Climate talks stalled over aid to developing countries -

Climate talks stalled over aid to developing countries


WARSAW, Poland – The inability of more than 190 countries to agree on climate aid to developing countries and milestones for work on a new global warming pact has pushed U.N. climate talks into an extra day.

After all-night talks, a new draft agreement emerged Saturday with vague guidelines on when countries should present their carbon emissions targets for a larger deal that’s supposed to be adopted in Paris in 2015.

Developing countries want to make sure that richer countries adopt stricter targets than they do and have resisted a push by the European Union and the U.S. for a clear timeline.

The latest draft said countries should present their commitment by the first quarter of 2015 if “in a position to do so.”

Negotiations were expected to continue into Saturday afternoon.

“Climate negotiations are understandably tense because there is still a perception that if one country wins the other loses,” said Jake Schmidt of the Natural Resources Defence Council. “That isn’t true as countries clearly have a huge domestic upside to action, but that perception still lingers.”

The U.N. climate talks were launched in 1992 after scientists warned that humans were warming the planet by pumping CO2 and other heat-trapping gases into the atmosphere, primarily through the burning of fossil fuels.

In Warsaw, negotiators were trying to lay the foundation of a deal in 2015 that would take effect five years later, but were bogged down by recurring disputes over who needs to do what, when and how.

Countries made progress on advancing a program to reduce deforestation in developing countries, an important source of emissions because trees absorb carbon dioxide.

Climate financing proved harder to agree on. Rich countries have promised to help developing nations make their economies greener and to adapt to rising sea levels, desertification and other climate impacts.

They have provided billions of dollars in climate financing in recent years, but have resisted calls to put down firm commitments on how they’re going to fulfil a pledge to scale up annual contributions to $100 billion by 2020.

“There is absolutely nothing to write home about at the moment,” Fiji delegate Sai Navoti said, speaking on behalf of developing countries.

Pointing to the devastating impact of Typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines, island nations also demanded a new “loss and damage mechanism” to help them deal with weather disasters made worse by climate change. Rich countries were seeking a compromise that would not make them liable for damage caused by extreme weather events.

Filed under:

Climate talks stalled over aid to developing countries

  1. A totally fabricated “crisis”. Talks are in overtime. Do we care?

    • Ah…the almighty Conservative “we”. I don’t remember giving you permission to speak for me.

      • You have permission to join us, but we aren’t going to force you.

        • But in the meantime you’re quite prepared to speak for me then?

          • You may join us if you wish.

            Or you can fester in ignorance and superstition.

          • That’s rich coming from the side that is as Obama said: “It’s almost as if they’re proud of their ignorance.”

          • I don’t have a political “side”, and in particular not one relevant to US politics.

          • Maybe not a US side, but really…pull the other one, it has bells on. Next you’ll be telling me you’re a lapsed Liberal.

          • Haw haw haw… when have I ever mentioned a political preference?

          • GlynnMhor kcm2 • a day ago −
            You have permission to join us, but we aren’t going to force you.

            Haw haw haw! I’m really not that slow you know.

          • Nothing to do with politics, but rather about whether you persist in believing in the AGW paradigm, and by extension believing that discussions about CO2 emissions be something to care about.

          • Nothing to do with politics eh…hmmm

            I’ll have to think about that one. It is true i haven’t seen you defending Harper’s odious party. Fair enough.

          • Some of my friends who are appalled at the CAGW farce vote for the Conservatives (and the Wild Rose provincially), some for the NDP, some for the Liberals, and one guy for the Social Credit.

            It’s not congruent with party politics.

            On the other hand, I do applaud our current government for pulling us out of Kyoto, and for not going hog wild sacrificing our economy on the barren altar of carbon strangulation.

          • Uh huh. Tell us more unsubstantiated BS so we can pretend it’s evidence of something.

          • Unless you’re wrong. That’s my kids future you’re gambling with. And i had no idea SC still existed.

          • The SC runs candidates still in the provincial elections in Alberta, though I do not think they’ve elected anyone in over a decade.

            Sort of like the global warming scare; a dinosaur with no legs for quite some time.

  2. Really?

    Looks like a massive wealth transfer effort = massive fraud.

  3. Another five, or at most ten years, of no temperature increases and the failure of the AGW paradigm will have become evident even to the slowest politician.

    Then we can have done with this sort of nonsensical international bafflegab sessions.

    • After the fith, or at most 10th time of being shown how he’s wrong, it should be apparent even to the slowest person.
      Then we can be done with this sort of GlynnMhor nonsensical bafflegab.

      • When the global temperature does not increase, then there is no global warming.

        If there is trivial (if any) global warming, then obviously whatever influence humans might have (via CO2 or other) is dwarfed by natural effects.

          • Heh heh heh… optical delusions from the SS site are hardly diagnostic of anything.

          • Trends calculated from the temperature record and published science are “optical delusions” – I’m starting to see your problem.

          • No, that’s an image from the SS website, not science, not calculated, not published (except if you can call putting it on a website ‘published’), and not relevant to anything except the delusions of those desperate to rescue their failing paradigm.

          • Wrong again. The first is the average of the surface instrumental records, with short-term linear trends and the full-term trend superimposed, the second is from a published paper measuring the earth’s total heat budget, and the last is from a recently published paper demonstrating a significant underestimate of temperature increase in the HADCRUT record.

  4. The climate alarmists are going to have to face the reality sooner or later.

    Their beloved warming is failing them, and their paradigm of doom is collapsing as the evidence piles up against it.

    • Close your eyes and tap your heels together as you repeat that. It’s gotta work eventually.
      Or publish some science demonstrating your thesis – Ha! Just kidding! I know that’s not going to happen.

      • It’s being published monthly by the Hadley Centre, the NOAA, the UAH, etc.

        Your time is running out.

        • Nope. Nothing coming from any of those bodies contradicting the consensus.

          Seems you’re knowledge of climate is superior to any the scientists at those institutions so you’ll have to write the paper yourself.

          • The datasets simply show the reality, whatever it is you think the “consensus” might be.

            And the reality is that the globe has warmed trivially, if at all, for well over a decade now despite continued CO2 increases.

            Your time is running out.

          • Indeed they do. Because the reality is that the science has never claimed the surface temperatures will increase in a straight line, or necessarily show a significant increase over a given 10 or 15 year period. As the graph so ably illustratesyou could have made the same claim numerous times in the past, and each time you would have been wrong. You want us to believe that this time you’re right. And you’re evidence is….just cuz.
            All you’ve refuted is a fiction of your own creation.

          • Oh dear. You’ve just illustrated my point perfectly – warming has indeed remained within the range predicted under A2 in the graph above.

            But hey, like I said, write your paper.
            You’re not too lazy to write a paper that would save the world from the Worldwide Conspiracy to ______?

            That’s would be rather sad.

          • Nope, the rate corresponds to the ‘constant composition’ projection, or actually lower than that.

            But I’m sure you’re aware of how poorly the AGW paradigm has been shaping up simply by how desperate are its promoters to find any trace of warming anywhere to try to revive the dying thing.

            Here’s more of a close up view of A2 versus the reality:


          • The temperature is within the range predicted under A2.
            The “rate” is whatever you want to make it if you’re happy to ignore the standard climate averaging period of 30 years and cherry-pick your starting point (let me guess – you are?) eg. From 2010-2011 the temperature dropped .1 – the Earth is cooling at a rate of 1 degree per decade!
            But, of course the IPCC doesn’t do that, so again you’re trying to refute a fiction of your own creation.

          • Heh heh heh… with your schema, the globe would still have been deemed to be warming throughout the 1950s and 1960s.

            The ‘starting point’ is there in the data, easily seen once smoothed even primitively.

            You’re paradigm really is going down, and I’m sure you know it, whatever your ulterior motive might be to try to claim otherwise.

          • CO2 was certainly warming the planet throughout the 50s and 60s. What you call a “schema” most know as “science”.

            Why don’t you write up your IlookedatagraphandCO2isnothingtoworryabout thesis and submit it for publication? Think of the untold costs you’ll save us all!
            Don’t worry about the fact that you can’t even defend it on message board, I’m sure you’ll work the kinks out!

          • Given that the globe cooled after the 1940s and stagnated, you’re simply in error about the warming.

            What will you do, lenny, once even the politicians abandon the scare? Stop posting? Change your username in embarrassment? Or man up and admit you’ve been wrong all along?

          • No, unfortunately your grasp of basic logic has failed you.

            That net forcings resulting in lower temperatures during that period isn’t evidence that CO2 didn’t contribute warming.

            You really ought to read the literature…or write that paper.