These ten stories were the most viewed for this blog:
To see a complete list of stories with links visit the Quick Link Index page.
These ten stories were the most viewed for this blog:
To see a complete list of stories with links visit the Quick Link Index page.
The Cancun conference produced nothing concrete except to meet in Durban, South Africa in 2012.
There were no carbon dioxide emissions reduction targets to reach, but each country can pledge its own target and the U.N. will check to see if they are achieved.
As one publication put it: “The essence of the non-deal deal reached at Cancun: Japan, Russia and other countries sick and tired of the idiocies of the Kyoto Protocol agree to say nothing that prevents other countries from pretending that the Kyoto Protocol lives; advanced industrial countries agree to keep discussing the fantasy that by 2020 they will be collectively shipping $100 billion a year to developing countries; developing countries agree to pretend to believe this will happen; countries agree to continue making laughably inadequate and also non-binding ‘pledges’ on carbon emissions; and everyone agrees not to think about the reality that pigs will fly before a treaty embodying any of these ideas will be ratified by the US Senate.”
Regarding dollars for developing countries, it is unlikely that a Republican-controlled Congress will approve such waste.
The Australian notes an irony of the conference: “The influx of 15,000 people attending the UN conference left a massive carbon footprint. The Mexican government puts the figure at 25,000 tonnes based on emissions caused by flying people across the world, bussing them between conference venues, feeding them and providing electric power….. this carbon footprint was equivalent to the output over two weeks from a small African nation of the type the UN wants to save.”
The Wall Street Journal opines: “World leaders at a climate-change conference in Cancun, Mexico, made clear that addressing the issue will be all about money, agreeing that rich countries would spend potentially trillions of dollars to help poor countries develop on a greener path.
But the diplomats postponed hashing out which rich countries would pay how much, and exactly what the poor countries would have to do to get the checks.
The two-week United Nations climate conference in the resort city of Cancun underscored that future global efforts to address climate change will likely depend more on economic incentives than on environmental mandates.”
A summary of the “shared vision” of the Cancun Agreement from Reason:
(1) As far as I can tell, the COP has indeed kicked the Cancun down the road by agreeing that they “shall aim to complete” further commitments by rich countries to cut greenhouse gas emissions “as early as possible.” They do include the saving phrase “and in time to ensure that there is no gap between the first and second commitment period.” Translation: Additional cuts should be agreed to before 2012. The telling words are “shall aim to complete.” No real promises here.
(2) The shared vision says that the parties set the goal of cutting greenhouse gas emissions “so as to hold the increase in global average temperature below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels….” The parties will think about trying to hold average temperature increase to 1.5 later after further scientific review in 2015.
(3) The shared vision drops the earlier text that would have required that the world cut greenhouse gas emissions by 50 percent and that developed countries cut their emissions by 80-95 percent by 2050. Instead, the parties will “work towards identifying a global goal for substantially reducing global emissions by 2050” and consider it at the next meeting in Durban.
(4) The shared vision also drops the proposal that global greenhouse gases should peak by 2015.
(5) The text also sets up a process for creating a system for accounting and monitoring of greenhouse gas emissions from developed countries. As far as I can tell from reading the rather opaque text, the U.S. has not been roped into a process that leads to legally binding emissions reduction commitments.
(6) China, India and other emerging countries also have not been roped into legally binding commitments, but if they take mitigation actions that are supported by outside money, those activities will be subject to some kind of international auditing. On the other hand, the world will have take their words for their domestically funded activities.
(7) The text also says that the parties decide to establish a Green Climate Fund under the authority of the Conference of the Parties with a board of directors consisting of 24 members, half of whom will be from rich countries and half from poor countries. The developed country parties commit to “mobilizing jointly USD 100 billion per year by 2020 to address the needs of developing countries.”
Phyllis Schlafly said of the conference:
It had little to do with any science about climate change and everything to do with trying to get the United States and other industrialized nations to redistribute their wealth to the poorer nations under the supervision of eager United Nations bureaucrats.
Like previous climate change conferences, COP 16 deliberately pitted the poor countries against the rich countries, encouraging the poor countries to demand what the rich countries have without earning or paying for it.
This is the internationalist version of the basic Marxist tactic called the class war.
COP 16 propagandists blame every human tragedy on the high standard of living enjoyed (and earned) by the rich countries.
The Gore Effect strikes the Cancun Climate conference which experienced six straight days of record low temperatures. The “Gore Effect” is a tongue-in-cheek correlation between appearances of Al Gore to talk about global warming and the occurrence of unusually cold weather at that place and time. The term has subsequently applied to any conference on global warming that experiences unusually cold weather.
The Gore Effect was first noticed in January, 2004, when Al Gore visited Boston and New York to deliver a global-warming panic speech, and bitter cold weather came with him. Boston experienced its lowest temperatures in almost fifty years, while in New York it was -40 degrees with wind chill.
In October, 2006, Gore visited New Zealand, touting his film An Inconvenient Truth. New Zealand newspapers report an unusually cold October that left Southland dairy farmers struggling.
When Gore visited Australia in November, 2006, the Gore Effect struck again. It snowed in Queensland in November for the first time in at least 65 years. “Ski resort operators gazed at the snow in amazement. Parents took children out of school and headed for the mountains. Cricketers scurried amid bullets of hail as Melbourne residents traded lunchtime tales of the incredible cold.” (The Age).
Back in the U.S., in the L.A. area where Gore has been nominated for an Oscar, snow fell in West L.A. and Malibu. The last snowfall recorded at Los Angeles International Airport was in January 1962, according to the National Weather Service.
Some other examples:
First October snow since 1922 blankets London as global warming bill debated – October29, 2008.
Al Gore will be in Melbourne on 13 July 2009 for the launch of Safe Climate Australia. Melbourne is set for more icy weather from the current cold snap, with some temperatures set to drop below zero.
The Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality hearing scheduled for Wednesday, February 14, 2007, at 10:00 a.m. in room 2123 Rayburn House Office Building has been postponed due to inclement weather. The hearing is entitled Climate Change: Are Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Human Activities Contributing to a Warming of the Planet?
Mr Gore visited Italy last week, precisely Milan (Northern Italy). He gave a speech on his usual theme: the globe is warming, there’s a lot of warning signs, we shouldn’t be so foolish to dismiss them, we must act now, etc. Outside the hall, it was snowing and snowing. Dec. 2006
Al Gore visits Harvard, October, 2008, “the temperature in Cambridge is 44.5 °F. Tonight, it is predicted to drop to 34 °F, close to the record low of 28 °F measured in 1940.
You can find many more examples if you Google “gore effect.”
Read a satirical “scientific” paper that discusses the theoretical basis for the Gore Effect: Recent research has shown that the mere presence of Al Gore is able to reduce ambient temperatures by approximately 27.6°C. This phenomenon is termed the “Al Gore Effect.” Various theories about the physical mechanism of this phenomenon, its dangers, and its potential usefulness in fighting global warming are discussed. The paper cautions Mr. Gore to not overuse his powers, lest he cause another glacial epoch.
Things are not going well for the climate industry at the Cancun conference. Japan announced that it would not be a party to renewal of the Kyoto Protocol which expires in 2012. A Japanese official said, ” “Japan will not inscribe its target under the Kyoto protocol on any conditions or under any circumstances.”
To open the conference, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, invoked the ancient jaguar goddess Ixchel in her opening statement to delegates gathered in Cancun, Mexico, noting that Ixchel was not only goddess of the moon, but also “the goddess of reason, creativity and weaving. May she inspire you — because today, you are gathered in Cancun to weave together the elements of a solid response to climate change, using both reason and creativity as your tools.” (Washington Post)
Meanwhile, according to an article in the British Globe and Mail, Canada is getting ready to walk away. “Canada remains the only country to ratify Kyoto and then publicly renounce its 2012 emission targets…” Canada is “seeking a legally binding treaty that includes all major emitters, which is what the Copenhagen Accord was all about last year. That includes the emerging economies of China and India. It also includes the United States, which did not ratify Kyoto and has no intention of doing so.”
President of Mexico, Felipe Calderon, announce that he will ban the use of incandescent light bulbs throughout Mexico. By some calculations, that would make a difference of 0.004% in Mexico’s carbon emissions.
The 16th Conference of the Parties on Climate Change (COP16) did reached its first consensus by approving a proposal on education, training and consciousness as part of efforts to mitigate climate change (i.e., brainwashing).
The proposal commits signatories to promote formal and informal education strategies covering the climate change phenomenon.
“One of the most important aspects of adaptation and mitigation is people’s behavior,” said Guatemala’s Environment Minister Luis Ferrate.
“We have to create a citizenry that is more conscious of climate change, and that means education and training,” he added. (Source, China Radio International)
The real purpose of the conference is not climate, it is to extract $100 billion per year from industrial countries to go into U.N. coffers purportedly to help third world countries to cut their carbon emissions.
By the way, yesterday, Cancun set a 100-year record low temperature for that date of 54 F. Ironic.
The United Nations will hold a climate conference in Cancun, Mexico, from November 29 through December 10. This is a follow-up to the Copenhagen conference. But the Cancun meeting is not about climate, not about the environment, it is about redistributing wealth from rich nations to poorer nations. We see now what the U.N. IPCC is really about.
Last week the German newspaper NZZ Online quoted German economist Ottmar Edenhofer, who is co-chair of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Working Group III on Mitigation of Climate Change, as saying, “The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War.”
Edenhofer also said “climate policy is redistributing the world’s wealth” and that “it’s a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization.”
Investor’s Business Daily commented, “U.N. warm-mongers are seeking to impose a global climate reparations tax on everything from airline flights and international shipping to fuel and financial transactions. At first, this punitive tax on progress is expected to net $100 billion annually, though that amount, like our energy costs, is expected to necessarily skyrocket.”
Updates November 23:
“The EU has agreed a goal to cut greenhouse gas emissions by at least 20 percent by 2020 compared with 1990 levels, but proposals have surfaced that the cut should reach 30 percent.
Fatih Birol, of the IEA, said the gains from the tougher EU reduction target would roughly equal only two weeks of China’s emissions.” (Reuters)
“Robert Orr, UN under secretary general for planning, said the next Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report on global warming will be much worse than the last one.” (United Nations) Looks like the IPCC has a conclusion even before the report is written.