- JoNova - https://www.joannenova.com.au -

Durban: Wild ambit fails, but money flows. Landmark non legal “something-arother” agreed to.

Good news. The talented strategists left the UNFCCC team before COP17 in Durban. The A-graders saw the trainwreck coming and moved on.

Everyone knows it’s a herculean task to get 190-odd countries to sign anything, and with a typical pragmatical approach the UN drafting team have gone for … not just a new “International Court” (crikey!) but rights for Mother Earth (can we be sued by a rock?), and oh boy, the holy grail, the whole kit and caboodle … we demand Peace On Earth, and a  Partridge in a Pear Tree, as Part 47a, and starting by morning tea tomorrow.

Monckton  reports that the funereal collapsing Durban talks still held the highest of ambitions. Godlike even. The real action behind the posters of parrots and pleas to save pygmy corals, or spotted limpets is the plea to make some unelected bureaucrats the totalitarian Kings of The World.

In part it’s chilling, a New International Court — which could presumably try you for crimes against coastlines, clouds, or (more likely) against endangered windfarms. Those with their hands on the legal wheel want the power to direct money (was that $1.6 Trillion?)  from the richest nations to their friends, patrons, or pet causes. If they became the anointed Kings, it would swiftly become a crime to speak doubts of climate models upon which billions of trades depends.  The darkest evil always comes cloaked with helpful intentions.

Fortunately, what’s left of the UN strategic team is even lower caliber than B-grade, beyond Z, somewhere into hexadecimal.

Ladies and Gentlemen, the grown-ups in the IPCC-support-team left the party sometime after Copenhagen, and the Z++ team are left to guard the bones. No one can take this wild ambit claim seriously.

But soft, what light through yonder window breaks?
The Gods of PR and marketing sing,
a landmark deal — lo and behold!
To wave and laud, and on which to cling.

Of course, at the 28th hour of extended play they had to announce something “landmark” and thus they did. All you need to know about their success is written in the following paragraph:

“The deal doesn’t explicitly compel any nation to take on emissions targets, although most emerging economies have volunteered to curb the growth of their emissions.”

That’s the good news. The bad news is they still got our money:

Sunday’s deal also set up the bodies that will collect, govern and distribute tens of billions of dollars a year for poor countries. Other documents in the package lay out rules for monitoring and verifying emissions reductions, protecting forests, transferring clean technologies to developing countries and scores of technical issues.

Source [Assoc Press]

The reports from green observers offer us much insight:

Environmentalists criticized the package – as did many developing countries in the debate – for failing to address what they called the most urgent issue, to move faster and deeper in cutting carbon emissions.

“The good news is we avoided a train wreck,” said Alden Meyer, recalling predictions a few days ago of a likely failure. “The bad news is that we did very little here to affect the emissions curve.”

But then it was never about emissions, was it?


Monckton reports on the Ambit Claims of the Draft

Behind the scenes, throughout the year since Cancun, the now-permanent bureaucrats who have made highly-profitable careers out of what they lovingly call “the process” have been beavering away at what is now a 138-page document. Its catchy title is “Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-Term Cooperative Action Under the Convention — Update of the amalgamation of draft texts in preparation of [one imagines they mean ‘for’] a comprehensive and balanced outcome to be presented to the Conference of the Parties for adoption at its seventeenth session: note by the Chair.” In plain English, these are the conclusions the bureaucracy wants.

The contents of this document, turgidly drafted with all the UN’s skill at what the former head of its documentation center used to call “transparent impenetrability”, are not just off the wall – they are lunatic.

Main points:

  • Ø A new International Climate Court will have the power to compel Western nations to pay ever-larger sums to third-world countries in the name of making reparation for supposed “climate debt”. The Court will have no power over third-world countries. Here and throughout the draft, the West is the sole target. “The process” is now irredeemably anti-Western.
  • Ø “Rights of Mother Earth”: The draft, which seems to have been written by feeble-minded green activists and environmental extremists, talks of “The recognition and defence of the rights of Mother Earth to ensure harmony between humanity and nature”. Also, “there will be no commodification [whatever that may be: it is not in the dictionary and does not deserve to be] of the functions of nature, therefore no carbon market will be developed with that purpose”.
  • Ø “Right to survive”: The draft childishly asserts that “The rights of some Parties to survive are threatened by the adverse impacts of climate change, including sea level rise.” At 2 inches per century, according to eight years’ data from the Envisat satellite? Oh, come off it! The Jason 2 satellite, the new kid on the block, shows that sea-level has actually dropped over the past three years.
  • Ø War and the maintenance of defence forces and equipment are to cease – just like that – because they contribute to climate change. There are other reasons why war ought to cease, but the draft does not mention them.

Read  it all at Climate Depot….


h/t to Tom Nelson




Update: This is a nothingness deal — the last minute PR grab to pretend that it wasn’t a disaster,

It’s so they can use words like “legally” something, “landmark”, “significant” and “progress”. The last thing they want to admit is that the wheels have run off the road. God forbid they might have to cancel COP18.

In comments John Brookes reports that the ABC are taking of a legally binding agreement for 2020.

Maybe he means this (or something like it)?

My thoughts (from the comments).

What does a legally binding agreement to make a “legally binding agreement in 2020″ mean?

Not much.

Imagine what kind of legally binding agreement people would sign in 2011 that legally binds them to a document that does not exist but will by 2020? That would be a blank cheque. “I agree to buy your house in 2020 for …an unknown sum”.

If they had signed a legally binding document to set up an emissions trading scheme in 2020 they’d have starting prices, supply, demand, markets, rules, who’s in, who’s out, etc etc etc. They don’t. They’ve signed a legally binding document to come to a meeting before 2020 and sort out all the details them. In other words, this landmark deal may amount to not much more than a COP18, COP19, COP20…. Of course, it will still cost lots of money, and thousands of children will die of preventable diseases who could have been saved if the UN shut down the UNFCCC and used the money differently.


Update #2: The technical meaning of “something-arother”

A something-arother is a 3 year old’s way of describing a vaguely known thing. eg: Why doesn’t the car go? “Something-arother broke.” Apologies to the official dictionaries of English.




Comments from Lord Christopher Monckton  (my emphasis):

“One should distinguish between the Kyoto Protocol, from which Canada has resiled without penalty, and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, from which she has not resiled and by which she continues to be bound. The Secretariat has arrogated many new powers to itself under the apparently non-binding annual agreements at Copenhagen, Cancun, and Durban. Increasingly, these agreements are worded using the language of legal compulsion when talking about the obligations of Western countries. I suspect this approach has been taken as a maladroit attempt to circumvent the refusal of the US to ratify Kyoto or any suchlike treaty that does not bind third-world countries to specific emissions cuts. The UN is hopiing that its many stooges on the US Supreme Court bench will in due course take the view that these various apparently non-binding agreements are “customary international law” and, consequently, binding on the US whether or not the Senate has ratified any treaty embodying them. The drafting of the Durban agreement, in particular, appears to have been specifically with this twist of the US Constitution in mind. – C ”

H/t Mark

9.5 out of 10 based on 75 ratings