Durban Climate Change Conference 2011
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
Exactly. It is an attempt to extort developed countries except China, Russia, and India. Why not them? Because they will tell everyone to stick it up their azzes. So the alternative is to prey on the culture of Western Nations (guilt, apologists) and focus their energies on getting that cash. Everyone knows that China, Russia, and India isn't going to give anything and will do what they darn well please. They at least have a shot at getting Euros and Loonies.
I am glad the US told them to stick it last time... I hope they do it again.
Canada should do the same.
Absolutely!
Are you trying to "Out Cute" him now Floss?
Durban protest lands six Canadian youth delegates in hot water
DURBAN, South Africa — Six members of the Canadian Youth Delegation — students from university campuses across the country — were stripped today of their credentials and thrown out of the United Nations conference on climate change now underway in Durban, South Africa.
The disruption took place as federal environment minister Peter Kent was outlining his government’s position on the Kyoto Protocol to delegates from the international community.
Kent repeated what is already well-known: that the Canadian government will not renew a commitment to Kyoto Protocol when the current agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions expires next year.
As Kent made his announcement, Canadian youth delegates removed their shirts, revealing T-shirts protesting the government’s position.
“People Before Pollution” was the message on the front, with “Turn Your Back on Canada” providing a view from behind.
The action was greeted with warm applause from delegates of countries seated toward the back of the hall where Kent was speaking.
Kent didn’t blink, sticking to a text reiterating the Canadian government’s commitment, among other things, to programs designed to help those most affected in adapting to changing climatic conditions.
“Kyoto is part of the past”, he announced, suggesting that the way forward involves a different agreement than the Kyoto Protocol and must include more commitments to reduce of greenhouse gases from so-called developing countries, such as India, China and Brazil.
Canada has consistently stated that it is not interested in “guilt money,” that is, in compensating developing countries for the harm caused by developed countries’ historical emission of greenhouse gases. Canada’s position on the future of the Kyoto Protocol has been the most intransigent of any party to current round of negotiations in Durban.
Asked what the Canadian youth delegation hoped to accomplish, co-ordinator, Cameron Fenton said that delegates where disgusted with the Harper government’s “position of putting pollution before people and promoting the interests of the oil and gas industry.”
Fenton said Canadian youth have tried to meet with Kent many times and have been rebuffed at every turn.
“He has no interest in listening to us,” he said. “This was our way of sending him a clear message.” The six delegates, he added, “were kicked out and stripped of their badges for disrupting the proceedings. If the United Nations was concerned about disruption, they should have taken the badges away from Peter Kent and the Canadian delegation, which has done everything possible to disrupt negotiations on a renewed Kyoto protocol,” he noted.
“We want to make it clear to other countries at this meeting that young people in Canada don’t support the actions of their government. We are saying to our government that we believe in finding solutions to the problem of climate change that lead to a just and sustainable future, even if you don’t,” he added.
Members of the Canadian youth delegation also protested the Canadian government’s negotiating position in Durban by dressing in “negotiation suits” at Kent’s press conference on Dec. 5.
Wearing jackets covered in logos from Canadian oil and gas companies, they said Canada’s position at the climate change talks is designed to protect the interests of the oil and gas industry and the development of tar sands.
NunatsiaqOnline 2011-12-07: NEWS: Durban protest lands six Canadian youth delegates in hot water
DURBAN, South Africa — Six members of the Canadian Youth Delegation — students from university campuses across the country — were stripped today of their credentials and thrown out of the United Nations conference on climate change now underway in Durban, South Africa.
The disruption took place as federal environment minister Peter Kent was outlining his government’s position on the Kyoto Protocol to delegates from the international community.
Kent repeated what is already well-known: that the Canadian government will not renew a commitment to Kyoto Protocol when the current agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions expires next year.
As Kent made his announcement, Canadian youth delegates removed their shirts, revealing T-shirts protesting the government’s position.
“People Before Pollution” was the message on the front, with “Turn Your Back on Canada” providing a view from behind.
The action was greeted with warm applause from delegates of countries seated toward the back of the hall where Kent was speaking.
Kent didn’t blink, sticking to a text reiterating the Canadian government’s commitment, among other things, to programs designed to help those most affected in adapting to changing climatic conditions.
“Kyoto is part of the past”, he announced, suggesting that the way forward involves a different agreement than the Kyoto Protocol and must include more commitments to reduce of greenhouse gases from so-called developing countries, such as India, China and Brazil.
Canada has consistently stated that it is not interested in “guilt money,” that is, in compensating developing countries for the harm caused by developed countries’ historical emission of greenhouse gases. Canada’s position on the future of the Kyoto Protocol has been the most intransigent of any party to current round of negotiations in Durban.
Asked what the Canadian youth delegation hoped to accomplish, co-ordinator, Cameron Fenton said that delegates where disgusted with the Harper government’s “position of putting pollution before people and promoting the interests of the oil and gas industry.”
Fenton said Canadian youth have tried to meet with Kent many times and have been rebuffed at every turn.
“He has no interest in listening to us,” he said. “This was our way of sending him a clear message.” The six delegates, he added, “were kicked out and stripped of their badges for disrupting the proceedings. If the United Nations was concerned about disruption, they should have taken the badges away from Peter Kent and the Canadian delegation, which has done everything possible to disrupt negotiations on a renewed Kyoto protocol,” he noted.
“We want to make it clear to other countries at this meeting that young people in Canada don’t support the actions of their government. We are saying to our government that we believe in finding solutions to the problem of climate change that lead to a just and sustainable future, even if you don’t,” he added.
Members of the Canadian youth delegation also protested the Canadian government’s negotiating position in Durban by dressing in “negotiation suits” at Kent’s press conference on Dec. 5.
Wearing jackets covered in logos from Canadian oil and gas companies, they said Canada’s position at the climate change talks is designed to protect the interests of the oil and gas industry and the development of tar sands.
NunatsiaqOnline 2011-12-07: NEWS: Durban protest lands six Canadian youth delegates in hot water
You seem to believe in the validity of "established physics" and I can't seem to find any such thing as "established physics". I think you used to call it "scientific consensus ". "Established physics" has more authority though. maybe it will convince them. Didn't see you at the persecution the other day.
I would agree with Kyoto if everyone was to live by it, but it's like most things, completely distorted from what it was intended to be.
Doesn't bother me at all that Canada is refusing to get involved, since Russia, China, India, the US, and pretty much anyone else that counts isn't in it either.
Doesn't bother me at all that Canada is refusing to get involved, since Russia, China, India, the US, and pretty much anyone else that counts isn't in it either.
Sea level rise measured by tidal guages, shows an increase that is confirmed by satellite altimeters. It's no artifact in the data. Let me know when you can explain how the data can show a change in sea level without changing the tidal cycle. Or maybe you think the tidal cycle has changed, in which case I'd love to see the data you're looking at.
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, so they say. I guess our resident 9/11 Truthers should be flattered that you feel as they do about commissions, and selective quoting.
"Pull it" and "hide the decline".. I had no idea you were sympathetic to the Truthers brand of investigation.
Canada wants new climate deal by 2015: Kent
DURBAN, South Africa – Canada is pushing for a new binding international climate change regime to come into effect within four years to avoid dangerous interference with the atmosphere, Environment Minister Peter Kent said Thursday.
Speaking to reporters after a public appearance at a side event at the United Nations climate change summit, Kent acknowledged there were a lot of issues left to resolve before the end of the conference on Friday.
But he said he hoped nations would walk away with a “mandate” to negotiate the new deal to replace the Kyoto Protocol on climate change to avoid average global temperatures from rising more than two degrees above pre-industrial levels, considered by countries to be a “tipping point” that would cause irreversible damage to economies and ecosystems.
He also recognized that the new deal must not punish poorer countries, signaling a shift from remarks he made less than a week earlier, suggesting that the developed countries were being asked to take on an unfair burden in stabilizing heat-trapping greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
“What we’re seeing now is the developed countries emissions are coming down, the developing countries emissions between now and 2030 will soar,” said Kent, who met with Green Party leader Elizabeth May in the morning.
“So we have to find ways. We have to also accommodate the legitimate aspirations of developing countries to achieve the prosperity that we have enjoyed in the developed world.”
The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, signed by Canada in 1992, was founded on a principle that developed countries must do more to stop dangerous climate change since they are responsible for most of the accumulated pollution in the atmosphere that is causing the problem. It was updated in 1997 with the Kyoto Protocol in order to add binding targets on developed countries as a first step in reducing emissions.
Kent said Canada wanted to see a binding agreement that would recognize provisions of deals reached at last year’s summit in Cancun, regarding transparency, accountability, and monitoring of action, as well as launching a global green climate fund to help developing countries achieve reductions and adapt to emerging impacts of global warming.
“We think it would be helpful to move ahead with a new agreement sooner rather than later, because in addressing the challenges to the climate of the globe that we all share, whether or not there’s a binding agreement or not we feel that it’s the moral obligation of all emitters to reduce,” Kent said.
“We would see 2015 as a reasonable deadline for a binding agreement taking effect (or) coming into effect.”
Kent also said the China was a global leader that could play an important role in the process, and that he hoped to hear more about their policies to tackle climate change.
Canada has already said it won’t accept a new round of targets to extend the Kyoto Protocol beyond 2012, but he said it could still engage other countries by honouring its commitments made in recent years to offer $1.2 billion in “fast-start” climate financing for developing countries through loans and grants.
“We think there should be no pause in our efforts to reach a successor agreement to Kyoto,” said Kent. “We’re working to convince countries that we all have an obligation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions absolutely.”
The European Union has indicated it’s prepared to take on a new round of targets under Kyoto if other nations agree that to negotiate a new deal and pledge to join that agreement by around 2015 for implementation in 2020.
European leaders have also urged other countries to recommit to Kyoto during the transition period, since it is the only international tool in the world that requires countries to reduce their greenhouse gas pollution.
The Canadian government did not advise media that Kent would appear at the morning event, but news of his emergence quickly spread by word-of-mouth.
Kent declined to speak to reporters on Wednesday after a group of six Canadian protesters disrupted a speech in which he urged conference delegates to turn the page on the Kyoto agreement.
But he said he was tied up in a series of meetings with allies from the so-called “Umbrella” group of countries that includes the U.S. and Australia, as well as the group’s discussions with the European Union.
http://blogs.canada.com/2011/12/08/canada-wants-new-climate-deal-by-2015-kent/
DURBAN, South Africa – Canada is pushing for a new binding international climate change regime to come into effect within four years to avoid dangerous interference with the atmosphere, Environment Minister Peter Kent said Thursday.
Speaking to reporters after a public appearance at a side event at the United Nations climate change summit, Kent acknowledged there were a lot of issues left to resolve before the end of the conference on Friday.
But he said he hoped nations would walk away with a “mandate” to negotiate the new deal to replace the Kyoto Protocol on climate change to avoid average global temperatures from rising more than two degrees above pre-industrial levels, considered by countries to be a “tipping point” that would cause irreversible damage to economies and ecosystems.
“Time is really running short, in terms of (reaching) the two degrees (Celsius of warming), and Canada is already past that in the Arctic,” Kent said.
“We really do need to find a way to get meaningful, significant reductions from the major developing economies. The major economies that were never (bound with targets) to Kyoto.”
He also recognized that the new deal must not punish poorer countries, signaling a shift from remarks he made less than a week earlier, suggesting that the developed countries were being asked to take on an unfair burden in stabilizing heat-trapping greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
“What we’re seeing now is the developed countries emissions are coming down, the developing countries emissions between now and 2030 will soar,” said Kent, who met with Green Party leader Elizabeth May in the morning.
“So we have to find ways. We have to also accommodate the legitimate aspirations of developing countries to achieve the prosperity that we have enjoyed in the developed world.”
The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, signed by Canada in 1992, was founded on a principle that developed countries must do more to stop dangerous climate change since they are responsible for most of the accumulated pollution in the atmosphere that is causing the problem. It was updated in 1997 with the Kyoto Protocol in order to add binding targets on developed countries as a first step in reducing emissions.
Kent said Canada wanted to see a binding agreement that would recognize provisions of deals reached at last year’s summit in Cancun, regarding transparency, accountability, and monitoring of action, as well as launching a global green climate fund to help developing countries achieve reductions and adapt to emerging impacts of global warming.
“We think it would be helpful to move ahead with a new agreement sooner rather than later, because in addressing the challenges to the climate of the globe that we all share, whether or not there’s a binding agreement or not we feel that it’s the moral obligation of all emitters to reduce,” Kent said.
“We would see 2015 as a reasonable deadline for a binding agreement taking effect (or) coming into effect.”
Kent also said the China was a global leader that could play an important role in the process, and that he hoped to hear more about their policies to tackle climate change.
Canada has already said it won’t accept a new round of targets to extend the Kyoto Protocol beyond 2012, but he said it could still engage other countries by honouring its commitments made in recent years to offer $1.2 billion in “fast-start” climate financing for developing countries through loans and grants.
“We think there should be no pause in our efforts to reach a successor agreement to Kyoto,” said Kent. “We’re working to convince countries that we all have an obligation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions absolutely.”
The European Union has indicated it’s prepared to take on a new round of targets under Kyoto if other nations agree that to negotiate a new deal and pledge to join that agreement by around 2015 for implementation in 2020.
European leaders have also urged other countries to recommit to Kyoto during the transition period, since it is the only international tool in the world that requires countries to reduce their greenhouse gas pollution.
The Canadian government did not advise media that Kent would appear at the morning event, but news of his emergence quickly spread by word-of-mouth.
Kent declined to speak to reporters on Wednesday after a group of six Canadian protesters disrupted a speech in which he urged conference delegates to turn the page on the Kyoto agreement.
But he said he was tied up in a series of meetings with allies from the so-called “Umbrella” group of countries that includes the U.S. and Australia, as well as the group’s discussions with the European Union.
http://blogs.canada.com/2011/12/08/canada-wants-new-climate-deal-by-2015-kent/
The data I'm looking at is when I wake up every morning and see that the ocean looks the same as it ever did. No stories of Florida being under water... the tide comes in to the same point as it did when I was a kid and goes out to about the same spot.
But yes... the climate is changing. It has for BILLIONS of years. How arrogant some humans are to think we can actually stop climate change.
"Quick! We must tax big western business and give the proceeds to third world nations and that will stop the climate from changing!"
lmao
This is all very good news. As even the densest honest observer should have discerned by now, there NEVER was a climate crisis.. it was a giant hoax from the start, in support of a viciously anti-human radical environmental agenda.
It was made worse when the Global Trading Organism decided to profit from the nonsense.. by incorporating 'carbon credits' into the disastrous world trading regime for their own profit.
Don't worry.. nothing will happen. It has become the cynical exercize anyway as countries like the U.S. and China try to use it as a bludgeon to promote a competitive trade advantages.
The most serious threat to the world is not climate, which we have NOTHING to do with.. it is the Global Free Market Paradigm,, which is leading the world into economic chaos.
It was made worse when the Global Trading Organism decided to profit from the nonsense.. by incorporating 'carbon credits' into the disastrous world trading regime for their own profit.
Don't worry.. nothing will happen. It has become the cynical exercize anyway as countries like the U.S. and China try to use it as a bludgeon to promote a competitive trade advantages.
The most serious threat to the world is not climate, which we have NOTHING to do with.. it is the Global Free Market Paradigm,, which is leading the world into economic chaos.
Oh really? How? Did you see us buying into Kyoto like Canada did? No. Did you see the US caving into the GW crowd in Denmark when they wanted our (and Canada's cash)? No. I don't see us breaking out our wallets in Durban either.
The GW crowd is ripped at the US Govt. because we won't let them steal our cash for their socialist world fund.
That's not data.
And why would you expect that? Sea level rise is 3 mm a year...
I doubt it. But then again you have Truther data collection methods, so there's likely no data that would convince you otherwise.
No, it's stupid to think we can't when we identify the cause. Your conclusion is flawed because you are falsely assuming that we cannot know what forcings are imposed on our climate. You are also ignoring that scientists have found the forcings, and they have identified human activities, which are definitely possible to mitigate. Arrogance is making such ridiculous pronouncements with certainty, and thinking that you know better than people who spend their careers on this. Now you're not only throwing in your lot with conspiracy nuts, but SJP as well. Kudos.
Here's a similarly stupid piece of reasoning. Habitats have changed for BILLIONS of years. How arrogant some humans are to think that we can actually stop habitat loss.
Retarded.
"give the proceeds to the third world nations" christ you're innocent, bankers giving away money ! Hey I still got some UFO parts, tail fins and an exhaust system for a 97 Uranus Explorer LE
Ahhh yes... the latest GW tactic. Calling the opposition "conspiracy nuts". It's not working to well is it?
That is completely moronic thinking habitat loss by human hands has any comparison whatsoever to humans stopping the global climate from changing. Humans are very capable of wiping out animal habitats and causing species to go extinct. Using habitat loss as an analogy to climate change is retarded.
Not to mention us being able to stop the climate from changing by giving BILLIONS to developing nations.
No, you've always been conspiracy nuts. Moreso when you continue to quote emails that have been investigated by no less than six times, with no findings of scientific fraud.
No, it's moronic to ignore that climate change is being caused by humans according to the best available evidence. Which would be comparably stupid to someone who thinks human caused habitat loss according to the best available evidence can't be stopped because habitat loss has happened before.
It's not the scales which are comparable. It's the failed logical reasoning of both statements which is comparable.
That's actually a worthwhile point to argue, but you conspiracy nuts would rather proclaim that reality isn't happening than admit it is and produce worthwhile proposals for what to do next.
Yep.George Bernard Shaw; said:
Nah... it's a new tactic to attempt to silence the opposition by insulting them. It just isn't working.
What emails am I continuing to quote?
No... it's moronic to think humans are the cause of climate change. We've been around only a sliver in time on the earth and guess what... the climate always changed!
Humans CAN stop habitat loss by staying out of habitats. They can't stop the climate from changing though. The climate WILL change regardless of what we do.
No... climate does change. Really... I admit it! The climate certainly changes and has done so for BILLIONS of years. Giving money to under developed nations isn't going to stop it.
You know its an attempt at a cash grab at Durban just like it was in Copenhagen.
Well.. That's where you're wrong me-bucko.
Fact is, you can't see the change because of the gvt satellites are invading your thoughts and planting the ole 'everything is ok' message in your brain. I understand that MF counters the satellite mind-programing rays by wearing a big leaf of cabbage as a hat... It may sound funny but I think it's the old-school solution to the problem.
Give it a try and then look at the ocean... I'm guessing that you'll see it as a dried-up expanse with some unfortunate fishes flopping around.
Chilling!
hehehehehe
And we can stop climate change by stopping our greenhouse effect enhancing activities. The top of the atmosphere radiation imbalance will no longer be an imbalance...
I'm starting to realize where the mental loops are giving the deniers fits.
They seem to mesh the science with the policy. Which is odd, because one can completely accept the science even if they don't fully accept the policy.
Unfortunately the climate has not changed in the same manner it has for the last 40 years.
For instance, the climate has typically been warmer in times where there is a high level of sun radiance and of course, colder when there is less radiance. But for the last 40 or so years, the earth's temperature has continued to steadily rise without interference even when there are low levels of radiance.
Similarly, the El Nino and La Nina cycles are other natural manipulators of climate. But the temperature for the last 40 years continues to rise during La Nina periods when it should be cooler.
Now there are many different factors that affect climate but the ones just mentioned are the strongest natural deterrants of climate.
There are thousands of journals that go through every single case scenario and regardless of whether you would like to believe it or not, carbon emissions are changing the world's temperature causing it to become warmer.
I have no qualms with people disagreeing about the degree of funding or the steps we are trying to take to amend this problem, but if you want to actually make a claim which opposes the fundamental science of anthropogenic climate change, then you need to actually support that claim.
Last edited: