The content on this webpage contains paid/affiliate links. When you click on any of our affiliate link, we/I may get a small compensation at no cost to you. See our affiliate disclosure for more info -----------------------
Last updated on July 13th, 2017 at 01:34 pm
The UN warns:
Some of the most vulnerable countries of the world have contributed the least to climate change, but are bearing the brunt of it.
This is exactly right. New Zealand, for example, contributes just 0.2 to 0.3 per cent of total global emissions, yet is bearing the brunt of climate change cash-grabbery:
The New Zealand Treasury estimates New Zealand’s Kyoto liability currently stands at NZ$708 million …
At that rate of increase, at the end of the first Kyoto commitment period in 2012, New Zealanders will owe about NZ$4.2 billion – or about NZ$1000 per person.
Australia, too, contributes only a tiny amount (1.2 to 1.4 per cent) to global warming, but is similarly vulnerable to protocol penalties:
Australia faces high penalties for exceeding its greenhouse-gas emission targets under the Kyoto Protocol, Prime Minister-elect Kevin Rudd says …
“We are currently likely to … overshoot our Kyoto target by one per cent,” Mr Rudd told ABC Radio today.
(Via 1.618)
UPDATE. James Lileks in comments:
I was in a church basement last week for Pizza Night with 23 adults and 942345 children, most of whom were watching the television with glazed immobile faces. A commercial for an animated-penguin movie came on. The child next to me (not my own) said “all the penguins and the polar bears are going to drown to death.”
“Where did you learn that?” I asked.
“The TV said so,” she said. She shrugged and took another bite of her pizza. She had already incorporated the inevitable extinction into her worldview, along with any number of eco-clusterfraks.
Life will be a constant source of delightful surprises for these kids, I think.
“From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” Now, let’s see . . . Where have I heard that before?
- I’ll bet China, India, Indonesia (anyone remember how much forest their farmers burned a few years ago and made it impossible to see the other side of the road in KL?), all get off lightly.
After all, China destroying whole habitats and drying up rivers that flow into it’s neighbours isn’t actually “greenhouse gas”
“Bali, the “island of the Gods,” is a prime example of the beauty of our natural environment. At the same time, Indonesia has first-hand experience of the extreme weather events caused by climate change.”
Yeah? Right now it’s 28C at Denpasar (with some clouds and showers as they’re startng to go into the wet season)…pretty much the same as every other day in Bali.
Doesn’t sound too extreme to me.
Posted by Dave Surls on 2007 12 02 at 10:07 PM • permalink
“Some of the most vulnerable countries of the world have contributed the least to climate change, but are bearing the brunt of it.”
Living in a place like Bali where it’s 25-30C 365 days a year is brutal beyond belief.
People are getting blisters on their feet walking down to the beach every day.
Posted by Dave Surls on 2007 12 02 at 10:14 PM • permalink
What a coincidence, a new group of carpet baggers researchers have released a new report just in time for the confrence.
I like this bit.
“First and foremost is about the accuracy of climate models that drive scientific conclusions about the pace of global warming and, in turn, inform policymakers about how to address the problem.Also unclear are the mechanisms that have caused the widening of the tropics, says the paper. Possible factors include the ozone hole, warming of the sea’s surface and an increase in the tropopause, a boundary layer between the troposphere and the stratosphere.”
But it must be CO2 or our whole
scam model will fall apart.Posted by thefrollickingmole on 2007 12 02 at 10:18 PM • permalink
#7 we have signed it but not ratified it. Our new dear chairman Krudd promised that he would ratify it as soon as he got the keys to the Lodge. Hopefully the hiatus while they work out the legislation required for him to ratify it will give him some time to get his head around the basic economics involved. Perhaps Helen Clarke could give him a heads up (before his head goes totally up his rear end)
- #1 & 16
Here you go, from the first transcript:SARAH CLARKE: The Bali meeting comes as a new report commissioned by the Climate Institute reveals Australia can afford to enforce tough targets
It found that if emissions were reduced by 20 per cent by 2020, economic activity would increase from less than $1-trillion now to around $3-trillion by 2050. It also found that employment would increase from 9.7 million to 16.7 million by 2050
I was in a church basement last week for Pizza Night with 23 adults and 942345 children, most of whom were watching the television with glazed immobile faces. A commercial for an animated-penguin movie came on. The child next to me (not my own) said “all the penguins and the polar bears are going to drown to death.”
“Where did you learn that?” I asked.
“The TV said so,” she said. She shrugged and took another bite of her pizza. She had already incorporated the inevitable extinction into her worldview, along with any number of eco-clusterfraks.
Life will be a constant source of delightful surprises for these kids, I think.
When I was a kid I was sure that the world would be covered with polluted sludge and we’d be standing room only because of the overpopulation by this time. At least, that’s what I believed when I wasn’t sure that the earth would have been rendered a glowing radioactive coal from nuclear war. You see what the envirotards have done here: they have revived the wonder of a 1970s childhood for the kids of today. I really don’t understand why that isn’t a felony yet.
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2007 12 03 at 12:03 AM • permalink
Re #21, Andrea, this is my favorite movie from that hysterical fad, followed by this.
Oddly enough, both of them starred one of the most conservative actors EVAH, possibly excluding Ronald Reagan and John Wayne.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2007 12 03 at 12:24 AM • permalink
those predictions must be right. Surely it is based on those wonderful climate models, that can model thousands of cyclic factors and explain why the world has cooled since 1998, but we’ll all be ruined!
and they can’t with absolute certainty correctly forecast the weather next week, next month, & next year…..
we’ll all be rooned – but not by the climate.
Kevni might love to tell us the ‘real’ Kyoto ‘1% excess’ figure, until now selfishly concealed from us by the imperialist-capitalist eco-terror dogs.
But putting the blame on the Libs for THIS huge hole in the budget won’t work this time round, will it? How will he soften the electoral blow in, say, two years’ time?
Greetings and salutations fellow travelers.
Its good to see not much has changed in my absence, Osama is keeping the evil Bu$hitler away from all that nice Arab oil, the lefties still rekon the world will end if we dont turn off the power and start eating grass ‘RIGHT NOW DAMNIT!’.
Johnny is looking surprisingly young and vigorous though…
OH MY DEAR GOD! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by The_Wizard_of_WOZ on 2007 12 03 at 01:13 AM • permalink
So… what happens if we turn around to the U.N. and tell em where they can stick their Carbon Bill?
Posted by Admonkeystrator on 2007 12 03 at 01:21 AM • permalink
Sorry Sports fans, looks like our Kevvy has gone and done it. Rain of toads, killing off of firstborn and torrential weather to come.
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,22861676-5003402,00.html
So why is Rudd talking about penalties?
Because he’s a fool?
Posted by Wimpy Canadian on 2007 12 03 at 01:41 AM • permalink
I thought parliament had to be recalled to ratify Quixoto?
Posted by eeniemeenie on 2007 12 03 at 01:49 AM • permalink
#31 If Ruddles actually believes in what he does, then the man is a fool. If he doesn’t, then he’s a wanker.
Posted by Wimpy Canadian on 2007 12 03 at 01:51 AM • permalink
For all those in OZ, don’t forget to watch this tonight. 10pm on SBS.
I was listening to that report on the ABC this morning – spreading crap about how reducing emissions would increase employment and all that absolute tripe. It was full of predictions and extremely light on detail. I have a feeling they made one or two WHOPPING assumptions in that budgie cage liner.
It was just amazing timing for it to come out, right before the Bali conference which will no doubt be recommnending a 90% reduction in emmissions or something along those lines. It will be interesting to see what China will be agreeing to.
Heres a nice selection of “solutions” from the gruinaid, Here.
Kofi Annan: “Funding must be a part of any serious solution to the climate change predicament we face.”
Translation: “Funding, to me in a brown paper bag, or just give my son a cushy job”David Bellamy: “The green renaissance is in your hands, please be part of it!”
Translation: “Its not green, but it IS in your hands”Giovanni Bisignani:”The breakthrough I want to see is a plane that does not pollute – reducing aviation’s 2% share of carbon emissions to zero.”
Translation: “Then the magical pink unicorn will appear and lollypop trees and…”Richard Branson: “The next five years of carbon emissions from burning rainforests will alone be greater than all the emissions from air travel since the Wright brothers first flight in 1903 until at least 2025.”
Translation: “Crap I own a low cost airline, whos more on the nose than me?”Brian Eno: “I think the most important thing we could do to deal with climate change is to change our voting systems. Right now, many people who care about climate change don’t dare to vote for the parties who have shown a willingness to deal with it: in particular the Greens and the Liberal Democrats.”
Translation: “I vote for minority rule”Mayer Hillman: “The equitable allocation of carbon emissions across the world’s population and its application through mandatory tradable personal carbon rationing is the only realistic way forward.”
Translation: “For all you plebs anyway”George Monbiot: “There should be an equal allocation, worldwide, of the right to produce carbon dioxide. Our rations can be tradeable – people may use more than their share if they are prepared to buy it – but the revenue should be returned to those who use less.”
Translation: “Fuck knows they wont be able to do anything with the money cos the costs added onto EVERYTHIING you purchase will kill many, many millions”There are a heap of others, but ill just cut and paste the “resumes” of the contributors to see if any of them have a vested interest or money making angle to AGW.
Kofi Annan was the seventh secretary-general of the United Nations
Professor David Bellamy is a botanist, broadcaster and campaigner
Giovanni Bisignani is director general of the International Air Transport Association
Richard Branson is the chairman of Virgin Group
Brian Eno is a musician and campaigner
Leon Fuerth is former national security adviser to Vice President Al Gore
Dr Paul Golby is chief executive of E.ON UK
Zac Goldsmith is a Conservative candidate and environmental adviser to the party
Dr Mayer Hillman is senior fellow emeritus at the Policy Studies Institute and author of How We Can Save the Planet
Isabel Hilton is editor of Chinadialogue and OpenDemocracy
Jeremy Leggett is chairman of Solar-century and author of The Carbon War
Mark Lynas is the author of Six Degrees: Our Future on a Hotter Planet
Frank Loy was US under secretary of state for global affairs and chief climate negotiator from 1998 to 2001
Dr Wangari Maathai is a Kenyan environmental activist and Nobel Peace laureate
George Marshall is the author of Carbon Detox and blogs at Climatedenial.org
George Monbiot is the author of Heat: How We Can Stop the Planet Burning
Dr RK Pachauri is chairman of the Nobel peace prize winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Jonathon Porritt is chairman of the UK sustainable development commission and founder director of Forum for the Future
Jeremy Rifkin is an adviser on climate changet to the EU commission
Joseph Romm is senior fellow at the Centre for American Progress and editor of ClimateProgress.org
Sir Nicholas Stern is adviser to the British government on the economics of climate change and development
Whatever you do dont read the comments, the bong fumes will give you a chronic case of the munchies..
Posted by thefrollickingmole on 2007 12 03 at 02:17 AM • permalink
I’m quoting from Andrew Bolt.
By the way, how the bloody hell are you???
Long time no see.
Mole, you forgot her in your list.
Posted by dean martin on 2007 12 03 at 02:35 AM • permalink
#41 Of the list of “contributors”, how many of them flew of Bali by private jet?
How many decided to reduce their carbon footprint by staying in the cold Northern Hemisphere and teleconferencing into the conference, rather than flying thousands of kilometers to Bali?
(I have my suspicions about the first question – I already know the answer to the second.)
32 – in the end, labor got 650,000 more votes than the coalition. So next election, we need 330,000 to come to their senses. It appears the swing will need to be at or less than 3%. That is not much and usually represents the typical anti-govt swing on in any election, all things being equal. Rudd has 3 years – then he faces the music.
#29, Ann: I second the motion! After all we are saving the world, and in a socialist utopia <snigger> there will be no need for money.
Its a Win Win!
#32, Yojimbo; not too late just uber pointless. This was the first fed election since I turned 18 that i havent worked for “a major political party starting with L” doing polling. Despite this, even in Kununurra some 3200km from Perth, everyone knew it was a done deal. Teflon should have bailed 12-18 months ago.
A bit O/T: I have a fair bit in the bank, a small amount of super and no debts. Aint I better off with high interest rates? Just a thought
Posted by The_Wizard_of_WOZ on 2007 12 03 at 03:32 AM • permalink
- Let’s get things into perspective. This is a big playacting kiddies game where the words “treaty” and “penalties” etc are thrown around without the encumbrance of meaning.
When they say “we might be penalized” believe me they don’t have anything in mind so severe that they would lose the following election.Posted by ooh honey honey on 2007 12 03 at 04:51 AM • permalink
- #39 Brett
Rudd has signed, but so did Clinton. The signing means nothing. It’s the details of the ratification process that matters.
As usual there has been more misinformation than information published on this whole Kyoto business.
When I checked the Government greenhouse website on 26 Nov, it had this to say:Australia signed the Kyoto Protocol in 1998. By signing the Protocol, countries agree to continue with the treaty-making process, but do not consent to be bound by the Protocol. The rules for implementing the Protocol were developed following COP 3, with negotiation concluded at COP 7 in Marrakesh, November 2001. After entry into force on 16 February 2005, the Protocol will be legally binding for countries that have ratified it (referred to as ‘Parties to the Kyoto Protocol’).
The Government has decided not to ratify the Kyoto Protocol because, while it has some positive elements, it does not provide a comprehensive or environmentally effective long-term response to climate change. There is no clear pathway for action by developing countries, and the United States has indicated that it will not ratify. Without commitments by all major emitters, the Protocol will deliver only about a 1% reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions.
The Government is committed to Australia’s internationally agreed target of limiting emissions to 108% of 1990 levels between 2008 and 2012. Due to strong action by the Australian Government, including around $1.8 billion domestic climate change programme, Australia is on track to meet this target.
I have just checked that website and it now has this to say.
- Brett, I would like to add my thanks to those posted above for the work you did on The Great Global Warming Swindle.
I sent out 15 copies to people who accepted my offer of a free copy. Two moonbats declined my offer, preferring the “scientific consensus” to be their guide. You will be pleased to hear that one copy I sent to a friend in WA was forwarded by him to his Federal member, a Lib known for his plain speaking.
According to ABC news radio, the manky little bastard ratified today. Now, I think that was a bit of orgasmic hysteria in the ranks (and I do mean rank) of the Australian Bolshevik Collective.
As far as I understand this would still have to be assented to, as they gushed on about it being in effect in March – at which time our bill will be $1.5-$1.8 BILLION DOLLARS.
If this is so, the very first act of the Kruddster and his Komical Kommie Komrades is to hand the best part of $2 Bn over to Russia and the UN for…. nothing.
Here, have some free cash, Russian mafia and authoritarians, and corruptionist UN vermin. The good old Aussie taxpayer will not mind! And surely this is a small price to pay so that KKKK can have a slobbering headline in Green Socialist Weekly. I cannot wait for the next ABC interview with Bob the Bandit on this matter, where we will find out if a certain ABC interviewer swallows live on air.
Nearly $2Bn! Ye Gods.
MarkL
Canberra
Just follow the money. Who is profiting … wait, “profit” is an honorable word denoting honest trade. Who is gathering the loot and what is being done with it? Al Gore has a special interest besides his carbon credit scam. He also has invested heavily in “green” tech, which is backed by government force. We can see one of the first steps in the latest government demand that auto manufacturers once again up MPG in new cars. There will be many more such demands to follow, this besides the enormous amount of money handed out in grants.
When you have created nothing innovative with which to compete, nothing pays like the government gun at the head of your competitors, justified by those whose rice bowl is filled out of the government coffers.
- Just to fill out the fairy tale, it must be borne in mind that “legally binding” is also twaddle when it refers to agreements between sovereign states. It means something they agree to do until they don’t want to anymore.
As opposed to “legally binding” according to the laws of a sovereign state, which to varying degrees represent the behavioural constraints desired by the people governed by them, and which if broken, will actually see you bound by the apparatus of the state.
“International law” is an oxymoronic communist wet dream.Posted by ooh honey honey on 2007 12 03 at 06:38 AM • permalink
Read through that climate institute report – what a load of bunkum. They ASSUME that carbon capture technology will work and then project that total coal, gas and oil power generation will be over 75% by the year 2050! Unbelievable! Oh but of course we can buy some carbon credit crumbs from Gore’s table to offset the remainder no doubt….
There should be an equal allocation, worldwide, of the right to produce carbon dioxide.
Oh, dear, God. They just never give up, do they? This has nothing to do with the environment, it’s purely about controlling the Rest of Us.
Jeremy Rifkin is an adviser on climate change to the EU commission
AFAICR, Rifkin is also a Luddite sans peur.
So, tell me, where on all these commissions and study groups and committees are the people who believe humanity has the right to exist, that economic activity is good, that they haven’t the right to control the lives of others? Surely there must be someone who fits that bill.
And if not, what does that tell us about the whole climate change farce?
Posted by Rob Crawford on 2007 12 03 at 08:38 AM • permalink
“So, tell me, where on all these commissions and study groups and committees are the people who believe humanity has the right to exist, that economic activity is good, that they haven’t the right to control the lives of others?”
Well, we voted against your backward thinking on November 24 and we now march forward into glorious Something Else.
Funny how every time advanced countries sit down to negotiate with Third Worldies, the former always end up missing their wallets.
At least the Soviets would just lie and cheat on arms treaties. They never insisted that you pay them for their trouble, as the Norks and Iranians do.
Posted by Rittenhouse on 2007 12 03 at 11:18 AM • permalink
“There should be an equal allocation, worldwide, of the right to produce carbon dioxide.”
Am I missing something, or is this clown admitting that we have a “right” to exhale? Subject to some sort of global authority, of course?
Posted by Steve Skubinna on 2007 12 03 at 01:15 PM • permalink
Gee whiz, it is me, or does it seem like whenever Lileks makes a comment, no matter how short, it goes immediately to the front page? I mean to say, he could simply write that he had fruit salad for lunch and Tim would add an UPDATE!!! informing us of it.
Same goes for Iowahawk. (curls index fingers)
Posted by wronwright on 2007 12 03 at 03:25 PM • permalink
JOHN CONNOR: These negotiations are going to have some real sparkle, particularly with the Australia sending now a strong delegation of four of its most senior ministers: the Prime Minister, the Treasurer, Penny Wong, the now Climate Change Minister, and Peter Garrett the Environment Minister.
The rest of the world is looking forward to this change from Australia and of course it leaves the US now in a far more isolated position.
Jeebus, these guys are positively orgasmic. Well, sparkle away, Oz. With any luck, we’ll remain every bit as isolated as we are now. It doesn’t matter which Republican or which Democrat gets elected president. Kyoto won’t be ratified and neither will any other international climate agreement premised on bringing down the US economy.
#18–It found that if emissions were reduced by 20 per cent by 2020, economic activity would increase from less than $1-trillion now to around $3-trillion by 2050. It also found that employment would increase from 9.7 million to 16.7 million by 2050.
Does the report explain how economic activity increases two-fold by this 20% reduction? Or where all these new jobs come from? And are those estimates net of the economic losses that are sure to occur and the massive lay-offs that accompany such losses?
Posted by Kyda Sylvester on 2007 12 03 at 04:27 PM • permalink
Australia sending now a strong delegation of four of its most senior ministers: the Prime Minister, the Treasurer, Penny Wong, the now Climate Change Minister, and Peter Garrett the Environment Minister.
Senior ministers?
RAOTFLMAO.
Senior in rank only. They’ve only been at it for a WEEK. Sheesh. And I’m pretty sure they have no idea what they are doing.JAJ = Just Another Junket
We’re all doomed… Chinese eating more meat.
We’ll miss our target by 1%, says Rudd. So what did that Kyoto publicity stunt yesterday cost Australia? $1bn, $10bn, $100bn? Old Europe will love to see the Australian economy bankrupted. It’s a French thing that is all the rage in Europe – progress should be relative. You can have progress by making everyone richer or you can have progress by making everyone else poorer. Kyoto was always a European instrument to bring about the latter, which is why Howard and Bush shunned it.
Life will be a constant source of delightful surprises for these kids, I think
It could certainly be embarrassing when they’re looking at penguins and polar bears with their grandchildren. “Well they were all supposed to have disappeared by now… I don’t know what happened, dear.”
Posted by SwinishCapitalist on 2007 12 03 at 08:43 PM • permalink
That evil demonic TV, left-wing tool of deceit; puppet to the vast crypto-eco conspiracy. Man, is it getting hot in this here bunker mentality? The blowharding is stifling.
Posted by Miranda Divide on 2007 12 03 at 10:28 PM • permalink
Australia sending now a strong delegation of four of its most senior ministers: the Prime Minister, the Treasurer, Penny Wong, the now Climate Change Minister, and Peter Garrett the Environment Minister.
Understand from the national media that trade minister Simon Crean is supposed to be on his way to Bali too but maybe he is only going for the surfing. He and treasurer Swan are travelling separately to Rudd, Wong and Garrett, or so the papers say. More jets, better chance of warm weather on the beach.
Bali again reveals the hypocrisy of the global warming scam. Two weeks of parties and dinners and droning speakers in what is a a far flung corner of the world for 90% of delegates is supposed to be saving the planet?
Say it very time – when those who are marketing global warming start walking the walk instead of talking the talk, I might believe them.
Wron, did you lift Moronda’s rock again? Our pet troll is not supposed to be let out to cavort for our amusement until Saturday!
You KNOW it suffers brain damage when let up from under its rock early, and the poor thing only has enough synapses to form one neuron.
I mean, just look at that comment above. Pitiful even by gazaaa’s standards.
So let our pet gets its rest. It needs it. And an arts grant.
MarkL
Canberra
“That evil demonic TV, left-wing tool of deceit; puppet to the vast crypto-eco conspiracy.”
I’m with you till there Miranda my man.
“Man, is it getting hot”
No, that is my raw, animal sex appeal.
“ in this here bunker mentality?”
The only thing I love more than a bunker is a bunker with lots of guns and a metric tonne of assorted ammo.
“The blowharding is stifling.”
I cannot think of any sexual innuendo with which to mock this statement.
Lileks is the Johnny Carson of bloggers. He and Tim have the kind of relationship that enables one to barge in on the other’s production—as Dean Martin used to do on The Tonight Show—without regard for who gets upstaged, and the audience loves it, thinking they’re in on something rare and special.
I know I have that backward, but you get the point.
Posted by Rittenhouse on 2007 12 04 at 08:48 AM • permalink
- “Lileks is the Johnny Carson of bloggers.”
Nah … Mr Rogers.CheersPosted by J.M. Heinrichs on 2007 12 04 at 04:05 PM • permalink
But, but but … I heard it on the ABC this morning that a really good new study sponsored by some interest group with a really impressive, nice name like Climate Institute says we’ll actually be ahead economically. Now the ABC wouldn’t lie to us, would they …?