Durban: Phew, planet saved. What's next?

Durban nightmare

Only in the fantasy world of UN climate negotiations could anyone seriously believe that agreeing a piece of paper that shifts money around will “save the planet”. OK, perhaps in the fantasy world of journalism as well.

At 3 in the morning, a few exhausted and desperate delegates hammer out a “deal” which, when examined carefully, appears to be little more than an agreement to agree in the future (which is legally unenforceable), containing more loopholes than a battered old cardigan

As predicted yesterday, the moonbat media (Sydney Morning Herald, UK Telegraph etc) are crowing about this “historic” deal:

The world is on track for a comprehensive global treaty on climate change for the first time after agreement was reached at talks in Durban in the early hours of Sunday morning.

Negotiators agreed to start work on a new climate deal that would have legal force and, crucially, require both developed and developing countries to cut their carbon emissions. The terms now need to be agreed by 2015 and come into effect from 2020. (Guardian)

A new deal to “save the planet” will force the world’s three biggest emitters the US, China and India to cut carbon emissions for the first time, although scientists fear it will come too late to stop global warming. (Telegraph)

THE world’s heaviest greenhouse gas emitters, including China and the US, have forged a plan to unite all major nations under a legally binding pact to slow climate change.

The last-ditch deal, reached yesterday at the end of the United Nations climate conference in South Africa, is the first time developing nations such as China and India have agreed to work towards emissions reduction targets that have ”legal force”.

Australia’s Climate Change Minister, Greg Combet, called the agreement ”a significant breakthrough in tackling global warming”. (Sydney Morning Herald)

The excitement is clearly too much, as, in a throwback to an earlier era, both the Telegraph and Greg Combet oddly refer to the issue as “global warming” again – a full two revisions back from the phrase du jour, “climate disruption”. How last decade.

Notice how nothing is binding, just that the world is “on track”, or “forging a plan”, or “working towards” something which we will put off until later because it’s too hard right now. I wonder what will change to make it so much easier in 2015? A few years of global cooling or another few thousand Climategate emails would make it interesting…

Naturally this is the kind of vague wording that keeps everyone happy. The developing countries and the rent seekers (stand up, Maldives: “Our islands are sinking!! But we’re building multiple new airports for all the tourists anyway…”) believe they have a deal, and China, India and the US know full well it’s worth less than the paper it’s written on. An awful lot can change in the world before 2015, and even more before 2020.

Once again, and as always with the UN, it’s more about the appearance of progress than something tangible – and an excuse for more taxpayer funded jollies to luxury resort destinations in future years. Which is clearly good for those of us that believe that any global treaty on climate change will do precisely nothing, exactly like Kyoto has done precisely nothing.

Chris Horner, writing at Watts Up With That, summarises:

The annual “historic agreement” to meet again later — wait, sorry, that’s “to save the planet” — has been agreed, to the also-annual teary-eyed hugging and standing ovations by EU delegates, at “COP-17”, the negotiations to replace the expiring (after 2012) Kyoto Protocol.

On its face, the summary is that the rest of the world agreed to let Europe continue binding itself until some later date. Yesterday, ClimateWire reported that a fund was established to administer the fund agreed in Copenhagen two years ago. Oh.

AP tells us that “a separate document obliges major developing nations like China and India, excluded under Kyoto, to accept legally binding emissions targets in the future”, meaning in a separate document China et al bound themselves to bind themselves later. [So....uh, they bound themselves for later? No. They bound themselves to bind themselves later. THIRD BASE!]

Oddly, no one seems too proud of this latest “breakthrough”, described as countries binding themselves to bind themselves later. The UN isn’t providing what the Telegraph tells us is a whopping two-page text. Takes awhile, you see.

The State Department doesn’t seem too keen on trumpeting their latest “historic agreement”, either, but the home page’s Daily Press Briefing does offer “New Photovoltaic Project Inaugurated At U.S. Embassy in Athens” and “Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves Receives South-South Cooperation Award for Partnership”.

So whatever it was it was less historic than these advances. Or no one wants to draw too much attention.

As Chris mentions, the document isn’t available on the UN website yet, so we don’t know exactly what it says, but (again thanks to WUWT), it looks even less of a breakthrough than we thought, as Kumi Naidoo, Greenpeace International Executive Director, explains:

“The grim news is that the blockers lead by the US have succeeded in inserting a vital get-out clause that could easily prevent the next big climate deal being legally binding. If that loophole is exploited it could be a disaster. And the deal is due to be implemented ‘from 2020′ leaving almost no room for increasing the depth of carbon cuts in this decade when scientists say we need emissions to peak.”

Phew, planet saved, then. From climate lunacy, that is.

Comments

  1. Apparently the 2020 due date is acceptable to Combet:

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-12-11/combet-says-climate-pact-validates-carbon-tax/3724698

    Despite his alarmist buddies saying that’ll be too late for action.

  2. Who are these rich countries supposed to be, who are going to give trillions of dollars to the UN ? US, Japan, Germany, Italy, top the list for largest national debt. Perhaps we should give to poor China ?

  3. Vivienne Skeen via Facebook says:

    It’s all a great big CON, the money is for the UN to pursue their One World Government so they can control the world.

  4. Thank goodness so many leaders, so many diplomats, so many highly paid negotiators, who are all in the same room and who all supposedly accept the evidence that “Climate change represents an urgent and potentially irreversible threat to human societies and the planet and thus requires to be urgently addressed…”, after procrastinating for one week, come up with an agreement not to agree?

    Thank heavens they’re not controlling the world or we’d really be in trouble!

  5. Irina Rakov via Facebook says:

    George Orwell is turning in his grave!

  6. The USA is the largest debtor to the UN. They refuse to fund it unless their demands are met. Yet we are spending tens of millions on obtaining a seat on the ineffectual security council, then sending billions to them for “carbon dioxide tax” breaks for other countries. Surely there must be something in the constitution that would treat this as treason? Mind you I cannot find it and a government member cannot be sued by the government as it would be suing itself [that is the wording]. History shows we rebelled over mining licence fees at Eureka, maybe it is time we did again and kicked this inept and ineffectual, rudderless [even with rudd at helm], minority party driven gang of thieves out and then charge them once a private citizen. Constitution does not provide for prosecution after no longer a minister or parliamentarian.

  7. Jack Lamb via Facebook says:

    Another way to redistribute the wealth!

  8. NWO are getting closer and closer folks.

  9. Ray Anderson via Facebook says:

    George may be laughing in his grave.. He understood more about human nature and the mental illness called “the pursuit of power over others for the sake of the power”, than anyone since.

  10. The Sydney Morning Herald seems to be digging it’s own grave. How can the believe they can get away with outrageous spin now the readership has access to the internet?

  11. I wonder if anyone with any scientific background at all (whatever their “denier” or “warmist” bias) was allowed within 100km of the conference. My guess would be no…

  12. Just what we need , the shifting of more money from the battlers to the banksters, hoaxsters and conmen to enrich the green virus machine.

  13. In year 99 was declared: if we don’t sign an agreement before Christmas, will be too late! This one for year 2020 is clever. In 5-6 years, demand for fuel will outstrip supply; only countries without big foreign deficit can afford to buy it; the rest will be ”cutting” on their emission. We are addicted to fuel. Green people know how addicted people behave. Price quadruples; only people with hard currency can have the oil; or countries with the biggest guns.

  14. So if the US, China and India drag the chain and it ends up being “too late to stop global warming”, does that mean the warmists will shut up and we can get on with our lives in peace? Hey, perhaps all the money set aside to “save the planet” can be used to “save Europe’s ecomony” or “save lives” by putting more money into the health system.

  15. What I fail to comprehend about the science sceptics of this world, is how you can totally ignore the weight of scientific evidence when it suits your ideology, yet the moment you need science to save you, no doubt you’re all ears. Bash science and peer reviewed studies all your lives as a bunch of crackpots pretending the world is flat. Would you still be sceptical of science when you’re in hospital, your doctor telling you the wealth of peer-reviewed studies into your condition has proven it could save your life? Would you be sceptical then? A pharmaceutical industry conspiracy, perhaps? Or would you say “well death is natural anyway” and just cop it sweet?

    I picked up an old friend the other day who seems to have lost the plot. All the way home he ranted that this Carbon Tax is actually a way to tax the carbon atom, so that we will have to pay tax on children, on ourselves, on our breathing, as we’re all carbon based life-forms. It’ll give the Government the opportunity to tax life! Then he went on about New World Order and a bunch of stuff.

    You’ve all clearly got your heads screwed on.

    • Hi Rob,

      How about this for science.

      Japanese satellite data shows that more CO2 and methane are emitted from unpopulated areas that industrialized areas. See figures 2 and 3.

      http://www.jaxa.jp/press/2009/10/20091030_ibuki_e.html

      Note that this data is also supported by NOAA – google carbon tracker.

      Kinda takes all the air out of the theory of man made CO2 causing global warming.

      This is real science – not junk science.

    • The Loaded Dog says:

      I only trust honest science myself Robbie boy; you’re obviously different. You see…when the truth is upheld there’s simply no need to lie, cheat, bully, manipulate, exaggerate, fudge or hide data.

  16. It may be a claytons agreement but it will be enough for this this stupid labor government to justify shovelling our money down that bottomless pit called the UN climate fund. The next thing willbe some legislation to fix our contribuion as a percentage of GDP,indexxed to inflation of course. Meanwhile our pensioners go without dental care or wait years for hip replacements.

  17. Bryan Harris says:

    Chris Huhne was looking too smug – I don’t trust these people one inch, not until someone who understands the language has had the opportunity to go through this document.

    Naturally this is the kind of vague wording that keeps everyone happy

    On the surface yet, but I suspect they’ve added clauses of their own that will bind more than we expect – we shouldn’t be celebrating yet – these “people” are devious beyond measure.

  18. The Durban outcome can be summarised as Greg Combet and his ilk from other countries returning home like so many Neville Chamberlains, and give “Carbon Constraints in Our Time” speeches to the brainlessly faithful.

    Unfortunately for Greggy-boy even the Greens aren’t buying it. Christine Milne has called it for what it is – an agreement to strive for an agreement at some time in the distant future. Who’s in denial now????

  19. mike williams says:

    quote” science sceptics of this world, is how you can totally ignore the weight of scientific evidence when it suits your ideology, ”

    Pot..meet kettle
    Unlike yourself..we use the internet to research the science.

    http://www.c3headlines.com/predictionsforecasts/

    And..for the thousandth time..an appeal to authority s not a scientific argument.

    “Would you still be sceptical of science when you’re in hospital, your doctor telling you the wealth of peer-reviewed studies into your condition has proven it could save your life?”

    Yawn..and if the doctor relied primarily on scaring you on what might happen and then pointed out MODELLING and nothing else..you would spend your money anyway.?
    And when the docotor showed you all his previously failed predictions but reassure you this time will be different you would pay him.??
    And when the doctor showed you all the billions spent on the subject..which had achieved nothing but paper shuffling..you would still proceed.???
    For god sake done use the medical analogy to people over the age of ten years old..its like shooting fish in a barrel. :)

  20. Bryan Harris says:

    “Would you still be sceptical of science when you’re in hospital, your doctor telling you the wealth of peer-reviewed studies into your condition has proven it could save your life?”

    You bet we would – the medical profession is even more corrupt than the UN sponsored scientific one is – Never mind peer reviewing, they do like the IPCC does and get students or some bribed practitioners to do their reviews.

    The thing is life is not about “trust and belief” – yes you have to believe what good people have done in all good honesty, but you have to weigh things up for yourself, not just follow like lemmings.

    There are too many questions on the integrity of the IPCC and how this science was “settled” when they can model only a fraction of the inputs that should be going into such an exercise.

    So, yes, we have very good reasons to be sceptical.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 8,730 other followers

%d bloggers like this: