BBC BLOGS - Richard Black's Earth Watch
IN ASSOCIATION WITH
« Previous | Main | Next »

Bonn's obscured climate vision

Richard Black | 17:52 UK time, Thursday, 10 June 2010

From the UN climate talks in Bonn:

Halfway along the temporal road from Copenhagen to Cancun: is the glass half-full or half-empty?

There's been lots of chat of that kind in the corridors here.

Bonn road sign

The incoming head of the UN climate convention, Christiana Figueres, reckoned it is less than half full, but that governments would fill it up in due course - though more slowly, she acknowledged, than many countries might like.

What's clear, though, is that the glass itself is much smaller than it was before Copenhagen - a spirit measure compared against the all-encompassing stein in which you might buy a beer here.

A comprehensive, global, legally-binding deal in Cancun this December is still sought by many smaller developing countries.

But China doesn't want it - at least not on terms the West would accept - there appears to be little appetite among other major players such as Russia and Japan, and as for the US - well, it's a sign of how fast things have turned around since Barack Obama's election that some delegates are saying the US is now a bigger obstacle than it was under George W Bush.

So if not a global deal in Cancun, what then?

Two possibilities are being sketched out. One envisages some kind of over-arching framework, or vision, with all the details remaining to be worked out afterwards.

The other sees bricks being added to the wall one by one, as soon as they can be fired. A finance mechanism, a deal on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation (REDD), agreement on transferring clean technology to poor nations... etc, etc etc.

Given the comprehensive toppling of Copenhagen's grand ambition, you can see the intuitive appeal of both approaches, but that doesn't mean either will be easy.

Take the first option. Negotiations on a "shared vision" have been going on for about five years now... it still doesn't exist on paper, for the simple reason that it doesn't exist in reality - there are at least five very different visions out there in the world of where this process should lead.

And some will ask what is the need for a new vision or a new framework, given that two exist already - one from the Rio Earth Summit of 1992, one from the Bali summit of 2007. It's not time to talk but to deliver, many developing nations will argue.

Then take the second option, the brick-by-brick bottom-up construction.

There are both practical and ideological reasons why many of the poorer countries will not agree to this readily; here's one hypothetical example that shows why.

The amount of money a "climate-vulnerable" country will need to "climate-proof" itself will depend to a large extent on how far and how fast the major emitters cork their gases.

So why would you agree to a sum of money unless you know how far and how fast the developed world is going to abate its emissions?

There are many more linkages that are more subtle, more involved and more realistic, but I hope the point is clear. That's why many maintain they want the whole package on the table before they'll agree to any small bits.

Divisions that have existed for many years between the huge bloc of developing nations are becoming clearer.

IslandsFor example, the vast majority of countries here wanted a technical paper to be drawn up exploring options that society would need to adopt to limit the temperature rise since pre-industrial times to 1.5C. It's been a demand of the small island states, but the EU, Australia, Japan, US, Africa Group etc all saw no reason to object.

But four oil-producing states did - Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar and Venezuela.

Tomorrow, my bet is that at least one of these will talk of the common interests of developing countries and their brothers and sisters in the South.

And Venezuela, mind, is a member of the ALBA group that wants the temperature rise to be kept under 1C - which has always raised eyebrows, given its status as a major oil producer.

Meanwhile, the EU raised some eyebrows by failing to provide - as promised two months ago - a clear breakdown of how much money had been released under Copenhagen's "fast-start funding" pledge, and how it is being spent.

Its internal analysis, which I've seen, says that a little more than the 7.2bn euros pledged for the period 2010-12 has been committed by member states, who are the ones with the big wallets.

But only 73% of it is confirmed to be in the form of grants. So the rest is loans? It seems so - yet was that clear at Copenhagen?

Is the money "new and additional" to overseas development aid (ODA), as it's supposed to be? Some and some, it appears - the UK's line is that its contribution is ODA money, but that as its ODA spend is rising towards a target of 0.7% of GDP by 2013, it's additional each year to the level of ODA that was spent previously, so it is new and additional.

Other countries appear to have yet looser definitions of "additional".

As one veteran of many negotiations said to me here: usually as you progress through a series of negotiations, the number of outstanding issues comes down until you can really grapple with the few difficult ones.

Here, the complexity of the process appears to be mounting - a chink of clarity appears, then is swamped by another attempt on the part of some country or other to obfuscate.

Anyone, please, able to tell me I'm wrong?

Comments

or register to comment.

  • 1. At 7:19pm on 10 Jun 2010, sensiblegrannie wrote:

    How about,

    WIKI NATURE AUDIT?

    The scientists could send in their latest data and so could the population of lay scientists. There could be a problem verifying facts but at least it would get the ball rolling. Wiki is a popular place to visit already.

    Complain about this comment

  • 2. At 7:57pm on 10 Jun 2010, Brunnen_G wrote:

    I can't believe how stupid some people are.

    The countries of the developing world don't give a damn about AGW. In fact, I doubt many of their leaders even believe it. But as long as there are suckers willing to give them free money to spend on modernising their countries, what are going to do, refuse it?

    A fool and his money are soon parted. How foolish we must seem to the developing world...

    Complain about this comment

  • 3. At 8:07pm on 10 Jun 2010, ghostofsichuan wrote:

    The governments will push for ETS, it is a source of revenue and that is their primary goal. Worst thing that could happen. Deal with the causes. Any outcomes will be many out-years away, thus not being on the watch of those who make the commitments. Bad approach, bad ideas, bending over for the bankers, coal and oil. Politicians never think past the next election and where there are no elections they do whatever they want. Without China and India, none of it makes sense, but that doesn't mean they still won't push for ETS. The larger nations could care less about the small and poor nations. That is like politicians being for education and against crime..meaningless statements that sound good.
    Changes will come in each nation, driven by the purchasing of the citizens not by political posturing or so called commitments. People have much more power than they think and have been conditioned by the sycophant media to believe that nothing can change unless the governments say it can. Most people realize where their power is and the changes will occur but not because of governments. They will eventually catch up but it is always after the fact and claiming it all happens because of them. If anyone can tell where money in a government goes and if it is new money than that person can also do magic. As one often sees, when governments that cry poor have a particular problem or interest, all of a sudden, money is "found." Governments are ancient temple priest...buy their remedies and you will be cured...if you die it is because of lack of faith.

    Complain about this comment

  • 4. At 8:46pm on 10 Jun 2010, BluesBerry wrote:

    Two possibilities are being sketched out. One envisages some kind of over-arching framework, or vision, with all the details remaining to be worked out afterwards. After What? The next earthquake, flood, draught…?
    A finance mechanism, an agreement on transferring clean technology to poor nations. You mean like the way these poor nations were before western nations moved in to exploit, strip, dig, blow-up and otherwise mutilate what was perfectly viable farmland, or perfectly good fishing banks?
    I maintain that there is no real will to address climate change because the cause of climate change has not been openly established. Is it polar shift, earthcrust shift – something humankind can control or not?
    I maintain that climate change is human-made: and look what man has wrought!
    I maintain that the US is not interested because it has HAARP; as far as the climate goes the US is God.
    In my opinion, which is really no better than your own, I believe the world has the wrong problem, and the United States is willing to sit back and let everyone blame the weather. Who after all can control the weather?
    Now, can you convince me that I am wrong?
    Who has ever inspected HAARP as a WMD?

    Complain about this comment

  • 5. At 9:59pm on 10 Jun 2010, jr4412 wrote:

    Richard Black.

    "..the complexity of the process appears to be mounting - a chink of clarity appears, then is swamped by another attempt on the part of some country or other to obfuscate.
    Anyone, please, able to tell me I'm wrong?"

    shouldn't we just blame the environment instead? I mean, it simply keeps ignoring our national borders and interests... ;)

    Complain about this comment

  • 6. At 10:15pm on 10 Jun 2010, Yorkurbantree wrote:

    What a mess. To quote Idlewild: 'hope is important'.

    Re: Brunnen @2:
    "The countries of the developing world don't give a damn about AGW"
    Got a source for that?

    "I doubt many of their leaders even believe it."
    Evidence??

    "How foolish we must seem to the developing world"
    Yeah, I bet the average person in the LEDW is absolutely wetting themselves with laughter at how the wealthy west is finally getting on top of the pollution problem. But then again those 'smiling natives' in the colonies are a jolly lot...

    Complain about this comment

  • 7. At 10:35pm on 10 Jun 2010, manysummits wrote:

    To Richard Black:

    I have read your link to:

    "New UN climate chief calls for more ambition"
    By Richard Black
    Environment correspondent, BBC News, Bonn
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science_and_environment/10276225.stm

    and of course the present thread.

    And the posts above this one.

    If I read between your lines aright, and consider what Sensiblegrannie, and Ghost, and BluesBerry have to say, and add my own perspective --

    I think we are in negative territory here, i.e. smoke and mirrors -

    Cormac McCarthy's Road to Hades.


    Here is a release from Bolivia, in the Guardian - just received:

    "Rich nations could increase emissions under pledge loopholes, UN data shows"
    June 9, 2010 in Press

    "(The Guardian) Developing countries were today shocked by new UN data showing that rich nations will be able to increase their carbon emissions by up to 8% if they take advantage of a series of major loopholes in their pledges...

    The wide gap between the pledges of rich countries and what is needed was recognised today by both the new UN climate chief, Christiana Figueres, and the outgoing executive secretary, Yvo de Boer, who will leave the UN next month."

    http://pwccc.wordpress.com/2010/06/09/rich-nations-could-increase-emissions-under-pledge-loopholes-un-data-shows/#more-2147

    ================

    The political situation is extremely serious, as I see it - and thus the physical situation along with it.

    There is little point in even discussing numbers - the problem is lack of will, or outright corruption, on the part of the developed nations.

    Here is a prescient look at what I think we are facing, envisaged by Carl Sagan in 1995, two years before his untimely death:

    =========

    "We've arranged a global civilization in which most crucial elements... profoundly depend on science and technology. We have also arranged things so that almost no one understands science and technology.

    This is a prescription for disaster.

    We might get away with it for a while, but sooner or later this combustible mixture of ignorance and power is going to blow up in our faces."

    "The Demon-Haunted World," chapter 2, p.26 hardcover edition.

    =======================

    'Sooner or later' are in fact NOW.

    I guess I could cut and paste from the links I have provided, until the moderators referred me!

    So I'll just give you my summary, and any who feel masochistic can read the Bolivian/Guardian/Wordpress link:

    We, the global citizenry, must find a way to either fire most of our first world political leaders, or to use our own power (Ghostofsichuan #3) to circumvent this mad rush to planetary bifurcation territory, i.e. to an out of control climate system.

    Stupidity, ignorance, ideology - call it what you will - we are sliding,

    \\\ "almost without noticing, back into superstition and darkness." ///

    - Carl Sagan, ibid.

    Manysummits, watching in horror.


    Complain about this comment

  • 8. At 10:41pm on 10 Jun 2010, BluesBerry wrote:

    I'm not the only one HAARPING about HAARP.
    What I don't understand is why the world in general is not paying any attention. It's not like the HAARP facilities do not exist, cannot be inspected. So what's happening?
    According to the Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) signed at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro:
    "States have, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations & the principles of international law, the responsibility to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the environment of other States or of areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction."
    Thereafter came the international Convention ratified by the UN General Assembly in 1997 banning "military or other hostile use of environmental modification techniques having widespread, long-lasting or severe effects." Why would there be a Convention if the problem didn't exist?
    Both the US (HAARP) and the Soviet Union (SURA) were signatories to this Convention.
    The Convention defines "environmental modification techniques" as referring to any technique for modification - through deliberate manipulation of natural processes - the dynamics, composition or structure of the earth, including its biosphere, lithosphere, hydrosphere and atmosphere or of outer space.
    Why has the UN, disregarding the Convention as well as its own charter -subsequently gone stone-cold silent about climatic changes resulting from military programs, like HAARP and SURA?
    In February 1998, Mrs.Britt Theorin-Swedish MEP submitted a report. The European Parliament's Committee on Foreign Affairs, Security and Defense Policy held public hearings about HAARP.
    The Committee's "Motion for Resolution" submitted to the European Parliament: "Considers HAARP by virtue of its far-reaching impact on the environment to be a global concern and calls for its legal, ecological and ethical implications to be examined by an international independent body."
    With regret, guess what? The Unuted States has repeatedly rfused to cooperate.
    While I can't provide concrete evidence of HAARP having been used, scientific findings suggest that the system is up and at weather disturbances - earthquakes, droughts, floods, hurricaines...and it may even have been involved in the BP catastrophe. What this means is that HAARP could potentially be applied by the US military to selectively modify the climate of whomever it designates as "unfriendly nation" with a view to destabilizing that nation.
    In the above context, climatic manipulations under the HAARP program would inevitably exacerbate problems by weakening national economies, destroying infrastructure and potentially triggering bankruptcies.
    Surely the EU and the UN should take HAARP very seriously and investigate before it's too late. By what right does the United States get to regretfully refuse investigation/inspection?

    Complain about this comment

  • 9. At 10:53pm on 10 Jun 2010, John_from_Hendon wrote:

    #4. BluesBerry wrote:

    "I maintain that climate change is human-made"

    well, even though: I maintain that climate change is not human-made

    I share most of your conclusions about the pointlessness of these interminably meeting.

    Getting an acted upon agreement is about as likely as getting a similar agreement for the regulation of the world's banks - nearing zero. Essentially no world government = no world wide action - ever!

    Complain about this comment

  • 10. At 11:04pm on 10 Jun 2010, Brunnen_G wrote:

    @Yorkurbantree

    I don't see them refusing the money, do you?

    As to my sources, well, where are THEIR sources that AGW is happening? Do the small island nations have the scientific resources to find out for themselves? Or do they just agree with our scientists and take the free money?

    Complain about this comment

  • 11. At 11:14pm on 10 Jun 2010, CanadianRockies wrote:

    Love the photo. I'm guessing those are supposed to be the islands that are supposed to be disappearing from the rising sea levels.

    Need some new poster children.

    Complain about this comment

  • 12. At 11:43pm on 10 Jun 2010, CanadianRockies wrote:

    #6. Yorkurbantree wrote:

    "Re: Brunnen @2:
    "The countries of the developing world don't give a damn about AGW"

    Got a source for that?"

    Here's a recent American poll that puts AGW dead last:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/10/when-you-dont-like-the-poll-numbers-make-up-your-own-poll/

    This article also discusses another poll, and problems with polling methods.

    The 'rich' countries just aren't that rich anymore.

    Complain about this comment

  • 13. At 11:55pm on 10 Jun 2010, Brunnen_G wrote:

    @BluesBerry

    The only person worrying about an unclassified communication and navigation research program (that would be HAARP) are the tinfoil hat brigade who assume there is some sinister purpose behind anything they don't understand.

    And as for the USSR signing a UN treaty in 1997, I would have liked to have seen that. In fact, I would have paid money to see that.

    Oh, and can I also say how shocked I am that you can't provide any proof to support your laughable claims?

    Complain about this comment

  • 14. At 01:29am on 11 Jun 2010, manysummits wrote:

    \\\ Devolve ///

    As I see it, we are in virgin territory again - 'Territoria inesplanado'

    No one from the past can help us, nor presumably, from the future.

    That leaves us, doesn't it?

    The answer to a system that is 'too complex' -

    is probably something 'less complex.'

    We are leveraged altogether too highly to:

    1) Loans and debt.

    Declare bankruptcy - take a bank with you?

    2) Science and Technology.

    Grow a plant, maybe an edible one.

    3) Civilization.

    Simplify where possible; reduce and reuse; mostly reduce.
    And dream - let the imagination out for a change.

    And, as Ghost once said:

    'Smiling is always helpful.'

    - Manysummits -

    Complain about this comment

  • 15. At 05:32am on 11 Jun 2010, TeaPot562 wrote:

    Nice to see that BluesBerry has lost none of his/her enthusiasm for HAARP.
    Since so many of the First World governments seem to be living beyond their means, doubt that they will locate any funds they want to transfer to developing nations to offset damage from climate change.
    If HAARP was an effective means of weather control, it would enable AGW, if it progressed, to be offset w/o massive transfers of funds.
    IMO wishful thinking in both respects. No real progress seems likely.
    TeaPot562

    Complain about this comment

  • 16. At 08:04am on 11 Jun 2010, CanadianRockies wrote:

    Now for something completely different...

    "Prince Charles yesterday urged the world to follow Islamic 'spiritual principles' in order to protect the environment.

    In an hour-long speech, the heir to the throne argued that man's destruction of the world was contrary to the scriptures of all religions - but particularly those of Islam.

    He said the current 'division' between man and nature had been caused not just by industrialisation, but also by our attitude to the environment - which goes against the grain of 'sacred traditions'."


    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1285332/Follow-Islamic-way-save-world-Charles-urges-environmentalists.html#ixzz0qVedA7z5

    Is Saudi Arabia (etc.) really that green?

    Complain about this comment

  • 17. At 08:47am on 11 Jun 2010, jon112dk wrote:

    Yet more money wasted. Yet more tons of CO2 belched from jet plains. Yet another 'legally binding agreement' they will all ignore.

    Stop all the 'binding agreements' and 'targets' just start making non-fossil energy available to consumers.

    The demand is there if someone is willing to supply it.

    Complain about this comment

  • 18. At 09:03am on 11 Jun 2010, CanadianRockies wrote:

    While they talk about Global Warming at Bonn, this discussion of Global Cooling was undoubtedly more significant:

    "The 58th Bilderberg Meeting will be held in Sitges, Spain 3 - 6 June 2010. The Conference will deal mainly with Financial Reform, Security, Cyber Technology, Energy, Pakistan, Afghanistan, World Food Problem, Global Cooling, Social Networking, Medical Science, EU-US relations. Approximately 130 participants will attend of whom about two-thirds come from Europe and the balance from North America. About one-third is from government and politics, and two-thirds are from finance, industry, labor, education, and communications. The meeting is private in order to encourage frank and open discussion."

    http://www.bilderbergmeetings.org/meeting2010.html

    If you don't know who/what this group is, you don't know how the world works.



    Complain about this comment

  • 19. At 09:13am on 11 Jun 2010, David Leigh wrote:

    In reply to your article Rich countries accused of carbon 'cheating' Australia's Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, has leapt onto the world stage, urging other countries to take a stand on climate change. He has paid millions of dollars to Indonesia to prevent them logging and burning their forest and replacing them with monoculture plantations. In Tasmania, Rudd is paying to have the opposite happen. See how: http://www.awormintheaqpple.com.au

    Download the book for even more detail: http://stores.lulu.com/store.php?fAcctID=55307958

    Complain about this comment

  • 20. At 09:34am on 11 Jun 2010, MaxSceptic wrote:

    I have read that the recent eruption of Iceland's Eyjafjallajokull volcano has produced a greater amount of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than all the 'savings' made in the last decade in our costly attempts to 'combat global warming'.

    Is this correct?

    Can somebody provide authoritative figures for comparison?

    Is 'combating global warming' micturating into the wind?

    Complain about this comment

  • 21. At 10:49am on 11 Jun 2010, John_from_Hendon wrote:

    #15. TeaPot562 wrote:

    Are we to presume that your name refers to the "TeaPot Dome" scandal?

    If so on which side do you stand?

    For bribery, corruption and fraud or against it?


    !!!!

    Complain about this comment

  • 22. At 10:53am on 11 Jun 2010, John_from_Hendon wrote:

    #20. MaxSceptic wrote:

    "Eyjafjallajokull Volcano"

    I thought volcanoes generally emitted a lot of hydrogen sulphide into the high atmosphere - as I recall the faint odour was rather like taht even in the UK.

    Now don't these gasses actually depress temperatures? They are even the basis of the idea of running ships around the ocean specifically to emit such gasses to counteract 'CO2 warming'? (Which I view as bad science.)

    Complain about this comment

  • 23. At 11:00am on 11 Jun 2010, manysummits wrote:

    This comment has been referred for further consideration. Explain

  • 24. At 11:54am on 11 Jun 2010, SR wrote:

    @Maxsceptic 20

    No, this is not correct. The savings made by 60% of european flights cancelled was ALONE enough to offset the C02 from the eruption. The total of all vocanic eruptions each year amounts to about 1/150th of human emissions.

    Out of curiosity, who made that claim?

    Complain about this comment

  • 25. At 12:46pm on 11 Jun 2010, rossglory wrote:

    #2 brunnen_g

    "suckers willing to give them free money to spend on modernising their countries"

    many enlightened people call that aid. and if i were you i'd be more worried about the money disappearing down that massive hole created by the collapse of the anglo-saxon economic system than the pittence given in aid.

    Complain about this comment

  • 26. At 1:20pm on 11 Jun 2010, MaxSceptic wrote:

    John_from_Hendon @22 wrote:

    I don't know what the answer is - hence my question ;-)

    The volcano's emmissions do, however, pose a wonderful Sceptic version of 'Morton's Fork':

    If the gasses are 'greenhouse gases' - then our puny efforts at 'combating' global warming are futile

    On the other hand

    If the gases 'depress temperatures' then we need do nothing as they will counteract any AGW.

    Complain about this comment

  • 27. At 1:23pm on 11 Jun 2010, Brunnen_G wrote:

    #3 ghostofsichuan wrote: "Changes will come in each nation, driven by the purchasing of the citizens not by political posturing or so called commitments. People have much more power than they think and have been conditioned by the sycophant media to believe that nothing can change unless the governments say it can. Most people realize where their power is and the changes will occur but not because of governments. They will eventually catch up but it is always after the fact and claiming it all happens because of them."

    Change is already coming, we're just waiting for you to catch up.

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7073272.ece

    The public just isn't buying it anymore, and with polar bear numbers doing fine, islands not vanishing beneath the waves and Himalyan glaciers lasting centuries longer than the IPCC guessed, you're all our of poster children to sell the lie with.

    Complain about this comment

  • 28. At 1:52pm on 11 Jun 2010, rossglory wrote:

    #20 maxsceptic

    i'm afraid you're wrong on all counts. what figures do you want? ipcc will give you most of the figures wrt ghgs.

    it's always important to check the authority of any source of information especially on this subject.

    Complain about this comment

  • 29. At 1:58pm on 11 Jun 2010, rossglory wrote:

    i'm glad bilderberg was mentioned. if you really want to know why nothing important to us proles has progressed, there's your answer.

    check the names of attendees then have a look at who you elected representatives actually spend time with.....apart from the few months every 4 or 5 years when they're pretending our views are important.

    the presence of mandelson says it all.

    Complain about this comment

  • 30. At 2:13pm on 11 Jun 2010, MaxSceptic wrote:

    SR @24,

    Thanks (and can you please provide the source of this statistic).

    As for the source of my query: alas no. As I originally wrote, I read it 'somewhere' in passing.... Next time I'll make a note.

    Complain about this comment

  • 31. At 3:11pm on 11 Jun 2010, Barry Woods wrote:

    11. At 11:14pm on 10 Jun 2010, CanadianRockies wrote:

    Love the photo. I'm guessing those are supposed to be the islands that are supposed to be disappearing from the rising sea levels.

    I wonder if Richard gets to choose his own photo's for his articles...

    Low-lying Pacific islands 'growing not sinking'
    Thursday, 3 June 2010 7:07 UK
    BBC News, Sydney
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia_pacific/10222679.stm

    Someone tell him they are not sinking and WERE never going to...

    New Scientist can't quite bring themselves to say they are growin, merely 'changing'...

    New Scientist:
    Have a laugh at the surprised 'climate scientist' who realise the islands are NOT sinking, due the very natural process that actually created them over tens of thousands of years, where the sea level has risen a 100m since the last iceage.

    (something I learned in O level geography a quarter of a century ago )

    Who should be wondering where his next 'climate science' pay check is coming from

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20627633.700...


    the new scientist is beyond parody now:

    "Yet warnings about rising sea levels must still be taken seriously."

    ie, global warming is REAL, REAL we say.

    Very next sentences.(to justify that statement, says the opposite?!)

    "Earlier this year, people living on the low-lying Carteret Islands, part of Papua New Guinea, had to relocate. Kench says anecdotal reports that the islands have been submerged are "incorrect", saying that instead erosion has changed the shape of the islands, forcing people to move."



    Complain about this comment

  • 32. At 9:51pm on 11 Jun 2010, CanadianRockies wrote:

    #29. rossglory - Yes, they are always ahead of the curve, leaving the proles wondering what's happening. And they are talking about Global Cooling. What does that tell us?

    Complain about this comment

  • 33. At 9:56pm on 11 Jun 2010, CanadianRockies wrote:

    #31. Barry Woods - Indeed. I got a good laugh when they tried to make something out of that temporary mud island that eroded away in Bangladesh. Gee, who knew that deltas could change?

    They pulled the same trick in Alaska with some Native America village.

    In the meantime...

    http://gurumia.com/2010/04/24/bangladesh-gets-new-land-area-1790sq-km-landmass-emerges-out-of-bay/


    Complain about this comment

  • 34. At 10:09pm on 11 Jun 2010, Yorkurbantree wrote:

    Re: Canadian @ 12: I know Canadians have a national duty to downplay the significance of the USA, but to descibe them as being part of the LEDW is perhaps taking it a bit far!
    You couldn't have chosen a worse example as a countyr from the 'developing world' if you tried!

    Re: Brunnen @27:
    Bad news old chap. The latest poll reported in the press shows that about 3/4 of the British population are concerned about climate change. That despite a recession, climategate, a cold winter and the failure of Copenhagen. If I was a commited 'skeptic' then I think I would despair at that...

    Complain about this comment

  • 35. At 00:44am on 12 Jun 2010, CanadianRockies wrote:

    #34. Yorkurbantree wrote:

    "Re: Canadian @ 12: I know Canadians have a national duty to downplay the significance of the USA, but to descibe them as being part of the LEDW is perhaps taking it a bit far!"

    Sorry, I don't have a clue what you mean here? What is a LEDW?

    And being a realist, I don't downplay the significance of the USA, particularly to Canada.

    Or wait. I just reread that post. And the original point was ""The countries of the developing world don't give a damn about AGW."

    So I think I get your point. But as to that question, China and India don't, and most of the ones which do see the AGW project as a method of extorting cash from the so-called rich countries. Like the Maldives, for example. Or Indonesia. Etc.


    Complain about this comment

  • 36. At 09:04am on 12 Jun 2010, MangoChutney wrote:

    @CanadianRockies

    LEDW = less economically developed world, or third world country as we used to call them in the pre-politically correct days

    /Mango

    Complain about this comment

  • 37. At 12:39pm on 12 Jun 2010, simon-swede wrote:

    BluesBerry at #8 (and Brunnen-G at #13)

    I assume that BluesBerry is referring to the Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques (also known as the ENMOD Convention). This is a treaty prohibiting the military or other hostile use of environmental modification techniques. It opened for signature on 18 May 1977 in Geneva and entered into force on October 5, 1978. The United States and Russia are both parties, along with about 70 other countries.

    If he is referring to ENMOD then BluesBerry most definitely has got his sequence of dates wrong (apart from anything else), but he is technically right that it was the Soviet Union that ratified the treaty. (it signed in 1977 and ratified in 1978). The USSR's responsibilities were later carried over subsequently to Russia, Belarus, and the Ukraine, without any new acts of accession to ENMOD by these states.

    According to ENMOD, any State Party to ENMOD may lodge a complaint about another State Party simply by raising the matter with the Security Council (see artile V). If none has done so about HAARP suggests to me that rather unsuprisingly they don't quite see things the way BluesBerry does.

    Complain about this comment

  • 38. At 1:30pm on 12 Jun 2010, Brunnen_G wrote:

    #34 Yorkurbantree wrote:
    Re: Brunnen @27:
    Bad news old chap. The latest poll reported in the press shows that about 3/4 of the British population are concerned about climate change. That despite a recession, climategate, a cold winter and the failure of Copenhagen. If I was a commited 'skeptic' then I think I would despair at that...

    ---------------------------------------------------


    Source?

    And I'm far from despairing.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/23/british-public-belief-climate-poll

    Complain about this comment

  • 39. At 2:04pm on 12 Jun 2010, Yorkurbantree wrote:

    Re: Mango @36:
    "LEDW = less economically developed world, or third world country as we used to call them in the pre-politically correct days"

    It's got nothing to do with 'political correctness gone mad' - despite what your Daily Mail might be telling you! The concept of 1st, 2nd and 3rd (+4th) became obsolete with the fall of the Communist 'Empire' - as they were the countries making up the 2nd world.

    Complain about this comment

  • 40. At 2:32pm on 12 Jun 2010, simon-swede wrote:

    Brunnen_G at #38

    You link to a Guardian report from February. How about a more recent one - the YouGov poll carried out in the UK in May this year?

    A majority (57%) of respondents considered climate change to be happening and that action is needed. They differed on the timing and nature of the actions however - 28% of respondents considered that “radical steps must be taken NOW to prevent terrible damage being done to the planet” (the YouGov poll's emphasis, not mine) whereas 29% considered that “there is time to work out the best actions” and “we should not rush into anything that could harm our standard of living”.

    Only 33% of respondents considered that “it is not yet clear whether climate change is happening or not – scientists are divided on this issue” and there was only 7% who identified themselves with “I don’t believe that climate change is happening at all – it’s simply scare-mongering and we should ignore it”.

    Clearly no need for despair - rather a sense of optimism might be in order! A majority of the UK public wants action on climate change and the new government has indicated its intention of making progress on this!

    Complain about this comment

  • 41. At 5:39pm on 12 Jun 2010, Brunnen_G wrote:

    28% is a majority now?

    Oh, and these polls are rigged. If asked, I would agree that the climate is changing, just as it always has. However I don't see the question asking if human action is responsible for climate change.

    I wonder why that is?

    Complain about this comment

  • 42. At 5:51pm on 12 Jun 2010, Brunnen_G wrote:

    And as for the new government announcing it will make progress on climate change, how much do you want to bet that this 'progress' will in fact be more taxes?

    Complain about this comment

  • 43. At 7:14pm on 12 Jun 2010, simon-swede wrote:

    Brunnen-G at #41 wrote: "Oh, and these polls are rigged."

    And this would inclue the one you gave a link to also? (in #38)

    I don't have a problem with changes being made to taxation as part of a package of measures intended to implement an effective climate policy.



    Complain about this comment

  • 44. At 8:12pm on 12 Jun 2010, Brunnen_G wrote:

    43. At 7:14pm on 12 Jun 2010, simon-swede wrote:
    Brunnen-G at #41 wrote: "Oh, and these polls are rigged."

    And this would inclue the one you gave a link to also? (in #38)

    I don't have a problem with changes being made to taxation as part of a package of measures intended to implement an effective climate policy.

    -----------------------------------

    Yes, it would, as it didn't differentiate between natural climate change and man made.

    And I assume by "changes" in taxation you mean increases. Let's not beat around the bush here. Ecofacists have given the government the perfect tool to raid Johnny Taxpayer's wallet anytime the feel like it.

    If you complain about paying a green tax to solve a problem that doesn't exist, you're a planet murderer worse than Hitler.

    Complain about this comment

  • 45. At 00:22am on 13 Jun 2010, TeaPot562 wrote:

    @ John_from_Hendon #21:
    No, my Blog handle relates by contrast to a relative who has been "coffeecat" with added numerals as an email handle for a decade. I drink tea with breakfast 6 days out of 7.
    Interesting, though, that Teapot Dome refers to attempts circa 1922 to bribe an oil deposit out of a government preserve. When government allocates favors or distributes much wealth, many interests will compete for those favors. The larger and more powerful the government, the greater the number of lobbyists and the more opportunities for corruption.
    So I tend to favor smaller, less powerful, government.
    TeaPot562

    Complain about this comment

View these comments in RSS

BBC iD

Sign in

BBC navigation

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.