We can, we can, at Cancun — can we?

conference at the beach

No we can’t

UPDATE 1: 5:10 p.m. NZT

The conference is over. There are 25 separate documents listed here at the UNFCCC web site called “Cancun Agreements” which one must presume represent what has been agreed to. Plus a joint expression of gratitude to Mexico and its leaders for running the conference (and who knows what horrors could be hidden away in that one?). Total: 26 documents.

They’re in two groups, reflecting the fact that two conferences were taking place (COP 16 and CMP 6). Actually, I mislead you: there were three other conferences also taking place. Confusing, isn’t it?

Who could distinguish who was who with so many hats being swapped and shared?

It could take a while to find out what the heck they’ve been up to. Comments here are beginning to give us an idea of the highlights as readers trawl through the verbiage (thanks to all three of you). 😉 There are plenty of readers grateful for your efforts.

In the meantime, we must trust that summaries are reliable at WUWT, Politico and other sites.

First the good news

There is no successor to the Kyoto Protocol. This means that, so far, all the legally-required mitigation and reporting activities come to an end in 2012.

Hurrah! But the fight is not over, as plenty of people want to achieve, variously, personal riches, social equity and fame (oh, and “saving the planet”) through bringing about a new agreement.

There is an entirely predictable spread of responses as various groups filter events through their own preferences and aversions:

  • Greenpeace – “governments put aside some major differences and compromised to reach a climate agreement.”
  • US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton – “a balanced and significant step forward.”
  • EU Climate Commissioner Connie Hedegaard – “We have strengthened the international climate regime with new institutions and new funds,” Climate Commissioner Connie Hedegaard said in an e-mailed statement today. “All parties should now take domestic action to reduce or limit their emissions so that we can keep global warming below 2 degrees Celcius.”
  • NZ Green Party scaremongering – “the Cancun Agreement falls well short of what is needed to avert the worst effects of climate change… the Copenhagen pledges, formalised under the Cancun Agreement, will result in a hotter planet than a 2º C rise. Some estimate a 4º C rise by late in the 21st century, triggering unpredictable non-linear change to the global biosphere.”
  • The LRC blog – “The climate change agreement is a temporary triumph of dysfunctional governments worldwide, statism, power-seeking globalcrats, greens, and money-seeking ‘scientists.'”

UPDATE 1 5:10 p.m. NZT

Documents recording COP 16 agreements

The documents are available at the UNFCCC site.

  • Outcome of the work of the Ad Hoc Working Group on long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention
  • Outcome of the work of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol at its fifteenth session
  • Land use, land-use change and forestry
  • Financial mechanism of the Convention: Fourth review of the financial mechanism
  • Further guidance relating to the clean development mechanism
  • Additional guidance to the Global Environment Facility
  • Issues relating to joint implementation
  • Assessment of the Special Climate Change Fund
  • Report of the Adaptation Fund Board
  • Further guidance for the operation of the Least Developed Countries Fund
  • Review of the Adaptation Fund
  • Extension of the mandate of the Least Developed Countries Expert Group
  • Carbon dioxide capture and storage in geological formations as clean development mechanism project activities
  • Progress in, and ways to enhance, the implementation of the amended New Delhi work programme on Article 6 of the Convention
  • Proposal from Kazakhstan to amend annex B to the Kyoto Protocol
  • Continuation of activities implemented jointly under the pilot phase
  • Methodology for the collection of international transaction log fees in the biennium 2012–2013
  • National communications from Parties included in Annex I to the Convention
  • Supplementary information incorporated in national communications submitted in accordance with Article 7, paragraph 2, of the Kyoto Protocol
  • Capacity-building under the Convention for developing countries
  • Capacity-building under the Kyoto Protocol for developing countries
  • Administrative, financial and institutional matters
  • Administrative, financial and institutional matters
  • Date and venue of future sessions of the Conference of the Parties
  • Compliance Committee

That looks like a big pile of writing.

18
Leave a Reply

avatar
8 Comment threads
10 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
3 Comment authors
RonAndyRichard C (NZ) Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
Notify of
Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

I must have eye strain. I misread

Methodology for the collection of international transaction log fees in the biennium 2012–2013

as

Mythology for the collection of international transaction log fees in the biennium 2012–2013

Currently NZ pays 27,516 Euros per year for this privilege (approx NZ$48,300).

http://maindb.unfccc.int/library/view_pdf.pl?url=http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2009/cmp5/eng/19.pdf

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

@ Andy

If you see this, I was thinking about your “interesting” remark re inter-annual methane levels.

Were you inferring from the short-term CH4 level cycle mimicing warming-cooling that CH4 may be mimicing long-term warming-cooling also?

It does seem so since 1970s but dunno prior to that.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Additional guidance to the Global Environment Facility

I think this deserves intense scrutiny (along with everything else).

i.e. Is it

# Global governance by green stealth ?

# A UN ticket clipping exercise ?

# Dreaming about administering non-existent funds ?

# A tad presumptuous ?

3. Urges the Global Environment Facility, as an operating entity of the financial mechanism of the Convention, to increase access to funding for activities related to Article 6 of the Convention;

Questions, questions…..

And all about funding – money grabbing, that is.

Andy
Guest
Andy

I was just observing the large variations in CH4 levels between summer and winter months.
I don’t have an explanation for that. Maybe someone can help here.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

A comment I put up at JoNova re forestry and REDD —————————————————————————————————————————- New Zealand needed some changes in forestry at COP16 but I’m having difficulty working out what actually happened from the Cancun Agreements. They seem to assume a Kyoto Protocol extension. 3. Requests the Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol to consider, in time for possible inclusion in the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol, if appropriate, whether a cap should be applied to emissions and removals from forest management and how extraordinary occurrences (so called “force majeure”) whose severity is beyond the control of, and not materially influenced by, a Party, can be addressed; I note NZ is the only Annex 1 party with a large positive Reference level of 17.05 Mt CO2eq/yr (AU -9.16), but I’ve yet to work out what that means except for this The forest management reference levels inscribed in the appendix were set transparently, taking into account: (a) Removals or emissions from forest management as shown in greenhouse gas inventories and relevant historical data; (b) Age-class structure; (c) Forest management activities already undertaken; (d) Projected forest… Read more »

Ron
Guest
Ron

“The PR and the Agreements don’t match when you look into them.”
Indeed – amusing to see the wishfully thinking Guardian headline “UN climate deal binds all nations” (yeah right) not making it to their top 5 stories but languishing below news of a Rome gay club robbery gang….
Philip Stott has his usual erudite comment:
http://thegwpf.org/opinion-pros-a-cons/2033-philip-stott-dr-pangloss-alive-and-well-at-cancun-.html

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Smith hails breakthrough in global climate change talks By Adam Bennett and agencies – NZH 5:30 AM Monday Dec 13, 2010 Smith’s hell bent on a “legally binding treaty” Dr Smith conceded “a power of work” remained for officials to do between now and next year’s conference in Durban to turn Cancun’s “political agreement” into a ratifiable and legally binding treaty. Nevertheless, one of the most important achievements at Cancun was the re-establishment of good faith. Dr Smith said it was “a big call” for New Zealand to proceed with its emissions trading scheme (ETS) this year. “I strongly say that it was the right thing to do, and the progress that has been made in Cancun has reaffirmed that.” Something to watch for Dr Smith is to announce terms of reference for a review of New Zealand’s ETS before Christmas. He said comparing progress made by other countries, particularly our major trading partners, would be a major focus. And Dr Smith said he was disappointed little progress was made in achieving recognition of some wood products as carbon sinks (reservoirs which store carbon), which would have reduced New Zealand’s international emissions liability.… Read more »

Andy
Guest
Andy

Philip Stott’s eloquence shows again on his thoughts on Cancun

The reality is surely dawning, if too slowly, that, to paraphrase Voltaire’s famous 1767 letter to Fredrick the Great, King of Prussia: “Global warming is the most ridiculous, the most absurd and cost-raising farce that ever infected the world.”

http://thegwpf.org/opinion-pros-a-cons/2033-philip-stott-dr-pangloss-alive-and-well-at-cancun-.html

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

You were gazumped by Ron up-thread on this one Andy.

Andy
Guest
Andy

Oh tsk,

Well, I’ll re-post one of my favorite pieces by Stott, the essay
“Mr Lemuel Gulliver Visits Milibandia”

http://web.me.com/sinfonia1/Clamour_Of_The_Times/Clamour_Of_The_Times/Entries/2009/7/15_Mr_Lemuel_Gulliver_Visits_Milibandia.html

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

“You see what the storm has done to our Farm of Wind. So many broken blades,”

Exquisite satire.

Andy
Guest
Andy

Rome Gay Club Gang?

Is that the Club of Rome, perchance?

Ron
Guest
Ron

heh!

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

The more I look at the “Cancun Agreements”, the more I think they are just pre-written documents (pre-Cancun) laying out presumptive UN administration details because there’s no list of signees that I can find.

Where are the agreed positions signed by each national negotiator that gave rise to all the PR spin?

For Australia http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2010/cop16/eng/inf01p01.pdf

H.E. Mr. Gregory Combet
Minister for Climate Change and
Energy Efficiency

Mr. Rodney Hilton
Deputy Chief of Staff
Office of the Minister for Climate
Change and Energy Efficiency

Ms. Kristin Tilley
Adviser
Office of the Minister for Climate
Change and Energy Efficiency

And many, many more

For New Zealand http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2010/cop16/eng/inf01p02.pdf

H.E. Mr. Nick Smith
Minister for the
Environment/Minister for Climate
Change Issues
Ministry for the Environment

H.E. Mr. Tim Groser
Minister Responsible for
International Climate Change
Negotiations

H.E. Ms. Jo Tyndall
Climate Change Ambassador
Ministry of Foreign Affairs and
Trade

And many, many more.

Do such documents exist and where are they?

If none exist – nothing happened at COP16 Cancun.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

At JoNova
——————————————————————————————————————————–
Val majkus:
December 13th, 2010 at 1:49 pm

Richard C it certainly says Decisions adopted by COP 16 and CMP 6 and the closing resolution
I wouldn’t expect to see a copy of signed pages

but I suppose you could ask Mr Smith
——————————————————————————————————————————-
Richard C (NZ):
December 13th, 2010 at 2:10 pm

Val 39

I wouldn’t expect to see a copy of signed pages

Remember Copenhagen – nothing happened there either but there was an Obama brokered “noted” document that was signed by the agreeing parties.

I would expect to see lists of signees under the various negotiated positions (not prescribed UN trivia) on the strength of the “noted” reports or even just one document that “noted” the Cancun Agreements with a list of signatories. Remember, there was not unanimous agreement (notably Bolivia et al)

but I suppose you could ask Mr Smith

Yes, good idea. I suspect I will be referred to the “Cancun Agreements” but it’s worth asking.

Meantime, I’m curious as what others think about this so thanks Val.

http://joannenova.com.au/2010/12/cancun-in-a-nutshell-nothing-achieved-but-its-a-big-pr-success/comment-page-1/#comment-149592

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

From The Australian Under yesterday’s UN deal, the 194 national delegations in Cancun agreed to establish a “Green Climate Fund” to help developing countries deal with climate change. Here’s the links:- Decisions adopted by COP 16 and CMP 6 Specific document Outcome of the work of the Ad Hoc Working Group on long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention IV. Finance, technology and capacity-building A. Finance Fast-start finance 95. Takes note of the collective commitment by developed countries to provide new and additional resources, including forestry and investments through international institutions, approaching USD 30 billion for the period 2010–2012, with a balanced allocation between adaptation and mitigation; funding for adaptation will be prioritized for the most vulnerable developing countries, such as the least developed countries, small island developing States and Africa; Long-term finance 97. Decides that, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Convention, scaled-up, new and additional, predictable and adequate funding shall be provided to developing country Parties, taking into account the urgent and immediate needs of developing countries that are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change; 98. Recognizes that developed country Parties commit, in the context of meaningful… Read more »

Andy
Guest
Andy

It seems a pretty reasonable assumption the the agreements are pre-written.
It always bothered me that all these people could meet up at a two week conference and come up with a common accord.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

My request to the NZ Office of Climate Change ——————————————————————————————————————– 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” http://unfccc.int/files/meetings/cop_16/application/pdf/cop16_lca.pdf 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 disagreed or abstained from agreeing to the establishment of a “Green Climate Fund” by the UN.. Or, Is the agreement by the 194 nations to establish… Read more »

Post Navigation