Cancun in a nutshell: nothing achieved but it’s a Big PR Success (RE: The Global Money Scam )

After the awful post-Climategate-and-Copenhagen year, more than anything else, the Big Scare Campaign needed a PR win. And in that sense Cancun was a major victory. Nobody agreed to anything legally binding, Kyoto was not extended, and all they achieved amounted to nothing more than an extension of the yearly junkets, and the promise that the gravy train is not dead yet. But the headlines will warm the hearts of all on Team-Scare-Us. The most important thing for the side that’s losing friends, faith and face, was to regain momentum. They’re trying to stop the death spiral.

Cancun climate talks reach ‘historic’ deal

UN climate change talks in Cancun agree a deal

Andy Revkin, NY Times, talks about “pivotal moments” in reverential tones. It’s a bit like the second coming:

Consensus Emerges On Common Climate Path

No one has actually agreed to anything enforceable, but you’d have to read the subtext to know that.

“The dog is resuscitated and up and running…

we’ll see how far it goes”

Expect the raves to grow in western recollections. But in the rest of the world things are different. India is congratulating itself for avoiding any commitment:

No commitments in Cancun Agreement,

India’s interests ‘protected‘

See below for the 4 ingredients for a PR victory, and then see how Australian tax dollars are used to “help the environment” by adding 5000 Mega Litres of water a day into a flooded river.

The four ingredients for a PR victory:

Ingredient 1: Play down expectations so no matter how dismal it is, no one can write that it was worse than expected. (This has the added bonus of keeping away protesters and real analysts.)

Ingredient 2: Make you sure ask for money on behalf of some eminently appealing victims: “just for starters we need $100 billion for the world’s poor” — who could say “No”?

Ingredient 3: It’s all a draft anyway. It’s just a statement of intent that no one really has to fight too hard over or struggle too much with the fine print. It’s easy to get a consensus. And it makes for great headlines where editors drop the words “draft” and report it as a “done deal”. This helps the support crew feel like they are getting somewhere and adopt the language of “certainty” (also known as the “bluff”). The draft deal also turns all the draft-signees into “players” who will feel compelled to defend the draft they signed back on their own home turf. (Handy.) It’s a bit like the people signing pledges to donate to Telethon, or to remain celibate: the public pledge only costs them a few words, but makes them more likely to carry out their pledge.

Ingredient 4: At the same time as expectations for Cancun were played down, a huge ambit claim quietly underwrote the whole arrangement. Utterly preposterous statements are spoken as if someone is just stating the bleeding obvious — the matter-of-fact-voice conveys the ambit under a cloak of invisibility: “We all agree to control the weather to within 2 degrees C?” Unstated is the assumption that we can. Stating the big position as if it were banal allows the Team to sneak in other massive goals as if there were piffling extras. In the light of planetary thermostats, what’s the odd $100 billion? When you’ve been asking for world government and control of the weather, $100 billion here or there is really nothing. Thus, the PR win is that agreements for “$100 billion” can sneak through and be described as if they are just a spot of spare change, described as: “it’s not enough” but “it’s a heartening start”. In any other forum, mass protests in the street would begin for much less.

Nonetheless, this is not “$100 billion” in the bag by any means, not until 2020, and it’s not guaranteed either, but it sure softens up the path for success in the near future. Do you suppose the chances of the climate gravy train getting more money in the next few years have not just ramped up a notch? CEO’s of companies will note the words “$100 billion” and they’ll be asking a staff member to start writing down how they can get some of that action… plans will shift the company closer to the gravy train several years before the gravy itself starts to flow.

So the bottom line of Cancun was that the puppet masters have sharpened up their game, and played things much more strategically. They got over-confident before Copenhagen and deservedly crashed and burned, but using a disciplined approached (backed by billions of your dollars) this time they are working to turn the losing team around.

Despite the evidence of corruption, or of satellites or radiosondes, or of killer peer reviewed papers, and despite the savage cold weather! The scare team are paving the way and all roads lead to Rome (or at least the Club of). Nothing has changed.

Post Note: Look out! Bureaucratic incompetence writ large.

Part of the Eastern Australian flood IS Man-made.

Jennifer Marohasy has pointed out that despite the massive flooding in Eastern Australia, the Snowy Mountain Hydro Dam is committed to releasing 4000-5000 Mega litres of water daily to “help the environment”. Marohasy must have spent a whole day phoning and emailing bureaucrats, almost all of whom refused to answer a simple question about whether the extra water was being released. If the dam gates were always shut when floods were downstream, wouldn’t every person in the office be able to say that?

Did no one writing those contracts think to add in a flood clause? Did they assume Tim Flannery knew what he was talking about? Did the team in charge of planning the water flow “know” somehow there would not be another flood on the Murray?

Richard C sums up Cancun in comments on the last post:

UPDATE: What did I say? Success at Cancun is already being used as an excuse here in Australia

****************************************EXCERPT***************************************

Richard C (NZ):
December 13th, 2010 at 6:23 am

“Do you suppose the chances of the climate gravy train getting more money in the next few years have not just ramped up a notch? CEO’s of companies will note the words “$100 billion” and they’ll be asking a staff member to start writing down how they can get some of that action… plans will shift the company closer to the gravy train several years before the gravy itself starts to flow.”

Case in point – this report

‘The Energy Efficiency: Accelerating the Agenda’ – Report pdf

See article

“COP16 to cut US$ 26 trillion energy costs by 2030?”

By WBRi IBNS Newswire on 07 December 2010

The World Economic Forum have booked tickets on the gravy train with Accenture (Andersen Consulting, H/T Rere).

My take FWIW duplicated from the previous post

What struck me was the thrust – “Accelerating the Agenda”

And that it was the World Economic Forum moving it.

Obviously there are huge opportunities for fee leverage and position building for consultants when “the Agenda” is global scale and what better way to profit than “Accelerating” it. But it is the climate-economic connection that is salient and we will be seeing more and more of in future. There will be IPCC AR5 climate-economic coupled model submissions for example.

The economic community has not so far been a player of note in the climate change game but all that has changed with this type of report. The economic modelers would love to get some of the action that the climate modelers have been getting for years and the potential for policy influence from climate-economic coupled model output will be magnified considerably – and so will the miss-allocated resources.

I see this (and other similar developments) as economics muscling in on the climate change action via:-

# Energy
# National economies
# Modelling
# Any other way possible

The scope is enormous and of course the UN will be accommodating.

****************************************EXCERPT****************************************

Richard C (NZ):
December 13th, 2010 at 4:22 pm

From The Australian

Under yesterday’s UN deal, the 194 national delegations in Cancun agreed to establish a “Green Climate Fund” to help developing countries deal with climate change.

Here’s the links:-

Decisions adopted by COP 16 and CMP 6

Specific document

Outcome of the work of the Ad Hoc Working Group on long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention

IV. Finance, technology and capacity-building
A. Finance
Fast-start finance
95. Takes note of the collective commitment by developed countries to provide new and additional resources, including forestry and investments through international institutions, approaching USD 30 billion for the period 2010–2012, with a balanced allocation between adaptation and mitigation; funding for adaptation will be prioritized for the most vulnerable developing countries, such as the least developed countries, small island developing States and Africa;
Long-term finance
97. Decides that, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Convention, scaled-up, new and additional, predictable and adequate funding shall be provided to developing country Parties, taking into account the urgent and immediate needs of developing countries that are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change;
98. Recognizes that developed country Parties commit, in the context of meaningful mitigation actions and transparency on implementation, to a goal of mobilizing jointly USD 100 billion per year by 2020 to address the needs of developing countries;
99. Agrees that, in accordance with paragraph 1(e) of the Bali Action Plan, funds provided to developing country Parties may come from a wide variety of sources, public and private, bilateral and multilateral, including alternative sources;
100. Decides that a significant share of new multilateral funding for adaptation should flow through the Green Climate Fund;
101. Takes note of the relevant reports on the financing needs and options for mobilization of resources to address the needs of developing country Parties with regard to climate change adaptation and mitigation, including the report of the High-level Advisory Group on Climate Change Financing;
Green Climate Fund
[Snip]
103. Also decides that the Fund shall be governed by a board of 24 members comprising an equal number of members from developing and developed country Parties; representation from developing country Parties shall include representatives from relevant United Nations regional groupings and representatives from small island developing States and the least developed countries; each board member shall have an alternate member; alternate members are entitled to participate in the meetings of the board only through the principal member, without the right to vote, unless they are serving as the member; during the absence of the member from all or part of the meeting of the board, his or her alternate shall serve as the member;
104. Further decides that the Green Climate Fund shall have a trustee; the trustee for the Green Climate Fund shall have the administrative competence to manage the financial assets of the Green Climate Fund, maintain appropriate financial records and prepare financial statements and other reports required by the Board of the Green Climate Fund, in accordance with internationally accepted fiduciary standards;
[Snip]
107. Invites the World Bank to serve as the interim trustee of the Green Climate Fund, subject to a review three years after operationalization of the fund;
108. Decides that the operation of the fund shall be supported by an independent secretariat;
109. Decides that the Green Climate Fund shall be designed by a Transitional Committee, in accordance with the terms of reference in annex III to this decision; the Transitional Committee shall have 40 members, with 15 members from developed country Parties and 25 members from developing country Parties, with:
(a) Seven members from Africa;
(b) Seven members from Asia;
(c) Seven members from Group of Latin American and Caribbean States;
(d) Two members from small island developing States;
(e) Two members from least developed countries;
110. Invites the Executive Secretary of the secretariat, in consultation with the President of the Conference of the Parties, to convene the initial meeting of the Transitional Committee, with members having the necessary experience and skills, notably in the area of finance and climate change; the transitional committee meetings will be open to observers;
111. Requests the secretariat, in consultation with President of the Conference of the Parties, to make arrangements enabling relevant United Nations agencies, international financial institutions, and multilateral development banks, along with the secretariat and the Global Environment Facility, to second staff to support the work of the Transitional Committee for the design phase of the Green Climate Fund;

Fine.

Now where’s the 194 signatories to provide the mandate to pursue “a wide variety of sources, public and private, bilateral and multilateral, including alternative sources”?

[Note - that would include airline levies, financial transaction fees etc]

Or, is this $100bn per year fund a verbal agreement under contract law?

[Get real - a $100bn per year verbal agreement to a written contract]

Or, is there no obligation yet for any country and no mandate for implementation until signing at Durban?

**************************************EXCERPT*****************************************

Mervyn Sullivan:
December 13th, 2010 at 11:52 pm

Despite so much scientific literature debunking the IPCC’s pseudo science, the IPCC’s man-made global warming juggernaut just keeps rolling along.

So how can the IPCC’s man-made global warming juggernaut be stopped?

The majority of politicians around the world are too dumb to understand how they have been conned by the IPCC. So we can’t rely on them. Even Tony Abbott has accepted the great big lie, be it in a most diluted form.

The skeptics who point out the real science debunking the IPCC’s mantra are not getting the coverage in the main stream media. So… there is really only one way to effectively stop this man-made global warming juggernaut and that is by legal action – to put to the test the IPCC’s computer model climate science against the real world science and observational climate data.

We have already seen what happens when the IPCC type mantra is tested in Court… twice, in fact:

1. Errors in “An Inconvenient Truth” were exposed in the British High Court preventing it being shown in British schools unless a disclaimer was first issued to the school pupils that it was a political film, not a scientific film and it contained errors.

2. The surface temperature record of New Zealand was exposed in a New Zealand court… Kiwigate demonstrated that when challenged in a Court, the “official temperature data” does not stand up to scrutiny, and data can’t seem to be produced in support of the “official mantra”.

So… let us be very serious here. How can we make it actually happen? For example:

1. What will it take to get the IPCC into a Court of Law?

2. What legal jurisdiction applies?

3. What key IPCC points should be challenged (e.g. flawed greenhouse gas theory; unreliable surface temperature record, flawed climate models; etc)?

4. How can a legal challenge be orchestrated (e.g. having a high profile facilitator required to organize and coordinate such action)?

5. How can a legal challenge be funded (e.g. global donations fund)?

Think about it … we all know the IPCC’s pseudo science is flawed. If tested in a Court of Law, wouldn’t the IPCC be readily exposed, and its mantra declared false, unreliable and misleading, if not fraudulent?

In my opinion, a Court challenge is the only mechanism that will ever halt the IPCC dead in its tracks.

So come on, everyone … let us somehow get this idea rolling, if we are dead serious about slaying the IPCC dragon once and for all.

And:

******************************************EXCERPT*********************************************

Brian G Valentine:
December 14th, 2010 at 2:13 am

I don’t know what it would take, Mervyn, but I don’t think the group could be sued or prosecuted by any authority outside of the UN internal investigation and enforcement bureau itself. Any systematic wrongdoing on the part of the IPCC could not be prosecuted by any single government (although individual crimes could certainly be investigated by the government of the panel member’s citizenship).

I looked into the criteria the UN Office of Internal Oversight would need to proceed with an investigation of a UN panel, willful deception with the goal of material gain would have to be demonstrated, I don’t think any realistic evidence of such a thing could be produced.

Few UN Panels are ever disbanded for demonstrated wrongdoing, what usually happens in their disappearance is that either their charter is provided a time line for the panel’s existence, or else governments don’t appoint panel members and they simply disappear.

I was personally familiar with the formation of the IPCC back in 1988, it was clear to me that the panel had a pre-determined agenda right at the outset, there wasn’t a damned thing I could do about it, the UN remains an intergovernmental disgrace, and I am as angry about the whole affair as you are

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.