Kennedy Graham
A global climate policy – thoughts for Xmas

These past five weeks, I have visited Europe studying climate policy.  I attended the UN’s 19th climate conference, UNFCCC COP-19, in Warsaw.  After Poland, I visited Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, United Kingdom and European Union (Brussels).  And I retraced my UN steps to the Middle East (Jordan) and spoke with leaders there as well.

Humanity, it is quite clear, faces a global ecological crisis – breaching four of the nine planetary boundaries for a safe operating space of which climate change is but one.

The scientists are telling us this, but because the idea is abstract and unprecedented, and because its impact is only just beginning to show, we have not brought ourselves to declare this formally.  Nor do we have any evolved institutional capability to actually declare it, anyway, let alone effectively react with common purpose.

The international negotiations that are the UNFCCC reflect a well-intentioned effort of the 18th to 20th-century Westphalian system to solve a 21st global problem.  If we had 50 to 100 years for the negotiations to run their course, we might get there.  But the scientists say we have 5 years for global emissions to peak if we are to avoid dangerous climate change.  At present our global emissions continue to rise, and a global agreement to begin to curb them will not take effect until seven years form now, at the earliest.   We are on track to 2.5º C to 4.5º C. That is a statistical recipe for global disaster.

The only recourse is to look for global executive action to supplement the wallowing international negotiations.  As noted in previous blog-posts, the Security Council is the only body, however flawed, with existing legal capacity and institutional capability to undertake global executive action.

The Council can be used, with innovative leadership at the UN, in ways that could prove effective: G-20 countries informally attending on a continuing basis, subsidiary bodies reporting in on the basis of scientific finding and economic planning, the Secretary-General appointing an eminent panel to guide him in his own reporting to the Council with proposals for action; restraint on the part of the major powers in identifying their national interests as they exercise their primary responsibility for peace on behalf of all member states, under the Charter.

But what might the UN Security Council do?

Three things, perhaps: based on the advice of the experts and an eminent panel, it could:

Carbon Budget:

-    Declare a global carbon budget (GCB);

-    Declare national emission ranges (‘bounded flexibility’) for all member states, for 2015-50,  with based on an ‘equity reference framework’ (ERF);

Carbon Price:

-    Require, acting under binding powers of Chapter VII, members states to legislate a carbon price for its carbon economy within a range that reflects the ERF.

Some work has already gone into these ideas, within research institutes around the world.

-    A GCB now exists within the research institute world.  There is some haggling, which is a good sign – contestability is alive and well.  But the concept is robust now, in 2013 – a budget appeared in IPPC’s AR-5 Working Group I report (September).  Expect more of it from Working Group III in 2014.

-    An Equity Reference Framework is already developed (by Climate Analytics) with principles and (four sets of) criteria; this would clearly be the toughest part of negotiation, but among perhaps 20 states rather than 155. The most vulnerable states (AOSIS) can be heard by the Council, under the Charter.

-    A carbon price would perhaps start at US$30/tonne in 2015 (range US$10 to US$50), and progressively increase (the IPCC’s AR-4 identified US$50 to $100 by 2050, in 2007). Countries would be positioned, by Council decision, within that range according to the agreed ERF.  It would be left to members states to determine what national measures they employ (regulation, governmental action, taxation or levy, market trading).  A Monitoring Committee of the Council could assist.  The Green Climate Fund would need to be more than a phrase; fully funded to help in the transformation to a global carbon-neutral economy.

Such a ‘top-down’ approach is not in vogue within UNFCCC circles, which has effectively discarded the idea of global budgeting as too difficult and, post-Doha/Warsaw, is going for bottom-up flexibility with voluntary contributions.

But that is the point.  It is too difficult.  It is too difficult for the UNFCCC. It is too difficult for a 195-magnitude cacophony.  But if the UN Security Council, complemented by the G-20 with considerable overlap, focuses with a sense of purpose, it could be done.

With some irony, it may be easier for such work to enter the inner political-diplomatic sanctum via the Security Council than through the UNFCCC process.

The Secretary-General is convening his UN Climate Summit in September ’14.  Maybe that’s the time for a Security Council summit on the subject, that day.

If it is good enough for the Council to slap binding economic sanctions on member states for various misdemeanours, and binding legislative obligations to combat global terrorism, it should be possible for it to do the same to prevent dangerous climate change.

When the Council does meet on this, it might be worth the national leaders having their families with them, in the gallery.

36 thoughts on “A global climate policy – thoughts for Xmas

  1. At US$30 / tonne forests would be planted at quite a rapid rate. We need a global forest carbon accounting system that mirrors the scheme we have in NZ.

    In any event, I agree that maybe executive action by the security council is required, but would the UN survive such an action?

    Kind regards,
    Euan

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 (+1)

  2. Dave Stringer – thank you (NOT) for ignoring the main messages in this article and whining on about your own situation.

    Some of the key points here for planetary liveability, are:

    The only recourse is to look for global executive action to supplement the wallowing international negotiations. As noted in previous blog-posts, the Security Council is the only body, however flawed, with existing legal capacity and institutional capability to undertake global executive action.

    The Council can be used, with innovative leadership at the UN, in ways that could prove effective: G-20 countries informally attending on a continuing basis, subsidiary bodies reporting in on the basis of scientific finding and economic planning, the Secretary-General appointing an eminent panel to guide him in his own reporting to the Council with proposals for action; restraint on the part of the major powers in identifying their national interests as they exercise their primary responsibility for peace on behalf of all member states, under the Charter.

    But what might the UN Security Council do?

    ……

    (now read on)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 (0)

  3. Kia ora Kennedy. I have been reading the reports not only with interest but with growing horror. Yes. We can see it. You can even contemplate a path we humans might take. But within a number of the most influential countries there is such a range of political impasses that I find your vision of what might be done requires some ‘miracle’. A world dominated by individualist and/or materialist ideology trundles along. And maybe falls off the edge of the precipice. Ouch.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 (+1)

  4. Thank you Kennedy for your hard work, well reasoned analysis and insight.

    Trevor.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 4 (+3)

  5. Well said Kennedy. I fully support your continued offering of positive suggestions that help keep alive our hope that a global governance solution can be found. It is a pity that the UN’s September 2014 timetable for next serious discussion on such an option will unfortunately mean that the NZ Government is not be a leading player in looking for such a solution. I look forward to you leading New Zealand’s contribution to the 2015 discussions.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 (+1)

  6. Unfortunately I am afraid that Hansen et.al. are correct. It is going to take a revolution, and the will to do that is not yet.

    http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0081648

    http://www.trust.org/item/20131212172405-jmar4

    http://qz.com/154196/the-only-way-to-stop-climate-change-now-may-be-revolution/

    ….because we see this on the other hand… in our “civil” society….

    http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/filmmaker-randy-olson-climate-change-is-becoming-boring-a-940061.html

    http://www.rtcc.org/2013/12/16/exhausted-civil-society-silent-on-climate-change-report/

    —————-

    Which is why it has to be taken to the streets. It has to become an issue that the young who are to be the MOST affected by it, raise with older but incredibly unwise parents.

    The injustice being done here is intergenerational, and it is not being addressed at all.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 4 (+3)

  7. It is going to take a revolution, and the will to do that is not yet.

    There will be no need for a revolution. One gets a (sucessful) revolution when the will of the people and the will of the government are at odds, and the people are sufficiently motivated to do something about it. Currently, these two wills are at one, and no-one wants to actually do anything. [sidenote: actually most everyone would like to do something about it, as long as it doesn't personally affect them] Remember the furore over low flow rate showers, an example of the government trying to get ahead of the people? No politician with half functioning a brain is going to repeat that mistake.

    When the will of the people is that something needs to be done about climate change, then governments will respond, without the need for them to be overthrown.

    So the question is, what will it take for action to be taken to (careful choice of words here…) “do something” about climate change? The answer: People dying. Well, not just people dying, millions of people dying. Being seen to die. Preferably through something visible like sea level change.

    At the end of the day, almost all the emissions on the planet are from a few big nations. They need to turn down the wick. The citizens (see next bit) of those countries need to understand that they hold the key to mankind’s survival in their hands, and they can choose for us all to be toast, or that their grandkids may have a chance at living.

    It has to become an issue that the young who are to be the MOST affected by it, raise with older but incredibly unwise parents.

    When BJ says “The injustice being done here is intergenerational” that is absolutely on the money. But it is not today’s young who are the solution, they are just the next phase of the problem, they will be worse than us. As probably will be their children.

    And that is the knub of the problem. In the thread My 2013 Best Efforts from a Biased Participant, contributor Kath Lauderdale states “Congratulations to the Greens for mentioning the elephant in the room” whilst whittering on about financial systems and usurpation of democracy. Balderdash. The elecphant in the room is population, and two related aspects of population, one of which is population growth. That growth is the single biggest ongoing contributor to the environmental problem.

    Why? Two reasons: firstly, simple exponenetial growth in the number of people alive, and secondly, as the population rises it is necessary to keep increasing the population density, and requires more energy above that simply needed to support the growth, as it harder to do necessary things (like feeding people) as the numbers go up. And thats without considering that the growth nations are continually inmproving their standard of living, which also adds to the energy demand above the population growth.

    In the article on the Quartz website (qz) (BJ’s link, above) it led by mentioning a paper presented at the American Gsophysical Union’s meeting entitled “Is Earth F**ked?”. The answer is, of course, yes, and no.

    The Earth needs to continue to be fucked over, by us, our children, and probably their children, before we (collectively, ie humanity, whoever that is at the time) will act to try to arrest the rate of destruction. Will that be too late? No, the Earth will survive just fine, but mankind may not be upon it…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5 (-5)

  8. I am afraid Dbuckley, that you have mistaken what we have today for an actual democratic process. The will of the people AND that of their government is dictated largely by the propagandists of the wealthy, and the revolution that is required is going to be either peaceful at the ballot boxes (likely here) or violent where those ballot boxes are perceived as dishonestly administered and FPP politics hold sway (likely in the USA). However, the overthrow of the control of the dialog by the wealthy and their lying minions, cannot be construed other than as a revolution whether it is peaceful or not.

    Population control is your favored distraction. It is not relevant to what has to be done in the next 20 years. It is self correcting in those nations as have a surfeit of children compared to their resources, and it is irrelevant to the OECD nations at the top, where economics is driven by the need for ever increasing consumption, by the monetary foolishness of fractional reserve, by the need to grow.

    If you want to control population you educate and empower women, some religions don’t like that, or you let people die. Either way works, and both will be happening over the next 50 years. One way or the other the population WILL be “controlled” as climate worsens.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 (+9)

  9. Dear Kennedy

    Many Thanks for setting out course of action on Climate Policy required so succinctly and without confusion. Your experience and insight has been invaluable over the last few months.

    Keep up the good work and Best Wishes for 2014.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 (+1)

  10. Well DBuckley your view of my comments and balderdash aside I agree more with BJchip. The Permaculture model states the Earth can sustain 40 Billion people if society is (intergenerationally) encouraged and taught to do so. This may come of necessity because of some global warming, an inevitable financial crash and a desire to live a quality life by the people and education and encouragement (primarily by women as the first educators) of the youth. (if we cannot respect women how will we respect Earth?)
    I do not like the top down Agenda 21 type policies (they have never worked for the people) and do believe a fundamental shift can be achieved by local action. Economic and political change can achieve this quite simply country by country. Some import restrictions will stop China polluting for example don’t buy the S#^* they produce, provide better alternatives with locally produced and available products. Don’t sign the TPP and let America continue to dominate and pollute. The people can take their power back peacefully with good leadership. Education and inclusiveness is they key along with good policy. So no offence taken here but I encourage you to cheer up and focus on the solutions available that are positive. It is clear pain will be suffered but if we democratically make decisions to change things and with wise heads leading I still hope we can move matters on positively. I still believe monetary reform is the key as rentier capitalism or industrial growth are allowed to dominate the world’s resources (because it suits the few to do so financially) nothing will change and as you say will get worse the same results (or worse)will ensue with the draconian option. These institutions are well and truly owned by the rentier capatalist class. We can change new homes specs and industrial outputs via the RMA. There are heaps of things that can be done by each country and each community but without some resource it cannot be done and which is why the current ruling (male dominated) class will try to deprive us of these resources as they have done to women for centuries. Nasty business. I encourage you DBuckley to view the matter holistically get involved in your local community, look at the UK Greens and Positive money policies, check out the permaculture movement. Would love to hear your views then.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 (+2)

  11. Population control is not my “favored distraction” – population expansion is the root cause here. To argue otherwise is to be in denial. And I don’t mean the river.

    Of course, a bit like the common cold, population isn’t easily treatable, but one can attack the symptoms, and attacking the symtoms is an acceptable outcome, the drugs make people feel better, even if they aren’t.

    The target for emissions is based around a 1990 benchmark, but in the intervening period we have gained over a million souls in New Zealand. Thus we can’t just turn the clock back to 1990 levels of emissions per capita, we have to do so much better than that, if we want to acheive the benchmark.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 (0)

  12. The root cause may be overpopulation, but there is no moral/ethical means of addressing it in time to alter the results. Thus it remains a distraction. You are either calling for us to advocate euthanasia or fooling yourself about what is possible through education and empowerment over the next 50 years.

    Go ahead and try to convince the rabid right that the answer to all our problems is to ensure that all women are respected, educated and granted equal rights.

    Distraction DBuckley, even though it is truly the “root” cause and I am tempted to disagree there too, because there is a chicken-egg issue. The lack of equality of opportunity for most women in most societies preceded the population overshoot. The establishment of fractional-reserve banking preceded the population overshoot. I think you have a point but it is far weaker than you realize.

    We need to have something happen NOW, in the next decade at worst, and that something is not going to entail a halving of the human population of this planet short of the employment of weapons of mass destruction.

    The first problem is that the uber-consumers of the bulk of the planet have to accept a curtailed standard of living. No more of the conspicuous consumption stuff. Suck it in and tone it down. The rest of the population has to accept that they can’t become uber-consumers replacing those who must have their financial advantages amputated. They may accept that if they see the amputation happen. They won’t if somehow the wealthy get off without paying their share.

    The combination is why I am calling this a requirement for revolution, rather than searching for the “root cause”. Fixing the “root cause” so that there are few enough of us that we can have the benefits of our civilization without actually destroying the planet we live on is NOT within our reach (unless you happen to have a vial of super-anthrax on your desk)… I do not enjoy fooling myself that the world my kids inherit is going to be better OR easier to live in than the one I have enjoyed. I HATE that… and I have a severe attitude towards those who think that they should enjoy their lives at the expense of my kids.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 (+3)

  13. …a halving of the human population of this planet short of the employment of weapons of mass destruction.

    I think you (well, no, not you, not me, not us, but generations to come) will find that climate change is a pretty effective weapon of mass destruction, and will bring about the necessary change. Just as a backstop in case we (the collective “we”) don’t figure it out.

    Meanwhile, on with trying to shave another ton off our household’s annual emissions with no loss of function…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 (+1)

  14. Absolutely true DBuckley. We may address population in the manner we find acceptable and it may even reduce slightly as a result before the crunch, but the crunch will do the job without question and as it does it will foster the needed revolution. My perception though, is that the revolution may precede the forcing. Kids are learning about the lying that governments engage in far earlier now.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 (+2)

  15. I would be more worried about the UN using sanctioned weapons of mass destruction or Agenda 21 to over control the freedom of people , “for their own good” than just about any other group because they could and they are definitely big enough and have done little enough to indicate being corrupt. Wipe out all the poor and workers as mechanism takes on the jobs and the few live like Gods. Not so far fetched.

    Women are reducing their birthrate now anyway, when not forced to breed endlessly by religions and Govt’s with discriminatory policy, laws and social mores.

    I know we have to make an effort with the facade of these ineffective institutions but I too have a horrible feeling it will be grassroots action that will be the only recourse. I agree It is quite possibly too little too late so a complete change to society one way or another…by choice or by force of nature will happen.

    But it I don’t think it is due to overpopulation it is the misuse and commercial perversion of all resources by a generation or two fighting wars and producing endlessly to gain money and power endlessly.

    Our lifestyle is certainly going to have to change either way so lets get ready for that as well as chatting and putting our faith in the deniers and do nothingers. I think the best outcome could be quite a nice lifestyle in NZ. Not sure if there’s a) enough time to salvage and learn or b) quite as easy everywhere else. Some countries seem to be onto it.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 (-1)

  16. …just watched a documentary released by UK Money reform group Positive Money and which the UK Greens are moving toward in their new policy this year.

    It states the UN has advised it will cost 2 trillion to “green” business and the world economy to deal with climate change. The private banks got 14 trillion in money (debt actually…we will be paying for generations) in bailout during the GFC (caused by them).

    If we democratise money (and it is simple our Govt can do it) we can better contribute to greening the worlds economies and deal better with climate change.

    Trouble is as it stands we are one bank collapse away from complete collapse of the worlds economies.

    Worth a watch as it is simple, compelling and quite shocking really.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 (+1)

  17. It is distressing dbuckley, that you seem prepared to wait for and accept the deaths of millions due to climate disasters as the means by which citizens in wealthy countries will finally get the message about global warming.
    You imply that the alternative, reducing consumption, is in the ‘too hard’ basket. The top 1% ,who clearly don’t give a stuff about the state of the biosphere upon which we depend, control almost all the world media. Much of the population is effectively brainwashed by advertising to ‘buy, buy, buy’, everything from cheap airfares to excess food to new electronic goods.
    As Kennedy said, humanity faces a global ecological crisis and until that critical message gets out to the people of the world, I don’t think much will change.
    Regarding the discussion on population could we please get real and stop pretending it is only up to the women of the world to sort that one out. Yes, we need to educate and empower women and that will result in greater uptake of contraception, but control of female fertility is a decades long activity, while for men it takes just 1 visit to a doctor.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 (+1)

  18. Viv…

    I think that only a woman can persuade a man to make that trip. :-)

    Empowerment has MANY facets.

    The responsibility is equal and I perceive it so. Would not claim otherwise. Making it happen however, is another can of worms. In most societies where it is most needed, the most important issue to resolve will be the rights of women. Where it is MOST needed, those rights are almost entirely lacking. No?

    BJ

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 (+3)

  19. Viv K – you appear to be in disagreement with yourself :)

    You note:

    As Kennedy said, humanity faces a global ecological crisis and until that critical message gets out to the people of the world, I don’t think much will change.

    And:

    … the deaths of millions due to climate disasters as the means by which citizens in wealthy countries will finally get the message about global warming.

    Everyone knows about the risks of climate change. Some do not believe it, and some are swayed by anti – propoganda (see recent Grauniad article). But despite the fact that most believe it may happen, very few people actually give a stuff. And that number is decreasing year on year. Thats what the research shows, and I’ve quoted it many times so I wont bother citing it again.

    The question is: how do we get the people to give a stuff? And it is my considered belief that the people will not give a stuff until (A) they see incontrovertible evidence before their own eyes, and (B) it threatens to affect them.

    As BJ notes, this is an intergenerational problem, so just as our generation does not give a stuff, neither will our children, and possibly their children.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 (-1)

  20. It is distressing dbuckley, that you seem prepared to wait for and accept the deaths of millions due to climate disasters as the means by which citizens in wealthy countries will finally get the message about global warming.

    I’m not. The people may not give a stuff, but I personally do. I try to reduce my impact on the planet. I’m well short of perfect, but I am, at least, trying.

    I have disagreed with BJ on this before; he believes that the impetus for change must come from the topm in the form of directive from government. I believe that change can come from the bottom, from the people.

    I would like taking personal action against climate change to be “cool”, so it is seen as being “cool” to be saving the planet. I think that has a chance of changing opinions. This isn’t about telling people what the can and cannot doing; its about doing things that oither people then seek to do also.

    However, driving around in a chelsea tractor with “say no to fracking” bumper sticker is not what I think of as cool or effective. Many of the things the Green Party stands for are either not cool, not effective in halting climate change, or both.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 (+1)

  21. I’m not sure people do not give a stuff…I think people are disempowered and overwhelmed and simply have no idea or support on what to do.
    I think empowering women who spend most of the household budgets and run most of them as well as educate the children is more effective than potentially imposing the UN security Council’s authority on the whole world.
    If you’re working 40-60+ hours a week either gathering money or food and in manual jobs that is particularly exhausting when do you contribute to lessening or learn what to do about climate change?
    If you’re cooped up in an office for 40-60 hours in front of a computer and under flouros and come out pasty faced, wan and completely disconnected from nature how will you be motivated to go out and resolve the problem or where to start?
    As for the 1% -20% they live in a bubble and world of their own and believe money is god and they are untouchable they look out their windows and see their manicured gardens fences and mansions and are are completely disconnected from reality jump on their planes and leave whereever they don’t like then cynically do ads to front save the dolphins campaign and think they’re contributing??
    Social and economic overhaul to effect climate change is paramount and I can only think a few small (ie the community is small enough to effect change, the economy is small enough to effect change and people care enough about each other to effect change) countries can model the way forward by example.
    NZ did it with Nuclear ships and made quite a splash, Iceland has done it, Norway has done it as are other small communities and their example is spreading.
    What should not happen is we hand our resources and governance over to international companies and organisations who absolutely have not and will not do it in my opinion.
    We do need to fight back somehow urgently as many know. The best way forward is to build Greens profile, build trust in the electorates and communities and get elected so at least some Governance awareness and a plan which can be coordinated with likeminded govts around the world. That would be cool.
    Start where you are, do what you can, use what you have. Cuba got cut off from the world and started living differently its an example to stop panic at least in the people. Very complex and probably to get mandates and consensus will be difficult so the referendum process will probably need to be computerised and this democratising process taught in schools.
    But we need to be elected to do anything. So we’d better start connecting with the people quick smart and empowering them to effect climate change and support policies that do so. Not easy I give you that but abdicating responsibility and sovereignty to a monolith like the UN is foolishness in the extreme for our country and Im sure many others feel the same.Quickly or slowly it will not be soon enough entirely so we’d better start to get ready, stop further degradation and get ready to live differently now. Probably the best case scenario and how can the UN do this practically unless it continues undemocratic hierarchy and disrespectful exploitation of the earth and people in any event? We have to do it and we have to start here. Ive seen the way these NGOs, Govt agencies, UN programmes etc behave in the Pacific driving around in SUV’s sending their kids to separate expat schools, living in compounds flying out for holidays in home countries and producing sweet F A. Not going to work for climate change.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 (+2)

  22. The message about the serious threat that climate change and ocean acidification poses to human civilisation is being suppressed by most of the media. Those who profit from business as usual control what information the average citizen gets. Extreme weather events are killing more people every year, but that isn’t linked to climate change in the mainstream news. The Kardashians get more coverage than ocean acidification. When people aren’t being told the whole truth they won’t care and there won’t be a ground up movement to demand action.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 (+1)

  23. Apologies dbuckley for misinterpeting your comment and suggesting you personally don’t care.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  24. All this discussion is futile.

    It’s over, and we are all dead. I read the reports. No more Arctic Ice by the year 2012. No more snow in Britain by 2005. No more ships caught in summer ice in the Antarctic, ever. And 200 million “environmental” refugees by the year 2010.

    Genuine headlines, genuine appeals that the science was settled, genuine UN and IPCC reports.

    And now, with all of that slightly off the mark, the message above is “end of the world like last week’s cardboard sign, but just add 5 years.

    If you want to convince the people of the “hard right”, how about stop making such wild “scientific” pronouncements? Whilst getting on jet planes and doing more conferences.

    It’s phrases like this that kind of p*ss me off:

    The only recourse is to look for global executive action to supplement the wallowing international negotiations. As noted in previous blog-posts, the Security Council is the only body, however flawed, with existing legal capacity and institutional capability to undertake global executive action.

    So, circumvent democracy to impose whatever *political* solution is deemed in the UN’s best interests?

    Nice historical reference to Westphalia, then completely reverse position and say “screw State sovereignty, we know best”. It’s that Orwellian double-speak that does your rep no good.

    I’d love to talk about real solutions to the issues of undeveloped countries always playing catch-up to developed countries, but not on the basis outlined above. Indeed, try “executive action” like that, and you might get the revolution you wanted. I’d hope though that the unelected dictators were the ones being lined up against the wall.

    Just saying…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 (0)

  25. It has long been proven that global warming is one big scam. Rather we risk another Ice Age. And the reason is certainly not the consumption of coal and release of CO2 into the atmosphere. Scientific research confirms that what human industry produces some interest is the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere that we have!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  26. “No more ships caught in summer ice in the Antarctic, ever.”

    Where did you see that headline? I bet it wasn’t in a peer-reviewed journal.

    You are also omitting the qualifications that went with a number of predictions, such as the bit about CO2 levels emissions continuing their trend. The fact that we entered a global recession and this caused our emissions to drop means that predictions made before that time need to be adjusted.

    And no one with any knowledge of meteorology would predict the end of snow in Britain for any date.

    What does matter is the string of years with high temperatures. What is it now? The 12 hottest years on record have all been 1998 or later? If you don’t accept AGW, then tell me when are we going to see cooler years?

    Trevor.

    PS: Rayan could you rewrite your last sentence as I cannot work out what you are trying to say?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 (+1)

  27. Rayan

    It has long been proven that global warming is one big scam

    Based on the scientific expertise of the paid-to-lie and their sycophantic blog sites and “Galileo” wannabes ???

    Sorry mate, but there is ZERO evidence of your assertion and there’s been plenty of time and effort exerted to find problems with the science. The only serious problem is that we’re not 100% sure whether the results will be a slow and agonizing end to our civilization or sudden death.

    As for the percentage of CO2 which we produce… people who make that zombie argument are missing a few important details. Like the CO2 cycle, and the fact that 100% of the ADDITIONAL CO2 is the product of “human industry”.

    Rather than killing the zombie myself (again) I will refer you to a scientific explanation that is relatively accessible to non-scientists.

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm

    and a nice representation of how our CO2 is being altered over the past 800,000 years.

    http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/history.html

    y’all think on it now.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  28. It’s over, and we are all dead. I read the reports. No more Arctic Ice by the year 2012. No more snow in Britain by 2005. No more ships caught in summer ice in the Antarctic, ever. And 200 million “environmental” refugees by the year 2010.

    Zen, Your instinctive creation of strawmen serves you ill here. None of that was “science”. Not ever. Not even in quotes that I suspect influenced your imagination in creating them. You are making things up.

    ———————

    how about stop making such wild “scientific” pronouncements? Whilst getting on jet planes and doing more conferences

    …and here is the inevitable requirement from the wingnut brigade that before they will listen to any argument that the commons be protected, the people making the argument must abandon use of the commons.

    This is akin to requiring that any occupant of a lifeboat suggesting rationing of food first starve to death.

    There were no “wild scientific pronouncements” just asthere is no logical requirement for that. You are making things up here too.

    —————-

    The quotation you object most strongly to happens to be a true point. It has NOTHING to do with the “best interests” of the UN. It has to do with the best interests of future generations of humans. My kids. Your kids.

    The only organization that has the power to actually take action on a global basis is the UN Security Council. Is there another you are aware of that is more suitable?

    Would you prefer a global “democracy?” There are how many billion people in China? Right… so that’s not such a good idea now… IS it.

    OK… well lets have a system where every NATION has its own sovereignty and a voice in the outcome. What does that look like?

    Looks a lot like the UN to me. Funny how that worked. Except that the Security Council exists to restrain the more extreme notions of the General-Assembly.

    When climate change drives a revolution, and it will if we do not find a way to start one sooner, there will not be any place on the planet where the 1 percenters can hide.

    then completely reverse position and say “screw State sovereignty, we know best”. It’s that Orwellian double-speak that does your rep no good.

    No Zen, you can’t just remove the context. The context of that was what again? Nations are moving TOO SLOWLY… there are 5 years, 10 on the very outside… to put in place a carbon price/budget that stops the growth of emissions and starts dragging them back down. Two elections in this country, one fake one in the USA…. and several countries that are important in this don’t even have the mockeries that happen in the US.

    At some point you need to go back to look at the assumption that “representational democracy” is actually working, and work out who actually pwns the governments of the world. Cause it is NOT the voters.

    If the scientists WERE all colluding to seize power (*not that you said that, you didn’t), who would they be seizing it from?

    Does this ring a bell?

    “Let me issue and control a Nation’s money and I care not who makes its laws”.
    - Rothschild

    Which organizations and people have resisted action on climate and funded the assaults on science for the past 20 years… Forbes? The Wall Street Journal?
    The Koch Brothers? …. Economists in general?

    The wealthy CONTROL this world and its individual nations. Your instinctive bristling at the loss of “sovereignty” is sort of meaningless and at least partly a product of the propaganda that they have been funding for decades. THEIR ownership is the only thing that they want protected. YOU can have all the rights they are willing to allow their peons and serfs to exercise.

    You are smarter than that… but it is irrelevant.

    What Kennedy suggests is the only option apart from waiting for Mother Nature to convince every human on the planet and forcing the revolution.

    If THAT revolution happens it will be a religious event, and the people whose rights you are working to protect here (not YOUR rights mate, you’d be a fool if you think that) will be crucified… and your kids will be so far left that they’ll disown you and spit on your grave….

    …if they live.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 (+2)

  29. I read a news report that said that 2013 was one of the 14th hottest years, and 13 of those were in this millenium. As 1998 was also one of the hottest years, that means that the 14 hottest years have all occurred in the last 16 years. The probability of this occurring if global warming wasn’t happening is vanishingly small.

    Trevor.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  30. I’m not wholly convinced that that NSW scientist type got the whole thing exactly right… his answers on interview were rather more vague than I really expected them to be and I am aware of conflicted data regarding the winds. He was “plausible” but he has to be more accurate in speaking to media. The connection with ENSO is solid, as is the warming itself but this mechanism… is still not really solid for me. – well of course not, it is wind… :-)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>