Lately the Five Star Free Market label is just a fake seal of approval for something Unfree
Just as carbon trading has nothing to do with a free market, so it is with monster free trade deals like the TPP. The free market meme won the intellectual debate of the 20th Century, but now its good name gets used and abused to sell the idea it defeated – bigger-government.
A real free market deal has only one page and a bunch of signatures. But it takes a lot of pages to list all the unfree parts and to spell it out in sub-sub-clauses that hurt or help thousands of businesses around the world. Who gets the sweetest deal out of the complexity — the card carrying networkers — those who schmooze up to the right minister or bureaucrat. The people who compete on price or quality alone would win in a real free market, and so would we as customers. Instead the document rewards the gatekeepers, the rulemakers, the industry with the best lobbyists and the monied set who can donate enough to the right causes to get a better deal.
Tipping the scales at 5,544 pages — and an astonishing 2,056,560 words — the trade agreement is one of the longest documents The Daily Caller has ever encountered. … The Bible: Authorized King James Version is 1,746 pages.
If it were printed Breitbart estimates it would weigh 100 pounds.
Monster Documents have to stop. The TPP is a hundred pound weapon. There is no single citizen in the West alive today that even knows what the law is that they are supposed to obey — they don’t know if they are breaking the law without paying a lawyer, and often the lawyers are just giving it their best damn guess anyway.
No Senator nor Member could read the document they vote on. Just say “No” to unreadable deals.
Every extra page is a win for the regulating class, the polaracites, the political freeloaders.
Keep reading →
The seismic shift continues.
In the new Trumpocene, executives have suddenly realized that there is whole other world out there. This is pretty big stuff. People in Manhattan are even thinking they might need to hire country folk, or, crikey, set up country offices. They are suggesting maybe Big Data from internet surveys is missing the point (and half the country), and wait for it… they may have to really talk to rural people, and (pause, because this is so profound) … face to face.
Even possibly in their homes.
Trump’s Win Has Ad Agencies Rethink How They Collect Data, Recruit staff
Wall Street Journal
“This election is a seminal moment for marketers” says Joe Tripodi, Subway sandwich chain.
Trump’s win spurs concerns that ad agencies are out of touch with consumers
In the wake of Donald Trump’s victory, advertisers are reflecting on whether they are out of touch
with the same people who propelled the businessman into the White House.
By ALEXANDRA BRUELL and SUZANNE VRANICA
A few days after the Nov. 8 election, the chief executive of the ad agency giant McCann Worldgroup summoned top executives to discuss
what the company could learn from the surprising outcome. One takeaway for him and his staff was that too much advertising falsely
assumes that all U.S. consumers desire to be like coastal elites.
“Every so often you have to reset what is the aspirational goal the public has with regard to the products we sell,” said Harris Diamond,
McCann’s CEO. “So many marketing programs are oriented toward metro elite imagery.” Marketing needs to reflect less of New York and
Los Angeles culture, he said, and more of “Des Moines and Scranton.”
I predict the ABC in Australia will miss this seismic shift entirely, though they need it so desperately. A lot of the ABC problems would be solved if we booted them out of Ultimo in Sydney and asked them to live in Bourke, Mildura, or Wagga… you name it. Indeed, how about Orange (where the Nationals just lost a seat they’ve held forever to the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers party, a result that zero ABC commentators predicted. The Trump effect has reached 16,000 kilometers across the ocean. It appears the electors have discovered they can vote in people who are not politicians.
Some marketers, concerned that data isn’t telling them everything they need to know, are considering increasing their use of personal
interviews in research. Meanwhile, some ad agencies are looking to hire more people from rural areas as they rethink the popular use of
aspirational messaging showcasing a ritzy life on the two metropolitan coasts. One company is also weighing whether to open more local
offices around the world, where the people who create ads are closer to the people who see them.
Read it all (though it may be behind the paywall) Wall Street Journal
h/t a friend in the Alps and David B.
The U.S. now needs to decide,
That the urban-rural divide,
Between city adorables,
And country deplorables,
Should end and be swept to one side.
Here’s the washup on the end of yet another UN COP junket. Marrakech, struck by panic, ends with a whimper, did anyone notice?
“My only worry is the money.”
Way back in that other era before the US election, delegates to the latest two-week-Olympic-junket with 200 nations in Morocco knew things could go badly. On November 4, Reuters said there was “…widespread unease”. But it wasn’t about the climate, it was “about finance …”
One delegate accidentally summed it up:
“My only worry is the money,” said Tosi Mpanu Mpanu of Democratic Republic of Congo, who heads a group of the 48 least developed nations. “It’s worrying when you know that Trump is a climate change sceptic,” he told Reuters.
Who cares about the weather, eh? The rest of the article is about the type of cash cows at stake.
Then the unthinkable happened: Trump. The panic began. Things were thrown into “disarray”. Everything was “imperiled”:
People were walking around looking pretty shellshocked,” says Dr Bill Hare, perched on a chair in the cavernous media tent at the United Nations climate talks in Morocco. “If you hugged an American there was a good chance they’d burst into tears.”
– An emotional ride, The Guardian.
Michael Kile documents some of the derailing of this gravy train:
“A third of the people here are walking around like zombies, like the walking dead, not sure what to do,” said UC Berkeley Professor Daniel Kammen, speaking from Morocco. Many believe the honeymoon is over.
In the end, there is nothing but spin, and all the momentum that $28 billion dollars a week can buy:
Each year $1.5 trillion dollars is spent on the green industry. That momentum means the Green scare machine will keep rolling for now, but it has taken a hit like no other. The Trump effect can’t be underestimated.
“Campaigners react with ‘extreme disappointment’”
‘This year’s inaction brings us one step closer to a future with a climate that is incompatible with dignified life’
Indignity, here we come.
In most media articles Paris is described as a “success”. Yet as far as the wind and oceans are concerned, the outcome in Marrakech is no different. Practically nothing.
Paris was always an enviro-fail, that achieved nothing much more than a non-binding, non-treaty, with voluntary commitments. (Although there was potentially a sting if the toothless wonder was tied to “other” legally binding deals like the TPP or domestic legislation). Paris was, however, a PR success, and Marrakech is not even that. They bluffed and puffed, and rushed to beat the Donald, but Paris “coming into force” means nothing except to the few rich silly patsy nations which are still volunteering to pay.
Even the kings of hype are struggling to make out that COP 22 was any kind of win
The pro-pro-crisis ClimateChangeNews site admit Trump owned the agenda.
It will go down in history as the Trump COP…
Wait for it: the big two successes…
Here are the top takeaways from two weeks of crunching over the nitty-gritty of how to put the Paris Agreement into practice.
Message to Trump
On the penultimate scheduled day, the conference adopted a call for all nations (yes, you too Donald) to honour promises made in Paris and renew their attempts to stave off disaster.
The one-page document contained little new information. But it was absolutely necessary, said observers, for the conference to make a political statement of resolve after the election of a climate sceptic to the US presidency.
Righto. Top takeaway looks pretty “big” then — a one page plea to play nice?
Then there are “Ratifications galore“:
Here’s one for lovers of palindromic numbers. During the conference, 11 governments ratified the Paris climate agreement – Australia, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Djibouti, Finland, Gambia, Italy, Japan, Malaysia, Pakistan and the UK. They brought the total for November to 22 and since the beginning of September a cavalcade of 88 nations have joined the party.
Remembering that “ratification” means countries agree to turn up and put in a plan and write a report. They will get the naughty finger waived if they do not live up to the promises they set themselves. It’s that serious. And of those 88 nations, they are probably including the USA. Which as we all know will likely chop up all of Obama’s empty promises.
This is as good it gets: RenewEconomy lay out the success in all its glory:
Marrakech COP22: Climate deal emerges stronger from Trump shock, but plenty to do
They find a fellow Green traveller to quote:
“This has been a remarkable meeting of nations. Countries, states, cities, companies and others have responded with grace, vigour and guts to the election of President Trump which could have been a massive blow to climate action,” said John Connor, CEO The Climate Institute from the talks in Marrakech.
And these meetings are remarkable (I went to Bali). They are a remarkable two week funded gala love in, with a few dinners and dances too. I’m sure lots of the dedicated scientists and NGO’s people there feel like they are working hard (and listening to boring speeches), but what other science stream, industry, anything, gets a two week overseas trip with friends every single year? Olympians have to work for four years, and have no guarantees of anything.
How many degrees of warming did they prevent and how many storms did they slow?
The outcome — plans, fantasies, proclamations, and promises to “do stuff” 30 years from now:
My favourite is number 2, where Germany, Canada, and the US will have cake, eat cake, give cake, all for free… and be “competitive”.
In the aftermath of the Trump election a range of commitments and actions were taken including:
- Australia, UK, Italy, Japan, Pakistan, Malaysia and others ratified the Paris Agreement;
- Germany, Canada and the U.S published their 2050 plans to reduce their economies to near net zero emissions, manage the transition, and maximise their competitiveness in a decarbonising world;
- A 2050 platform was launched for countries, cities and companies as part of an emerging inclusive UN architecture of accountability and assistance;
- The UK published proposals to phase out its coal-fired generators by 2025, Germany’s plans include reducing 2030 emissions from energy by 61 per cent and a commission to manage the transition;
- The Climate Vulnerable Forum, 48 countries representing 1 billion people, issued a Marrakesh Vision, a plan to achieve 100 per cent domestic renewable energy as well as update post 2020 commitments and prepare 2050 strategies;
- 196 countries supported the Marrakech Action Proclamation championing the Paris Agreement as well as highlighting the urgency of action;
- Almost 400 companies, joined separately by BHP, called on President Trump not to walk away from the Paris Agreement.
Most of all, they agreed to do it all again
The most important thing for the green machine is that there will be another couple of two-week gala events paid for mostly by taxpayers all around the world. These grand theatres are important rewards for volunteers, dutiful journalists, and scientists, and a good source of press releases. Not that any nation will reveal what their taxpayers have to stump up to make this happen. I did try. But the money drains from taxpayers, is split like the Amazon delta, and then funnels back in the to UNFCCC events from a thousand directions. It would take a PhD thesis to dissect all the grants, travel allowances and departmental donations. I once asked Christopher Monckton if he could pose a question in Parliament about the size of the UK’s budget for the IPCC, which he did, but the answer was that “it would cost too much to find out” or something similarly vague.
Image Credit: Original Photo Youxue Hong
Peter Boyer seems to think Myron Ebell owes him an apology, but it’s the other way around. And Boyer ought say sorry to his readers.
“Science Communication” is a pretty dismal, immature profession. It’s so bad that an award-winning science communicator can talk about “blunt denial” even while denying basic tenets of logic and appearing to have done almost no research on the global warming debate. If he was ever taught the basics of reasoning, like “correlation is not causation” or “all models are wrong but some are useful,” he’s long forgotten them. What’s an Order of Australia worth these days? Apparently not much.
If he had the open mind he talks about, he might have bothered to read the skeptical sites before he wrote an article. We’d have provided all the evidence an open mind could need to know that Myron Ebell is right on the money. So here Peter, with all due respect, is the red pill — the stuff the UNSW profs of climate crisis won’t tell you even if you dared to ask them.
Asked in 2012 what he would do if he found he was wrong about climate change, [Myron] Ebell said he would say sorry and try to undo policies he had supported. Since then we have had the two warmest years on record, with 2016 all but certain to be the third in a row.
Seriously, is that it? Two record El Nino years in 130 is “evidence” that something has warmed us in the last 130 years? But all forms of warming cause, er, warming. Two warm years tell us nothing about the cause. Keep an open mind — and think about the nearest monster nuclear reactor, eight minutes away as the photon flies, that is 300,000 times bigger than Earth. Did you know that all the government funded climate models assume that the solar magnetic field, the changing UV spectrum, cosmic rays, and the solar wind have zero effect on our climate, and definitely don’t change our cloud cover, yet solar activity was at a record high in the later half of the 20th century, and that it is a not a bad predictor of global temperature on Earth? Read here about the seven ways the sun could affect cloud cover on Earth. At least one climate modeler knows how to do proper Fourier transforms, create real models, and gross and obvious architecture errors. Not that he can get a government grant for that.
Moreover solar activity correlates with everything from jet streams in the Atlantic, to floods in Europe, groundwater recharge rates in China, Asian and Australian rainfall, wind and rain in Chile, etc. etc. etc.. Solar activity correlates with the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age, but Co2 does not. Co2 has been essentially constant since the last ice age, ten thousand years ago, yet the world has warmed and cooled a couple of degrees several times since then.
But how can extra CO2 not make much difference?
CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and it does absorb infra-red radiation. If Earth had no water, extra CO2 might warm us, but the heat trapped by CO2 likely just reroutes out through water vapor molecules. We are The Water Planet. The extra energy just finds another way to escape to space, probably through humidity in the upper troposphere. That’s why adding CO2 doesn’t matter — except to hungry people who like more food, and Greens who like more greenery.
We are carbon life forms, so what is not to like about carbon? Burn oil to feed the world, but don’t burn oil to make the planet warmer — it doesn’t work.
Not only is correlation not causation, but the correlation is lousy anyway
The rate of warming on Earth, according to climate guru Phil Jones in the UK East Anglia CRU, was just the same in the 1870s as it was at its peak in the last forty years. All that coal that was burnt after World War II and there is nothing to show for it. Thirty percent of all human emissions have had no effect at all on the climate. The warming started around 1700, and it has just kept going (see 120 proxies and 6,000 boreholes). CO2 is irrelevant.
Hadley Global Temperature Graph with Phil Jones trends annotated on top.
Just another 20 warm peaks the current models can’t explain.
Here’s just one study, of a thousand I could name: Rosenthal et al found that the waters around Indonesia were a bit warmer 1,000 years ago and an eye-popping two whole degrees warmer 8,000 years ago. Another group found it was also two degrees warmer near Peru. Somehow the Great Barrier Reef survived. We are panicking over the statistically insignificant ocean warming today of a whole fifth of a degree over fifty years, but all indications suggest it was just as warm 1000 years ago, and zero, none, not one of the fantastico Global Coupled Atmospheric and Oceanic Models can tell you why that was. Thirty billion dollars in climate research has given us International Grade Ignorance. Failure this complete in any modern science is a rare thing.
There has been 65 million years of climate variations and current expert models can’t explain 64,999,950 years of it (and I’m being generous about the last 50).
Skeptics won the science debate years ago:
Over those four years the science supporting a climate crisis has only strengthened, underlined in a research paper about unmitigated emissions — the scenario envisaged by Ebell and Trump — published the day after the election in the journal Science Advances.
The evidence in favour of skeptics was already definitive before 2012 and each year things get better for us. Skeptics won the science debate years ago, but no one seems to know that — thanks to lazy science writers with closed minds, and to gutless professors who won’t debate skeptics in public because they know what will happen. By 2003 the ice core data showed that CO2 levels lagged behind temperature by hundreds of years, and even climate scientists stopped arguing with that (they just started pretending it didn’t matter). By 2006 the top group in the the US climate science program published graphs [iii] showing that the main feedback in climate models — which has more effect that CO2 does in the climate models — was utterly completely wrong, and twenty eight million radiosondes showed that the central assumption about water vapor was a pathetically bad guess that washed out totally when tested: yellow is not red, there is no missing hot spot, and no amount of fidgideling the results, or faking the color scale on graphs would make it so. The only climate model that predicts the current warm period correctly with no hot spot uses solar factors to explain the Earth’s temperature, not CO2. Bummer eh? I have a tutorial for science writers about the ocean heat content here. I will bet you have never asked your favourite scientists those questions. If you would like some help with hot spot questions, just ask. I’m all yours.
Yellow is not red. Observations don’t fit the predictions. Twenty eight million radiosondes disagree with twenty eight million climate models.
The US-German study found the impact of greenhouse gases on temperature grows as Earth’s surface warms. Its modelling showed “business as usual” emissions warming the planet between 4.78C and 7.36C — far above previous calculations of a 4.8C maximum.
So that model you cite is even more wrong than 98% of all the other models which predicted less warming and still failed the “pause” test. “Congrats”.
The “better” models Boyer doesn’t cite are still tragic failures: they not only fail on global scales, but on regional, local, short term , polar, and upper tropospheric scales too. They fail on humidity, rainfall, drought and they fail on clouds.
Give me five variables, one model and a million dollars, and I can predict any number from 10 down to 10 up. What would you like? Just don’t ask me about model validation (and definitely don’t ask the modelers at UNSW about it). Climate scientists stopped mentioning the word “validation” decades ago.
Do tell, is that evidence that matters or ideology?
None of the above matters to Ebell. It is not scientific evidence that moves him, but ideology. There has been no apology from him, but plenty of spin.
Exactly. Does any of the above matter to Peter Boyer? Is his view based on evidence or ideology?
Yet Trump might not prove the ogre many of us envisage. His motivators are neither evidence nor ideology, but the art of the deal. We are used to thinking of pre-election statements as promises to be kept or broken, but Trump treats them as bargaining positions. Perhaps climate is another one.
Maybe all political establishments need a Trump shock now and again, as a reminder not to take power for granted. Maybe this political novice with a short attention span and a distrust of all things intellectual will prove an antidote to the toxic ideologies that have dogged us so long.
The reckless appointment of Ebell to the Trump team need not be the whole story.
Ebell could be the best thing to happen to environmental science in 50 years. As a skeptical scientist, I’m thrilled. Unskeptical scientists aren’t so happy, but who wants to be an Oxymoron for the Climate?
At least Boyer is right about Hillary’s best moment — this was it:
Hillary Clinton’s best moment was her election-night advice to keep an open mind on Trump, and that is what I intend to do. Because right now the alternative is too awful to contemplate.
Peter Boyer began his journalism career at the Mercury in the 1960s. In 2014 he was awarded an Order of Australia Medal for services to science communication.
Dear Peter, you’ve been in this game long enough to spot groupthink and government strangled science. Open your mind, and look at the evidence.
Science is in a rut, a hole, and being abused and exploited by a trillion dollar industry, and we need real science communicators to help shake it out. You will however, lose lots of friends with ideologues, not get any awards, face exile, namecalling, threats to be sacked, evicted, blackballed, terminated, punished, vilified and generally get bullied, not to mention government funded fun aimed at blowing up your kids (as a joke), as well as songs and plays about killing people like you, and in some cases, talk of a RICO investigation. So I’ll understand if you don’t want to play, but you don’t have to feed the fake crisis with unresearched pop psychology. Thanks.
Click if you care. All 61 countries (write in the top three yourself.)
I know you’ve all been waiting for the Climate Performance Index of 2017. It’s hitting the headlines today as countries who are falling in the list get officially told off.
A group called CAN have ranked the world (well, 61 countries) according to how much carbon dioxide they emit, and how many degrees they will alter world temperature… sorry, scratch that… and how much they pander to the climate-religion. For a few moments I was proud that Australia ranked 57th out of 61. To reach the top of the malPerformance list (I’m aiming at number 61) Australia only has to outdo Korea, Kazakhstan, Japan and Saudi Arabia. We’re all in the officially “Very Poor” and most naughty bottom rank, along with the almost-as-naughty-Canada at 55th, and Russia, Iran, and Singapore.
At the other end of the scale, the top ranked country is France at number four.
Why “four” you ask? Because there is no one, two or three. Apparently, the top three countries are imaginary. This is so fitting:
* None of the countries achieved positions one to three. No country is doing enough to prevent dangerous climate change.
Righto. Lets call the winners: Atlantis, Pandora, and Neverland.
It’s hard to imagine the US is only down to 43rd, just “Poor” — even after the Trump effect.
The UK (what were you Brits thinking) ranks an abysmal sixth. Sorry about that.
I’d like to say that Australia scoring 57th was impressive so I could invert the whole list and call it the Climate Sanity Index, or Least Gullible Countries on Earth, but we all know it isn’t true — indeed the list appears pretty random. Despite Germans, Danes and Australians doing more to cripple their economies than anyone else I can think of, they scored 29th, 14th and 57th.
Consider Denmark, which broke the world record for the highest percentage of wind farm generation in 2015, (and the highest electricity charges) but can’t place better than 14th. Germany has 25,000 wind turbines and pays practically the second highest electricity charges but ranks 29th. Australia, the largest coal exporter in the world (or close) is crippling its own coal power stations and has run a whole state into blackness, but gets 57th. We live further from everywhere than anywhere, have the lowest population density, and bigger distances to cover, and virtually the highest population growth rate in the western world, but are still pretending we can cut our emissions by an obscene one quarter. We deserve a Golden Hairshirt Award. Instead, we’re scraping the barrel with Saudi Arabia? How many wind farms do they have, is it zero, or have they finished the first one yet?
*Oops on the Headline. We are not third from the top but fifth. Darn. Corrected. Sorry. I know people will be disappointed. – Jo
Indonesia might be bigger than you thought. | Image credit: Overlaymaps
Time to pay attention to the fourth largest population in the world.
You might have reused some shopping bags to save the planet but two hundred million people quietly doubled their coal use:
Indonesia’s coal consumption remains high: BP
The BP Statistical Review 2016 revealed on Wednesday that Indonesia’s coal consumption had doubled since 2010. Last year, coal became the country’s dominant source of fuel, accounting for 41 percent of total energy consumption.
Studies show coal consumption remains popular in Indonesia despite its damaging environmental impacts. The government has committed to an ambitious 35,000 megawatt electricity program, in which coal-fueled power plants will still make up the majority of electricity generation, at around 50 percent.
As coal got cheap, Indonesia exported less and used more of it domestically.
They don’t seem to following the IPCC’s plan.
Japan’s major conglomerate Itochu Corporation and one of world’s major electricity company, Electric Power Development Co. Ltd (J. Power), have promised to fully support the construction of the coal-fired Batang power plant in Central Java, which will become not only the most efficient but also cleanest thermal power plant in Southeast Asia.
He said that the Batang coal-fired power plant would be the showcase of the company’s latest power generation technology called the ultra-supercritical (USC) technology, which is not only able to improve efficiency but also significantly reduce emission, including carbon dioxide and mercury.
With the USC technology, the power plants operate their boilers at temperatures and pressure above the critical point of water, which results an efficiency of above 45 percent.
Indonesia’s coal fired electricity will be cleaner and more efficient than Australias. (No one is going to invest in better coal plants in an advanced economy like Australia.)
Who’s a quiet coal giant then? Australia provides about 30% of world coal trade, and it’s our largest export industry, but Indonesia digs up about the same amount of coal as Australia exported a few years ago:
Keep reading →
Who’s in denial now?
Unhappy democrats have started a Twitter campaign and petition to change the election result on December 19th by convincing Republicans in the electoral college to vote for Hillary instead. I think the plan is to riot, throw a hissy fit, and hope everyone “comes to their senses”. Things are not just crazy in the US, in Australia, the media coverage of the US election has been so politically purified that five and six year old’s at a daycare centre were caught chanting death threats about Donald Trump and the after-school club has decided to do “art therapy” to help them cope.
Hillary Clinton was horrified that Donald Trump might not accept the election result. Now that her fans are rioting in the streets many people look forward to her telling them how much they are “denigrating democracy“. Right now there are really only two people who could stop most of the violence if they made an impassioned public plea for their fans to respect the democratic process, and rule of law. Where are their responses?
The popular vote was so popular it seems 3 million people from other countries voted too
The main (only) argument keeping the Clinton-camp’s hopes alive is that she won the popular vote by 600,000 votes. But a study by Greg Phillips of VoteFraud.org suggests as many as 3 million votes were cast by illegal immigrants. Who knows, Trump may have won the popular vote if there had been ID checks, something the Democrats do everything they can to stop. Indeed Obama even explained before the election that non-citizens should get out vote. Snopes has tried to claim this is false, but even their “in context” quote shows Obama was responding to a question about “undocumented citizens” and people at risk of being deported. There are apparently 4 million dead people on U.S. voter rolls, and the Democrats don’t want them to stop voting either.
@realDonaldTrump tweeted “If the election were based on total popular vote I would have campaigned in N.Y. Florida and California and won even bigger and more easily”
Past presidents that won with lower percentages of the popular vote than Trump (47%) include Abraham Lincoln (39%), Woodrow Wilson (42%), and Bill Clinton (43%).
Keep reading →
You may not have realized we have the right to a perfect climate. A bunch of kids age 8 to 19 have won the right to take the US government to trial for not protecting the atmosphere. It’s being called the “biggest case on the planet”.
Federal judge: The right to a stable climate is so fundamental, it predates the Constitution. Huge, huge victory
“Right to a stable climate predates Constitution?” If only the auth ors of the Magna Carta could have prevented the Little Ice Age.
If only. In dismissing the dismissal the plaintiffs haven’t proven anything at all except that they have the right to waste a lot of time and money pursuing the idea that humans not only can control the climate, but they should’ve done so, at any cost, and that these children would be better off in a colder world with lower crop yields. I can see about twenty ways this case can die in a ditch. Bring on discovery.
How about the right to a stable economy?
Can our kids sue the government for flagrantly wasting funds borrowed from their future in a pointless quest to change the weather?
Plaintiffs allege defendants have known for more than fifty years that the carbon dioxide (“CO;’) produced by burning fossil fuels was destabilizing the climate system in a way that would “significantly endanger plaintiffs, with the damage persisting for millenia.”
Keep reading →
The UNFCCC were trying a weak bluff last week that Trump “would not derail Paris”. Turnbull rushed to sell Australia out to the Paris deal on Nov 10th for no purpose at all even after the US election guarantees two of the largest economies in the world will not be committed to carbon reduction, all of which was obvious from November 9th, 2016. (China — the other “largest” economy has promised to do nothing.)
In a letter to John Kerry on November 3rd, fourteen US senators explained that Obama’s commitment to the Paris deal is the legal equivalent of him giving a speech — the “lowest forms of commitment the United States can make…”. It’s worthless. The Senators explained that everyone knows the Paris deal was done to avoid going through Congress (it’s printed in The Guardian) because Congress would never approve it.
Obama said he had ratified the Paris agreement, but it was a bluff.
What one President can proclaim, the next can just as easily wipe out.
Source: US Senate Letter in full.pdf November 3, 2016
The US senators are warning Turnbull, Trudeau, May, Merkel, Hollande and everyone else, that the US is going to fall far short of its carbon commitment, and that the Paris deal is of “no consequence”:
Paris Agreement Parties relying on fulfillment of promised US climate actions should be fully aware that the administrations “commitment” is opposed by the majority of congress, it’s legal soundness is questioned by the US Supreme Court, and under the best of circumstances, the country will fall short of meeting the 26 – 28 percent reduction by a range of forty-five to sixty percent. Most importantly, any future administration will have numerous options to forego President Obama’s political commitments under the Paris Agreement and the fact that it will soon be in force is of no consequence.“
The US Congress, and Donald Trump, have made their position clear all along. Turnbull and Bishop didn’t have to do this. Who were they negotiating for? The Australian population voted twice against carbon schemes.
h/t Amanda B, David B.
21 contributors have published
2478 posts that generated