(no subject)
Dec. 21st, 2009 03:26 amWorld leaders insist that the climate deal clinched in desperation at the UN summit in Copenhagen is the best that can be done as they return home to a lashing from critics.
John F. Kennedy would not only have tonguelashed these bastards; he'd have fucking crucified them. In the 1960s, the United States went from spoken intent and a trailing position in the space race to a man on the moon in eight years. What the goddamned fucking hell has happened to the West in that time?
Newspapers have widely called the summit accord a failure and experts such as the head of a Nobel Peace prize-winning climate panel says 'urgent' action is now needed.
By engineers. Politicians and financiers need not apply, except to give the engineers what they need.
US President Barack Obama acknowledged that all of the world's polluters will quickly have to do more, but German Chancellor Angela Merkel says the critics will only hold up the battle against rising temperatures that threaten devastating floods, storms and drought.
Criticism of the Copenhagen Conference is legitimate, because for all the hot air (and CO2) it generated, no practical solution was even so much as discussed - everything revolved around the end target, with no thought given as to how it could be achieved or whether it was even possible to achieve it. So much for a science-based process.
Obama returned to the White House and said 'extremely difficult and complex negotiations' had been needed in Copenhagen.
The engineering ones; the ground-breaking technological ones; the ones that did not occur.
'This breakthrough lays the foundation for international action in the years to come,' he said.
Bullshit, thy name is Barack Obama.
But even the US leader said 'we will have to build on the momentum' and get the US Congress to pass mandatory cuts in greenhouse gases blamed for global warming.
Lousy technophobic git. What about you talk to your scientists and engineers about how to achieve those cuts, and then get Congress to vote them the funds?
Merkel, who will host a new international meeting in Germany in 2010, hit back at the critics. 'It is a first step toward a new world climate order, nothing more but also nothing less,' she told Bild am Sonntag newspaper. 'Those who are only putting Copenhagen down are helping those who want to blockade rather than move forward.'
Liar. What's this "new world climate order", anyway? One begins to wonder if Lord Monckton's mild case of world-government paranoia might not be grounded in reality. We know who last said "New World Order" and how that worked out. Big words by a tiny little mouse. Someone feed it to the cat, please; and if we are to have a mouse, then give us a mouse who will roar with meaning.
Germany will host a follow-up meeting of environment ministers in Bonn in June, ahead of another summit in Mexico City next December. 'We now need to build on Copenhagen,' she said.
In Bonn? Oh come on. Grandiose speeches? Cheering sheeplike masses? I could suggest a more appropriate place to hold it. Or wait, perhaps not...
The Danish chair of the UN climate summit, Connie Hedegaard, said on Sunday she thinks it will be difficult to gather together so many world leaders again for a new conference, though the effort must be made.
Another pollution-spewing gravy-train? Give us a break.
'I think it will be very difficult,' she told AFP, but added that the world still needs to set binding objectives on reducing carbon emissions. 'If not I'm afraid that too much time will pass before the world does what is necessary' to stop global warming, she said.
What the world needs to do is stop arguing about binding objectives and start actually getting us off the oil teat. Industry needs it more than power generation does. The solution is to accelerate development and construction of nuclear, tidal and ocean-thermal systems.
The Copenhagen Accord, only passed by a procedural motion after two weeks of tense negotiations, has been widely condemned as a backdoor deal that excludes the poor and dooms the world to disastrous climate change.
With respect to "disastrous climate change", one has to look at the context. What the fucking hell would these impotent fuckheads have done if they'd been around in the era when the land-bridges disappeared? As far as a backdoor deal that excludes the poor is concerned, I assure you that giving hundreds of billions of dollars to third-world nations will see most of it disappear into the personal bank accounts of fucking creatures like Robert Mugabe.
The agreement was assembled by the leaders of the United States, China, India, Brazil, South Africa and major European nations, after it became clear the 194 nation summit was in danger of failure.
Too many cooks spoil the broth.
China, the world's top polluter, has given the warmest welcome to a summit that experts say it has benefitted from by making the fewest concessions.
China's delegates put China first, a wise thing for them to do when the alternative was thoughtless stupidity.
'With the efforts of all parties, the summit yielded significant and positive results,' Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi said in a statement.
Again, bullshit.
At the same time China's foreign ministry spokesman on Sunday hit out at critics of the closed nature of the accord, saying Beijing had always maintained close contact and coordination with all countries during the summit.
All the ones it felt mattered, anyway.
'China is a developing nation, we... firmly maintain the development rights of developing countries, and firmly maintain the unity and coordination of emerging nations,' Qin Gang said in a statement on the ministry's website.
GODDAMNED FUCKING RUBBISH. China does this and this and this and this and this, among other things, and DARES to call itself a developing country? The People's Republic of China is an industrial, military and economic superpower (or on the verge of becoming one), not a "developing nation" - except in the strictest sense of the word that its government can cut past the bullshit, avoid stagnation and actually build stuff. I wish my country would "develop" with the same large-scale vision and enthusiasm that China does.
The summit set a commitment to limit global warming to two degrees Celsius but did not spell out the important global emissions targets for 2020 or 2050 that are the key to holding down temperatures.
Nor did it even touch on exactly how such targets were to be achieved.
The summit promised $US100 billion ($A112.78 billion) for poor nations that risk bearing the brunt of the global warming fallout, but has not given a fixed payout plan.
They should not get one fucking cent until scientifically feasible blueprints are on the table and costed.
So far, the United States has promised to contribute $US3.6 billion ($A4.06 billion) in climate funds for the 2010-2012 period, with Japan contributing a total of $US11 billion ($A12.41 billion) over the same period, and the European Union $US10.6 billion ($A11.95 billion).
They are all fools. Do they know what it is they're committing to? Is there any mention of exactly how all this money (for which we will all pay at tax time) is going to be spent? Do we know how we are going to define the end-point of success? How do we separate this from natural climatic variations due to the Sun's influence, El Nino, etc. etc? How can we be sure that clever hands aren't going to shift the goalposts? What accountability is there? This is ill-thought-out and I foresee a horrific trainwreck of epic proportions, while these namby-pamby fuckwits will all cry into their handkerchiefs and wonder how the hell it could all go so wrong.
Even UN chief General Ban Ki-moons admitted the agreement had failed to win global consensus and would disappoint many who demanded stronger action against climate change.
It disappoints me, even if I don't believe in an anthropogenic cause. If these people believed a single word of what they were saying, they'd be throwing money at science and engineering as fast as they could vote it through their parliaments (or equivalent thereof), and they'd be taking the scientists' orders.
'Many will say that it lacks ambition,' Ban told the end of the summit. 'Nonetheless, you have achieved much.'
They have achieved nothing of substance, while equalling the "carbon footprint" (as they choose to call it) of a small nation in the process.
Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the Nobel-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), said: 'Developing countries, certainly Africa, are very concerned and very suspicious of the developed countries on whether they are really genuine in making these offers.'
And so they should be. But if what Africa wants is bales of money dumped on its doorstep with no strings attached, then as far as I am concerned Africa can go fuck itself. Africa should get hard engineering solutions built for it, if that's what is felt to be necessary to "help it deal with Climate Change" and Africa is (with the possible exception of the nation at its southernmost tip) technologically and industrially incapable of doing this in the "urgent" timespan the doomsayers claim is "all that we have left". Leave it to the people who know how.
'In the next few weeks and months we will have to work very hard to see that, before the end of 2010 if not earlier, we get a binding agreement that really moves action in the direction we need,' he told the Indian NDTV television channel. 'We really have to move on rather quickly to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases. There is growing evidence of the impacts of climate change and if we delay action these impacts are going to become much worse, far more serious,' he warned.
There are a lot of scientists who would dispute Pachauri's claims. In addition, he's talking up a nebulous, perpetual threat to push an agenda which has nothing to do with actually solving the problem. To hell with him.
The Wall Street Journal called the Copenhagen deal 'a pre-emptive dead letter because countries like China, Brazil and India said they were unwilling to accept anything that depressed their economic growth'.
Quite right. But look at what China's done with the Three Gorges project: millions of megawatt-hours already delivered, the whole thing one-third paid for already, and it's not even finished yet. That's the sort of solution we need. That's the sort of thinking that made Britain, Europe and the United States masters of the world, and which could make them saviours of the world if only they could stop being a bunch of spineless jerks.
John F. Kennedy would not only have tonguelashed these bastards; he'd have fucking crucified them. In the 1960s, the United States went from spoken intent and a trailing position in the space race to a man on the moon in eight years. What the goddamned fucking hell has happened to the West in that time?
Newspapers have widely called the summit accord a failure and experts such as the head of a Nobel Peace prize-winning climate panel says 'urgent' action is now needed.
By engineers. Politicians and financiers need not apply, except to give the engineers what they need.
US President Barack Obama acknowledged that all of the world's polluters will quickly have to do more, but German Chancellor Angela Merkel says the critics will only hold up the battle against rising temperatures that threaten devastating floods, storms and drought.
Criticism of the Copenhagen Conference is legitimate, because for all the hot air (and CO2) it generated, no practical solution was even so much as discussed - everything revolved around the end target, with no thought given as to how it could be achieved or whether it was even possible to achieve it. So much for a science-based process.
Obama returned to the White House and said 'extremely difficult and complex negotiations' had been needed in Copenhagen.
The engineering ones; the ground-breaking technological ones; the ones that did not occur.
'This breakthrough lays the foundation for international action in the years to come,' he said.
Bullshit, thy name is Barack Obama.
But even the US leader said 'we will have to build on the momentum' and get the US Congress to pass mandatory cuts in greenhouse gases blamed for global warming.
Lousy technophobic git. What about you talk to your scientists and engineers about how to achieve those cuts, and then get Congress to vote them the funds?
Merkel, who will host a new international meeting in Germany in 2010, hit back at the critics. 'It is a first step toward a new world climate order, nothing more but also nothing less,' she told Bild am Sonntag newspaper. 'Those who are only putting Copenhagen down are helping those who want to blockade rather than move forward.'
Liar. What's this "new world climate order", anyway? One begins to wonder if Lord Monckton's mild case of world-government paranoia might not be grounded in reality. We know who last said "New World Order" and how that worked out. Big words by a tiny little mouse. Someone feed it to the cat, please; and if we are to have a mouse, then give us a mouse who will roar with meaning.
Germany will host a follow-up meeting of environment ministers in Bonn in June, ahead of another summit in Mexico City next December. 'We now need to build on Copenhagen,' she said.
In Bonn? Oh come on. Grandiose speeches? Cheering sheeplike masses? I could suggest a more appropriate place to hold it. Or wait, perhaps not...
The Danish chair of the UN climate summit, Connie Hedegaard, said on Sunday she thinks it will be difficult to gather together so many world leaders again for a new conference, though the effort must be made.
Another pollution-spewing gravy-train? Give us a break.
'I think it will be very difficult,' she told AFP, but added that the world still needs to set binding objectives on reducing carbon emissions. 'If not I'm afraid that too much time will pass before the world does what is necessary' to stop global warming, she said.
What the world needs to do is stop arguing about binding objectives and start actually getting us off the oil teat. Industry needs it more than power generation does. The solution is to accelerate development and construction of nuclear, tidal and ocean-thermal systems.
The Copenhagen Accord, only passed by a procedural motion after two weeks of tense negotiations, has been widely condemned as a backdoor deal that excludes the poor and dooms the world to disastrous climate change.
With respect to "disastrous climate change", one has to look at the context. What the fucking hell would these impotent fuckheads have done if they'd been around in the era when the land-bridges disappeared? As far as a backdoor deal that excludes the poor is concerned, I assure you that giving hundreds of billions of dollars to third-world nations will see most of it disappear into the personal bank accounts of fucking creatures like Robert Mugabe.
The agreement was assembled by the leaders of the United States, China, India, Brazil, South Africa and major European nations, after it became clear the 194 nation summit was in danger of failure.
Too many cooks spoil the broth.
China, the world's top polluter, has given the warmest welcome to a summit that experts say it has benefitted from by making the fewest concessions.
China's delegates put China first, a wise thing for them to do when the alternative was thoughtless stupidity.
'With the efforts of all parties, the summit yielded significant and positive results,' Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi said in a statement.
Again, bullshit.
At the same time China's foreign ministry spokesman on Sunday hit out at critics of the closed nature of the accord, saying Beijing had always maintained close contact and coordination with all countries during the summit.
All the ones it felt mattered, anyway.
'China is a developing nation, we... firmly maintain the development rights of developing countries, and firmly maintain the unity and coordination of emerging nations,' Qin Gang said in a statement on the ministry's website.
GODDAMNED FUCKING RUBBISH. China does this and this and this and this and this, among other things, and DARES to call itself a developing country? The People's Republic of China is an industrial, military and economic superpower (or on the verge of becoming one), not a "developing nation" - except in the strictest sense of the word that its government can cut past the bullshit, avoid stagnation and actually build stuff. I wish my country would "develop" with the same large-scale vision and enthusiasm that China does.
The summit set a commitment to limit global warming to two degrees Celsius but did not spell out the important global emissions targets for 2020 or 2050 that are the key to holding down temperatures.
Nor did it even touch on exactly how such targets were to be achieved.
The summit promised $US100 billion ($A112.78 billion) for poor nations that risk bearing the brunt of the global warming fallout, but has not given a fixed payout plan.
They should not get one fucking cent until scientifically feasible blueprints are on the table and costed.
So far, the United States has promised to contribute $US3.6 billion ($A4.06 billion) in climate funds for the 2010-2012 period, with Japan contributing a total of $US11 billion ($A12.41 billion) over the same period, and the European Union $US10.6 billion ($A11.95 billion).
They are all fools. Do they know what it is they're committing to? Is there any mention of exactly how all this money (for which we will all pay at tax time) is going to be spent? Do we know how we are going to define the end-point of success? How do we separate this from natural climatic variations due to the Sun's influence, El Nino, etc. etc? How can we be sure that clever hands aren't going to shift the goalposts? What accountability is there? This is ill-thought-out and I foresee a horrific trainwreck of epic proportions, while these namby-pamby fuckwits will all cry into their handkerchiefs and wonder how the hell it could all go so wrong.
Even UN chief General Ban Ki-moons admitted the agreement had failed to win global consensus and would disappoint many who demanded stronger action against climate change.
It disappoints me, even if I don't believe in an anthropogenic cause. If these people believed a single word of what they were saying, they'd be throwing money at science and engineering as fast as they could vote it through their parliaments (or equivalent thereof), and they'd be taking the scientists' orders.
'Many will say that it lacks ambition,' Ban told the end of the summit. 'Nonetheless, you have achieved much.'
They have achieved nothing of substance, while equalling the "carbon footprint" (as they choose to call it) of a small nation in the process.
Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the Nobel-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), said: 'Developing countries, certainly Africa, are very concerned and very suspicious of the developed countries on whether they are really genuine in making these offers.'
And so they should be. But if what Africa wants is bales of money dumped on its doorstep with no strings attached, then as far as I am concerned Africa can go fuck itself. Africa should get hard engineering solutions built for it, if that's what is felt to be necessary to "help it deal with Climate Change" and Africa is (with the possible exception of the nation at its southernmost tip) technologically and industrially incapable of doing this in the "urgent" timespan the doomsayers claim is "all that we have left". Leave it to the people who know how.
'In the next few weeks and months we will have to work very hard to see that, before the end of 2010 if not earlier, we get a binding agreement that really moves action in the direction we need,' he told the Indian NDTV television channel. 'We really have to move on rather quickly to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases. There is growing evidence of the impacts of climate change and if we delay action these impacts are going to become much worse, far more serious,' he warned.
There are a lot of scientists who would dispute Pachauri's claims. In addition, he's talking up a nebulous, perpetual threat to push an agenda which has nothing to do with actually solving the problem. To hell with him.
The Wall Street Journal called the Copenhagen deal 'a pre-emptive dead letter because countries like China, Brazil and India said they were unwilling to accept anything that depressed their economic growth'.
Quite right. But look at what China's done with the Three Gorges project: millions of megawatt-hours already delivered, the whole thing one-third paid for already, and it's not even finished yet. That's the sort of solution we need. That's the sort of thinking that made Britain, Europe and the United States masters of the world, and which could make them saviours of the world if only they could stop being a bunch of spineless jerks.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}