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!

Of word salads and firebrands on the UN waterfront

So, while the U.K. Met Office (presumably still inspired by their enhanced status as a “jewel in the crown, of British and global science”) has been unable to master the technology required to correct an unsupportable headline as part of their effort to “bridge the gap between climate scientists and the public”, an organization called UN Water has has been moving at the speed of lightning.

Well, for a UN bureaucracy … it’s the speed of lightning!

You see, If you didn’t know that UN Water exists, you might have missed the chance of a lifetime (which began on April 29 and, sadly, ended on May 5) to “contribute to the online discussion” of:

The final draft of the Post-2015 Water Thematic Consultation report

Look at that, folks! We’ve been moved from the pre- and post-Rio+20 “The Future We Want” to “The World We Want”. Amazing, eh?!

Sorry, I haven’t had a chance to take look at this “final draft”. But, I have seen the:

Recognition of Outcomes, High Level Forum –World Water Day The Hague, 22 March, 2013

Ah, yes, World Water Day … I know we did get some advance notice of the “International Year of Water Cooperation, 2013″, but World Water Day on March 22?

Who knew, eh?! Of course, I should have made a note of it in my calendar for this year … when I missed it last year …. and (truth be told) every year since its inception in 1993:

World Water Day – 22 March

World Water Day is held annually on 22 March as a means of focusing attention on the importance of freshwater and advocating for the sustainable management of freshwater resources.

An international day to celebrate freshwater was recommended at the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED). The United Nations General Assembly responded by designating 22 March 1993 as the first World Water Day.

Needless to say, this particular child of the United Nations comes with its very own scary stories (and calls for “innovative financial mechanisms”). As the March 22, 2013 “Recognition of Outcomes – High Level Forum” (pdf) duly notes (all emphases in quoted text throughout this post are mine -hro):

This process has allowed for an inclusive and bottom-up approach that encouraged all stakeholders to help construct a new sustainable development framework that is measurable, realistic and inter-generational that will promote an equitable and sustainable use of water for growth and development. People from 185 Member States, and 8 non-Member States/territories, have participated through social media and meetings at the national, regional and global levels. It engaged a wide range of stakeholders from national authorities, civil society, youth and the private sector in the discussion on the role of water in a future sustainable development framework. A synthesis report, that will soon be available for public comment, provides a comprehensive view of the outcomes of the consultation.

So, let’s see … it was announced on March 22 that this “comprehensive view” would soon be available for “public comment”. Yet – as I had noted above – “soon” turned out to be well over a month later. And the window of opportunity for this “public comment” was a grand total of seven (count ‘em 7) days – and possibly less depending on when on April 29 this inclusive … probably more apt to call it an exclusive window of opportunity opened, and when on May 5 the window closed.

What a process, eh?! But I digress … Back to the highlights of the High Level Forum’s “Recognition of Outcomes” document which included:

Although water challenges are growing incrementally, complacency is not an option. Political recognition and policy action are urgently needed. Significant water-related challenges remain. Water pollution continues to grow and more than 80% of used water is discharged to nature untreated. This is not only a threat to the environment, economic development and human health, but also a waste of valuable resources

Feeding a world of nine billion people in 2050 will require more water for food. The demands for energy will more than double and, at the same time, extreme events, droughts and floods will also increase.

[...]

Higher rates of urbanization will mean a growing demand for drinking water [...]

Hang on a minute! Do people in an urban environment require more drinking water than those in a rural setting?! Surely not! Oh, well … who am I to argue with these nameless authorities, eh?! Here are some excerpts from their “Conclusions”:

• Water is a key determinant in all aspects of social, economic and environmental development …
• Water, Sanitation and Hygiene, Water Resources Management and Wastewater Management and Water Quality are all indispensable elements for building a water-secure world
• Water security will be of growing importance …
• Governments play a key role in securing water for competing demands; however the quest for a water-secure world is a joint responsibility and can only be achieved through water cooperation at local, national, regional and global level and through partnerships with a multitude of stakeholders …
• Water-related capacity development [...] will be fundamental in the realization and implementation of the Post-2015 Development Agenda
• Innovative, inclusive and sustainable financing mechanisms for water need to be implemented

And here are some excerpts from their vision for “The Way Forward”:

There must be ambitious goals and targets which take account of unfinished business and the emerging and future challenges. These goals must inspire and create incentives for a change in behaviour to manage and allocate resources in a sustainable way whose benefits reach every person without discrimination

You’ll be pleased to know that there’s no “overwhelming scientific consensus”, but there was an:

overwhelming participation of stakeholders

which along with their own “deliberations” led this illustrious group to “recognise” that:

water is a prerequisite in the future development framework in order to attain vital economic, equity, employment, health, educational, agriculture/food and energy benefits and for maintaining ecosystems services and supporting resilience to climate change

Not only that, but they have “committed” themselves to:

bringing these messages to the attention of relevant fora, such as the High-Level Panel of Eminent Persons on the Post-2015 Development Agenda

But wait, there’s more that we missed on March 22. There was a Press Release (here come the scary stories and more!):

‘Water Security’: Experts propose a UN definition on which much depends

World Water Day 2013: International year of water cooperation

Amid changing weather and water patterns worldwide and forecasts of more severe transformations to come, calls have been growing for the UN Security Council to include water issues on its agenda.

And there’s rising international support for adopting “universal water security” as one of the Sustainable Development Goals — a set of mid-term global objectives being formulated to succeed the UN’s Millennium Development Goals, agreed by world leaders in 2000 for achievement by 2015.

But what does “water security” mean? The absence of a definition undermines progress in international forums. Marking World Water Day today at UN Headquarters in New York, a common working definition was published, forged by UN and international experts from around the world.

UN-Water, the United Nations’ inter-agency coordination mechanism for all water-related issues, says water security should be defined as:

“The capacity of a population to safeguard sustainable access to adequate quantities of and acceptable quality water for sustaining livelihoods, human well-being, and socio-economic development, for ensuring protection against water-borne pollution and water-related disasters, and for preserving ecosystems in a climate of peace and political stability.”

Setting aside the abysmal record of the UN Security Council in even fulfilling its current mandate, isn’t it good to know that it’s only taken twenty years for this group of “experts” to propose a definition?! But, I guess they’re ahead of the “interagency coordination mechanism” for all climate and/or biodiversity-related issues.

You see, last I heard, this particular group (in the run-up to Rio+20) had not even agreed on a definition of “green economy” (let alone the “blue economy“)

But wait! There’s more! This Press Release continues:

“Security has now come to mean human security and its achievement through development. Water fits within this broader definition of security — embracing political, health, economic, personal, food, energy, environmental and other concerns — and acts as a central link between them.”

“Common understanding has central importance in international discussions and water security can’t continue to have a variety of meanings,” says Zafar Adeel, co-chair of the UN-Water Task Force on Water Security and Director of the United Nations University’s Canadian-based Institute for Water, Environment and Health.

“A shared and working definition is needed to get everyone on the same page. Only then can we collectively start to write a coherent response to the challenges.”

“Access to safe water and sanitation is now a fundamental human right. But water management also requires realistic ways of recovering delivery costs. An agreed definition of water security is vitally important in that context.”

Many observers have identified water as an “urgent security issue,” a group that last year included both former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the InterAction Council, an association of 37 former heads of state and government co-chaired by the Rt. Hon. Jean Chrétien, former Prime Minister of Canada, and H.E. Dr. Franz Vranitzky, former Chancellor of Austria.

According to Mr. Chrétien: “Nothing is more fundamental to life than water. Few issues, therefore, have the potential to create friction more than the management of water shared across international borders, especially now with serious scarcity problems in prospect.”

While he may on rare occasion have written in the manner noted above, anyone who’s ever heard Jean Chretien speak, knows damn well that he does not talk that way! So if this is a “direct quote”, someone’s been putting word salads in his mouth!

But that aside, I would have to say that carbon dioxide is equally fundamental to life – as are other gases and elements. Well, at least it was until the UN – in its infinite “expert” wisdom – decided to embark on an utterly wasteful and harmful path of demonization.

Just imagine if these “experts” had given the matter some thought – prior to foisting on the world the useless Kyoto protocol and the concomitant obsession with the purported (and far from proven) perils of CO₂ which has resulted in costly and inefficient wind turbines and solar panels blighting our landscapes and shamefully increasing the cost of food and energy, which are also fundamental to life.

Had the bureaucrats and politicians (not to mention the “climate scientists”) acted more wisely – and in the public interest, rather than that of firebrands such as Al Gore, David Suzuki, the proliferation of virtually uncountable (and unaccountable) NGOs and the BIG green machine that forged the now corrupted and collapsing UN and/or European Union inspired “innovative financial mechanisms” such as “emissions trading schemes” – we could have invested all those wasted years and billion$ in securing the “fundamental human right” to safe water and sanitation for all.

No demonizing, “definitions” – or redefining – necessary.

=========

A few footnotes of interest …

The contact on the above March 22 Press Release is listed as Terry Collins. Collins was, evidently, the proud author as can be seen from his company website.

Collins’ company also put out the Press Release noted by Donna Laframboise, yesterday, in which they had crafted a rather one-sided story.

But speaking of firebrands, word salads and the UN water front …

About midway through Collins’ March 22 Press Release, (which was presumably widely distributed via EurekAlert) one finds <scary stories alert>:

In 2011, for example, driven largely by water and food shortages linked to drought in the Horn of Africa, almost 185,000 Somalis fled to neighbouring countries. In Sudan, violence broke out in March 2012 in the Jamam refugee camp where large numbers of people faced serious water scarcity. And in South Sudan, entire communities were forced to leave due to scarce water resources as a result of conflict in 2012.

Disasters and conflicts can also affect the physical infrastructure needed to access water, sanitation and hygiene services (water services infrastructure, treatment plants, drainage systems, dams, irrigation channels, etc.), reducing levels of water security.

Water insecurity, therefore, leads to cascading political, social, economic and environmental consequences, the brief says. (For a larger history of water-related conflicts, documented by The Pacific Institute: http://worldwater.org/conflict.html)

But if you follow the link, you’ll see that there’s a typo in the name: it should read the Pacific Institute. Ring any bells?! It should. As the about page indicates, Worldwater.org is:

A project of the Pacific Institute, [...]

which just happens to be the personal fiefdom of Peter Gleick. Gleick’s claim to fame includes writing a review of a book he has not read and even more unethically and notoriously fraudulently obtaining confidential details from another non-profit organization – and promulgating this material, along with an obviously forged word salad, to some of his friends and media contacts.

Small world, 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?!

More on BC’s carbon tax “review”

A few days ago, I had commented on a recent CBC news item announcing that the government of British Columbia was embarking on a “review” of BC’s Carbon Tax. The CBC’s record of providing useful links to back up its stories is far from sterling – and at the time of my original post, I was unable to find such a link. However, I am now able to remedy this:

British Columbians now have the opportunity to make written submissions to the Minister of Finance from July 1, 2012 – August 31, 2012.

The Minister of Finance and Deputy Premier is Kevin Falcon. Reader Morley Sutter has made a submission, which he has kindly permitted me to publish here. I have taken the liberty of slightly reformatting for ease of blog-reading.

**************

From: Morley C. Sutter [mailto:xxxxxx]
Sent: July-01-12 7:58 AM
To: ‘kevin.falcon.mla@xxxxx’
Subject: Carbon Tax

Dear Sir:

The Carbon Tax should be scrapped. It ostensibly was introduced based on two premises: the belief that increasing CO₂ in the atmosphere produces dangerous man-made global warming and the belief that we should reduce our dependence on fossil fuels (particularly oil produced by OPEC). The first premise is false; the second has been mitigated by the North American use of frakking to increase the availability of both oil and natural gas. The Carbon Tax is therefore both unnecessary and useless except as a revenue-earner for the Government. It is simply a cost to the populace.

There is little doubt that the average surface air temperature has increased – approximately 0.8 degrees Celsius since 1850 or 0.05 degrees per decade but the cause of this is unknown. CO₂ also has increased over that period so there is a rough correlation between the rise in CO₂ concentrations and temperature.

But correlation between two events never proves that one causes the other. The lack of correlation between two events indicates that they are causally unrelated.

The graph shown below shows the lack of correlation between atmospheric CO₂ and temperature.

Temperature records versus atmospheric CO₂

From the Norwegian blog http://www.climate4you.com

Superimposed plot of five different global monthly temperature estimates shown individually elsewhere. As the base period differs for these estimates, they have all been normalised by comparing to the average of their initial 120 months (10 years) from January 1979 to December 1988. Click here to go to the associated comparison of these five temperature records.

The heavy black line represents the simple running 37 month (c. 3 year) mean of the average of all temperature estimates (before 1979 only the three surface records). The blue graph shows the amount of atmospheric CO₂ (Mauna Loa station, Hawaii, see also above). The heavy blue line represents the simple running 37 month (c. 3 year) mean of the monthly CO₂-values.

The scale for atmospheric CO₂ (right) is adjusted to display the CO₂-graph roughly parallel to the 1975-2000 temperature increase. For the first two decades in the 21st century a warming of about 0.2°C per decade is projected for a range of SRES emission scenarios according to the 2007 IPCC Summary for Policymakers (p.7 and Fig.SPM.5). Last month shown: May 2012. Last diagram update: 29 June 2012.

It is from the Norwegian blog “Climate4you” accessible at the following URL:
http://www.climate4you.com/
.

As you can see, there has been no significant warming since the year 2000. How can CO₂ be the driver of temperature when the CO₂ concentration rises without an accompanying temperature rise?

Yours truly,

Morley C. Sutter, MD, PhD.

**************

A related footnote … in a subsequent story, apart from dutifully quoting a spokesman for the Suzuki Foundation (who, of course, contends that this tax is the greatest thing since sliced bread), the CBC chose to “balance” this view with that of Mark Jaccard:

a professor of environmental economics at Simon Fraser University, [who] believes it will take 20 years before the province can speculate on the success or failure of the tax.

“It would be shocking if a carbon tax had made a difference in a couple of years and it hasn’t,” he said.

It could be that Jaccard was attempting to atone for his silly antics earlier this year – not to mention his (previously) undisclosed conflict of interest, as noted by Donna Laframboise.

Hmmm … I wonder if Jaccard and his co-author Nic Rivers would care to debate the “findings” of Stewart Elgie’s latest fiefdom, regarding BC’s Carbon Tax. As I had noted, the Globe and Mail had dutifully reported (inter alia):

But in its report on the levy, Sustainable Prosperity says it has led to substantial reductions in greenhouse gas emissions that are linked to climate change, but has had no negative impact on economic growth, as some critics feared.

Rivers, a co-author of Jaccard’s 2007 book – and then one of Jaccard’s grad students – provided “comment and review” on Elgie’s “report”, and is now evidently at the University of Ottawa and is also a member of Elgie’s “Research Network Committee” where he serves as “Co-Chair, Low Carbon Economy”.

Or perhaps Jaccard is merely a little behind on the apparent shifting of the sands of the environmental-activist paradigm from amorphous “climate change” – on the heels of Rio+20 at which it was barely mentioned – to the more conveniently encompassing (but equally ill-defined) “sustainable development”?!

Previous post withdrawn … and more post-Rio gleanings

Sorry, folks … I was experimenting with “Storify” and my creation really was far from ready for prime-time live – but I was hoping to see an intermediate step between Storify export and WordPress publish. If there is one, I haven’t found the magic button. So I have deleted that post, at least for now!

In the meantime, you might want to take a look at some highlights (or lowlights, depending on one’s perspective) from the IISD’s Report (apart from headings, all bolds are mine -hro):

SUMMARY OF THE UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT: 13-22 June 2012

[...]

IV. INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT [IFSD]:

A. Strengthening the Three Dimensions of Sustainable Development: In this subsection, delegates discussed civil society engagement, with differences persisting over the venues for stakeholder involvement and placement of the related text, and on concerns over monitoring roles.

Final Outcome: The document agrees, inter alia, to: strengthen IFSD, including by promoting the “full and effective participation of all countries in decision making processes”; promote the review and stocktaking of progress in implementation of all sustainable development commitments, including those related to MOI [Means of Implementation -hro]; and enhance the participation and “effective engagement” of civil society [civil society is UN-speak for NGOs -hro]. It calls for capacity building especially for developing countries, including in conducting their own monitoring and assessments.

B. Strengthening Intergovernmental Arrangements for Sustainable Development: This subsection includes the UNGA [UN General Assembly -hro], UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), [see my post on this -hro] and the high-level political forum.

[...]

Final Outcome: The document calls for the UNGA to further integrate sustainable development in its work, including through high-level dialogues. It commits to strengthening ECOSOC, and looks forward to the Review of the Implementation of General Assembly Resolution 61/16 on the strengthening of ECOSOC.

It decides to establish a universal intergovernmental high-level political forum, building on the CSD and its “inclusive participation modalities” and “subsequently replacing” the CSD. The high-level forum “could,” inter alia: follow up and review progress in the implementation of sustainable development commitments made at previous UN summits and conferences; and strengthen the science-policy interface including in the form of a global sustainable development report. An intergovernmental process under the UNGA will define its format and organizational aspects, with the aim of convening the first high-level forum at the 68th session of the UNGA.

The outcome document also invites the Secretary-General to present a report on the needs of future generations.

I always thought that “sustainable development” rested on “three pillars”. But it seems that the “pillars” have morphed into “dimensions.” Oh well …

There is a section on Climate Change. Here’s the quasi-official word:

Climate change: The text used as a basis for the negotiations in Rio had five heavily bracketed paragraphs on: protection of the climate system for present and future generations; international responses to climate change; funding mobilization; interlinkages among climate change and other issues such as water, energy and food; and short-lived climate pollutants. One particular area of contention was reference to CBDR [Common But Differentiated Responsibilities -hro], with delegations such as the US, Canada, Japan and Australia requesting its deletion and the G-77/China supporting its retention. Among the other issues of divergence were references to specific UNFCCC COPs, disproportionate impact on women, prompt operationalization of the Green Climate Fund, and immediate action to reduce short-lived climate pollutants.

Final Outcome: The subsection on climate change includes three paragraphs on:

• the threat of climate change, vulnerability of developing countries to climate change, and that adaption to climate change represents an immediate and urgent global priority;

• an effective and appropriate international response with a view to accelerate the reduction of global greenhouse gas emissions;

• recalling that the UNFCCC provides that parties should protect the climate system on the basis of equity and in accordance with CBDR;

• mobilizing funding and welcoming the launch of the Green Climate Fund; and

• urging parties to implement commitments under the UNFCCC and Kyoto Protocol, and to build upon progress achieved including at COP 17 in Durban.

Conspicuous by its absence in the above is any mention of the IPCC. This could be because Chairman Pachauri was occupied with other duties … in the Sustainia tent.

And if you find yourself with time on your hands, you could take a stab at memorizing the “translations” of all the acronyms by perusing the handy Glossary at the bottom of the page.

Rio – the final score: climate change 22, sustainable 400

Well, it’s all over but the shouting, and I’m sure we’ll hear lots of it in the months ahead! I don’t know how many of the “High Level” participants actually read and comprehended this 283 paragraph “outcome document“. It will certainly take a few days for me to translate from Bureaucratese into comprehensible English.

But in the meantime …

There are a few paragraphs that set my alarm bells ringing. The United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) has been a manufacturer and promulgator of scary stories since 1972. It has the highest flying carbon footprint of any UN agency. And of course it is the parent of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Gaia knows how many acronymic offspring. Yet on p. 17, we find (emphases mine -hro):

87. We reaffirm the need to strengthen international environmental governance within the context of the institutional framework for sustainable development, in order to promote a balanced integration of the economic, social and environmental dimensions of sustainable development as well as coordination within the United Nations system.

88. 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. We reaffirm resolution 2997 (XXVII) of 15 December 1972 which established UNEP and other relevant resolutions that reinforce its mandate, as well as the 1997 Nairobi Declaration on the Role and Mandate of UNEP and the 2000 Malmö Ministerial Declaration. 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:

[...]

(c) Enhance the voice of UNEP and its ability to fulfil its coordination mandate within the United Nations system by strengthening UNEP engagement in key United Nations coordination bodies and 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, as one of the processes aimed at bringing together information and assessment to support informed decision-making

And here are some word-counts to ponder.

sustainable/sustainability 400
environment 123
women 58
framework 48
finance/financial 39
poverty 65
inclusion/inclusive 35
stakeholders 28
biodiversity 27
gender 26
climate change 22
green economy 23
equity/equitable 23

equality 20
civil society 13
governance 13
Agenda 21 12
children 10
adaptation 4
carbon 3*
greenhouse gases 3
mitigation 2
global warming 1
footprint 0
IPCC 0
IPBES 0

*two of which were contained in “hydrofluorocarbons”

Well, that’s a quick ‘n dirty analysis. But it does give some indication as to what they’ve decided the “priorities” will be – and where the power will lie. At least until the next meeting of some High Level Committee or Panel somewhere on the planet! In the meantime the emphasis seems to be on “voluntary commitments” towards the Future [they haven't quite been able to convince us] We Want.

Big Green are less than thrilled with this outcome document. Sooooo – perhaps the future won’t be quite as bad as we thought. Well, at least until the UNEP acquires its “enhanced voice”, and we find out who all these “stakeholders” might really be.

UPDATE: See also Peter Foster’s assessment in the Financial Post, in which he concludes:

The Rio future we avoided

There remain calls to tie down a set of Sustainable Development Goals, which should be good for another hundred reports and a dozen conferences. An Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) is also on the drawing board. This will reportedly do for biodiversity what the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) did for climate science: pervert it for political ends.

The Rio+20 text was originally sold as promoting “The Future We Want.” However, the “We” in question was always a self-selected group of UN bureaucrats, alarmist NGOs, corporate rent-seekers and main chancers whose interests were sharply at odds with those of ordinary people. Rio+20’s failure should be celebrated as The Future We Avoided.

Maurice Strong redux via “innovative bridge” at Rio

Remember the “invitation” that you and I did not receive to participate in the “Rio+20 Dialogues”?

Well, it seems that Maurice Strong was invited. Strong, who has been keeping a rather low profile in recent years, has tentacles a history which includes the United Nations (UN)’s disgraceful Oil for Food scandal. And let us not forget his greatest gifts to the world. He was the Godfather of the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP, promulgator of scary stories since 1972) and Secretary-General ( i.e. head honcho) of the original Rio conference (which gave birth to Agenda 21).

As reported yesterday, Reason‘s Ronald Bailey had observed:

Canadian oilman Maurice Strong warned in 1992 that humanity’s deleterious current path “could lead to the end of civilization” and that “this planet could soon become uninhabitable for people.”

Mind you, Strong’s invitation/participation in controlling, sorry … shepherding these “Dialogues” does not appear [PDF] to have been “advertised” in advance, in contrast to that of:

Dr. Pavan Sukhdev (India) – Founder and CEO, Gist Advisory Private Ltd.
Ms. Severn Cullis-Suzuki (Canada) – Board of Directors, David Suzuki Foundation

Sukhdev was the “Lead Author” of TEEB – the New Testament version of the Climate Bible. His “mantra”, in his own words:

“What you do not measure, you cannot manage”

Sukhdev’s other contributions, as I had noted in October 2010, include other inspiring gems such as “putting nature on the balance sheet” (his “mantra” will no doubt come in handy for this!). To refresh your memory, here’s an excerpt from his description of TEEB:

The study is drawing on expertise from around the world to evaluate the costs of the loss of biodiversity and the associated decline in ecosystem services worldwide, and to compare them with the costs of effective conservation and sustainable use. The intent of the study is to sharpen awareness of the value of biodiversity and ecosystem services and facilitate the development of effective policy, as well as engaged business and citizen responses.

But back to the Dialogues in which we were not invited to participate … According to the UN site, they were “organized” by the Government of Brazil, “with the support of the United Nations”:

In the four days prior to the High Level Segment, representatives from civil society, including private sector, NGOs, scientific community, among other major groups, will convene at the same venue of the Rio+20 Conference. They are expected to engage in an open and action-oriented debate on key topics related to sustainable development. There will be no participation of Governments or UN agencies. Three recommendations emanating from each of the Dialogues will be conveyed directly to the Heads of State and Government present at the Summit.

Ten topics will be debated, based on their relevance to the furthering of sustainable development. [...]

This innovative bridge between civil society and Heads of State and Government is expected to contribute to the incorporation and engagement of stakeholders, based on the understanding that public participation is essential for the consolidation of sustainable development as the paradigm for action in both the public and the private sectors. [emphasis added -hro]

But I suppose some public participation (i.e. that of Strong, Cullis-Suzuki and Sukhdev) is more essential than that of others (i.e. yours and mine!)

Needless to say, the “panel” participants in this “no participation of Governments or UN agencies” were selected:

by the Brazilian government from a wide consultation with UN agencies, major NGOs and think tanks. The panelists were finalized by taking consideration of the geographic balance and gender balance. The moderators for the onsite events are from major media groups, such as CNN and the Economist. [And, evidently, the U.K. Guardian -hro]

Yesterday, June 16, the “Dialogues” agenda included discussion of:

Unemployment, decent work and migrations
Sustainable development as an answer to the economic and financial crises
Sustainable development for fighting poverty

For the record, here are the contributions of Strong, Sukhdev and Cullis-Suzuki, as recorded by the IISD in their Highlights from day one of “Sustainable Development Dialogue Days” in Rio. First IISD’s intro:

The format for the sessions was a panel presentation and discussion, followed by a question and answer session. The sessions focused on ten recommendations emanating from a public online vote, and also provided a platform for refining and proposing additional recommendations, with the objective of the sessions to produce three final recommendations to be delivered to the Heads of State and government: one derived from the top online vote; one from the top in-session vote from the audience; and one reflecting panellists preferred recommendation. [emphasis added -hro]

I might have missed it, but I don’t recall seeing who would be responsible for deriving the “top online vote” although I do recall seeing mention of un-named Facilitators somewhere in my travels; so perhaps this was their job in building this “innovative bridge”! But I digress … here are the words of wisdom from Strong, Cullis-Suzuki and Sukhdev [all emphases mine -hro]:

Maurice Strong [on Unemployment, Decent Work and Migration]
Described as: Secretary-General, Stockholm Conference and Rio Conference	Maurice Strong, Secretary General, Stockholm Conference and Rio Conference, highlighted the “false premise” that all people will be able to earn a living by working, which he said is not feasible within a knowledge economy. He expressed hope for a revolutionary economy where citizens are shareholders with equal ownership and access to resources. (Presumably, whether they “earn a living by working” or not -hro)
Severn Cullis-Suzuki [on Sustainable Development for Fighting Poverty]
Severn Cullis-Suzuki, David Suzuki Foundation, Canada, explained that she continues to help transform society and fight for intergenerational justice. She considered the impact of measuring poverty in terms of money in societies that do not rely on fiscal exchange. (Yet another word-salad from a true-blue Suzuki -hro)	Described as: David Suzuki Foundation
Pavan Sukhdev [on Sustainable Development for Fighting Poverty]
Described as: Special Advisor, Green Economy Initiative, UNEP	Pavan Sukhdev, Green Economy Initiative, UNEP, said small farmers play a critical role in food production, particularly those living off subsistence farming, and that small farms and farmers tend to sell at the bottom of the market due to lack of investment. He called for policies and subsidies for small farms as means to fight poverty.** (Sounds like the seeds of yet another “innovative” funding mechanism to my ears -hro)

** Elsewhere in this report, it was noted that:

Responding to comments on the behavior of corporations, Sukhdev agreed on the lack of responsibility of today’s corporations, where the focus was entirely on profit and externalizing costs, calling for the audience to add externalities and unaccountable and irresponsible advertising to the recommendations.

Considering all of the above – not to mention that which other panelists “contributed” – YMMV, but it seems to me that this may well be an “innovative bridge” that is far too far-out for the Future I Want ;-)

Almost forgot to tell you that … “Climate change” received only two mentions from this “innovative bridge; the second of which was a reference to the:

UN Secretary-General’s High-level Advisory Group on Climate Change Financing, suggesting that US$ 100 billion could be raised annually by 2020 for climate finance and that limited public financing could be used more imaginatively.

So much for “climate change” being the “greatest threat to the future of the planet, eh?!

Report from Reason at Rio

If you are a relative newcomer to the climate wars and/or the foggy mysteries that shroud “climate change”, “sustainable development” and the “green economy”, Reason‘s Ronald Bailey offers an excellent primer and overview of what has led us to the current shenanigans of the United Nations (UN)’s moribund – and hypocritical – bureaucratic tyrants-in-waiting and their “partnership” with BIG Green.

Here are some excerpts from Bailey’s report [h/t Matt Ridley via twitter and all emphases mine]:

Rio +20 Earth Summit: Is Sustainable Development Still Sexy?

This week the United Nations is convening the Rio +20 Conference on Sustainable Development. It’s called Rio +20 to commemorate the fact that 20 years ago, the United Nations held an “Earth Summit” in Rio de Janeiro, then modestly billed as “the most important meeting in human history.” The tone is a little different this time around: It turns out that a good portion of the activists attending this time are not at all happy with the concept of sustainable development anymore and are denouncing the Green Economy as a corporate sham.

[...]

The head of the Earth Summit, Canadian oilman Maurice Strong, warned in 1992 that humanity’s deleterious current path “could lead to the end of civilization” and that “this planet could soon become uninhabitable for people.” Besides the official conference, there was the Global Forum at which activists of various stripes and tendencies gathered at a “world’s fair of environmentalism.” Vice presidential hopeful Al Gore was ubiquitous.

At the Earth Summit conferees negotiated the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (U.N.FCCC) and the Convention on Biological Diversity, along with Agenda 21, an economic central plan for the 21st century. Over the past 20 years the United Nations has convened 17 conferences with the aim of trying to impose carbon rationing on the world as a way to combat climate change chiefly caused by greenhouse gases emitted by burning fossil fuels. The Biodiversity Convention has chiefly been a vehicle used by activists to slow efforts to get biotech crops to poor farmers in the developing world and to rich farmers in Europe.

[...]

In any case, economic development is certainly a worthy endeavor since 1.3 billion people still live on less than $1.25 per day and some 900 million people face hunger. The U.N. conference itself is negotiating a document called, The Future We Want, [PDF] which embodies a lot of aspirational language, but also aims to set up a process that will establish a set of Sustainable Development Goals and some kind of institutional framework for sustainable development to oversee the implementation of those goals, i.e., a U.N. bureaucracy. And to implement whatever the goals are the poor countries want the rich countries to give them $100 billion per year in sustainable development aid starting in 2018. Negotiations over this 80-page document have been quite contentious; only 20 percent of the text has been agreed to so far.

According to the U.N., the Future We Want is the Green Economy. However, a sizeable percentage of environmental activists going to the conference believe that the Green Economy is merely more corporate capitalism in green-face.[...]

As for the UNFCCC … never let it be said that Rajendra K. Pachauri, the Chair of the disgraced – and disgraceful – Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been remiss in carrying out the now openly admitted obligations of the IPCC to the UNFCCC. Far from being “transparent, impartial, objective” etc. as was reported at the conclusion of the recent (and, rather surprisingly, quietly held) 35th Session of the IPCC:

Switzerland [home of IPCC bigwig Thomas Stocker -hro] highlighted the UNFCCC as the IPCC’s main client [emphasis added -hro]

[UPDATE: 06/16/2012 07:05 PM Pls. see comments below for other interesting observations about the IPCC and its "main client"]

This is certainly in keeping with Pachauri’s earlier proclamation of his “cause” and mission, as Donna Laframboise has reported:

I am not going to rest easy until I have articulated in every possible forum the need to bring about major structural changes in economic growth and development. That’s the real issue. Climate change is just a part of it. [bold added]

And considering the “focus” of Rio+20, in hindsight, it is not surprising that Pachauri’s July, 2009 “vision” for the currently-being-manufactured Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) included:

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.

In the (rather typical) absence of any quantification of “most governments” who might have so commented, I would think that Pachauri is probably pleased as punch to be “engineering” the latest and greatest IPCC report – along with such sterling “scientific” luminaries as Gergis and Karoly.

Royal Society’s green chemist waves little red book in Rio

Martyn Poliakoff: Green chemist of the Royal Society

Professor Martyn Poliakoff, CBE FRS – who looks like a jolly good fellow, as you can see – is Research Professor in Chemistry at the U.K.’s University of Nottingham. He’s also an Honorary Professor of Chemistry at Moscow State University, and currently serves as the Foreign Secretary and Vice President of the Royal Society (RS). Poliakoff is also known for his popular video series, The Periodic Table of Videos.

The RS website also notes that Poliakoff is a

green chemist, working on gaining insights into fundamental chemistry and on developing environmentally acceptable chemical processes and materials.

Hmmm … “environmentally acceptable” that’s a new one – at least to me. I wonder how one determines whether a product, process or material is “environmentally acceptable” (EA) – as opposed to “environmentally friendly” (EF) – and which of the two is better, or the best! But I digress …

The Carnival,

Image captured from http://www.iisd.ca/uncsd/rio20/enbots/13jun.html

sorry, UN Conference on Sustainable Development (UNCSD) aka Rio+20 has begun with a series of side-shows, sorry, Side Events.

One Side Event on June 13, was entitled “People and the Planet: Population, consumption and the environment” and it was presented by (drum roll please ….) “The Royal Society of the UK, the UN Population Fund (UNFPA), and the African Institute for Development Policy”.

We are told that <bureaucratic word salad alert>:

This event focused on how both changing population dynamics and increasing levels of material consumption present long-lasting challenges to human health and wellbeing, and to the natural environment.

Poliakoff, presumably wearing his “green chemist” and RS Foreign Secretary hats, was the first panelist. Here’s the quasi-official précis of his presentation (and a pic of Poliakoff waving the Society’s “little red book”):

Poliakoff and Royal Society report on “People and the Planet”

[Poliakoff] presented his organization’s report on “People and the Planet,” which linked population, consumption and the environment. He stressed the important role of scientists in the sustainability policy discussion and in ensuring that natural resources are more efficiently used. He also emphasized that 1.3 billion people need to consume more basic materials to lift themselves out of poverty, while many in developed countries must consume less by learning to use natural resources more efficiently. [emphasis added -hro]

One wonders if the “many” who “must consume less” excludes those who travel the world telling the rest of us to do so.

This is The Future We Want?! Nah, I don’t think so, do you?