A step forward

December 23rd, 2011 at 8:18 am by David Farrar

Last week the Herald reported:

A marathon UN climate conference yesterday approved a roadmap towards an accord that for the first time will bring all major greenhouse-gas emitters under a single legal roof.

If approved as scheduled in 2015, the pact will be operational from 2020 and become the prime weapon in the fight against .

This is the first useful step forward in some time. Any agreement that does not include the major emitters has next to no environmental value. It is significant that China, US and India have all agreed in principle.

Actually gaining agreement on the details of post 2020 reductions will be incredibly challenging. As there is  an economic cost to reducing emissions, there will be resistance from vested interests.

Tags:

39 Responses to “A step forward”

  1. Other_Andy (2,079 comments) says:

    “As there is an economic cost to reducing emissions, there will be resistance from vested interests.”

    And the scam continues.

    “No matter if the science is all phoney, there are collateral environmental benefits
    Christine Stewart, former Canadian Environment Minister for the Liberal Party of Canada.

    “We’ve got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing – in terms of economic policy and environmental policy
    Former US Senator Timothy Wirth, (D-Colo)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. KiwiGreg (3,129 comments) says:

    “As there is an economic cost to reducing emissions, there will be resistance from vested interests.”

    As there should be. We ALL have a vested interest in preventing these costs being imposed on us.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Other_Andy (2,079 comments) says:

    It is all about the environment……..

    AND

    “If we don’t overthrow capitalism, we don’t have a chance of saving the world ecologically. I think it is possible to have an ecologically sound society under socialism.
    I don’t think it is possible under capitalism”
    Judi Bari,
    An American environmentalist and labor leader, a feminist, and the principal organizer of Earth First!

    “The goal now is a socialist, redistributionist society, which is nature’s proper steward and society’s only hope.”
    David Brower,
    A prominent environmentalist and the founder of many environmental organizations, including the Sierra Club Foundation, the John Muir Institute for Environmental Studies, Friends of the Earth (1969), the League of Conservation Voters, Earth Island Institute (1982), North Cascades Conservation Council, and Fate of the Earth Conferences.

    “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsiblity to bring that about?”
    Maurice Strong,
    founder of the UN Environment Programme

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Matthew Hooton (114 comments) says:

    Let’s get this straight.
    In 2007, NZ Labour legislates for the world’s first and only (ever) all-sectors all gases emissions trading scheme, at significant harm to NZ’s economy.
    In 2009, NZ National decides to keep it.
    Then, in late 2011, a UN climate conference yesterday approved a roadmap towards an accord that might become operational in 2020.
    Meanwhile, no other country does anything that might harm their economy.
    No doubt someone somewhere is impressed with NZ.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. barry (1,317 comments) says:

    By 2015 the world will be cooling – well it will be able to be shown by then that the trend is down, but thats not going to stop The U.N from trying to impose a worldwide tax…………..

    Forget the Republic idea David – start to face up to the real new head of gevernment – the U.N.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Pete George (21,830 comments) says:

    ‘post 2020 ‘ sounds like kicking for touch.

    One century we will self destruct. This may or may not be the century, and climate change may or may not be the cause, but it’s likely denial, delay and delusions of always being able to come up with solutions in time will be major factors.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. MT_Tinman (2,795 comments) says:

    Does the agreement include the worlds major emitters of greenhouse gasses, the Combined Vulcano Collective?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. CHFR (195 comments) says:

    Well Matthew it did get Auntie Helen her new job.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Andrei (2,431 comments) says:

    All this is is just more of the endless jaw jaw of the political elite, people no longer in touch with reality but for now secure and comfortable living parasitically off the masses and filling their empty and useless lives producing high sounding but essentially meaningless treaties and agreements about a non existent problem which even if it existed that couldn’t do anything about anyway.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Lazybum (259 comments) says:

    I thougth I was reading a post from the standard.
    David, you are a complete fool on this issue, it is all about tax.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. lastmanstanding (1,154 comments) says:

    Matthew Hooton There are many who are laughing at NZ and its Gumint for being sooooo dumb as to stuff its economy by imposing costs that our trade competitors arent.

    Why do the BIG POWERS not embrace the global warming scam?

    A Because they know its a scam

    B They dont plan on stuffing their ecomonies any more than they are already stuffed.

    Look at the scam around credits. The oil companies are factoring in $25 T to the price we pay at the pumps and buying credits out of East Europe at $13 T.
    SOOOO our dumb arse Gimint has handed the oil companies yet another little earner on teh difference. Wow!!!! How clever is that NOT.

    Meanwhile we taxpaying ratepaying suckers are being scammed WITH the knowledge and support of our Gumint.

    Gumint The enemy of the people.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Than (376 comments) says:

    China and India will be the big problem, and I suspect an insurmountable one.

    The populations of these countries are (quite reasonably) aspiring to the standard of living that we in the developed world already enjoy. Unfortunately for them to achieve this will require significant increases in their energy consumption per capita, which in turn means significant emission increases. This will overwhelm any emission cuts the developed world can make.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Owen McShane (1,226 comments) says:

    They all know the science is unravelling so by pushing the time out it means there is time to just let the whole issue disappear from the front pages and from Government programmes.
    They will never admit error.
    Just as no one admitted the scam of the “Contaminated soils” in Auckland. The ARC reckoned there were 5,000 contaminated sites in Auckland City and the MSM and Parliament and all the usual suspects were full of it for months. Then I had a look at it and found it was a scam intended to support Smart Growth by claiming all land which has been used for agriculture was too dangerous for children to play on. I recommended that ARC get a real expert on the job. They did and she found there were actually only six contaminated sites.
    Has anyone ever seen a retraction?
    So don’t expect it on the IPCC and their machinations. It will just float away on the next tide and the ongoing sex and violence scandals.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. KiwiGreg (3,129 comments) says:

    Of the many bad things about NZ’s current policies, preventing conversion of forest land (low value log exports to China…) to dairy (high value milk powder exports to China…) is one of the stupidist.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Scott Chris (5,682 comments) says:

    Suggested step one:

    Establish a GHG unit standard. Maybe one tonne of CO2 could become 1 Standard GHG Unit, by which all other gases are calibrated. (Maybe this has already been established)

    Suggested step two:

    Establish the *true cost* of emitting 1 SGHGU. (Or a WU = Warming Unit)

    Of course the Americans don’t want to establish this, because the Chinese want them to agree to pay for their historic emissions before they’ll agree to cap their own.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Falafulu Fisi (2,176 comments) says:

    Perhaps a free-markets approach may be the best approach as suggested in the following paper using concepts from pub drinking decision making process (El Farol Bar) and minority game.

    Download : Self-organized global control of carbon emissions

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. thor42 (780 comments) says:

    I’m completely against the U.N. having any influence at all on our government.
    The U.N. are a bunch of incompetent, self-serving parasites. We need to tell them to GTFO of our business.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. kiwiBuzz (4 comments) says:

    All the publicity coming out of Durban ignored a few very important facts.

    The world has not warmed for the last 10 to 15 years and nobody knows why. http://www.climate4you.com

    According to the highly accurate sea level gauges installed around Australia and the Pacific Islands, sea level rise since 1992 has been much the same as for the previous 100 years and, recently, the sea level has dropped. Nobody knows why.

    The fact that the last sunspot cycle was long and that sunspots are declining, tells us that the major risk is global cooling, not global warming.

    Over the last 100 years, the temperatures in the capital city of Greenland have declined.

    The climate changes naturally and the evidence seems to be that cooling–which history tells that is very bad–is more likely than warming–history tells us is beneficial.

    Dangerous man-made global warming is a myth but, sadly, many people and organizations have profited from it enormously. So the vested interests will continue to promote the myth and continue to make us poor and miserable.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Other_Andy (2,079 comments) says:

    The three most powerful elitist undemocratic autocratic organisations in the world.
    Staffed by un-elected bureaucrats, oligarchs and dictators hell bend on gaining power.

    1. UN
    2. OIC
    3. EU

    All intertwined and driven by the same people-NGO’s and corporations.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Steve Wrathall (208 comments) says:

    Meanwhile Canada is leaving the Kyoto scam. Hasn’t hurt its clean green image.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. unaha-closp (1,035 comments) says:

    Its a 2nd step.

    The 1st step was Kyoto which resulted in the doubling of emissions.

    This 2nd step is to do nothing except continue Kyoto until 2020, by which time emissions will have doubled again.

    Pretty much how the UN works, see problem, do nothing but make the problem worse, blame capitalism.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. KevinH (1,129 comments) says:

    @Matthew
    The consequences of doing nothing would be more damaging to our economy in the long term, our competitors have been quick to point out carbon emissions used to get our products to market.
    Should an accord proceed in the Northern Hemisphere embracing the United States and China and possibly India, then New Zealand will be well positioned with an already functioning Carbon Emissions programme that could possibly give us a commercial advantage over our competitors.
    When the marketing of a carbon emissions programme commences in the North, countries and products already adherring to a scheme will be more desirable and marketable.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Mark (496 comments) says:

    Carbon Emissions programme is a bigger scam than the Nigerian scams.

    All this conference did was kick the can down the road again and by 2020 we will all be laughing at brain dead lefties.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Fletch (5,727 comments) says:

    This premise that somehow paying for carbon units is going to affect the climate of our planet one little bit would be funny if these folks didn’t take it seriously.

    If you want to take a good hard look at the IPCC, and how ‘expert’ they are, then read, ‘The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert’ – an expose of the IPCC. Even if you go to Amazon, and click “Look Inside” and read the first chapter, you’ll see enough to get you mad. http://amzn.to/t56ZQT

    I’m in the process of reading the book, but so far I’ve read –

    * The “world’s top scientists” that the IPCC claim are contributors are not all “top scientists” at all – instead, some of the people writing the stuff for the IPCC are new graduates in their 20s who are expert in nothing. Some of the actual scientists who are experts in these fields have left in disgust (ie, the expert on tornadoes who was shocked that the IPCC was saying that climate change can cause more tornadoes when there is no evidence to support such claims)

    * Because the IPCC is part of the UN, they are obligated to be all inclusive and politically correct, eg, a certain percentage of contributors must be females, and also include representatives from every country (although some admitted they don’t know what they’re doing). But hey that doesn’t matter, as long as we are multi-cultural.

    * No one knows how these people are chosen, and the IPCC won’t give their names, just the country they are from. Many of those asked to contribute are from activist groups with an agenda to push (ie, Greenpeace, the WWF etc), but the IPCC sees no conflict of interest.

    * Also, it turns out that it’s an oft-told lie that all the references in the Climate Bible are “peer reviewed”. After an audit by the author of the book and some volunteers on her website, it turns out that only 58% of the references mentioned have been peer reviewed.

    The other references (around 5,500 of them) are from so-called ‘grey literature’. Some are based on articles from popular magazines with no research behind them whatsoever. So, 1 in 3 references aren’t peer reviewed. After this was pointed out to them, the IPCC decided not to mark ‘grey’ footnotes at all now – so now nobody will know anyway.

    Also, some of the papers used in reports aren’t even published at all at the time.

    The whole thing is a disaster. No one even polices that the IPCC is following their own rules. It’s no wonder people are rapidly losing faith in them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Richard29 (377 comments) says:

    “approved a roadmap towards an accord ”

    Whoopee – I am overwhelmed with optimism of Palestinian proportions. I think the Americans refer to this as “Kicking the can down the road”

    (and it never ceases to amaze me how many climate change denialists there are in New Zealand. Is it something with our education system that causes people to treat science with such disdain because it conflicts with their political world view?)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. backster (2,000 comments) says:

    And from todays Herald explaining how the scam works,

    “The idea is that the atmosphere does not care where or how emissions are reduced. If it is cheaper for emitters in New Zealand, say, to fund via the CER market emissions reductions elsewhere more cheaply than they can reduce their own, that is fine.

    But for HFC-23 the value of the CERs greatly exceeds the cost of producing the gas, leading to the accusation that countries, especially China, have been ramping up production of the gas to profit from then destroying it.

    The Ministry for the Environment said such projects were estimated to account for two-thirds of the CERs issued so far.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Scott Chris (5,682 comments) says:

    Steve Wrathall says:- “Meanwhile Canada is leaving the Kyoto scam. Hasn’t hurt its clean green image.”

    Canada clean and green? Pfft. When I think of Canada, I think of Tar Sands and Maple Syrup.
    ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

    kiwiBuzz says:- “The world has not warmed for the last 10 to 15 years”

    Yes it has. And the longer term trend is the most important factor if you know anything about statistical reliability.

    >> “…recently, the sea level has dropped. Nobody knows why”

    Only in a few selected places, and the apparent drop can be accounted for by tectonic movement.

    >> “The fact that the last sunspot cycle was long and that sunspots are declining, tells us that the major risk is global cooling, not global warming.”

    It doesn’t tell us anything. The only thing predictable about the sunspot cycle is a rough 11 year period.

    >> “Over the last 100 years, the temperatures in the capital city of Greenland have declined.”

    Using the average temperature of one isolated place is statistically irrelevant in relation to average global temperature. Spurious rubbish.

    >> “evidence seems to be that cooling…is more likely than warming”

    Yes, the Milankovitch cycle predicts that another ice age could be approaching which makes the recent rise in temperature all the more likely to be attributable to an anthropogenic origin.

    >> “Dangerous man-made global warming is a myth”

    Where is your evidence for this assertion? What you have produced thus far proves nothing other than your subjective skepticism.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Matthew Hooton (114 comments) says:

    @KevinH: That is absolute nonsense. There is no trade risk. See my comments at http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2011/11/carbon_emission_changes.html#comment-901223 and http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2011/11/carbon_emission_changes.html#comment-901314 and learn something.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Australis (99 comments) says:

    The BASIC countries (China, India, Brazil, South Africa) have simply kicked the ball into the long grass.

    See http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2011/12/delayers-today-deniers-tomorrow.

    “Western” climate science has had its day. Now that the Asian countries’ emissions are under threat, we will be hearing their real views on the hypothesis of CAGW (catastrophic anthropogenic global warming).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Owen McShane (1,226 comments) says:

    Richard 29,
    Where is your scientific evidence that the percentage of the population who are climate skeptics is disproportionately large compared to other countries?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Paulus (2,299 comments) says:

    I’m stoking up my BBQ in order that in burning some charcoal I will get some Carbon left, which I assume I can trade ? Uh.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Viking2 (10,744 comments) says:

    Of course they poduced an accord. Its fucking Xmas and time to party. Who wants to be conferencing when you can party.

    If it were April 1 we would think its a joke.
    Wow, hangon its bloody well is. :icon_mrgreen:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Jimbob (639 comments) says:

    Carbon taxes take money from the poor in Western countries and give it to the rich in developing countries.
    Time will solve this scam, as in the next decade Northern Hemisphere winters are predicted to be horrendous.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Dave Mann (1,127 comments) says:

    ‘Vested interests’ being the human race… :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Richard29 (377 comments) says:

    @Jimbob et al

    Damned self interested scientists – what a scam. Anyway they have no credibility – how can the temperature trend be the hottest in hundreds of thousands of years when the world was only created 6000 years ago in 7 days? Don’t they realise that God only put the dinosaur bones there to trick us as a test of our faith…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Other_Andy (2,079 comments) says:

    “…how can the temperature trend be the hottest in hundreds of thousands of years….”

    It is not.
    Go and educate yourself.
    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ca/EPICA_temperature_plot.svg

    As for self interested scientists….
    Those who are critical of the computer models and predictions that AGW is real don’t get research grants.
    Now who are the self interested scientists?

    The IPCC claims that more than 2,500 respected scientists and policy makers collaborate to write its climate change assessments but less than a tenth of these ‘experts’ actually hold qualifications in climatology, most were in fact educated in the political and social sciences. The panel that edits and approves the reports are appointed by the United Nations, and more than half are actually UN officials. Dr Richard Lindzen, who is a genuine climate expert, resigned from the IPCC process after his contributions were completely rewritten by the panel.

    “It’s not 2,500 people offering their consensus, I participated in that. Each person who is an author writes one or two pages in conjunction with someone else. They travel around the world several times a year for several years to write it and the summary for policymakers has the input of a handful of scientists, but ultimately, it is written by representatives of governments, and of environmental organizations, each pushing their own agenda.”
    MIT’s Professor of Atmospheric Science Dr. Richard Lindzen on the IPCC report.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. RightNow (6,350 comments) says:

    Look at the trend line through these periods, and imagine it is the tangent of a sine wave:

    15 years
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1996/to:2011/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1996/to:2011/trend

    10 years
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2001/to:2011/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2001/to:2011/trend

    My prediction is for a further 15-20 years of cooling temperatures. I only base this on looking at past graphs of temperatures where it isn’t hard to see a (roughly) 60 year wave period with wave peaks around 1939 and 1998. Cooling from 1998 to approximately 2028 would thus seem probable, and then about 30 years of warming which would probably peak around 2058. The low around 2028 will (IMO) be telling as to whether the underlying warming trend (coming out of the little ice age) is still continuing or if that trend has peaked and we’re into an extended cooling phase.

    Whatever happens my political predictions are that by 2014 there will be a 15 year cooling trend and the Greens will be lucky to get 5% of the vote. National could snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by signing us up to some more futile emissions reduction targets, but assuming they don’t then they’re a shoe-in.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Viking2 (10,744 comments) says:

    Govt bans suspect carbon units
    By Brian Fallow
    5:30 AM Friday Dec 23, 2011

    The Government has moved to ban environmentally suspect carbon credits from the New Zealand emissions trading scheme.

    Hahahaha. More to come as well. Look at the article. Smith looks like he is about to crack

    .http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10774923

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Fletch (5,727 comments) says:

    Note that Al Gore’s Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) died a quiet death last year…

    Al Gore’s much ballyhooed Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) has recently announced that it will no longer be engaging in carbon trading, an activity that was the sole purpose that it was created. This is an utter failure of purpose in global warming hysteria yet the Old Media is almost completely silent on this colossal failure.

    If the apparatus put together by the godfather of climate change has died a quiet death, what does that tell you?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.