It remains to be seen if the money promised in the Copenhagen Accord ever materialises. Every penny pledged so far at COP15 has been old money, taken from Overseas Development Assistance (ODA), and handed back to the developing world as adaptation assistance. It leaves me sceptical that any of the money that Clinton and Obama talked about during their touch-and-go diplomacy is actually real.
The most interesting thing I noticed as the COP wound up is that it “took note” of the Copenhagen Accord, rather than ‘adopting’ it. That means it has no formal standing within the Conference of the Parties (COP).
Basically, they said ‘yeah, right’.
If it was going to have any legitimacy, the COP would have to ‘adopt’ the Copenhagen Accord. It didn’t. Ironically, the press around the world is saying it has.
Others have been more frank about what this agreement is about:
There is, finally, a Copenhagen Accord – a deal that is so unfair, so unambitious and so devoid of commitment that the countries of the world could agree only to “take note” of its existence. There was no hope whatever that everyone would actually “approve.”As reported through the night, U.S. President Barack Obama announced a modestly celebrated accord late last evening, taking fulsome credit for having saved the day in a private negotiation with China, India, Brazil an South Africa – what Bill McKibben later described as “a league of super-polluters.”
Here in Denmark, the newspapers are kicking with the story of FLOP15. It’s a clever headline that crosses all the language barriers and has strangers striking up conversations in cafes across town.
g.blog 
Interesting reading.
A year ago I was a confirmed Warmist (a believer in AGW – Anthropogenic Global Warming aka “Al Gore Warmism”) and might have read your post and nodded up and down in automatic agreement without really thinking about it.
However, my belief has given way to reason and I am now a recent and reluctant apostate of Warmism – after ploughing through and finding some “inconvenient truths” in the Climategate material and especially in what Lord Monckton has to say on the matter of models and data.
Rather than make a long comment here, I quoted your post and a made a response, here:
http://lilysong.blogspot.com/2009/12/flop15-takes-note-of-copenhagen-accord.html
Good luck with the Emperor’s new clothes.
I’ve been reading the Independant links that went up on Frogblog, as well.
Puts me in mind of the CND posters from the 70’s – “when you hear the attack siren wail, you have 15 minutes to kiss your loved ones goodbye”.
Guess we have a couple of years to explain ourselves to the young’uns. Mine are pretty smart – I’m not looking forward to the moment when they understand what just went on at COP15.
I look back to 2006, when I first did Climate Action protests on Earth Day, at least I can say I was there, and that they didn’t listen. It doesn’t change anything, but those of us who’ve been yelling to the wind have at least tried.
Monday was busy here – did you see?
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0912/S00268.htm
and
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0912/S00187.htm
@anarkaytie: Many thanks for the links. No, I had not seen those. Interesting.
*In the 1st link:* If we presume that reason could have prevailed by now, in light of the *leaked* (no, it wasn’t “stolen”) Climategate material, then I find the comment “…the only people we can count on to stop runaway climate change are ourselves” to present a set of staggeringly ignorant assumptions. The mind boggles. The emperor’s new clothes must still seem very beautiful. Even adults need fairy stories, it seems. (Reading some of the Climategate material and listening to Lord Monckton’s talks might help carry a candle into the darkness there.)
At least though, what the protesters seem to have correctly – albeit belatedly – understood is that “big business” is at back of all this. Better late than never, I suppose. (Listening to Lord Monckton’s talks and watching the documentary film “The Corporation” might help there.)
*In the 2nd link:* Well, the placards certainly seem to show that people have started to cotton on to the carbon trading scam (to be funded by the taxpayer/consumer). What might not be so apparent is that with the recent economic collapse (due almost entirely to the financial markets over-indulging in risky sub-prime mortgage instruments – QED.), the finance sector desperately needs a new financial instrument to survive and make profits. We already have that instrument in the form of carbon trading credits. It has been waiting in the wings for years. As early as 1985 or so, I was involved in the analysis and provision of advice to the NZ banks on the opportunities afforded by CTCs (Carbon Trading Credits) for New Zealand. The main protagonists at the time, from memory, were large legal firms and financial intermediaries – they had huge dollar signs in their eyes. It looked like consummate greed to me.
For at least 25 years, the people in NZ have not had anything like the “democratic” franchise – the power or representation in lobbies – that corporate entities do. It would therefore seem highly likely that, despite loud protests from the populace, the CTC trading scheme will be inexorably thrust upon us by a weak and corrupt NZ government (QED – the minsterial expenses scam) that only responds to urgencies affecting their own well-being (e.g., golden retirement schemes for MPs) and the several affluent commercial/corporatist lobbies. It would be quite natural therefore that the government responsibility for the protection and sustainable development of New Zealand and its environment must come a very distant second to these higher priority interests.
Don’t let that stop you from “yelling to the wind” though, if that’s what you like to look back on for a sense of achievement in your life. Heaven forfend though that you actually take some *ACTION* over all this. From someone with a name like “anarkaytie” though, one might have expected more.
Since posting the above, I came across this:
THE NEW CLIMATE CHANGE SCANDAL (http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/152422/The-new-climate-change-scandal)
Essentially, the news is that the IPCC (International Panel on Climate Change) was forced to admit its key claim that Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035 was lifted from a 1999 magazine article. The report was based on an interview with a little-known Indian scientist who has since said his views were “speculation” and not backed up by research.
Subsequent genuine research by Indian scientists for an Indian government report has apparently found the IPCC claim to be invalid.
Dr Rajendra Pachauri (who is an Indian who chairs the IPCC and who is apparently up to his neck in “conflict of interest” deals through his network of business interests that attract millions of pounds in funding thanks to IPCC policies) dismissed this conflicting research with the powerful argument that is was “voodoo science”.
Dr Pachauri is an economist and a railway engineer, not a climate scientist, so presumably he should know.
I am SO annoyed that I was gullible enough to be strung along by these venal cretins and their con tricks for so long.
@slartibartfast –
sorry to have confused you, my comment was aimed at the post author. Please excuse us for discussing events you are not privy to.
I do not tend to explicitly detail direct actions that have not taken place yet, on this blog. For reasons that you should be aware of, if you’ve been reading NZ media in the past 2 years!
Yes, I have seen references to this article about the Himilayan glaciers; the pertinent point is that jounalists made an error of attribution, which was not picked up by (prolly) more media people funnelling info into the IPCC research pile.
The salient fact remains that the glaciers are diminishing, although not at the rate quoted. And that Scientists were the ones who found and corrected the anomaly in the information; if you want to attack anyone for creating a ‘cover-up’ or ‘misdirection’, talk to the journalists!
For fun, here’s the satire on the Onion:
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/melting_ice_caps_expose_hundreds?utm_source=a-section