Climate News Good & Bad

14 12 2009

Happy Monday to everyone. I hope everyone had a good weekend, and it didn’t involve having to be dragged to the Mall like I was.

There was even some good news/bad news I personally saw while shopping in ‘Hell’. It seems as if Americans are going all-out on their last big Christmas because they realize that by this time next year they may be in the streets, so they are making the same old mistakes by buying on credit. I will leave you to write a financial obituary for those lovers of credit.

Here we are on a Monday with some good news/bad news happening in Copenhagen. The good news is… A lot of the poorer nations have walked out on climate negotiations. The bad news is… A lot of the poorer nations have walked out on climate negotiations.

Having this insane meeting and negotiations over the climate, is being suspended. That’s the good news!

When the negotiations start back-up again people from the developed nations will do what our own Progressives would do…¬†medicate their guilt by offering these poor nations huge amounts of our tax dollars. Obviously the bad news!

One thing we do know with certainty, we haven’t heard the last of this.


Copenhagen climate summit negotiations ‘suspended’

Negotiations at the UN climate summit have been suspended after developing countries withdrew their co-operation.

Delegations were angry at what they saw as moves by the Danish host government to sideline talks on more emission cuts under the Kyoto Protocol.

As news spread around the conference centre, activists chanted “We stand with Africa – Kyoto targets now”.

But talks between the parties were expected to resume in the afternoon and informal discussions continue.

The countries that have suspended co-operation are those which make up the G77-China bloc of 130 nations. These range from wealthy countries such as South Korea, to some of the poorest states in the world.

The G77-China bloc speaks for developing countries in the climate change negotiation process.

Blocs representing poor countries vulnerable to climate change have been adamant that rich nations must commit to emission cuts beyond 2012 under the Kyoto Protocol.

But the EU and the developed world in general has promoted the idea of an entirely new agreement, replacing the protocol.

Developing countries fear they would lose many of the gains they made when the Kyoto agreement was signed in 1997.

They point out that the Kyoto Protocol is the only international legally binding instrument that has curbed carbon emissions, and also that it contains functioning mechanisms for bringing development benefits to poor countries such as money for investment in clean energy projects.

Previously during this meeting – formally called the Conference of the Parties (COP) 15 – developing countries have accused the Danish chairs of ignoring their concerns.

G77-China chief negotiator Lumumba Di-Aping explained why the bloc had taken the decision to withdraw its co-operation.

“It has become clear that the Danish presidency – in the most undemocratic fashion – is advancing the interests of the developed countries at the expense of the balance of obligations between developed and developing countries,” he told BBC Radio 4’s The World at One programme.

“The mistake they are doing now has reached levels that cannot be acceptable from a president who is supposed to be acting and shepherding the process on behalf of all parties.”

Last week, the Pacific island nation of Tuvalu forced a suspension after insisting that proposals to amend the UN climate convention and Kyoto Protocol be debated in full.

‘Losing time’

At a news conference earlier in the day, UK Climate Secretary Ed Miliband said that for the developed world to commit to further cuts under the Kyoto Protocol would be “irresponsible for the climate”.

He said it would leave some of the world’s biggest emitters without targets for cutting emissions.

Many developing countries have been arguing for a “twin track” approach, whereby countries with existing targets under the Kyoto Protocol (all developed nations except the US) stay under that umbrella, with the US and major developing economies making their carbon pledges under a new protocol.

Kim Carstensen, director of the global climate initiative with environment group WWF, said that much more movement was needed on the Kyoto Protocol negotiations here.

“The point is being made very loudly that African countries and the wider G77 bloc will not accept non-action on the Kyoto Protocol, and they’re really afraid that a deal has been stitched up behind their backs,” he told BBC News.

While understanding the G77 position, he said the suspension could affect progress towards a deal.

“We’re losing time, and that’s a serious matter; because for every minute we lose on one issue, the chances of getting to the bottom of the next issue diminish.”

The Danish government has yet to make any formal response; but Australian Climate Minister Penny Wong described the suspension as “regrettable”.

Yvo de Boer, executive secretary of the UN climate change convention, predicted that the negotiations would get back on track in the early afternoon.

“The vast majority of countries here want to see the continuation of the Kyoto Protocol,” he said.

“I’m not aware that any countries are trying to block anything.”

An African bloc walkout during prepatory talks in Barcelona in November proved unpopular with other developing countries, in particular some small island nations.




7 responses

14 12 2009

If this were about stopping pollution, the agreement would already be completed. Instead this about limiting CO2 only, not pollution, and also the creation of a world government, without any domestic discussion. How can anyone expect to support such a treaty when almost no one knows what the treaty says and there has been no debate. What, are we too stupid to understand the treaty that it must be hidden from our eyes? Even journalists will not speak about the contents of it and what it entails. A national debate must happen before we can agree to this treaty. This conference must fail for it to eventually succeed.

14 12 2009


I agree 100% with what you wrote. I’m all for clean water, clean air, clean world, etc, but I do have a problem with trying to regulate and make money on something that pollutes nothing.

Most Americans believe in climate change. The Ecofascists conveniently leave out the fact that many people are educated enough to know that climate changes all by itself and has been doing so for millions of years. The main argument Ecofascists use is that it is all man-made and they use bogus science to prove it. And since they won’t be transparent about their data, and they have now been caught fudging numbers, only those that will prosper from their lies support their dumb-ass theory.

You wanna clean up rivers, lakes, the planet in general, ok. You wanna take money from us to give to some United Nations controlled entity that will tell us how to live… HELL NO!


14 12 2009
Cec Moon

I second your kudos for Klem’s comment. This comes directly from the “Amen” corner.
In this case, the emails are immaterial because it has never been about climate, cold or hot. It is now and always has been about a different central ruling authority for governments world wide. Climate change just happens to be the cause de jour. The climate is nothing more than the usual murky methodology to achieve their freedom killing ends.
The only remaining question is: what do the Scandanavians have to gain from cooling the earth? One would think that it’s cold enough there already.

14 12 2009

We do not exist…………………………It just keeps going and going…………..amazing……………..emails……….what emails…………..?

14 12 2009


You have a good point. Not only are we invisble so are those pesky emails that say WE FUDGED THE DATA!


14 12 2009

Despite the lib MSM, the conservative Alternate Media of talk radio, Beck on Fox, and bloggers succeeded in rousing Americans for tea parties and the 9-12 March on D.C.

We’ll do the same about “climate change.” We’ll doggedly chip and chip away at this. Besides, what other option do we have?

14 12 2009


Eowyn, you are correct… that’s all we can do in the meantime. But I do think the new year is going to find a more radical Tea Party participation. The trick is going to be mentally cracking heads without using any violence.

I think we simply continue to tell the truth (chip-chip-chip) day in and day out, until a leader comes forward. But with the help of God we will be victorious!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: