tip off

Parkinson: Durban talks off to a bad start

The United Nations climate change talks begin their 17th iteration in the rain-soaked South African city of Durban this morning in much the same way that they have since 1995 — with a host of fine rhetoric about why the world needs to act on global warming, but virtually no agreement on how or when.

Usually, these conferences manage to overcome their organisational chaos, and the days spent negotiating over what is to be negotiated, to patch together just enough of an agreement to continue the process for another few years.

This year, however, as more than 10,000 delegates from 194 countries converge on the coastal city, there is a greater sense of foreboding, and an even greater risk that practical progress will be overshadowed by symbolism and political grandstanding; the differences over the three key sticking points — agreeing on a roadmap for a new binding international treaty, deciding what to with the Kyoto Protocol, and advancing the elements of the Cancun agreement — seem even more intractable than ever. And for the first time, there isn’t even agreement on where the next climate talks will be held — Qatar or South Korea. Some suggest the question should be “if” and not “where”.

The scene has been set by the usual pre-talks rhetoric: The UN has warned that the “gigatonne” gap between what has been pledged at Cancun and what the world needs to do to limit global warming to 2° is wider than before, as the world continues to emit greenhouse gases at record rates, and the forecasts for extreme weather are even more dramatic.

The EU, the flag-bearers of action for much of the past decade, are preoccupied by their own economic woes and face the possible collapse of their own carbon market. They now insist that the major emitters from developing countries — China, India and Brazil — lock into agreements to cut their emissions, rather than just slowing their growth. China, on the other hand, insists that developing countries not use the economic downturn as an excuse to delay their own action. The US, for possibly the first time in recent history, is trying to make itself look very small. Smaller developing countries, most at threat, grow even more exasperated, and are threatening an Occupy-style protest at the negotiations if progress is slow — which is virtually guaranteed. They remain deeply attached to Kyoto because it is all they have got.

What will be the outcome?

It seems that the best that can be hoped for is agreement on a roadmap for a new binding treaty? Sound familiar? That was the conclusion of Bali, which set a deadline for Copenhagen, which, of course, came undone in the most spectacular fashion. A new roadmap would likely aim for agreement by 2015 (that is Australia’s and Norway’s proposal), but implementation could come as late as 2020 (that is UK’s proposal).

The Climate Institute paints four scenarios: collapse, patchwork, progress and breakthrough. “Collapse” might seem dramatic, but it sums up the position of parties coming into the talks. “Patchwork” describes some progress on issues such as REDD (forest protection), but continued disagreement over finance and the legal nature of a treaty, with a last-minute Cancun-style compromise enough to continue talks for another year.

Progress” describes a reinforcement of Cancun Agreemenent, further work on the green fund and other issues, but still no agreement on a Kyoto successor. “Breakthrough,” describes excellent progress on Cancun deals, agreement on new international trading mechanisms, a commitment by Europe, Australia and others to take on Kyoto II targets, with Russia, Canada and Japan accepting Kyoto accounting rules and — most importantly — a mandate to negotiate a new legally binding treaty that will come into effect between 2015 and 2020.

What does Australia want?

It needs, at least, a result from “patchwork” and “progress”, because “collapse” would intensify the political pressure for a delay, or a watering down, of its carbon pricing regime. A “breakthrough” result would, of course, be best, but it would mean that Australia would likely find itself pursuing a 15% target, rather than just 5%. All the more reason, in that case, to want to have an ETS rather than a tax or direct action.

Judging by climate change minister Greg Combet’s speech on Friday, he expects “progress”, but his focus will also be on the need to build bilateral links with the likes of New Zealand, California, South Korea, China, Japan and Indonesia, as this will be essential to the integrity of the government’s Clean Energy Future package. It seems increasingly likely that the future of emissions trading will lie in the Pacific, rather than in Europe, but Australia and New Zealand don’t want to be the only folk turning up to the party.

The role of China

The US refusal to sign the Kyoto Protocol may have been the dominating influence over the climate talks from 1997 to 2009, but from the moment they sent a junior bureaucrat with President Barack Obama to Copenhagen in 2009, it’s been the Chinese who have been in control of these negotiations. The Americans had one brief opportunity in Copenhagen to force through an agreement, but failed — now the timing will be entirely dictated by what suits the Chinese economy.

The glass-half-empty brigade are convinced that China will never act to curb its emissions, because its economic growth would be compromised, and so too the Communist Party’s grip on power. The glass half-full brigade cite the very same motivations for believing that China will curb emissions, and they point to China’s investment in clean technologies — nearly more than the rest of the world combined — and its piloting of seven different emissions trading schemes as proof of their intent.

And betting one way or another is not just a matter of political punditry, it’s a bet on the economic future. When China acts, the world will have no choice but to follow, and quickly. The US is aware of this, which is why it keeps talking about the clean energy “Sputnik” moment. The IEA is aware of this, which is why it issued its recent forecasts on the implications of a delayed response to the 2° targets, which is exactly the direction the world is heading. Australia is aware of this too, which is why it is committing itself to the first steps towards decarbonisation, when it would have been a lot easier to do nothing.

When will we know?

Probably not until the last day of the event. The first week of these talks is usually taken up with negotiations about what can be negotiated. It is a tedious affair enlivened only by the drama created in the corridors, the side events, and in front of the media. The ministers don’t turn up intil the second week, and some sort of compromise is usually produced after an all-night sitting on the Thursday or Friday night. In Cancun, this appeared an impossibility, until some deft Latin diplomacy from the Mexican hosts produced a canny compromise. The South African chair of this event may have to pluck a similar rabbit out of her hat.

Big tip?

Canada to have a virtual mortgage on the fossil of the day awards, with stiff competition from Russia and Saudi Arabia.

*This article first appeared on Climate Spectator

40
  • 1
    Microseris
    Posted Monday, 28 November 2011 at 2:23 pm | Permalink

    Ironic to see that respective responses to the global financial crisis and global climate change. One created by markets by monumental greed and stupidity and which there was an immediate worldwide response, the other which the first world has essentially created (so far) and has far more at stake, where there is lots of talk and virtually no action.

    One has had saturation, universal coverage from the media arguing a compelling case for action, the other has had every imbecile (read Monckton, Bolt, Jones, Rinehart, Joyce, et al.) say whatever they want and the media report it as valid.

    Greed rules..

  • 2
    Suzanne Blake
    Posted Monday, 28 November 2011 at 2:25 pm | Permalink

    The Durban talks are a waste of jet fuel, security and food and beverages. The World (except Australia) are backing away from this so fast its like a WW2 Italian Tank!. The countries will talk this and that, but thats all it is.

  • 3
    Modus Ponens
    Posted Monday, 28 November 2011 at 2:40 pm | Permalink

    Until the severe and frequent natural disasters start piling up, and the bailing out of financial markets has succeeded, I fear the world will do nothing. Each year, we get closer to the tipping point of no return.

    But it is with a unique sense of pride that I see Australia with Norway advocating for a fast global solution.

    I am not used to this feeling.

  • 4
    Peter Ormonde
    Posted Monday, 28 November 2011 at 2:46 pm | Permalink

    Strangely Mr Ponens, Australia was once a bit of a global pace setter on social issues and reform. But that of course was before the place was infested with Troofies and Blakes who would be far too shy and reticient to get up on the dance floor while everyone was looking. Talk about cringe. Wall- flowers the lot of ‘em.

    But it is warming (pardon the word) to see Australia not - for once - slithering into the conservative cot with the Canadians Saudis and the like.

  • 5
    Michael
    Posted Monday, 28 November 2011 at 3:24 pm | Permalink

    How do you people keep a straight face?
    You’re all mostly well educated so how is it possible that you all pursue these superstition like beliefs and then have the temerity to castigate those (nuts) who follow religion?

  • 6
    Hugh (Charlie) McColl
    Posted Monday, 28 November 2011 at 3:37 pm | Permalink

    Exactly which straight-faced nut cases are you addressing here Michael? Are you a global-warming-is-a-superstition person or are you trying to sink the slipper into any denier you think you can spot? Either way you aren’t putting your case very clearly.

  • 7
    Jimmy
    Posted Monday, 28 November 2011 at 3:41 pm | Permalink

    SB - “The World (except Australia) are backing away from this so fast” I know you find this difficult but do you possibly have any evidence fot this statement?

    Peter & Modus - Yeah it is good to know Australia can go there with some credibility when asking others to act.

    I also find this aspect of the conference fascinating - ” his focus will also be on the need to build bilateral links with the likes of New Zealand, California, South Korea, China, Japan and Indonesia” a carbon market comprising Australia and those 6 countries would be ver significant.

  • 8
    Michael
    Posted Monday, 28 November 2011 at 3:48 pm | Permalink

    Hugh you seem like a good example, thanks for volunteering.
    It does seem like the rest of the world has moved on and accepted the underlying purpose of the histrionics - wealth distribution. As the gig now seems up & over you will excuse me if I resume ROFLMAO position?!!!

  • 9
    Suzanne Blake
    Posted Monday, 28 November 2011 at 3:48 pm | Permalink

    @ Jimmy

    USA (as per Obama) and Canada (as per their PM) for starters

  • 10
    Peter Ormonde
    Posted Monday, 28 November 2011 at 3:54 pm | Permalink

    Strewth Suzanne … who tells you this stuff? The women at the kids’ footie again? The butcher?

    Her you go .. have a wander on these and you’ll actually see what the US and Canada are doing:

    http://www.state.gov/g/oes/climate/

    http://www.climatechange.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=en&n=72f16a84-1

    But I know you won’t… it would disturb your prejudices. There really is no excuse for this continued display of ignorance and woeful grammar.

  • 11
    Jimmy
    Posted Monday, 28 November 2011 at 4:05 pm | Permalink

    Now Sooz, you know full well Obama wants a cap & trade system it’s just he cna’t get it past the republicans but he has very cleverly increased funding for renewables through defence spending by calling energy a national security issue.

    And while Canada on a national level some of their provinces are putting a price on Carbon, which is the same thing that is happening in the US (California for 1)

    So we start from your “The World (except Australia)” and now we are down to parts of 2 countries?

  • 12
    Suzanne Blake
    Posted Monday, 28 November 2011 at 4:20 pm | Permalink

    @ Jimmy

    More than 85% of the world’s countries are doing nothing. Only 5% at best is doing something and we have the World’s BIGGEST carbon price.

  • 13
    Peter Ormonde
    Posted Monday, 28 November 2011 at 4:24 pm | Permalink

    Sooz,

    That would have been Mrs Johnson - little Trevor Johnson’s mum - told you that I’d imagine.

    Anyone you’d like to quote … some blog, Piers Ackerman or something - anything at all - or do you just make this stuff up to suit?

    Regards to the cockatiel.

  • 14
    Jimmy
    Posted Monday, 28 November 2011 at 4:35 pm | Permalink

    SB - “More than 85% of the world’s countries are doing nothing.” Where do you get these figures?

    There are 196 countries in the world, there are 27 countries in the EU which is about 14% of countries doing something right there before we add in Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, South Korea, China etc etc. If we were to also include the world 7th biggest economy in California and various other US States and Canadian provinces we would be well above 15% let alone the 5% you assert (although what the other 10% are supposedly doing is beyond me).

    As for the worlds biggest carbon price, again any evidence? Are you including the many European countries that have the EU price and a national carbon tax?

  • 15
    Jimmy
    Posted Monday, 28 November 2011 at 4:46 pm | Permalink

    Also SB exactly how much do you want Bangladesh, Namibia, Afghanistan and co to do on climate change?

  • 16
    Suzanne Blake
    Posted Monday, 28 November 2011 at 5:12 pm | Permalink

    @ Jimmy

    The way lying Gillard and incompetent Swan are going, we are heading in thise countries direction. Gillard has crushed consumer confidence in Australia and consumers are in their shells, business confidence is low, as reported in a recent AICD report.

    The left’s basked weavers dont care, brings everyone back to their nuckle dragging levels. They blindly follow Bob Brown, who has his own scandal today, accepting the biggst political donation in Australia Federal history and now promoting the donor.

  • 17
    Enkl
    Posted Monday, 28 November 2011 at 5:37 pm | Permalink

    Do you think the CLOUD experiment having apparently validated the Svensmark’s cosmoclimatology hypothesis is part of the reason why there now appears to be much less political will globally to tackle CO2 emissions? Those that did not want to do anything anyway have now got an alternative theory that they can cling to.

    (Suzanne, please don’t venture an answer to this question.)

  • 18
    AR
    Posted Monday, 28 November 2011 at 8:13 pm | Permalink

    I shudder to enlist the help of the loathsome but they’d be the types to whom SoozORAC would do obeisance, if she but knew her true paymasters, but perhaps the best indication of the onrushing climate crunch is that the BigMoney, like SwissRE and the other big insurance trusts, which INSURE other insurance companies, are wetting themselves in terror, trying to shed policies faster than a Kings Cross stripper her feathers.
    Think of it this way, for all their denialist bluster, you can bet the multinatioanl corporations are doing their best to insure their invbestments in dodgier regions - look at how construction of the new Newcastle port coal loader was quietly moved many metres higher. It was NOt done for the view.

  • 19
    Ron Paul 2012
    Posted Tuesday, 29 November 2011 at 12:45 am | Permalink

    someone above is commenting about greed and markets…

    Last year almost half of all energy investment was in clean/renewable energy, actually i think it was 51%. While thats probably not enough to sway most in the green movement to let markets work, at least its further evidence that markets usually lead governments.

    If green groups spent more time trying to influence market outcomes, investment and divestment and less time lobbying governments, me thinks things would get done far quicker.

    Many people who work in finance and capital markets are well educated and do want to look after the environment (at least the ones I know). I have four friends that work in fund management, they tell me any money manager that didn’t have a long term strategy which included significant investment in clean/renewable technology or development, wasn’t worth investing with.

    I might mention this obvious fact…government is most of the time not the solution but the problem. I think “green” change will happen in this world…I just think governments do a great job of slowing this change down. Let smart people do what smart people do, look after themselves, their clients and yes the planet….it doesn’t have to be an either/or proposition.

    Do I hold any hope these latest talks will be anything more than piecemeal? No i do not. Do i believe my fund manager who makes me money and has committed to investing 35% of the total fund to renewable energy will make me 7% this year…yes I do.

  • 20
    Jimmy
    Posted Tuesday, 29 November 2011 at 8:59 am | Permalink

    Ron Paul - “Last year almost half of all energy investment was in clean/renewable energy, actually i think it was 51%. While thats probably not enough to sway most in the green movement to let markets work, at least its further evidence that markets usually lead governments. ” How does this statement marry with “they point to China’s investment in clean technologies — nearly more than the rest of the world combined”? When almost half the investment in renewables is from a communist govt can you really still say the markets are leading govts?

  • 21
    Ron Paul 2012
    Posted Tuesday, 29 November 2011 at 11:01 am | Permalink

    @Jimmy-I think if you looked at a a bunch of different markets i think you would find China is leading the way, still the money markets and the direction of their investment are based in London and NYC..even if that money being invested is Chinese.

    I have no problem with China being a player in world markets and I could’t give a dam if they were communists or Stalinists…the money still gets where it needs to go..thats the beauty of the market.

  • 22
    Jimmy
    Posted Tuesday, 29 November 2011 at 11:10 am | Permalink

    Ron Paul - I am not saying they aren’t participants in the market I am saying that their investment in renewables isn’t a result of the market working it is a result of govt action and as their investment is the bulk of your 51% your argument falters.

    I will also say that I support an ETS because it uses markets but it is not the markets leading the govt, it is the govt providing the right settings for the market to work.

  • 23
    Jimmy
    Posted Tuesday, 29 November 2011 at 11:47 am | Permalink

    Suzanne - “Gillard has crushed consumer confidence in Australia and consumers are in their shells” Evidence for this? and not just a consumer confidence figure (even though I am pretty sure that is higher than you suggest) but that it is Gillard and not the GFC or the possibility of Europe going down the toilet.

    You also overstate the business confidence crisis and Gillard role in that as this article points out.
    theage.com.au/business/business-confidence-surprisingly-resilient-20111011-1li9q.

    I also see you have completely abandoned your argument regarding the number of countries acting on climate change, did you finally realise you were completely wrong?

  • 24
    Ron Paul 2012
    Posted Tuesday, 29 November 2011 at 12:34 pm | Permalink

    Jimmy-You think chinese owned energy companies woke up one day and started investing in clean energy R&D…no..

    big investment houses like the JP Morgan, Goldmans, Citi (it wasn’t city back then) etc have been advising these Chinese enterprises since the mid 80’s to invest in the energies of tomorrow.

    Their investment in renewables is a direct result of market participants advising, directing…call it what you want, tell these chinese government owned enterprises to get investing in clean tech.

    This isn’t a recent phenomenon.

    The Chinese government will take credit, as it does for everything that is done in China that they have nothing to do with, but Market information was the catalyst. For the past 50 years the Chinese government has been sending its students/leaders into the West looking for answers. For the past 30 years, state owned enterprises have been using the market information provided to them to make decisions.

    I don’t accept your premise that Governments lead markets, I don’t accept your premise that the Chinese government is the reason they are investing in clean tech. Goldman Sachs has been getting rich of the consultation fees it charges these state owned enterprises and Goldman has been the main beneficiary of investing this money on behalf of these enterprises.

    China may be investing hard in renewables, but it has come after the fact.

    Look at the ETS in Australia, many companies have been using offset systems for years. Many airline companies have been offering carbon offsets for 10-15 years.

    The Australian Government has come to the party late on this and you can’t argue that markets didn’t get their first. If anything the financiers will simply use this regulatory framework to enhance what they have already been heading towards.

    I read a paper at university from 1956 by a young Alan Greenspan, arguing the merits of clean energy investment….this was years before the IPCC was set up, before most governments even had a department of the environment.

    I don’t care that you like the ETS, but let history show who got where first, it was not governments.

  • 25
    Peter Ormonde
    Posted Tuesday, 29 November 2011 at 1:12 pm | Permalink

    Ron,

    I agree with much of what both yourself and Jimmy are saying … but don’t be overly trusting of the wonderful invisible hand of markets operating for the best result.

    The reason resources must be pumped into the renewables sector is to provide incentives and subsidies to encourage and stimulate investment - that’s fine by me but the only reason the “markets” - corporate investors - are putting in their marks, yuan and euros is because of tax and other incentives such as a fixed requirement for “green” energy credits or the like. Fossil fuels receive assistance and subsidies too according to most analysts.

    Governments create the circumstances in which markets operate. The Chinese Government more than most, to the point where there is a blurred distinction between private and public sectors. Undemocratic, illiberal but it does get things done - and fast.

    But when governments effectively create a market they can produce untintended consequences - arguably they will produce them inevitably. So for example, the system of subsidies rewards investors in Australia who stick windfarms where there is cheap agricultural land and some wind available periodically. Yet the really reliable consistent wind energy is offshore. But this is regarded as too expensive and the incentives in the system are not directed to obtain the best, most efficient result through higher initial investment (and incentives).

    The trick is to recognise these flaws in the emerging market and intervene to correct them.

    Investors only go where there’s a quid Ron and the reason there’s a quid in any of this stuff is because of rules, subsidies, incentives and policies established by governments. Markets are very handy but they don’t deal well with moral, ethical and anticipated issues.

  • 26
    Jimmy
    Posted Tuesday, 29 November 2011 at 1:25 pm | Permalink

    Ron Paul - Private Investment firms may be advising the Chinese Govt but who’s money is being put up? It is not private investors!
    If markets are leading govt’s why aren’t the Chinese investment results being replicated in America?
    According to the ffigures used above China’s Renewable energy spend accounted for about 25% fo the total energy spend, another 25% worldwide was on renewable energy how much of that was spent in countries that didn’t have govt regulation in the form of an ETS or Carbon tax? How much was spent by the EU?
    And who spent the remaining 50%?

    You seem to be getting confused with theory and practice, yes Greenspan espoused a theory, and markets my believe in Clean energy in theory but where is the money going? Is private money being spent in environments without Govt support?

    Do you accept that renewable energy investment will increase in Australia now that a price has been put on Carbon? And if so how does this gel with your theory that the markets are acting in front of govts?

  • 27
    Enkl
    Posted Tuesday, 29 November 2011 at 1:29 pm | Permalink

    I notice that no-one (thanks Suzanne) has responded to my question. That may be because readers here are largely unaware of Svensmark’s alternative theory of climate change. However, among luke-warmists the CERN CLOUD experiment results have generated a lot of excitement.

    In summary, the results show that it is plausible that cosmic rays seed cloud formation, resulting in cooling, and that a reduction in cosmic rays can cause warming. There is a strong correlation between cosmic ray activity and temperature. Luke-warmists are using this, together with a few other things, to support their claim that climate sensitivity to CO2 is very low.

    Although CLOUD has not made much of a splash, my hunch is that it is a big part of the reason why some governments are only paying lip-service to reducing carbon emissions.

  • 28
    Suzanne Blake
    Posted Tuesday, 29 November 2011 at 1:34 pm | Permalink

    @ Enkl

    There are so many so called experts, and a range of opinions.

    Its the cash for comments ones like Flannery, who support their masters on carbon tax, I don’t believe. They are paid for what they say. If they had an opposite view, they would get $o. That changes opinions

  • 29
    Jimmy
    Posted Tuesday, 29 November 2011 at 1:37 pm | Permalink

    SB - “Its the cash for comments ones like Flannery, who support their masters on carbon tax, I don’t believe” And yet you have no problem believing Jo-nes & bo-lt?

    No evidence or comment in regards to my last post I see, once again ducking away!

  • 30
    brian arthur
    Posted Tuesday, 29 November 2011 at 1:39 pm | Permalink

    Ron Paul,
    you don’t seem to understand the Chinese government too well. In regard to this issue the major difference between the Chinese government and western democracies is that the Chinese are looking out 50 years into the future when planning what to do, not to the next election like our governments.

    They can see the impact climate change will have on the stability of the country because of for example no water from the himalayas feeding their big rivers and know they need to act to prevent it. They are pushing this and also doing things like providing incentives for industry to become more efficient.

    The markets may also be pushing it, and the multinational company I work for is also way ahead of govenments in adressing climate change, but the Chinese government will certainly be responsible for advancing actions on climate change considerably more and faster than western governments will.

  • 31
    Peter Ormonde
    Posted Tuesday, 29 November 2011 at 1:41 pm | Permalink

    Yes of course ENKL … a new study … a plausible theory… everyone else is suddenly wrong. They’re only in for the money anyway aren’t they Suzanne.

    Now it may well be that the CERN CLOUD study revolutionises our conception of these processes. We will see. I am not a climate scientist. They will pass an informed critical eye over the plausible theory and see what it accounts for. And what it does not.

    But like I said we will see.

    In the meantime, rather than taking the basis of a “plausible theory” as a guide to policy, I would be putting my money on the view of climate scientists, biologists and others who deal in facts.

    More foil Suzanne. The International Bureau of Weights and Measures is beaming you messages again.

  • 32
    Suzanne Blake
    Posted Tuesday, 29 November 2011 at 1:55 pm | Permalink

    @ Jimmy

    I dont listen to Bolt or Jones, have said this many times

    Ormonde and Jimmy, so guys are so out of touch, you forget the corruption, criminality, lies, fraud and corrpution of your Labor and Green mates. I know you need to obey your leader, but you also need to grow some

  • 33
    Dogs breakfast
    Posted Tuesday, 29 November 2011 at 3:08 pm | Permalink

    Come on Michael, don’t be shy.

    What are you trying to say? You seem to be suggesting that climate science is somehow a superstition, but you lack the courage to actually say it.

    Come on Michael, out yourself, or are you remaining coy in the hope that we only imagine you may be a fool rather than removing all doubt from our weary minds?

    ENKL, I looked it up, it appears to be not a very strong theory in any case, well at least the first batch of google results suggested. I’ll keep looking, but even if it can claim to be a new theory it may be a while before it can overtake the many theories and experimental facts that support man made climate change.

  • 34
    Peter Ormonde
    Posted Tuesday, 29 November 2011 at 5:07 pm | Permalink

    More foil Suzanne … lots more and maybe an earth…. maybe a whole suit made of foil … like a YSL or a Zampatti perhaps. I’ll find you a pattern. Gumboots.

    You seem to be becoming deeply obsessed with scandals, rumour and insinuation in public life … shocked and appalled … aghast even. … and yet you cannot leave it alone and peddle it about like a global village gossip. You have apparently become sufficiently obsessed so that you are able to understand what anyone is actually writing here or what is being discussed.

  • 35
    Mike Flanagan
    Posted Wednesday, 30 November 2011 at 12:38 pm | Permalink

    Well said Peter Ormonde;
    The toleration of puerile debate can be very frustrating!
    It is illogical and irrational for society to invest huge amounts of resources and money into scholarly institutes for centuries and then reject their advice and scientific conclusions when it is ‘an inconvenient truth’
    Most of Blake’s arguments are paraphrases from ALEC, an internet site financed by the Koch brothers who own the largest privatly owned petro-chenmcal company in the world.

  • 36
    Peter Ormonde
    Posted Wednesday, 30 November 2011 at 12:51 pm | Permalink

    Thanks Mike … I’m getting cranky in the heat.

    Blake and Troofie’s (GeeWhizz) efforts are frustrating and a distraction more significantly. Would be less so if these resident reactionaries would actually debate or discuss something - but they don’t, can’t, won’t. Just make stuff up and shift their ground like a crab on speed.

    It’s interesting that Blake adopts a position of instantly discrediting any research or statement on global warming coming from a university or other government funded source… purely on the basis that they are therefore part of some vast global guvvermint conspiracy. This is not longer childish, it is unhinged.

    We all know that the real conspiracy stems from the hideously French Bureau International des Poids et Mesures with their accursed metrification by stealth.

    Thank heavens for Alcoa foil eh Sooz?

  • 37
    Suzanne Blake
    Posted Wednesday, 30 November 2011 at 1:01 pm | Permalink

    @ Peter Ormonde

    It’s interesting that Blake adopts a position of instantly discrediting any research or statement on global warming coming from a university or other government funded source…”

    Thats right do you think that Federal Government would pay for research that contradicted their climate views?

    Would they engage a cash for comments scientist like Flannery who had a wavering opinion.

    You dont this this happens, look at ICAC at the moment. Man takes Labor Minister to Leichhardt restaurant, where a table of hookers are waiting and he picks the one he wants, and he signs off on a coal mine in farming area. he has a paid room at 5 star hotel.

    Sound familiar to HSU Police investigation?

    Sound familar to Orkorpolous paedophile investigation and jailing?

    Wollongong Council.

    Its deep entrenched in Labor.

    Lots of evidence.

  • 38
    Peter Ormonde
    Posted Wednesday, 30 November 2011 at 3:07 pm | Permalink

    Foil … thick Alcoa stuff … and an earth, and gumboots Sooz… you’ll be feeling better in no time.

    Seriously? … you really believe in this sort of thing? who is bribing the UN scientists? Must be world guvvermint or sumfink! Why… cos they’d be aliens that’s why. They comes and lives amongst us just like yer average folks and before you knows it they’s started sponsoring false prophets aiming to destroy our Way of Life….”

    Deeply unhinged stuff this Ms Blake… have a think about why “they” would be doing this… this insane scheme to drive us back into the Stone Age … is it the Chinese?

    Are they under my bed… in the schools, talking to me from the TV? Why is everything so much smaller in centimeters???? Questions, questions, questions … flooding the mind of concerned old white folks today in the suburbs.

    Pills Sooz … large doses… and keep up with the foil hat just to be on the safe side.

  • 39
    Archer
    Posted Wednesday, 30 November 2011 at 5:38 pm | Permalink

    Have these prophets of doom heard of video conferencing? It’s such a common tool used by so many large corporations, (automotive design houses use 3D video conferencing to view concepts)

    It would save the huge amounts of emissions being spewed out by the endless air travel for the delegates and their entourage.

    I suppose the time delay is a huge factor…..yeah right.

  • 40
    Suzanne Blake
    Posted Wednesday, 30 November 2011 at 5:43 pm | Permalink

    @ Archer

    Agree 100%. These politicians, cash for comments scientists, just want a junker.

    they could have the main meeting and side meetings by video conference, and save hundreds of thosands of tonnes of emissions.

    Its a wankfest and a photo opportunity.

Womens Agenda

loading...

Smart Company

loading...

StartupSmart

loading...

Property Observer

loading...