Global warming dials up our risks, UN report says

[Flying Crane]

Which has nothing to do with the free market which was his point

what kinds of subsidies and tax breaks do the oil industry get? from here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies

Energy subsidies are measures that keep prices for consumers below market levels or for producers above market levels, or reduce costs for consumers and producers.[SUP][citation needed][/SUP] Energy subsidies may be direct cash transfers to producers, consumers, or related bodies, as well as indirect support mechanisms, such as tax exemptions and rebates, price controls, trade restrictions, and limits on market access. They may also include energy conservation subsidies.[SUP][citation needed][/SUP] The development of today's major modern energy industries have all relied on substantial subsidy support.
Fossil fuel subsidies reached $90 billion in the OECD and over $500 billion globally in 2011.[SUP][1][/SUP] Renewable energy subsidies reached $88 billion in 2011.[SUP][2][/SUP] According to Fatih Birol, Chief Economist at the International Energy Agency without a phasing out of fossil fuel subsidies, we will not reach our climate targets.[SUP][3]

The fossil fuel industry gets plenty of subsidies. There's no free market there either.[/SUP]

 

[Flying Crane]

so you are concerned that the fossil fuel industry is going to somehow be at an unfair competitive advantage? is that something you want me to get all weepy about?

of course i meant "unfair competitive disadvantage"

 

[Makalakumu]

OK, silly me. You're talking about the IPCC. Now just where does it say that it will manage carbon taxes and control CO2 emissions?

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the leading international body for the assessment of climate change. It was established by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in 1988 to provide the world with a clear scientific view on the current state of knowledge in climate change and its potential environmental and socio-economic impacts. In the same year, the UN General Assembly endorsed the action by WMO and UNEP in jointly establishing the IPCC.

The IPCC is a scientific body under the auspices of the United Nations (UN). It reviews and assesses the most recent scientific, technical and socio-economic information produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of climate change. It does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters.

Thousands of scientists from all over the world contribute to the work of the IPCC on a voluntary basis. Review is an essential part of the IPCC process, to ensure an objective and complete assessment of current information. IPCC aims to reflect a range of views and expertise. The Secretariat coordinates all the IPCC work and liaises with Governments. It is supported by WMO and UNEP and hosted at WMO headquarters in Geneva.

The IPCC is an intergovernmental body. It is open to all member countries of the United Nations (UN) and WMO. Currently 195 countries are members of the IPCC. Governments participate in the review process and the plenary Sessions, where main decisions about the IPCC work programme are taken and reports are accepted, adopted and approved. The IPCC Bureau Members, including the Chair, are also elected during the plenary Sessions.

Because of its scientific and intergovernmental nature, the IPCC embodies a unique opportunity to provide rigorous and balanced scientific information to decision makers. By endorsing the IPCC reports, governments acknowledge the authority of their scientific content. The work of the organization is therefore policy-relevant and yet policy-neutral, never policy-prescriptive.

I must of missed that speech so I went looking. I found heaps of blogs making the same claim but I couldn't find the original source or any official reference to that speech anywhere. So perhaps, just to humour me, you might post a link to your source, official of course.

Yes, I like your study but it doesn't seem to leave much scope for the future.

I posted a NYT editorial by Ban Ki Moon where he outlines the the plan to regulate global carbon emissions in this thread. You can find all kinds of world leaders calling for the same thing.

In 2010 world leaders met in Copenhagen to try and hammer out the details of this global bureaucracy to control emissions. Here are the minutes.

http://www.iisd.ca/vol12/enb12459e.html

Have a read. It wasn't that successful.

 

[Makalakumu]

the agenda is, we gotta be doing things in a cleaner way because we are turning our earth into a garbage dump and we cannot live in that environment. we gotta clean up our act, plain and simple, or we will not survive it.

I share this concern, but I think you are incorrectly assuming that the plutocrats in charge also care about this.

 

[K-man]

I posted a NYT editorial by Ban Ki Moon where he outlines the the plan to regulate global carbon emissions in this thread. You can find all kinds of world leaders calling for the same thing.

In 2010 world leaders met in Copenhagen to try and hammer out the details of this global bureaucracy to control emissions. Here are the minutes.

SUMMARY OF THE COPENHAGEN CLIMATE CHANGE CONFERENCE - 7-19 DECEMBER 2009 - Copenhagen - Denmark

Have a read. It wasn't that successful.

I don't think you got that quite right.

Looking forward to Copenhagen, I have four benchmarks for success:


Every country must do its utmost to reduce emissions from all major sources, including from deforestation and emissions from shipping and aviation. Developed countries must strengthen their mid-term mitigation targets, which are currently nowhere close to the cuts that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says are needed. Developing countries must slow the rise in their emissions and accelerate green growth as part of their strategies to reduce poverty.


A successful deal must strengthen the world’s ability to cope with an already changing climate. In particular, it must provide comprehensive support to those who bear the heaviest climate impacts. Support for adaptation is not only an ethical imperative; it is a smart investment in a more stable, secure world.


A deal needs to be backed by money and the means to deliver it. Developing countries need funding and technology so they can move more quickly toward green growth. The solutions we discuss cannot be realized without substantial additional financing, including through carbon markets and private investment.


A deal must include an equitable global governance structure. All countries must have a voice in how resources are deployed and managed. That is how trust will be built.


Can we seal a comprehensive, equitable and ambitious deal in Copenhagen that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions and limit global temperature rise to a scientifically safe level? Can we catalyze clean energy growth? Can we help to protect the most vulnerable nations from the effects of climate change? Can we expect the United States to play a leading role?


The best answer to all these questions was given last week by Senators Kerry and Graham: “Yes, we can.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/26/opinion/26iht-edban.html

I presume this is Ban Ki-moon's plan for Global Bureaucracy? Some plan ... and this was five years back!

So. What happened at Copenhagen?

Many recognized the historical significance of the Copenhagen Conference, highlighting its unprecedented success in bringing together the majority of the world’s leaders to consider climate change and listing mitigation actions pledged by developed and developing countries, as well as provisions on finance and technology. Most delegates, however, left Copenhagen disappointed at what they saw as a “weak agreement,” and questioning its practical implications given that the Copenhagen Accord had not been formally adopted as the outcome of the negotiations.
SUMMARY OF THE COPENHAGEN CLIMATE CHANGE CONFERENCE - 7-19 DECEMBER 2009 - Copenhagen - Denmark

Mmm, nothing. No sign of global bureaucracy here ... and I think that pulling out articles from five years ago hardly reflects today's position. As I said in my previous post, the verdict is in, climate change is here. The question now is what are we going to do about it? Even more than that, is there anything that can be done to reverse the trend?
:asian:

 

[ballen0351]

what kinds of subsidies and tax breaks do the oil industry get? from here: Energy subsidies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



The fossil fuel industry gets plenty of subsidies. There's no free market there either.[/SUP]

I never said there was.............

 

[Makalakumu]

No sign of global bureaucracy here ...

:lfao:

Here is what was discussed at the Warsaw climate change conference in November 2013

https://unfccc.int/focus/overview/items/7756.php

Here is the UN plan for a global bureaucracy to manage global emissions.

https://unfccc.int/focus/overview/items/7879.php

Here is a little more history that shows how the UN is moving toward creating this structure.

Durban Platform | Climate change

There are a lot of ways you could spin this, but at the very least, can you admit that a global structure for managing carbon emissions is emerging?

 

[Makalakumu]

What does compliance and enforcement on a global scale sound like?

Compliance mechanism

The Kyoto Protocol compliance mechanism is designed to strengthen the Kyoto Protocol's environmental integrity, support the credibility of the carbon market and ensure the transparency of Parties' accounting. Its objective is to facilitate, promote and enforce compliance with the commitments under the Kyoto Protocol. It is among the most comprehensive and rigorous systems of compliance for a multilateral environmental agreement.


The Compliance Committee implements the procedures and mechanisms relating to compliance under the Kyoto Protocol, designed to facilitate, promote and enforce compliance with commitments under the Kyoto Protocol.


The Compliance Committee was established by decision 27/CMP.1. It has two branches (the enforcement and facilitative branches) and a plenary. Each branch is composed of 10 members and has a chairperson and vice-chairperson.


The plenary of the Compliance Committee meets at least twice a year and the branches meet as often as required. The Compliance Committee reports annually to the CMP. Each branch reports to the plenary on its work. The CMP can consider an appeal against a decision of the enforcement branch relating to Article 3, paragraph 1, of the Kyoto Protocol if the Party concerned believes it has been denied due process.


In terms of linkages, the JISC is encouraged to collaborate with the Compliance Committee, in particular with regard to the list of Parties that meet the eligibility requirements for participation in market-based mechanisms and those that have been suspended by the enforcement branch.

Government is a group of people who have the right to initiate force against individuals in a given geographic area.

 

[K-man]

:lfao:

Here is what was discussed at the Warsaw climate change conference in November 2013

https://unfccc.int/focus/overview/items/7756.php

Here is the UN plan for a global bureaucracy to manage global emissions.

https://unfccc.int/focus/overview/items/7879.php

Here is a little more history that shows how the UN is moving toward creating this structure.

Durban Platform | Climate change

There are a lot of ways you could spin this, but at the very least, can you admit that a global structure for managing carbon emissions is emerging?

What does compliance and enforcement on a global scale sound like?

Government is a group of people who have the right to initiate force against individuals in a given geographic area.

Sorry Maka but I cannot accept a voluntary commitment to trying to achieve a decrease in carbon emissions as Global Bureaucracy. There is no enforcement and what your are railing against is in actual fact just a committee.
:asian:

 

[Makalakumu]

Sorry Maka but I cannot accept a voluntary commitment to trying to achieve a decrease in carbon emissions as Global Bureaucracy. There is no enforcement and what your are railing against is in actual fact just a committee.
:asian:

I think that assessment is woefully understated, K-man. The whole structure including enforcement is openly described. It's just not fully implemented.

And since when did any of these "agreements" become voluntary? I don't agree...

 

[K-man]

I think that assessment is woefully understated, K-man. The whole structure including enforcement is openly described. It's just not fully implemented.

And since when did any of these "agreements" become voluntary? I don't agree...

Perhaps you could point out to us what laws have been adopted by the United Nations that are binding on all the world. What laws have been adopted by the UN that apply in Iran for example? There is no enforcement by the UN anywhere. There can be an agreement to apply sanctions but that is hardly law enforcement. Russia invades Crimea and the UN does what? North Korea fires missiles over Japanese territory and the UN does what?

Australia is in the midst of abolishing the Carbon Tax that the previous government introduced. Was that a UN law? What will happen to us now? Will the UN fine the Australian Government or will they choose to invade us instead so they can have their dastardly way with us?
:asian:

 

[Makalakumu]

Treaties. How do those affect your country? In the US they can supercede our Constitution. Rule by treaty at this point. That's changing though. The UN is developing an enforcement arm.

 

[Flying Crane]

I think that assessment is woefully understated, K-man. The whole structure including enforcement is openly described. It's just not fully implemented.

And since when did any of these "agreements" become voluntary? I don't agree...

well, the US voluntarily did not sign on to the Kyoto protocol...

 

[Flying Crane]

Treaties. How do those affect your country? In the US they can supercede our Constitution. Rule by treaty at this point. That's changing though. The UN is developing an enforcement arm.

care to, um, give us an example?

 

[K-man]

care to, um, give us an example?

You beat me to it!

Treaties. How do those affect your country? In the US they can supercede our Constitution. Rule by treaty at this point. That's changing though. The UN is developing an enforcement arm.

Just one example would be fine.

Oh! ... and I'd love to see the evidence you have of this 'enforcement arm'. It's certainly news to me.
:asian:

 

[Makalakumu]

All the relevant information is posted here in thread. The head the UN and other world leaders have called for it and claimed that 2009 was the first year of this agreement. I've shown it's structure, function, financing, and budding enforcement arm. You can read original documents from official summits, see their successes and failures, and you can look at the progression toward an end goal on a series of action steps that are laid out by the UN itself.

It's a globalized bureaucracy to manage emissions. In their own words, they call it a global government. You guys need to step back from the energy of this discussion and just let it all digest for a while.

 

[Makalakumu]

care to, um, give us an example?

Did the US become a member of the UN? Did this country sign that treaty?

 

[K-man]

All the relevant information is posted here in thread. The head the UN and other world leaders have called for it and claimed that 2009 was the first year of this agreement. I've shown it's structure, function, financing, and budding enforcement arm. You can read original documents from official summits, see their successes and failures, and you can look at the progression toward an end goal on a series of action steps that are laid out by the UN itself.


It's a globalized bureaucracy to manage emissions. In their own words, they call it a global government. You guys need to step back from the energy of this discussion and just let it all digest for a while.

They may have called for it but it is never going to happen, at least in our lifetimes. I'm trying to digest it but a lot of what you have posted is just indigestible.

Did the US become a member of the UN? Did this country sign that treaty?

That was in 1945. So where is this global governance that you are talking about. Nearly 70 years gone and very little consensus over that time.
:asian:

 

[Makalakumu]

They may have called for it but it is never going to happen, at least in our lifetimes. I'm trying to digest it but a lot of what you have posted is just indigestible.


That was in 1945. So where is this global governance that you are talking about. Nearly 70 years gone and very little consensus over that time.
:asian:

I think we'll see a more unified global government in my life time. Climate change may bring it about or it may be some other excuse the global oligarchy uses, but it's eventually going to happen.

That said, people in the UN we're claiming that the first year of global government was 2009. This may or may not have been premature, but what can't be denied is that climate change is the zeitgeist excuse this time.

 

[K-man]

I think we'll see a more unified global government in my life time. Climate change may bring it about or it may be some other excuse the global oligarchy uses, but it's eventually going to happen.

That said, people in the UN we're claiming that the first year of global government was 2009. This may or may not have been premature, but what can't be denied is that climate change is the zeitgeist excuse this time.

In accepting his appointment as the first president of the European Union, Belgian Prime Minister Herman Van Rompuy announced that “global governance” is the only way to address the crises that beset the planet.


“We’re living through exceptionally difficult times – the financial crisis and its dramatic impact on employment and budgets, the climate crisis which threatens our very survival, a period of anxiety, uncertainty and lack of confidence,” he said in his maiden press conference. “Yet these problems can be overcome through a joint effort between our countries. 2009 is also the first year of global governance with the establishment of the G20 in the middle of the financial crisis. The climate conference in Copenhagen is another step toward the global management of our planet.”

http://www.wnd.com/2009/11/116823/#8YZ4GEz8rXXrx1Kw.99

So one man says it so it must be true.
:hmm: