A more downbeat, and therefore encouraging, view of the UN talk-fest from The Australian this morning, with Tim Wilson stripping away the rhetoric to reveal, well, not a lot:

INTERNATIONAL negotiations are like a game of political pass the parcel and every government is desperate to ensure they’re not holding up negotiations when the music stops.

Last July India was left holding the parcel of negotiating text for the World Trade Organisation’s Doha talks when the music stopped, and was internationally condemned for the failed negotiations.

At this week’s UN Climate Change Summit in New York, the grand rhetoric from political leaders shows they are seeking to make sure the music keeps playing when they are in the spotlight.

Kevin Rudd is proposing a “grand bargain”, Chinese President Hu Jintao has proposed per capita emissions cuts and Indian Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh is celebrating proposed domestic legislation for emissions targets. Their statements aren’t about securing agreement but laying the foundations of blame for when the December Copenhagen meeting collapses in attempting to replace the failed Kyoto Protocol.
…
Next week climate change negotiations resume in Bangkok to iron out details for a Copenhagen agreement. [Oh great, another week of climate nonsense to put up with – Ed]

Present negotiating texts include radically different and mutually exclusive visions for emissions targets and how to secure them through instruments, including international financing and undermining intellectual property on low-carbon technology.

Expect another round of media savvy statements to ensure no attending minister looks like they are holding back a deal. But the music will stop by the end of the December Copenhagen meeting and if ministers are smart, they won’t be passing the parcel, they will be dropping it.

And while Rudd and Wong seek to pass their emissions trading scheme they will be committing Australia to unilateral action to harm our economy while the rest of the world points fingers for Copenhagen’s failure.

So even if Australia isn’t left with the parcel in Copenhagen, Rudd and Wong will come home to start a new game: ETS hot potato.

Read it here.

ACM’s favourite alarmist is on top form again, this time in cahoots with an bunch of international enviro-crackpots, who have prepared a report on the “lines in the sand” that must not be crossed if we are to “save the planet.” No, really, stick with it:

The boundaries for climate change, fresh water use, pollution and ozone depletion among others, if transgressed, could bring the world into a new era of decline, the scientists warn.

The global study brought together 28 researchers, including three Australians, and outlines exactly what levels are required to keep the world sustainable.

For climate change, it’s a carbon concentration of 350 parts per million; for biodiversity, it’s the loss of only 10 species per million each year.
…
“We are entering the Anthropocene, a new geological era in which our activities are threatening the Earth’s capacity to regulate itself,” said report co-author Professor Will Steffen, a director of the Climate Change Institute at the Australian National University in Canberra.

“The expanding human enterprise could undermine the resilience of the Holocene state, which would otherwise continue for thousands of years into the future.

“Here we have a challenge … on how can we get our act together?”

So when the climate change fraud has finally been debunked, and the alarmists are desperately looking for another path to global socialism, this report gives plenty of options to choose from:

The other areas include the stratospheric ozone, land-use change, ocean acidification, fresh water distribution, the nitrogen and phosphorus cycles, aerosol loading and chemical pollution.

You have been warned.

Read it here.

Given who else is in the room, it ain’t saying much:

Rudd smartest guy in room, says Clinton

“In my opinion, he is one of the most well-informed, well read, intelligent leaders in the world today,” Mr Clinton told the audience.

I guess that would be compared to such intellectuals as Barack Obama, Gordon Brown, Nicolas Sarkozy, Angela Merkel, Silvio Berlusconi etc, etc… Everything’s relative!

Read it here.

Unfortunately, it looks more and more likely that some kind of deal at Copenhagen will happen. The news reports this morning are all gung ho about a deal, and the Chinese appear to be on board to some extent, although the quote from Hu Jintau was particularly vague:

“We will endeavour to cut carbon dioxide emissions per unit of GDP by a notable margin by 2020 from the 2005 level.” (source)

There does seem to be some momentum behind it all. The Sydney Morning Herald is using the recovery of the ozone layer, resulting from the Montreal Protocol, to be an example of how a global treaty can work (i.e. as for climate change), sadly missing the point that the link between CO2 and “global warming” is far less proven than that between CFCs and ozone depletion.

Even The Australian, usually healthily sceptical on climate, is gushing:

PERHAPS frozen climate change negotiations are starting to thaw, both globally and locally. It seems certain no nation wants to be seen as sabotaging the Copenhagen climate change conference before it starts. And UN head Ban Ki-moon is calling for a ‘fair deal” as the basis for the Copenhagen talks. It seems he might have cause for confidence. Ahead of a major speech in New York by China’s President Hu Jintao on his country’s commitment to tackling global warming, Chinese officials were emphasising the country’s commitment to dealing with the “real and imminent” threat of climate change. The UN’s climate change director, Yvo de Boer, is talking of “his high expectations” of what Mr Hu intends to propose. Even India, which continues to demand action from the US, appears intent on bringing some reduction measures to the negotiating table. It seems a sea-change on climate is in the offing internationally and perhaps at home. Climate Change Minister Penny Wong is saying that if the conservatives can come up with a settled stance on the government’s emissions trading scheme by next month, she will consider amending the legislation.

This is despite admitting in the next paragraph that the science isn’t settled, but the public think it’s a problem [why is that I wonder? Continual media and government misrepresentations of the facts perhaps? – Ed], so therefore we have to deal with it. And with Ban Ki-Moon blackmailing the planet by making the climate debate an issue of morality, it’s hard to see how some kind of agreement, pointless as it will be, won’t be reached:

“Failure to reach broad agreement in Copenhagen would be morally inexcusable, economically short-sighted and politically unwise,” he said.

Mr Ban pointed to worst-case scenarios of UN scientists, who say that the world has only 10 years to reverse the course of climate change which would put at risk entire species and worsen natural disasters.

“The fate of future generations, and the hopes and livelihoods of billions today, rest literally with you,” he said. (source)

Pure climate madness, I’m afraid.

You heard it here first. The hyperbole reaches ludicrous levels as an alliance of small island states claims that failing to “tackle climate change” is equivalent to genocide, at least of a benign variety, whatever that is:

The alliance’s chairman, Grenada Prime Minister Tillman Thomas, says the states are gravely concerned for their survival.

“We’re already being threatened,” he said.

“What I’m saying is that those who are really concerned about humanity and about survival, would they just sit back and permit countries to disappear?

“It is really an ethical question we are faced with now. A failure to act is sort of really a benign genocide in a sense.“

Is it also “benign genocide” when a volcano erupts, an earthquake strikes or when tectonic plate movement means an island sinks into the sea? No, they are the natural hazards of living on planet earth, just like climate change.

Read it here.

What is it about the way Penny Wong speaks? It’s the continual repetition of a phrase, like she’s stuck in an endless loop, that rankles so:

“We want the legislation passed, that’s what we want, that’s what we’re focused on, not only early elections,” Senator Wong said.

“Why should we pass this legislation? Because it is squarely in Australia’s national interests to take action on climate change, it is squarely in Australia’s national interest to pass the carbon pollution reduction scheme.”

Exterminate, exterminate. And in any case, you’re wrong. Please explain how crippling our economy, before we know whether other countries (our competitors) will cripple theirs, is in our national interests.

Read it here.

The latest News Poll demonstrates how well the moonbat media, the IPCC, enviro-celebs like Tim Flannery and Cate Blanchett and governments of all political shades continue to brainwash a majority of the unsuspecting public into believing the following:

1. that anthropogenic global warming [climate change?] is real and dangerous;
2. that we need drastic cuts in emissions of “carbon pollution” to “save the planet”;
3. that Rudd’s ETS will cost no jobs and will miraculously save the Great Barrier Reef.

 When the alternatives, namely:

1. climate change is predominantly natural, in which the human signal from anthropogenic CO2 is almost undetectable (despite billions of dollars of research);
2. emissions cuts means reducing energy consumption, which means limiting or reversing economic growth, which will plunge millions of people around the world (back) into poverty;
3. Rudd’s ETS will cripple the Australian economy, destroy thousands of jobs, and make not one iota of difference to the climate, either locally or globally

is not even considered. At least things are moving in the right direction, however:

According to the latest Newspoll, conducted exclusively for The Australian last weekend, support for the government’s [ETS] scheme is still strong at 67 per cent but is down from 72 per cent in October last year.

Those uncommitted on a scheme have risen from seven to 11 per cent.

Outright opposition to the scheme is a steady 22 per cent of those surveyed.

Those “strongly in favour” of an emissions trading scheme have fallen from 35 per cent in October last year to 29 per cent last weekend.

Slow progress indeed.

Read it here. See also:

Mixed messages: Libs split on carbon
Climate change poll flags pitfalls for both leaders

It doesn’t seem to matter how many studies show that the ETS will obliterate jobs left right and centre, because the government always falls back on its Treasury modelling that says the whole thing will just be a minor irritation to the economy. And since they appear to have an almost religious duty to push through the ETS come what may, that’s not surprising. But others have different views:

THE minerals industry has demanded Kevin Rudd overhaul his proposed emissions trading system or risk smashing Australian jobs and the nation’s industrial competitiveness.

As the Prime Minister lobbied global counterparts for action on climate change in New York yesterday, the Minerals Council of Australia warned that his ETS plans were far too tough compared with new European Commission ETS proposals that emerged during the weekend.

If Mr Rudd’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme went ahead, the council said, it would cripple the ability of Australian companies to compete against Europeans, costing thousands of jobs and billions of dollars and having no environmental benefit.

The dire warning came as Mr Rudd continued to express pessimism about the chance of a new agreement on global emissions reductions at the UN Copenhagen climate change summit in December.
…
MCA acting chief executive Brendan Pearson yesterday backed the cautious approach, seizing on weekend proposals from the European Commission to attack the CPRS as a potential job-destroyer.

Under the EC proposals, Mr Pearson said, 80 per cent of minerals producers and manufacturers would receive free permits, meaning the coal, aluminium, copper and non-ferrous metals industries would faced little cost.

At the same time, 90 per cent of Australia’s mining exports, by value, would be produced without any compensation.

“While Australia’s coalmining sector pays $5 billion in carbon costs over the next five years, the EU industry will pay nothing,” Mr Pearson said. “While the Australian gold sector pays $810million, the comparable industries in the EU (and US) will face no or limited permit costs.“

Sounds like a level playing field, doesn’t it?

Read it here.

The Opposition are pouncing on comments by Kevin Rudd on CNN about the relative timing of the ETS bill. Just for laughs, check out the language our leader uses in a formal interview (an embarrassment to Australia wherever he goes):

“The government I lead was only elected 18 months or so ago, we ratified the Kyoto Protocol immediately and we are into these negotiations big time,” he said [“Into these negotiations big time”? Oh, please – Ed].

“But you know something, our domestic emissions trading legislation was also voted down by our Senate a very short time ago.

“That doesn’t impede me from being active in these negotiations and my observation of President Obama is it doesn’t impede him either.”

The Opposition’s spokesman for the Environment, Greg Hunt, has jumped all over that statement.

“The Prime Minister is telling Australians one thing at home and telling Americans another time abroad,” he said.

“It’s absolutely clear as we’ve always maintained that we should get on and work on an international agreement that should occur before rather than after we finalise an emissions trading scheme in Australia, because we won’t know what the form of the scheme should be until we know what the rest of the world is doing.

“I actually think today’s statement to the Americans on CNN by Kevin Rudd takes away his own argument for a system before the world comes to an agreement.

We shall see. More likely, the Krudd spin cycle will deal with that little misunderstanding, and we will be back to square one by tomorrow morning.

Read it here.

This is Penny Wong’s brilliant idea to get agreement at Copenhagen. Again, living in a kind of fantasy world, where she really believes that the whole world will take notice of the proposals of a country that contributes 1.5% of global emissions. I’m sure the world will listen politely, like one does to a demented great aunt, say “That’s nice dear” and then get back to the real world:

AUSTRALIA has unveiled a compromise proposal to break the deadlocked Copenhagen climate change negotiations that offers developing countries a more flexible way to pledge their efforts towards global greenhouse gas reductions.

Under the compromise proposal, to be announced by Climate Change Minister Penny Wong today, developing countries would not have to commit to binding, economy-wide emission-reduction targets. But they would have to submit their own binding “schedule” of how and where their reductions could be made.

The idea has been described by US President Barack Obama’s special climate change envoy, Todd Stern, as a “constructive proposal”.

But then comes the big issue:

In what appears to be a reference to China and India, she will say the developing countries with “greater capacity and responsibility” would have to promise actions that added up to “significant reductions below baselines”.

So although developing countries submit their own schedules, China and India’s schedule would have to meet certain criteria to be acceptable? What are those criteria, Penny? Because, to be honest, only China and India matter in all this. And if you start setting criteria for China and India, you’re back to, er, exactly where you started. Brilliant.

Read it here.