Subject To Approval

Things are not going well at the Climate Summit in Copenhagen. And not just for those left out in the cold by UN incompetence.

World leaders will not agree on the emissions cuts recommended by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and are likely instead to commit to reviewing them in 2015 or 2016.

The delay will anger developing countries who, scientists say, will face the worst effects of climate change despite having contributed relatively little of the man-made greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

A draft text published by the UN says that there should be a review in 2016, which could result in an “update of the long-term global goal for emissions reductions as well as of the adequacy of commitments and actions”.

Of course this has gotten the usual suspects (kleptocracies) up in arms as the swag they had hoped for will probably not materialize.

The kleptocracies want CO2 cuts from between 25% and 40% by 2020. The best offer so far is 18%. So what is the US offering?

President Obama has offered to cut US emissions by 4 per cent on 1990 levels by 2020, subject to approval by the US Congress.

Which so far he has not got. Nor is he likely to get.

And Tony Blair (former Prime Minister of Great Britain says:

Mr Blair said that, while the scientific evidence of man-made global warming was very strong, it was much less clear how quickly temperatures would rise.

“When you come to very precise dates, percentages and so on [. . .] then the figures are somewhat more fudgeable.

Considering the considerable fudging that has already taken place in the numbers you have to wonder how Mr. Blair can be so certain of the science. He suggest that because of the uncertainty of the science more fudging is in order.

I guess that would be called political science.

The New World Order

Watts Up With That has some excerpts from the treaty.

Skimming through the treaty, I came across verification of Monckton’s assessment of the new entity’s purpose:

38. The scheme for the new institutional arrangement under the Convention will be based on three basic pillars: government; facilitative mechanism; and financial mechanism, and the basic organization of which will include the following:

World Government (heading added)
a) The government will be ruled by the COP with the support of a new subsidiary body on adaptation, and of an Executive Board responsible for the management of the new funds and the related facilitative processes and bodies. The current Convention secretariat will operate as such, as appropriate.

To Redistribute Wealth (heading added)
b) The Convention’s financial mechanism will include a multilateral climate change fund including five windows: (a) an Adaptation window, (b) a Compensation window, to address loss and damage from climate change impacts [read: the "climate debt" Monckton refers to], including insurance, rehabilitation and compensatory components, (c) a Technology window; (d) a Mitigation window; and (e) a REDD window, to support a multi-phases process for positive forest incentives relating to REDD actions.

And of course there is an enforcement mechanism.

It will be interesting to wake up one day and find the country under new management without benefit of an election or revolution. I expect we will have a new government first and a revolution second. Interesting times.

You can look at copy of the treaty and come to your own conclusions.

Maybe it is time for a call to the politicians.

House of Representatives
The Senate

It seems like they are throwing so much at us that it is near impossible to defend every point. All they need is one win and they are over the top. Any loss means our destruction. Eric at Classical Values shows where a bill making wood illegal has already passed. And then there is the health care monstrosity wending its way through congress. How do you fight it all?

Cross Posted at Classical Values

UN Wants To Fight Hizballah

I have just read the most amazing report. UNIFIL - the UN forces in Lebanon - want to go after Hizballah.

UNIFIL would like a more aggressive mandate for its forces to engage Hizbullah on their own, The Jerusalem Post has learned.

After last summer's war in Lebanon and the passing of UN Security Council Resolution 1701, UNIFIL was beefed up from 2,000 troops to more than 12,000 and received a mandate stipulating that the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) be present during any incident involving Hizbullah in southern Lebanon.

According to the mandate's rules of engagement, UNIFIL soldiers are not allowed to engage Hizbullah guerrillas independently. They must first contact the LAF and wait for their arrival and decision whether they request UNIFIL assistance.

"There is a feeling of frustration within UNIFIL that under the current rules of engagement they are not free to do their job, which is to prevent Hizbullah rearmament in southern Lebanon," an Israeli defense official told the Post.

UNIFIL, commanded by Maj.-Gen. Claudio Graziano of Italy, cannot make changes to the rules of engagement on its own. The decision needs to be made by the UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations, in conjunction with countries that contribute forces to UNIFIL.

Nice of the General to make a stink. He is correct. However, his stated job and what the rules of engagement actually permit are two very different things. I'm sure this was no accident.

Why would the General be saying anything? By the time you get to be General politics is a very important part of the job. For him to speak out on this subject indicates he might have some backers in his corner who are not among the usual suspects.

Let us start with Prime Minister Fouad Seniora. Why would he be backing this if he already has the power to authorize UN action? One word. Hizballah. If he takes such overt action he will bring down the wrath of Hizballah on a somewhat shakey government.

Then there is Saudi Arabia. They have a lot of assets in Beirut. Just as Hizballah once had a lot of asset in Beirut. Which have lately gone into a disasterous decline in appraised value. The Saudis are aware that if the Israelis take a dislike to them it could hit them where it really hurts. In the pocket book.

Then there is the Sunni vs Shia thing. Plus a strong anti-Iranian sentiment over and above religious disputes.

The General's call for a change in the rules of engagement may have a chance. Depending on how much pressure the member states can bring on the Security Council.

Cross Posted at Classical Values