Vast political conspiracy


We now have the details of a proposed stitch-up at Cancun. $100bn, it is intended by 2020, should be levied from the taxpayers of “rich” nations to help poor ones adjust to the manifestly and absurdly extravagant alleged effects of climate change. The outcome of any such a fund actually being collected and distributed is predictable, of course.

Unimaginably vast sums will go to enriching the dictators of such countries, especially in sub-Saharan Africa but elsewhere too, no doubt, as well as the so-called environmentalist movement in the West. A few years hence there will be little, if any, measurable evidence of investment in “measures to save the planet”.

It is illuminating to recall that Kenya now acknowledges that 43% of its annual receipts of grant aid are syphoned off into sleaze. It is also salutary to recall that WWF now expects to reap revenues of $2bn plus from such a “world fund”.

Is it too fanciful to suggest that the quid pro quo for the enrichment of the third world classe politique is an undisclosed agreement for a percentage back-wash into the Lichtenstein bank accounts of our own political protagonists, amongst whose number in the UK, may well be the heir to the throne as well as individual propagandists at the BBC and not forgetting other dedicated quangos, for example?

Will they get away with it? I don’t think so – after all, where’s the money to come from? And let’s not forget that there’s an ocean of difference between promise and performance. Still, if personal enrichment is actually the real undisclosed name of the game, we may have to anticipate interesting times.

Just a thought – ignoble, I know, but then we live in a funny old world, do we not?

Leave a Reply

22 Comment threads
32 Thread replies
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
11 Comment authors
Notify of
val majkus

As Dr Fred Singer says ‘the money will come from the poor from the rich countries and go to the rich from the poor countries’
And I agree where’s the money to come from; at the moment Australia owes about $176 BILLION and that’s not including the NBN the new telecommunications monopoly which this Govt is building
By the way where did the info about Kenya and the WWF come from? Is there a source?

No doubt there’s a source, but I don’t know what it is. I made a brief search and found nothing.

Richard C (NZ)

Possible financial sources for the Green Climate Fund From William F. Jasper, New American | 07 December 2010 Panelists from the Climate Action Network on Wednesday revealed that nations are discussing new taxes either on international monetary transactions or preferably on international shipping and aviation. The U.N. does not currently have the authority to tax, but it is guiding negotiations to accept “monitoring, reporting and verification” from some taxing authority for money received from the new Green Fund. The new tax assessor-collector could possibly be the International Maritime Organization, which is a U.N. affiliate. Soros Green for the Green Lobby Enter George Soros, billionaire green activist and champion of global government. Soros was among the elite glamour contingent that swarmed into Copenhagen on private luxury jets last December and debarked from stretch limos at the climate conference to deliver harangues calling for the peoples of the developed countries to sacrifice, change their lifestyles, and decrease their consumption in order to save Mother Earth. Soros was appointed to the UN’s High Level Advisory Group on Climate Finance, which was tasked with coming up with the ways and means for reaching “the goal of mobilizing… Read more »


O/T but I am sure you will comment on this in due course Richard:

December 16, 2010
NIWA releases review of NZ temperature trends

NIWA today released a report reviewing its seven station temperature series, which adds to its analysis of New Zealand’s temperature trends over the past 100 years.

The report was independently peer reviewed by Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology to ensure the ideas, methods, and conclusions stood up in terms of scientific accuracy, logic, and consistency.

This is O/T, Andy, but yes, I’ll be commenting. It’s hysterical that NIWA arrives at the same over-stated temperature increase as before. I await comments from the scientists of the NZCSC.

First amateur observation: if our climate is moderated by the ocean by which we’re surrounded, why is our temperature increase (according to NIWA) of 91°C so much greater (123%) than the global temperature rise?


I read a description of foreign aid the other day. I think it was on Bishop Hill.

Foreign Aid – the process where poor people in rich countries give money to rich people in poor countries.

Richard C (NZ)

“$100bn it is intended by 2020, should be levied from the taxpayers of “rich” nations” No, no, no. The US$100bn PER YEAR by 2020 “Green Climate Fund” will be extracted from these sources:- Outcome of the work of the Ad Hoc Working Group on long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention 99. Agrees that, in accordance with paragraph 1(e) of the Bali Action Plan, funds provided to developing country Parties may come from a wide variety of sources, public and private, bilateral and multilateral, including alternative sources; i.e ANY source possible – financial transactions, airline levies, donations, national disbursement etc. The fund DISBURSEMENTS will be scaled (ramped) up from whatever initial amount kicks it off (say $100m from Bill Gates in 2011). Thus the fund DISBURSEMENTS progressively increase until $100bn is being DISBURSED EVERY YEAR after 2020 in theory. It is the $30bn Fast Start Fund (already pledged at Copenhagen) that has been sourced from taxpayers via national pledge. COP15 Fast Start pledges US$ 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 –… Read more »


For a devastating critique of Cancun outcomes, see Walter Russell Mead at
Says it all.

Alexander K

As a Kiwi observer in the UK, I have learned a significant fact from first-hand experience here; warmer is generally safer and nicer; cold and colder are truly scary, downright nasty and dangerous. I despair, therefore, for our UK cousins for the inability of both their paid and elected officials there to do actual joined-up and proper adult thinking. Mr Hune and his fellows have failed utterly in the area of sensible planning for future affordable energy needs to be met in the UK and are hell-bent on installing windmills that are ever-larger and obviously more and more unable to fill the nations energy needs without a concurrent building programme to construct oil/coal/nuclear powered backup generating plants to enable the nation to use electricity when the wind doesn’t blow, which is most of the time in these sceptred isles, but partucularly so when the temperatures drop to below freezing, when the windmill’s blades ice up and thus cannot turn without major damage to themselves. Mr Salmond, leader of the Scottish Parliament, is even stranger than Mr Hune, in that he is vigorously demanding that Scotland returns to the Stone Age and place it’s… Read more »

Mike Jowsey

“Is there anybody on planet earth who thinks that $100 billion is going to be paid?

The “success” of Cancun is a best case scenario from the skeptic’s point of view. The cost of funding endless UN gabfests in exotic tourist locations (next up: South Africa in 2012) is trivial compared to the cost of any serious efforts to deal with carbon emissions on the scale current scientific theory suggests would be needed. Bureaucrats will dance, journalists will spin and carbon will spew, and the greens will be unable to escape this dysfunctional UN process for years and maybe decades to come. ”

–Walter Russell Mead,The American Interest, 12 December 2010

Richard C (NZ)

“Is there anybody on planet earth who thinks that $100 billion is going to be paid?

The first $10bn tranche of Fast Start didn’t get paid in 2010.

If UN Green Dreams came true

2011 $10.00bn Fast Start COP15
2012 $10.00bn Fast Start COP15
2013 $11.25bn Green Climate Fund COP16
2014 $32.50bn ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ”
2015 $43.75bn
2016 $55.00bn
2017 $66.25bn
2018 $77.50bn
2019 $88.75bn
2020 $100bn
2021 $100bn
” ” ” ” ” ”

Disbursed PER YEAR

Richard C (NZ)

Note that “at least 0.7% of the annual GDP of developed country Parties” is just one of the possible sources of funding for the Green Climate Fund disbursements.

# Public-sector funding

# At least 0.7% of the annual GDP of developed country Parties

# Auctioning of assigned amounts and/or emission allowances [from developed country Parties

# Levies on CO2 emissions [from Annex-I Parties

# Taxes on carbon-intensive products and services from Annex I Parties

# Levies on] [Shares of proceeds from measures to limit or reduce emissions from] international [aviation] and maritime transport

# Shares of proceeds on the clean development mechanism (CDM)

# Levies on international transactions [among Annex I Parties

# Fines for non-compliance [of Annex I Parties and] with commitments of Annex I Parties and Parties with commitments inscribed in Annex B to the Kyoto Protocol

# Additional ODA] [ODA additional to ODA targets] provided through bilateral, regional and other multilateral channels

Take a long hard look at the other “channels”

They’ve been working on this for some time with Soros et al.

It’s happening.

Richard C (NZ)

This article

“UN Continues Push for Global Carbon Tax at Climate Confab”


Spells it out.


The Herald have an editorial piece

Editorial: Cancun gains worthless with Kyoto in limbo

Comments are open.

Richard C (NZ)

Climate Distortions Were Achieved. National Weather Agencies Are The Trojan Horses

By Dr. Tim Ball Monday, December 13, 2010

Maurice Strong set up the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) through the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) to provide a powerful vehicle for almost complete control of climate science. Each national weather office perpetuates the deception that human CO2 is causing climate change. He controlled the science through the IPCC and the political and propaganda portion under the umbrella of the Rio Conference (1992) and the ongoing Conference of the Parties (COP).

By peopling the IPCC with representatives of national weather offices, he attained control of the politics within each nation and collective global control. They’re the Trojan Horses from which funding and research emanate to deceive the politicians and public into achieving his goal of destroying the industrialized nations.


Richard C (NZ)

It’s not as if there’s nothing being done and no funding already ——————————————————————————————————————– New Zealand’s Fifth National Communication – Under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 7 Financial resources and technology transfer 7.1 Introduction New Zealand is committed to supporting developing country parties to meet the dual challenges of reducing emissions and adapting to the impacts of climate change. New Zealand is addressing these challenges by delivering new and additional financial resources through a range of channels, primarily to its partner countries in the Pacific, but also to countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America. Table 7.1: New Zealand’s financial contributions to the Global Environment Facility, 2005–2008 Contributions1 (NZ$ million2) to the GEF Trust Fund 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, Total 2.78, 3.42, 3.28, 3.12, 12.6 Table 7.2: Financial contributions to multilateral institutions and programmes, 2005–2008 Institution or programme Contributions1 (NZ$ million2) Multilateral institutions …….2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, Total 1. World Bank ……………..9.21, 20.01, 11.03, 20.37, 60.62 2. Asian Development Bank 12.83, 12.57, 12.16, 6.37, 43.93 3. United Nations Development Pr.8.00, 8.00, 8.00, 8.00, 32.00 4. United Nations Environment Pr.0.25, 0.21, 0.21, 0.35, 1.02 5. UNFCCC Trust Fund for Partic 0.10 ,… Read more »

Huub Bakker

It strikes me that the title of this piece does a disservice to our efforts in the fight for truth and justice in that it is wrong and opens us up to the taunt of ‘conspiracy theorists’ or conspiracy nutters a la those that think the moon landings never took place. This is not a vast conspiracy. Sure, there are conspiracies; the hockey stick team conspired to subvert the peer review process and provide disinformation regarding climatology, Maurice Strong conspired with a group of players to set up the IPCC and carbon trading, and environmentalist socialists have conspired to use the green movement to promote socialism. However, these are not ‘vast conspiracies’ but rather a number of much smaller conspiracies linked with a number of vested interests that have used the central theme of man-made global warming to further their own interests. One can argue that most scientists involved in the field, and in the IPCC, are not part of a vast conspiracy but are genuinely working for the perceived good of the planet, or of their research funds, or for their careers. Similarly, politicians see the popular opinion as a means of… Read more »

Mike Jowsey

The word “vast” in the title is simply a matter of opinion. I would say the COP has a vast sphere of influence, a vast membership, a vast number of contributing scientists, but that’s just my opinion. Where the conspiracies begin and end is impossible to determine. It is a wonderful web they weave. The positive feedback built into the climate science environment (with respect to CAGW) is due to peer pressure, consensus pressure, funding pressure, career pressure, bullying, shunning, disinvitations etc, and may be viewed overall as a conspiracy imo. At the very least it is a conspiracy of silence, subconscious or conscious. But at the Hockey Team end of the spectrum there is definitely conscious manipulation of people, data and policies to suit a political or ideological agenda. Journals, societies and governments have demonstrated a bias for CAGW, and against hypotheses which refute aspects of CAGW. In fact some have made sure that the CAGW agenda is pushed by appointing biased board members (e.g. the AGU). So I don’t know, Huub, how you define a conspiracy. But the Free Dictionary gives one definition as “A joining or acting together, as if… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

Mike, I noticed your “too prolific” comment – here’s a solution.

Subscribe to CCG comments via Google Reader (Admin, right-hand side).

It’s hands down THE BEST way to follow comments. In “List” view you can scan 1000+ comments easy. In “Expanded” view you can read the comments directly and by clicking on the header, open the comment for reply in a new tab. It’s also a good way to access the topical posts and categories at CCG.

Reader is far better than RSS or email as in JoNova (doesn’t clog up your Inbox and you can view at your leasure) and should be an option on every blog IMO..

Mike Jowsey

Thanks for the tip, Richard. Unfortunately I can’t see a Google Reader in the Admin section of this blog. In Google Reader itself I have subscribed to and get a list of all the articles, but not comments. Maybe I’m doing something wrong. Maybe I need a WordPress login ID to access the right part of Admin. It does look like a pretty neat way to do things though, so thanks. I’ll keep playing…..

Mike Jowsey

Aha! Just sorted it – brilliant!
Need to subscribe to

Yew bewdy!

Richard C (NZ)

Huub, you may have to revise your outlook on this depending on the response to the following.. Up-thread I linked to a request I made to NZ Office of Climate Change which I duplicate here. —————————————————————————————————————————— UN mandate to establish a “Green Climate Fund” To the Minister of Climate Change Dr Smith or representative, I am trying to access the formal contract by which the 194 nations (as per news reports) agreed to give the UN the mandate to establish a $100bn per year by 2020 “Green Climate Fund”. The details of the fund are found in the UN document:- “Outcome of the work of the Ad Hoc Working Group on long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention” There are no signatories listed in the Advance unedited version Draft decision [-/CP.16] Please provide, if it exists:- 1) A link to the document other than the above that was signed by the representatives of the 194 nations that agreed to provide the mandate to the UN to pursue “a wide variety of sources, public and private, bilateral and multilateral, including alternative sources” to establish a “Green Climate Fund”. 2) A list of countries that… Read more »


Yes, well I am very curious.

If the people we pay are off in a holiday resort, at our expense, organising to redistribute our money to other countries without our consent, then I am very interested indeed.

Richard C (NZ)

I have received a response from Paul Eastwood | Senior Advisor – Environment and Climate Change New Zealand Aid Programme / Environment Division Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade to my inquiry. This response was from the Office of Climate Change (I have since made an identical inquiry to the Minister of Climate Change and am waiting for the reply). The internal re-direction ——————————————————————————————————————– —–Original Message—– From: Kay Harrison [] Sent: Friday, 17 December 2010 8:41 a.m. To: EASTWOOD, Paul (IDG, SAE) Cc: Fiona Montgomery Subject: FW: UN mandate to establish a “Green Climate Fund” Importance: High Hi Paul We’ve received the inquiry below concerning the Green Fund. Would you mind dealing with it and copying us into the reply please? We can then use your considered response for any others that come in. Regards Kay ——————————————————————————————————————– Paul’s response. ——————————————————————————————————————– Dear Richard, Your query concerning the Green Climate Fund has been passed to me. The decision to establish the Fund is contained within the UNFCCC decision document -/CP.16. This document, and hence all decisions contained therein, was adopted by consensus by the Conference of the Parties (COP) to the UNFCCC at its sixteenth… Read more »


Thus we see our democracy disappear in front of us, just like in the EU

Mike Jowsey

“I hope this answers your questions.
Best wishes,

Well, actually it raises a whole bunch of questions. And thanks for the Best Wishes – do they include the wish that us tax payers can afford the arbitrary levels of the new International Green Tax, on top of increased GST, $15b deficits, and a struggling economy? I’m sure that must be one of your Best Wishes, or maybe you just don’t give a damn about affordability by the great unwashed.

Richard C (NZ)

Andy, Brian Fallow has this in the NZH – some comments along the same lines as yours here (mine included).

“Cancun talks highlight climate dilemma”

Comments are open but I haven’t seen your barb.

Gandalf’s taken up residence and we’re not allowed to call people “alarmists” – apparently.

Also, there’s a great opportunity to bring up James Renwicks “drier air”, “cloudless skies”, “dry conditions” 2010 summer forecast via TV3 here;-

Humidity set to continue
By Philip Duncan

Philip Duncan forecast rain BTW – see “Meteorology”


I just added my piece to the Herald. Something along the lines that “the UK has just condemned a lot of grannies to death”

I spoke to a workmate in Scotland this morning. He says the country is the coldest and snowiest he has ever experienced. Just getting anywhere is a major logistical exercise.

Chris Huhne’s new energy policies are so appalling that it is hard to believe all this madness is actually real. Surely someone will tell me this is a bad dream.

Dellers covers it pretty well here,

This truly is a nightmare.

Richard C (NZ)

When a Scot says it’s cold – it’s cold.

I note from Dellers article that

“Thatcher created Europe’s most competitive electricity and gas markets, privatizing state-owned businesses including British Gas, British Energy, National Power and PowerGen. By 1997, the change had driven down consumer prices by as much as 20 percent, compared with pre-privatization costs”

20% down! – had the opposite effect in NZ.

574 comments so far. Hopefully that article along with others will be a rallying point. Even the most ardent Greens must come to the realization eventually that “Huhne’s and Cameron’s insane proposals to “decarbonise” the British economy at a cost conservatively estimated at £18 billion a year” are indescribably daft in the face of freezing weather (and economic) conditions..

Richard C (NZ)

Andy, great comment – very powerful.

I see GixxerBoy struck a chord – 34 “Likes” so far.

Richard C (NZ)

I’ve just received a response from

Phil Gumsey

Private Secretary Climate Change

Office of Hon Dr Nick Smith

Minister for Environment, Issues and ACC

Informing me that Officials at the Ministry of the Environment will be responding to my questions.

So there you have it.

Richard C (NZ)

Have now received this from the NZ Ministry for the Environment (much different report) ——————————————————————————————————————– Hi Richard, I refer to your email regarding the Cancun climate change meetings. You’ve asked about the Green Climate Fund. There is no obligation yet for any country but note that a standing committee has been established to work through implementation details for the fund. The fund idea was born out of the Copenhagen Accord last year – as part of a balanced package of decisions on mitigation, finance, technology and adaptation. It’s also worth noting that the Cancun Agreements do not constitute a draft treaty. Thus New Zealand, and 193 other countries have pledged support for the continuation of efforts to reach a global treaty rather than ‘signing up’ to a legally binding agreement. The government would need to carefully and cautiously consider the implications for New Zealand before deciding whether to sign and ratify any treaty that may come out of future negotiations. As occurred with previous agreements such as the Kyoto Protocol, a treaty needs to undergo a thorough National Interest Analysis, public consultation and be approved by both Cabinet and Parliament in order to… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

“a green true believer’s point of view” of the Cancun outcome. ———————————————————————————————————————- Bureaucrats Swindle Greens In Cancun Walter Russell Mead December 12, 2010 – THE AMERICAN INTEREST The climate conference in Cancun was a turning point for the world’s greens. There were two possible outcomes. One was a total political meltdown in Cancun that would have been hideously embarrassing in the short run but that in the long term would have cleared the way for more hopeful approaches to carbon issues. The other was a cobbled together pseudo-deal of some kind that would have avoided short term embarrassment but over the long run would doom the greens to a future of frustration and futility. Outcome one would have helped the planet; outcome two helps the bureaucratic rent seekers and process junkies of the world’s diplomatic establishment. Guess who won? As green negotiators in Cancun ended their embarrassing two-week junket (videos of partying bureaucrats did not go down well with voters in a northern hemisphere freezing in an early winter), it’s clear that the bureaucrats did what bureaucrats do: they kept a ‘process’ (job-creating bureaucratic gravy train) alive while doing little or nothing about… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

Not much difference between Green and MMCC sceptic perspectives of the UN bureaucratic manipulation of the Cancun outcome going by this article.

Richard C (NZ)

In a similar vein – a very grumpy Green. Note the call for “radically abandoning the flush toilet” ——————————————————————————————————————– The arrogance of Cancún The lesson of this feeble climate deal? Governments have played God and failed. It is up to the activists now Wednesday 15 December 2010 22.00 GMT – Guardian In the efforts to protect our planet from ourselves, the high level talks at Cancún were our last chance … and they failed. But we can learn from this sad episode: we must stop asking governments and international organisations for solutions that they don’t want to – and can’t – implement. And we must stop pretending to be God, thinking we can “fix” the planet. Eighteen years ago pressure from the environmental movement forced the UN to convene the Earth summit: 120 heads of state, 8,000 officials and innumerable environmentalists gathered in Rio; an image of the orchestra playing while the Titanic sank comes to mind. The conference, as the Ecologist reported at the time, merely reinforced predominant mythology and highlighted the powerful vested interests working against a solution. In effect, the lambs were put under the care of the wolves. “After… Read more »

Andrew Thomson

Hahoo Xtra News announces Australian Bureau of Meteorology concludes that NIWA’s seven station series is just fine:

No details and couldn’t find any detail on NIWA’s website at this stage.

Andrew Thomson

NIWA Seven Station Series Review here:

Haven’t read it yet.

Richard C (NZ)

Greg Combet in The Australian

He suggested that the definition of developed countries that was incorporated into the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was based on which countries were members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development in 1992 and was now outmoded.

“In the 18 years since, additional countries have joined the OECD, and others have witnessed significant economic growth. However, the UNFCCC’s list of Annex I Parties – ie, developed countries – has remained static, stuck in a 1992 time warp, far from current economic realities,” he told the Investor Group on Climate Change in Sydney’s luxurious Four Seasons Hotel on Circular Quay

Alexander K

Nice to see the faceless Kiwicrats drinking pinacoladas in Mexico on the NZ taxpayer voted unanamously to stitch us up even tighter. Bastards, all of them, and I’m being very moderate.
I am sitting in my workroom in a nice warm house with gas-fired centrall heating in London, about 10 minutes from Heathrow, a relatively warm part of the UK, watching the snow fall very heavily and prettily. Spare a thought for the Brits further North who rely on fuel oil for heating which has gone from 40 to 70 P per litre in the last couple of months and the authorities now say the stuff must be rationed because (a) many deliveries to houses can’t happen because of snowbound roads and (b) the local authorities were so sure the Met Office forecasts for a mild winter would be correct they didn’t order enough salt for the roads or fuel oil for schools and hospitals. Absolutely clueless!

That’s exactly what happened last year. Unbelievable. It’s beyond clueless and becoming distinctly negligent. People shortly (perhaps already?) will be calling for the Met Office to be sued for compensation because their forecasts are no better than wish lists. Meanwhile, wind farms continue their useless march across the landscape and the coastal waters — ‘Great’ Britain no more. I’m so sorry.

Richard C (NZ)

Now NIWA are predicting NZ snow levels out to 2090 based on “emission scenarios”

New climate modelling shows seasonal snow levels at New Zealand ski areas will be reduced by the effects of climate change in the coming years, but the good news is the loss may actually be less than originally anticipated and we should be able to continue to make snow, even under a more extreme climate scenario.

This is the first time a quantitative assessment of the potential impact of climate change on snow levels has been done in New Zealand.

Using global climate trend data, taken from the climate models used for the recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report, NIWA scientists created three different emissions scenarios. These were then fed into a model specifically designed for New Zealand conditions, to show how the different scenarios could impact on snow levels for the 2040s (2030-2049) and the 2090s (2080-2099). Results were provided both for New Zealand as a whole and for individual ski areas.

The model is based on the one that the UK Met Office uses, just modified for NZ (but still forced by CO2).

See “Meteorology”


For those that follow the stoushes between Monbiot and Richard North (vis-a-vis the “Jungle Bunny theme), the new moniker for the absolutely clueless is:

“Bungle Johnnies”


Hum, you are casting blame that somehow the GW fund will shovel money from the poor to the rich…. ? If you believe this story line, then why are you so upset?

Wasn’t that the whole point of the free market agenda Seitz, Singer at. , the ACT party here and all have been fighting for all their lives? The right of corporations to privatize profits and assets but to socialize the ‘inconvenient externalities’ of the market such as pollution?

In the US it worked a treat where now the top few % of the people own the lion share of the wealth.
and the inequality is getting worse year by year.

So how come you are now pushing the conspiracy button?

Richard C (NZ)

“somehow the GW fund will shovel money from the poor to the rich…. ?” I’ll assume you meant “rich to poor”. The free market approach was a complete failure in the NZ electricity sector but a success in the UK as you can see up-thread. The externalities are the responsibility of relevant authorities to enforce RMA and local ordinances – if a corporate pollutes, it should get pinged. No argument from me. However, CO2 is not a pollutant and neither are CO2 levels an excuse to “shovel money from the rich to the poor” to remove the inequalities of an ideological perception. The Green Climate Fund has nothing to do with the environment but everything to do with wealth re-distribution but no-one in NZ was able to vote on NZs consent to it at Cancun. Therefore, New Zealanders rights have been overridden by dictatorial UN socialism in the guise of “climate change adaption and mitigation’. Inequalities are an unfortunate fact of life. De-industrialization of wealthy countries is a brain-dead approach to what is the normal responsibility of those better off to assist those in adverse circumstances. Normal aid is already being undertaken through… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)


Re your addled analysis.

“Hum, you are casting blame that somehow the GW fund will shovel money from the poor to the rich…. ?”

I hope in light of your confusion (and for your sake) that your comment below found at Global Warming Inc’s NZ Head Office is not a self diagnosis.

“Madness is a refuge of the bewildered”

Mike Jowsey

Thomas’ true colours = anti-corporate, anti-capitalism, anti-profit, anti-wealth. A perfect candidate for believing the CAGW claptrap. A perfect candidate for pushing socialism in his CAGW wheelbarrow.

Cancun, as Richard C rightly alluded to, had little to do with the environment. I would put it to Thomas that so does his agenda.

Richard C (NZ)

The report is in to Global Warming Inc’s NZ Head Office —————————————————————————————————————————– david winter December 17, 2010 at 5:30 pm Just popped over to Treadgold’s site to see if he’d worked up a reply yet and… wow… those guys seem even more crazy than usual. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 Reply RW December 17, 2010 at 6:22 pm I’m sure there will be more Treadgold lies and distortions aired in the media soon. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 Reply Gareth December 17, 2010 at 6:54 pm They’ve been letting their conspiratorial leanings show — Treadgold seems very taken with Monckton’s fantasies about climate change ushering in world government. Tin foil hat time, to be sure. I’d guess that Treadgold is waiting for one of the senior C”S”C cranks to come up with a plausible-sounding complaint about the new series. Good luck with that, all they’ve ever had was the implausible and unreasonable… Reply laurence December 17, 2010 at 11:59 pm “those guys seem even more crazy than usual.” What! both of them? Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 Reply Thomas December 18,… Read more »


Madness is a refuge of the bewildered

Sounds like a good example of psychological projection to me:

Richard C (NZ)

New Zealand Sovereignty: 1857, 1907, 1947, or 1987? [or 2010?]

August 2007

Parliamentary support, Research papers




First Independent Steps

A Seventh Australian State?


Trade Treaty

The Balfour Declaration

De Facto, Not De Jure, Independence

Statute Of Westminster

An “Unnecessary Legal Complication”

Wartime Necessities

New Zealand Day?


Two Footnotes


2010 The Cancun Agreements

Richard C (NZ)

Turns out that the 2010 Cancun Agreements wont be written into NZs sovereignty history after all. The latest communication from the Ministry for the Environment up-thread casts a different light than that previous.

This part seems to indicate an opportunity to present a non-ratification case:-

“The government would need to carefully and cautiously consider the implications for New Zealand before deciding whether to sign and ratify any treaty that may come out of future negotiations.”

In this process:-

“a treaty needs to undergo a thorough National Interest Analysis, public consultation and be approved by both Cabinet and Parliament in order to become legally binding on New Zealand.”

Maybe democracy is not yet dead in New Zealand.

One hopes that Richard C is right.
The advice from the Ministry for the Environment is interesting. But these are the same folks who have advocated the waste of millions of dollars on this AGW cult and who pushed the crazy ETS.
Frankly, I prefer Monckton’s cautionary tale, and my own sources inside the Government caucus.
The latter warn of continuing departmental pressure to approve “Cancun” and the like.
Monckton, of course, has had the experience of the European Union ‘crats and their seizure of power to back his views. Capture by stealth, Monckton calls it. His recent analysis of Cancun is a masterpiece to which even the esteemed Rupert Wyndham would defer. Vigilence is essential.

Richard C (NZ)

Flipper, did you notice the difference between the TWO reports up-thread?

1) Paul Eastwood | Senior Advisor – Environment and Climate Change New Zealand Aid Programme / Environment Division Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade

2) Roger Lincoln – Senior Policy Analyst, International Climate & Environment
Ministry for the Environment

The first that the Green Climate Fund and the Cancun Agreements were a done deal (1), the second that they were anything but (2).

Surprisingly, it’s the Environment Ministry report that says no deal yet.

A similar inquiry is being made to the equivalent Australian Climate Ministry by Wendy at JoNova, comment # 123 here:-

So we will be able to compare reports NZ-AU.

There’s already a difference in reports between those two NZ Ministries.

Richard C (NZ)

“done-deal” at the UN ———————————————————————————————————————- UN Urges Nations to Act on Cancún Agreements Tuesday, 21 December 2010, 11:09 am Press Release: United Nations The United Nations climate change chief today called on countries to follow up on the recent conference in Cancún with higher global emissions cuts and the rapid launch of new institutions and funds. … “Cancún was a big step, bigger than many imagined might be possible. But the time has come for all of us to exceed our own expectations because nothing less will do,” said UNFCCC Executive Secretary Christiana Figueres. She stressed that the ‘Cancún Agreements’ needs to be implemented as quickly as possible, and be accompanied by “credible accountability systems that will help in measuring real progress.” … “All countries, but particularly industrialized nations, need to deepen their emission reduction efforts and to do so quickly,” said Ms. Figueres. … Ms. Figueres stressed that these institutions must be launched quickly, noting that millions of poor and vulnerable people around the world have been waiting years to get the full level of assistance they need. … “I expect in particular to see rapid decisions on appointing the board of… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

Placed this comment under “Editorial: Cancun gains worthless with Kyoto in limbo” Comments are still open —————————————————————————————————————————- Cancun Agreements . Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade – done deal . “This document, and hence all decisions contained therein, was adopted by consensus by the Conference of the Parties (COP) to the UNFCCC at its sixteenth session in Cancun, Mexico. The COP comprises all UN Member States, hence when a COP decision is adopted there is no need for an annex containing signatories, nor is there a separate document.” . Ministry for the Environment – no deal . “It’s also worth noting that the Cancun Agreements do not constitute a draft treaty. Thus New Zealand, and 193 other countries have pledged support for the continuation of efforts to reach a global treaty rather than ‘signing up’ to a legally binding agreement. The government would need to carefully and cautiously consider the implications for New Zealand before deciding whether to sign and ratify any treaty that may come out of future negotiations. As occurred with previous agreements such as the Kyoto Protocol, a treaty needs to undergo a thorough National Interest Analysis, public consultation… Read more »

Post Navigation