.”
Fiji, otherwise known as the Cannibal Isles.
What was the traditional inclusion?
We are putting you on the menu
C’mon, all they ever wanted to do is serve the rest of mankind.
“Mr. Chambers, don’t get on that ship! The rest of the book To Serve Man, it’s… it’s a cookbook!”