Life’s pretty exciting these days when you’re a climate researcher, a lobbyist or an environmental activist. There’s a neverending schedule of conferences on climate change around the world to attend.
It’s a shame that very little science actually goes on at these conferences. Just lots and lots of shoulder-rubbing with politicians, scientists, writers, activists and the press. Especially press, because you can never have too much publicity.
As Bob Carter reports(pdf) on three such conferences held in Australia and New Zealand:
The three conferences shared the features of widespread pre-meeting publicity, and of sponsorship by major science organisations (CSIRO, Bureau of Meteorology, Royal Society of New Zealand), government departments (governments of Victoria, South Australia and New Zealand, foreign embassies (U.K., Holland), Greenhouse organisations and lobby groups (Australian Greenhouse Office, Greenpeace, World Wide Fund for Nature, Pew Center for Climate Change), and a wide range of companies and business organizations.
Press coverage before and during each meeting often gave the impression that the science of climate change was to be the focus, but in fact the conferences were dominantly concerned with greenhouse politics and governance, with a special emphasis on the development of presumed environmental-good “command and control” measures such as carbon taxes. As the organizer of the Wellington meeting noted, “This is a policy conference, not a science congress or a diplomatic negotiation”.
I present here an analysis of the face that was presented to the public by the Wellington conference, Climate Change and Governance, hereafter often called simply the climate conference. The conclusions that I draw are, however, applicable also to the Melbourne and Adelaide meetings and to others of like kind. I assess the intentions of the Wellington conference organizers, the degree to which the general and policy discussions were informed by an adequate understanding of the science of climate change, the role played by the media in informing the public, and assess the outcomes. Troublesome ethical issues emerge, the most important of which include the role in society of scientific organizations and universities, and the way in which government-employed and other scientists are today constrained in the public comment that they can make on controversial issues of the day. Another major concern is the way in which scientific results are now routinely deployed into the public domain with a clear greenhouse propaganda intent.
That’s problem with being a skeptic - I just don’t get out enough.
As if by magic, Nigel Lawson has his thesis immediately proven by John Vidal, Environment Editor at the extremely pro-AGW “The Guardian” with this piece:
Billions of pounds are being wasted in paying industries in developing countries to reduce climate change emissions, according to two analyses of the UN’s carbon offsetting programme.
Leading academics and watchdog groups allege that the UN’s main offset fund is being routinely abused by chemical, wind, gas and hydro companies who are claiming emission reduction credits for projects that should not qualify. The result is that no genuine pollution cuts are being made, undermining assurances by the UK government and others that carbon markets are dramatically reducing greenhouse gases, the researchers say.
No, really?
A working paper from two senior Stanford University academics examined more than 3,000 projects applying for or already granted up to $10bn of credits from the UN’s CDM funds over the next four years, and concluded that the majority should not be considered for assistance. “They would be built anyway,” says David Victor, law professor at the Californian university. “It looks like between one and two thirds of all the total CDM offsets do not represent actual emission cuts.”
Governments consider that CDM is vital to reducing global emissions under the terms of the Kyoto treaty. To earn credits under the mechanism, emission reductions must be in addition to those that would have taken place without the project. But critics argue this “additionality” is impossible to prove and open to abuse. The Stanford paper, by Victor and his colleague Michael Wara, found that nearly every new hydro, wind and natural gas-fired plant expected to be built in China in the next four years is applying for CDM credits, even though it is Chinese policy to encourage these industries.
“Traders are finding ways of gaining credits that they would never have had before. You will never know accurately, but rich countries are clearly overpaying by a massive amount,” said Victor.
Of course, those billions come from Western taxpayers like you and me. Unsurprisingly, developers of such projects as wind energy farms and hydroelectric schemes applying for emissions credits that can be sold, which in theory would help fund building, but they’ve already been funded by conventional means anyway, so the money goes straight into the developers’ pockets.
Happy now?
So Lawson’s observation that one of the key characteristics of bubbles is roguery has already been demonstrated by the UN’s own scheme being ransacked by businessman wanting to double their profits through the CDM.
How long before the general public realises that its been had?
This takes my breath away - see if the assumptions of this “model” are not an affront to science or even logic.
In Australia, the programme “Planet Slayer” is a popular children’s show on ABC. It appears to be thinly disguised environmentalist propaganda and that “Greenhouse Calculator” took my breath away.
For some reason the less money you spent in a year, the greater the carbon footprint. Does anyone know why?
An Aussie lawyer blogger put it this way
What an evil, evil little application! Just imagine that some impressionable child comes along to the website and finds out that his family should have “died” at the age of 4.3. That is just despicable. It actually reminds me of an incident which occurred when I was 6 years old, involving a Religious Education teacher telling me that my parents were going to hell because they were heathens. (Incidentally, being a logical type, I worked out if she was right, I’d rather be in Hell with Mum and Dad, but if she was wrong, who cares, so either way, I may as well reject her religion with impunity).
These are the kinds of things which just should not be put to a kid. Or to anyone really. The notion of calculating that someone should die because they consume too much carbon is immoral and revolting in the extreme.
Incredible.
By the way, I died at 5.3 years - or at least the pig did. Apparently this means that my share of the carbon pie (this being a zero-sum game) meant that I could only consume at my current rate for 5.3 years before I would “run out”.
If I was a peasant in the third world by comparison, I could live forever!
Bad Behavior has blocked 23 access attempts in the last 7 days.
