||Vote Blue: Get Sick
From Aubrey Mayer of C&C - or Contraction and Convergence CAMERON “Climate change is a global phenomenon. We need global co-operation to tackle it.” GCI
Vote Blue : Get Sick
His big principle is for “International partnership”.
“Climate change is a global phenomenon. We need global co-operation to
Go on. This truism has been unavoidable for the last twenty years.
“The EU accounts for 14% of the world's carbon emissions; the US
accounts for around a quarter and China and India for around 18%.”
Confusion straight away: the problem is cumulative emissions not
emissions. His are not cumulative figures, they are just current annual
Apart from alienating the Chinese et al, this is a fundamental error
makes the next remark wholly vacuous: -
“I believe it's clear and fair that all those who contribute to the
problem should contribute proportionately to the solution.”
Proportionate to what? Proportionate without clarifying the issue of
current versus cumulative emissions is worse than meaningless. It
further confusion. This really betrays a dependence on the incompetent
and evasive ‘advice’ with which the environmental lobbyists, [“let’s
smash the fossil fuel industry] led by Greenpeace, have misdirected the
UNFCCC negotiations for the last two decades.
“But since there is such strong evidence that the problem is getting
worse, it is equally clear, and fair to say that the actions taken to
date have been inadequate.”
The ‘inadequate action’ is more a function of the confused and evasive
advice than a failure to appreciate the evidence. It was obvious from
the word go that a ‘global strategy’ was required.
“That is not a reason for giving up; it's a reason for trying harder.”
True, but again does ‘trying harder’ mean getting rid of the confused
advice? There is no point in trying at all if this step is not taken.
Confused advisors give confused advice with the result that there is
“While the need for international action underlines the difficulty of
achieving progress, it also points to the opportunity.”
Yes. Get rid of the confused advisors.
“It's become fashionable in certain circles to dismiss the Kyoto
agreement. That's a mistake. Kyoto provides a model for international
partnership on climate change, and we should build on it. Its
achievements may be modest so far, but it is extraordinary that it
exists at all.”
What? More amazing than topless weather girls on Moscow TV.
“We now need to intensify the search for an effective, equitable
international agreement to succeed the current Kyoto targets from
Mr Cameron claims [below] to have consensus with the Liberal Democrats
the Scottish and Welsh Nationalists. These parties found “an effective,
equitable international agreement to succeed the current Kyoto targets
from 2012” in the form of C&C long ago. It is in all their manifestos.
How can Mr Cameron claim a consensus with them if he is still looking
for this “effective, equitable international agreement to succeed the
current Kyoto targets from 2012”?
“This should include setting binding targets for the developed world,
whilst encouraging China, India, (both of them parties to Kyoto) and
other rapidly developing nations to adopt lower carbon pathways to
Ah – here’s the rub. We want India and China ‘in’ the agreement but
without binding targets. So Mr Cameron then goes straight on to say . .
“Binding targets are crucial. They are the essential foundation for
emissions trading systems, providing the certainty and stability for
markets to drive the implementation of low-carbon technologies in an
economically efficient way.”
Cuckoo . . . that’s China ‘in’ or ur ‘out’ . . . ?
“So I think it's time we challenged our Prime Minister to spell out
clearly his intentions in this area.”
This takes the biscuit . . .
“Tony Blair speaks as if Kyoto expires in 2012. It doesn't: 2012 is
simply the end of the first round of Kyoto targets.”
Blair has his faults. Failure to realize this is not one of them.
“And we need to know from Tony Blair – and perhaps more importantly,
Gordon Brown - what his strategy is for the future.”
Sins of youth: – failing to realize how stupid your contradictions
you sound. Gordon Brown may not have strategy and even in Cameron’s
be stupid with it.
But the measure of his youthful folly is failing to realize how trivial
and impertinent this sounds, coming as-it-does from someone who
demonstrably fails to have a strategy yet behaves as if he does, from
which pulpit he requires surrender from Gordon Brown because he doesn’t
have a strategy either.
“Are they committed to a clear and transparent international framework
for carbon emissions?“
You couldn’t make it up.
“Are they committed to binding targets?”
Seriously . . .
“And are they committed to a level playing field internationally, with
absolute caps on emissions?”
Folie de grandeur meets Donald de foie Duck . . .
“Without these commitments, the British Government's credibility on
climate change will always be in doubt.”
How did this virgin manage to have so many miscarriages in just 400
Vote Blue get sick
Ming - you' better do better than this.