Here goes, then. Electricity accounts for 40% of global carbon dioxide emissions. Mexico accounts for 1% of world electricity consumption. Light-bulbs use at most 3% of that electricity. Mercury-vapor fluorescent bulbs reduce electricity consumption per candela by – at the very most – 33% compared with incandescent bulbs that one can actually read by. So, once the President’s Initiativo Grande has been put into full effect throughout Mexico, world carbon emissions will have fallen by 40% of 1% of 3% of 33%, or a dizzying 0.004%.
So far, so good. We shall generously assume that 0.004% of the entire manmade greenhouse-gas contribution since 1750 will be forestalled by the Grand Initiative. Now for the equation. The amount of CO2 concentration forestalled by, say, 2100, is in the present instance, 0.004% of the difference between the CO2 concentration predicted for that year, 836 parts per million by volume on the IPCC’s A2 emissions scenario, and the CO2 concentration of 278 ppmv which the IPCC thinks was present in 1750.
So we’re looking at 0.00004(836-278), or 0.0223 ppmv. Not a lot, really.
Be sure to read it all.
… more @ Cjunk about Cancun’s $100 Billion new bureaucracy including a very sobering reality check from Monckton … no, we aren’t winning.
Update: Nova tracks today’s $100 Billion Battleground in Cancun. World Bank to be trustee?
Faced with the growing prospect that a new climate treaty is distant, the European Union has led calls to extend the Kyoto Protocol.
Japan has adamantly opposed a new Kyoto round, pointing out that the treaty named after its ancient capital covers only 30 per cent of global emissions because China and the United States are not part of it.
Russia, a major exporter of carbon-intense fossil fuels, has backed Japan’s position, while Canada was also seen as a quiet supporter.
In a compromise, the proposed Cancun agreement would call for talks to set up a second period of the Kyoto Protocol but not oblige members of the treaty – such as Japan and Russia – to be part of the new round.
Update 2: Donna weighs in …
Politically, I’m independent and moderate. So when conservative commentators characterize the climate change juggernaut as a United Nations plot to control our lives, my first instinct is to arch an eyebrow and murmur: Really?
To my ears, that sounds far-fetched. But as I become more familiar with the UN’s approach to climate matters, the harder it is for me to regard this organization as benign. Pernicious sounds more like it.
More international aide or as Doug Casey calls it. Poor people in rich countries giving money to rich people in poor countries.
Personally I just call it legal theft.
As an aside, listened to a Ceeb Radio reporter this morning regarding riding along with paramedics on an emergency call; apparently pedestrians & cyclists more often ignore giving emergency vehicles the right of way than people driving vehicles.
Somehow this doesn’t surprise me.
Read the articles from Monckton at WUWT and then compare it to this description of him:
“Again, there is a real debate about the pace and rhythm of global warming, and about the degree to which it has been caused (or can be slowed) by human activity. But at the first Tea Party rally I attended,…was treated to an arm-waving speech by a caricature English peer named Lord Monckton, who led them in the edifying call-and-response: “All together. Global warming is?” “Bullshit.” “Obama cannot hear you. Global warming is?” “bullshit.” “That’s bettah.” I don’t remember ever seeing grown-ups behave less seriously, at least in an election season.”
Monckton may be have a flair for drama but his math and conclusions about global warming are right on the money.
That’s 100 billion pledged. That isn’t like 100 billion. I think Canada put up 4 billion double our 2% CO2 use. I don’t think they will get even close to that. It would be about 40 Billion each from the US and China. Forget Spain Ireland and others.
It’s like Chretien doubling our Kyoto numbers to make the US look bad when he had no intention of doing anything.
Try not to get too carried away by hysteria about all this. The key section is this: “Western countries will jointly provide $100 billion a year by 2020 to an unnamed new UN Fund.” As Monckton notes, it’s about 0.7% of GDP.
Decades ago, Western nations solemnly committed to 0.5% GDP in foreign aid, and they never came close to meeting it. Now we’re told they should commit 50% more, or indeed 150% more. After all, the G-77 are going to scream bloody murder if current foreign aid is simply transferred to some meaningless UN secretariat. So this is in addition to current foreign aid.
My bet is the UN never sees a dime of it.
And if they have no money, they have nothing.
Second, like any international agreement, it will have to have US Senate ratification. There’s zero chance of that even with a Senate full of Dems. What’s the chance of the BRICK nations signing onto this? Zero. Hence, any US Senate will throw this further than the Moon.
Third, let’s keep a little perspective here. This is nothing more than the chairman’s note from an ad hoc working group. It’s time to take it a little more seriously only if the Conference adopts it. If it ‘takes note’, it’s dead.
This is of course what the pattern will be for the next half dozen years or so. As the time from Copenhagen increases, each one will tend to generate slightly more hysterical documents, each more unrealistic than the last.
Every time I go grocery shopping I pick up a couple of packs of incandesent bulbs. Don`t need them now. Just building a stockpile. MONSTER
cgh: I think you’ve missed Monkton’s point entirely. Like the EU, the purpose is to build the structure first … that takes far less than the 100 billion. The EU monster was created despite EU proles being opposed to it. Don’t get caught up in what happens now, it’s the long view that counts. And, just like in the EU, once the bureaucratic structure is there, one just needs wait for sympathetic times and slowly, gradually, more power shifts to the supranational orgs.
This initiative is about creating the structure for global bureaucracies, not about AGW.
Monster – “Every time I go grocery shopping I pick up a couple of packs of incandescent bulbs. Don`t need them now. Just building a stockpile.”
Don’t bother, by the time the USA caves in from unrestricted government spending and collapses from debt load it will welcome China’s offer to provide incandescents for us – and at a bargain price from Wal*Mart.
“This is nothing more than the chairman’s note from an ad hoc working group”
True enough. They can create any plan or system they like, whether it’s a climate agreement or so-called global bureaucracies, but without money and committed participation it’s just more of their rapidly fading daydreams.
It would appear that we are getting what we deserve. After all, we elected these people and let them carry on as they like.
We were busy entertaining ourselves and do were they.
hudson duster: it’s just more of their rapidly fading daydreams
That’s what Europeans thought about the Eurocrats at one time; now they have Herman Van Rompuy.
I agree with you Cjunk. They can set up working groups and garner a rabid flock but when the rubber hits the road unless fire is raining from the sky no one is going to DO anything.
I’m pretty sure the military has set up nowhere panels for PR. I know the governments do. The EU can’t afford it, the US can’t afford it. Who is left to pay?
I don’t mind curbing things for pollution but CO2?
We just have to get the message out it is population control through agriculture. Lower CO2, lower production. Higher cost, lower production. Can we have a list of which countries starve first please.
cjunk, you missed my point. Creating bureaucratic structures takes money. There’s no money for this, and the chairman’s working note doesn’t deal with it except for a vague 0.7% in eventual funding. If the money comes from existing foreign aid whoever loses funding will scream. All it does is set up an endless round of bureaucratic infighting within the UN if it has to do this with its existing resources.
Not quite, Abe. Virtually none of the people at any of the COPs including Cancun were elected to anything. That’s why they can have these exotic dreams of world domination. They themselves are essentially powerless. The only weapon they have is propaganda. So far, they’ve got nothing, because thus far, virtually nothing they want has been implemented. And as long as we ignore what they want, nothing will change, except their demands will become increasingly shrill over time.
Remember that their great guru Mo Strong was a huckster long before he was a green and he’s continued his con games ever since (i.e. up to his eyeballs in oil for food). And a huckster’s chief mission in life is to sell you garbage.
Remind me again, when was Mo Strong ever elected to anything?
This was another successful conference, in the sense
I first elucidated here at SDA on December 15, 2007:
So we’ll move some money out of some of our other international aid funding pipelines and into this one with a new label, and nothing will change much, which is a good thing considering how very well things are going for our species.
In conclusion: CGH 1, CJunk 0 (as usual).
Vitruvius, you got that score wrong:
CGH 1, Cjunk, Monckton, Klaus 0
My apologies, CJunk, you are correct on the scoring matter.
Cjunk, I hope that you are not right, but the creation and growth of the bureaucracy in the EU suggest that you may well be. If it is true that the beginning stages of the bureaucracy has in fact been established there will be a Herman Van Rompuy in all of our futures.
We should hope that CGH is right and that this monstrosity will collapse and drown in a sea of national interest.
It would also if Kate and the posters that know their way around this topic keep us up to date on developments.
Nice to see that Vίtruvius stops in to visit for a spell.
The good thing about having one large single UN teat for the global warming gaia weenies to suck on is that you only have one teat to cut off funding to and you bag the whole lot of rent seeking, useless fools & con artists.
Given that Obozo is rapidly killing the US economy, that Europe is looking at huge debts, that Japan is in tough shape, the likelihood of having any money to pay for all this stupidity is pretty low.
Three conferences in a row, each about 20,0000 idiots & con artists screaming for action and all they get is a promise for another conference and a promise of some money in 2020.
They have lost. The sound you hear is the CO2 leaking out of their hysteria balloon.
Just more time . . . .
If you don’t love his lordship’s dry wit by now you ain’t human. And that dry fact-laced under-statement literally shreds his pompous targets.
Basically we’ll see the continued transfer of hundreds of billions of dollars from the productive economies to the unproductive, from Western countries that are mostly tightening their belts and raising retirement ages to developing countries like Bolivia, which is nationalizing industry and just LOWERED the retirement age to 58.
Ken (Kulak): I come at this from my European experience, something that most North American pundits don’t relate to. Tyranical bureaucracies are like a cancer; they may advance for a while, then lie dormant, but seldom if ever are they pared down until they collapse in violence or social upheaval. Our leaders are focussed on the next election cycle; but the mandarines just constantly grind away at gaining power and seldom if ever have to answer for it. For them, it’s 3 steps forward, 1 or 2 steps back in a dance that can last generations.
Kulak I think the EU is the horrible example of why not to let the UN run the world. I feel the EU will collapse because countries cannot control their currency or the debt of others. Nobody is confused about UN aspirations.
Ken, I appreciate cjunk’s perspective on the EU and agree with it to a large extent. There are two differences however. The first is that the EU is essentially dominated by two countries with most of the money in the Euro, Germany and France. The UN isn’t led by anything in particular with respect to nation states. It’s simply a beggar’s market, where the third world uses it to try to cadge as much money as possible from the industrial nations. EU members are tied by legions of binding agreements; UN members are tied by no binding agreements whatsoever. The EU is united by a common fear; the dire prospect of war devastating Europe again as happened twice in the 20th century. The UN is united by nothing whatsoever.
The second and most important difference between the two is that the EU has access to enormous revenues. The UN however, for all its noise, has severely limited revenues. It’s virtually immobilized, because new programs in one place mean robbing something else. So, it has no money for its grandiose visions. The UN would love to be the world’s EU. They just have one tiny little problem. They have no money, and no one’s going to give them any.
As Kevin O’Leary says, it’s all about money, and the UN just ain’t got any. And no money means impotence. And, utterly no nation in the world wants to give them any more. When they all clamour for more UN funding, what they are really saying is that the US should put in more. And guess how that goes down with politicians in Washington from every side of the political spectrum? If there’s one thing that US politicians generally agree on it’s that the UN is about as useful as a dead skunk in a perfume factory.
Vίtruvius, of course Bali was a success. It, and Copenhagen and Cancun and all the COPs to come ensure that the participants have lucrative and rewarding careers. If technology solves the supposed problem of CO2 emissions all on its own, it’s a crushing personal disaster for all these folks. It’s noteworthy that they are generally opposed to any technology which could actually scale up to solve their supposed problem. In such an event, they’ll all have to go get real jobs or invent some new eco-crisis for all of us to angst over. Are you taking any bets as to which of the two it would be? They call it Move-On, don’t they?
Since the dawn of civilization, CGH, there has always been a portion of our species who aren’t interested in, as you put it, “real jobs”, in fact, the blogosphere provides us an unprecedented ability to observe and study the related phenomena. One might even define the dawn of civilization as the first time the shysters of our species were able to get away with being socially irresponsible (before which they would have, by nature, perished).
So it is that while there is, then, and will remain always to be, that contingent of noise today, and while it remains always a good idea to oppose the irresponsible noise in principle, it practice one is stuck with the realization that if one avoids celebrating the signal because one is too worried that civilization will be overwhelmed by the noise, then one has nothing to loose, for one has not the celebrating of the the signal in the first place, because one is too worried that civilization will be overwhelmed by the noise, et cetera.
Avoiding the obvious positive feedback loop is a fine
balancing act; the demagogoblogosphere doesn’t help.
I will never vote for Harper again. I am done with these fools. Rather not vote at all then vote for these fake conservatives who are nothing more than pimps. Time for a real conservative party to start up.
oh claude…sedate thyself..
think of how worse it could be otherwise…
think of strong horses and weak horses…
“I will never vote for Harper again. I am done with these fools.”
Then get used to the notion of handing over power to that which you most oppose. By abstaining from voting you are in fact making a choice in support of something else. What, you expected all of your choices to be perfect ones? What dream world are you living in? ALL of our choices are imperfect by definition. Nihilism is no answer to anything.
“Time for a real conservative party to start up.”
Dream on. This is as real as it gets. Rather than work for what you believe in, you’re taking your marbles and going home, thus helping to ensure that the political party that you claim to want never emerges.
I may be an atheist, but I am the first to say that there lots of sense to be found in the Bible.
“God helps those who help themselves.”
I think you need to study, Claude, the matter of “Least Bad” Democracy.
Cjunk @ 7:05 says “bureaucracies are like a cancer”. You are absolutely correct in this observation and in using the Khrushchev analogy of 3 steps forward and 2 steps back to describe its growth. I have forty-six years of direct and indirect experience, in the military, farming and municipal spheres and have seen this cancer at work many times.
My observation, for what it is worth, is that there are two causes for the growth of the bureaucracy. One reason is politicians expanding or dreaming up new programs either to get votes or a perceived social need.
The second one being a constant state of empire building in the bureaucracy.
Without going into detail or belaboring it, my latest favourite bureaucratic expansion is the interference of Oceans and Fisheries in Saskatchewan.
cgh, your last paragraph at 7:36 accurately describes these people.
Ken, your two causes for the creation and growth of bureaucracy are I think entirely right. That said, I would now question, what are the causes by which bureaucracy is reduced or eliminated?
I can think of only one mechanism actually demonstrated in history. Bureaucracies only disappear when the nation-state that created them disappears. In short, by violence, either because of conquest or internal revolution. The new entity then proceeds to create new bureaucracies which may eventually become as onerous as those they replaced, i.e. the bureaucracies of revolutionary France and Russia or indeed the United States replacing the previous ones of the monarchies. The Austro-Hungarian Empire had a huge bureaucracy, and it disappeared only with the collapse of the empire.
The implication of this is that transnational bureaucracies must be kept particularly stunted and restrained, because the only method ever shown in history thus far of pruning them back won’t work.
Bureaucracies are a necessary evil. Something has to translate government legislation into action. But it’s an endless struggle to ensure that the servants of the state do not become its masters.
Sorry Vίtuvius, but I can’t in good conscience vote for a party that picked Julian Fantino as a candidate. If you know what went on in Caledonia, Ontario then you must be utterly outraged that Fantino is sitting in Parliament voting on laws.
Also, I can’t vote for a party that has done nothing about section 13 and that has spoken out very little about the outrages that happen at the CHRC. A rousing, Harper-led discussion of individual liberty, property rights and especially free speech would be worth a vote but he has not led the country anywhere on these matters.
I cannot vote in good conscience for a party that still toys with the idea of handing tax dollars to eco-grifters at the UN. I’m seeing first hand the result of ‘green energy’ every time I open my electric bill here in Ontario but Harper still plays footsie on the national scene with these shysters.
I cannot vote in good conscience for a party that has done very little to curb government spending. Harper has in fact fed the beast with more borrowed money, creating a greater burden for future generations. Government spending must be cut and the budget must be balanced.
I cannot vote in good conscience for a party that went along with a House motion to censure Macleans magazine for writing an article about corruption in Quebec. This appeasement of Quebecers’ self-image over free speech rights is grossly at odds with conservative values.
By electing CINOs to avoid the Liberals we are just feeding the crocodile. A citizen voting for a party is giving that party a mandate to do what it wants (and a $1.75).
I will be voting independent if a suitable candidate is available or I will not vote at all.
cgh: But it’s an endless struggle to ensure that the servants of the state do not become its masters.
Indeed … and never a clear line.
Vίtro. With all due respect my comments are coming from real world experiences and are not fueled by adolescent idealism.
I have supported conservative candidates all my life in significant ways. However, I have spent over tens of thousands personally trying to protect the Lake I live on from total destruction as a result of incompetence in managing upstream water shed. While Harper sends Baird off to fight plant food and spend a fortune doing it I am spending a fortune fighting the likes of Brad Trost his MP here in SK.
Trost’s incompetence cowardice and sheer stupidity is allow for continued drainage of dead Salt Lakes into Fresh water lakes to please a handful of people in his riding.
My rant is not coming from adolescent idealism but from a person who is engaged in a pitched battle to help prevent the destruction of a 100 sq kilometer lake and the quality of life for hundreds. Integrity and principals matter in the real world Vίtro.
from the link:
“… where is Mr. Harper on this … just wondering?”
where indeed. oh, he’s at a party in ottawa belting out tunes for the faithful.
I wouldn’t get overly worried about this conference as most countries are broke and it will probably politically expedient to “temporarily” decline funding for the watermelons pet projects.
PMSH is a bit of an enigma right now, but it is interesting how a major climate bill got defeated in the senate recently. I suspect PMSH is closer to our way of thinking than the watermelon party but is going about accomplishing the goal of not destroying Canada’s economy in a very roundabout manner.
What is necessary to keep this up is to keep writing to ones Conservative MP’s letting them know what you think of the CAGW scam. I no longer donate money to the Conservative party and let them know why, but given a choice between voting Conservative or Libertarian, I’ll vote Conservative as I don’t like the idea of lieberals getting back into power again.
In BC moonbat Campbell is gone and hopefully the outrage over carbon taxes is going to influence anyone who takes his place. All it takes is a cold winter and the rage that millions of people feel when they see how much the government of BC is gouging from their heating bills to make concern about CO2 levels political suicide.
In typical leftist fashion, Ted Turner has 5 kids while pushing a one child policy on the rest of the world. Maybe that’s why the leftists are so pro-homosexual as that’s the only way they can think of handling the huge excess of males that will result in most countries under the one child policy. More likely it’s going to lead to large numbers of horny young men ready to invade neighboring countries to acquire women.
IMHO all this climate posturing will quietly fade away in the face of world-wide fiscal crisis and increasingly Conservative sentiments in Western populations.
Because people are getting really tired of the high taxes, basically. They aren’t getting ahead and they’re quietly p*ssed about it.
One World Governance types will continue these scams, but as we see from the ever-accelerating decline of the Big Media, people are not really buying it any more. People are buying -gold- and -ammunition-. This does not bode well for Euro-style big government types trying to create new bureaucracies.
IMHO, of course. I could be wrong. But I hope not.
Claude:
I could not agree with you more. You will get nothing from Trost but one gigantic headache!
I have had several discussions with Brad Trost and his sidekick Murray(in the Ottawa office).
The mantra from both is “RAG THE PUCK” in the hopes we go away and the issue dies.
Trost does not stand on strong Conservative principles, but goes with whichever way the wind blows.
He is just another puffed up, glib, arrogant politician warming a seat in Ottawa, courtesy of the taxpayer.
Dear independent and moderate Donna ….. so are 90% of self identified conservatives.
And for the rest of us (the 10percenters)…. we just had our eyes open longer.
To be conservative is to be continually astounded by the dishonesty of your foes and the gullibility of their followers.
“Politically, I’m independent and moderate.”
Isn’t that just another way of saying “I don’t give a damn about what the leftists have planned for my future, or yours (and I plann to mock your expressions of concern) — until it’s too late“?
Back on topic, it’s important to note that Cancun achieved essentially nothing:
http://unfccc.int/files/press/news_room/press_releases_and_advisories/application/pdf/pr_20101211_cop16_closing.pdf
From bullet 1, countries will develop their own targets and it is left entirely to them how they will meet those targets. So much for Kyoto. The protocol dies in 2012, and Cancun failed to get it extended. They now confess (bullet 3) that there will be a gap between periods 1 and 2, and with no binding action taken to address it except to continue to negotiate.
From the rest of the document, they pledged to set up a $30 billion adaptation fund, rising eventually to $100 billion. This is the same commitment that was made in Montreal at COP 11 in 1995, and it has no more money or binding commitments to it today than it had five years ago when it was first proposed. Stephan Dion’s creation lives on, but no one’s giving it any money. What the referenced document really says is, “Somebody please do something.” And it’s fallen on deaf ears.
What isn’t in the document? All of the past arguments about enforcement for one. Cancun is utterly silent on this, meaning that the appetite for a binding agreement has never been lower in the last 30 years since the Brundtland Commission.
In short, this one is probably the weakest COP/MOP document that has ever emerged from any of these conferences. So yes, from the green perspective, COP 15 has been an utter disaster. It has simply confirmed that the great failure at Copenhagen is now the trend.
The COPs will go on indefinitely, with ever more frenzied calls for action, but they’ve fallen and they’re not getting back up.
REDD might be worthwhile, the devil will be in the details.
Kyoto should expire as it’s signatories only cover 30% of all emissions. And effectively signatories can offshore their emissions to non signatory countries. The world needs a global framework so this is a step in the right direction albiet one or two decades too late.
We’re basicaly too late to forestall the problem via the UN and treaties like this. Geoengineering here we come. If we see more blocking highs over Asia like we did this year then we’re already at the point were it becomes econmicaly feasible for one country Russia, India or China to go it alone in this regard and to hell with what everyone else thinks. It all hinges on wether or not 2010 is a black swan or a preview of the new normal. If it’s the latter hold on to your seats.
Aid to the third world isn’t a solution. Several developing countries are already taking in more money in oil revenue than the entire developing world recieves in foreign aid. Without a minimum level of good governance (ie not more corrupt than Portugal was in the 80s) the capitol just flows out of the country anyways. If anyone’s interested check out a book called the Bottom Billion for some alternative theories on how the west can help the developing world (basicaly stop aiding and abetting corrupt politicians).