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 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…

Lima hypocrisy alert: Bianca Jagger lectures us on climate

Lecturing the little people

Lecturing the little people

I love the smell of hypocrisy in the morning.

Here we have the familiar, nauseating sight of the rich and privileged lecturing the little people on how to behave:

Whatever her youthful reputation as the wife of a world-famous rock star and glittery jet setter, Bianca Jagger has committed much of the past 30 years of her life to advancing causes associated with human rights and environmental protection in the developing world.

On Sunday morning, during a side event connected with the annual UN climate negotiations here in Lima, Peru, the 69-year-old Jagger sounded every bit the international diplomat she’s become in recent years. Delivering an impassioned 13-minute talk during a panel discussion, she spoke bluntly about the perils of climate change and the need to restore both destroyed and degraded forests as the best strategy to reduce the ongoing damage.

“Climate change will affect everyone, everywhere, in every nation, in every echelon of society, in the developing world and the developed world,” Jagger said. “We will all suffer the catastrophic consequences of rising sea levels, ocean acidification, food scarcity and political unrest. But some of the most vulnerable communities in the world are bearing a disproportionate burden of the harm without having significantly contributed to the cost. This is a terrible injustice.”

Noting that climate experts predict that 2014 will become the hottest year on record, Jagger warned: “Time is running out. Inaction will lead to severe and irreversible damage.” (source)

Next up, Leo di Caprio, leading a conga-line of Hollywood A-listers who travel everywhere on private jets and consume enough electricity to power a small African republic, but expect everyone else to sacrifice their already inferior quality of life to ‘save the planet’.

Pass the sick bag…

Lima talks treading well-worn path to oblivion

The path towards climate oblivion is well-worn

The path towards climate oblivion is well-worn

Climate talks always follow the same, drearily predictable path:

  1. The talks are prefaced by months of building excitement from the Greens and climate headbangers;
  2. The UN and the WMO issue urgent warnings about the extreme [insert any weather phenomenon here] and the consequent need for action;
  3. The media is jammed full of Hottest Year Evah™ headlines;
  4. Ban ki-Moon and Christiana Figueres start spouting the usual ‘last chance to save the planet’ BS;
  5. The parties arrive at their luxury hotels, having emitted thousands of tonnes of CO2 getting there;
  6. Once the initial excitement has died down, the partying has finished and everyone has epic hangovers, the same tired old differences between rich and poor countries emerge;
  7. Nothing happens until a day before the scheduled end;
  8. Suddenly, there will be frantic negotiation into the early hours to ‘rescue the talks';
  9. Barack Obama, climate messiah, will fly in at the last minute – his mere presence an almost certain guarantee of success;
  10. 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;
  11. 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;
  12. Everyone disappears back home (belching thousands more tonnes of CO2), and the whole thing is forgotten until the next ‘last chance’ comes around.

Lima appears to be following the script pretty closely:

International climate talks in Lima, Peru, are entering their final week, with few hints of whether a newfound optimism that marked the start of negotiations will translate into an agreement that would rein in climate change.

Convened by the United Nations, the talks aim to craft the framework for an international accord to curtail heat-trapping emissions and adapt to changes already occurring on the planet. The final agreement is due to be signed in Paris next December.

Despite more than 20 years of discussions about what nations must do to contend with climate change, the world’s emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases are higher than ever, as negotiations have continued to snag on the contradictory priorities of different countries.

The latest round in the discussions began last week with fresh momentum, in large part thanks to steps the U.S. took last month, including a major deal with China to curb emissions and a $US3 billion ($3.6 billion) commitment to help developing nations fight climate change.

Yet over the days since the Lima conference began Dec. 1, clashes have flared between developed and developing countries over issues such as whether emissions cuts should be mandatory and how much money rich countries should provide to help poor nations cope with damage from climate change.

Many conflicts stem from countries hewing to familiar hard-line bargaining positions. The question remains whether the brinkmanship will give way to an agreement by the end of the week on key issues, the most pressing of which is ground rules on emission-reduction pledges that countries are to make early next year.

“It’s disappointing that countries can’t rise above these petty differences, but it’s not surprising,” Jake Schmidt, international climate policy director for the Natural Resources Defense Council, said from Lima. “Everything always comes down to the wire. (Cabinet-level) ministers have the chance to rise above this when they arrive this week because this is their chance to create their legacy on climate change.”

The window is closing fast for countries to cut greenhouse gases enough to avert the greatest global temperature increases and natural disasters associated with them, climate scientists and organisations such as the World Bank warn. The current round of talks would shape efforts to address climate change after 2020. A 2009 agreement reached in Copenhagen delivered voluntary commitments from some nations, including the United States, to take steps before 2020. (source)

All on track for yet another failure masquerading as success, then.

Trouser-wetting thunderclap in Sydney

I was casually recording an approaching storm this afternoon when this happened, and I had to change my underwear.

Turn the volume up, watch full screen in HD for the full experience… OMG…

The strike was about 80 metres away (behind the camera, I believe) and marble-sized hail followed from a suspected supercell.

Australian aid to bypass corrupt United Nations

Beware the handbag…

Beware the handbag…

Another of Julie Bishop’s handbags to the head for the moonbats at the UN.

Bishop should really go much, much further and tell the Pacific Island scroungers riding the climate bandwagon where to get off, especially since flooding is far more a result of geological sinking rather than sea level rise, and that sea level rise is probably mostly natural rather than burning fossil fuels, but it’s a start:

Australia will continue to directly pay for climate change adaptation in vulnerable South Pacific island nations through its aid budget rather than donate to a UN Green Climate Fund designed for the same purpose, the foreign minister said Friday ahead of traveling to climate talks in Peru.

Foreign Minister Julie Bishop said governments should judge for themselves whether bilateral action to reduce the impact of climate change on developing countries was a more efficient use of aid money than donating through the UN.

“The Green Climate Fund is about supporting developing countries build resilience to climate change. Australia is already doing that through our aid program,” Bishop told The Associated Press before leading the Australian delegation to Lima for a UN climate summit.

“From my experience, bilateral work is able to customise responses when we’re working directly with another partner country,” she said. (source)

Send any dollars to the UN, and a large chunk of it will be syphoned off to pay for the rent seekers at the IPCC and WMO, rather than going to its intended beneficiaries.

Shock. A government that thinks for itself rather than bowing and scraping to the unelected fraudsters at the UN.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 8,894 other followers

%d bloggers like this: