Lima: weak, non-binding ‘agreement’ lays traps for Paris


Grey skies ahead in Paris…

Grey skies ahead in Paris…

As predicted in my post exposing the well-worn path taken by climate talks, we have reached steps 10, 11 and 12:

  • A hastily cobbled-together ‘agreement’ (which will have no binding effect, and which will kick any hard decisions further down the road) will be announced in order to save face;
  • The media and the Greens will publicly hail this sham agreement as a successful outcome, whilst secretly acknowledging that it is yet another embarrassing failure;
  • Everyone disappears back home (belching thousands more tonnes of CO2), and the whole thing is forgotten until the next ‘last chance’ comes around.

All to be expected. Whilst some sections of the moonbat media are celebrating the ‘last minute success’, even the Sydney Morning Herald acknowledges that there are difficult times ahead:

The main aim of the Lima conference – to agree to provide detailed information about commitments countries will make before the climate change conference in Paris in 2015 to enable others to scrutinise these pledges – was achieved. Further, a draft of elements of the Paris agreement was agreed to.

But major issues of dispute have been deferred until next year in Paris. The intractable issue of the division or differentiation between developing and developed countries and how much each should do is unresolved.

This binary division was central to the United Nations Framework Convention struck in 1992 but is no longer as relevant in 2014 ; countries now range along a spectrum of economic development.

Yet this binary division flows through to most aspects of the Lima agreement and so fundamental is this binary division to some developing countries’ view of world affairs that it cannot easily be excised.

Another problem is a competition between two rival models for what a new global climate agreement should look like. One is the old-style top-down legally binding agreement in which countries negotiate the international rules and the targets and other commitments each should meet.

The other is model in which countries determine their own commitments, targets and the scope of those pledges. Through the provision of detailed information about those pledges it is expected that there will be an incentive for countries to ensure that these voluntary contributions reflect a fair share of the international effort but also reflect differences between rich and poor countries. Whether this actually occurs remains to be seen but the existing model has not had much success.

At the end of the day, negotiators faced a problem in Lima – countries had their gaze set on the main prize in Paris but were unable or unwilling to agree on how to get there. This will only heighten the stakes and expectations for next year in France.

Until next year, then…

Lima talks teetering on brink of ignominious collapse


Congratulations, Australia!

Congratulations, Australia!

Cue the environmentalist alarm-mongers:

Frustrated climate campaigners have claimed that the world was on course for an unsustainable four-degree rise in temperatures, as two weeks of negotiations for a climate change agreement headed for an unsatisfying conclusion.

The proposals, still under discussion on Saturday, a day after the talks were scheduled to end, were too weak to keep global warming to the agreed limit of two degrees above preindustrial levels, setting the world on course to a climate disaster, according to developing countries at the summit.

“We are on a path to three or four degrees with this outcome,” said Tasneem Essop, international climate strategist for WWF [i.e. rent-seeking organisation with vested interest riding the climate bandwagon – Ed].

She said the final draft text, a five-page document put forward for approval on Saturday, offered little assurance of cutting emissions fast enough and deeply enough to curb warming. “We are really unhappy about the weakening of the text. This gives us no level of comfort that we will be able to close the emissions gap to get emissions to peak before 2020,” she said. Saleemul Huq, a senior fellow at the International Institute for Environment and Development [ditto – Ed], put it even more succinctly: “It sucks. It is taking us backwards.” (source)

And there’s more good news:

This year’s Fossil of the Year Award, goes to Australia who take the Colossal Fossil award for collecting more Fossil awards than any other country here at COP20. From the get-go Australia signalled they were not coming here to make progress towards a comprehensive international climate agreement. This was pretty clear when they sent a climate sceptic Trade Minister Andrew Robb along to “chaperone” Foreign Minister Julie Bishop into a negotiating dead-end. The delegation in Lima has been dragging down loss & damage, flip-flopping on climate finance, and making bizarre comments that reveal a warped perspective on climate action. Shape up Australia, you are making Canada look good! (source)

Great sabotage from Bishop and Robb – respect!

Quote of the Day from Lima


Quote of the Day

Quote of the Day

No surprise that the latest climate talks are heading exactly the same way as all the rest:

“The latest text which countries are working on has been stripped down to its bare bones to accommodate the whims of the lowest common denominator,” said Christian Aid’s Mohamed Adow. “Right now we are facing the prospect of being no further forward than we were when we left last year’s meeting in Warsaw.” (source)

Oh well, never mind. Everyone had a great time in an exotic location getting pissed… all at the taxpayers’ expense.

Aussie councils reject sea level hysteria


Fort Denison (© Andy Mitchell, Wikimedia)

Fort Denison (© Andy Mitchell, Wikimedia)

Fort Denison, an old penal colony in the middle of Sydney Harbour, has one of the oldest tide gauges around, having been located there for 128 years. During this period, the sea level has risen just 6.5 cm, or about two and a half inches.

Despite these trivial sea level rise over the past century and a bit, moonbat councils on the east coast of Australia are still tying up waterfront properties in miles of green tape, justified by predictions of massive sea level rises by climate alarmists, and property values have plummeted as a result:

In mid-2010, the Eurobodalla council, south of Shoalhaven, introduced a unique interim sea level rise policy that shackled more than a quarter of all properties in the shire to restrictive development controls. Predictably, there was an immediate shire-wide decline in property values.

In three years, individual Eurobodalla properties lost about $40,000 in value. With 22,000 properties in the shire, this represents a capital loss of $880m at a rate of $293m a year. This steady loss of rateable value means householders will face higher rate increases.

If similar policies were implemented along the entire east coast there would be annual property capital losses of billions of dollars.

So it is not surprising that NSW and Queensland governments are reconsidering their coastal management policies.

Queensland Deputy Premier Jeff Seeney recently notified Moreton Bay Regional Council of his intention to direct it to amend its draft planning scheme “to remove any assumption about a theoretical projected sea level rise due to climate change from all and any provisions of the scheme”. Seeney said his intention was to use a statewide coastal mapping scheme “that will remove the ‘one size fits all’ approach that incorporates a mandatory 0.8m addition to historical data”.

At last, a responsible government has recognised that global average sea-level change is no more relevant to coastal management than average global temperatures are to the design of residential heating and cooling systems — local weather and local sea-level change is what matters. (source)

A bit of Aussie climate sanity for once.

Climate talks – where time is always running out…


The UN egg-timer that never runs out

The UN egg-timer that never runs out

But at the same time, time never runs out!

Time for a quiz, I think. Identify the source of each of the following quotes, and in relation to which UNFCCC Climate Talks they were said.

Quote 1:

“There is still a chance to stay within the internationally agreed ceiling [of warming under two degrees Celsius from pre-industrial levels]. But the window of opportunity is fast narrowing. We can no longer afford to burn our way to prosperity.”

Quote 2:

“The political stakes are high because the effectiveness and credibility of your intergovernmental, multilateral process are in danger. And the environmental stakes are high because we are quickly running out of time to safeguard our future.”

Quote 3:

“This is yet another call for climate action which shows the world is not getting its act together fast enough. The bad news of the report released today is that current carbon cuts are too slow to prevent dangerous climate change. But the good news is that we have options to close the gap although time is running out. And some of them are just a no-brainer: energy efficiency, renewable energy and fossil fuel subsidy reform.”

Quote 4:

“I appeal to all world leaders … to redouble efforts to find the room for compromise, to make a final push in this final stretch. Time is running out… There is no time for posturing or blaming.”

Quote 5:

Time is running out. The door is closing fast on us because the pace and the scale of action is simply not yet where it must be.”

No prizes, just for fun. Email entries to simon@australianclimatemadness.com. First in with the correct answer wins (in other words, who can google the quotes the quickest…).

Insanity: Australia to give $200 million to UN climate fund


Where's the handbag now, Julie?

Where’s the handbag now, Julie?

Seriously, are we out of our collective freaking minds? After all the good news stories recently, it has to be spoiled by this.

Here’s what the Green Climate Fund is all about:

The Fund will contribute to the achievement of the ultimate objective of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). In the context of sustainable development, the Fund will promote the paradigm shift towards low-emission and climate-resilient development pathways by providing support to developing countries to limit or reduce their greenhouse gas emissions and to adapt to the impacts of climate change, taking into account the needs of those developing countries particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change. The Fund will be guided by the principles and provisions of the Convention.

In other words, it is essentially guided by the alarmists of the IPCC, with all their fudged data, hysterical crystal-ball gazing and scaremongering nonsense. And we are handing over $200 million? That would pay for an awful lot of nurses, policemen and teachers. We must be insane:

The Federal Government has announced it will contribute $200 million to an international fund designed to help developing nations tackle climate change.

Foreign Minister Julie Bishop announced the funding at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Lima, Peru.

The money, which will be paid over four years from Australia’s aid program, will go to the UN’s Green Climate Fund (GCF), which aims to fund projects in poorer countries.

“Our pledge to the Green Climate Fund will facilitate private sector-led economic growth in our region … with a particular focus on investment, infrastructure, energy, forestry and emissions reductions,” Ms Bishop told the conference.

“I welcome the fact that participating countries have delivered on undertakings to capitalise the Green Climate fund and with Australia’s contribution have reached a significant total in excess of $10 billion to date.

“It is now contingent on all of us to make sure the Green Climate Fund funds are distributed efficiently, transparently and to maximum effect.”

I think I need to have a lie down…

Yay! Australia second-worst country for climate action!


Second LAST, that is!

Second WORST, that is!

Disappointing we weren’t outright worst overall, but second worst is pretty good.

We were, however, outright worst for industrialised nations. So in every cloud of farts there’s a silver lining.

While other nations gleefully haemorrhage money on pointless climate mitigation action and other sacrifices to Gaia (which, as any fule kno, will make no difference to the climate whatsoever), Australia can use that same money for actually improving people’s lives. But don’t try explaining that to the global warmists, who believe that an expensive and futile gesture such as a carbon tax or ETS is essential to show their compassion for the planet. Barf.

Australia is the worst performing industrial country for action on climate change, and the second worst country from 61 covered in a new report.

The release of the Climate Change Performance Index (CCPI) for 2015 coincides with climate talks in Peru, which Foreign Minister Julie Bishop is reported to be attending against the Prime Minister’s wishes.

The CCPI – a joint report by Germanwatch and the European Climate Action Network – blames changes to government policy for a drop in the ranking.

Australia sits just ahead of the oil-exporting nation Saudi Arabia, which is in last place.

Chief counsellor at the Australian Climate Institute, Tim Flannery, [WTF, SBS? Flim-flammery is at the Climate Council, no? – Ed] said Australia had lost three years’ worth of gains since the repeal of the Carbon Tax.

“We’re one of the highest per capita polluters on the planet, overall we’re the 15th largest polluter and we’re starting to go backwards,” Mr Flannery said.

Instead of celebrating Australia’s immunity to climate astrology, the government tries to make out it is doing something, and ends up looking very stupid:

Environment Minister Greg Hunt was contacted for comment.

A spokesperson from the minister’s office referred to Australia’s success at meeting the 1997 Kyoto Protocol targets, and spruiked the government’s $2.5 billion Direct Action policy.

“Australia has been one of the few nations to actually achieve its emissions reduction targets to date,” the spokesperson said.

Yeah, right. With less than 1.5% of global emissions, the climate wouldn’t have even noticed…

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 8,862 other followers

%d bloggers like this: