| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Environment Forum » Report from COP-9 (catch up)
Page 1 of 1
|
| Author |
Message |
| Dr. Convection |
 Posted: Sat Dec 20, 2003 10:26 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
From:
http://www.globalwarming.org/cop9/cop9e.htm
Report from COP-9
December 12, 2003
By Myron Ebell
Milan -- The last day is devoted mostly to "Plenary Roundtables," which
slight previous experience has taught me are tedious beyond bearing, but I
had to miss them anyway to catch my plane out of Milan. Luckily, I've saved
up bits and pieces on the big topic of COP-9. Whither Kyoto? What do we do
now? Or what do we do next? A number of side events, and the best ones in my
view, were on these most interesting questions. The wheels may have come off
the Kyoto bandwagon, but there has been quick agreement behind the scenes on
one conclusion: whether the Kyoto Protocol goes into force or not, let all
proclaim to every people in every land that it has already succeeded. The
world has been set by Kyoto on an inevitable course of energy deprivation.
Beyond that, there's not much agreement. Oh, there's one more thing that
everyone from so-called developing countries agrees on. Developing countries
are eager to join the second round of commitments after 2012. By that they
mean that they are eager to receive money from rich countries. Not economic
growth, but cash transfers to governments. The Kyoto round has been
disappointing in terms of wealth re-distribution, but hopes remain for the
future among officials from poor countries.
I don't have the attention span necessary to recount and analyze all the
proposals and suggestions I've heard over the last few days, but they fall
into three broad categories. First, there are those who think that targets
and timetables have a future in a second round of commitments and beyond.
With the U. S. out, Australia out, Russia probably out, Japan with no way to
meet its target, the EU failing to meet its targets, and no enforcement
mechanism in the protocol, this is not a very robust camp at the moment. But
it is still the official line, at least until such time as a new official
line is agreed upon.
Second, there are those who are advocating an a la carte approach after
2012. Put a number of approaches on a menu, including targets and
timetables, technology-forcing projects, voluntary commitments, and
technology and financial transfers to poor countries. Then let each nation
choose some of these and call whatever results compliance. This approach to
Kyoto round two gets around the problem that no one is doing much to meet
their commitments, besides creating a lot of offices and programs and
institutes. It sounds rather a poor thing right now, but no doubt the clever
people at places like the Pew Center on Climate Change (which I must remind
everyone is an industry-front group funded by the Pew family's fortune
derived from owning the Sun Oil Company) can work it up into something most
impressive. It's too bad that Enron is no longer the leading business member
of the Pew Center because conjuring grand appearances out of thin (or
perhaps I should say hot) air was Enron's specialty.
The third approach is to decide that every person on the Earth has a right
to emit the same amount of greenhouse gases. So the way to do it is to
assign everyone an equal emissions quota. If people in America or France
want to use more energy, then they will have to buy quotas from people who
wish to live a more authentic way of life-that is, from poor people in poor
countries. The kicker to this truly zany idea is that the emissions quota to
which each person has a right will keep going down until it's at the level
of a poor person in a poor country. Then those who wish to use more energy
will be out of luck. No more quotas to buy! Everyone will then be blessed
with an authentic lifestyle and get to go to sleep when the sun goes down.
This so-called "contraction and convergence" approach appeals to both
unreconstructed communists and to human rights absolutists. It has a certain
moral force for those lost souls who have completely lost their bearings in
the world. So it ought to be the winner in these darkening times. Alas,
contraction and convergence has some practical problems that will confine
its popularity to the chattering classes. The individual emissions quotas
would be too small to make it worthwhile for each person to buy and sell-the
problem of high transaction costs. Thus the quotas will have to be bundled
up and sold by larger entities, such as nations. France may want to buy
emissions quotas from, say, the tyrant Mugabe, but I just don't see Lori
Wallach at Public Citizen allowing such unethical trade. There is a more
fundamental practical problem. People in poor countries won't tolerate it.
They want to become wealthier and therefore to use more energy. They won't
agree to living forever in an artificially energy-poor world.
I've said that the wheels have come off the Kyoto bandwagon. Don't conclude
therefore that Kyoto is dead and the sun is shining again. Kyoto is dying
and will almost certainly die. But the Rio Treaty-the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change-lives on and is really the problem.
Rio is a noose around our necks, and Rio created the process that is
beginning to tighten that noose. The global warming establishment has become
overwhelming in its size and resources and ambitions. There are hundreds of
NGOs, hundreds of institutes and university programs, and hundreds of
government agencies that are spending billions of dollars to figure out how
to make tomorrow poorer and darker than today. Rio is the noose, and we must
figure out how to cut the rope.
[My apologies for the delay in sending these reports.]
From:
http://www.globalwarming.org/cop9/cop9d.htm
Report from COP-9
December 11, 2003
By Myron Ebell
Milan -- R. K. Pachauri, chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change, addressed the key question in the Framework Convention on Climate
Change, namely what level of greenhouse gas concentrations constitutes
"dangerous interference" with the climate system. That's what the Rio Treaty
and its Kyoto Protocol are supposed to prevent, so it's an important
question to answer. I don't have Pachauri's text in front of me, but his
answer seems to be that whatever feels dangerous to us is dangerous for us.
To put it less flippantly, because it is a legitimate point, each region and
country will be affected in different ways by global warming; therefore what
level is considered to reach dangerous interference will vary according to
these effects. Of course, Pachauri didn't mention that large parts of the
world will find many of the effects beneficial.
While each of us may think that it us up to us to make a personal decision
about what is dangerous interference with the climate system for us, it
turns out that the environmentalists have already decided for us. I've heard
this at several side events from several NGOs and government research
institutes. "Dangerous interference" is whatever level of greenhouse gas
concentrations in the atmosphere will lead to a two degrees Celsius warming.
So now you know. Since two degrees Celsius is near the low end of the
predictions for 2100 in the IPCC's Third Assessment Report, this means that
the alarmists can now define whatever predictions the next IPCC report comes
up with as all being beyond the level of "dangerous interference." It's a
pretty neat trick, especially since most of the ecologists and economists
who've studied it, such as are found in the two volumes of essays edited by
Robert Mendelsohn, predict that a two degree warming will be beneficial on
the whole for humankind.
The International Policy Network held a press conference this afternoon to
launch their new book, edited by Kendra Okonski of IPN, and formerly my
colleague at CEI. Adapt or Die: the science, politics, and economics of
climate change is a rather unfortunately-titled collection of essays on
themes subversive of the Kyoto orthodoxy. Kendra, Julian Morris of IPN, Paul
Reiter of the Pasteur Institut, Martin Agerup from a Danish futurist think
tank, and Andrew Kenny from South Africa's University of Cape Town all said
sensible things in a low-key way. Paul Reiter mentioned that on the subject
of vector-borne diseases, the IPCC had managed to conjure up a case for
global warming leading to more malaria, dengue fever, etc. by relying on
people who didn't know anything about the causes of the spread of
vector-borne diseases. He said that six "experts" on the Third Assessment
Report had published nine scholarly articles on the subject between them,
while his group of three experts who were not consulted had published 635
scholarly articles (forgive me, Paul, if I haven't gotten the numbers
exactly right). The response was long counter-speeches from the floor by the
usual assortment of professional bores who populate these meetings.
The official ministerial meeting has produced one agreement--on how to count
carbon sinks toward meeting Kyoto targets. It's complicated and I don't know
all the details, but I do know that the environmentalists have been defeated
or partially defeated on one key issue. The environmentalists insisted that
one environmental catastrophe, namely global warming, not be used to
precipitate another environmental catastrophe. Thus they opposed allowing
genetically-modified organisms to be used as carbon sinks. In the end, the
conference of the parties agreed that each nation could follow its own laws
on GMOs. So get ready for a big fundraising campaign against Frankentrees.
[My apologies for the delay in sending these reports.]
From:
http://www.globalwarming.org/cop9/cop9c.htm
Report from COP-9
December 10, 2003
By Myron Ebell
Milan -- This year's COP is a subdued affair, with little on the official
agenda besides endless technical discussions about exactly how best to make
the world a darker and poorer place. There is also considerable gloom and
frustration among the delegates and NGOs caused by the dysfunctional
negotiating process, by the real possibility that Russia won't ratify the
Kyoto Protocol, thereby preventing it from coming into force, and by the
presentation last week by Margot Wallstrom, the EU's commissioner for the
environment. According to Wallstrom, only two of the EU's fifteen member
provinces (the United Kingdom and Sweden) are on a path to meet their Kyoto
targets. This may cause only a few mild expressions of regret in Berlin and
Paris, because after all the protocol no longer contains any enforcement
provisions, but risking the wrath of Wallstrom will cause some sleepless
nights in at least the lesser capital cities of Europe.
Today, however, there was at least one political spark to liven up the
dreary routine. Within a couple hours after arriving with the U. S.
congressional delegation on an overnight military flight from Washington,
Senator James Inhofe was giving the kind of speech that just isn't given at
polite diplomatic functions. For forty-five minutes, the Chairman of the
Senate Environment and Public Works Committee laid out the case against
global warming alarmism and the Kyoto Protocol to a packed briefing room. It
was a shorter version of the memorable speech he gave on the Senate floor
last July. He even brought along thirty or so of the charts and quotations
blown up on large styrofoam poster boards that he had used on the Senate
floor. Or, rather, I should say that a loyal staff member, Aloysius Hogan,
lugged them on the trip and had just about enough energy left to hold them
up while Senator Inhofe was speaking.
The U. S. congressional delegation also included senators Larry Craig, Jeff
Sessions, and Craig Thomas and Representatives Fred Upton and Chris Cannon.
Representatives Jim Greenwood and Chris Shays came on the same plane, but
for some reason didn't participate in the briefing. Afterwards, Senator
Larry Craig confided that he really wanted to win one of the coveted Fossil
of the Day awards, but that he didn't know what he could say to top Inhofe.
The U. S. delegation has won a lion's share of this year's Fossil of the
Days.
The National Environmental Trust (a group which has little do to with the
environment and nothing at all to do with trust) responded with a multi-page
press release with photos of the leading climate criminals-Inhofe, Craig,
and Thomas-on the front. Large posters with a color photo of Inhofe and a
quote from his Senate floor speech (Global warming is the "greatest hoax
ever perpetrated on the American people") appeared up and down the halls.
Clearly, the alarmists know who their principal opponent is. Most of these
posters were quickly torn down by someone who didn't want to give Inhofe any
free publicity, but I managed to save one and plan to bring it back to
Washington.
That was the big excitement for today and possibly for the whole week at
COP-9. It's a sad sign of the low level of activity that the big event for
WWF and Greenpeace was the launch of--get this--the International Climate
Symbol. It's a blue and green Earth with a candle burning on top and white
wax dripping down the side. I got one of the pathetic little pins and also a
pamphlet about how NGOs, businesses, and individuals can sign up to use it
on their stationery and products. You can sign the climate loyalty oath
online at www.saveourclimate.org and thereby qualify to use the symbol.
[My apologies for the delay in sending these reports.] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
Page 1 of 1
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Fri Oct 10, 2008 7:55 pm
|
|