News coming in suggests Rio was a junket to nowhere. I’m still waiting for Monckton to go through the fine print. Is there a sting?
Still it’s not hard to feel happy.
The Telegraph says: “Washout”
It was so bad, even the cheer squad were shocked:
The organisers behind the 1992 Earth Summit, which this week’s meeting commemorated, were shocked and took the extraordinary step of denouncing the agreement in front of key UN officials at a private dinner of the conference’s great and good. Maurice Strong, who ran the previous summit, called it a “weak” collection of “pious generalities”, while former Norwegian premier Gro Harlem Brundtland – whose report gave rise to the 1992 meeting – said governments had “forgotten about the environment”. And Nick Clegg, who led the British delegation, revealed that the Government felt the result fell so far below expectations that it had considered “pulling the plug” on the whole thing.
It was so bad, the crowd even hints at the End of the UN. (Crack that champers!).
…as one top international official privately put it to me: “The UN could not survive many more meetings like this.” And there are increasing signs that businesses and some governments are getting fed up.
Oxfam are calling it a hoax summit. “They came, they talked, but they failed to act,” said Barbara Stocking, the chief executive of Oxfam. ”
Washington post: Rio + 20 “may produce one lasting legacy: Convincing people it’s not worth holding global summits…”
Looks like it might be party time for the worlds free citizens — no damage achieved by the UN (apart from the scandalous waste of money and resources used to clock up nothing but a neat networking op for political powerbrokers).
Yes – they did get the free lunch, but not the free global bureaucracy.
Climate Depot - Marc Morano, Craig Rucker and Christopher Monckton were there on the ground.
Morano delivered the press conference that told the UN that failure at Rio means success for the world:
Failure here is good for the world’s poor people. Failure is the only option for this conference if you care about the environment and poor people. Carbon based energy has been one of the greatest liberators of mankind in the history of our planet.
Global Warming is past it’s use-by — even the UN knows it:
We are witnessing an historic moment in history of UN. UN IPCC chair Pachauri is now saying global warming is but a secondary problem to sustainability. The UN is now saying saving species is a greater urgency than global warming. They have now thrown global warming under the bus in favor of species extinction.
CFACT speakers at UN press conference:
CFACT Executive Director Craig Rucker: “While we stand here, 1.4 billion people are suffering in poverty…Any hope they have of rising out of poverty is being threatened by the negotiations here at Rio+20. [...] There is no imminent eco-disaster. We must not sell the potential prosperity of the poor for the dirty rags of sustainable development. Human beings must come first. In fact, history has shown that the environment is best protected when humans prosper. It is no coincidence that the regions of the world with the best air and the purest water are the also the ones that have the most advanced economies and used conventional development to get there. On the other hand, the poor cannot afford to care for the environment when every day is a matter of survival. Nature suffers when people suffer.”
CFACT President David Rothbard: “People are not pollution. People are not a disease. People are the greatest natural resource on the Earth…The way to help the environment, is to lift people up out of poverty. Unleash their abilities through political and economic freedom. Not a top down approach, not one environmental crises after another designed to have people give over more of their political rights, more of their economic freedom to unelected bureaucrats or government regulators. But allowing people to flourish so that people and nature can flourish together.”
Lord Christopher Monckton: “And now having failed with global warming. Because it is not happening as they said it would. There is no reason to suppose it will happen as they say it would. They have now come up with sustainable development. This means pretty much whatever you want to mean. You can say it is about gender equality and women’s empowerment – mentioned at least 5 times in pre-session draft negotiating text. It’s about all kinds of fashionable left-wing Marxist and other socialist causes. It is not in fact about the environment and it is not about development.”
I still want to hear Monckton’s version of the fine print in that non-event. Call me a cynic…