Attention: News Editors, Political, Science and Environment Reporters
TIME FOR THE UN TO GET OUT OF CLIMATE CHANGE
Negotiators and Secretary General continue to ignore scientists and
Ottawa, Canada, December 13, 2014: “Climate change negotiators in Lima, Peru seemed oblivious to the findings
of the UN’s ongoing My World survey about what the people of the world really want the agency to focus on,”
said Tom Harris, executive director of the Ottawa, Canada-based International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC).
“The seven million people polled so far indicate that, in comparison with issues such as education, health care,
jobs, and energy, they care very little about climate change.”
“Perhaps most out of touch with reality is the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon himself who on Wednesday
asserted that climate change remains his ‘top priority’," continued Harris.
ICSC chief science advisor, Professor Bob Carter, former Head of the Department of Earth Sciences at James
Cook University in Australia explained, “That ‘action taken on climate change’ rates dead last among the 16
priorities the public wants to see action on is not surprising. They understand that the remote possibility of
human activity contributing to climate problems decades from now is unimportant in comparison with the very
real problems faced by the world’s poor today.
“During the UN Climate Change Conferences in 2007, 2009, and 2012, hundreds of climate experts endorsed open
letters (see here) to Mr. Ban explaining his mistakes on the science,” said Carter. “Among the scientific luminaries
signing the letters were Dr. Antonio Zichichi, President of the World Federation of Scientists; Freeman J. Dyson of
Princeton Institute for Advanced Studies; Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, professor of natural sciences, Warsaw; and
Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Professor of Meteorology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
“The Secretary General did not even acknowledge receipt of our open letters, let alone address any of our points,”
New Zealand-based Terry Dunleavy, ICSC founding chairman and strategic advisor asked, “How can anyone take
Mr. Ban seriously after he asserted on Tuesday that ’Science has not only spoken – it is shouting from the rooftops.
Our planet has a fever – and it is getting hotter every day.’
“Not only is climate science highly uncertain but there has been no statistically significant global warming for 18
years despite a 9% rise in carbon dioxide to a still miniscule 0.04% of our atmosphere,” said Dunleavy. “As the
scientists explained in their 2012 open letter to Mr. Ban, ‘Global warming that has not occurred cannot have
caused the extreme weather of the past few years.’”
In his 2014 book “The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science”, ICSC science advisory board member and former
climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg, Dr. Tim Ball summed up the situation well: “Climate change has
happened, is happening and will always happen. Contrary to the message of the last thirty years, current rate of
climate change is well within the bounds of natural variability. Thus, a perfectly natural phenomenon became the
biggest deception in history.”
“The UN must get out of the climate field entirely,” said Ball. “In particular, their Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change and the Framework Convention on Climate Change have always been biased political instruments and should
be immediately disbanded. Then the agency should focus only on issues the people of the world deem important.”
The ICSC is a non-partisan group of scientists, economists and energy and policy experts who are working to promote better understanding of
climate science and related policy worldwide. We aim to help create an environment in which a more rational, open discussion about climate
issues emerges, thereby moving the debate away from implementation of costly and ineffectual “climate control” measures. Instead, ICSC
encourages effective planning for, and adaptation to, inevitable natural climate variability, and continuing scientific research into the causes
and impacts of climate change.
ICSC also focuses on publicizing the repercussions of misguided plans to “solve the climate crisis”. This includes, but is not limited to,
“carbon” sequestration as well as the dangerous impacts of attempts to replace conventional energy supplies with wind turbines, solar
power, most biofuels and other ineffective and expensive energy sources.
For more information about this announcement or ICSC in general, visit http://www.climatescienceinternational.org,
or contact any of the following ICSC representatives:
In North America:
Tom Harris, B. Eng., M. Eng. (Mech. - thermofluids)
Executive Director, International Climate Science Coalition
P.O. Box 23013
Ottawa, Ontario K2A 4E2
ICSC Webpage: http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=393
Professor Robert (Bob) M. Carter, PhD, Hon. FRSNZ
Chief Science Advisor, International Climate Science Coalition
Emeritus Fellow, Institute for Public Affairs, Melbourne
Former Head of the Department of Earth Sciences
James Cook University
Townsville, Queensland, 4811
Phone (mobile): +61-(0)419-701-139
Phone (evening): +61-(0)7-4775-1268
ICSC Webpage: http://climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=394
In New Zealand:
Terry Dunleavy, MBE, JP
Founding Chairman and Strategic Advisor, International Climate Science Coalition
Hauraki, North Shore City 0622
Phone: +64 9 4863859 - Mobile: +64 274836688
Saturday, 13 December 2014
|John Spooner: Taxing Air|
But the Abbott Government is also in the middle of a new controversy at the Lima conference over the way Australia's emissions target will be calculated under the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol, the current global climate agreement, due to expire in 2020 and replaced by any new deal signed in Paris next year.
Australia is seeking to use favourable rules around land clearing - originally agreed to under Kyoto in 1997 to establish an earlier target - in calculating its promised cut for 2020 under the protocol's second stage.
With apologies to John Spooner.
If Australia is not allowed to include land use emissions to calculate its target it is estimated that it will increase the national 2020 goal by between 40 to 80 million tonnes of carbon emissions or up to 2.5 per cent.
Australia is threatening that it will not ratify Kyoto again if it does not get its way on targets, and has won support from major developed nations and also Brazil. (bold added)In 1998, under the Howard Government, the Science, Technology, Environment and Resources Group issued Current Issues Brief 10 (link) contained inter alia:
Allowance for emission reductions from land use changes was permitted in the base year in the Kyoto Protocol. Thus, reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from declining rates of land clearing or forestry can be used to meet target commitments. Similarly, removals of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere by absorption into biological systems can be used. These removals of carbon dioxide, for example the planting of forests, are referred to as 'sinks'.Ian Hampton writes of Australia's actions in Lima:
This is a carbon copy of the tactics adopted by the then Howard Government in the lead up to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol agreement. Australia's "success" in getting the "Australia Clause" in the Kyoto Protocol led directly to the Howard Government "engineering" the much more restrictive 2003 NSW Native Vegetation Legislation and similar legislation in Queensland.Why Tony Abbott would pander to the loony lefties who read the SMH and watch "our" ABC is a mystery. Turning his back on the people who voted for him and bowing to people who will never vote for him seems a suicide move.
SO, how did the Kyoto 1 Land Use Protocol work out for Australian Land holders. Let's look at two examples:
- Farmer tried to work with the Land Use Protocol;
- Farmer lost farm due to the Land Use Protocol.
Farmer tried to work with the Land Use Protocol
Cate speaking to ABC radio May 20, 2014, about how carbon farming is a “good business strategy” at http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-20/mount-morris-cate-stuart/5465060 . But the banks, for good reason, thought otherwise.
Mark and Cate Stuart tried to work within the system and create a carbon sink. The sink was supposed to create income of $400,000 every 3 years. (link)
Cate and Mark Stuart will be evicted from their historic Charleville cattle station, Mount Morris, on Thursday afterRabobank last year called in the receivers Ferrier Hodgson to recoup an outstanding debt of $2.6 million.
The Stuarts are heartbroken. But the tough outback family, which has run the 20,000ha far-west Queensland spread for the past six years, isn’t going without a fight. A very modern fight.
They say the bank has failed to recognise their wild and sprawling home is more than just a cattle farm: it is a carbon bank.
For the past four years, the Stuarts have worked with the specialist carbon farming company Australian Carbon Traders to capture and store carbon on 5000ha of their mulga tree reserves.
They planned to earn up to $400,000 every three years in valuable carbon credit payments.Mt Morris is now for sale - See LINK. The Stuarts have lost everything.
Cate has been featured before in these pages, during the Convoy of No Confidence: LINK
Cate is now known as "Convoy Cate from Charleville." Listen to Cate on ABC's Counterpoint HERE.
Farmer lost farm due to the Land Use Protocol
Readers of these pages should be aware of Peter Spencer: Our friend, Joanne Nova, has written a magnificent summary HERE
Peter Spencer’s story is one I didn’t think could happen in Australia. He is the farmer in New South Wales who bought a farm and then lost 80% of it when rules changed to stop people clearing native vegetation. Unable to use most of his property, he was slowly bankrupted. Though he broke no law, he lost his life’s work and his beloved farm in late 2010. There was no way out. He couldn’t sell the property — who would buy a piece of land that could not be used? Farmers all around Australia lost billions of dollars in assets as the value of their land and produce declined.It is this legislation and the resulting theft of the stored carbon in the resulting trees by the Commonwealth (enabling Australia to meet its Kyoto commitments) that is at the root of Peter Spencer's case against the Commonwealth and NSW. (link)
Read the trial notes in "Peter Spencer: Court diary"
These are just two stories (from both sides of the boundary fence) of the myriad tragedies caused by Land Use Protocol under the original Kyoto Protocol.
Now, landholders (and all Australians) should gear up for more tragedies IF the Abbott Government gets acceptance of their new Land Use Protocol.