A quote:

Let me make one observation about that, by the way. Something different now is that each country is doing a bottom-up analysis of what they can achieve. Back in 1997, it was a top-down approach; countries strove to reach agreement on overall targets, but had not done the groundwork as to how they would actually be achieved at the domestic level. We think that the catalyst that this major economies meeting has provided for each country to do the bottom-up work is going to give us greater confidence in commitments as we go to next year.

A crafty G8: The G8 has strengthened unity within itself, and shifted climate change pressure on to its competitors http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=645915

One of the most notable achievements of the G8’s new climate strategy is the fact that the U. S., Europe, Japan and Russia appear to be singing from the same hymn sheet. The EU and Russia are now supporting President Bush’s persistent demand that any new climate deal include China and India. By bringing Europe on board a united platform, the G8 has managed to divide the green movement, which is rapidly losing its traditional allies within European governments. Western governments have thus begun to unshackle their post-Kyoto policy-making from the influence and public pressure of environmental campaign groups.

Interesting that Europe and the US are now seen to be aligned…

I’ve mentioned a paper by Amazon forest expert Philip Fearnside on previous blogs, in which he argued European governments and European NGOs had lined up against the US in earlier Kyoto negotiations (and kept forest protection out of the agreement). I’ve found an online link to it now:
SAVING TROPICAL FORESTS AS A GLOBAL WARMING COUNTERMEASURE: AN ISSUE THAT DIVIDES THE ENVIRONMENTAL MOVEMENT

Here’s a quote:

For European and European-dominated NGOs, opposition to forests is best explained as an opportunistic blow at US consumption culture, which is reviled for reasons largely unrelated to climate change.

The Canadian newspaper article describes a shift from the alignment outlined by Fearnside.

Interesting…

Also, there was a good interview with Warrick McKibbin on Lateline tonight.

Bill @ no. 16: “Like most pious pledges by international quangos, this means nothing at all.”

That is one snappy sentence, man, regardless of whether one agrees with the sentiment. Hoo-eee. If there were a few more people at the negotiating table carrying this sharp a blade, who knows what could have been accomplished.

The G5 are not happy either:

Industrialized nations must “take the lead” and commit to emissions cuts from 1990 of at least 25 percent by 2020 and 80 percent by 2050, the G-5 said in a separate statement yesterday.

I take the G5 in this context to mean China, India, Brazil, Mexico and South Africa. They’ve spelt out what they require.

A friend just brought me back a copy of the CEC/LaRouche ‘newspaper’ from outside the town hall. Apparently the reason for the global warming hoax is that the oligarchy, ably led by Prince Philip, want to reduce world population so they can introduce global socialism. Kissinger, the Bush family, Churchill, Bertrand Russell, they’ve all been in it, thick as thieves.

It’s possible it’s the Trilateral Commission or more likely the Bilderberg Group.

“We made progress — significant progress — toward a comprehensive approach,” Bush said. “In order to address climate change, all major economies must be at the table, and that’s what we had here today.”

But today there was no further progress with the developing countries.

Meanwhile back in the US it’s business as usual.

Basically, the IPCC calculations for future emissions for “business as usual” are far, far too low

Not just future emissions, but the emissions we’ve *actually* experienced since they invented the projections - see Pielke et al Dangerous Assumptions: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v452/n7187/full/452531a.html and associated reactions http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/2008/05/experts_respond_to_dangerous_a.shtml

Spoilsport.

Wilful - Bertie Russell? Really?

There would certainly be a tipping point, but that tipping point, in terms of a percentage of global population, would need to be higher if it didn’t include the key nations, whom I would identify (just off the top of my head) as being the USA, Japan, Russia, UK, France, Italy, Spain, Germany, India, China, Indonesia & Brazil. A combination of the biggest (per capita) emitters and the biggest nations population wise.

This way there would not be a immediate detrimental effect to the Australian economy, or any other similar sized nation implementing an ETS or other reduction of carbon emissions.

But if we are going to cut emissions, we need to have to pay to emit. That way the market will sort out the problems.

It’s clear as mud:

Utterly pathetic (and predictable). But it makes for a nice headline… Smoke and mirrors, anyone?

How about a program of tariffs applied to the goods of the hold-out nations, starting at 20% and ramping up progressively as long asd they hold out.

Or, apply same to individual corporations: only those that have reduced emissions or bought offsets remain tariff-free.

I’m trying to think of a trade/finance mechanism, so we avoid sending gunboats. I reckon the Chinese and Indians would respond.

Something like “targetted trade sanctions” which have been applied to Myanmar, Iran, Iraq, Cuba, etc at various times.

What think you, Howard C?

I wish I could make that shit up.

By the way, I suggest a 20-second limit on questions at such events in future.

People will beleive anything if it suits their taste for middle class moralising.

blood’ oath, wilful.

Let’s get moving pronto quicksmart. The Aussie public WANTS to get moving, at least for the easier, first 20% of the cuts. It’s like a bloke going on a diet: the first 6 kilos are easy, and it gets him in a frame of mind to keep losing weight.