Unelected Secretariat over my dead body

Barbed wire

A symbol of the proposed, unelected “Secretariat”.

I will resist these proposals with all the means at my disposal for as long as there is breath in my body.

Here’s a selection from Lord Monckton’s hard-hitting exposé of the United Nation’s plans for a world government which were first revealed by him in Copenhagen a year ago. The plans are being further stitched together this week in Cancun, to be finalised the year after next in Rio de Janeiro.

This material is from what is euphemistically termed the Chairman’s “note” (actually, “Note by the Chair”, as though a chair might speak) and which is subtitled “Elements of the outcome”.

It is impenetrable, impossible to understand – and that, Christopher Monckton explains, is deliberate; we’re not meant to know what it means.

later we shall be told they were in the public domain all the time, so what are we complaining about?

Lord Monckton summarises the main points of the Chairman’s note:

Finance: Western countries will jointly provide $100 billion a year by 2020 to an unnamed new UN Fund. To keep this sum up with GDP growth, the West may commit itself to pay 1.5% of GDP to the UN each year. That is more than twice the 0.7% of GDP that the UN has recommended the West to pay in foreign aid for the past half century. Several hundred of the provisions in the Chairman’s note will impose huge financial costs on the nations of the West.

The world-government Secretariat: In all but name, the UN Convention’s Secretariat will become a world government directly controlling hundreds of global, supranational, regional, national and sub-national bureaucracies. It will receive the vast sum of taxpayers’ money ostensibly paid by the West to the Third World for adaptation to the supposed adverse consequences of imagined (and imaginary) “global warming”.

Bureaucracy: Hundreds of new interlocking bureaucracies answerable to the world-government Secretariat will vastly extend its power and reach. In an explicit mirroring of the European Union’s method of enforcing the will of its unelected Kommissars on the groaning peoples of that benighted continent, the civil servants of nation states will come to see themselves as servants of the greater empire of the Secretariat, carrying out its ukases and diktats whatever the will of the nation states’ governments.

Many of the new bureaucracies are disguised as “capacity-building in developing countries”. This has nothing to do with growing the economies or industries of poorer nations. It turns out to mean the installation of hundreds of bureaucratic offices answerable to the Secretariat in numerous countries around the world. Who pays? You do, gentle taxpayer.

Now, it’s possible that the Viscount Monckton of Brenchley overstates the case; perhaps he’s so sensitive to the possibility of a high-level conspiracy he sees them everywhere. Maybe he gives expression here only to his nightmares.

To guard against this, for one thing, we can read and judge the Note by the Chair for ourselves. For a second thing, Lord Monckton indulges in quite superlative creativity in imagining a list of incredible length and complexity covering the committees and organisations to be set up, not just once, but in every single one of the 193 countries party to the UNFCCC (the Convention).

He lists 37 names. Many of them require a series of offices or specify a “network”, so there are actually many, many more than 37 bodies. To get the flavour of them, imagine the self-satisfied bureaucrats attracted to serve in a body called “an Office of the Work Program on Agriculture to Enhance the Implementation of Article 4, Paragraph 1(c) of the Convention Taking Into Account Paragraph 31.” Perhaps an exaggeration, perhaps not.

And don’t complain that you weren’t told all the details about this important “office” before we set it up, because you jolly well were and we can prove it!

I cannot put this down to the ravings of a conspiracy-obsessed loon; I myself have found similar phrases in the Note and it’s obvious this is the aim of at least the Chairman. In reality, that aim is shared by innumerable bureaucrats.

The world government’s powers: The Secretariat will have the power not merely to invite nation states to perform their obligations under the climate-change Convention, but to compel them to do so. Nation states are to be ordered to collect, compile and submit vast quantities of information, in a manner and form to be specified by the secretariat and its growing army of subsidiary bodies. Between them, they will be given new powers to verify the information, to review it and, on the basis of that review, to tell nation states what they can and cannot do.

This is dreamy stuff. Perhaps only 20 or 30 years ago, this could only have been found in a novel or the patter of a stand-up comedian.

Holders of patents, particularly in fields related to “global warming” and its mitigation, will be obliged to transfer the benefits of their inventiveness to developing countries without payment of royalties.

Knowledge is power: The Chairman’s note contains numerous references to a multitude of new as well as existing obligations on nation states to provide information to the Secretariat, in a form and manner which it will dictate. The hand of the EU is very visible here.

It grabbed power from the member-states in four stages: first, acting merely as a secretariat to ensure stable supplies of coal and steel to rebuild Europe after the Second World War; then as a registry requiring member states to supply it with ever more information; then as a review body determining on the basis of the information supplied by the member states whether they were complying with their obligations on the ever-lengthier and more complex body of European treaties; and finally as the ultimate law-making authority, to which all elected parliaments, explicitly including the European “Parliament”, were and are subject.

Propaganda: The Chairman’s note contains several mentions of the notion that the peoples of the world need to be told more about climate change.

There are provisions to arm the Secretariat with much money to accomplish this. The Note acknowledges that The Process [of fighting global warming] is causing, and will cause, considerable economic damage.

The solution? Consideration of the catastrophic economic consequences of the Secretariat’s heroically lunatic decisions will fall under the control of – yup – the Secretariat. Admire its sheer gall.

[More to come.]

71 Thoughts on “Unelected Secretariat over my dead body

  1. Mike Jowsey on December 11, 2010 at 6:30 am said:

    As soon as I started looking into the Global Warming claims, I realised that there was a taxation result involved. Since then my growing concern and indeed anger has been fueled by the machinations of the UN as its power and income grows through this global taxation. Machinations which are now transparently obvious via the Note by the Chair. Is there any stopping this madness before we are hurled headlong into an Orwellian world of total control by Big Brother?

  2. Richard C (NZ) on December 11, 2010 at 9:14 am said:

    “Nation states are to be ordered to collect, compile and submit vast quantities of information, in a manner and form to be specified by the secretariat”

    Groser’s career move.

  3. They are modeling it on the European Project.

    There is a high likelihood that this will have a catastrophic fiscal failure within the next 12 months.

    We live in interesting times.

  4. O/T but it’s nice to see Josh incorporating my idea of an Escher “endless stair of funding” into his latest cartoon.

    http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/12/10/josh-62.html

  5. Richard C (NZ) on December 11, 2010 at 11:19 am said:

    The UN is already a black hole for National contributions.

    Anyone know what NZs contribution is? AU? USA?

    It would be more efficient (and accountable) to let non-profits like World Vision do the work, At least then you can see EXACTLY where each dollar goes.

    “Cancun (Mexico), Dec. 10: The world climate summit which cost nearly $80 million and spewed 30,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere appears heading for closure with little more than a weak statement after two weeks of negotiations.”

    http://www.telegraphindia.com/1101211/jsp/nation/story_13286967.jsp

    That’s US$80 million, not counting “Yoof” travel and other extraneous junkets.

    The UN should be held accountable for the millions they sink before the word “billion” is even uttered.

    I think Helen Clark oversees a US$4b budget – where did that come from? And where did it go? And why should the UN be the middleman clipping the ticket?

    Ban Ki-moon is saying “Business as usual will not be tolerated”.

    Just what you would expect from a totalitarian.

    Ban the UN, I say.

  6. Richard C (NZ) on December 11, 2010 at 11:26 am said:

    That’s hilarious – and true.

    Three pictures tell the CAGW story.

    That cartoon will grow legs and go places fast I’m pickin.

    Nice Andy.

  7. That’s absolutely brilliant isn’t it. They say a picture is worth a thousand words but that one summarises 10,000 – and has some hilarious subtle touches.

  8. Richard C (NZ) on December 11, 2010 at 1:18 pm said:

    US contributions to UN Regular Budget

    The United States has the maximum assessed contribution to the UN regular budget — 22%. In 2009 the assessed amount is $598,292,101. The minimum assessed contribution is 0.001%. The scale of assessments for each UN member for the required contributions to the regular budget is determined every 3 years on the basis of Gross National Product (GNP).

    Only nine countries (starting with the largest contributor: United States, Japan, Germany, United Kingdom, France, Italy, Canada, Spain, China) contribute 75% of the entire regular budget. Cuba contributes .043% of the regular budget. Oil-rich Saudi Arabia contributes .713%.

    In addition to their contributions to the UN regular budget, member states contribute to the peacekeeping operations budget and the cost of international courts and tribunals. The level of these contributions is based on their assessed contributions to the regular budget plus variations which take account of permanent membership on the Security Council.

    UN members also make voluntary contributions to UN specialized agencies and subsidiary organizations. The administrative costs of such bodies, though, are met from the regular budget.

    Straight UN Facts

    EYE on the UN

    http://www.eyeontheun.org/facts.asp?pl=28&p=230

  9. val majkus on December 11, 2010 at 2:15 pm said:

    Like most of you I’ve been ploughing through this ‘note from the Chair’; one of the things that strikes me is for a document which proposes to reflect a binding agreement the language curiously loose.
    For example there is the word ‘vision’ in the preamble ‘this vision is to guide the policies and actions of all Parties’ ‘the vision addresses mitigation, adaptation, finance, technology development and transfer, and capacity-building in a balanced, integrated and comprehensive manner’ .
    I realise preambles reflect background stuff but the word ‘vision’ is a curious replacement for the word ‘agreement’ whether binding or not.
    Then there’s the word ‘affirms’ again from the preamble ‘that climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our time’, ‘Scaled-up overall mitigation efforts that allow for the achievement of desired stabilization levels are necessary’ (to combat this greatest challenge) and ‘Capacity-building is essential to enable developing country Parties to participate fully in, and to implement effectively their commitments under, the Convention..’
    Oh well … that’s just the preamble and as I say that’s not the binding bit but still strangely loose language – maybe ‘affirms’ is the modern way of saying ‘the parties agree’ without actually saying it

    But what if we find that the world is for example rapidly cooling after or should I say ‘if’ this agreement comes into effect and there’s an alternate climate scare unrelated to greenhouse gases then how do parties extricate themselves from this agreement particularly the developed countries which stand to lose the most in terms of GDP royalties etc

    I think RichardC is right; ban the UN

  10. Richard C (NZ) on December 11, 2010 at 3:10 pm said:

    Welcome to the United Nations. It’s your world

    Regular budget and Working Capital Fund

    By its resolution 64/248, the General Assembly decided that the scale of assessments for the period 2010–2012 shall be based on the following elements and criteria:

    (a) Estimates of gross national income;

    (b) Average statistical base periods of three and six years;

    (c) Conversion rates based on market exchange rates, except where that would cause excessive fluctuations and distortions in the income of some Member States, when price-adjusted rates of exchange or other appropriate conversion rates should be employed, taking due account of its resolution 46/221 B;

    (d) The debt-burden approach employed in the scale of assessments for the period 2007–2009;

    (e) A low per capita income adjustment of 80 per cent, with a threshold per capita income limit of the average per capita gross national income of all Member States for the statistical base periods;

    (f) A minimum assessment rate of 0.001 per cent;

    (g) A maximum assessment rate for the least developed countries of 0.01 per cent;

    (h) A maximum assessment rate of 22 per cent;
    Assessments

    Assessment of Member States’ advances to the Working Capital Fund and contributions to the United Nations regular budget
    – 2010 [ST/ADM/SER.B/789]
    – 2009 [ST/ADM/SER.B/755]
    – 2008 [ST/ADM/SER.B/719]
    – 2007 [ST/ADM.SER.B/701]
    – 2006 [ST/ADM.SER.B/668]
    – 2005 [ST/ADM.SER.B/638]
    – 2004 [ST/ADM.SER.B/612]
    – 2003 [ST/ADM.SER.B/597]
    – 2002 [ST/DAM.SER.B/582]
    – 2001 [ST/ADM.SER.B/568]
    – 2000 [ST/ADM/SER.B/551]
    – 1999 [ST/ADM/SER.B/534]
    – 1998 [ST/ADM/SER.B/519]
    – 1997 [ST/ADM/SER.B/503]
    – 1996 [ST/ADM/SER.B/482]
    – 1995 [ST/ADM/SER.B/456]
    – 1994 [ST/ADM/SER.B/422]
    ——————————————————————————————————————–
    Advances by Member States to the Working Capital Fund for the biennium 2010-2011

    Contributions by Member States to the United Nations regular
    budget for the year 2010

    http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=ST/ADM/SER.B/789

    Contributions (Selected)

    Australia _________________1.933 ___45 437 230

    Brazil _____________________1.611 ___37 868 276

    Canada ____________________3.207 ___75 383 962

    China _____________________3.189 ___74 960 853

    Germany ___________________8.018 __188 471 657

    India _____________________0.534 ___12 552 241

    Japan ____________________12.530 __294 531 038

    Mexico ____________________2.356 ___55 380 297

    New Zealand ______________0.273 ____6 417 157

    Russian Federation _________1.602 ___37 656 722

    Saudi Arabia _______________0.830 ___19 510 037

    United Kingdom ___________6.604 __155 234 076

    United States of America ___22.000 __517 133 507
    ——————————————————————————————————————–
    Total 100.000 _____________________________________2 350 606 850
    (United States dollars)
    ——————————————————————————————————————–
    Every year – ad infinitum

  11. Mike Jowsey on December 11, 2010 at 3:20 pm said:

    I think banning the UN would be retrograde. But it does need to be brought to heel and serve the member countries rather than imposing a tax (of up to 22% ! if I understand Richard’s research above) on GDP of all members, in the name of saving the planet. Doesn’t really matter about the cooling. It’s all Climate Disruption, you know. Hell, we could plunge into a mini ice age and they would simply say, we need more tax to mitigate and adapt… it’s worse than we thought! We need to let our politicians know that this sort of engineering towards world governance is dangerous, corrupt and unacceptable.

  12. Richard C (NZ) on December 11, 2010 at 3:25 pm said:

    Like I said in the Kyoto thread – as long as the only document the Parties sign at Cancun is the Hotel Register, the “vision” will wither and die.

    Haven’t started ploughing yet – I’ve been looking at the UN budget, so you’re way ahead.

    I’m wondering what the status of the ‘note from the Chair’ is ?

    A similar document was completely ignored at COP15.

  13. “The Rules of the Game have changed”

    Autonomous Mind writes:

    All my life I have advocated nothing but lawful, peaceful protest. Growing up I had faith in the structures that have long been positioned as offering stability, reassurance and comfort to the people. Slowly the scales have gradually fallen from my eyes and the reality has come into sharp relief. Peaceful protest is noble, decent, responsible, conformist and utterly futile. The fact is it is treated with contempt by the political class as while it gives people the illusion of involvement in the political process, the politicians can ignore the wishes of the people and press ahead with their own agenda.

    http://autonomousmind.wordpress.com/2010/12/10/the-rules-of-the-game-have-changed/

    More and more I read from the intelligent libertarian blogs, mainly British, for the need to take to the streets.

    We live in worrying times

  14. val majkus on December 11, 2010 at 3:34 pm said:

    Mike – while I accept what you say about climate disruption etc would there be a point in reducing greenhouse gas emissions if the planet were cooling

    Reducing gge is THE obligation and the foundation stone of the proposed agreement

  15. Richard C (NZ) on December 11, 2010 at 3:36 pm said:

    “imposing a tax (of up to 22% ! if I understand Richard’s research above) on GDP of all members, in the name of saving the planet.”

    Ron , that’s just the normal UN working budget – they want a US$100bn “Green Fund” to “save the planet” EACH YEAR.

    “Ban yesterday said it would be “challenging but feasible” to raise US$100 billion ($133 billion) a year by 2020, as promised by richer nations at last year’s climate conference in Copenhagen.”

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/environment/news/article.cfm?c_id=39&objectid=10693270

    THAT’S – “US$100 billion ($133 billion) a year by 2020”

    i.e. US$100 billion EVERY YEAR.

    THAT’S – 42.55 times their normal working budget

    [Please pardon my shouting]

  16. Richard C (NZ) on December 11, 2010 at 3:39 pm said:

    Mike, not Ron – sorry.

  17. Richard C (NZ) on December 11, 2010 at 3:50 pm said:

    Green fund for poor nations major focus of climate talks

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/environment/news/article.cfm?c_id=39&objectid=10693270

    CANCUN – Should airline passengers pay a small tax to help out? How about global money dealers? Or perhaps governments should take what they spend on subsidising petrol prices and put it towards the climate cause.

    Delegates to the United Nations climate conference hope to agree in its final days on setting up a new “green fund” to help poorer countries grapple with global warming. Then the real arguments will begin – over where the cash will come from.

    UN Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon stepped into the middle of the debate earlier this year by enlisting a high-level group of international political and financial leaders to offer advice.

    Ban yesterday said it would be “challenging but feasible” to raise US$100 billion ($133 billion) a year by 2020, as promised by richer nations at last year’s climate conference in Copenhagen.

    Continues………….

  18. val majkus on December 11, 2010 at 4:11 pm said:

    Latest I can find:
    http://www.ndtv.com/article/world/climate-change-draft-submitted-in-cancun-71921
    One issue, related to pledges by industrial and developing countries to rein in emissions of heat-trapping gases, appeared deadlocked.
    A key issue of contention was whether to make the post-Copenhagen national emissions pledges legally binding, and in what kind of document.

    The answer to those questions would determine the fate of the Kyoto Protocol, the 1997 document that set reductions targets for 37 wealthy countries and which expires in 2012.

    Read more at: http://www.ndtv.com/article/world/climate-change-draft-submitted-in-cancun-71921?cp
    Read more at: http://www.ndtv.com/article/world/climate-change-draft-submitted-in-cancun-71921?cp

  19. val majkus on December 11, 2010 at 4:14 pm said:

    http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2010/s3090798.htm
    latest at noon today

    It’s the developing countries versus the developed countries. They developing countries want to continue with Kyoto, which holds the rich nations to gas emission limits and reductions. They wonder why they should have to pay the price.
    …..
    If there’s a glimmer of hope perhaps it’s on what the Australians have been working on, which is the $100 billion a year climate fund for poorer countries. There’s a suggestion perhaps that Greg Combet has been able to make some headway with that.

    (trust Australia to be so stupid)

  20. Richard C (NZ) on December 11, 2010 at 4:15 pm said:

    “We have moved into a post democratic era.”

    Were we ever in one?

  21. Richard C (NZ) on December 11, 2010 at 4:18 pm said:

    “$100 billion a year climate fund”

    Focus on that.

    Current UN budget:-

    $2.35 billion a year.

  22. Richard C (NZ) on December 11, 2010 at 4:22 pm said:

    “Europe is seriously disappointed”

    That’s encouraging

  23. Richard C (NZ) on December 11, 2010 at 5:03 pm said:

    Ban Ki-moon and Rompey are from the same mold.

    The UN is struggling to achieve the power to commandeer Green funding.

    The EU already has the power via unelected officialdom.

    If the UN is unsuccessful in it’s “Green Fund” stand-over racket, you can be sure the EU will take up the reins.

    You want to export to Europe – sure.

    Just pay your EU Green Fund dues on:-

    # Freight charges (air, sea or land)

    # Financial transactions

    # Insurance

    # Anything else we can come up with

    Don’t worry, it’ll be painless – you wont feel a thing.

  24. val majkus on December 11, 2010 at 6:05 pm said:

    part of a draft agreement filed a short time ago
    http://af.reuters.com/article/energyOilNews/idAFLDE6BA00720101211?sp=true

    FINANCE, TECHNOLOGY

    Takes note of a promise by developed nations for $30 billion in “fast start” aid for 2010-2012. Developed nations to report in May 2011, 2012, 2013 on resources provided.

    Developed countries commit to a goal of providing $100 billion a year in aid from 2020, agreed last year in Copenhagen. (The text has dropped a previous demand by some developing nations that the rich give far more, or 1.5 percent of their collective GDP a year).

    The talks will set up a Green Climate Fund to help channel aid. The fund will have a 24-member board, with 12 each from rich and poor nations. It invites the World Bank to be the interim trustee of the fund. A 40-strong committee will work to design the fund, with 15 members from developed nations and 25 from developing countries.

  25. Mike Jowsey on December 11, 2010 at 7:11 pm said:

    Guys, I am an entrepreneur. I say that with reservation and aforethought. Background:

    Today I picked the first of my cherry harvest. It’s a modest, very high-risk income during December/January. I won’t bore you with the details of trying to grow cherries. Suffice it to say that during those months I usually manage to pay my mortgages and employ a few helpers. Which helps because Dec/Jan is quiet for my main business involvements (business software and wireless networks). So I guess I would prefer the handle of “Heartland Battler” if that is acceptable to you, rather than “Entrepeneur”, which smacks of some sort of get-rich-quick scheme. I have been running the various enterprises linked herein for over a decade. So it’s not about getting rich quick.

    I value my input to the local economy. I could be some sort of bureaucrat, employed by the community. Or perhaps an advocate for some fashionable movement, seeking and receiving funding from other faceless bureaucrats. But, no, I am picking cherries to sell to locals who love my cherries and at the end of a hot, sweaty day I print out my sales report and think to myself that maybe if I’m lucky I can pay the extra GST (because I didn’t pass that on – just absorbed it – these are tough times you know), pay wages (with the employment regime making it very difficult for me to employ highschoolers on holiday), and maybe pay for the running of the cherry orchard for the next year. If I’m real lucky, I might afford a mortgae payment or two.

    Never wanted pity or handouts. Not wanting any now. I can graft my own lifestyle. I am not dissappointed with it.

    But, I gotta say I resent to hell this bureacratic shit hole we are descending into, where my hard-earned and high-risk dollars are being withered away by even more taxation. Adding lemon juice to the 1000 paper cuts, it’s all in the name of saving the planet from our excesses. FFS.

    If one of these Cancun wankers has ever done a hard day’s work in their life I will eat my hat. I am so over this charade I am prepared to get arrested for telling them all to get lost.

    How do we get the message out? There are tens of thousands like me. They will not stand for freedom being eroded if it is clearly explained that this is what is happening.

  26. Richard C (NZ) on December 11, 2010 at 7:16 pm said:

    I make it (as per my comment at JoNova)

    $30 billion Fast Start (through UN)

    Then, per year

    $2.35 billion UN normal working budget

    plus

    $100 billion Green Fund by 2020 (through UN)

    plus

    $873 billion 1.5% GDP levy eventually (through UN)

    plus

    $??? zillion Global Green Tax on financial transactions, air freight etc

    and/or

    $??? zillion Green Insurance Fund (mooted by UK)

    Total – well over $1 trillion, maybe $2 trillion per year.

  27. val majkus on December 11, 2010 at 7:24 pm said:

    Mike I completely agree with you; as to how to get the message out try to get your comments posted on the MSM blogs; I do that that I find it great that I have these great supporting blogs; I’m not a scientist but I’ve never found that scientists talk ‘down’ to me on open minded blogs; and each of us has our own life experience to depend on; so to finalise to how to get the message out talk to your friends, write to your elected reps and for support and great analysis come to these blogs; I must Richard T writes great articles and he’s very analytical as are many commentators including you!

  28. Mike Jowsey on December 11, 2010 at 7:37 pm said:

    Thanks Val – I get a lot of inspiration from blogs such as this one. I am just frustrated that in New Zealand (as in Australia, I guess) the “Public Servants” (yeah, right!) are deaf, dumb and blind to the impending climate catastrophe. Which, of course, has nothing to do with the climate.

  29. Richard C (NZ) on December 11, 2010 at 7:44 pm said:

    “How do we get the message out?”

    The problem is that most hard working folks such as your self are so consumed with their day-to-day labour that they are oblivious to what is going on over their heads.

    Blue collar workers haven’t got their head in the internet either.

    But you don’t suffer the same ignorance so basically:-

    The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

    All that is needed for the forces of evil to triumph is for enough good men to do nothing.

    All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing.

    In order for ‘evil’ to prevail, all that need happen is for ‘good’ people to do nothing.

    All that is needed for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing.

    The surest way for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing.

    All it will take for evil to prevail is for good people to do nothing.

    All that is necessary for the forces of evil to take root in the world is for enough good men to do nothing.

    All that is needed for the forces of evil to succeed is for enough good men to remain silent.

    All it takes for Evil to prevail in this world is for enough good men to do nothing.

    The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

    http://tartarus.org/~martin/essays/burkequote2.html

    But to “get the message out” requires either individually or collectively to make a statement in every avenue of the public domain you can think of and e.g. shoulder the cost of a blog or newspaper ad say and taking every opportunity to communicate it with anyone who will listen – tricky.

    Then there’s the comment opportunity under newspaper articles or letters to the editor – but you’re up against complacency, so don’t expect anyone to listen.

    “First they came…” is a famous statement attributed to Pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984) about the inactivity of German intellectuals following the Nazi rise to power and the purging of their chosen targets, group after group. The text of the quotation is usually presented roughly as follows:

    They came first for the Communists,
    and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist.

    Then they came for the trade unionists,
    and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist.

    Then they came for the Jews,
    and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew.

    Then they came for me
    and by that time no one was left to speak up.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came%E2%80%A6

  30. val majkus on December 11, 2010 at 8:23 pm said:

    Mike completely accept what you say
    but read this and weep
    25 minutes ago
    how stupid are we?
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11975470
    Agreement at the UN climate summit in Cancun appears to be close, with most delegations
    hailing compromise texts drawn up by the Mexican hosts.

    Only Bolivia, with some support from Cuba, raised objections, but it is not clear if they will block consensus.

    The draft texts say deeper cuts in carbon emissions are needed, but do not establish a mechanism for achieving the pledges countries have made.

    It also sets up a fund to help poor countries cope with climate change.

  31. ,em>Were we ever in a democratic era?

    In the case of Britain, I wold say yes. The current political landscape is one of identikit parties that all have the same policies, pro-AGW, pro Europe, and apparently happy to hand over more and more sovereignty to the EU.

    This includes an increasing amount of money to the unelected bureaucrats, at a time when students are taking to the streets to riot against a tripling of fees.

    Is this so different to NZ?

    If we sign up to these deals at Cancun, then an EU model is what we aspire to.

    The European people are finally waking up to the nightmare that they were duped into.

    The people of this country need to realise that we are being led down the same path, a path that would destroy us.

  32. Richard C (NZ) on December 11, 2010 at 8:51 pm said:

    Baa Humbug at JoNova has pointed out that I need to subtract developing countries GDP from the $873bn.

    Doesn’t change much.

  33. Val,
    Do you believe what Richard Black has to say on this? The BBC is the Pravda of the climate machine.

    Dr North has a more circumspect view

    http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/12/all-deals-are-off.html

  34. val majkus on December 11, 2010 at 10:12 pm said:

    Andy hope Dr North is right; we’ll just have to keep an eye on breaking news

  35. Richard C (NZ) on December 11, 2010 at 11:58 pm said:

    Seen at WUWT
    ——————————————————————————————————————————–
    Richard A. says:
    December 10, 2010 at 7:48 am

    “Has anyone compiled a list of the Gore effect events?” – Mark Bowlin

    We did, but we threw it away and just kept the value added data.

  36. Richard C (NZ) on December 12, 2010 at 12:09 am said:

    Ban Dihydrogen Monoxide now!

    Written by James Delingpole, Telegraph | 09 December 2010

    Dihydrogen Monoxide is the most deadly and widespread pollutant on the planet, contributing hundreds of times more to global warming than all the greenhouse gases combined. Evil, maneating sharks thrive in it, including Oceanic Whitetips. It is the breeding ground for all manner of noxious species from malarial mosquitos, to bilharzia to the terrifying Candiru fish which swims up a fellow’s urine stream while he’s weeing and can only be removed by radical penidectomy. In winter it causes cars to slip off the road and crash and ice skaters to fall through cracks and die horribly just like in that scene in the Omen, or is it Omen II? In summer, just an inch of it is enough to drown you. It’s a major constituent of acid rain. It erodes everything from soil to steel. It conceals crocodiles, alligators and piranhas. (H/T R Campbell)

    So it’s no wonder that when campaigners from CFACT asked delegates at Cancun to sign a petition calling for a ban on this evil substance they found plenty of willing takers. I wonder if the senior executives at British Sky Broadcasting, John Lewis partnership, Johnson Matthey, Kingfisher, Lloyds Banking, Tesco, Shell UK and Unilever would care to join them? Certainly, going by the joint letter they wrote to the Daily Telegraph this morning, they’re in easily the same league of gullibility and stupidity.

    http://climatechangedispatch.com/home/8244-ban-dihydrogen-monoxide-now

  37. Bishop Hill has put up a Cancun thread.

    http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2010/12/11/cancun-deal.html

    Nothing there yet, though there seems to be signs hat some kind of deal has been reached

  38. val majkus on December 12, 2010 at 8:31 am said:

    this is the most analytical result I’ve seen
    http://reason.com/blog/2010/12/11/cuncan-climate-change-conferen
    I repeat the highlights of the Cancun Agreements below:

    (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, 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 devloped country parties commit to “mobilizing jointly USD 100 billion per year by 2020 to address the needs of developing countries.”

  39. Good summary Val.
    It looks like the only thing of any substance is the $100 billion a year green fund support for the Mercedes dealers in the developing world.

  40. val majkus on December 12, 2010 at 9:25 am said:

    Richard North calls no 7 above the ‘jungle bunny fund’ – I think it should be called the ‘jungle tiger fund’

  41. “Jungle Bunny fund” requires a bit of context.

    Shub kindly provides the racial slur background.

    http://nigguraths.wordpress.com/2010/12/11/redd-mercedes-dealers/

    Northy loves winding them up. A blog called “Left Foot Forward” were reporting that “a well-known denier” was “caught” using this term. So he keeps on with more.

    Don’t know if I am entirely onboard with this, but winding up the politically correct is fair game in my book.

  42. val majkus on December 12, 2010 at 11:00 am said:

    Oh, thanks Andy!

  43. val majkus on December 12, 2010 at 11:15 am said:

    here’s the official press release http://unfccc.int/files/press/news_room/press_releases_and_advisories/application/pdf/pr_20101211_cop16_closing.pdf
    Elements of the Cancún Agreements include:

    • Industrialised country targets are officially recognised under the multilateral process and these countries are to develop low-carbon development plans and strategies and assess how best to meet them, including through market mechanisms, and to report their inventories annually.
    Developing country actions to reduce emissions are officially recognised under the multilateral process. A registry is to be set up to record and match developing country mitigation actions to finance and technology support from by industrialised countries. Developing countries are to publish progress reports every two years.

    • Parties meeting under the Kyoto Protocol agree to continue negotiations with the aim of completing their work and ensuring there is no gap between the first and second commitment periods of the treaty.

    • The Kyoto Protocol’s Clean Development Mechanisms has been strengthened to drive more major investments and technology into environmentally sound and sustainable emission reduction projects in the developing world.

    • Parties launched a set of initiatives and institutions to protect the vulnerable from climate change and to deploy the money and technology that developing countries need to plan and build their own sustainable futures.

    • A total of $30 billion in fast start finance from industrialised countries to support climate action in the developing world up to 2012 and the intention to raise $100 billion in long-term funds by 2020 is included in the decisions.

    • In the field of climate finance, a process to design a Green Climate Fund under the Conference of the Parties, with a board with equal representation from developed and developing countries, is established.

    • A new “Cancún Adaptation Framework” is established to allow better planning and implementation of adaptation projects in developing countries through increased financial and technical support, including a clear process for continuing work on loss and damage.

    • Governments agree to boost action to curb emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries with technological and financial support.

    • Parties have established a technology mechanism with a Technology Executive Committee and Climate Technology Centre and Network to increase technology cooperation to support action on adaptation and mitigation.

    The next Conference of the Parties is scheduled to take place in South Africa, from 28 November to 9 December 2011

    I’d like to see the agreement that was signed; press releases are usually very self serving

  44. Richard C (NZ) on December 12, 2010 at 12:32 pm said:

    Cancun Agreements

    Google News Search

    Google Story Search

    “Hail” “Hails” and “Hailed” are prevalent in the headlines.

    Now to extract the un-spun details.

    Sigh.
    —————————————————————————————————————————–
    An interpreted synopsis under some category headings might be in order:-

    Funding

    Kyoto Protocol

    REDD

    Emissions

    Adaption and Mitigation

    Have I missed any items?

    I’m going in………………………………

  45. Richard C (NZ) on December 12, 2010 at 12:37 pm said:

    Cancun agreements hailed by NZ

    Updated at 9:39 am today

    The New Zealand Government says agreements reached at the climate conference at Cancun in Mexico are the most significant in a decade and substantial progress was made.

    Climate Change Ministers Tim Groser and Nick Smith say the agreement represents a step towards a global, legally binding and comprehensive agreement on climate change.

    Delegates on Saturday approved a draft agreement that covers emission targets for developed and developing countries, outlines the setting up of a fund to help poorer nations deal with climate change and describe steps to halt deforestation.

    However, the Government says New Zealand has not achieved the gains it sought in some areas, including agriculture and forestry.

    It says it will look for progress on those at next year’s negotiations in South Africa.
    Appointment

    A New Zealander has been elected as chair of the Kyoto Protocol at the conference in Mexico.

    Career diplomat Adrian Macey has been New Zealand’s Climate Change Ambassador for the last four years.

    His appointment takes effect immediately. It will involve chairing the negotiations after Cancun on future commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, after the existing agreement expires at the end of 2012.

    Copyright © 2010, Radio New Zealand

  46. Richard C (NZ) on December 12, 2010 at 12:58 pm said:

    The outcome has been described as an “important success for a world much in need of it” by the UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.

    “Governments came together in common cause, for the common good, and agreed on a way forward to meet the defining challenge of our time,” he said in a statement.

    http://www.indepthnews.net/news/news.php?key1=2010-12-11%2023:35:50&key2=1

  47. Richard C (NZ) on December 12, 2010 at 1:08 pm said:

    REDD: Climate conference ends with deforestation agreement

    The accord creates incentives to keep forests standing and reduce CO2 emissions.

    By Myles Estey — Special to GlobalPost
    Published: December 11, 2010 10:59 ET in The Americas

    CANCUN, Mexico — For a climate change conference that began with universally low expectations, the Cancun meeting achieved surprisingly concrete progress, including an agreement to help preserve tropical forests.

    Despite lacking the teeth many wanted, the deforestation provisions offer a way to protect forests through international agreements. Delegates also agreed to set up a fund to help poorer countries adapt to climate change and strengthened the emissions promises made at last year’s Copenhagen conference. None of the provisions are binding.

    The deforestation framework, known as REDD+ (which stands for Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degrading Emissions, the + was recently added to denote broader ecosystem conservation) creates incentives to keep forests standing and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Its supporters say it will help to slow climate change.

    Deforestation accounts for roughly 20 percent of the world’s emissions, similar to transportation. An agreement to avoid deforestation could offer significant gains in reducing the output of carbon dioxide, say supporters.

    Tara Rao, of WWF International, said the forestry deal “was not quite there, but a good building block for Durban,” the site of next year’s conference, and an “excellent start.”

    REDD+ is a carbon offset program: developed countries with high emissions can pay to protect forests in developing, usually tropical, nations and count those drops in their overall carbon output.

    In the last few years, this has been happening in various forms around the world, with Indonesia at the forefront. The policy is an attractive one to poorer nations, which gain a monetary incentive to avoid logging.

    “We can use forests to sequester carbon, and that we can generate incentives that will especially benefit forest dwellers,” said Ben Karmorh, an official at the UNFCC national focal point for climate change at Liberia’s Environmental Protection Agency.

    Karmorh highlighted that Liberia could benefit greatly from the added income. Liberia also holds 40 percent of the upper Guinean rainforest and has one of the highest percentages of natural forest cover in Africa. Protection of that forest is a priority, he said.

    But many fear this protection means ownership, and REDD+ has numerous sincere critics. The offset program puts a value on the carbon in trees, which many feel cedes ownership to those who have paid to protect the trees.

    Bolivia, its delegation led by President Evo Morales, was the sole nation fighting against the non-binding document, primarily because the agreements puts a market value on trees. Morales is not alone in arguing that REDD+ comes with potentially negative consequences.

  48. Richard C (NZ) on December 12, 2010 at 1:18 pm said:

    Climate change to get $100B U.N. boost

    Published: Dec. 11, 2010 at 11:00 AM

    CANCUN, Mexico, Dec. 11 (UPI) — U.N. talks in Mexico on curbing global warming resulted in a $100 billion projected tab but no definitive implementation, the BBC said Saturday.

    The international talks that concluded Friday in Cancun resulted in an agreement to raise and pay out $100 billion through 2020 to assist poor nations affected by global warming and give them assistance in developing energy with less carbon output, the report said.

    The U.N. talks that lasted two weeks are the latest attempt to rein in the global temperature increase to below 2 degrees Celsius, or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit, The Daily Telegraph said.

    Based on agreements reached in Kyoto, Japan, in 1997, the U.N. effort has met with dissention from various countries on the protocol’s industrial ramifications.

    Meanwhile, Bolivia was the most vocal opponent of the draft passed Friday, with chief negotiator Pablo Solon saying the carbon reduction targets fell short, the reports said.

    “This is tantamount to making us responsible for a situation my president has described as genocide and ecocide,” Solon said.
    ——————————————————————————————————————–
    UN climate change talks in Cancun agree a deal

    11 December 2010 Last updated at 12:44 GMT – BBC

    The Green Climate Fund will initially use the World Bank as a trustee – as the US, EU and Japan had demanded – while giving oversight to a new body balanced between developed and developing countries.

    Developing countries will have their emission-curbing measures subjected to international verification only when they are funded by Western money – a formulation that seemed to satisfy both China, which had concerns on such verification procedures, and the US, which had demanded them.

  49. val majkus on December 12, 2010 at 1:23 pm said:

    Richard could you try to get a copy of the agreement that was signed out of him

  50. Richard C (NZ) on December 12, 2010 at 1:28 pm said:

    “Cancun has done its job,” UNFCC Executive Secretary Christiana Figueres said in a statement. “Nations have shown they can work together under a common roof, to reach consensus on a common cause.”

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/11/AR2010121102308.html

  51. val majkus on December 12, 2010 at 1:29 pm said:

    this from http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2010/s3090567.htm
    MARK COLVIN: One of the big sticking points at the climate summit in Cancun is how best to distribute the $30 billion promised under the Copenhagen Accord. The money, known as Fast Start Finance, is designed to help poor countries reduce their own carbon emissions and protect themselves against climate impact for the next two years.

    In Cancun, the Climate Change Minister Greg Combet says Australia’s commitment will go to fund projects in developing and emerging economies. But the bigger emerging economies, Brazil, India, China and South Africa say they don’t want the money. They insist the funding should go to the most vulnerable countries in Africa and the small island states.

    Jennifer Macey reports.

    JENNIFER MACEY: Fast Start Finance is designed to pay poor countries to build levees to protect against rising sea levels, grow drought-proof crops, or stop illegal logging. The $30 billion is meant to flow to developing countries over the next three years.

    This year in Cancun, environment ministers from around the world have been doling out their contributions.

    Australia’s Climate Change Minister Greg Combet made this announcement today.

    GREG COMBET: Apart from the domestic action we are taking the Australian Government is also endeavouring to play a constructive role internationally. Today Australia announced further allocations under the $599 million of Australia’s committed Fast Start Financing.

    JENNIFER MACEY: The bulk of Australia’s $600 million will go to adaptation projects in the Pacific, South East Asia and Africa. Thirty two million will go to Indonesia to stop deforestation. Ten million is funding for renewable energy projects in poor countries. And another 10 million will help developing and emerging economies use carbon markets to cut their emissions.

    GREG COMBET: Australia is delivering on Fast Start and we will continue to provide regular and transparent information on the delivery of our Fast Start funds.

    JENNIFER MACEY: But there are some big and healthy economies, like Brazil, South Africa, India and China, that are still classified as emerging. They go by the acronym BASIC and they say they don’t want any of the Fast Start money.

    India’s environment minister, Jairam Ramesh, told reporters in Cancun that the money should go to the least developed countries, or LDCs.

    JAIRAM RAMESH: On Fast Start Finance I want to reiterate that all the BASIC countries have voluntarily said that they are not candidates for Fast Start Finance. This $30 billion pledged at Copenhagen for 2010-2011 and 2012 was meant for Africa, meant for the small island states and was meant for LDCs.

    JENNIFER MACEY: And he says much of the funding, which was supposed to start flowing this year, has been slow and sporadic.

    JAIRAM RAMESH: Number two is the need to accelerate disbursements under the Fast Start Finance. So far, the Fast Start Finance has neither been fast nor has it started and there has hardly been any finance. And Fast Start Finance was an essential part of the Copenhagen Accord.

    JENNIFER MACEY: The climate change adviser with Oxfam Australia, Kelly Dent is also in Cancun. She says Fast Start Finance is crucial to building trust between rich and poor countries. But she says the bigger developing countries like India and China don’t need extra help.

    KELLY DENT: We are concerned and that’s one of the reasons we want to see a fair climate fund established so that money does go where it’s most needed and not, for example, to the larger BASIC countries who have the capacity to be able to pay for their emissions reduction and also for adaptation.

    JENNIFER MACEY: Aid groups want the Fast Start Finance to be new and additional money. Kelly Dent says Oxfam commends Australia’s allocation of Fast Start funding. But she’s concerned that the money has come from the foreign aid budget.

    KELLY DENT: And this is money that we’ve needed to fight poverty, we need money to fight poverty, we need money to fight climate change. So we have some concerns about it.

    JENNIFER MACEY: Where should it be coming from?

    KELLY DENT: We think that it should be coming from money that isn’t earmarked for poverty alleviation. So obviously from the federal budget but not from money that’s earmarked for international aid and development. Climate change is a separate issue.

    What we like about the announcement is that it is very transparent about where the money’s coming from. We have seen 50 per cent of the money go to adaptation in poor countries and 50 per cent towards mitigation, this is towards emissions reduction. This is significant because previous money has mostly gone to reducing emissions. So the fact that a lot is going to adaptation is extremely significant. So we like that. And we’ve also seen a significant amount of money going to the Pacific which is also very important.

    JENNIFER MACEY: Oxfam’s Kelly Dent says some countries have been double counting their Fast Start Finance, that is making the same announcement twice. She says this doesn’t bode well for the larger long-term climate fund of $100 billion by 2020 and that’s why international charities are pushing for any new climate aid fund to be managed by the United Nations.

    MARK COLVIN: Jennifer Macey.

    In a statement tonight Greg Combet’s office said none of Australia’s Fast Start funding was going directly to Brazil, India, South Africa or China and that it is drawn from a growing aid budget and does not divert funding from existing development programs.

    Stupid Us!

  52. Richard C (NZ) on December 12, 2010 at 1:38 pm said:

    Cancun Agreements put 193 nations on track to deal with climate change

    By Juliet Eilperin and William Booth
    Washington Post Staff Writers
    Saturday, December 11, 2010; 7:07 PM

    CANCUN, MEXICO – Delegates from 193 nations agreed Saturday on a new global framework to help developing countries curb their carbon output and cope with the effects of climate change, but they postponed the harder question of precisely how industrialized and major emerging economies will share the task of making deeper greenhouse-gas emission cuts in the coming decade.

    The package known as the Cancun Agreements has salvaged a U.N.-backed process that was close to failure, delivering a diplomatic victory to the talks’ Mexican hosts. But it also highlighted the obstacles that await as countries continue to grapple with climate change through broad international negotiations.

    [Snip]

    But the outcome left some gaping holes, including spelling out exactly how the new pot of international aid will be funded and whether the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, the current global climate pact, will be extended once its first commitment period expires in 2012. Signatories such as Japan and Russia oppose an extension because the United States, China and India are not bound to mandatory emission reductions under Kyoto.

    Akira Yamada, Japan’s deputy director general for global issues, said the current Kyoto framework amounted to having big emitters act as “spectators” while the rest of the industrialized world played a soccer match. “We would hope they would come down to the field to play with us, to score against global warming,” Yamada said.

    The new framework encapsulates the current commitments that both industrialized and developing nations have made to cut their carbon emissions over the next decade, though it notes that these will not meet the agreed-upon goal of keeping the rise in global temperatures from exceeding 2 degrees Celsius, or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit, above preindustrial levels. To achieve that, industrialized countries would have cut their emissions between 25 and 40 percent compared with 1990 levels in the next decade, as opposed to the 16 percent they have promised.

  53. Richard C (NZ) on December 12, 2010 at 1:40 pm said:

    But the outcome left some gaping holes, including spelling out exactly how the new pot of international aid will be funded

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/11/AR2010121102308.html

  54. Richard C (NZ) on December 12, 2010 at 1:53 pm said:

    Val, I think they are referring to the “Cancun Agreements” that the 193 countries have signed.

    I don’t think there’s any separate document.

    It’s just a number of agreements combined (but I’ll check that eventually) in the umbrella “Cancun Agreements” with the following broad categories that I’ve ascertained so far:-

    Funding (No “how” agreement)

    Kyoto Protocol (Extension still undecided)

    REDD (Deal not done)

    Emissions (Not binding)

    Adaption and Mitigation (Fast Start distribution undecided)

  55. Richard North and Christopher Booker provide the rather interesting observation that the amount of money being removed from tertiary education in the UK (prompting the riots) is exactly the same as the amount reserved for the Mercedes fund.

    http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/12/beggars-cant-be-choosers.html

  56. Richard C (NZ) on December 12, 2010 at 2:11 pm said:

    “Today Australia announced further allocations under the $599 million of Australia’s committed Fast Start Financing.”

    “The bulk of Australia’s $600 million will go to adaptation projects in the Pacific, South East Asia and Africa. Thirty two million will go to Indonesia to stop deforestation. Ten million is funding for renewable energy projects in poor countries. And another 10 million will help developing and emerging economies use carbon markets to cut their emissions.”

    “Ten million is funding for renewable energy projects in poor countries.”

    Anything for New Zealand ???

  57. Richard C (NZ) on December 12, 2010 at 2:22 pm said:

    Okay, “Mercedes Fund” it is.

    If Britain doesn’t have 2.9 billion Pounds for Education,

    It doesn’t have 2.9 billion Pounds for overseas climate change mitigation,

    It doesn’t have 2.9 billion Pounds

  58. How much will NZ commit to the Mercedes Fund? Will it just get added to the $250 million we are borrowing each week to prop up our bloated government?

  59. Richard C (NZ) on December 12, 2010 at 2:25 pm said:

    Summary

    Funding – No “how” agreement

    Kyoto Protocol – Extension undecided

    REDD – Deal not done

    Emissions – Not binding

    Adaption and Mitigation – Fast Start distribution undecided

    A spectacular non-achievement (for them)

    A breathing space (for us – except for a large OZ disbursement)

  60. Richard C (NZ) on December 12, 2010 at 2:28 pm said:

    “How much will NZ commit to the Mercedes Fund?”

    Crickets,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Birds chirping,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

  61. Richard C (NZ) on December 12, 2010 at 2:31 pm said:

    New Zealand Cancun Agreement Fast Start Commitment – Google Search

  62. Richard C (NZ) on December 12, 2010 at 2:49 pm said:

    Germany praises Cancun climate agreements

    Climate | 11.12.2010 DW-WORLD.DE

    German ministers welcomed a historic compromise at international climate negotiations in Mexico. The deal provides billions to developing countries and defers extending emissions cuts under the Kyoto Protocol.

    After two weeks of meetings in Cancun, officials from 194 countries reached a consensus on several important measures for tackling climate change, despite fears that the talks would end in failure on Friday and even early Saturday morning.

    “This is a new era of international cooperation on climate change,” Mexican Foreign Minister Patricia Espinosa, who chaired the summit of 194 nations, told delegates after the compromise was reached.

    Praise for Mexico from Germany

    Germany has welcomed the “successful” conclusion to the UN summit. German foreign minister Guido Westerwelle thanked his Mexican counterpart who chaired the summit, saying that Patricia Espinosa had been “prudent and clever” in the way she led negotiations.

    German environment minister Norbert Roettgen echoed his colleague, saying Espinosa’s very broad interpretation of UN rules was the crowning highlight of impressive conference leadership.

    Westerwelle said in a statement, “Cancun has shown that it is possible to achieve a balance of interests between developing and industrialized nations.”

    “Now we must use the momentum to achieve a globally binding climate protection agreement and resolve the open issues,” Westerwelle added. He stressed that Germany and the European Union would continue to drive this process.

    A compromise agreement

    Breakthroughs include tougher targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions, the principle of basing these targets on what science demands and the establishment of a Green Fund for developing countries.

    The meeting does not establish a new global, legally binding treaty to tackle climate change, but it provides some of the essential building blocks bringing that goal significantly closer.

    Only Bolivia has publically objected to the text, but its objections were overruled by the summit’s chair.

    “We clearly stated and would now like to reiterate that we are opposed to this decision and we feel that there is no consensus for its approval,” said Pablo Salon, the head of Bolivia’s delegation.

    Major powers – including the United States, China, India, Japan, Brazil, Saudi Arabia and the European Union – have emerged as supporters of the draft deal, which resolves key stumbling blocks that threatened to torpedo the past two weeks of negotiations.

    “We have seen remarkable progress,” Espinosa said.

    Chief US negotiator Todd Stern said the deal “while not perfect, is certainly a good basis for moving forward.”

    Climate Fund a key step forward

    One of the most significant decisions at Cancun was the agreement to establish a Green Fund worth $100 billion (70 billion euros) a year that is to assist developing countries in their response to climate change as of 2020.

    The idea was originally put forward in Copenhagen last year, yet at times it seemed unlikely to gain approval in Cancun.

    Negotiators often seemed unable to resolve differences over what to discuss first: Whether to create the fund or how it should be managed.

    Greenpeace International Climate Policy Director Wendel Trio told Deutsche Welle the decision to establish the fund was a “significant” step forward.

    Providing the finance that developing countries will need to cope with climate change is seen as a major sticking point for unlocking other areas of the talks, such as how they account for their climate actions.

    Industrialized countries seem to have won out on control of the fund. Their preferred institution, the Word Bank, will act as a trustee, albeit for a trial period of three years.

    Trio said one of the biggest challenges for the next 12 months would be agreeing upon where the money should come from, as this was left unresolved by the Cancun deal.

    Aiming higher

    On the emissions front, parties agreed to raise targets to cut greenhouse gasses to between 25 percent and 40 percent of 1990 levels by the end of the decade. This is roughly double the average of wealthy nations’ current pledges.

    It is also closer to the range of emissions cuts which scientists say will be needed to avoid a rise in global average surface temperatures of more than 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees F).

    An ambition to limit global warming to below 2 degrees is also contained in the text, together with a reference to reviewing whether it might be possible to aim for 1.5 degrees.

    The latter goal is what many small island states are holding out for, in the fear that a 2-degree rise in temperatures will see their islands submerged by rising sea levels.

    Kyoto deferred

    One delegation after another praised Mexico’s stewardship of the negotiations, describing the atmosphere as “transparent,” “inclusive,” “constructive” and the outcome as “balanced.”

    As chair of the event, Espinosa played a vital role in defusing a conflict over the future of the Kyoto Protocol that had threatened to wreck the talks up until the final hours of negotiations.

    Japan has long objected to the fact that Kyoto does nothing to restrain the emissions of China and the United States, the world’s top two polluters.

    In Cancun, Japan declared that it would not commit to a second period of Kyoto after the first period expires in 2012, and was eventually joined in this stance by Russia and Canada.

    Members of the World Wildlife Fund stand around a map made of candles in support fo a climate dealBildunterschrift: Großansicht des Bildes mit der Bildunterschrift: Environmentalists have been mostly positive about the climate talks

    This was unacceptable for developing countries, especially China.

    For them, Kyoto, the only legally binding agreement to date to limit greenhouse gas emissions, is a milestone for recognizing the different responsibilities of rich and poor countries in responding to climate change.

    The conference’s final text overcame the stand-off by deferring a decision on Kyoto’s future to next year.

    The text suggests that there should be no “gap” between Kyoto’s first and second periods, but it also leaves the door open for Japan to walk away from the protocol if it wishes.

    Forestry deal

    Forestry groups gave their qualified approval of Cancun’s decision on a scheme known as REDD, or Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation.

    “After three years of hard negotiations we have a basis for combating deforestation integrated in an agreement on climate which marks an important step,” said Rosalind Reeve, from Global Witness, an organization focused on resource exploitation.

    REDD seeks to reward developing countries for maintaining their forests instead of clearing them for other economic pursuits.

    Green groups cautiously optimistic

    Environmentalists have also been mostly positive of the compromise. Tim Gore of the anti-poverty group, Oxfam, welcomed the Green Climate Fund and said the draft accord “breathes new life” into the UN-sponsored climate talks.

    Still, the deal is less the goal of establishing legally binding emissions cuts, which many countries had set ahead of last year’s summit in Copenhagen.

    “The outcome of Cancun climate talks is weak and ineffective but at least a small and fragile lifeline,” Friends of the Earth UK said in an online statement.

    Author: Nathan Witkop, in Cancun; Gregg Benzow, Joanna Impey (dpa, AFP, Reuters)

    Editor: Ben Knight

  63. Richard C (NZ) on December 12, 2010 at 5:48 pm said:

    COP15 Fast Start pledges US$

    Australia __________500m
    EU _______________10bn
    Japan ____________15bn
    NZ _______________0
    Norway ___________357m
    Switzerland ________130m
    US _______________4.8bn
    Total ____________31.2bn (from source above)

    Also

    UK _______________£1.5bn Source (probably part of EU figure – dunno for sure)

  64. Richard C (NZ) on December 12, 2010 at 5:53 pm said:

    COP15 pledge was Fast Start finance $10bn per year.

    o Pledges for short-term finance – for 2010 – 2012: EU 10.6 bn, Japan 11 bn, USA 3.6 (does NOT add up to $ 30 bn)

    http://ercatcop15.wordpress.com/

    British High Commission in Wellington says

    “That’s why we’ve pledged to provide £1.5bn in fast start finance over 3 years to developing countries, with £300m of that ring fenced for protecting forests.”

    http://ukinnewzealand.fco.gov.uk/en/about-us/working-with-new-zealand/climate-change/

    But the funding does not seem to be forthcoming

    e.g. Samoa and Solomon Islands are grumpy
    ——————————————————————————————————————–
    Samoa and Solomon Islands raise questions on fast track finance

    By Makereta Komai, Climate Pasifika Media, Cancun, Mexico

    30 NOVEMBER 2010 CANCUN, MEXICO — Hopes of accessing US$10 billion in fast track finance promised at last year’s climate change negotiations is slowly turning to despair for many vulnerable nations, whose interests were prioritised in the Copenhagen Accord.

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO1012/S00050/cancun-samoa-and-solomon-islands-raise-questions-on-finance.htm
    ——————————————————————————————————————–
    So if small countries can’t get access to $10bn from last year, fat chance for next year and beyond.

  65. Glad to see NZ hasn’t been fast and foolish. But I hope these amounts are not all due in a single year? That would be monstrous.
    As you suggested, concentrate on the budget. This would mean a gigantic leap from $2.35 billion a year to $31 billion. I see you’re answering my question almost as I write. Thanks.

  66. So, this is encouraging already! Words and deeds are different things especially when separated in time.

  67. Richard C (NZ) on December 12, 2010 at 6:09 pm said:

    Flashback (Headline for your collection RT)
    ———————————————————————————————————————-
    Crow calls for limit on loo paper

    Last Updated: Monday, 23 April 2007, 12:14 GMT 13:14 UK

    Singer Sheryl Crow has said a ban on using too much toilet paper should be introduced to help the environment.

    Crow has suggested using “only one square per restroom visit, except, of course, on those pesky occasions where two to three could be required”.

    The 45-year-old, who made the comments on her website, has just toured the US on a biodiesel-powered bus to raise awareness about climate change.

    She teamed up with environmental activist Laurie David for the shows.

    The pair targeted 11 university campuses to persuade students to help combat the world’s environmental problems.

    “I propose a limitation be put on how many squares of toilet paper can be used in any one sitting” Sheryl Crow

    “I have spent the better part of this tour trying to come up with easy ways for us all to become a part of the solution to global warming,” Crow wrote.

    “Although my ideas are in the earliest stages of development, they are, in my mind, worth investigating.

    Crow has also commented on her website about how she thinks paper napkins “represent the height of wastefulness”.

    She has designed a clothing line with what she calls a “dining sleeve”.

    The sleeve is detachable and can be replaced with another “dining sleeve” after the diner has used it to wipe his or her mouth.

  68. Richard C (NZ) on December 12, 2010 at 6:10 pm said:

    Those amounts were from Copenhagen – not Cancun.

  69. Richard C (NZ) on December 12, 2010 at 6:19 pm said:

    Also, the giant $100bn by 2020 “Green Climate Fund” will be under World Bank auspices – not UN.

    “The Green Climate Fund will initially use the World Bank as a trustee – as the US, EU and Japan had demanded – while giving oversight to a new body balanced between developed and developing countries.”

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11975470

    The UNs out of the loop on that one.

    I don’t think the UN has got their mitts on the $31 billion either. The donor countries don’t seem to have released any of it so far.

  70. Richard C (NZ) on December 12, 2010 at 7:16 pm said:

    An activist from non-profit organisation Anima Naturalis demonstrates outside the venue of UN climate talks in Cancun. Photo: Reuters

    http://images.smh.com.au/2010/12/12/2091321/cancun-420×0.jpg

  71. Richard C (NZ) on December 12, 2010 at 7:43 pm said:

    The difficult task of melding Kyoto with the voluntary pledges of countries made more loosely as part of last year’s Copenhagen Accord, was seemingly resolved by inclusive language.

    Both texts – one dealing with Kyoto and a second focusing on ”long-term co-operative action” – simply ”take note” of the emissions targets to be implemented by developed and developing countries under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.

    While not strictly legally binding, the decision gave legitimacy to those pledges made under the Accord by 85 nations, which account for about 80 per cent of global emissions, to reduce or slow their emissions up to 2020.

    ”take note” and “not strictly legally binding”,

    Wasn’t that what was decided at Copenhagen?

    Progress indeed.

    Cost of redundant ”take note” and “not strictly legally binding”:-

    Nearly $80 million and 30,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Post Navigation