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.]

Leave a Reply

26 Comment threads
45 Thread replies
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
6 Comment authors
Notify of
Mike Jowsey

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?

Richard C (NZ)

“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.


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.


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


Richard C (NZ)

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.


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.

Richard C (NZ)

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.”


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.

Richard C (NZ)

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


Richard C (NZ)

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… Read more »

val majkus

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… Read more »

Mike Jowsey

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.

val majkus

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

Richard C (NZ)

“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.”


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]

Richard C (NZ)

Mike, not Ron – sorry.

Richard C (NZ)

Green fund for poor nations major focus of climate talks


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.


Richard C (NZ)

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.


“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.


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

Richard C (NZ)

“We have moved into a post democratic era.”

Were we ever in one?


,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.

val majkus

Latest I can find:
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

Richard C (NZ)

“Europe is seriously disappointed”

That’s encouraging

Richard C (NZ)

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.

val majkus

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)

Richard C (NZ)

“$100 billion a year climate fund”

Focus on that.

Current UN budget:-

$2.35 billion a year.

val majkus

part of a draft agreement filed a short time ago


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.

Richard C (NZ)

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


$100 billion Green Fund by 2020 (through UN)


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


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


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

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

Richard C (NZ)

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

Doesn’t change much.

Mike Jowsey

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… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

“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… Read more »

val majkus

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!

Mike Jowsey

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.

val majkus

Mike completely accept what you say
but read this and weep
25 minutes ago
how stupid are we?
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.


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


val majkus

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


Bishop Hill has put up a Cancun thread.


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

val majkus

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… Read more »


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.

val majkus

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


“Jungle Bunny fund” requires a bit of context.

Shub kindly provides the racial slur background.


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.

val majkus

Oh, thanks Andy!

Richard C (NZ)

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.

Richard C (NZ)

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… Read more »

val majkus

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… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

Cancun Agreements

Google News Search

Google Story Search

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

Now to extract the un-spun details.

An interpreted synopsis under some category headings might be in order:-


Kyoto Protocol



Adaption and Mitigation

Have I missed any items?

I’m going in………………………………

Richard C (NZ)

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… Read more »

val majkus

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

Richard C (NZ)

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)

Richard C (NZ)

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.


Richard C (NZ)

“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.”


Richard C (NZ)

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.… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

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… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

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


val majkus

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… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

“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 ???

Richard C (NZ)

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… Read more »


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.


Richard C (NZ)

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


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?

Richard C (NZ)

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

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

Richard C (NZ)

New Zealand Cancun Agreement Fast Start Commitment – Google Search

Richard C (NZ)

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)


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

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.

Richard C (NZ)

Those amounts were from Copenhagen – not Cancun.

Richard C (NZ)

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.”


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.

Richard C (NZ)

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)


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.”


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.

So if small countries can’t get access to $10bn from last year, fat chance for next year and beyond.

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

Richard C (NZ)


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)

Richard C (NZ)

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… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

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… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

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


Richard C (NZ)

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

Post Navigation