Posts Tagged ‘UN Climate conference’

Paris Climate Agreement: A review

December 14, 2015

The planet has now been saved – from a non-existent problem by an empty Agreement which promises nothing but the perpetuation of the Climate Community.

Paris Agreement

The Climate Community consists of about 20,000 – 30,000 people who are the Chosen of the God of Global Warming. They are elated at having secured their future jamborees. The politicians are all claiming great success in reaching The Paris Agreement. The unquestioning and gullible media – for the most part – are also effusive in their congratulations. I suspect that not very many have actually read and understood the Paris Agreement. I have been brought up to the view that an Agreement – to be an Agreement – consists of describing duties and obligations and with promised actions balanced by liabilities. This Agreement is devoid of any promises and accompanying liabilities. The Agreement is worth looking at – if only as an example of how to structure an empty document and still call it an Agreement.

COP21 Agreement 20151212

As I expected, the Paris agreement has no commitments – except to meet again and keep these meetings going. (One could ask, if COP21 was such a great success, why a COP22 and a COP23, and so on ad infinitum, are still needed?). But I am also very happy the parties have reached such an empty agreement. The harm it can do, for starting with a false premise (that global temperature can be controlled merely by reducing fossil fuel use), is limited by this very emptiness. In any event, all emissions reductions are voluntary and are not commitments. All developing countries will strive to reach a peak of carbon dioxide emissions – where defining the magnitude and timing of the peak is left to the judgement of each country. Developed countries will assist with money and technology to the extent they can. Any signatory can leave the agreement at any time after the first 3 years by giving one years notice.

The only binding things in the Paris Agreement is that while all parties are unbound, these UN jamborees of waste shall continue for ever. Nearly all decisions in the Agreement are about perpetuating the well-paid (and utterly useless) jobs of the Climate Community for ever.

The Paris Agreement is structured as a document in two sections. The first is entitled “ADOPTION of the Paris Agreement” consisting of VI parts describing what has been adopted. The second section is the Paris Agreement itself as an Annexe and consisting of 29 Articles.

The VI parts of the first section contains 140 paragraphs, of which 48 are “decides”. All the other paragraphs are “requests” or “takes note” or “recognises” or “invites” or “welcomes” or the like. I have extracted the “decides” and the self-serving manner in which they just protect the jobs of the Community is almost obscene.

The Decides of Paris

The “decides” are overwhelmingly about further meetings, or the setting up of committees, commissions and even champions. But the bottom line is that what has been achieved here is the perpetuation of jobs for the Chosen.

The main Paris Agreement is contained in the 29 Articles of the Annexe. There is nothing in any these 29 Articles which is a binding commitment by any country to reduce emissions by any specific amount or to provide any specific amount of funding.

I note particularly the following:

Article 20

  1. This Agreement shall be open for signature and subject to ratification, acceptance or approval by States and regional economic integration organizations that are Parties to the Convention. It shall be open for signature at the United Nations Headquarters in New York from 22 April 2016 to 21 April 2017. ….

Article 21

  1. This Agreement shall enter into force on the thirtieth day after the date on which at least 55 Parties to the Convention accounting in total for at least an estimated 55 percent of the total global greenhouse gas emissions have deposited their instruments of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession. ….

Article 28

  1. At any time after three years from the date on which this Agreement has entered into force for a Party, that Party may withdraw from this Agreement by giving written notification to the Depositary.
  2. Any such withdrawal shall take effect upon expiry of one year from the date of receipt by the Depositary of the notification of withdrawal, or on such later date as may be specified in the notification of withdrawal. …

A party which does not ratify the agreement is not even bound to the empty words even if it “has come into effect”. Any signatory can effectively leave the agreement at any time by giving one years notice. It is a binding agreement to be unbound.

But since the world has now been saved perhaps we will have a little less of the alarmist hysteria. What does it matter if the saving is by means of an empty agreement. As I have noted before, China and India can continue – quite unhindered – with their continued use of coal, oil and gas at their planned levels, while still meeting their pledges of reduction of emissions intensity (emissions/GDP).

The reporting of the “achievements” as seen by Indian eyes is telling

NDTVAsked why India made compromises, Environment Minister Prakash Javadekar told NDTV, “To achieve big things you need to be accommodating without changing the meaning and thrust of agreement and that is success.”

Here is what India and the other developing nations had to compromise on:

  • The original UN convention had a stronger language on developed world providing climate finance. Experts say current text is weaker. It also leaves room for confusion on what can be counted as climate funding – for example, developmental aid or loans can be counted as climate finance. Mr Javadekar, too, said the agreement could have been more ambitious as the actions of developed nations are “far below” than their historical responsibilities and fair shares. Most civil society experts say the dilution was made following tremendous pressure from US – which is facing issues with domestic politics – and an umbrella group of developed nations.
  • Paris agreement says all parties — including developing nations — must take action to cut emissions. This means makes developing nations must take on additional obligations.
  • For developing countries, intellectual property rights barriers to transfer technology from rich countries were important. But the Paris text is more about cooperation in technology.
  • In terms of loss and damage, the text says these will not be seen in terms for liability and compensation, so developed countries will not have no real obligation.

This is what India and the developing nations achieved:

  • Managed to put back the important principle of equity and “common but differentiated responsibilities” in text, which India has been pushing for. The US and developed nations wanted to dilute this plank.
  • Though developed countries use fossil fuel — coal and gas — they wanted developing countries to cut emissions. It is still not clear if the developed nations will be forthcoming with funds and technology for clean energy or the modalities if they do.  
  • The big challenge met was ensuring the agreement established the idea of climate justice – acknowledging that industrialised nations have been the major emitters since 1850.
  • India also wanted a mention of sustainable lifestyle and consumption, which is there in the text.

Note that “the big challenge met was ensuring the agreement established the idea of climate justice – acknowledging that industrialised nations have been the major emitters since 1850”.

If the Paris non-agreement reduces the alarmist hysteria, it would have achieved a great deal. It could provide a better atmosphere and time for acknowledging the politically incorrect reality that man-made emissions are of little significance in influencing the climate. The Agreement does no good, but at least it does not do much harm either. A Feel Good irrelevance.

India objects to, and chastises Kerry for, his climate bullying

November 23, 2015

It is -12ºC outside my window right now on a bright winter’s day, but it is -29ºC in the North of Sweden and I am not complaining. There has been no “global” warming for 19 years while fossil fuel utilisation has almost doubled. If “climate change” is about global warming, then why the panic? And if “climate change” is not about global warming, then why the panic?

We have had a couple of months of concentrated, strident, alarmist propaganda in the media and from the global warming mafia as preparation for the Paris climate conference beginning at the end of this week. It is reaching a crescendo this week. That the mainstream media led by The Guardian, and followed slavishly by Swedish media, have been particularly alarmist is not so surprising. Today the Guardian runs an article claiming that the “Paris climate change conference can save the planet”. It happens to be by Ed Miliband which is less than convincing since his judgements are more than a little suspect. The rich and the famous have been “harnessed”, like so many talking puppets, to parrot “the cause”. (Childhood memories of “Francis, the talking mule” come to mind). Yesterday it was first the Swedish King calling on people to stop bathing and then Prince Charles stated that global warming (euphemistically “climate change”) was one of the causes of the Syrian conflict. He could just as well claim that the terrorist attacks in Paris were due to “climate change”. (In fact someone has already done that). John Kerry wanders around the globe intimating that his foreign policy problems would disappear if only governments would do as he says.

(I have to admit that for almost any proposed action in any field, having Prince Charles’ support, is proof positive for me that that the action is going to be counterproductive. John Kerry with his blunders in Syria and in the Ukraine is approaching the same class).

I don’t pay too much attention to the hype. Ultimately, after 2 or 3 decades of global cooling, the pointlessness and futility of the fight against “carbon emissions” will become obvious. Of course vast sums of money would have been wasted. Global growth and the elimination of poverty would have been hampered for a time – but so what? Coal, oil and gas production and utilisation by the developing world will only continue, and continue to spread.

I don’t much care about Paris either. It has almost become irrelevant. Especially since “success” at the Paris conference will actually mean that the doubling of carbon dioxide emissions over the next 15 years will have been assured and sanctioned. China and India have already won. The “success” of Paris would provide them with official sanction to increase their use of fossil fuel under the cloak of reducing emissions per unit of gdp growth. The developed world will effectively commit itself to increased costs and reduced growth to no purpose. While this will depress global growth (mainly Europe) it should make the developing world even more competitive and that will be some mitigation. The US is somewhat immune since it can just ramp up the use of gas.

But the constant nagging by the global warming brigade is getting irritating and coercive. The sanctimonious preaching by John Kerry has finally crossed the line. So much so that India has had to resort to formally chastising him,

The Hindu:

India has reacted strongly to U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry’s statement that the country will be a “challenge” in the coming climate change talks in Paris.

“It is in a way unfair to say that India will be a challenge. It is actually not doing justice to India,” Union Environment Minister Prakash Javadekar told PTI. “The U.S. is our great friend and strategic partner. His [Kerry’s] comment is unwarranted and unfair. The attitude of some of the developed countries is the challenge for the Paris conclusion,” the Minister said.

Mr. Javadekar said there was no question of compromising on India’s stand on climate change. He blamed the “attitude” of the developed countries for the problem. India was trying to “proactively” forge a consensus on the issue. ……..

…… While the developed world has been looking at increased emission cuts from developing countries, the latter — including India — have sought common but differentiated responsibility. Shorn of jargon, it means that the developed world has been the prime polluter since its early lead in industrialisation and stays way ahead in emissions per capita to this day, meaning that it cannot expect nations now industrialising to forget this skew.

I really do dislike those who know best what others should do.

Lima Climate conference agreement contains no commitments by anybody

December 16, 2014

The UN Conference of the Parties, Twentieth session, held in Lima Peru from 1st to 13th December 2014 is now over. The conference agreement is well worth reading as an  example of how an exercise with 9,000 delegates from 196 participating countries, could spend some $ 50 million over 2 weeks to accomplish – by their own expectations – absolutely nothing. The only decision of any significance to be taken by the parties is to meet again.

COP20 Lima Agreement (pdf)

But all 9,000 had a great time.

(In my judgement, the lack of accomplishment was a great success).

The agreement contains 22 clauses:

  • one clause “confirms”
  • three clauses “decide”
  • three clauses “agree”

All the remaining clauses are merely wishes and hopes with no commitments or obligations. Just waffle.

  • one clause “underscores”
  • one clause “urges”
  • one clause “acknowledges”
  • one clause “invites”
  • one clause “encourages”
  • one clause “welcomes”
  • two clauses “note”
  • three clauses “request”
  • four clauses “reiterate”

Looking just at the clauses which “confirm”, “decide” or “agree”:

The only “confirmation” comes first in the agreement and it is to meet again for COP 21 and adopt another agreement! Just a self-serving clause perpetuating the meetings.

The three “decides” also commit to nothing very much. The first “decides that any protocol which is legally binding shall be balanced. (This is a wonderful loophole. Any country which believes the protocol to be unbalanced can then ignore it). The next “decide” is that the working group will make a draft text. (The purpose of this is to make sure that all those working on this text can get paid). The third rather long “decide” only says that a technical examination will continue. Wow! But note that it establishes a framework – and thereby the funding – for “a series of in-session technical expert meetings”. Meetings galore – and the delegates shall have a great time.

There are also three “agree” clauses. The first says that all parties agree that each party will do better in the future. The second merely says that all developing countries and small island states may make special pleadings. The third says that each party may provide quantifiable information on how they intend to contribute. Not a commitment or obligation in sight.

It really is time that these meetings ceased and the IPCC was disbanded.

The clauses (my bold)


  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;


  1. Decides that the protocol, another legal instrument or agreed outcome with egal 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;
  2. Decides that the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action will intensify its work, with a view to making available a negotiating text for a protocol, another legal instrument or an agreed outcome with legal force under the Convention applicable to all Parties before May 2015;
  3. Decides to continue the technical examination of opportunities with high mitigation potential, including those with adaptation, health and sustainable development co-benefits, in the period 2015–2020, by requesting the secretariat to:
    (a) Organize a series of in-session technical expert meetings which:
    (i) Facilitate Parties in the identification of policy options, practices and technologies and in planning for their implementation in accordance with nationally defined development priorities;
    (ii) Build on and utilize the related activities of, and further enhance collaboration and synergies among, the Technology Executive Committee, the Climate Technology Centre and Network, the Durban Forum on capacity-building, the Executive Board of the clean development mechanism and the operating entities of the Financial Mechanism;
    (iii) Build on previous technical expert meetings in order to hone and focus on actionable policy options;
    (iv) Provide meaningful and regular opportunities for the effective engagement of experts from Parties, relevant international organizations, civil society, indigenous peoples, women, youth, academic institutions, the private sector, and subnational authorities nominated by their respective countries;
    (v) Support the accelerated implementation of policy options and enhanced mitigation action, including through international cooperation;
    (vi) Facilitate the enhanced engagement of all Parties through the announcement of topics to be addressed, agendas and related materials at least two months in advance of technical expert meetings;
    (b) Update, following the technical expert meetings referred to in paragraph 19(a) above, the technical paper on the mitigation benefits of actions, and on initiatives and options to enhance mitigation ambition, compiling information provided in submissions from Parties and observer organizations and the discussions held at the technical expert meetings and drawing on other relevant information on the implementation of policy options at all levels, including through multilateral cooperation;
    (c) Disseminate the information referred to in paragraph 19(b) above, including
    by publishing a summary for policymakers;


  1. 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;
  2. Also agrees that the least developed countries and small island developing States
    may communicate information on strategies, plans and actions for low greenhouse gas emission development reflecting their special circumstances in the context of intended nationally determined contributions;
  3. 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 greenhouse gas emissions and, as appropriate, removals, and how the Party considers that its intended nationally determined contribution is fair and ambitious, in light of its national circumstances, and how it contributes towards achieving the objective of the Convention as set out in its Article 2;

What a waste for a pointless exercise where the key action item (carbon dioxide) has no significant impact on the parameter ostensibly to be controlled. No targets, no tools but a great deal of arrogance.

UN climate conference in Lima collapses and defers all contentious issues to next meeting

December 13, 2014

The UN climate conferences are an exercise in futility for something quite unnecessary. But they provide an annual jamboree for the “global warming community” of do-gooders, pseudo-scientists, advocacy groups, bureaucrats and politicians. They have been meeting for over 2 decades and have achieved nothing. The ostensible goal is to get the world to reduce carbon dioxide emissions so as to limit global temperature rise. But during the life of these nonsensical meetings, the world’s emissions of carbon dioxide has increased by over 70%. Carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere has risen by about 15% and it is uncertain how much of that is due to man-made emissions. But while all this has been going on, global temperature has remained stagnant and may even have decreased slightly.

So one wonders why the UN keeps hosting these incredibly wasteful and pointless meetings. But of course this is because the meetings are not really pointless – they have a hidden agenda. And this agenda is all about the getting of funds and the redistribution of money. And that automatically divides the participant countries into those who will pay and those who will get. The largely parasitic “global warming community” is always on the receiving end and has a vested interest in keeping these meetings and their funding alive indefinitely. Never mind that nothing significant is achieved as long as their funding continues.

The conference in Lima has been no different. It has all been about rich countries putting money (which countries and how much?) into a pot which other so-called developing countries can dip into (who, when and how much?). It is inevitable that the fringe elements supporting the redistribution of wealth, from the creators of wealth to the consumers of wealth (and these fringes are always consumers), are well represented at these conferences. Listening to some lobby groups it sounded like “a conference for the promotion of socialist ideals”. Greenpeace made an utter fool of itself again by their cheap publicity stunt causing damage, pollution and desecration of the Nazca Lines site. John Kerry showed up for a day and made his alarmist speech. Al Gore made a speech on the sidelines noticeable for the number of empty seats.

In any event the Lima conference is now winding down. No major agreements were reached (thank goodness) and a final draft being circulated pushes all contentious issues to the next conference (which at least achieves the purpose of continuing the meetings). One positive is that for the first time since 1992, the favourite – and critical – expression of the countries which seek to get money of “common but differentiated responsibility” is not referred to. Without an agreement on these differentiated responsibilities all talk about who will donate and how much and who will receive and how much becomes entirely meaningless. The latest draft effectively mouths platitudes and leaves each country to set its targets and its own levels of action. This is also a good thing.

Another positive is that countries making pledges of funding for the Global climate fund (target $100 billion and about $10 billion pledges received) are now just transferring or allocating money from their normal Foreign Aid budgets – which therefore cost nothing extra. I was pleased to hear that the pledges have been “ridiculously low”.

“We are disappointed,” said India’s Prakash Javadekar. “It is ridiculous. It is ridiculously low.” Javadekar said the pledges to the green climate fund amounted to backsliding. “We are upset that 2011, 2012, 2013 – three consecutive years – the developed world provided $10bn each year for climate action support to the developing world, but now they have reduced it. Now they are saying $10bn is for four years, so it is $2.5bn,” he said.

If this reluctance to pay for something pointless and ineffective is real and continues, then it could be the return of a much -needed realism and a very good thing for the world.


United Nations climate talks, which ran on into a an extra day on Saturday, are heading for a watered-down deal on limiting global warming, leaving many of the toughest issues for next year’s Paris summit.

Peruvian Environment Minister Manuel Pulgar-Vidal, hosting the talks, told delegates that a new text on Saturday morning to try to break impasses was not perfect, but reflected common ground.

Rich and poor nations were at odds after two weeks of talks in Peru over how to share the burden of curbing rising world emissions and how to raise a promised $100 billion a year by 2020 to help the poor cope with a warmer world.

Latin American and other oil producers are desperately trying to increase oil sales and curb the revenue losses as the oil price has collapsed. They have no great interest in curbing fossil fuel use. Most countries are phasing out subsidies for renewable energy especially as these subsidies will have to increase to keep renewable energy flowing when oil prices are so low.

Senior country representative are now leaving Lima and are leaving their bureaucrats to complete the final communique which will effectively say nothing and defer everything till the Paris meeting next year.

The Cancun hype begins – but it is all about money not climate

November 22, 2010

With one week left before the Cancun circus begins (UN/ IPCC Climate Conference from 29th November to 10th December), the mainstream media hype has begun.

Global CO2 expected to rise to record levels screams the Daily Telegraph. Carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are expected to reach record levels this year, according to a new study, despite the recession and global efforts to reduce greenhouse gases – but what that has to do with climate is uncertain. No doubt it has a great deal to do with pricing of the Carbon Trading market. As The Telegraph points out (inadvertently perhaps) this is just hype timed to come just before the UN jamboree.

The results of the study by the Global Carbon Project will be used to put pressure on environment ministers meeting in Cancun, Mexico this month for the latest UN meeting to come to a global agreement on cutting emissions.

The Cancun meeting itself is all about money and Carbon Trading. The collapse of the Chicago exchange and the growing realisation in Europe that Carbon Trading is just a scam is leading all those with a vested interest in carbon pricing to raise the spectres of carbon dioxide again.  Hopefully these efforts will be as useless as at Copenhagen but some “trading” being introduced through the back door is always a possibility.

The two main “money flows” that Cancun is concerned with is the carbon trading fraud and the diversion of funds to “developing” countries to reduce their emissions of carbon dioxide. Just as with the Nagoya biodiversity conference a key objective is the redistribution of wealth. In fact biodiversity and climate are merely convenient scare stories which can act as vehicles for arranging for the flow of funds. A UN IPCC official admitted as much when talking about climate policy:

OTTMAR EDENHOFER, UN IPCC OFFICIAL: “That will change immediately if global emission rights are distributed. If this happens, on a per capita basis, then Africa will be the big winner, and huge amounts of money will flow there. This will have enormous implications for development policy. And it will raise the question if these countries can deal responsibly with so much money at all”.

%d bloggers like this: