Pachauri’s great expectations (July 2009) vs reality (June 2013)

[Please note UPDATE within text below -hro]

Rajendra K. Pachauri is the (somewhat unwanted and some would say unqualified) Chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC’s much vaunted – and daunting, if not positively scary – Fifth Assessment Report (AR5), the first volume of which (or rather, the first wave of Press Releases touting its “objective, transparent and inclusive” Summary for Policy Makers [SPM]), is the contribution of Working Group I (WGI), “The Science”, is due to be (sort of) completed and “approved” in September of this year.

As I had noted in a post two years ago, Pachauri’s 2009 “vision” for AR5 included the following:

Based on an approach that is open, thorough, and scientifically rigorous, the contributions of the IPCC are widely recognized as the authoritative source of scientific information on climate change and as key foundations for negotiations and decisions related to implementing the UNFCCC.
[...]
In addition to being authoritative assessments, the IPCC reports are powerful motivators for research. New research on many of the understanding gaps identified in the AR4 is underway and advancing, with both the scientific community and the world’s governments strongly supportive of a successful next IPCC assessment, the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5).
[...]
Climate change needs to be assessed in the context of sustainable development, and this consideration should pervade the entire report across the three Working Groups.
[...]
T]he IPCC AR5 is being taken in hand at a time when awareness on climate change issues has reached a level unanticipated in the past. Much of this change can be attributed to the findings of the AR4 which have been disseminated actively through a conscious effort by the IPCC, its partners and most importantly the media. Expectations are, therefore, at an all time high as far as the AR5 is concerned.

I doubt that anyone would dispute Pachauri’s contention that the IPCC reports are “powerful motivators for research” – although in doing so, this “motivator” appears to have given “research” a bad name! But I digress …

In the interim, the IPCC (and its “main client“, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change [UNFCCC]) has had more than a few setbacks. Not the least of which was Climategate; as Fred Pearce had noted in December 2009:

I have been speaking to a PR operator for one of the world’s leading environmental organizations. Most unusually, he didn’t want to be quoted. But his message is clear. The facts of the e-mails barely matter any more. It has always been hard to persuade the public that invisible gases could somehow warm the planet, and that they had to make sacrifices to prevent that from happening. It seemed, on the verge of Copenhagen, as if that might be about to be achieved.

But he says all that ended on Nov. 20. “The e-mails represented a seminal moment in the climate debate of the last five years, and it was a moment that broke decisively against us. I think the CRU leak is nothing less than catastrophic.” [emphasis added -hro]

While they have certainly made a valiant attempt to pretend otherwise, it’s difficult to imagine that the IPCC and its inner circle of scientists, activists and water-carrying journalists were not concerned about the 2011 release of a second tranche of emails (CG2) – or by the more recent release of the key to unlock the remaining emails contained in a password-protected file in CG2.

There have been leaks of drafts of various WG reports which the IPCC is powerless to prevent. But perhaps most disappointing of all for an organization which very much depends on visual icons to convey an escalating chorus to accompany each recycling of an “it’s-worse-than-we-thought-we-must-act-now” mantra, it has had to watch as one potential icon after another was shot down in flames of post-peer-review analysis of the statistical gymnastics invariably (and unkosherly) exercised by the papers’ respective authors.

First, Steig et al‘s glorious living colour Nature cover story turned out to be naught but “artifacts” which did nothing to “advance the science” – and was more deserving of a big yawn than the fanfare and attention it had succeeded in garnering.

The United Nations Environment Program (UNEP)’s well-dressed word-salad that emerged from last year’s Rio+20 confab, pretty well sidelined the IPCC in favour of what was no doubt deemed to be a more “sustainable” sibling, the IPBES which has been waiting patiently in the wings for a few years now.

Australia’s Joelle Gergis (another in a long line of activist scientists) and her colleagues did their best to resurrect Michael Mann’s notorious hockey-stick. The madness in their methodology evidently failed them.

Marcott et al‘s attempted hockey-stick extension didn’t work out either – unless the IPCC is prepared to accept over-hyped Press Release headlines (endorsed by the U.K. Met Office for two full months) as suitable “evidence”.

PAGES 2K was another of those just-in-time submissions of potential iconic value, that if the IPCC has developed any respect for its audience it will ignore (but I’m not counting on that!)

Oh, and yet another icon of the doom and gloomers, the polar bears are doing just fine, thank you very much.

But meanwhile, back at the ranch, a “jewel in the crown, of British science and global science” (aka the U.K. Met Office), and a self-declared mainstay of the IPCC, appears to have backed itself into a rather uncomfortable corner.

During the past seventeen years, it has become quite evident that the projections (and predictions) of the climate modellers have failed to accord with reality. This has not been helped by the failure of Mother Nature to cooperate with the weather forecasting provided by the Met Office (using the same unreliable models and high-priced computer power). In fact, the Met Office has become so, well, alarmed that according to the U.K. Guardian‘s Leo Hickman (not the most reliable of sources, I agree) they have decided to convene a one-day workshop:

Met Office brainstorms UK bad weather

Climate scientists and meteorologists are meeting next week to debate the causes of UK’s disappointing weather in recent years

Washout summers. Flash floods. Freezing winters. Snow in May. Droughts. There is a growing sense that something is happening to our weather. But is it simply down to natural variability, or is climate change to blame?

To try to answer the question the Met Office is hosting an unprecedented meeting of climate scientists and meteorologists next week to debate the possible causes of the UK’s “disappointing” weather over recent years, the Guardian has learned.

Tuesday’s meeting at the forecaster’s HQ in Exeter is being convened in response to this year’s cool spring, which, according to official records, was the coldest in 50 years. [emphasis added -hro]

UPDATE 06/17/2013:

A twitter conversation with Richard Betts and others, in which I had indicated that I would update this post accordingly, resulted in confirmation (albeit quite silent!) of my view that Hickman is not the most reliable of sources:

@richardabetts @omnologos @clim8resistance @TheGWPF So mtg not "unprecedented", nor *about* "disappointing weather" nor *about* cc vs nv.>>—
Hilary Ostrov (@hro001) June 16, 2013

@richardabetts @omnologos @clim8resistance @TheGWPF >In short, Hickman's kinder, gentler hype was wrong – again. And from yr earlier T's >>—
Hilary Ostrov (@hro001) June 16, 2013

 

[End update]

The world waits with bated breath for the outcome of this “unprecedented meeting”. Will these “experts” be able to conjure up a new, improved icon for the IPCC?! A mirabile dictu “statement” that will rescue the IPCC from its quandary? Who knows, eh?!

Then again, perhaps this workshop is an attempt to bolster the claims of the Met Office in its April 2013 submission of “evidence” (pdf) to a forthcoming hearing of the U.K. parliament’s Science & Technology Committee, Select Committee which is holding an inquiry into “Climate: Public understanding and policy implications”

In their evidence, a 2,000+ word submission, “trust” is mentioned no less than thirteen times, and the context in each instance is self-declared “trust” in the Met Office – and/or in the IPCC.

One of the questions asked by the Select Committee was:

Which voices are trusted in public discourse on climate science and policy? What role should Government Departments, scientific advisers to Government and publicly funded scientists have in communicating climate science?

The Met Office responses included the following (all emphases in quoted text below are mine -hro):

The availability of objective science interpretation from a trusted, authoritative and transparent source is crucial to ensure that confusion about the science is dispelled, questions are answered and erroneous reporting is identified as such by the public and can be challenged.

I’m not sure how “trusted, authoritative and transparent” a source the Met Office might be if it takes two full months and three iterations of text to remove an erroneous and highly misleading title from a blog post. But, YMMV.

Transparent and open scrutiny of science, both within the formal peer-review process and by wider audiences, allows real progress in understanding to be made, and advice to be given – whether to policy makers or in wider communications. This independence and transparency is essential for confidence to be maintained in public scientists and institutions such as the Met Office and the Met Office Hadley Centre. Indeed, impartiality is consistently cited as a key driver behind the responses of “trust a lot” in a quarterly survey by the Met Office to measure levels of public trust.

No doubt it was in the interest of “transparent and open scrutiny of science” that the Met Office has refused David Holland’s request for details of the IPCC’s zero-order draft – or to even permit the appropriate official to participate in the tribunal hearing. Again, YMMV, but I cannot say that I would be inclined to “trust” even a little (let alone “a lot”) an organization which demonstrates its commitment to “transparent and open scrutiny” in such a manner.

As for the trusted ties that bind the “independent” and “impartial” Met Office and the IPCC, the Met Office declared:

9. Policy makers, decision makers and the public at large need access to a trusted source for the latest scientific advice on climate change. The World Meteorological Organization under the auspices of the UN therefore set up the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1988. The UK followed closely in setting up the Met Office Hadley Centre to focus on policy relevant science developing its own climate models and using these and those from other institutions to produce projections of future climate.

10. The IPCC has a role in communicating climate science findings. It reports roughly every 5 years on the latest science relevant to policy associated with the physical science, the impacts of climate change and economic and technology implications. The UK led working groups in 4 out of the 5 IPCC Assessment reports, with technical support units being hosted at the Met Office Hadley Centre. The UK also makes a significant contribution to the IPCC providing a large number of lead and convening authors as well as contributing authors. The IPCC Assessment reports form the basis of climate change negotiations of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and of policy development in the UK. The reports are publicly available on the web (and in printed form) together with review comments and the response of authors. Climate science is therefore unique in science in having a single trusted source for the latest policy relevant science.

11. Communication is developed from this for specific audiences and for the public. The scientists and institutions that contribute to IPCC (including the Met Office) update their science and related communication between reports so that there is access to the latest science.

Amazing, eh?! And the beat goes on. As Donna Laframboise noted in a recent post, in the spirit of “transparency” there will be yet another IPCC gathering behind closed doors (this time in Sweden) in September to negotiate and “approve” the text of the SPM for WG1′s contribution to AR5.

The process, evidently, is the same as that which was followed in the “approval” of the SPM of the Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation (SRREN).

So the “line by line” negotiation and “approval” of the text of the Summary for Policymakers derived from “The Science” compiled by WGI will be conducted not by “all the governments of the world” – but only by those “national delegations” who might accept the invitation to participate in the proceedings of the “12th Session of the Working Group I (23 – 26 September 2013)” which will precede the “Thirty-Sixth Session of the IPCC (26 September 2013) at which the “Provisional Agenda” indicates:

3. ACCEPTANCE OF THE ACTIONS TAKEN AT THE TWELFTH SESSION OF WORKING GROUP I

IOW, the IPCC Plenary will rubber-stamp whatever was decided during the previous four days – by whichever “national delegations” might have attended. The next two items on this “Provisional Agenda” for the IPCC Plenary, btw, are the important stuff in which the delegations from the “governments of the world” might (or might not) have some independent unscripted input – and conduct some actual decision making activities:

4. OTHER BUSINESS
5. TIME AND PLACE OF THE NEXT SESSION

Donna noted in her post:

[The SPM] is supposed to be a summary of the contents of Part 1 of the forthcoming IPCC assessment (the previous assessment was released in 2007). Authored by the IPCC’s Working Group 1, this is the portion of the report that concentrates on hard science. This is the place in which the IPCC is supposed to answer the question: What does the most reliable climate research tell us is happening?

Considering that the Co-Chair of WG1 is Thomas Stocker, I’m inclined to suspect that much of the “political” (i.e. green) paint-job on this SPM will have been completed long before it is subjected to any line by line “approval” at this four-day session of WGI. Stocker has previously declared that the planet would be better off if gas prices tripled or quadrupled. He was also a key person in “disappearing” the “rule” that non-peer-reviewed material should be flagged in the references.

So, Pachauri’s great expectations for AR5 in 2009 may well be realized. A brigade of psycho-babblers, such as Stephan Lewandowsky and his sidekick protégé John Cook, has certainly been doing its best to bolster support for his “vision” with their own statistical gymnastics and bogus “surveys” intended to tarnish skeptics.

But the reality in 2013 is … more and more people are recognizing that, as Walter Russell Mead noted, the wheels are falling off the policies driven by “The Science” of the IPCC. In short, Pachauri’s “vision” is simply not … sustainable!

UNEP now pushing nature onto business balance sheets

A few years ago, I wrote about the birth of a new kid on the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP)’s alarmist block: the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)’s younger “sibling”, the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES).

They were singing their favourite tune (i.e. the money song) even then (all emphases in quoted text throughout this post are mine -hro):

Developing nations say more funding is needed from developed countries to share the effort in saving nature. Much of the world’s remaining biological diversity is in developing nations such as Brazil, Indonesia and in central Africa.

So I can’t say I was entirely at all surprised to read in the latest and greatest UNEP Press Release (complete with requisite picture of doom and gloom):

OMG, it must be worse than we thought

New Study Shows Multi-Trillion Dollar Natural Capital Risk Underlining Urgency of Green Economy Transition

Mon, Apr 15, 2013

The report shows that the scale and variation in impacts provide opportunities for companies and their investors to differentiate themselves by optimizing their supply chains and investment strategies

[...]

Dr. Dorothy Maxwell, Director of the TEEB for Business Coalition states, “Understanding natural capital risk and opportunities is essential for businesses to position themselves in an increasingly resource constrained world.”

The report shows that the scale and variation in impacts provide opportunities for companies and their investors to differentiate themselves by optimizing their supply chains and investment strategies. Some recommendations for companies include implementing processes to measure and manage natural capital used; strengthening business models to mitigate exposure to global risks such as water scarcity, volatile energy and agricultural prices, rising GHG emissions and climate change impacts.

Pavan Sukhdev, Chair of the Advisory Board of TEEB for Business Coalition states, “We need undoubtedly to change how we do business, but we cannot manage what we do not measure – and at present only a handful of businesses measure their externalities. Resolving this is at the heart of the green economy and sustainability itself.”

Achim Steiner, UN Under-Secretary General and Executive Director, UN Environment Programme (UNEP) states, “Forward-looking companies are already recognizing that the key to competitiveness in an increasingly resource-constrained world will hinge in large part on escalating natural resource efficiencies and cutting pollution footprints-the numbers in this report underline the urgency but also the opportunities for of all economies in transitioning to a Green Economy in the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication.”

Now, according to Steiner, we need to add a “pollution footprint” to our “carbon footprint”; although I’m not sure if our “pollution footprint” supercedes or subsumes what Sukhdev had previously called our contributions to the “global ecological footprint”.

There are “opportunities” in this particular “urgency”. What’s not to like, eh?! Mind you I’m fairly certain that I’ve heard this line (or a facsimile thereof) before. Yes, I remember now! It was a quote from the IPCC’s Chair, Rajendra Pachauri when he was talking to the NZ Herald in 2008:

Business should be thinking about the response to climate change not as a threat but as an opportunity.

Never let it be said that the UN does not encourage “recycling” – at least of slogans and buzz-phrases!

TEEB (The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity, in case you were wondering what this acronym stands for; tagline, btw, is “making nature’s values visible”) is the “new testament” of the Climate Bible – and was evidently “inspired by” Nicholas Stern, a member of the TEEB advisory board, whose infamous and discredited Stern Review has contributed to landing the U.K. into the mess in which it now finds itself. But I digress …

Do you suppose there is any any difference between Sukhdev’s “green economy” and Steiner’s “Green Economy”? Or perhaps more to the point, I suppose, would be whether or not the powers that be at the UNEP have finally succeeded in defining what they actually mean by this slogan term.

They certainly didn’t seem to have a … hmmm … consensus … during the run-up to Rio+20. As the Secretary-General of the UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) had observed during the course of a “High Level” meeting (the minutes of which UNEP’s Steiner had decided should not be for public consumption):

there was as yet no common agreement on a definition of the green economy.

This assertion did not come out of the blue, and could well have derived from another participant’s observation that:

reaching a common understanding on the meaning, scope and implications of the green economy had been generating considerable debate. Many agreed that the [Rio+20] Conference should first clarify what the green economy was not, in order to help define what it could be.

Sukhdev had coined his brilliant mantra (his word, not mine), “we cannot manage what we do not measure” some years ago. And no doubt he’s been flogging it far and wide – including, I suspect, during Stewart Elgie‘s so-called ‘charitable initiative’, Sustainable Prosperity (SP) generously hosted 2010 “three city speaking tour” by Sukhdev here in Canada.

SP’s Elgie showed remarkable forethought when he set up shop in Ottawa. As I had noted last June:

What kinds of changes does Sustainable Prosperity want?

We are seeking changes in policy – federally, provincially, and locally – to implement EPR across Canada. EPR means a change in the rules of the game, and a levelling of the playing field, so that cleaner goods and services become cheaper. EPR policies, also known as “market based instruments” (MBI) or “economic instruments,” include tax shifting, cap-and-trade emissions reductions, and developing markets for ecological services.

Fits right in with Sukhdev’s thinking, just like a dirty old shirt, eh?! And whatever SP wants, Elgie (as we have seen) mistakenly seems to think SP should get!

But wait … there’s more. I’m not sure what might have happened to IPBES – which is supposed to be assessing the “science” behind these new-fangled money-making-mechanisms opportunities. But according to the UNEP’s “Notes to Editors” in this Press Release of April 15 (here comes the scary stuff):

Background

Planetary boundaries are being approached at a reckless pace, and some argue that global biodiversity, nitrogen and climate thresholds have already been breached. Global economic direction and resource use is the underlying cause of this.

Corporations today account for two-thirds of our economy and resource use, and most of the global stressors of planetary boundaries (emissions, freshwater use, land-use change, chemical pollutants, etc) are in reality the negative externalities of “business as usual”.

These externalities have grown too large to ignore, and are estimated at close to US$2.1 trillion for the top-3,000 listed corporations (UN Principles for Responsible Investment, 2010).

To mainstream the measurement and management of externalities in business, the “TEEB for Business Coalition”, a global coalition of pioneering organizations on natural capital, was formed in 2012. It aims to create awareness of this issue amongst decision makers in business and support scaling ‘best-of-breed’ solutions from leading corporations to value, manage and report their externalities.

About the TEEB for Business Coalition – http://www.teebforbusiness.org

Launched in November 2012, The TEEB for Business Coalition is a global, multi stakeholder platform formed to develop and support the uptake of natural capital accounting in business decision-making. The vision of the TEEB for Business Coalition is to support a transformative shift in corporate behaviour to preserve and enhance rather than deplete natural capital.

Everything is just sooooooo “transformative” in UN-speak, these days! And isn’t it amazing that this group should have produced an 86 page report (pdf) in such a short period of time. Well … actually, this group did not produce the report. It was evidently contracted out to an organization called TruCost. When I did a brief scan of the report, my eye stopped at “Munich Re”:

Reinsurance company Munich Re reported that crop losses have been US$20 billion.¹¹

So I followed the link to the reference:

Munich Re press release, Natural catastrophe statistics for 2012 dominated by weather extremes in the USA, 3 January 2013: http://www.munichre.com/en/media_relations/press_releases/2013/2013_01_03_press_release.aspx, accessed 13 March 2013

Now I wonder why this rings a bell … Sounds remarkably like an episode of “science” by press release that Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. recently deconstructed. His conclusion:

Misleading public claims. An over-hyped press release. A paper which neglects to include materially relevant and contradictory information central to its core argument. All in all, just a normal day in climate science!

I also found one reference to the “Stern Review” and two to the “Stern Report” – although I believe the “Report” and the “Review” [pls. see above] are one and the same. These findings do not augur well for the validity of TruCost’s report. My layperson’s “elevator speech” (well tweet, actually, to Dr. Richard Tol and Pielke both of whom know far more about this kind of stuff than I do) on TruCost’s report:

I saw apples, oranges. assumptions and bafflegab amidst lots of uncertainties. wd appreciate yr “translation”

Incidentally, my scan of the 90+ references strongly suggests that this report is far from being rife with citations from “peer-reviewed” literature.

But the important thing, I’m sure, is that this report is just in time for:

The 8th annual B4E Global Summit in Delhi, 15-16 April is co-organised with the Confederation of Indian Industry and The Club of Rome in partnership with CNN, The Climate Group, Carbon Disclosure Project, World Agroforestry Centre, and other partners.

According to the B4E (how catchy is that, eh?!) website:

Under the theme ‘Emerging Market Leadership for Global Green Growth’, the 7th annual B4E Global Summit in Delhi will look at the role of emerging markets in driving the world’s transition to a global green economy, one of the greatest economic opportunities of our time.

Leaders from business, government and the NGO community will gather to explore inclusive green business models, innovation in finance and technology and propose industry commitments to action.

Two ingredients one can invariably count on in any UNEP sponsored meeting: the presence of NGOs and calls for “innovation in finance”. And who knows, perhaps scheduled speaker Ashok Khosla, President Emeritus, The Club of Rome will be able to come up with a definition of “green economy” (or “Green Economy”).

Stay tuned, folks ;-)

UPDATE: The U.K. Guardian is (predictably) onside, via their “Sustainable Business” blog:

Putting environmental impact on the balance sheet

Until now, “environmental externalities” have never made it onto the balance sheet, doing so would reveal many industries are generating huge net losses
[...]
Until now, these so-called “environmental externalities” have never made it onto the balance sheet. But what if that were to change? That’s the question raised in a new report released today by the TEEB Coalition for Business. The answers make for alarming reading.

[...]

The calculations represent one of the most comprehensive and geographically wide-ranging attempts at monetising natural capital to date.

[...]

The results are illuminating. For one, the numbers are colossal

[...]

Sceptics will no doubt be quick to question the maths. Alastair MacGregor, chief operating officer of Trucost, admits that there are methodological and data shortfalls. [...]

Yet MacGregor insists that the numbers are as robust as can be expected for what is still a very new accounting science. Trucost’s conclusions are based on 12 years’ of data on quantitative environmental disclosures from thousands of companies. “There’s still a need for more primary research around environmental valuations so that we can build up models that can be applied globally“, he concedes, expressing his hope that today’s report will act as a “catalyst” for just that.

Apart from the world’s nascent carbon markets, monetising non-financial externalities still remains a largely fictitious pursuit. Ecosystem services need to take on a fungible, tradable form if they are to have financial value in real, cash-in-hand monetary terms. Until then, it’s Monopoly money we’re talking about.

Just because natural capital costs are unpriced doesn’t mean they go away. The impacts of erratic weather provide a good example.

And of course, business has never had to deal with the “impacts of erratic weather” before, right?!

Of (CO2 driven) climate fears and the UNEP’s “transformative changes”

In a recent series of essays, Bernie Lewin has shed considerable light on the early days of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The IPCC, of course, is The Delinquent Teenager …, sired by the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP, official promulgator of increasingly scary stories since 1972) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). But I digress …

Lewin has done us all a great service by compiling and sharing this fascinating history, which he has entitled, Enter the Economists: The Price of Life and how the IPCC only just survived the other chapter controversy

Over at Bishop Hill, yesterday, Lewin had a guest post in which he summarized some of his findings – including the roles of Economist, Richard Tol and Aubrey Meyer, a “violinist and composer, [whose] activist career was launched after he experienced a remarkable life-changing epiphany upon hearing of the death of an Amazonian rubber tapper called Chico Mendes.”

Lewin’s guest post has generated an interesting discussion, in which both Tol and Meyer are actively participating.

From my perspective, the key to the mess in which (to varying degrees, depending on our country – or province/state – of residence) we now find ourselves, lies in Lewin’s (all emphases that follow in this post are mine):

Moreover, behind the very push to re-constitute Working Group III for the 2nd Assessment – so as to cover the economic and social dimensions of the problem – was an attempt to incorporate the broader sustainable development goals of the 1992 Rio Earth Summit into the IPCC assessment processes. The tensions that developed in this Working Group, and which erupted in this controversy, can only be understood by recognising that this was always more than about the climate. Just as with the Toronto climate conference of 1988, here we find another bold attempt to channel the aspirations of the sustainable development movement towards realisation in policies driven by climate fear.

If nothing else, the United Nations has proven to be very adept at engineering “mechanisms” (to use one of the UNEP’s favourite words!) which employ the concept of “lets you and him fight”.

If you think about it, has there ever in the history of the UN been a more divisive issue than the purported perils of human-generated carbon dioxide – and its “contribution” to variously-called global warming, climate change and (the latest and greatest scare) “extreme weather events”?

Towards this end, the UN’s army of unaccountable (and about as far from transparent as one can possibly get) bureaucrats invariably appear to have an uncanny knack of producing seemingly innocuous – but lengthy and sleep-inducing – documents. Thereby virtually guaranteeing that few – if any – of those who approve/accept/adopt them, will ever read in their entirety, that in which is planted the seeds of future disagreements.

No wonder their COPs are such flops! And in the meantime, we’re all distracted by a dispute that centres on the merits (demerits?!) of human-generated C0₂ – a trojan horse if ever there was one – while the “dark horse” of “sustainable development” gallops towards the finish line. But I digress …

The “executive summary” (of sorts) of such documents is usually contained in a UN General Assembly (UNGA) “Resolution” percolated and filtered via the maze, so that the abbreviated and oh-so-innocuous wording (unanimously adopted “by all the nations of the world” of course) does not tell the full story. Truth be told, it doesn’t even tell half an eighth of the story!

The UNEP and its “flagship” Agenda 21/Sustainable Development (not to mention its ever-increasing stable of acronymic offspring) are a case in point.

Consider the recently “Adopted” UNGA Resolution 67/213. This was Agenda Item “20 (g)”, evidently reviewed by “Committee 2″ and advertised as Draft “A/67/437/Add.7” [hyperlink helpfully added by Hilary who happened to stumble across it elsewhere] . The record appears to indicate that it was adopted “without a vote”. The “Topic” is described as:

Report of the Governing Council of the United Nations Environment Programme on its twelfth special session and on the implementation of section IV.C, entitled “Environmental pillar in the context of sustainable development”, of the outcome document of the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development

According to the UN’s Department of Public Information’s News and Media Division document (distributed “For information media – not an official record”), on December 21, 2012:

Quadrennial Comprehensive Policy Review, Implementation of Rio+20 Outcome Draw Attention

as General Assembly Takes Up Second Committee Reports

Delegations Adopt 41 Texts, Including 2 Plenary-generated Draft Resolutions

The Quadrennial Comprehensive Policy Review of United Nations operational activities for development, and implementation of the outcome document of the Rio+20 United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development, were among the most prominent concerns today as the Second Committee (Economic and Financial) recommended its draft resolutions for adoption by the General Assembly.

[...]

With the bulk of draft resolutions falling under the sustainable development cluster, many were linked closely to the Rio+20 outcome document, “The future we want”. In all, the Assembly adopted 17 texts on sustainable development, including a draft decision.
[...]
Another draft stressed the importance of the continued substantive consideration of disaster risk reduction, and encouraged Member States and relevant United Nations bodies to take into consideration the important role of disaster risk reduction activities for sustainable development. Two related texts stressed international cooperation to reduce the impact of the El Niño phenomenon and to protect the global climate for present and future generations.

By a text on implementation of Agenda 21, the Assembly stressed the need to develop the post-2015 development agenda. Also under the sustainable development umbrella were two annual texts stressing, respectively, the need for continued substantive consideration of the promotion of new and renewable sources of energy, and of biological diversity. Other sustainable development texts concerned the International Day of Forests and the Tree; Implementation of the International Year of Water Cooperation, 2013; Harmony with nature; Convention on Biological Diversity; and the report of the Governing Council of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) on its twelfth special session.

Taking up globalization and interdependence, the Assembly adopted two texts by recorded votes. The first, titled “Towards a New International Economic Order”, reaffirmed the need to continue working to integrate the principles of equity, sovereign equality, interdependence, common interest, cooperation and solidarity among all States into global economics.

And here are a few of the pertinent (and duly noted “unofficial”) … uh …”details”:

The Assembly then adopted, without a vote, the draft resolution titled “Implementation of Agenda 21, the Programme for the Further Implementation of Agenda 21 and the outcomes of the World Summit on Sustainable Development”. By its terms, the Assembly stressed the need for synergy, coherence and mutual support among all those and other processes that were also relevant to the post-2015 development agenda. It also reaffirmed “The future we want”, the outcome document of the Rio+20 United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development, and urged its speedy implementation. [Sorry, didn't have time to track down the actual "draft resolution" on this "text" -hro]

[...]

The Assembly then adopted, without a vote, the draft resolution titled “Report of the Governing Council of the United Nations Environment Programme on its twelfth special session and on the implementation of section IV.C, entitled ‘Environmental pillar in the context of sustainable development’, of the outcome document of the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development”, which urged donors to increase voluntary funding for the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), including to the Environment Fund.**

It then adopted, without a vote, the draft titled “Harmony with nature”, which called for holistic and integrated approaches to sustainable development that would guide humanity to live with nature, leading to efforts to restore the health and integrity of the earth’s ecosystems.

** As per above noted Draft

Oh, and in case you’re interested one of the two “plenary-generated draft resolutions” was billed as “Promoting New Global Human Order“. For the record, it was adopted “without a vote”. The “details” evidently can be found in “document A/67/L.49″ – for which, unfortunately there was no hyperlink. So who knows where one might find ‘em.

YMMV, however, I cannot say that I’m particularly thrilled about the thought of a “New International Economic Order”, a “New Global Human Order” – or of being “guide[d]” by an unseen text which (presumably) urges “Harmony with Nature”.

But the bottom line is that no one would have a clue from any of the above “resolutions” that the United Nations has just given its blessing to “strengthening and upgrading” the UNEP. There are, however, indications that the actual outcomes from Rio+20 last June have been transmogrified into far more than could possibly have met the eye at the time.

This, of course, conveniently paved the way for UNEP head honcho, Achim Steiner (and his “team”) to re-write history in a way that is more to his liking (and that of his Big Green “partners” drawn from “civil society”).

I haven’t done so yet, but it will be interesting to compare Steiner’s “Policy Statement” – delivered at the “historic” opening of “the first universal session of the Governing Council of UNEP” in Nairobi, on Feb. 18 – with the IISD’s summary of these “historic” proceedings, which I had reported on previously (here and here).

For now, though, dear readers … a few numbers to ponder:

44 sustainable/sustainability. Quelle surprise, eh?!

14 green economy. Ditto.

7 climate change – a “sub-programme” which “aims to strengthen the ability of countries, particularly developing nations, to integrate climate change responses into national development processes. Alas, it seems that “climate change” might be losing its status as the “greatest threat to the future of the planet”.

3 CO₂ – Here is the context of the first mention (p. 5):

The challenge of achieving not just incremental progress but transformative changes that can deliver absolute reductions in CO2, a halt to the loss of biodiversity, or a reversal of land degradation and the loss of arable land represents an unprecedented challenge – both to environment ministries and societies in general.

Here is the context of the second honourable mention:

The En.Lighten iniative, backed by the Global Environment Facility (GEF), implemented by
UNEP and supported by industry partners Philips and Osram, unveiled 150 country strategies to
phase-in more energy efficient bulbs.

The assessment indicates that a total of five per cent of global electricity consumption could be
saved every year through a transition to efficient lighting, resulting in annual worldwide savings
of over USD 110 billion.

The yearly savings in electricity of the phase-out would be equivalent to avoiding the
emissions from over 250 large coal-fired power plants, resulting in avoided investment costs of
approximately USD 210 billion. Additionally, the 490 megatonnes (Mt) of CO2 savings per year is
equivalent to the emissions of more than 122 million mid-size cars.

And last but not least, just a hint of “fear” for good measure (p. 10) :

In respect to cutting-edge science, UNEP’s third Emission Gap Report has become a key reference for governments negotiating towards a new agreement by 2015 at the Doha UN climate meeting.

It showed that if the world does not scale up and accelerate action on climate change without
delay, emissions could rise to 58 gigatonnes (Gt) by 2020 far above the level scientists say is in line with a likely chance of keeping global temperature rise below 2 degrees Celsius this century.

It also pointed out policies and actions that can bridge the gap between ambitions and reality. Indeed the ‘gap report’ — which convened 55 scientists from more than 50 institutions in 20
countries — estimates that there are potentially large emissions reductions possible in a mid-range of 17 Gt of CO2 equivalents from sectors such as buildings, power generation and transport that can more than bridge the gap by 2020.

What’s this I do not see before me?! Look ma, no “carbon credit” mentions!

But … Whoah! … Wait a minute! Is the UNEP’s “Emission Gap Report” – along with the “environmental governance” sub-programme’s “Fifth Global Environmental Assessment (GEO-5)” – stealing the thunder of the – conspicuously unmentioned – “gold standard” IPCC?!

Compared to this big fat 0 for the IPCC (a mention score matched by that for Kyoto, btw), one finds …

5 IPBES (IPPC’s younger, waiting-in-the-wings, sibling, the Intergovernmental Science–Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services)

Hmmm … talk about “transformative changes”, eh?!

UNEP: conspicuous absences and inconspicuous newbies

The United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) has been the promulgator of scary stories since 1972 and facilitator of hundreds of confabs, committees, commissions, panels (High Level … and presumably some low level?) and platforms.

It has also been the very proud parent of countless acronymic offspring; not the least of which – at least until fairly recently – has been the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and its “main client”, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which gave birth to the remarkably unsuccessful Kyoto Protocol (now a dead horse).

One of the UNEP’s major “accomplishments” has been the ongoing (and highly sustainable) increase in the level of participation by duly “accredited” Non-governmental organizations (NGOs), known in UN-speak as representatives of “civil society”.

Scarcely a week goes by when there isn’t a meeting of some group or other under the auspices of the UNEP (or one of its offspring, or its offspring’s offspring). Last week was no exception. Ever heard of TUNZA?

No? Well, neither had I – although I’m not sure how I could have missed this “Major UN Youth Conference“.

Here’s the “advance billing” for this “Major UN Youth Conference”:

The [TUNZA] conference provides a platform for over 300 young people from 100 countries who will come together to exchange information, best practices and most importantly; learn from each other.

The objectives of the conference are to provide a forum for young people to discuss the role that youth play in Entrepreneurship, Sustainable Consumption and Production, Forests, Food Waste, Water as well as the State of the Environment. Additionally, UNEP shall launch the Tunza Acting for a Better World: GEO-5 for Youth; a youth oriented publication that explains the latest environmental trends and how youth can play their part in working towards better future.

Young people will also have a chance to discuss the outcomes of the Rio+20 Conference and the Post 2015 Millennium Development Goals.

The conference will also see the selection of the new Tunza Youth Advisory Council.

The TUNZA conference sessions will be held at the United Nations Complex in Gigiri, with regional breakout sessions to be held at the Jacaranda Hotel in Nairobi.

I would have thought that at this stage of their lives, the youth of the world would be far more concerned with getting an adequate education than with their “role” in Entrepreneurship and Sustainable Consumption etc. And one can certainly hope that they did not succeed in making “Food Waste and Food Loss” into sustainable development goals, as advertised! But that’s just me.

Oh, but this wasn’t the only UNEP sponsored Nairobi confab last week. As a further prelude to the first meeting of the new, improved UNEP (which I had written about in my previous post), there was a gathering of the:

fourteenth Global Major Groups and Stakeholders Forum (GMGSF-14), which will take place from 16-17 February. The forum aims to facilitate the preparations of major groups and stakeholders towards GC27/GMEF. The forum will also consist of a multi-stakeholders dialogue, as part of the implementation of the Rio+20 Outcome document, on new models and mechanisms to promote transparency and effective engagement of civil society in the work of UNEP; the role and opportunities for involvement of civil society in the post-Rio+20 processes and the post-2015 development agenda. [emphasis added -hro]

Sorry, but I haven’t succeeded in tracking down the outcome of these particular deliberations, yet. No doubt they will surface in the fullness of time (if not within the context of the BIG meeting that began today in Nairobi).

According to the quasi-official rapporteur at many (if not most) of these UNEP confabs, the BIG meeting – in effect – just became BIGGER! Here’s the meeting banner:

Quite the maze, isn’t it?! Although personally, I think that Josh’s maze is a far more accurate representation than this bunch of scrunched up flags, don’t you?! But I digress …

We were given advance warning of an “upgrade” to the status of the UNEP. I’m not sure whose brilliant idea it might have been, but it was certainly mentioned in several of the run-up to Rio+20 docs, including that which emanated from one of Ban Ki-Moon’s “high level panels”

The key to this “upgrade” evidently lies in Paragraph 88 (pp. 15-16) of the Rio+20 “Outcome” document (aka The Future We [don't need or] Want):

We are committed to strengthening the role of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) as the leading global environmental authority that sets the global environmental agenda, promotes the coherent implementation of the environmental dimension of sustainable development within the United Nations system and serves as an authoritative advocate for the global environment. [...] In this regard, we invite the General Assembly, at its sixty-seventh session, to adopt a resolution strengthening and upgrading UNEP in the following manner:

(a) Establish universal membership in the Governing Council of UNEP, as well as other measures to strengthen its governance as well its responsiveness and accountability to Member States;

(b) Have secure, stable, adequate and increased financial resources [...]

(c) Enhance the voice of UNEP and its ability to fulfil its coordination mandate [...] empowering UNEP to lead efforts to formulate United Nations system-wide strategies on the environment

(d) Promote a strong science-policy interface, building on existing international instruments, assessments, panels and information networks, including the Global Environment Outlook, [...]

(h) Ensure the active participation of all relevant stakeholders drawing on best practices and models from relevant multilateral institutions and exploring new mechanisms to promote transparency and the effective engagement of civil society.

Needless to say, the “invitation” to the UN’s General Assembly was evidently an offer the members could not refuse. According to this (undated pdf):

Report of the Governing Council of the United Nations Environment Programme on its twelfth special session and on the implementation of section IV.C, entitled “Environmental pillar in the context of sustainable development”, of the outcome document of the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development

The General Assembly,

[two pages of pre-amble which includes:

"Taking into account Agenda 21 and the Plan of Implementation of the World Summit on Sustainable Development (Johannesburg Plan of Implementation)," ... eventually followed by inter alia]

4. Decides to:

(a) Strengthen and upgrade the United Nations Environment Programme in the manner set out in subparagraphs (a) to (h) of paragraph 88 of the outcome document, entitled “The future we want”, of the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development, as endorsed by the General Assembly in its resolution 66/288 of 27 July 2012;

(b) Establish universal membership in the Governing Council of the United Nations Environment Programme, and mandates it, as from its first universal session to be held in Nairobi in February 2013, using its applicable rules of procedure and applicable rules and practices of the General Assembly, pending the adoption of its new rules of procedure, to expeditiously initiate the implementation of the provisions contained in paragraph 88 of the outcome document in its entirety; make a recommendation on its designation to reflect its universal character; and decide on future arrangements for the Global Ministerial Environment Forum; [...] (emphasis mine -hro)

Any bets on how many at the General Assembly actually read and/or comprehended the “provisions contained in paragraph 88 of the outcome document in its entirety” before they “adopted resolution 67/213″ on December 21, 2012?! But I digress …

I’m sure you must be sitting on the edge of your chair wondering what the bottom-line of this “strengthening” and “upgrade” to the status of the UNEP might be – well, apart from a bigger budget, of course!

Seems that prior to this “historic” moment in UN-time, the UNEP’s “Governing Council/Global Ministerial Environment Forum” (GC/GMEF) consisted of a mere 58 members who were elected by the UN General Assembly to “four-year terms, taking into account the principle of equitable regional representation.”

The new, improved UNEP’s GC/GMEF now has “universal” membership which (according to the IISD rapporteurs) means “full participation of all 193 UN member states at the UNEP Governing Council”. Such is progress, I guess.

As I had mentioned in my previous post the “advance billing” for this “historic” gathering makes no mention of the IPCC or the UNFCCC. Both are equally conspicuous by their absence in the IISD’s Feb. 17 report.

So I wonder how IPCC’s Pachauri and UNFCCC’s Figueres might feel about the inclusion of an entire paragraph each for “Mercury Negotiations” (which I had written about here and here) and “IPBES” (which I had written about here, here, and here).

You may (or may not) recall, that when I wrote about the UNEP’s ECOSOC sponsored glossy brochure for prospective NGOs considering applying for accreditation, I had noted that one of the UN’s “Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice’s “mandated priority areas” is:

Promoting the role of criminal law in protecting the environment

I seem to recall that in the run-up to Rio+20 there were some recommendations in one or more of the docs pertaining to this “functional” commission. However common sense appeared to prevail in the 49 page “outcome” document. The closest I could find were three (perhaps deceptively innocuous) references to “rule of law” (my emphasis -hro):

[p. 1]

8. We also reaffirm the importance of freedom, peace and security, respect for all human rights, including the right to development and the right to an adequate standard of living, including the right to food, the rule of law, gender equality, the empowerment of women and the overall commitment to just and democratic societies for development.

[p. 2]

10. We acknowledge that democracy, good governance and the rule of law, at the national and international levels, as well as an enabling environment, are essential for sustainable development, [...]

[p. 44]

VI. Means of implementation

252. We reaffirm that the means of implementation identified in Agenda 21, the Programme for the Further Implementation of Agenda 21, the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation, the Monterrey Consensus of the International Conference on Financing for Development and the Doha Declaration on Financing for Development are indispensable for achieving the full and effective translation of sustainable development commitments into tangible sustainable development outcomes [...] We acknowledge that good governance and the rule of law at the national and international levels are essential for sustained, inclusive and equitable economic growth, sustainable development and the eradication of poverty and hunger.

Just for the record, btw, in this “outcome” document (aka The Future We [don't need or] Want) there were 15 instances of “youth” and 25 of “gender”.

I mention “youth” [see TUNZA above] and “gender” because the UNEP’s website for this “historic” gathering indicates that there were “pre-session” events for these “stakeholders”. But I also noticed another “pre-session” event entitled:

HIGH-LEVEL MEETING ON THE RULE OF LAW AND THE ENVIRONMENT

UNEP, Nairobi, 17 February 2013, 9.00 – 17.00, Press Room

Draft Programme and Concept Note

On the eve of a historic Governing Council for UNEP, the High Level Meeting on the Rule of Law and the Environment will bring together eminent Ministers of the Environment and government representatives with Chief Justices, Heads of Jurisdiction, Attorneys General, Auditors General, Chief Prosecutors, and other high-ranking representatives of the judicial, legal and auditing professions as well as representatives of partner organizations to discuss important recent developments and new opportunities regarding the rule of law in the field of the environment and how the rule of law can be promoted for greater effect in the quest for environmental sustainability, sustainable development and social justice.

[...]

Through the Rio+20 United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development and UNEP’s World Congress on Justice, Governance and Law for Environmental Sustainability, both held in June 2012, the rule of law in environmental matters has received new affirmation. Through the World Congress, for example, over 250 of the world’s Chief Justices, Attorneys General and Auditors General seized a generational opportunity to contribute to the debates on the environment and declare that any diplomatic outcomes related to the environment and sustainable development, including from Rio+20, will remain unimplemented without adherence to the rule of law, without open, just and dependable legal orders.

Similarly, the ‘Future We Want’, the outcome document of Rio+20, reaffirms the central role to be played by the rule of law on the path towards sustainable development and makes it a prerequisite for a successful transition to greener economies. The document also highlights the crucial role played by national judiciaries in ensuring fairness and equity in the implementation of policies to further sustainable development.

Wait a minute! The “UNEP’s World Congress on Justice, Governance and Law for Environmental Sustainability”. Did you hear about this in any of the MSM outlets?! I sure didn’t. I don’t even recall seeing any mention of it on the Rio+20 “official site” at the time. But it’s certainly there now:

Colour me somewhat, well, skeptical. But I can’t help wondering what these “new opportunities regarding the rule of law” might be – or, for that matter, how one might translate “just and dependable legal orders” from UN-speak into “plain language”.

YMMV, but my alarm bells just started ringing.

UPDATE: Hmmmm … No IPCC, no UNFCCC and now a brand new UNEP Report on the Arctic that doesn’t mention (wait for it …) Polar Bears!

UPDATE 2: And yet another UNEP report seems to be dumping the dreaded CO₂ in favour of a “fertilizer crisis”. According to the U.K. Independent:

UN says fertiliser crisis is damaging the planet

Mass application of nutrients causes pollution in some areas while under-use hampers food production in others

The world is facing a fertiliser crisis, with far too little in some places, and far too much in others, a new report from the United Nations says today.

[...]

The report calls for a major global rethink in how fertilisers are used across the world, so that more food and energy can be produced while pollution is lessened rather than increased.

It suggests that the attention long given to carbon dioxide because of its role in global warming should now be given to nitrogen and phosphorus products, because their mass use is playing its own role in substantially affecting the planet.

[...]

“While recent scientific and social debate about the environment has focused especially on CO2 in relation to climate change, we see that this is just one aspect of a much wider and more complex set of changes occurring to the world’s biogeochemical cycles,” says the report. “In particular it becomes increasingly clear that alteration of the world’s nitrogen and phosphorus cycles represents a major emerging challenge that has received too little attention.”

A question to be decided, says the report, is what body should oversee a new attempt at globally managing fertiliser use.[emphasis added -hro]

And if that isn’t scary enough, consider the following from the Foreword by the UNEP’s alarmist in chief, Achim Steiner:

Without swift and collective action, the next generation will inherit a world where many millions may suffer from food insecurity caused by too few nutrients, where the nutrient pollution threats from too much will become more extreme, and where unsustainable use of nutrients will contribute even more to biodiversity loss and accelerating climate change.

[But the (still undefined) Green Economy will save us all:]

Conversely with more sustainable management of nutrients, economies can play a role in a transition to a Green Economy in the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication.

If it’s not one damn scare, it’s another!

Mercury rising … or not?

While waiting for the officials at the esteemed U.K. Meteorological (Met) Office to learn how to “say what you mean and mean what you say”, I thought you might be interested in knowing that there’s yet another United Nations Environment Program (UNEP – promulgator of scary stories since 1972) confab underway.

This six-day “session”, which began today (Jan. 13) is taking place in Geneva, Switzerland:

The fifth session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee to prepare a global legally binding instrument on mercury (INC5)

INC5 participants were greeted with traditional Swiss alphorn and flag throwing before the start of the opening plenary. Photo courtesy of Christophe Marchat/UNEP

(Above image captured from http://www.iisd.ca/mercury/inc5/13jan.html)

I’m not sure where in the UNEP pecking-order an “Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee” (INC) might stand vis a vis an IP (as in IPCC, “Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change”) or even a different IP (as in IPBES, “Intergovernmental Science Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services” )

There may (or may not) be some significance in the extent to which the subject matter is incorporated into the official acronym.

IPCC is quite distinctive; IPBES somewhat less so (i.e. did “Science Policy get dropped, or did “Science” and “Platform”?) but an INC could be, well, anything, actually!

Considering that “mercury” received only one mention in the June 2012 “Future We (don’t) Want” Rio+20 outcome document (p. 42):

221. We welcome the ongoing negotiating process on a global legally binding instrument on mercury to address the risks to human health and the environment and call for a successful outcome to the negotiations.

it would seem that mercury is not among the “high profile” burning issues.

And I’m not sure if in UN-speak a “legally binding instrument” – such as that for which they are striving at INC5 – has as much force as a “legally binding agreement” – which they were unable to achieve at the recent Conference of the Parties (COP 18) of United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in Doha.

But from all that I’ve read, mercury has not yet risen to the level of “greatest threat to the future of our planet”; it seems that mercury has achieved the designation of “harmful substance”.

Nonetheless, I’m sure you’ll be pleased to know that – according to the designated quasi-official rapporteur – INC5 is being attended by approximately:

900 delegates, including representatives from more than 140 countries

And what UN confab would be complete without the participation of “civil society” [UN-speak for Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO's)]? This one is no exception!

The International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology (IAOMT) is in attendance; although I must confess that I had never heard of this organization before. But here’s the scoop from their about page:

In 1984, thirteen dentists were discussing a seminar they had just attended on the dangers of mercury from dental amalgam fillings. They agreed that the subject was alarming. They also agreed that the seminar, though long on fireworks, was short on science, and if there really was a problem with dental mercury, the evidence ought to be in the scientific literature. So, like thirteen musketeers vowing “all for one and one for all,” they set out to find the evidence, or failing that, to sponsor new research that would provide the answers they sought.

Nearly three decades later, the [IAOMT] has grown to over 700 active members in North America, with affiliated chapters in fourteen other countries. [emphasis added -hro]

I’m not sure exactly how many dentists there are in the world, but this page indicates that:

Dental work includes medical and cosmetic treatment. In 2004 there were 1.8 million dentists working around the world, which is an estimated 29 dentists per 100 000 people.

The three territories with the most dentists in 2004 were the United States, Brazil and China. There were ten times more dentists per person working in Brazil than in China. North America has almost twice the number of dentists per person than any other region.

So the IAOMT’s 700 alarmed voices are a far cry from constituting a “majority” of the world’s dentists, I would think.

And – for some reasons that perhaps Gaia might be able to fathom – evidently Human Rights Watch has jumped on the mercury scare bandwagon is among the NGOs in attendance, as well. Mind you, I cannot say that I was surprised to find the following being given top billing on their site:

“Mercury Treaty: Last chance to address health effects”

And if HRW has declared that this Mercury Treaty is the last chance to address health effects … well, it must be so, right?!

Oh, well, in case you’re wondering … INC5 also includes discussion of the following:

ARTICLE 15. FINANCIAL RESOURCES AND MECHANISMS: Many developed countries, opposed by BRAZIL, KIRIBATI and the AFRICAN GROUP, supported using the GEF as the financial mechanism. IPEN said if GEF is to be the mechanism, it must take developing country concerns fully into account. The PHILIPPINES, with IRAN, called for a dedicated fund under the authority of the conference of the parties (COP), and, with ZMWG, implementation of the polluter pays principle. [emphasis added -hro]

Quelle surprise, eh?! After all, what is a UNEP sponsored confab good for if it does not include a call for funding?!

Mid-agenda warm period detected in biodiversity hockey stick

Not sure about you, but I always thought of a “pavilion” as being a physical structure. However, as you can see, in United Nations (UN)-speak it obviously means something completely different!

The “Rio Conventions Pavilion” (RCP) was evidently dreamed up to:

raise awareness and disseminate information on best practices and scientific findings on the benefits realized from joint implementation of the three Rio Conventions: the CBD [Convention on Biological Diversity]; the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC); and the UN Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD).

The International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), the UN’s quasi-official rapporteur, has been dutifully reporting on the proceedings of the RPC; the above quote is taken from their introduction to the Summary Report [pdf version available here], dated Sunday, October 21.

Considering the context, one might expect all three “pillars” of this “Pavilion” to be given equal treatment in the proceedings and report thereof. Let’s take a look at the word-counts in the IISD’s Summary Report:

There can be little doubt that, in the grand scheme of things, consideration of CBD unequivocally outweighs that of both the UNFCCC and the UNCCD. I wonder how the experts ooops … sorry, “objective, transparent, inclusive talent” who are busy compiling the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)’s Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) feel about the conspicuous absence of any mention of the IPCC.

This must be somewhat galling in light of the fact that the IPCC’s younger “sibling”, the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), the ascendancy of which I wrote about two years ago (here, here and here), was granted no less than nine mentions.

That CO₂ rates only one mention in this Summary Report – and “greenhouse”, two – may prove to be somewhat, well, alarming to the “non-policy prescriptive” IPCC’s stable of “objective, transparent, inclusive talent” … as well as to the “climate hypochondriacs” [h/t Eduardo Zorita] whether they are “Regional” [20 mentions], “Global” [58 mentions] or “Local” [72 mentions]. Incidentally (as noted below), like its progenitor, the IPCC, “global warming” rates a big fat zero mentions.

Just for the fun of it, let’s take a look at the BIG word picture in this Summary Report:

* Includes 4 “bioeconomy”

 

For the graphically-inclined, the above word-counts demonstrate overwhelming evidence of a clearly emerging signal: “Biodiversity”, “Ecosystem” and “Sustainable/Sustainability”. Alas, “Climate Change” and “Science” appear to have been relegated to what might be appropriately dubbed the Mid-Agenda Warm Period, while “Green” and “Model” are very much on the lighter side of pale.

Ladies and gentlemen … drum-roll please … welcome to the Age of The Biodiversity Hockey Stick ;-)

Note that “climate change” and “science” appear to have been relegated to the Mid-Agenda Warm Period, while “global warming” has dropped out of the statistical picture.

 

Tall tales from the “dark” side

In yet another publicity stunt (given far more prominence than it deserves, as might be expected from the enviro-activist cheering CBC), a number of oh-so-concerned environmental advocacy groups and “think tanks” decided to hold a day of website darkness in protest (of course) against provisions of the Canadian government’s proposed budget bill.

From CBC News Online – British Columbia Morning Digest – 2012-06-04

The latest headline (as of this writing) on the CBC site: “Website blackout in free speech fight against budget bill”. The subhead (in much smaller print) reads: “10 Conservative ministers hold events to tell ‘the other side of the story’”

A larger version of the above image appears appears on the CBC page. And in case you’re wondering who “Tom Mulcair” might be … Mulcair is the recently elected (and favoured by IPCC “expert” Andrew Weaver) Leader of the Official Opposition in the Canadian parliament.

The enviro-activists have been whining (quite loudly!) because the government has been checking up on some of these so-called “non-profit” groups – such as the non-entity known as “Forest Ethics Canada” – their activities and funding sources, such as Tides Canada, as I wrote in April.

As Terence Corcoran notes in concluding a recent article:

When Mulcair took his anti-oil sands fog machine to Alberta on Thursday, he arrived with and left behind a slick leftist take on economic policy that could keep Canadians and even Albertans slip-sliding for some time. He withheld his strongest language, did not call it “dirty oil,” but he did call the oil sands “massive on a planetary scale.” The NDP leader’s story line — Dutch disease, polluter pay, regional disparities, environmental degradation, currency woes, overheated economy — is in effect a dark and divisive economic perspective.

The fuzzy code words are “sustainable development,” the hocus-pocus bit of subversive United Nations jargon that has become the new intellectual launch pad for the next generation of green activism — and new ground in the old leftist wars.

It is new ground in the sense that activists have run out of momentum on their last campaign. Global warming failed. Conspicuously downgraded in the new Pembina report is climate change and carbon emissions. Over 68 pages, climate and carbon get a few passing references toward the end — a sure sign it is getting tough to rattle Canadians over a climate-warming scare that has run out of power, sputtering from a lack of actual warming and collapsing in the face of economic reality.

Replacing the climate issue as the main driver of government interventionism is a new collection of old ideas, repackaged, revamped and reshaped to make them seem fresh. Mr. Mulcair and Pembina have them nailed down: regional division, Dutch disease, auto workers against oil workers, business against the people, oil sands against the environment.

We saw this “launch pad” being built quite some time ago, as I have noted in several posts since October, 2010.

It is worth noting that in their “SUMMARY OF THE THIRD ROUND OF UNCSD INFORMAL INFORMAL CONSULTATIONS – 29 MAY – 2 JUNE 2012″, the IISD reports:

[...] Delegates resumed consideration of the draft outcome document for Rio+20, which was originally developed by the Co-Chairs and Bureau of the UNCSD Preparatory Committee (PrepCom).

Titled “The Future We Want” and 19 pages in length, the original document was released on 10 January 2012 [see my post here and here for details -hro]. This version of the draft incorporated input received by the UNCSD Secretariat from member states and other stakeholders, as well as comments offered during the Second Intersessional Meeting of the UNCSD PrepCom in December 2011. Following its release, the zero draft was discussed at meetings held at UN Headquarters in January and March, when delegates proposed numerous amendments, and it expanded to over 200 pages in length.

[...]

[...] UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon addressed participants and emphasized that the stakes at this final negotiation before Rio+20 are very high and issues can no longer remain unresolved in the text. He said the Rio+20 outcome should, inter alia, identify: a process to define SDGs; a new institutional framework; and mechanisms that stimulate economies to create decent jobs, provide social protection, and support a healthy environment. He called on negotiators to work with the CST and streamline it further in order to make Rio+20 a resounding success.

Things didn’t go quite the way Ban Ki-moon wanted. But there is some evidence that he’s definitely shifted gears on the “greatest threat to the future of our planet” front. Take a close look at this picture (captured from his home page)

What’s missing from this picture, folks?!

Here are some excerpts from some recent speeches (all emphases are mine -hro):

April 23, 2012

Remarks to High Level Delegation of Mayors and Regional Authorities

[...]
Our struggle for global sustainability will be won or lost in cities.

As mayors and associations of local and regional authorities, your support has never been more crucial to delivering practical results that will defeat poverty, protect the natural environment and improve disaster risk reduction.

By prioritizing sustainable urbanization within a broader development framework, many critical development challenges can be addressed in tandem.

Energy, water, food, biodiversity, climate change adaptation, exposure to natural hazards, consumption and production patterns, social protection floors and jobs, especially for young people — these are all closely linked. Our challenge is to connect the dots, so that advances on one can generate progress on others.

It is vitally important that this approach be recognized and endorsed at Rio+20.
[...]
We need an outcome from Rio+20 that is thus both practical and transformational.

We need to move beyond gross domestic product as our main measure of progress, and fashion a sustainable development index that puts people first.

We expect the conference to agree on the need to launch a process to elaborate Sustainable Development Goals that build on the Millennium Development Goals.

We are also looking to Rio to reinforce a set of building blocks for sustainability, including through support for an Oceans Compact and for my Sustainable Energy for All initiative.

Our goal is a fundamental ‘re-set’ of the global development agenda.

Hard but necessary choices lie ahead. Cities have a central role to play in making this paradigm shift a reality.

In the spirit of UN-Habitat’s “I’m a City Changer” campaign, I encourage you all to advocate for the importance of sound national urban strategies, balanced regional development policies, and strengthened urban economic and legal frameworks.

Sustainable cities are crucial to our future well-being.

Hmmm … “climate change adaptation”, eh? And not even a hint of the dreaded CO₂ – or even greenhouse gas – emissions. Fancy that!

Yet at another “High Level” meeting, not too long ago …he said:

December 6, 2011

Remarks to High Level Segment of UN Framework Convention Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) COP17
[...]
And it may be true, as many say: the ultimate goal of a comprehensive and binding climate change agreement may be beyond our reach – for now.

Yet let me emphasize: none of these uncertainties should prevent us from making real progress here in Durban
[...]

It would be difficult to overstate the gravity of this moment.

Without exaggeration, we can say: the future of our planet is at stake.

People’s lives, the health of global economy, the very survival of some nations.

The science is clear.

The World Meteorological Organisation has reported that carbon emissions are at their highest in history and rising.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change tells us, unequivocally, that greenhouse gas emissions must be reduced by half by 2050 – if we are to keep the rise in global temperatures to 2 degrees since pre-industrial times.

According to the International Energy Agency, we are nearing the “point of no return,” and we must pull back from the abyss.

You are the people who can bring us from the edge.

[He then recycles all the familiar scary stories which he follows with a call for cash:]

On short-term, fast-track financing, $30 billion dollars has been pledged, and almost all of it has been identified in national budgets.

However, recipient countries want to see greater transparency in how the funds are allocated and disbursed.

The UNFCCC Secretariat has created a tool to do this.

We also need prompt delivery of these funds to where they are most needed.

On longer-term financing, we need to mobilize $100 billion per annum by 2020 from governmental, private sector and innovative new sources.

[Then he sings a chorus from the traditional hymn of praise:]

In the absence of a global binding climate agreement, the Kyoto Protocol is the closest we have.

While Kyoto alone will not solve today’s climate problem, it is a foundation to build on, with important institutions.

It provides the framework that markets sorely need.

Carbon pricing, carbon-trading depend on a rules-based system.

I’m not sure if a “source” is different from a “mechanism” in UN-speak; but all previous “sources” of $$ have been via “mechanisms”. So perhaps there are some new “mechanisms” in the works that will fill the bill for “innovative new sources”! But isn’t it fascinating that it is the recipients’ demand for “greater transparency” in the allocation and disbursement of funds that he’s chosen to highlight! How about some concern for the donors’ demands, or don’t they count?!

But whatever the cash case of the hour might be, the UN Secretary-General has certainly made a “paradigm shift” between December and May! On May 23, he had an op ed in the NYT. It was entitled, “The Future We Want”. According to the text on the UN site, if you were to do a search for “climate” or “threat” you would find zilch. But you will find:

Sustainable development = 3
Sustainable energy = 2
Sustainable growth = 1
Sustainability = 1

This particular article concludes:

Rio+20 should issue a clarion call to action: waste not. Mother Earth has been kind to us. Let humanity reciprocate by respecting her natural boundaries. At Rio, governments should call for smarter use of resources. Our oceans must be protected. So must our water, air and forests. Our cities must be made more liveable — places we inhabit in greater harmony with nature.

At Rio+20, I will call on governments, business and other coalitions to advance on my own Sustainable Energy for All initiative. The goal: universal access to sustainable energy, a doubling of energy efficiency and a doubling of the use of renewable sources of energy by 2030.

Because so many of today’s challenges are global, they demand a global response — collective power exercised in powerful partnership. Now is not the moment for narrow squabbling. This is a moment for world leaders and their people to unite in common purpose around a shared vision of our common future — the future we want.

Strangely enough, there’s also no mention of the “green economy” in this May 23 article. Perhaps that’s why there’s so much blue in the image I captured above!

Mind you it is probably more likely that the reason he didn’t mention it is that he is fully aware that for all his High Level Panels and Gaia knows how many commissions, committees, working groups etc. – not the least of which is the recently concluded (additional) five-day “informal informal consultations” on the Rio+20 “outcome document” (in the deliberations of which one finds 32 mentions of “green economy” along with eight instances of “Agenda 21″) – the phrase has not yet been defined!

Yet on May 17, 2012 Ban Ki-moon urged students to “make some noise”:

“The truth is I am disappointed with the negotiations. They are not moving fast enough. That is why I need you,” Mr. Ban told students attending the 13th Annual Global Classrooms International High School Model UN Conference, taking place at in the General Assembly Hall at UN Headquarters in New York, on Thursday evening. “When I say make some noise, I mean raise your voices. Demand real action. Shame those governments into doing more.”

Just what the world needs … more rabble-rousers! Speaking of which … one of the interesting tidbits I found in conclusion the IISD’s report of the May 29-June 2 “consultations” was as follows:

As a civil society observer noted, the preparatory process should not be seen in too pessimistic a light, as centering on a single issue—the outcome document. Negotiating the road to Rio has already had positive repercussions around the world: it has brought sustainable development into sharper focus, and spawned citizens’ groups with a renewed desire to sway government negotiations (interestingly, NGO representatives were seen sitting in on informal contact groups without objections raised from delegates). The activists of “Occupy Rio+20” are a sign that the bleak world economic situation has actually promoted sustainable development awareness, and has put people’s well-being, socioeconomic equity and environmental health in a strong public spotlight. [emphasis added -hro]

I wonder how many of those “spawned citizens’ groups” have been “initiatives” of the likes of the US Tides Foundation – or, closer to my home, Tides Canada?

But speaking of these members of “civil society” – aka Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) – as I have previously noted such “accredited” groups are granted observer status at whatever UN meetings their little hearts desire, and they are also permitted to “make statements”. Simon Hoiberg Olsen of the Institute for Global Environmental Strategies made a statement on behalf of the “NGO Major Group”. Here are some excerpts:

NGO Statement June 1 2012 – IFSD [Institutional Framework for Sustainable Development]

2.We very much agree with the Children and Youth position on the High Commissioner for Future Generations. [See update below -hro]

3.We support the upgrading of UNEP into a specialized agency for our environment, with universal membership and based in Nairobi – either as outcome, or as a result of a process set in motion in Rio.

4. In the future, we think consultations with civil society on development of a system-wide strategy for the environment is vital. We propose that relevant civil society representatives become fully involved in UNEP consultations, particularly in issues of their core interest. In the long term we propose to let the Major Group system evolve into an expert system similar to that of the ILO, and therefore thank EU for bringing up para82 Sub J on participation, although if met with skepticism alternative formulations could be useful as well.

With the UN Secretary-General running around urging students to “make some noise” and “shame … governments into doing more”, I suppose it’s not surprising that the “fade to black” enviro-activists mistakenly think that the actions of the Canadian government should only be in accordance with what they deem to be appropriate.

But in their rush to play martyr with ludicrous claims to the effect that they are being “intimidated” and their voices “silenced”, they – along with their celebrity, media and political allies – seem to have conveniently forgotten that they do not speak for … the non-rabble-rousing majority.

This one-day “black-out” did nothing to reduce their dreaded “carbon footprint”, so I really question their sincerity. If they were truly dedicated to their cause, they would have taken down their websites and given up their computers long ago, instead of acting like, well … delinquent teenagers. Wouldn’t they?!

UPDATE – 06/5/2012: Unless I am misreading the ISSD’s analysis, it would appear that – at least for now – common sense has prevailed regarding the proposal for a “High Commissioner for Future Generations”. The summary notes:

Some delegations remained skeptical of proposals like the creation of a post of a high representative for future generations, which one delegate said had an unclear mandate. A number of observers expect that these bargaining chips will be quickly traded in the final negotiations.

Donna Laframboise has some hard-hitting words – with which I find myself in violent agreement – about this particular “concept”. Don’t miss her post, Canadian Greens & their Twisted Democracy.

Our planet is under pressure

I don’t know how you decided to observe “Earth Hour” last night. As Donna Laframboise had noted in a recent series of posts, this much over-hyped and – mis-typed – “event” is a propaganda exercise in persuasion of the hypocritical kind, and it leaves me, well, cold.

According to a CBC report from AP which was “Posted: Mar 31, 2012 8:38 AM ET” and “Last Updated: Mar 31, 2012 8:27 AM ET“:

CBC's dhimmitude to obligatory dimness

Let’s take a look at the cities and/or countries named in this “back to the future” post from the CBC regarding this alleged “sweep across North America”:

In the image above (which may – or may not – have been photo-shopped), Amman, Jordan plus:

• United States, the National Cathedral in Washington, D.C.
• New York City’s Empire State Building [plus "hundreds" of unnamed "world landmarks" -hro]
• Berlin’s Brandenburg Gate
• Great Wall of China
• Sydney [Australia] Harbor Bridge and Opera House
• Rudy Ko, of Taiwanese environmental group Society of Wilderness.
• Berlin’s Brandenburg Gate (second mention -hro)
• Notre Dame Cathedral, the Arc de Triomphe, as well as fountains and bridges over the Seine
• Big Ben, Buckingham Palace, Tower Bridge and St. Paul’s Cathedral were among the other London [UK, not Ontario -hro] landmarks
• Nordic nations, government buildings and municipalities
• Stockholm’s royal castle and the Swedish capital’s huge globe-shaped sports arena
• Goteborg [Sweden]
• St. Petersburg, Russia
• Washington’s National Cathedral and New York’s Empire State Building (again!)
• Libya, Algeria, Bhutan and French Guinea

Wow! That sure is a very impressive “sweep across North America”, eh?! Canada doesn’t even rate an honourable mention!

Because I was concerned that this dhimmitude to dimness on the part of the CBC might constitute a “tipping point”, I stuck to my plan of brightness: I turned up all the thermostats, ran my washer, dryer and dishwasher and my three computers – and, of course, turned on all the lights and even baked a cake! And while the cake was cooking in the oven, I took my ’92 Tercel for a drive while my PVR recorded the rest of one of the very few TV programs I ever watch, “Heartbeat“. And just for good measure, I left them all on/running for twenty minutes longer than the designated hour :-)

But CBC dhimmitude to dimness and other exhortations notwithstanding, I doubt very much that any or all of the above made a damn bit of difference to the future of our planet!

On the other hand, consider the following …

As The Commentator observed regarding the London UK four-day feel-good-while-disguising-the-harm-you-intend Planet Under Pressure 2012 conference:

The organisers, and indeed the attendees, of Planet Under Pressure 2012 may try to console themselves with carbon-offsetting and vegetarian-heavy, nitrogen-low diets – indeed, it was claimed that London’s ExCeL centre, where the conference was held, had 30 percent less nitrogen than is normal due to the type of food on offer – but this misses the point entirely.

Because this isn’t really about carbon per se; it’s not even really about global warming. It’s about corporatism.

[...]

Ultimately – and here is where the irony comes into play – it’s about moving away from the very system that brought us the very same laptops, iPads, iPhones and cameras that those in the conference were using to document their sojourn in East London. And to deny the billions of people in the world the most basic standards of living, from food to social services that we in the UK [and elsewhere in the dastardly developed world -hro] so readily take for granted.

It’s all about the run-up to Rio+20, as no less an authority than the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP)’s Executive Director, Achim Steiner – along with that body’s Chief Scientist, Joseph Alcamo (former climate consensus coordinator extraordinaire) and former Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Chair, Robert Watson – made quite clear during the course of a “side event” at this high-priced London confab.

Steiner is well known for never missing an opportunity to pronounce anything and everything he deems to fall within the UNEP’s ever-increasing purview and bailiwick as the greatest threat to the future of the planet. Certainly his words, as reported by the IISD, at this side-event were no exception. Here are some excerpts from the respective words of wisdom of Steiner, Alcamo and Watson which they proffered at the “Meeting of the Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel (STAP) of the Global Environment Facility (GEF)”.

But first a little “background” … Believe it or not, the GEF is not a “facility” as the word is commonly understood. It would not surprise me to learn that somewhere in the UN maze there’s a department, division – or at the very least a committee – dedicated to the formulation of acronyms and less than transparent names!

The GEF is actually a “fund”; in fact it is a fund that was so well-managed in its first two years of “independence” that in 1994 the powers that be decided that the World Bank should henceforth “[serve] as the Trustee of the GEF Trust Fund and [provide] administrative services.” But it takes pride in being (since 1991):

the largest funder of projects to improve the global environment. The GEF has allocated $10 billion, supplemented by more than $47 billion in cofinancing, for more than 2,800 projects in more than 168 developing countries and countries with economies in transition. Through its Small Grants Programme (SGP), the GEF has also made more than 13,000 small grants directly to civil society and community based organizations, totalling $634 million

Sounds like a lot of money (which may or may not have been enhanced by some very creative accounting practices) but it pales in comparison to US government expenditures on “climate research” in 2011 alone:

Be sure to visit cartoonsbyjosh.com

Now that you know everything you need to about the GEF, here’s what I gleaned from Steiner, Alcamo and Watson (all emphases are mine -hro).

Steiner:

Reflecting on the fact that STAP is meeting in the margins of the 2012 Planet Under Pressure conference, shortly prior to the launch of UNEP’s fifth Global Environmental Outlook (GEO-5), and the announcement of the launch of Future Earth, a 10-year initiative aiming to deliver knowledge to enable societies to meet their sustainable development goals, Steiner said science is reconfiguring itself. He explained that the STAP Panel is in a unique position to enforce the collective influence of science.

Wait a minute! “Future Earth”?! A “10-year initiative … to enable societies to meet their sustainable development goals”? Where in Gaia’s name did that spring from?! Read all about it folks, courtesy of the “International Council for Science” (ICSU):

ICSU, the International Social Science Council (ISSC), the Belmont Forum, a high level group of major funders of global environmental change research, together with UNEP, UNU and UNESCO, and with WMO as observer, are jointly establishing this new 10-year initiative.**

** Just for the record, the ICSU was formerly known as the “International Council of Scientific Unions” by which name it appears to be still known, according to the UN’s roster of NGOs with “Special consultative status”, since 1971. The ISSC has also been accredited as an NGO with “Special consultative status”, since 1985. But the Belmont Forum is a relatively new kid on the block and hasn’t made the “consultative status” grade, yet. We all know about UNEP, UNESCO and WMO, but for those who may not be familiar with the acronym, UNU = United Nations University, which bills itself as “The Academic Arm of the United Nations”.

But I digress … Steiner also told those assembled that:

the mixed experiences of the GEF Instrument, noting it should be viewed as a catalytic instrument, as opposed to one creating transformational change, as its size is an indictment in itself.
[...]
the scientific community is now speaking with a louder voice, and that humanity has a clearer view than ever before about the state of the environment.
[...]
[he] queried the wisdom of focusing on the perfect implementation mechanism
[...]
[and he] drew attention to the Green Economy discourse, and underscored that GEF finance and development finance, do not equate to more than proof of concept money. He noted that through the Stern Report and the work of the The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) [which I wrote about here -hro], true costs are increasingly understood, and said that such information is influencing assessments of supply chain risks and reinsurers.

Alcamo:

[Spoke of 3 sciencey concerns and noted that:]

although there remain broken bridges between the science policy communities, the climate change process has begun to mend these, with scientists increasingly talking to governments. He called for more explicit interaction, noting that scientists need to ready themselves to undertake the research demanded by the policy community, as well as continuing to undertake curiosity driven research.

I’m not sure who might constitute the “policy community”, nor what “research” they might be demanding!

Watson:

noted the increasing nexus between the science and policy communities, including the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the Montreal Protocol Technology and Economic Assessment Panel. He noted improvements could still be made and that Future Earth plans to involve policy makers, scientists, civil society and business in shaping the research agenda. Ravindranath supported this point, underscoring that lack of access to knowledge, as opposed to the knowledge itself, is the key challenge. He suggested parallel bodies to the IPCC be set on the regional and subregional levels. Watson noted that the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) is planning regional assessments, with subregional assessments embedded in them, as global assessments do not make sense for adaptation. He also stressed the importance of building the capacity of the scientific community to undertake assessments, as well as the capacity of policy staff who utilize the information.

Hmmm … if “global assessments do not make sense for adaptation” why would they “make sense” for “mitigation”?! Curious minds would like to know!

“Civil society”, of course, is UN-speak for NGOs – particularly, one suspects, those that have been “accredited” with “Special consultative status”.

In light of all of the foregoing, I will concede that our planet is under pressure!

Not from anything you or I might be doing (or not) to the environment, but rather from the agenda of these ideologically driven bureaucrats and their very closely aligned stable of NGOs – not to mention their stooges partners, such as the CBC and the BBC’s Richard Black, in the mainstream media.

YMMV, but I’m inclined to suspect that as far as “pressure” goes, we ain’t seen nothin’ yet – and that those who inhabit our planet will be under considerably more pressure during the next ten years of this new, improved “Future Earth” initiative to “meet … sustainable development goals”.

Update: 06:39 PM PDT … totally o/t but considering the date, and considering that CBC rarely provides an opportunity for praise, I have to make note of their “storified (sic) collection of April Fools’ videos … have a look!

Of hypocrites, high-level panels and … sherpas and silos

As Donna Laframboise noted in a post, yesterday, from Feb. 2-4, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Chair, Rajendra K. Pachauri, will be donning yet another of his many hats, as he engineers a bridge from “climate change” to “sustainability” (en route to Rio+20).

TERI, another of Pachauri’s enterprises, will be hosting the “12th Delhi Sustainable Development Summit”, the theme of which is “Protecting the Global Commons 20 Years Post Rio”. Will this Summit be a demonstration of Pachauri and his fellow summitteers practicising what they preach? Not a chance, as Donna’s post confirms. As Director General of TERI, Pachauri will have a starring role in the proceedings (he is listed as appearing, in one role or another, no less than five times – but always with his TERI hat, never with his IPCC hat).

The agenda for this Summit is, well, interesting! From a strictly Canadian perspective, there will be two participants, one, Stéphane Dion, is included in the list of “Government” speakers and the other, Dr. Yves Bolduc, is listed among the participating “Ministers”.

But here’s the thing … Dion is shown as being “M.P., House of Commons Canada”, which he is; however, given the current status of the political party he once led, he isn’t even a member of the Official Opposition – let alone of “government”. He may well have been invited due to his (disastrous, and resoundingly rejected) “Green Shift” (carbon tax) plan – or perhaps because he and his wife had decided to name their dog “Kyoto”.

Bolduc is listed as “Minister of Health & Social Services Quebec”, which he is; however, while all the other “Ministers” on this tab appear to be representatives of countries, last time I checked, Quebec was still a province, not a country! I also wonder how he got his invite as a speaker; he seems like a nice enough fellow, I suppose; and it could be “His desire to continually find ways to improve the lives of his fellow man [...]” that earned him such a prestigious invitation. Or perhaps it was his “degree in bioethics”. But enough about the small fry Canadian content …

The agenda is quite full. On the first day, following a 15 minute “Tea with the Prime Minister” (who will then conduct a 45 minute “Inauguration”) and a subsequent 45 minute “Leadership Panel I”, there will be a 50 minute session of “Keynote Addresses”, chaired by Yvo de Boer who, you may recall, jumped ship as Executive-Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) following the Copenhagen débacle in December 2009. de Boer has moved on to greener pastures, as the “Special Global Advisor, Climate Change and Sustainability, KPMG International, UK”. There will be three “Keynote Addresses”:

• Protecting Our Common Future through Multilateralism
• Asian Actions to Improve Prosperity while Protecting the Global Commons
• Thinking About Climate Change: What Can We All Do?

The last of these three will be delivered by “Nobel Laureate, Dr Elinor Ostrom“

Among other speakers/participants (as “Heads of State/Government”) is Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland “Former Prime Minister of Norway”. Brundlandt definitely has “form” (as the Brits would say) when it comes to matters sustainable:

Throughout her political career, Dr Brundtland has developed a growing concern for issues of global significance. In 1983 the then United Nations Secretary-General invited her to establish and chair the World Commission on Environment and Development. The Commission, which is best known for developing the broad political concept of sustainable development, published its report Our Common Future in April 1987.

The Commission’s recommendations led to the Earth Summit – the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in Rio de Janeiro in 1992.

And in case you’re wondering what this “broad political concept of sustainable development” might be, allow Ask Earth Trends (which seems to be a somewhat dormant offshoot of the World Resources Institute [WRI]) to enlighten you:

‘Sustainable Development’ is an official term, coined in a 1987 report produced by the World Commission on Environment and Development. Entitled Our Common Future or the Brundtland Report (after the Chairman of the commission, former Norwegian Prime Minister Gro Harlem Brundtland), the report defines ‘sustainable development’ as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”; this includes economic growth, environmental protection, and social equity [which, if I'm not mistaken, are known as the "three pillars" of sustainable development -hro].

After Lunch on Day 1, Brundtland will be one of four speakers at “Leadership Panel II” (these two “Leadership Panels” will both address the topic “Leading to Preserve the Global Commons”). Brundtland’s billing for this agenda item includes an additional detail: she is a “Member of the UN Secretary General’s Global Sustainability Panel, Norway”. And, by happy coincidence, a few hours later, there will be a 15 minute “Launch of the Report of UN Secretary General’s High-Level Panel on Global Sustainability”.

It may (or may not) be reasonable to assume that the “UN Secretary General’s Global Sustainability Panel” is the same as the “UN Secretary General’s High-Level Panel on Global Sustainability”. Whether they are the same or not, Brundtland is a member of the latter, and an “Overview” of this Panel’s (full) report contains 56 recommendations. Some excerpts from the Overview (all emphases are mine -hro):

United Nations Secretary-General’s High-Level Panel on Global Sustainability (2012). Resilient people, resilient planet: A future worth choosing, Overview. New York: United Nations.

[p. 2]:

The Report of the High-level Panel on Global Sustainability, entitled Resilient People, Resilient Planet: A Future Worth Choosing, contains six sections in its entirety: Section I – The Panel’s vision; Section II – Progress towards sustainable development; Section III – Empowering people to make sustainable choices, Section IV – Working towards a sustainable economy, Section V – Strengthening institutions; and Section VI – Conclusion: A call for action. This overview reproduces Section I from the Panel’s report. The Summary of Sections and the Call for Action are taken from the report’s Executive Summary. The Panel’s recommendations are reproduced in full.

Disclaimer: The members of the Panel endorse the report and generally agree with its findings. The members think that the message of this report is very important. The recommendations and the vision represent the consensus the Panel members reached, but not every view expressed in this report reflects the views of all individual Panel members. Panel members naturally have different perspectives on some issues. If each Panel member had individually attempted to write this report, she or he might have used different terms to express similar points. The Panel members look forward to the report stimulating wide public dialogue and strengthening the common endeavour to promote global sustainable development.

Hmmm … seems like it’s a “consensus”, but perhaps not quite!

[pp. 3-6 The Panel's Vision]:

5. The truth is that sustainable development is fundamentally a question of people’s opportunities to influence their future, claim their rights and voice their concerns. Democratic governance and full respect for human rights are key prerequisites for empowering people to make sustainable choices. The peoples of the world will simply not tolerate continued environmental devastation or the persistent inequality which offends deeply held universal principles of social justice. Citizens will no longer accept governments and corporations breaching their compact with them as custodians of a sustainable future for all. More generally, international, national and local governance across the world must fully embrace the requirements of a sustainable development future, as must civil society and the private sector. At the same time, local communities must be encouraged to participate actively and consistently in conceptualizing, planning and executing sustainability policies. Central to this is including young people in society, in politics and in the economy.

6. Therefore, the long-term vision of the High-level Panel on Global Sustainability is to eradicate poverty, reduce inequality and make growth inclusive, and production and consumption more sustainable, while combating climate change and respecting a range of other planetary boundaries.

7. [...] We must recognize that the drivers of that challenge include unsustainable lifestyles, production and consumption patterns and the impact of population growth. As the global population grows from 7 billion to almost 9 billion by 2040, and the number of middle-class consumers increases by 3 billion over the next 20 years, the demand for resources will rise exponentially. By 2030, the world will need at least 50 per cent more food, 45 per cent more energy and 30 per cent more water — all at a time when environmental boundaries are throwing up new limits to supply. This is true not least for climate change, which affects all aspects of human and planetary health.

Oh, my … that does sound scary, doesn’t it?! Well, you get the flavour of their “vision”. In case you were wondering “civil society” is UN-speak for Non-governmental organizations (NGOs), such as Greenpeace, WWF etc. But I haven’t yet come across a definition for “planetary boundaries” or “environmental boundaries”. Perhaps they are the new, improved “tipping points”. Oh, wait … here they are:

17. b. It is time for bold global efforts, including launching a major global scientific initiative, to strengthen the interface between science and policy. We must define, through science, what scientists refer to as “planetary boundaries”, “environmental thresholds” and “tipping points”. Priority should be given to challenges now facing the marine environment and the “blue economy”;

c. Most goods and services sold today fail to bear the full environmental and social cost of production and consumption. Based on the science, we need to reach consensus, over time, on methodologies to price them properly. Costing environmental externalities could open new opportunities for green growth and green jobs;

Well, looks like they haven’t “defined” these terms yet, either; and they are looking to “science” to define that which “science” has named.

But, just a minute! The “blue economy”?! Will the “green growth and green jobs” take care of the “blue economy”?! Stay tuned, folks! And <sigh> it looks like we might be in for yet another “major global scientific initiative”.

[p. 9 Moving Towards a Sustainable Economy]:

Achieving sustainability requires us to transform the global economy. Tinkering on the margins will not do the job. The current global economic crisis, which has led many to question the performance of existing global economic governance, offers an opportunity for significant reforms. It gives us a chance to shift more decisively towards green growth — not just in the financial system, but in the real economy. Policy action is needed in a number of key areas, including:

• Incorporating social and environmental costs in regulating and pricing of goods and services, as well as addressing market failures
• Creating an incentive road map that increasingly values long-term sustainable development in investment and financial transactions
• Increasing finance for sustainable development, including public and private funding and partnerships to mobilize large volumes of new financing
• Expanding how we measure progress in sustainable development by creating a sustainable development index or set of indicators

I don’t know where they think this “large volume of new financing” is going to come from, but brace yourself for yet another call to “put nature on the balance sheet” [as per IPBES and the "new testament" of the climate bible, TEEB]

[p. 14-16 Recommendations for a Sustainable Economy]:

27. Governments should establish price signals that value sustainability to guide the consumption and investment decisions of households, businesses and the public sector. In particular, Governments could:

a. Establish natural resource and externality pricing instruments, including carbon pricing, through mechanisms such as taxation, regulation or emissions trading systems, by 2020;

37. Governments should seek to incentivize investment in sustainable development by shaping investor calculations about the future through, in particular, the greater use of risk-sharing mechanisms and the enhancement of certainty about the long-term regulatory and policy environment. Measures could include targets for renewable energy or conservation, waste reduction, water conservation, access to carbon markets through the Clean Development Mechanism of the Kyoto Protocol or sustained prospects for public financing.

Didn’t anyone tell this Panel that “carbon pricing” and “carbon markets” (not to mention Kyoto) are kinda dead in the water?!

Ooops … I almost forgot the “silos” …

[p. 9 Strengthening Institutional Governance]:

To achieve sustainable development, we need to build an effective framework of institutions and decision-making processes at the local, national, regional and global levels. We must overcome the legacy of fragmented institutions established around single-issue “silos” [...]

This High-Level Panel evidently held six meetings between September 19, 2010 and January 12, 2012; although only the final reports and reports of the first three meetings appear to be publicly available – unless you happen to land on the right part of the new, improved Panel site which indicates that reports of the first four meetings are available. If your mouse should take you to the latter, you will see that the Panel appeared to have the assistance of (anonymous) Sherpas – who held eleven meetings of various lengths in various locations. But you’ll need to go back to the original site to find the reports of the Sherpa meetings, well, at least the first four such meetings.

And while you’re there, you might want to take a look at the “Related Documentation” – the first item of which is the “NGLS Summary Report: Civil Society Consultation Conducted for the Global Sustainability Panel”, because of course, no UN report would be complete without input from “civil society” aka NGOs. This “Summary Report” is a convenient 27 page “compilation” derived from 38 “submissions from a diverse array of organizations and networks. Many [...] were from international networks representing several hundred to over one thousand organizations each.” Should you choose to peruse the pages of this “compilation” (as I did), I doubt you will find many surprises!

Other “related” documents include a Background Paper (“Sustainable Development: From Brundtland to Rio” prepared for the first meeting of the Panel by two people from the International Institute on Sustainable Development (IISD) the good folks who produce the Earth Negotiations Bulletins (reports of the multitude of meetings pertaining thereto – including those of the IPCC). But I digress (although I did so for a reason!)

Recommendation 47 is interesting:

[p. 17]:

As international sustainable development policy is fragmented and, in particular, the environmental pillar is weak, [the United Nations Environmental Program, parent of the IPCC, IPBES, and a host of other acronymic offspring purveyor of increasingly scary stories since 1972 -hro] UNEP should be strengthened.

Seems to me, that – based on the inability of the Panel Secretariat to even get its web-act together (as noted in my above digression) – a way must be found to overcome the “fragmented institutions established around single-issue ‘silos’” of the UNEP. Perhaps the UNEP could benefit from the assistance of some … Sherpas.

On the road to Rio: Sustainability swamps climate change

Just in case you haven’t heard, there will yet another United Nations conference aimed at setting goals for “saving the planet”; this one is known as UN Conference on Sustainable Development (UNCSD, or Rio+20 and sometimes called the “Earth Summit“) which is scheduled to take place June 20-22 of this year.

Not surprisingly, the UN Secretary-General announced today that he has a “5 year Action Plan” to ‘build the future we want’. And I’m sure that it’s purely coincidental that this “theme” just happens to echo the title of the “zero draft” of the outcome document for Rio+20. Dated January 10, 2012, this zero draft, is entitled “THE FUTURE WE WANT“. It was:

Submitted by the co-Chairs on behalf of the Bureau in accordance with the decision in Prepcom 2 to present the zero-draft of the outcome document for consideration by Member States and other stakeholders no later than early January 2012.

As part of their “open, transparent and inclusive process, led by member states”, the powers that be behind the UNCSD have made available not only the zero draft but also the 6,000 page “compilation document” which:

serve[s] as [the] basis for the preparation of a zero-draft of the outcome document, to be presented for consideration

For the record, these 6,000 pages appear to have been distilled into a 19 page, 128 paragraph document which constitutes the zero draft “outcome document” currently under review.

It is interesting to note that the UNCSD seems to have a somewhat different (albeit one that more closely approximates the common understanding of the English words used) definition of “open, transparent and inclusive” than the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The IPCC also claims to conduct an “open, transparent and inclusive” process; yet, as Steve McIntyre has observed, maintaining secrecy of their zero-draft trumps openness and transparency at this stage of the climate change game. Perhaps this secrecy has been deemed necessary to keep under wraps the extent to which Pachauri’s July 2009 “vision” for the IPCC’s 5th Assessment Report (AR5) has (or has not) been realized:

Climate change needs to be assessed in the context of sustainable development, and this consideration should pervade the entire report across the three Working Groups. In past assessments sustainable development and its various linkages with climate change were seen largely as an add-on. Most governments who have commented on this issue have highlighted the need to treat sustainable development as an overarching framework in the context of both adaptation and mitigation. [emphasis added -hro]

But I digress …

There have been news reports to the effect that “climate change” is not on the agenda for Rio+20.

Needless to say, I have not had an opportunity to review the UNSCD’s 6,000 page “compilation”. But I have read the zero-draft, and such reports would appear to be borne out by the content. Here are some interesting, if not quite telling, word-counts from the 128 paragraphs that survived the distillation of the compilation:

emissions:	0
greenhouse:	0
global warming:	0
carbon:	2
climate change:	7
women:	7
scientific:	7
Agenda 21:	8
technology/technological:	16
poverty:	20
green economy:	24
sustainable/sustainability:	137

And in case you were wondering … there is no mention of either the IPCC or its “primary client”, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Nor was either of these (rapidly falling stars?!) mentioned** during the course of yesterday’s “Informal Discussions”, according to the quasi-official rapporteurs, the IISD, whose Earth Negotiations Bulletin report of the proceedings indicates that there may be some changes to this zero-draft between now and June.

**However, in the interest of truth in posting, I should note that the representative of the Russian Federation did propose:

creating an intergovernmental panel modeled on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change or the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) to improve cooperation

All of which suggests that, at this point, I may not have been too far off the mark when I had speculated “Move over IPCC … here comes IPBES” – nor when I more recently posed the question: Is the IPCC still relevant to the UNFCCC?. Indeed, in light of the conspicuous absences in this zero-draft of the “outcome document“, one might be forgiven for wondering … How relevant is the UNFCCC to the UNCSD?!

It will be interesting to see how … uh … sustainable … the paragraphs of this zero-draft might be when the final draft is made available for review. IOW, we are left with the really BIG question: how sustainable is sustainablity?!

(Image courtesy of xkcd.com and h/t Jane Coles via Bishop Hill)