A draft agreement has been sent to me.
You can download the pdf (320KB) or see it converted to html.
Let us know what you think.
UPDATE 15 DEC 2014 16:40 NZDT
Tom Harris, executive director of the International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC), writes that this document appears to be “the final long document they agreed to as the “Lima Call for Climate Action.”
So here it is (pdf, 686KB). Thanks, Tom.
Again, please let us know your thoughts.
Visits: 2520
Page 1. “Please recycle”
Recycled boilerplate from previous unsuccessful attempts to blackmail the free world at previous conferences. No doubt the team of lawyers the UN has working for them are kept fully employed. I wonder when Ban Ki Moon will reply to the scientists who sent him a letter apprising him of the actual science rather than the nonsense he loves to trot out.
>”the team of lawyers the UN has working for them”
Yes, until AR4 I didn’t know LLB was a climate science qualification. But I assume you are referring to their Office of Legal Affairs Alexander:
http://legal.un.org/ola/legal_advisers.aspx
Extending your vein in respect to sea level projections via points raised at JoNova:
Belfast #20.2.
December 14, 2014 at 1:13 pm · Reply
No cheering yet.
The shoalhaven council staff are trying to bring the matter up again and threatening the Councillors that they may be personally responsible for damages if they are wrong.
If they don’t like a decision they try to reverse it.
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/12/sydney-sea-levels-rising-at-just-6-5cm-per-century-peak-panic-is-behind-us/#comment-1640539
My amended response:
Richard C (NZ) #20.2.1.
December 14, 2014 at 2:11 pm · Reply
Interesting Belfast – a space to watch obviously.
But equally, will the IPCC collectively be held personally responsible for damages if they are wrong?
And that’s not just for costs accrued by exorbitant SLR projections:
‘Billions won’t satisfy warmists’
Christopher Booker, The Sunday Telegraph, 7 December 2014
“….so carried away are the warmists by their quasi-religious belief system that, when it was again proposed in Lima that richer nations should pay poor countries $100 billion a year to protect them from runaway global warming, the UN’s chief spokesman, Christiana Figueres, dismissed this as “a very, very small sum”. What is needed to decarbonise the global economy, she said, is “$90 trillion over the next 15 years”.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/11277024/Billions-wont-satisfy-warmists.html
Who’s shoes would you rather be in in the event of badly wrong predictions that were acted on under the principle that the respective authority should be held personally accountable?
a) Shoalhaven Council
b) UN (Ban Ki-moon), UN FCCC (Christiana Figueres), UN IPCC (Staffers), UN IPCC WG’s !, II, and III (Non-UN employed contributors, Assessment Report authors).
Don’t forget that the present Shoalhaven Council decision accounts for SL rise at the historical rate so the “badly wrong” factor is the difference between the historical and IPCC rates.
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/12/sydney-sea-levels-rising-at-just-6-5cm-per-century-peak-panic-is-behind-us/#comment-1640578
>”wrong predictions that were acted on under the principle that the respective authority should be held personally accountable”
Shoalhaven Council will already have that covered and that’s only a local situation where historical SL rise is sensible and appropriate to work with – can’t go wrong if the situation is monitored. There’s inherent risk of property ownership wherever the property is anyway. If people choose to build on the sea shore, that’s their risk not the Council’s.
But the UN Office of Legal Affairs? Liability probably hasn’t occurred to them.
Legally binding accountability is impossible to obtain of course unless specifically written into ordinances and regulations so the corollary prevails: neither Shoalhaven Council nor the UN can be held accountable as a body corporate for their future scenarios, let alone personally.
But the fallout from wrong predictions will be internationally monumental in the UN’s case. It is not out of the question that legal action ensues but unlikely the UN would be co-respondent, more likely just government agencies that take the UN at face value and add their own stuff. We already have the US EPA v. multiple parties to go on but the climate science predictions are not yet stark enough to become a legal weapon. But every year that passes now is making a case against the UN predictions and therefore the governmental agencies regulations based on them.
Which leads to the question:
>”I wonder when Ban Ki Moon will reply to the scientists who sent him a letter apprising him of the actual science”
When the world finally realizes the UN has got the science horribly wrong. There will be inquiries of some sort whether at national levels or international, not in law courts but questions will have to be answered eventually somewhere. The question of reparations will be rather different then than the Lima Call for Climate Action when that happens.
The UN will probably need another Panel to convene it all. Like the $60 billion Oil-for-Food Program inquiry:
‘The Final Volcker Oil for Food Report: An Assessment’
By Nile Gardiner, Ph.D. November 10, 2005
The $34 million U.N.-appointed Independent Inquiry Committee (IIC) issued its fifth and final report on October 27.[1] The 18-month investigation, chaired by Paul Volcker, has documented a huge amount of evidence regarding manipulation of the $60 billion Oil-for-Food Program by the Saddam Hussein regime with the complicity of more than 2,200 companies in 66 countries as well as a number of prominent international politicians.
The 500-page report paints an ugly tableau of bribery, kickbacks, corruption, and fraud on a global scale-without a doubt the biggest financial scandal in modern history. It amply demonstrates how the Iraqi dictator generously rewarded those who supported the lifting of U.N. sanctions on Iraq and who paid lip-service to his barbaric regime. Oil-for-Food became a shameless political charade through which Saddam Hussein attempted to manipulate decision-making at the U.N. Security Council by buying the support of influential figures in Russia and France.
[…]
Recommendations for Further Action
U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan and Deputy Secretary-General Louise Frechette should take responsibility for a scandal that has irreparably damaged the U.N.’s reputation. Both should resign for presiding over the biggest management failure in the history of the United Nations.
[one of several]
Verdict on the Volcker Investigation
The overall IIC investigation should not, though, be viewed as the final say on the Oil-for-Food scandal. It should be seen as an important but at times flawed and incomplete inquiry that leaves many questions unanswered in relation to the role of senior U.N. officials, including Kofi Annan and his chief aide Iqbal Riza.
[one of many]
Much, much more >>>>>>
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2005/11/the-final-volcker-oil-for-food-report-an-assessment
# # #
I’ll bet most folks have never heard of the Oil-for-Food Program IIC or have forgotten about it.
What does “X/CP.20” mean in this passage?
“Recalling decisions 2/CP.19 and X/CP.20 (Warsaw International Mechanism for
Loss and Damage associated with Climate Change Impacts) and welcoming of the progress
made in Lima, Peru, towards the implementation of the Warsaw International Mechanism
for Loss and Damage associated with Climate Change Impacts,”
There is no CP.20 decision in respect to 2/CP.19. Therefore there is no “X” and no “progress”.
This must mean that the CP decision in respect to the Warsaw International Mechanism for
Loss and Damage associated with Climate Change Impacts (why did they repeat that in full?) must be the CP.19 decision:
Decision 2/CP.19
Warsaw international mechanism for loss and damage associated with climate change impacts
1. Establishes the Warsaw international mechanism for loss and damage, under the
Cancun Adaptation Framework, subject to review at the twenty-second session of the
Conference of the Parties (November–December 2016) pursuant to paragraph 15 below, to
address loss and damage associated with impacts of climate change, including extreme
events and slow onset events, in developing countries that are particularly vulnerable to the
adverse effects of climate change (hereinafter referred to as the Warsaw international
mechanism), and in line with the provisions contained in paragraphs 2−15 below;
http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2013/cop19/eng/10a01.pdf
>” subject to review at the twenty-second session of the Conference of the Parties (November–December 2016)”
In other words, a decision on the International Mechanism for Loss and Damage associated with Climate Change Impacts is deferred until December 2016.
They all went to Lima for that?
Adaptation was never going to be addressed at Lima, that was deferred until December 2015 anyway:
Affirming its determination to strengthen adaptation action through the protocol,
another legal instrument or agreed outcome with legal force under the Convention to be
adopted at the twenty-first session of the Conference of the Parties (November-December
2015),
1. Confirms that the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced
Action shall complete the work referred to in decision 1/CP.17, paragraph 2, as early as
possible in order for the Conference of the Parties at its twenty-first session to adopt a
protocol, another legal instrument or an agreed outcome with legal force under the Convention applicable to all Parties;
2. Decides that the protocol, another legal instrument or agreed outcome with legal force under the Convention applicable to all Parties shall address in a balanced manner, inter alia, mitigation, adaptation, finance, technology development and transfer, and capacity-building, and transparency of action and support;
The draft text they started with read:
1. Welcomes the elaboration and consideration of elements for a draft negotiating text
undertaken by the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action in
response to decision 2/CP.18, paragraph 9, and decision 1/CP.19, paragraph 2(a);
2. Decides that the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced
Action shall conclude its work as early as possible by making a recommendation for a
protocol, another legal instrument or an agreed outcome with legal force under the
Convention applicable to all Parties and any accompanying draft decisions for adoption by
the Conference of the Parties at its twenty-first session (November–December 2015);
3. Requests the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action
to further intensify the process of negotiation towards the achievement of the
recommendation referred to in paragraph 2 above;
http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2014/adp2/eng/12drafttext.pdf
# # #
Everyone knew before CP.20 that the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action was preparing a document for CP.21, and that Enhanced Action was not a decision for CP.20 at Lima. All they did at Lima was to condense 3 paragraphs into 2.
They all went to Lima for that?
Wow. It needs a separate post but I’m buried in the commissioner’s report right now so I’ll do it later.
Correction
>”The draft text they started with read:”
>”All they did at Lima was to condense 3 paragraphs into 2.”
I’m both right and wrong here. Two different documents. The “draft text” referred to is:
AD HOC WORKING GROUP ON THE
DURBAN PLATFORM FOR ENHANCED ACTION
ADP.2014.12.DraftText
Advancing the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action
http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2014/adp2/eng/12drafttext.pdf
The Lima outcome is the document known variously:
Decision -/CO.20
Lima call for climate action
Further advancing the Durban Platform
Decision CP.20 paragraphs 1 and 2 carry forward the Ad Hoc Working Group’s “Enhanced Action” to Paris CP.21 Dec 2015 which is in the Annex of the document above:
Annex
Complementary information on intended nationally determined contributions of Parties [IDCPs]
However, they did condense 3 paragraphs into 2 in Decision -/CO.20.
>[IDCPs]
No (sigh), should be INDCs
Richard, your intentions are honorable but I suspect your wife must wonder what on earth you are spending all your time on. I have no idea why any intelligent person would wast time with this transparent and patent nonsense from Lima – why not just laugh at it and let it go?
Nonsense is nonsense is nonsense!
But I am still curious about who is going to issue the first writ when it becomes obvious and beyond doubt that ole Banky and his cohort have been seriously scamming us.
Heh, heh! Not a bad question, Alexander. I actually did laugh and let it go—I just did it in writing.
I’m working on a response to the commissioner’s report on sea levels but this came out and I wondered what you good people might have to say about it, so I rushed into print. Cheers.
See previous post, much (excerpts) on Decision paragraph 10 in respect to Article 2 of the UNFCCC Convention and Decision paragraph 3 in respect to Article 4 of the UNFCCC Convention pertaining to Annex I countries (includes NZ).
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2014/12/save-the-planet-give-us-your-money/comment-page-1/#comment-1260705
ARTICLE 2: OBJECTIVE
http://unfccc.int/essential_background/convention/background/items/1353.php
ARTICLE 4: COMMITMENTS
http://unfccc.int/essential_background/convention/background/items/1362.php
Article 4 is the big one – big difference between Objective and Commitments, the latter being highly contentious for Annex I.
The BBC notes that there is no mention of Annex I countries in the Lima Call for Action but so what?
Annex I is still in ARTICLE 4: COMMITMENTS and paragraph 3 in the Lima Call for Action “Underscores its commitment” in respect to Article 4. The only shift is in respect to Non-Annex I i.e. “poor” or developing countries.
BBC = ‘UN climate deal in Peru ends historic North-South split’
By Matt McGrath
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-30473085
Richard,
Reading the BBC article makes me suspect that these conferences are carefully designed to achieve nothing and to ‘kick the can down the road’ until the next great talkfest, the attendance at each of which is the payoff for all the acivists and climate groupies who mouth all the platitudes peculiar to their religion, and who consider that anyone who does not share their religion is either mad or bad and doesn’t ‘consider the grandchildren’. One of the clues as to the collective intelligence of this religion is that they hang on every word of their icons such as Dame Vivienne Westwood, who makes the most incredibly moronic staements which she believes support her views on climate.
Just for you AK, Dame Westwood on Jonathon Ross show
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4YArRqPSzI
Alexander.
>”…these conferences are carefully designed to achieve nothing and to ‘kick the can down the road’ until the next great talkfest, the attendance at each of which is the payoff for all the acivists and climate groupies….”
In respect to Lima yes, the Lima Call for Action is a nothing document and the whole shebang was just to keep the process rolling on. But the next conference in Paris is all important. Tom Harris (ICSC) echoed your sentiment in the previous post thread but points to the ADP and Paris as the real threat:
Tom Harris on December 15, 2014 at 7:52 pm said:
I think the purpose of Lima was to just to continue to lay the foundation for Paris. One would have thought that they could have just done this at UN HQ with a far smaller number of people, but I guess if they skipped a big COP do, there would be hell to pay with the media and activists..
It seems to me that a major goal is always to appease climate activists that they are, really this time, going to enable something significant in Paris. So, it is a lot of PR of leaders swearing true allegiance to the UNFCCC articles, especially #2 and 4. That continual swearing of faith to article 4 makes a bit of a mockery of the statements that Lima that brought the firewall between developing and developed nations that is implicit in the UNFCCCdown, as some are saying. What do you think?
The COPs are always the big show, but in this case I can’t see that they accomplished much. However, the real threat is the ADP, even though it is behind the scenes, since that shows us what they are really up to.
Some people are saying that, because COP20 was not very significant in its progress we can all relax. To me that is like saying that, because an enormous threat only got a little more threatening, we can relax. NOT!
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2014/12/save-the-planet-give-us-your-money/comment-page-1/#comment-1260679
I agree with Tom. Lima just means Paris got one year closer. Our homework, as I’ve laid out downthread with link, is to get to grips with the ADP.2014.12.DraftText in the lead-up to Paris.
I assure you Alexander, the ADP.2014.12.DraftText is certainly not “carefully designed to achieve nothing”. And there cannot be any ‘kick the can down the road’ from Paris.
Paris is either make or break.
Our UNFCCC homework for now until COP 21 Paris.
Pages 8 – 12 here:
AD HOC WORKING GROUP ON THE DURBAN PLATFORM FOR ENHANCED ACTION
ADP.2014.12.DraftText
Annex
Complementary information on intended nationally determined contributions of Parties
http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2014/adp2/eng/12drafttext.pdf
“Enhanced Action” on:
Mitigation,
Adaptation,
Finance,
Technology development and transfer, and
Capacity-building, and
Transparency of action and support.
ADP is the behind-the-scenes UN working group. Nothing changed at Lima in respect to them, neither was there anything on the agenda for change. The ADP was simply carried forward to Paris as was always intended.
‘UN climate deal in Peru ends historic North-South split’
By Matt McGrath – BBC
“Green campaigners, though, are very upset with the Lima process. Too little had been achieved, too many decisions had been kicked down the road, they said. “These talks delivered basically nothing for the poor and vulnerable in developing countries,” said Harjeet Singh from Action Aid International.”
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-30473085
The major decisions were already kicked down the road before the conference began. Everyone should have known that.
But isn’t it all supposed to be about climate?
Annex I countries, including NZ, already direct aid to “poor and vulnerable in developing countries” whether climate related or not. Why should they have to direct additional aid via the UN ?
The UN Green Climate Fund is administered in Korea – Ban Ki-moon’s home country by mysterious coincidence.
The likelihood of more than a trickle of UN administrated Annex I money actually reaching its intended destination is very slim, let alone being effective when it gets there. Better then for Annex I to direct their own aid projects.
>”The UN Green Climate Fund is administered in Korea – Ban Ki-moon’s home country by mysterious coincidence.”
Host City Songdo
At its October 2012 meeting, the Board took a consensus decision to select Songdo, Incheon City, Republic of Korea as the host city of the Green Climate Fund. In accordance with paragraph 22 of the Governing Instrument, this decision was endorsed by decision 6/CP.18 of the Conference of the Parties (COP) at its eighteenth session in Doha, Qatar, in December 2012
[…]
The selection of the Republic of Korea as the host country of the Fund was the outcome of an open and transparent process conducted by the Board. Parties to the UNFCCC were requested to submit to the Board by 15 April 2012 expressions of interest for hosting the Fund, based on the criteria set in a decision of the COP (3/CP.17, paragraph 12). They included the ability to confer and/or recognize juridical personality and legal capacity to the Fund, the ability to provide the necessary privileges and immunities to the Fund, and financial arrangements as well as administrative and logistical support offered to the Fund.
Six expressions of interest were received by the Interim Secretariat from Germany, Mexico, Namibia, Poland, Republic of Korea and Switerland. The expression of interest submitted by the Republic of Korea, as well as other related information, can be viewed on the website maintained by the Government of the Republic of Korea.
http://www.gcfund.org/about/host-country.html
PRESS RELEASE
Green Climate Fund
Total pledges nearing USD 10.2 billion (Lima, Peru, 11 December 2014)
http://news.gcfund.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/release_GCF_2014_12_10_austria_pledge.pdf
In Session Documents
http://www.gcfund.org/documents/in-session-documents.html
Green Climate Fund Trust Fund Status of Resources as at 30 June 2014 [ from In Session Documents]
Funding Decisions: USD 55.82m subject to cash available in GCF [Pledges converted to Contributions]
Cash Transfers: USD 11.94m up to June 30, 2014
Funds Held in Trust: USD 39.57m
Funds available to support new GCF Board funding decisions: USD 0.00m
http://www.gcfund.org/fileadmin/00_customer/documents/MOB201410-8th/GCF_B.08_Inf.03_Report_on_Status_of_Resources_fin_20141002.pdf
Administrative Budget of the Green Climate Fund (for the period from 1 November 2012 to 31 December 2013)
GRAND TOTAL (14 months): USD 7,481,000 [US$6.4m/year]
# # #
Some difficulty converting Pledges to actual Contributions apparently. The fund is supposed to disburse no less than $200 billion dollars each and every year to the developing countries.
The fund has disbursed US$11.94m in the 2 years from 2012 inception (if I interpret correctly), still to disburse US$43.88m of funding decisions when cash is available, and no resources for new disbursements as at 30 June 2014..
The fund is costing US$6.4m a year to administrate i.e. about US$12.8m since inception.
The annual costs (US$6.4m) are running ahead of the annual disbursements (US$6m) so far.
The Adaptation Fund (AF) finances projects and programmes to help developing countries adapt to the negative effects of climate change.
https://www.adaptation-fund.org/
Doing better than the Green Climate Fund (GCF):
AVAILABLE FUND BALANCES
Adaptation Fund (Total) $277 million As of October 31, 2014
Adaptation Fund (AF): Cash Transfers
Total: USD 138,664,186.00
http://fiftrustee.worldbank.org/index.php?type=cashtransferpage&ft=af
Except,
11/13/2014 UN Development Programme FEES UNDP GE FEES FT23 USD 104,125
09/23/2014 IBRD as Implementing Agency FEES F-M-BZ-1-001 USD 91,000
08/18/2014 UN Development Programme FEES UNDP SB FEES FT3 USD 97,842
08/13/2014 UN Development Programme FEES UNDP PK FEES FT3 USD 45,900
07/16/2014 UN Development Programme FEES F-M-MN-1-001-3 USD 51,574
06/26/2014 UN Development Programme FEES UNDP WS FEES FT2 USD 171,025
06/10/2014 UN Development Programme FEES UNDP DJ FEES FT3 USD 66,80
06/10/2014 UN Development Programme FEES UNDP MU FEES FT2 USD 3,664
05/23/2014 UN Development Programme FEES UNDP PG FEES FT2 USD 104,293
04/29/2014 UN Development Programme FEES UNDP CK FEES FT2 USD 84,320
04/22/2014 UN Development Programme FEES UNDP ER FEES FT2 USD 103,372
04/07/2014 UN Development Programme FEES UNDP UZ FEES FT1 USD 178,099
04/07/2014 UN Development Programme FEES UNDP SC FEES FT1 USD 254,218
04/07/2014 UN Development Programme FEES UNDP MM FEES FT1 USD 355,025
04/04/2014 UN Environment Programme FEES UNEP MG FEES FT2 USD 147,518
04/04/2014 UN Environment Programme FEES UNEP TZ FEES FT2 USD 161,179
04/04/2014 Planning Institute of Jamaica FEES PIOJ JM FEES FT2 USD 214,513
04/04/2014 UN Development Programme FEES UNDP FEES FT1 USD 225,068
02/25/2014 Agencia Nacl Investigacion Innov UY FEES ANII UY FEES FT3 USD 99,250
02/25/2014 UN Development Programme FEES UNDP NI FEES FT3 USD 66,045
02/04/2014 UN World Food Programme FEES WFP EC FEES FT2 USD 131,306
01/08/2014 UN Development Programme FEES UNDP MV FEES FT3 USD 152,392
# # #
FEES appears to be the major AF programme beneficiary. I’m sure FEES will go a long way towards helping developing countries adapt to the “negative effects of climate change”.
Adaptation Fund (AF)
04/29/2014 IBRD as Trustee ADMBUDGT FY15 TRUSTEE BUDGET USD 803,000
04/29/2014 IBRD as Trustee ADMBUDGT FY15 TRUSTEE AUDIT USD 60,000
04/29/2014 Adaptation Fund Secretariat ADMBUDGT FY15 AF SEC BUDGET 2 USD 203,000
04/29/2014 Adaptation Fund Secretariat ADMBUDGT FY15 AF SEC BUDGET USD 3,294,808
AF FY ADM: USD 4,360,808
(US$4.4m/yr)
AF FEES 01/08/2014 – 12/11/2014 (10 months) from previous: USD 3,091,220
(US$3.7m/yr)
AF ADM+FEES: US$8m/year
AF Total Transfer 06/19/2009 – 12/11/2014 (5 yrs 5 mths): US$138.7m
(US$25.6m/yr)
AF ADM+FEES represents 31.25% of AF Total Transfers (8/25.6) i.e. 68.75% goes to recipients.
Meanwhile, the NZ spot “price on carbon” has rocketed up from $2.45 to $5.40.
Buy now because 2016 looks expensive
NZUs – May 2016 5.75 Bid 6.25 Offer 6.00 Last
https://www.commtrade.co.nz/
Good thing the govt ETS carbon price was set at only $25, otherwise the market would have been severely distorted.
Apparently Finance Minister Bill English has confirmed that Treasury is predicting carbon prices of between $10 and $165 a tonne between 2021 and 2030,
Reassuring that Treasury has such a refined knowledge of the future. What would we do without that otherwise unobtainable information?
I’d like to push the barrow out and suggest that the price of Brent Crude will be between $30 and $180 a barrel by 2020
Thanks for the clip, Andy.
I lived and worked in the UK for almost a decade and came home to NZ a bit over three years ago, so luminaries such as Dame Viv and Jonathon Ross are very clear in my memory – The Dame is barking mad and Jonathon is an unfunny, unprincipled , foul-mouthed person who teamed up on air with another foul-mouthed unprincipled unfunny person to do their best to destroy the lives of a much-loved and respected actor and his family. So both have less than zero credibility for me.
The Dame’s take on the warming ‘tipping point’ is almost sad it’s so silly, but for the alarmists, it was pure gold.
The Dame has been very active in recent anti-fraccing protests, in which she displays her ignorance in spectacular fashion.
For the uninitiated, the foul mouthed person you refer to is none other than Russell Brand, another of the UK’s “intelligentsia” who now appears on Newsnight and BBC Question Time.
God help us all
New acronyms for Paris:
NAPA – national adaptation programme of action
NAP – national adaptation plan
Page 9
http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2014/adp2/eng/12drafttext.pdf
I have a PAP (personal adaptation plan). When it gets warm I will take off my jacket.
That’s all they seem to do at these conferences, come up with yet another bit of alphabet soup that is completely impenetrable to the outside observer.
Adaption vs. adaptation
Adaption and adaptation are different forms of the same word, and they share all their meanings, which include (1) the act of changing to suit new conditions, and (2) a work of art recast in a new form or medium. But the longer word, adaptation, is preferred by most publications and is much more common. Adaption is not completely absent, but it usually gives way to the longer form in edited writing.
Both forms are old. The OED lists examples of adaption from as long ago as the early 17th century. Adaptation is just a little older, having come to English from French in the middle 16th century. Adaption has never been the preferred form, though, and in fact has grown less common relative to adaptation over the centuries.
It’s possible that some English speakers now view adaptation and adaption as separate words each with their own uses, but any such emerging differentiation is not yet borne out in general usage. For now, at least, adaption always bears replacement with the more common form.
http://grammarist.com/usage/adaption-adaptation/
Why oh why didn’t they just settle for adaption?
But it gets worse, viz.,
“Recalling decisions 2/CP.19 and X/CP.20 (Warsaw International Mechanism for
Loss and Damage associated with Climate Change Impacts) and welcoming of the progress
made in Lima, Peru, towards the implementation of the Warsaw International Mechanism
for Loss and Damage associated with Climate Change Impacts,”
Spot the duplication.
Hilary Ostrov at Climate Audit’s “Unprecedented” Model Discrepancy post:
And while I’m here … on the “unprecedented” front … I haven’t had a chance to verify or confirm this yet via word-count, but the view from here, so to speak, is that “unprecedented” (whatever it might have meant in advocacy-speak) is falling into dis-favour and being replaced by “transformative” whatevers along with “extreme” weather. IOW, perhaps “extreme” is in the process of being “transformed” into the new, improved “unprecedented”?!
To a jargon-watcher, such as I, it is an increasingly challenging task to make heads or tails of the word salads that continue to emanate from the engines known as the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP)’s and World Meteorological Organization (WMO)’s respective PR machines!
http://climateaudit.org/2014/12/11/unprecedented-model-discrepancy/#comment-743724
The thread contains the now {in)famous quote from Dr Richard Betts:
“It’s a bit like watching a ball bouncing down a rocky hillside. You can predict some aspects of it behaviour but not others. You can predict it will generally go downhill, and if you see a big rock in it’s path you can be reasonably confident that it will hit it and bounce off, but you can’t predict the size and direction of all the little bounces in between.”
http://climateaudit.org/2014/12/11/unprecedented-model-discrepancy/#comment-743899
Which prompted this cartoon by Josh:
Unprecedented boing – Josh 305
http://www.bishop-hill.net/storage/thumbnails/902844-25777141-thumbnail.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1418725340469
Meanwhile:
‘NASA’s Orbiting Carbon Observatory shows surprising CO2 emissions in Southern Hemisphere’
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/12/20/agu14-nasas-orbiting-carbon-observatory-shows-surprising-co2-emissions-in-southern-hemisphere/
‘Nasa observatory reveals high CO2 concentrations in southern hemisphere’
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2014/12/20/nasa-observatory-reveals-high-co2-concentrations-in-southern-hemisphere/
# # #
Higher concentrations over Greenland than the industrialized US east coast.
Newly industrialized China exhibits marginally higher levels than the ocean above the NI of NZ and north Pacific.
South America, southern Africa, and Indonesia, should be paying everyone else “reparations”.
And Mauna Loa, at around 400ppm now, appears to be in an area of relatively low concentration.
‘UNEP sails on the unchartered waters of the UN’
Hilary Ostrov (aka hro001 – The View From Here) / July 6, 2014
Not too long ago, during the rather fruitless search for something or other in the ever-growing maze of the United Nations, I had stumbled across the Dag Hammarskjöld Library where one can (at least according to today’s tagline) “Explore the World’s Organization”.
During the course of retracing our path through this maze, today, my mouse and I stumbled across the following amazing discovery:
[see screen cap]
Forgive me for repeating what must be the most shocking understatement of the year:
“The UN Charter does not specifically mention the environment or sustainable development. However, there has been increased activity in the area over the years.”
As I had noted previously, this blurb seems to be a little out of date, because the so-called:
“key forum for UN Member States to discuss questions related to the environment”
i.e. the Commission on Sustainable Development, fondly known as the CSD for short, is in the process of being supplanted by an old/new, improved body, as I had first noted (in Feb. 2013):
“Hundreds of environment ministers, decision makers, scientists, civil society representatives and business leaders are set to gather at the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) headquarters next week to galvanize a new era of stronger action on pressing environmental issues.
The delegates will be making a small but significant piece of history by attending the first ever meeting of the UNEP Governing Council/Global Ministerial Environment Forum (GC/GMEF) under universal membership as a result of the Rio+20 Summit held last year.
As well as charting a course for a strengthened UNEP that will help transform a wide body of science into concrete policy action, the meeting will cover many pressing and emerging issues, including: sustainable consumption and production patterns and the post-2015 Development Agenda, financing options for chemicals and waste, and system-wide coordination on Rio+20 follow-up.
UNEP will launch new reports outlining emerging issues such as the global consequences of rapidly receding ice in the Arctic, […]”
The “key” word in the above, in case you are wondering, is “universal“. IOW, the GC/GMEF is the same old body with far more actors and – reading between the lines – considerably more (transformative?!) power!
Quite an astounding accomplishment for a body (i.e. the UNEP and all its tentacles) whose mandate (let alone “powers”) isn’t even mentioned in the UN Charter, don’t you think?!
P.S. If you do decide to take a virtual trip to the Hammarskjöld Library, be sure to take your mouse to the UN Documentation: Environment “Major Conferences and Reports” – where I suspect you will find more than you ever wanted to know about the history of these particular unchartered waters of the UN.
[…]
Amazing, eh?!
https://hro001.wordpress.com/2014/07/06/unep-sails-on-the-unchartered-waters-of-the-un/
‘Laws, Prosecution, Tax: Not for The UN Green Climate Fund?’
JoNova
Another reason to shut down the UN.
Fox News (via GWPF)
If the GCF succeeds in its broader negotiations, not only billions but eventually trillions of dollars in climate funding activities could fall outside the scope of criminal and civilian legal actions, as well as outside examination, as the Fund, which currently holds $10 billion in funding and pledges, expands its ambitions.
The shield would cover all documentation as well as the words and actions of officials and consultants involved in the activity documentation—even after they move on to other jobs. As a tasty side-benefit, the “privileges” attached to such “privileges and immunities,” as they are known in diplomatic parlance, mean that employees get their salaries tax-free.
Just why the GCF needs the sweeping protections is not exactly clear. In response to questions from Fox News, Michel Smitall, a Fund spokesman, provided mostly opaque answers.
“Privileges and immunities are intended to facilitate GCF activities in countries in which it operates and the GCF’s ability to use contributions by donor countries in an effective and efficient manner that serves the objectives agreed by its member countries,” he said.
[……US Republicans are opposed to extending immunity for the fund that Obama promised $3b for.The British are hopeless:…]
The British government, which has recently given $1.2 billion to the GCF through its Department for International Development (DFID), is staying close-mouthed about the immunities issue. “The GCF Board will be deliberating the issue of privileges and immunities in 2015 and UK will engage in those discussions,” a DFID spokeswoman told Fox News.
The GFC’s determined pursuit of immunity highlights the broad zone of legal ambiguity that is proliferating in the era of international action against climate change, led by organizations operating under the aegis of the United Nations without being explicitly part of it.
Fox News
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/12/laws-prosecution-tax-not-for-the-un-green-climate-fund/#more-40000