Monday, December 21, 2009
You have been called to positions of responsibility at this critical time. The eyes of the world are upon you and it is no understatement to say that, with your signatures, you can write our future ...& previously that "Climate change should be seen as the greatest challenge to face man and treated as a much bigger priority in the United Kingdom."
One final thought ... As our planet's life-support system begins to fail and our very survival as a species is brought into question, remember that our children and grandchildren will ask not what our generation said, but what it did. Let us give an answer, then, of which we can be proud.
So in doing nothing the summit has now allowed the global eco-system to fail, ensured catastrophic warming & we are all now doomed.
I think Charles' assessment is wrong. This on the other hand, is right.
James Delingport says
we won the battle, but at Copenhagen we just lost the war
...But if we think the events of the last fortnight marked a triumph for commonsense over hair shirt green lunacy, we are sadly deluding ourselves. Copenhagen was never about winning or losing a scientific argument. And it wasn’t, as even green campaigners have begun belatedly to realise, about “saving” the environment either....it was a trough-fest at which all the world’s greediest pigs gathered to gobble up as much of your money and my money as they possibly could, under the righteous-sounding pretence that they were saving the planet.
This nauseating piggery took two forms. First were the Third World kleptocracies – led by the likes of Hugo Chavez and Robert Mugabe – using “Global Warming” as an excuse to extort guilt-money from the Western nations.
Second, and much more dangerous, were the First World Corporatists who stand to make trillions of dollars using the Enron economics of carbon trading. Never mind all the talk of President Obama’s trifling $100 billion pledge. This is very small beer compared with the truly eye-watering sums that will be ransacked from our economies and our wallets over the next decades in the name of “carbon emissions reduction.”
Richard North has spotted this, even if virtually nobody else has. The key point, he notes, is the Copenhagen negotiators’ little-publicised decision to save the Kyoto Protocol. This matters because it was at Kyoto that the mechanisms for establishing a global carbon market were established. Carbon trading could not possibly exist without some form of agreement between all the world’s governments on emissions: the market would simply collapse. By keeping Kyoto alive, the sinister troughers of global corporatism have also kept their cash cow alive.
As North says
This is nothing to do with the headline billions and all the rest. Nope, the deal is that the Kyoto Protocol is saved – which is what all the fuss was really about. That safeguards the carbon market and opens the way for it to expand to the $2-trillion level by the year 2020. Against that, even €100 billion is chump-change – you can buy countries with that sort of money.
The third view derived from the New York Post is that the eco-bureaucracy did indeed fail. Indeed that what we have seen is not merely the EU being dealt out of the game by a US-China deal supported by India, as our media has reported it but a China-India-Brazil deal to which the US was allowed to append its signature.
Obama and his team were prepared to give up hope for a broad deal after hearing that leaders of India, Brazil and other key nations -- along with much of the entire Chinese delegation -- had already left for the airport.By signing up to this Obama had got a piece of paper that allowed him to hurry home before the Washington blizzards stopped the world's saviour from catastrophic warming from landing.
But that wasn't the case.
Instead, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao insultingly skipped a high-level meeting in the morning, leaving Obama and other world leaders negotiating with a lower-level government official.
Wen later attend a meeting with President Lula de Silva of Brazil as well as the leaders of India and South Africa. Obama decided he wanted to go, and was forced to barge into the meeting.
"Mr. Premier, are you ready to see me? Are you ready?" the exasperated Obama inquired loudly from the conference-room door, in front of the press and other world leaders who had already gathered.
"We can't get into the room to look at it," explained one of the advance officials. "They're all having a meeting."
There wasn't even a seat for Obama.
"The president walks in and by the time I finally push through I hear the president say, 'There aren't any seats,' " explained one of the officials. "And the president says, 'No, no, don't worry, I'm going to go sit by my friend Lula,' and says, 'Hey, Lula,' " the advance official said.
But what this means is that we have a "new world order" of the world's fastest growing countries, none of which were in the old G7/8 to whom the EU is irrelevant & the US only on sufferance.
So which of the 3 interpretations is right. Well if you accept catastrophic warming is a real problem then all 3. If you don't & I don't, then the last 2, though diametrically opposed, are both right. The countries committed to & losing from carbon trading (ie the developed ones excluding Russia whose post USSR collapse still means they are sellers of the credits)(ie the EU & Japan) have continued to saddle ourselves with this $ trillion fraud & that the world has indeed moved on.
So long as the EU states continue to saddle ourselves our economic decline will conninue & thus so will our political decline. Scotland, with our Parliament's unanimous & clinically insane decision to cut off half our electricty production in the next 11 (days from 10) years, gloriously in the lead in the race over the precipice..
So you can kinda see why they are so keen on it.
I had not seen the Scots parliament decision, but no doubt it is done only after alternate energy sources are in place and producing thus ensuring no energy gap to take you back to a pre-industrial state. 'cos that would be just stupid ya'know....