I hereby declare for myself a CO2 emission reduction target of 120% by yesterday, and can happily report I have met that same target already. And if anybody doesn’t believe me, well, you have no right to monitor any of that, and there is no penalty for failure anyway.
Because, as reported by John M. Broder from COP16:
Mr. Ramesh proposed a plan for bridging the gap between the United States and China on verification, by establishing a voluntary program known as international consultation and analysis. Under the plan, also known as I.C.A., countries would declare their emissions reduction targets and provide regular reports on how they were meeting them and gauging their own progress.
There would be no international monitors or inspectors, and no penalties for failing to reach stated targets. Smaller countries would have less frequent and less detailed reporting requirements than major emitters.
Mr. Ramesh’s concept has been broadly accepted here
As a poet would say, no sh*t Sherlock. Indeed none.
Like all good diplomats, Yvo de Boer has decided to leave the UNFCCC on a high note, and with some frank remarks finally providing a glimpse about where the world actually is, in terms of dealing with climate change. Here’s them very briefly:
“A good debate on rules and compliance can help bring us closer to an ambitious and credible regime”
“We are on a long journey to address climate change”
“Often the focus is on the interpretation of stated positions, rather than debate to understand the nature of underlying interests”
“At home, we would never seek to reform agricultural policy without involving the Ministry of Agriculture. We would, however, give that Ministry clear terms of reference and ask it to report back to Cabinet.”
In other words, it’s not the right time for being all cuddly and asininely inclusive.
“Sarah Palin recently referred to the work of the IPCC as “snake oil science”. This remark was symptomatic of a growing distrust with regard to the science that underpins climate policy. This is not something we can afford. I am very happy that a review of the IPCC’s working methods is taking place. If we undertake a broad review of the Convention in 2015, we will need a strong, credible and robust Fifth Assessment Report on which to base that review.”
In other words, people fixated on blaming the “growing distrust” on evil Exxon-funded denialist machines, are talking rubbish. The IPCC is in need of getting its house in order before 5AR comes out.
“There are, I believe, huge opportunities to ask the private sector what policy design is needed to achieve the greatest possible green growth, while safeguarding economic growth and poverty eradication”
In other words, by focusing on climate and “green” alone, many have risked ruining economic growth and poverty eradication programmes.
“The national slogan of my country is: “unity in diversity”. I am confident that you can find that unity in diversity”
And that’s a message for all climate talebans to get lost. Because “diversity” is as important as “unity”, and the latter must be found in the former.
Much is being said about the incredibly innovative use of the English language (ha!) by South Dakota legislators, and especially the now-famous mention of “astrological…dynamics that can effect world weather phenomena” (I know, should have been “can affect”).
Politicians trying to legislate science, what a dumb idea, uh. Why, I am sure no serious scientist would advocate for scientific phenomena to be established by a United Nations Framework Convention.
And who could even imagine the horror of letting a whole field’s situation be assessed by a scientific body directly reporting to Governments…