The UN process
John Key is quoted in the Herald:
Prime Minister John Key returns home this morning from the Copenhagen climate change conference saying a binding agreement could be concluded in Mexico next year but that the negotiating process has to change.
“It’s progress, but there is a lot more to be done if we are going to achieve the outcome that we need,” he said last night from Los Angeles.
“There is a lesson to come out of Copenhagen and that is that trying to build uniform consensus across 193 countries on such a complex issue is not going to work. It is not the right process.” …
“Small countries like Bolivia and Sudan can jump up and down and stamp their feet but they are irrelevant when it comes to solving the challenge of climate change.
There would be no credible response to climate change without the United States and China, coupled with Brazil, India, South Africa and the European Union, the PM said.
Anyone country can veto a line in the agreement under UN rules. This makes agreement painstakingly slow.
As an example, at ICANN meetings you have meetings of the ccTLD managers (ccNSO) and also of the Governments (GAC). In the ccNSO the comminque is usually drafted by two or three of us over a beer, and circulated the next day, and approved basically within 10 minutes.
The GAC will usually spend most of their final day just approving their communique.
The PM is making a similiar point (by coincidence) to the one I made about who are the countries that make up 80% of the emissions. There are only about 20 of them (less if you take the EU as one bloc), and really you just need to get them in a room and get an agreement. The ask the rest of the world to vote to adopt it or not.
They’d be better to remove the negotiations from the UN, and give them to say the G20. The G20 includes 17 of the 20 biggest emitters – only ones left out are Iran, Spain and the Ukraine.
December 21st, 2009 at 12:21 pm
Where does this leave NZ?
Will we be the only ones in the world taxing carbon?
There will only be confusion if each nation implements it’s own carbon reduction framework .
All I can see at the moment, is that NZ are going to carbon tax the shit out of it’s citizens while the worlds largest economies do nothing.
December 21st, 2009 at 12:26 pm
I’d like a prime minister who is interested in taking care of New Zealand and New Zealanders first with the rest of the planet a very distant second.
Any applicants?
December 21st, 2009 at 12:28 pm
Wreck: “There are currently three cap-and-trade emissions systems in operation — in the European Union, Switzerland and New Zealand” – I had to double check that Switzerland is not a member of the EU. Smart country.
“The value of the global carbon trading market could rise from roughly $118 billion in 2008 to nearly $2 trillion by 2020, although it currently remains frozen in the headlights pending safe passage of U.S. emissions trading legislation.”
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/carbon-trading-awaits-us-adoption-before-takeoff-2009-12-07
I can only assume that the $118billion is generated all from the activity of the EU and Switzerland?
December 21st, 2009 at 12:45 pm
Yeah the EU has had it in operation for a while and it is doing its thing very well costing jobs and lining the pockets of the global elite.
And do you know what Mr J Key doesn’t actually believe this Climate Change BS or didn’t until he found out it could be used to divert money from the productive into the hands of the hands of the troughing class.
December 21st, 2009 at 12:54 pm
Talking of UN processes and lining pockets this item from The Telegraph on IPCC Chairman Dr Rajendra Pachauri is priceless
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/6847227/Questions-over-business-deals-of-UN-climate-change-guru-Dr-Rajendra-Pachauri.html
December 21st, 2009 at 12:57 pm
So why did JK bother to go? And why do we have an ETS? Neither were/will be very effective, except at costing taxpayers for zero gain.
December 21st, 2009 at 1:24 pm
David, comparing the great climate swindle to the local chapter of ICANN is a stretch.
But not to worry, they can have another carbon intensive jolly in mexico in six months.
Meanwhile…. The lie gets bigger
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/12/19/lawrence-solomon-wikipedia-s-climate-doctor.aspx#ixzz0aApCEqRz
December 21st, 2009 at 1:26 pm
>“It’s progress, but there is a lot more to be done if we are going to achieve the outcome that we need,”
The “science” behind climate change has basically collapsed over the last couple of months. We’ve found that the CRU and hangers on have adjusted data to fit with the predictions their computer models have generated in order to “hide the decline”. Evidence that fits the outcomes they want to achieve has been selected while similar evidence that doesn’t is ignored. CRU and IPCC members have been found to have business interests in promoting carbon trading and other green schemes.
Future generations are going to use the IPCC climate change “research” as a text book example on how politics and religious belief can ruin proper scientific inquiry. Like Lysenkoism, or the “science” that the Vatican used to silence Galileo.
But still most politicians, including Key and Smith, act as if nothing has changed and that they still need to follow the policies promoted by the IPCC. Incredible!
They’re like children who have been told that Santa Claus is actually their parents. But are still planning to leave some snacks for Santa and his reindeer on Christmas Eve.
(Apologies to any readers who hadn’t heard about Santa. You would have found out the truth sooner or later, altho it is possible that Nick Smith is still a believer and planning a multi-billion dollar reindeer emissions trading scheme as we speak.)
December 21st, 2009 at 1:31 pm
Kowtow
The whole system is bent it’s a UN contrivance to move money from so called rich nations to the poor countries. It has nothing to do with Global climate change at all, is just the front to achieve the goal and take the pressure of the UN for funding.
December 21st, 2009 at 1:41 pm
The more the exposures come out each day the scarier this thing becomes. The list is getting too long to detail now, with puppet strings and tentacles leading all over the place. The whole thing is now transparently a scam at the west’s naive energy consumers’ expense.
It is far from over – there are huge wealth transfers agreed at Copenhagen.
I cherish one hope …
… that money man JK has seen how we can set up our ETS to follow the lead of China and India to transform the NZ economy through trading in obscure paper derivatives based on carbon. We don’t need a big share of the world trade to make a vast difference here. If China and India can do so well out of it, why do we have to be on the losing end?
Let’s hope he is onto it, and not just planning some leftist self-flagellating carbon tax scheme to hand our “guilt money” for driving cars to Chavez, Mugabe, Russia and co. for no material gain, justified by some fanciful concocted notions that we have the power to change the climate.
We don’t need to be the guilt ridden victims of this scam – and now that the cat is out of the bag there are no votes in promoting that idea any longer.
December 21st, 2009 at 1:53 pm
Since when did we become a vassal of the G20?
December 21st, 2009 at 1:54 pm
I do not mean to burst John Key’s bubble…. but his contribution to Copenhagen was nil; no one knew he was there; no one cared he was there; no one spoke with him; no one wanted to; no one asked his opinion; no one would have had they known he was there which they didn’t (etc)
He was an irrelevant non entity (which, come to think of it, is the usual state of affairs with John Key) in a farce designed for lazy loud mouthed Africans to receive further handouts from hardworking western folk.
He should have stayed home and gone to the beach.
http://www.nightcitytrader.blogspot.com
December 21st, 2009 at 1:57 pm
Rod, I agree. I can’t understand how anyone who has read the links posted on this board over the past few weeks can honestly still believe in AGW unless they are in favour of this one world govt thing.
I think sometimes people just like to have something to protest against because it makes them feel good; they want to be the hero saving the planet and they’ll keep trying to be that hero long after the threat has been proved a hoax. It gives them a purpose. Very quixotic.
Never underestimate the ‘feel-good’ factor.
December 21st, 2009 at 1:59 pm
Rod, I’ve also wondered whether Key is more than just relaxed about AGW and the ETS. Given his background (i.e. as a trader) I think it is within the realms of possibility that he can see an opportunity for NZ to benefit economically from trading in carbon. With the market projected to be worth $2 trillion annually by 2020, it’s conceivable he has something up his sleeve. The real question is: for feathering his own nest or for the good of the country?
December 21st, 2009 at 2:01 pm
Rod “not just planning some leftist self-flagellating carbon tax scheme to hand our “guilt money” for driving cars to Chavez, Mugabe, Russia and co.”
We’re so lucky in NZ, we can hand our ‘guilt money’ directly to Maori and have it stay in the country.
December 21st, 2009 at 2:06 pm
I imagine Key will also be keeping a close eye on Australia and what they do with their ETS, which (for them) is shaping up to be a key election issue…The outcome might just be the reality check that Key needs.
However, from a Government perspective, our ETS is wonderful tax grab opportunity that takes under the guise of saving the world… more like an investment really.
December 21st, 2009 at 2:27 pm
Carbon trading is going to go the same way as all the other overhyped asset scams ,sorry schemes ,that have gone before it.The really frightening thing is that govts have learned absolutely nothing from even the most recent financial scam,ie the sub prime business. Tulips ,South Sea Bubble,tech boom, Enron etc. Some traders will make a fortune but the last ones in will crash and burn.It’s just going to be a matter of time.
December 21st, 2009 at 2:33 pm
DPF, could you please tell us why the National government passed this ETS monstrosity?
A few days ago, you said it would be “economic suicide” not to. Has your level of confidence decreased? if not, why not?
December 21st, 2009 at 2:43 pm
So only Switzerland and the EU besides NZ has a ETS system, so how come we had to have one to avoid being blackballed by all the world’s trading Nations. Now to prove our Moral superiority should New Zealand ban trade with every nation that has no ETS system.
It was good to see Obamadinajad arriving home from Copenhagen on the Fox News last night to the heaviest snowfall ever recorded in Washington.
December 21st, 2009 at 4:03 pm
Why NZ has an ETS?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6852581/Copenhagen-climate-deal-London-faces-carbon-trading-challenge-from-New-York.html
Who gives a hoot about the science or the politics – there is money to be made!
December 21st, 2009 at 4:17 pm
blockquote> The real question is: for feathering his own nest or for the good of the country?
Why does not someone ask him in Parliament if he has any interest in carbon trading directly or indirectly through a trust or some other mechanism.
December 21st, 2009 at 4:20 pm
And ultimately a world to control!!
The socialists have had a set-back – give them time (with DL’s expert assistance), they will return. Perhaps the next attempt will be under a different guise, but never a different aim. ‘Ve vill haf kontrol auf die werlt’ (cue the German National Anthem with appropriate modifications . . .)
(Not sure though, how they are going to make peace with islam – the ultimate threat and a grouping that hates the west, but no doubt such things will be ‘arranged’)
December 21st, 2009 at 5:12 pm
Manolo “Economic suicide” is another form of the bogey man designed to scare us into submission…one of the conditions that the China India Brazil bloc put forward was not to impose trade sanctions/tariffs against countries that didn’t subscribe to any agreement or accord that arose out of the Copenhagen talkfest.
To suggest consumer backlash… is a red herring…a competitively priced commodity will always find its way onto the supermarket shelves.