Bali’s Smog of Self-Delusion
Tears are flowing in response to the recent climate stalemate in Bali. However, PJM's Richard Fernandez contends that disappointment requires that you first fall for the pretense that the global climate negotiations are about anything except bureaucratic enlargement and corruption.
Support Pajamas Media; Visit Our Advertisers
George Monbiot, a prominent environmentalist and author said to have been the inspiration for the epithet “moonbat,” coined in 2002 by Perry de Havilland of Samizdata, claims the US has subverted the Bali climate talks to the point of sabotage. His complaints begin with Kyoto, which was negotiated ten years earlier:
The European Union had asked for greenhouse gas cuts of 15% by 2010. Gore’s team drove them down to 5.2% by 2012. Then the Americans did something worse: they destroyed the whole agreement. Most of the other governments insisted that the cuts be made at home. But Gore demanded a series of loopholes big enough to drive a Hummer through. The rich nations, he said, should be allowed to buy their cuts from other countries. When he won, the protocol created an exuberant global market in fake emissions cuts. The western nations could buy “hot air” from the former Soviet Union. Because the cuts were made against emissions in 1990, and because industry in that bloc had subsequently collapsed, the former Soviet Union countries would pass well below the bar. Gore’s scam allowed them to sell the gases they weren’t producing to other nations. He also insisted that rich nations could buy nominal cuts from poor ones. Entrepreneurs in India and China have made billions by building factories whose primary purpose is to produce greenhouse gases, so that carbon traders in the rich world will pay to clean them up.
Monbiot’s disappointment in the outcome of the climate talks is understandable. CTV reports: “The Bali deal came after all-night negotiations and sets the stage for the negotiation of a new treaty by 2009 to replace the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012. No specific targets are included in the document, which is considered to be a ‘roadmap.’ The Bali deal only commits countries to negotiate.” The Australian reports: “The European Union’s attempt to introduce a reference to non-binding targets for developed countries of between 25 and 40 per cent by 2020 was knocked out on Friday following stubborn opposition led by Russia and the US.” What is worse, fear some environmentalists, is that the US might actually have gained a political lever with which to beat the Greens over the head. The Australian article continues:
The White House statement indicates it will seek to negotiate different terms for poor countries based on the size of their economy and the scale of their emissions - a move that could create a wedge in the Group of 77 bloc of developing countries. “The negotiations must adequately distinguish among developing countries by recognizing that the responsibilities of the smaller or least developed countries are different from the larger, more advanced developing countries,” the US statement said. “In our view, such smaller and less-developed countries are entitled to receive more differentiated treatment so as to more truly reflect their special needs and circumstances.”
The history of every millennial movement starts out quietly enough. At first only those who have heard voices or received messages by moonbeam come stumbling in through the tent flap. Shortly they are followed by academics who have finally found someone who understands their theories and will popularize them. Then, as the crowd swells, come the curious, lost, desperate, and heartbroken. Soon follow the peddlers who sell peanuts, popcorn, and crackerjacks to the rapt crowd; then the pickpockets, hangers-on, con artists, and small-time grifters. In the latter stages come the political entrepreneurs, demagogues always on the lookout for ready-made crowds ripe for the leading. Finally come the lawyers, regulators, and venture capitalists to turn it all into an industry. Too bad George Monbiot didn’t see which one Al Gore would turn out to be.
Environmentalism has become the political lifeboat into which the survivors of the socialist shipwreck have crammed themselves. The need to “manage the climate” became the new foundation on which to base regulatory structures, impositions, and taxes which were formerly justified by the imperative to manage the “commanding heights of the economy.” Kyoto was the highest expression of the program to “manage the climate” and provided the same new basis for socialistic policies that Marxism once did. As such, Kyoto was too politically useful to discard. But like its socialist predecessor it suffered from the problem that it wouldn’t work. That weakness would be artfully concealed by superseding it with a successor agreement to be drafted in Bali. But delegates who came to Indonesia already knew that Kyoto’s key weakness was mandating “carbon emission” reductions. Reducing “carbon emissions” really meant reducing economic output in a world where poverty is a major problem. They were caught between the Scylla of having to maintain a commitment to environmentalism and the Charybis of recession. So the politicians and celebrities at Bali driven by the need to keep the circus going and uninhibited by the Green equivalent of a Bolshevik Party did the obvious thing: they created a shell game tricked out as an emissions control scheme. Bali would no more reduce “carbon emissions” than Kyoto did, but it would give the impression of doing so. And that would be enough, wouldn’t it? Monbiot writes:
Hilary Benn [the UK Secretary of State for Environment] is an idiot. Our diplomats are suckers. American negotiators have pulled the same trick twice, and for the second time our governments have fallen for it. There are still two years to go, but so far the new agreement is even worse than the Kyoto protocol. It contains no targets and no dates. A new set of guidelines also agreed at Bali extend and strengthen the worst of Gore’s trading scams, the clean development mechanism. Benn and the other dupes are cheering and waving their hats as the train leaves the station at last, having failed to notice that it is traveling in the wrong direction.
But Monbiot is wrong. Nobody has fallen for the pretense that climate negotiations are about anything except bureaucratic enlargement and corruption, other than Monbiot and his like. Benn is cheering and waving his hat as the train leaves the station, but he knows perfectly well in what direction the train is going. It is traveling all the way to the bank. And insofar as the corporate jetsetting crowd that descended on Bali is concerned, that is entirely the right direction in which it should go. The train’s got the public’s money, you say? That’s perfectly true, but then the environmentalists never had any problem with that when they thought the locomotive of history would bear the money their way.
Richard Fernandez is PJM Sydney editor; he also writes at the Belmont Club.
| Comment |  Digg This |
 del.icio.us |
 |
 |
 PJM Home |
18 Comments
CarlF:Senate Resolution 98, which was unanimously (95-0) approved by the US Senate in 1997 requires ANY agreement concerning the reduction of greenhouse gases to include measurable targets for developing nations. It’s one of the few things the Senate has done right in the last ten years.
Jan 4, 2008 - 12:43 pm LarryD:Around the time Kyoto ends, nature may completely debunk Global Warming.
I guess the watermelons will switch to the “impending ice age” scam.
Jan 4, 2008 - 12:58 pm Curly Smith:Sorry Larry, you must have missed the update. It’s not Global Warming anymore, it’s Climate Change. Thus, if it gets warmer then taxes must be levied and lifestyles adjusted; if it gets cooler then taxes must be levied and lifestyles adjusted; and, if no change occurs then taxes must be levied and lifestyles adjusted because no change in climate is the biggest Climate Change of all.
Jan 4, 2008 - 3:46 pm brewski:Specifically, the “consensus” about anthropogenic climate change entails the following:
1) the climate is undergoing a pronounced warming trend beyond the range of natural variability;
2) the major cause of most of the observed warming is rising levels of the greenhouse gas CO2;
3) the rise in CO2 is the result of burning fossil fuels;
4) if CO2 continues to rise over the next century, the warming will continue; and
5) a climate change of the projected magnitude over this time frame represents potential danger to human welfare and the environment.
These conclusions have been explicitly endorsed by:
Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil)
Royal Society of Canada
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Academié des Sciences (France)
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
Indian National Science Academy
Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
Science Council of Japan
Russian Academy of Sciences
Royal Society (United Kingdom)
National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
Australian Academy of Sciences
Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
Caribbean Academy of Sciences
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Royal Irish Academy
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
In addition to these national academies, the following institutions specializing in climate, atmosphere, ocean, and/or earth sciences have endorsed these conclusions:
NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Royal Society of the United Kingdom (RS)
American Geophysical Union (AGU)
American Institute of Physics (AIP)
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
American Meteorological Society (AMS)
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)
These organizations also agree with the consensus:
The Earth Institute at Columbia University
Northwestern University
University of Akureyri
University of Iceland
Iceland GeoSurvey
National Centre for Atmospheric Science UK
Climate Group
Climate Institute
Climate Trust
Wuppertal Institute for Climate Environment and Energy
Royal Meteorological Society
Community Research and Development Centre Nigeria
Geological Society of London
Geological Society of America
UK Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment
Pew Center on Global Climate Change
American Association for the Advancement of Science
National Research Council
Juelich Research Centre
US White House
US Council on Environmental Quality
US Office of Science Technology Policy
US National Climatic Data Center
US Department of Commerce
US National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service
The National Academy of Engineering
The Institute of Medicine
UK Natural Environment Research Council
Office of Science and Technology Policy
Council on Environmental Quality
National Economic Council
Office of Management and Budget
The National Academy of Engineering
The Institute of Medicine
UK Natural Environment Research Council
Australian Government Bureau of Meteorology
Engineers Australia
American Chemical Society
American Association of Blacks in Energy
World Petroleum Council
The Weather Channel
National Geographic
The following companies agree with the consensus:
ABB
Air France
Alcan
Alcoa
Allian
American Electric Power
Aristeia Capital
BASF
Bayer
BP America Inc.
Calvert Group
Canadian Electricity Association
Caterpilliar Inc.
Centrica
Ceres
Chevron
China Renewable
Citigroup
ConocoPhillips
Covanta Holding Corporation
Deutsche Telekom
Doosan Babcock Energy Limited
Duke Energy
DuPont
EcoSecurities
Electricity de France North America
Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand
Endesa
Energettech Austraila Pty Ltd
Energy East Corporation
Energy Holding Romania
Energy Industry Association
Eni
Eskorn
ETG International
Exelon Corporation
ExxonMobil
F&C Asset Management
FPL Group
General Electric
German Electricity Association
Glitnir Bank
Global Energy Network Institute, Iberdrola
ING Group
Institute for Global Environmental Strategies
Interface Inc.
International Gas Union
International Paper
International Power
Marsh & McLennan Companies
Massachusetts Municipal Wholesale Electric Company
MEDIAS-France
MissionPoint Capital Partners
Munich Re
National Grid
National Power Company of Iceland
NGEN mgt II, LLC
NiSource
NRG Energy
PG&E Corporation
PNM Resources
Reykjavik Energy
Ricoh
Rio Tinto Energy Services
Rockefeller Brothers Fund
Rolls-Royce
Societe Generale de Surveillance (SGS Group)
Stora Enso North America
Stratus Consulting
Sun Management Institute
Swiss Re
UCG Partnership
US Geothermal
Verde Venture Partners
Volvo
In addition, the scientific consensus is also endorsed by the CEO’s of the following companies:
A. O. Smith Corporation
Abbott Laboratories
Accenture Ltd.
ACE Limited
ADP
Aetna Inc.
Air Products and Chemicals, Inc.
AK Steel Corporation
Alcatel-Lucent
Allstate Insurance Company
ALLTEL Corporation
Altec Industries, Inc.
American Electric Power Company, Inc.
American Express Company
American International Group, Inc.
Ameriprise Financial
AMR Corporation/American Airlines
Anadarko Petroleum Corporation
Apache Corporation
Applera Corporation
Arch Coal, Inc.
Archer Daniels Midland Company
ArvinMeritor, Inc.
AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP
Avery Dennison Corporation
Avis Budget Group, Inc.
Bechtel Group, Inc.
BNSF Railway
Boeing Company
Brink’s Company
CA
Carlson Companies, Inc.
Case New Holland Inc.
Ceridian Corporation
Chemtura Corporation
Chubb Corporation
CIGNA Corporation
Coca-Cola Company
Constellation Energy Group, Inc.
Convergys Corporation
Con-way Incorporated
Corning Incorporated
Crane Co.
CSX Corporation
Cummins Inc.
Deere & Company
Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu
Delphi Corporation
Dow Chemical Company
Eastman Chemical Company
Eastman Kodak Company
Eaton Corporation
EDS
Eli Lilly and Company
EMC Corporation
Ernst & Young, L.L.P.
Fannie Mae
FedEx Corporation
Fluor Corporation
FMC Corporation
Freddie Mac
General Mills, Inc.
General Motors Corporation
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.
Goodrich Corporation
Harman International Industries, Inc.
Hartford Financial Services Group
Home Depot, Inc., The
Honeywell International, Inc.
HSBC - North America
Humana Inc.
IBM Corporation
Ingersoll-Rand Company
International Textile Group
ITT Corporation
Johnson Controls, Inc.
JP Morgan Chase & Co.
KPMG LLP
Liberty Mutual Group
MassMutual
MasterCard Incorporated
McGraw-Hill Companies
McKesson Corporation
MeadWestvaco Corporation
Medco Health Solutions, Inc.
Merck & Co., Inc.
Merrill Lynch & Company, Inc.
MetLife, Inc.
Morgan Stanley
Motorola, Inc.
Nasdaq Stock Market, Inc.
National Gypsum Company
Nationwide
Navistar International Corporation
New York Life Insurance Company
Norfolk Southern Corporation
Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company
Nucor Corporation
NYSE Group, Inc.
Office Depot, Inc.
Owens Corning (Reorganized) Inc.
Pactiv Corporation
Peabody Energy Corporation
Pfizer Inc
PPG Industries, Inc.
Praxair, Inc.
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Principal Financial Group
Procter & Gamble Company
Prudential Financial
Realogy Corporation
Rockwell Automation, Inc.
Ryder System, Inc.
SAP America, Inc.
Sara Lee Corporation
SAS Institute Inc.
Schering-Plough Corporation
Schneider National, Inc.
ServiceMaster Company
Siemens Corporation
Southern Company
Springs Global US, Inc.
Sprint Nextel
St. Paul Travelers Companies, Inc.
State Farm Insurance Companies
Tenneco
Texas Instruments Incorporated
Textron Incorporated
Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc.
TIAA-CREF
Tyco Electronics
Tyco International Ltd.
Union Pacific Corporation
Unisys Corporation
United Technologies Corporation
UnitedHealth Group Incorporated
USG Corporation
Verizon Communications
W.W. Grainger, Inc.
Western & Southern Financial Group
Weyerhaeuser Company
Whirlpool Corporation
Williams Companies, Inc.
Xerox Corporation
YRC Worldwide Inc
Jan 4, 2008 - 4:20 pm wretchard:That’s an interesting argument from authority. As per your list the appliance maker Whirlpool Corporation believes that Global Warming is real. And so does the telecommunication company Verizon.
In the coming decades there will be empirical confirmation, one way or the other, for many of the hypotheses that have now been put forward. Once that comes in it won’t matter which appliance company or which telecom carrier believed what.
Let’s see what happens.
Jan 4, 2008 - 4:51 pm TimR:That’s a pretty impressive list. However one significant name appears to be missing - Mother Nature. As the Arctic ice sheet grows at a record rate, the polar bears thrive, the predicted hurricanes fail to materialize and global temperatures fail to rise in the last decade, she seems to be refusing to cooperate with your consensus.
Jan 4, 2008 - 7:10 pm The Other JD:brewski: So what?
Jan 4, 2008 - 9:00 pm Jeb:If the scientists and others are right and the predicted dire consequences do come to pass what then? You say oops they were right about that one but there is no reason to pass regulations based on their new predictions, we should just sit tight and see how those pan out. Repeat.
TimR,
Santa Claus and the tooth fairy also failed to sign on.
Jan 5, 2008 - 4:25 am tanstaafl:Care to provide cites for your other assertions?
recent climate stalemate in Bali
Good lord, some 10,000 “UN” related conferees, jamming up the airport flying in on private jets, eating and drinking and golfing their way around Bali for 2 weeks ?
(oh wait, a few of the European attendees bought personal carbon offsets for $100 out of pocket or something, never mind)
Did you see the egregious and wordy agenda ?
All told, enough to stalemate anyone’s climate. Let alone sanity.
Jan 5, 2008 - 8:32 am tanstaafl:It’s the Antarctic ice sheet that is (reportedly) growing, not the Arctic.
Global Warming may or may not be happening. It may or may not be (more than a little) a function of manmade particulates, C02 and other greenhouse gases (biggest greenhouse gas is water vapor from evaporation) clogging up the atmosphere.
Whether or not there is a relationship between warming and long term Climate Change is, however, something no individual on Earth knows.
However, look for China to very soon surpass the United States in terms of pumping sundry stuff into the air. Which stuff wafts over the Pacific and is regularly picked up over LA.
LA has done a lot to clean up its own air, but now China compromises atmospheric quality over the city.
Just one big (small) happy planet.
Jan 5, 2008 - 8:39 am Boris:As bad as bureaucracy is at solving problems, it is actually more effective than denial.
Jan 5, 2008 - 2:48 pm Chris Bering:Ahh, the good old consensus argument of authority.
That “consensus” consists of politicians, industrialists and scientists chasing publicity and a slice of the many billions doled out in government grants each year.
But notice how the scientists of the consensus have started to lose their shrill voices, and how “global warming” has turned into “climate change”. It’s called hedging - or covering your ass.
However, that doesn’t prevent the megalomaniacs, the greedy and the clueless from joining forces, grabbing the ball and continue to run with it.
Imagine if I managed to put together a three feet long list of persons, institutions and companies, all denouncing agw and all being at the recieving end of petro dollars.
What would the reaction be ?
Probably outrage, from people who likes to post three feet long lists of persons, institutions and companies, most of which support agw while rolling in scaremonger dollars.
Besides, Brewski, your list is bunk.
There’s a profound disconnect between the public policy of a scientific institution and the opinions held by its handfull of people with a clue.
“We support the consensus” is administrative official speak, and translates to “Send More Money”.
Just consider, climate science was traditionally “dusty” and not very sexy. In the US, 15 years ago, that area of science recieved something like $150M in grants a year. Now it’s more than 50 times as much, and most of the increase was in the past few years.
The few hundred REAL climate scientists have been diluted by 10k+ mathematicians, physicists, computer modelers, biologists and many others. Without experience, knowledge or the necessary broader multi dicipline view, but attracted to the money and the career oppertunities.
This applecart of vested interests isn’t going to be kicked over by a 1000 newly employed computer modelers, who have spent two years massaging numerical models and their 150 associated variables to make the output fit the past 100 years of flawed temperature data.
It’s going to be kicked over by a few oldtimers, with a little help from mother nature and economic realities.
Btw, here’s a little reading material:
The IPCC myth of “consensus of 1000s of scientists”
Bali diary
35 Gore errors
Solar cycles drive climate
SOI aka. ENSO
Sun ‘wobble’ drives climate
Dr Theodor Landscheidt has predicted a lot of climate events, years in advance, using sun-spot cycles, sun ‘wobble’ cycles and ENSO (though ENSO and its phase shifts appears to be driven by particular sun cycles). There’s more at
http://www.john-daly.com/guests.htm
Jan 5, 2008 - 7:01 pm tanstaafl:C. Bering,
Thank you for the writing and the links.
The “manmade global warming” hysteria and the political and (near) religious hysteria can overwhelm the logic.
And, of course, there is always the question of the money being thrown at researchers these days which necessarily influences the direction of their (not necessarily objective) conclusions.
Sunspot activity (quiescent at this juncture ?) and the sun’s effects on cloud cover play a huge role in the Earth’s climate.
That said, I am enormously for curtailing waste and finding the cleanest burning energy routes mankind’s imagination can devise.
So, ironically enough, my concerns do echo those of that copious jet setter, huge energy consumer (and religious zealot) Al Gore.
Jan 6, 2008 - 7:47 am warhammer:contrary to the fear meisters, the politicians and assorted scam artists, humans have not, are not and will not effect the climate. well.. maybe except for a few hundred well placed thermonuclear detonations.
our planet is a living, breathing, self renewing thing. we mere humans can only watch it age and change as is it’s nature. oh… and another thing.. oil is the life blood of civilization. with the exception of nuclear power, all this other alternative fuel nonsense is a pipe dream. get over it. unless of course someone can tell me where to find a few tons of dilithium crystals or some thundranium i can dig up!!!
Jan 6, 2008 - 10:29 am JohnnyRocket:If colonization leads to imperialization….
and global economy leads to global imperialization…
and the once “LDC’s” are now becoming MDC’s….
Should these “less developed countries” not be afforded the same “blind ambition” during their own industrial revolutions that the eurocentric people enjoyed 100 years ago?
Or, is it possible that “climate issues” are a way to stymie the real climate change, which is…
The inevitable shift of economic power away from the monopoly of western interests…
In any event, if the results of “climate change” are expressed as catastrophic weather patterns, would this not be the appropriate “thinning of the herd” made so popular throughout the history of time? When did we decide that we can control the planet?
These events will happen with or without man’s consent. The control of foreign governments, however…has become an artform.
That is all…
Jan 6, 2008 - 10:41 am Chris Bering:Tanstaafl, you’re welcome.
Don’t forget bigot - Al Gore is first and foremost an opportunistic bigot.
Burning fossil fuels isn’t wasteful in itself imo. Burning high quality fuels like oil and gas, when one could just as well burn coal is wasteful. Too much oil and gas is used for heating and electricity production. Use coal, if you don’t want nuclear power.
Arab oil money is used to fund islamic imperialism (conquest, jihad, terror). That’s the *only* reason I see to limit oil consumption.
Earths atmosphere is currently CO2 impoverished. This significantly limits both biodiversity and the annual turnover of the biosphere.
Compared to the CO2 levels of preindustrial human society (280 ppm), the CO2 concentration was 3 times higher 50M years ago. 7 times higher 150M years ago.
If those 280 ppm continued to drop, plant growth would slow to a crawl at 200 ppm, and at 150 ppm, almost none of the plant life we know today would grow at all.
280 ppm is simply unnaturally low.
Plants have had to evolve both energy and water costly measures to survive in todays CO2 deprived environment.
Humans have raised atmospheric CO2 to 370 ppm, and I see no problem with that.
What I am concerned about, are things like deforestation, soil erosion, pollution and over-population.
Btw, I have another relevant link:
Jan 6, 2008 - 3:46 pm tanstaafl:Global Warming: A Chilling Perspective
What I am concerned about, are things like deforestation, soil erosion, pollution and over-population.
Me, too.
I’ve been aghast since first viewing aerial photographs of western Europe from 50 years ago and satellite photos today. Shocking deforestation.
And, as our own numbers increase exponentially (ok, I exaggerate slightly) add encroachment into highly specialized animal habitat, as in the Silverback gorilla of Rwanda or the panda, only 2 examples of hundreds…thousands ?
I read a phrase recently,”…the humanization of our planet”. Some people seem OK with that, as if single species domination were a good thing or something.
Anyway, I dropped by here (luckily to see your post) to post this link to the Global Warming Test
10 questions, it shouldn’t challenge even the most ardent Al Gore True Believer.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/GlobWarmTest/start.html
Jan 7, 2008 - 3:41 pm Julien Peter Benney:The question of global warming is one that interest me immensely as I observe runaway drying of southern Australia’s climate. My knowledge of climate records is adequate to show man-made global warming can be the only possible cause.
I do appreciate the issue people have with the return to an ice age, however. Indeed, I admit it is certain to cause the collapse of civilisation as we know it, because the most fertile areas of northern Europe and North America become uninhabitable. However, as soon as another interglacial hit, civilisation will I gues revive more quickly than it did during the Holocene.
This is because the cold climate produces soils (except in Australia and Southern Africa) and oceans (except around Australia) of a fertility far in excess of what occurred during very warm eras. In warm eras like the Mesozoic, like in Australia today, ancient and impoverished soils selected for the lowest energy use and smallest brain size possible. Such conditions, I believe, held back the evolution of intelligent life on Earth by a very long time. Only as a result of cooling could civilisation develop.
Apr 5, 2008 - 8:16 am