Save the planet: give us your money

Josh on IPCC climate standover

IPCC climate talks 2014

The latest climate talk-fest has again degenerated into the poor countries (I mean the developing nations) nakedly demanding large sums of money from the leading countries (sorry, the developed nations) to save them from the horrendous consequences of global warming caused entirely by the leading nations’ appalling development of advanced sources of energy – h/t Len Mills.

44
Leave a Reply

avatar
13 Comment threads
31 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
4 Comment authors
AndyTom+HarrisTom HarrisRichard+C+(NZ)Richard Treadgold Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
Notify of
Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Outcome is “Lima Call for Climate Action” apparently. Closest I can get to it is this (which seems to be the “4 page document” agreed to: 21. Welcomes the Lima Climate Action High Level Meeting convened by the President of the Conference of the Parties on 11 December 2014 and encourages the Executive Secretary and the President of the Conference of the Parties to convene an annual high-level event on enhancing implementation of climate action http://unfccc.int/files/meetings/lima_dec_2014/in-session/application/pdf/cpl14.pdf Financial extortion and INDC appears to be these clauses: 4. Urges developed country Parties to provide and mobilize enhanced financial support to developing country Parties for ambitious mitigation and adaptation actions, especially to Parties that are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change; and recognizes complementary support by other Parties; 14. Agrees that the information to be provided by Parties communicating their intended nationally determined contributions, in order to facilitate clarity, transparency and understanding, may include, as appropriate, inter alia, quantifiable information on the reference point (including, as appropriate, a base year), time frames and/or periods for implementation, scope and coverage, planning processes, assumptions and methodological approaches including those for estimating and accounting for anthropogenic… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

‘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

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

‘Time for the UN to get out of climate change’ Negotiators and Secretary General continue to ignore scientists and public opinion Tom Harris, Executive Director, ICSC OTTAWA, Dec. 13, 2014 /PRNewswire/ – “Climate change negotiators in Lima, Peru seemed oblivious to the findings of the UN’s ongoing My World survey about what the people of the world really want the agency to focus on,” said Tom Harris, executive director of the Ottawa, Canada-based International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC). “The seven million people polled so far indicate that, in comparison with issues such as education, health care, jobs, and energy, they care very little about climate change.” “Perhaps most out of touch with reality is the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon himself who on Wednesday asserted that climate change remains his ‘top priority’,” continued Harris. ICSC chief science advisor, Professor Bob Carter, former Head of the Department of Earth Sciences at James Cook University in Australia explained, “That ‘action taken on climate change’ rates dead last among the 16 priorities the public wants to see action on is not surprising. They understand that the remote possibility of human activity contributing to climate problems decades… Read more »

Richard+C+(NZ)
Guest
Richard+C+(NZ)

Also possibly: “may” and “encourages”

So updated list:

“urges” (4.)
“may” (14.)
“call” (15.)
“welcomes” (21.)
“encourages” (21.)

They’ve certainly nailed it down. No wriggle room at all there. Universal commitment a cinch in 2015.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Telegraph:

Ironically, the conference has remained overtly reliant on fossil fuels, in the form of diesel generators. The talks are taking place in a vast temporary village constructed on the site of the Peruvian military headquarters.

Organisers rejected powering the village with solar panels on the grounds they were too unreliable, while efforts to hook the site up to the national grid – which is half-fed by renewable energy – failed due to technical problems.

Experts say the Lima talks will have the biggest carbon footprint of any UN conference to date at more than 50,000 tons of carbon dioxide.

As well as the diesel generators, the footprint has been enlarged by the jet fuel burned by the estimated 11,000 people who flew in from abroad to attend – including roughly 4,000 from non-governmental organisations – as well as the emissions from the fleet of coaches that crawl through Lima’s gridlocked streets to shuttle delegates to and from the venue.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/peru/11292469/Frantic-efforts-to-save-Lima-climate-change-talks.html

Tom Harris
Guest

http://unfccc.int/files/meetings/lima_dec_2014/application/pdf/auv_cop20_lima_call_for_climate_action.pdf appears to be the final long document they agreed to as the “Lima Call for Climate Action”.

TOM

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Tom, the final document was whittled down to 4 pages which corresponds to the top 4 pages of the document you link to. See Richard Treadgold’s next post on the 4 page document here: https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2014/12/cop-agreement-or-cop-out-from-lima/ The document you link to is the same 4 pages but with the Annex of the draft negotiating text from 10 December 2014 at 06:30 added at the bottom. But note there’s no date or FCCC letterhead on the document. The 4 page document just has this at the bottom: Annex Elements for a draft negotiating text [Placeholder for Elements for a draft negotiating text – Version 2 of 10 December 2014 at 06:30] You’ve got hold of a different version because the title of the document you link to is: Decision -/CP.20 Lima call for climate action Whereas the title of the FCCC letterhead version is: Further advancing the Durban Platform Draft decision -/CP.XX But the Reiterating/Recalling and paragraphs 1 – 22 over the top 4 pages are the same in both documents. It is interesting to look at what they threw out and how the draft was changed but the Annex of the draft negotiating text… Read more »

Tom+Harris
Guest

You’re right that the Lima agreement is only four pages. But the Appendix seems to be the draft negotiating text of what the ADP* have been working on for Paris for 2015, not any draft text of what the COP people had been working on for Lima (although I am sure many negotiators would have loved to see some of that ADP draft in the Lima agreement)t. If you go to http://unfccc.int/meetings/lima_dec_2014/session/8532.php (since the ADP were having their second meeting at the same time as COP20), they have the same draft text as is at the end of the Lima COP agreement. *ADP = “The Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action (ADP) is a subsidiary body that was established by decision 1/CP.17 in December 2011. The mandate of the ADP is to develop a protocol, another legal instrument or an agreed outcome with legal force under the Convention applicable to all Parties, which is to be completed no later than 2015 in order for it to be adopted at the twenty-first session of the Conference of the Parties (COP) and for it to come into effect and be… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”but the Annex of the draft negotiating text has been superseded by the final document”

Not quite right here.

The “enhanced action” and INDCs were carried forward to Paris Dec 2015. This is the Annex in the draft linked above:

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 [INDCs]

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Tom, yes just corrected myself above.

>”But the Appendix seems to be the draft negotiating text of what the ADP* have been working on for Paris for 2015, not any draft text of what the COP people had been working on for Lima

Yes, the paragraphs 1 – 43 (whittled down to 1 – 22 in Decision -/CP.20 final) were the draft text for COP 20

The Annex is “the draft negotiating text of what the ADP* have been working on for Paris” as you say.

Considering:

1) A decision on the International Mechanism for Loss and Damage associated with Climate Change Impacts was already deferred until December 2016 (not a typo).

2) A decision on the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action (mitigation, adaptation, finance, technology development and transfer, and capacity-building, and transparency of action and support) was already deferred until December 2015.

3) A decision on the intended nationally determined contributions of Parties (INDCs) was already deferred until December 2015.

What did everyone go to Lima for?

Tom Harris
Guest

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… Read more »

Tom+Harris
Guest

When I look through the four pages of the COP20 agreement, I really see only one definite, significant decision that seems new (although it had always been spoken about):

10. Agrees that each Party’s intended nationally determined contribution towards achieving the objective of the Convention as set out in its Article 2 will represent a progression beyond the current undertaking of that Party.

DO YOU SEE ANYTHING, DEFINITE OF SIGNIFICANCE THAT IS NEW? Most of it just seems like reiterating stuff they already agreed to, or simple administrative stuff that we don’t really need know about.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”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?” Firstly Article 2 in the Decision: 10. Agrees that each Party’s intended nationally determined contribution towards achieving the objective of the Convention as set out in its Article 2 will represent a progression beyond the current undertaking of that Party ARTICLE 2: OBJECTIVE The ultimate objective of this Convention and any related legal instruments that the Conference of the Parties may adopt is to achieve, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Convention, stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. Such a level should be achieved within a time-frame sufficient to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, to ensure that food production is not threatened and to enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner. http://unfccc.int/essential_background/convention/background/items/1353.php The INDCs, yet to be… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”DO YOU SEE ANYTHING, DEFINITE OF SIGNIFICANCE THAT IS NEW?” Ha, no Tom. Upthread I compiled a list of operative (for want of better term) words that I could identify. Here’s the list with the “strong” language highlighted: “urges” (4.) <= strong language “may” (14.) “call” (15.) <= strong language “welcomes” (21.) “encourages” (21.) <= strong language Those paragraphs are: 4. Urges developed country Parties to provide and mobilize enhanced financial support to developing country Parties for ambitious mitigation and adaptation actions 15. Reiterates its call to developed country Parties, the operating entities of the Financial Mechanism and any other organizations in a position to do so to provide support for the preparation and communication of the intended nationally determined contributions of Parties that may need such support; 21. Welcomes the Lima Climate Action High Level Meeting convened by the President of the Conference of the Parties on 11 December 2014 and encourages the Executive Secretary and the President of the Conference of the Parties to convene an annual high-level event on enhancing implementation of climate action; https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/downloads/lima-cop-dec-2014-draft-decision.pdf Nothing new from Lima and deferred until Paris anyway. And "agrees" (10.) in respect to… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

The BBC notes that there is no mention of Annex I countries in the Lima Call for Action – 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 Developing countries resolutely fought to keep this sense of differentiation firmly in the text. They were very upset when the original text about the pledges countries will make next year, used the word “shall”. It seemed to them that poor African countries and small island states were being corralled into making the same level of commitment on climate change as the big boys. No one seriously expects the countries in sub-Saharan Africa will have to do the same as the US and the EU. Eventually the “shall” became a “may”. But when you have a situation where countries like Singapore, with a gross domestic product per capita larger than Germany, are still classed as a Non-Annex 1 (“poor”) country, you… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Upthread I linked to a BBC article on this. In it Figueres is very clear Annex I is still on the hook in terms of historical “responsibility”:

“There are three pieces of that concept,” she said [“common but differentiated responsibilities” with the newly added important rider: “in light of different national circumstances”]

“One is the historical responsibility, which is undeniable, of industrialised countries; next is the respective capacities and capabilities of countries, which are an ongoing process; and the third part is actually the national circumstances.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

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. Besides, isn’t it all supposed to be about climate?

Tom+Harris
Guest

The BBC piece at http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-30473085 is either stupid or dishonest. What is this guy reading? It is certainly not the Lima agreement.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

It would have been helpful if he’d quoted relevant sections from the document. I’m always frustrated by these once-removed commentaries. Why not just reproduce the document and cut out the middleman? For example, this from BBC article, Distinction ditched “It divided the world into rich and poor (Annex 1 and Non-Annex 1, in UN jargon). The richer countries would take on carbon-cutting commitments – the poorer ones would not. Here in Lima, that old fashioned view of the world was consigned to history, though not without a desperate struggle.” I don’t think so. Nothing has changed for Annex I. And Non-Annex I are not about to join Annex I with “carbon-cutting commitments” because the Lima Call for Action suggests they “may”. BBC again, “Developing countries resolutely fought to keep this sense of differentiation firmly in the text. They were very upset when the original text about the pledges countries will make next year, used the word “shall”. It seemed to them that poor African countries and small island states were being corralled into making the same level of commitment on climate change as the big boys. No one seriously expects the countries in… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Tom, might be worth a skim through the comments in the next post starting about here:

https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2014/12/cop-agreement-or-cop-out-from-lima/comment-page-1/#comment-1260441

Same topic.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Nice article Tom:

‘Hoodwinked By The Press On Lima Climate Agreement’

http://dailycaller.com/2014/12/16/hoodwinked-by-the-press-on-lima-climate-agreement/

Andy
Guest
Andy
Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Beavers, and squirrels:

‘The Cutest Climate Change Culprits: Arctic Ground Squirrels’

By digging burrows in permafrost, Arctic ground squirrels help destabilize the vast stores of carbon in the soil

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/cutest-climate-change-culprit-arctic-ground-squirrels-180953657/?no-ist

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

‘Kill the squirrel to save the planet’ – JoNova

And you thought humans were special because they can control the climate. Move over Big-Coal, make way for the squirrels and beavers. They’ve been stirring up the soil releasing CO2, or damning up streams and producing methane.

Daily Mail — Richard Gray “Forget humans, RODENTS are the climate villains: Squirrels and beavers are contributing to global warming far more than previously thought”

Wake up climate simulators, it’s time to add rodent-forcings to the models. Along with anthropogenic forcing (and beaver-effects), that’s three vertebrate families down, and only 181 to go.

Squirrels have been around in some form for 40 million years, but in the last 100 they’ve become dangerous climate movers. Freaky timing that.

Amazing how the world survived with squirrels for so long, and without any windmills.

http://joannenova.com.au/2014/12/kill-the-squirrel-to-save-the-planet/

Andy
Guest
Andy

In other news, the North Sea Oil Industry is “close to collapse’, according to the BBC

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-30525539

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Bad timing. Just as the NH land-only winter temperature anomaly is declining at -0.35C
/decade since 1998 (17 years):

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/COOLING_OF_NORTHERN_HEMISPHERE.pdf

>”Goldman Sachs has suggested $930bn of projects, worldwide, could fail to get the go-ahead next year. And the North Sea is seen as one of the higher-cost, lower-return regions for investment.”

Ouch. That will do more to de-carbonize (and de-monitize) the global economy than the UN.

Andy
Guest
Andy

This may sound like good news to the warmistas, but the glorious independent socialist paradise of Scotland is predicated on a healthy North Sea oil industry so that there is someone to pay for all the free child care, education, and subsidise the thousands of useless wind turbines that blight the country

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

There’s also the multiplier effect: Macroeconomics – The Multiplier Effect Why is there a multiplier effect? Suppose a large corporation decides to build a factory in a small town and that spending on the factory for the first year is $5 million. That $5 million will go to electricians, engineers and other various people building the factory. If MPC is equal to 0.8, those people will spend $4 million on various goods and services. The various business and individual receiving that $4 million will in turn spend $3.2 million and so on. If the marginal propensity to consume is equal to 0.8 (4 / 5), then the multiplier can be calculated as: Multiplier = 1 / (1 – MPC) = 1 / (1 – 0.8) = 1 / 0.2 = 5 As a result of the multiplier effect, small changes in investment or government spending can create much larger changes in total output. A positive aspect of the multiplier effect is that macroeconomic policy can effect substantial improvements with relatively small amounts of autonomous expenditures. A negative aspect is that a small decline in business investment can trigger a larger decline in business… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

This could get very bad for Scotland given the multiplier effect disappears if the entire oil sector cuts back in the North Sea but it’s the same for OPEC. Take a look at the “breakeven” oil price to pay for all the government spending (Figure 4):

http://www.vox.com/2014/11/28/7302827/oil-prices-opec

Bad for Russia too (from link):

“Oil revenues account for roughly 45 percent of Russia’s budget, and the government’s spending plans for 2015 had assumed that prices would stay in the $100-per-barrel range. If oil continues to stay well below that, Russia will either have to draw down its $74 billion foreign-exchange reserves or cut back on planned spending.”

Sanctions have sent the Ruble into a tailspin so that doesn’t help Russia either.

And Figueres can kiss goodbye to her $90 trillion because a whole lot of that is/was oil money – not that it was ever going to eventuate.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

‘Russians spending spree on real estate, cars as ruble plunges’

http://rt.com/business/206147-russians-weak-ruble-savings/

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

I remember when I first got wind of the sub-prime mortgage crisis was this article in The Economist:

‘Bearish turns’ http://www.economist.com/node/9378742

Word play on Bear Stearns obviously. Given I got bitten by that eventually and also by the oil price slump in the 90s, I’m wondering if we are seeing the beginnings of another global financial shock?

Andy
Guest
Andy

The North Sea oil industry had a major downturn in the late 1980s when I was there. It survived, but there were lots of layoffs and negative equity situations in the property market

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

The 80s slump was right after US price controls:

http://www.wtrg.com/oil_graphs/oilprice1970.gif

From – ‘History and Analysis -Crude Oil Prices’ http://www.wtrg.com/prices.htm

But take a look at 1998 – $15. I saw a $10 spot price that year. No-one believes me when I tell them that.

The average is $34.77. It has only been above average since 2003 and the Iraq war. The last time it went above average was 1973, the year I left school and started work on highway design in NZ. I saw plans done previously for an 8 lane motorway Auckland to Hamilton when the oil price was $15 in the late 60s. Needless to say, the only roads I worked on were 2 lane including motorway, only occasionally 4 lane.

Brent Crude on the sidebar is $59.80. There’s no reason for that not to drop further to $34.77 or less that I can think of. Might not of course.

Andy
Guest
Andy

There is a suggestion that it will head down to $50 a barrel

Many North Sea project are $80 a barrel break even, as is US shale

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

It has the potential to get very nasty, US shale is only part of the picture: ‘Iran Leader Says US Not Only Target Of Suspected Saudi Oil Price War’ By Andy Tully | Sun, 14 December 2014 To many observers, OPEC’s refusal to cut production and thus shore up oil prices was the beginning of a price war with the United States so that Saudi Arabia, the cartel’s most influential member, could regain the market share it had been losing during the recent American oil boom. Now Iran’s president, Hassan Rouhani, is saying that Riyadh, through OPEC, is also using “treachery” to harm the economies of fellow oil-producing Muslim states in the Middle East. “The fall of the oil prices is not just something ordinary and economical. This is not due to only global recession,” Rouhani told his cabinet on Wednesday. “The main reason for it is [a] political conspiracy by certain countries against the interest of the region and the Islamic world and it is only in the interest of some other countries.” Rouhani added, “Iran and people of the region will not forget such conspiracies, or in other words, treachery against… Read more »

Andy
Guest
Andy

The NZ Hearld has a handy “12 point” guide on how to deal with the TCCD (“typical climate change denier”

here
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=11377926

It has some really interesting references including one called “Skeptical Science” that looks really interesting.
Have I been drinking? Sadly, not yet

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”This article [“12 ways to deal with a climate change denier”] was originally published on The Conversation.”

By Rod Lamberts, Will J Grant (whoever they are).

Being published in The Conversation explains the superficiality. The superficiality explains Rod Lamberts and Will Grant.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Years ago I would have been astounded that the NZ Herald would publish that trash. Now it is no surprise.

But even in that context I still find it hard to comprehend how and why the Herald editors could align the paper with such a low level discourse.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Having said the above re NZ Herald, I have noticed lately that the Climate Change section has disappeared from the online edition (Environment remains).

The entire Environment section has disappeared from the Sydney Morning Herald online edition. I used to check it every day to get the warmist updates from Australia. A good many of those voices have been shut down now in that avenue anyway..

Andy
Guest
Andy

Can you actually imagine being at a Christmas BBQ and quoting Skeptical Science?

That would really be a fun party!

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”Can you actually imagine being at a Christmas BBQ and quoting Skeptical Science?”

Like perhaps http://4hiroshimas.com/

“Our climate has accumulated 2,176,277,340 Hiroshima atomic bombs of heat since 1998”

No I can’t imagine that, well, not at any Christmas BBQs I’m ever likely to attend, and in my present life.

Post Navigation