The Copenhagen climate treaty: Scam of the century?

[yllus]

For us in Canada, a net exporter of energy to the world, abiding by the Kyoto Protocol would have been a qualified financial disaster. The followup to Kyoto, the Copenhagen Treaty, appears (via its circulated early drafts) to be even worse.

The shortlist on how Copenhagen screws us:

- With a goal of each G8 nation reducing its emissions by at least 80%, Copenhagen rewards nations that currently have less efficient infrastructure and punishes those who have already modernized. We here will have a far more difficult time upgrading our industry than those countries with infrastructure already due for repair.

- We pay the world for the honour of letting them buy our energy: From the treaty directly, "industrialized countries are to commit 'at least 0.7%' of their annual GDP, above and beyond existing foreign aid commitments, to compensate the developing world for lost dignity and other distress." And what happens if other nations increase their oil consumption? We, the energy source, pay the resultant emissions fees, not the consumer.

- The U.N. gets to set our environmental policy: "Paragraph 200, Annex 3b, for example, requires signatories to submit to the UN their plans to reduce emissions, which 'shall be reviewed as part of the annual compilation and accounting of emission inventories and assigned amount.'"

- We can kiss free and fair international trade goodbye: "So, although China might impose duties on any Canadian steel it imports, if it can show we have fallen short on carbon dioxide reductions, Canada could not do the same to Chinese concrete imports."

- The method in which this treaty addresses helping the planet is by forcing the cost of oil and other energy sources to skyrocket; as it's not very likely that Canada or other oil producers are about to take these new fees and just swallow them, everybody's bill is going up.

Climate 'debt' comes due

On "Climate Reparations"

The Kyoto Protocol -- which expires in 2012, and which Copenhagen is intended to replace -- was in some corners accused of being a covert wealth-transfer plot, since it required rich nations, unable to reach difficult targets, to buy carbon indulgences from poorer ones. "A socialist scheme to suck money out of wealth-producing nations" was Stephen Harper's assessment, long before he became Prime Minister.

With Copenhagen, however, there is no hidden agenda: Its authors say transferring wealth is exactly what they aim to do. Though its draft form is a menu of optional language and policies intended to be narrowed in the lead-up to the conference, and at the conference itself, the spirit of the document is unmistakable.

It proposes in plain language an arrangement that will see nations such as Canada guarantee to send billions of dollars every year for decades to the developing world as payment of a "climate debt" owed for our long history of emitting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

There is, of course, some talk of emission-reduction targets, maximum carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere, limiting global temperature increases, and plans to adapt to inevitable climate shifts, with most of the details remaining to be hammered out. But as much as anything else, the Copenhagen treaty calls for the payment by rich countries of what can probably best be described as climate reparations.

These are some of the understandings proposed in the treaty's current working version: Industrialized countries should compensate developing nations for not just the cost of preventing and adapting to climate change, but for "lost opportunities, resources, lives, land and dignity" triggered by it; industrialized countries are to commit "at least 0.7%" of their annual GDP, above and beyond existing foreign aid commitments, to compensate the developing world for lost dignity and other distress; and that the money will be deliverable to the United Nations, which will be in charge of handing it all out.

"By 2020," the treaty insists "the scale of financial flows to support adaptation in developing countries must be [either] at least US$67-billion [or] in the range of US$70-to US$140-billion" every year. And in the end, because it may only shift carbon-intensive production from cleaner countries to less-efficient ones, the entire exercise may do very little to limit emissions.

On A Loss Of National Sovereignty

Copenhagen entrusts these billions [in climate reparations] to the management of the United Nations. Paragraph 200, Annex 3b, for example, requires signatories to submit to the UN their plans to reduce emissions, which "shall be reviewed as part of the annual compilation and accounting of emission inventories and assigned amount," suggesting that if the UN doesn't like a certain country's plan to cut greenhouse gases (GHGs), it has the power to deny assigned emission allowances until it sees a plan it does -- potentially, he says, leaving countries without full control of their own environmental policy.

On Encouraging Unfair World Trade

It gets trickier: Under the proposed treaty, developing countries -- which would include such Canadian trade competitors as China, South Korea, India, Brazil and Mexico -- are under far looser obligations to reduce emissions than wealthier nations like Canada; they are, after all, generally less equipped to modernize their infrastructure.

But under Copenhagen's paragraph 23, Annex 1, and paragraph 7, Annex 3e, no nation is permitted to impose "any form of unilateral measures including countervailing border measures, against goods and services imported from developing countries on grounds of protection and stabilization of the climate."

So, although China might impose duties on any Canadian steel it imports, if it can show we have fallen short on carbon dioxide reductions, Canada could not do the same to Chinese concrete imports. And while World Trade Organization rules prohibit any foreign government from slapping tariffs on Canadian exports on the excuse that we refused to sign Copenhagen, if we do sign it, and then don't live up to our promises, it could well be legal for our trading partners -- even our NAFTA partners -- to claim that our failure to live up to emission-reduction targets gives us an advantage, permitting them to put barriers up to our goods.

 

[Genx87]

With a goal of each nation reducing its emissions by 80%

I knew a lot of these people were out to lunch. But a reduction by 80%? They arent even trying to appear to based in reality anymore.

 

[Jaskalas]

With a goal of each nation reducing its emissions by 80%

Population control is the only means to that end.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

With a goal of each nation reducing its emissions by 80%

Population control is the only means to that end.

Sorry, I should note that only G8 nations are mandated to reduce emissions by 80% - 90%.

At the moment it seems that G8 nations are willing to go with a reduction of ~30%. Not unsurprisingly, developing nations like China, India, Brazil, Mexico who are eying the rather large wealth transfer portion of the treaty are protesting that this is too low.

 

[PokerGuy]

It is a giant scam in many many ways, but the blind eco-zealots still push it. Worse yet, there are lots of eco-zealots who not only don't mind the cost of energy going through the roof because of it, they actually want that outcome because it furthers their radical agenda.

 

[EagleKeeper]

to compensate the developing world for lost dignity and other distress."

:shocked:

 

[Darwin333]

If that article is accurate, no way in hell would Canada or the US sign it. "Climate debt" to be paid to the developing world? Seriously?

 

[Appledrop]

Originally posted by: Darwin333
If that article is accurate, no way in hell would Canada or the US sign it. "Climate debt" to be paid to the developing world? Seriously?

hahah, really? you think your government makes decisions based on whether it will be beneficial for Americans?.........

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Darwin333
If that article is accurate, no way in hell would Canada or the US sign it. "Climate debt" to be paid to the developing world? Seriously?

It actually does make sense.

The world economy will suffer greatly at the hands of higher prices. Only certain rich nations can afford to pay this price, the developing nations are not capable of making this sacrifice. So rich nations (G20) have to pay everyone else?s share.

Of course I'd say burn the climate treaty.

 

[TheSkinsFan]

"industrialized countries are to commit 'at least 0.7%' of their annual GDP, above and beyond existing foreign aid commitments, to compensate the developing world for lost dignity and other distress."

WHAT THE FUCK IS THAT!? Redistribution of wealth on a global scale based on feelings? Oh helllll no... :|

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

"industrialized countries are to commit 'at least 0.7%' of their annual GDP, above and beyond existing foreign aid commitments, to compensate the developing world for lost dignity and other distress."

WHAT THE FUCK IS THAT!? Redistribution of wealth on a global scale based on feelings? Oh helllll no... :|

Forcing developing nations to use clean and expensive energy will cost them dearly. They cannot afford it. This is not about feelings.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: Darwin333
If that article is accurate, no way in hell would Canada or the US sign it. "Climate debt" to be paid to the developing world? Seriously?

It's a sure thing that 3/4ths of the parties in Canada's Parliament will push for us to sign this treaty. Looking good now > severe financial implications decades down the road.

 

[MotF Bane]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

to compensate the developing world for lost dignity and other distress."

:shocked:

Yeah, I like that line.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: yllus
Topic Title: The Copenhagen climate treaty: Scam of the century?

For us in Canada, a net exporter of energy to the world, abiding by the Kyoto Protocol would have been an unqualified financial disaster. The followup to Kyoto, the Copenhagen Treaty, appears (via its circulated early drafts) to be even worse.

The shortlist on how Copenhagen screws us:

- With a goal of each G8 nation reducing its emissions by at least 80%, Copenhagen rewards nations that currently have less efficient infrastructure and punishes those who have already modernized. We here will have a far more difficult time upgrading our industry than those countries with infrastructure already due for repair.

- We pay the world for the honour of letting them buy our energy: From the treaty directly, "industrialized countries are to commit 'at least 0.7%' of their annual GDP, above and beyond existing foreign aid commitments, to compensate the developing world for lost dignity and other distress." And what happens if other nations increase their oil consumption? We, the energy source, pay the resultant emissions fees, not the consumer.

- The U.N. gets to set our environmental policy: "Paragraph 200, Annex 3b, for example, requires signatories to submit to the UN their plans to reduce emissions, which 'shall be reviewed as part of the annual compilation and accounting of emission inventories and assigned amount.'"

- We can kiss free and fair international trade goodbye: "So, although China might impose duties on any Canadian steel it imports, if it can show we have fallen short on carbon dioxide reductions, Canada could not do the same to Chinese concrete imports."

- The method in which this treaty addresses helping the planet is by forcing the cost of oil and other energy sources to skyrocket; as it's not very likely that Canada or other oil producers are about to take these new fees and just swallow them, everybody's bill is going up.

Good the more it pisses you and your buds off the better :thumbsup:

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: yllus
Topic Title: The Copenhagen climate treaty: Scam of the century?

For us in Canada, a net exporter of energy to the world, abiding by the Kyoto Protocol would have been an unqualified financial disaster. The followup to Kyoto, the Copenhagen Treaty, appears (via its circulated early drafts) to be even worse.

The shortlist on how Copenhagen screws us:

- With a goal of each G8 nation reducing its emissions by at least 80%, Copenhagen rewards nations that currently have less efficient infrastructure and punishes those who have already modernized. We here will have a far more difficult time upgrading our industry than those countries with infrastructure already due for repair.

- We pay the world for the honour of letting them buy our energy: From the treaty directly, "industrialized countries are to commit 'at least 0.7%' of their annual GDP, above and beyond existing foreign aid commitments, to compensate the developing world for lost dignity and other distress." And what happens if other nations increase their oil consumption? We, the energy source, pay the resultant emissions fees, not the consumer.

- The U.N. gets to set our environmental policy: "Paragraph 200, Annex 3b, for example, requires signatories to submit to the UN their plans to reduce emissions, which 'shall be reviewed as part of the annual compilation and accounting of emission inventories and assigned amount.'"

- We can kiss free and fair international trade goodbye: "So, although China might impose duties on any Canadian steel it imports, if it can show we have fallen short on carbon dioxide reductions, Canada could not do the same to Chinese concrete imports."

- The method in which this treaty addresses helping the planet is by forcing the cost of oil and other energy sources to skyrocket; as it's not very likely that Canada or other oil producers are about to take these new fees and just swallow them, everybody's bill is going up.

Good the more it pisses you and your buds off the better :thumbsup:

Dont come complaining when you cant drive your boat and that big van around anymore.
You are the type of idiot who gladly cuts off your nose to spite your face.

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Good the more it pisses you and your buds off the better :thumbsup:

Ban

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Good the more it pisses you and your buds off the better :thumbsup:

Amount of cars owned by yllus: 0
Length of commute for yllus to work: 20 minutes by foot, 7 minutes by streetcar
Amount of oil company stock owned by yllus: Roughly 30% of my portfolio

Now, you drive around for the "work" (ha) you do, don't you? With about 65% of Canada's oil is exported to the U.S., I wonder who's going to suffer more from oil prices going up, you or me?

 

[Corn]

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Good the more it pisses you and your buds off the better :thumbsup:

Amount of cars owned by yllus: 0
Length of commute for yllus to work: 20 minutes by foot, 7 minutes by streetcar
Amount of oil company stock owned by yllus: Roughly 30% of my portfolio

Now, you drive around for the "work" (ha) you do, don't you? With about 65% of Canada's oil is exported to the U.S., I wonder who's going to suffer more from oil prices going up, you or me?

LOL McOwned again.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Genx87

With a goal of each nation reducing its emissions by 80%

I knew a lot of these people were out to lunch. But a reduction by 80%? They arent even trying to appear to based in reality anymore.

Nah, it's ass backwards to think that we can continue current levels of CO2 Emissions.

The longer the delay, the greater we'll Pay. Swift action should have begun 1991, but everyone was just twiddling their thumbs then. By 2001 some were doing somethings, others were still twiddling. 2011 is close at hand and still there are many who want to twiddle.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Genx87

With a goal of each nation reducing its emissions by 80%

I knew a lot of these people were out to lunch. But a reduction by 80%? They arent even trying to appear to based in reality anymore.

Nah, it's ass backwards to think that we can continue current levels of CO2 Emissions.

The longer the delay, the greater we'll Pay. Swift action should have begun 1991, but everyone was just twiddling their thumbs then. By 2001 some were doing somethings, others were still twiddling. 2011 is close at hand and still there are many who want to twiddle.

It is even ass backwards to believe any indstrialized country will commit economic suicide by reducing Co2 emissions by 80%. European countries who actually signed Kyoto are having a hard time making emissions. Have any of them made it? Now they expect this kidn of reduction while letting emerging economies off the hook?

This is the kind of gun to the head selective climate BS that paints all conservation in a bad light. These people are the equivalent of Rush Limbaugh for their cause.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Good the more it pisses you and your buds off the better :thumbsup:

Amount of cars owned by yllus: 0
Length of commute for yllus to work: 20 minutes by foot, 7 minutes by streetcar
Amount of oil company stock owned by yllus: Roughly 30% of my portfolio

Now, you drive around for the "work" (ha) you do, don't you? With about 65% of Canada's oil is exported to the U.S., I wonder who's going to suffer more from oil prices going up, you or me?

Apparently you because you are doing the most whining, bitching and complaining.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Good the more it pisses you and your buds off the better :thumbsup:

Amount of cars owned by yllus: 0
Length of commute for yllus to work: 20 minutes by foot, 7 minutes by streetcar
Amount of oil company stock owned by yllus: Roughly 30% of my portfolio

Now, you drive around for the "work" (ha) you do, don't you? With about 65% of Canada's oil is exported to the U.S., I wonder who's going to suffer more from oil prices going up, you or me?

Apparently you because you are doing the most whining, bitching and complaining.

I'm going to enjoy spending your gas money.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Genx87

With a goal of each nation reducing its emissions by 80%

I knew a lot of these people were out to lunch. But a reduction by 80%? They arent even trying to appear to based in reality anymore.

Nah, it's ass backwards to think that we can continue current levels of CO2 Emissions.

The longer the delay, the greater we'll Pay. Swift action should have begun 1991, but everyone was just twiddling their thumbs then. By 2001 some were doing somethings, others were still twiddling. 2011 is close at hand and still there are many who want to twiddle.

It is even ass backwards to believe any indstrialized country will commit economic suicide by reducing Co2 emissions by 80%. European countries who actually signed Kyoto are having a hard time making emissions. Have any of them made it? Now they expect this kidn of reduction while letting emerging economies off the hook?

This is the kind of gun to the head selective climate BS that paints all conservation in a bad light. These people are the equivalent of Rush Limbaugh for their cause.

We made the mess.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Genx87

With a goal of each nation reducing its emissions by 80%

I knew a lot of these people were out to lunch. But a reduction by 80%? They arent even trying to appear to based in reality anymore.

Nah, it's ass backwards to think that we can continue current levels of CO2 Emissions.

The longer the delay, the greater we'll Pay. Swift action should have begun 1991, but everyone was just twiddling their thumbs then. By 2001 some were doing somethings, others were still twiddling. 2011 is close at hand and still there are many who want to twiddle.

It is even ass backwards to believe any indstrialized country will commit economic suicide by reducing Co2 emissions by 80%. European countries who actually signed Kyoto are having a hard time making emissions. Have any of them made it? Now they expect this kidn of reduction while letting emerging economies off the hook?

This is the kind of gun to the head selective climate BS that paints all conservation in a bad light. These people are the equivalent of Rush Limbaugh for their cause.

We made the mess.

Have you been to China?

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Genx87

With a goal of each nation reducing its emissions by 80%

I knew a lot of these people were out to lunch. But a reduction by 80%? They arent even trying to appear to based in reality anymore.

Nah, it's ass backwards to think that we can continue current levels of CO2 Emissions.

The longer the delay, the greater we'll Pay. Swift action should have begun 1991, but everyone was just twiddling their thumbs then. By 2001 some were doing somethings, others were still twiddling. 2011 is close at hand and still there are many who want to twiddle.

It is even ass backwards to believe any indstrialized country will commit economic suicide by reducing Co2 emissions by 80%. European countries who actually signed Kyoto are having a hard time making emissions. Have any of them made it? Now they expect this kidn of reduction while letting emerging economies off the hook?

This is the kind of gun to the head selective climate BS that paints all conservation in a bad light. These people are the equivalent of Rush Limbaugh for their cause.

We made the mess.

That isnt an answer. And I can gurantee you it wont fly when people are out of a job due to destroying the economy. Better think of something a lot more pragmatic.