The (un)sustainability of all climate all the time

[04/23/2013: Please note update, below -hro]

A few days ago, I was taking stock of the many framings of climate. I was also wondering about the various and sundry footprints with which enviro-activists are so concerned. Here, thanks to wordle, is an illustration of what I found:

I very quickly realized that I had forgotten “climate disruption”, so please imagine it included in the above; and I’ve no doubt that there are others I might have missed. But what I had never heard of until yesterday was “climate insecurity”.

There’s a chap by the name of John Ashton who recently delivered [h/t Tom Nelson] a rally the troops speech to the somewhat self-beleaguered of late, U.K. Meteorological Office (fondly known in climate concerned circles as the “Met Office”).

Climate insecurity (whatever this is supposed to mean) is obviously very much on Ashton’s mind, as he mentioned it no less than three times during the course of his 4,986-word peroration, which he had entitled, “Climate Change and Politics: Surviving the Collision”. Oh, and his total “climate” count was no less than 42, and included such memorable turns of phrase as “climate-exposed business sectors” (perhaps he had the UNEP’s B4E in mind?) and “climate diplomacy”.

The latter is something about which, presumably, Ashton knows a fair bit, because his previous day-job (2006-2012) was that of “Special Representative for Climate Change for three successive UK Foreign Secretaries”.

Along with the requisite alarmism, there’s an awful lot of ponderous, pompous and/or presumptuous propaganda in Ashton’s speech; for example:

[...] here is a challenge that is Promethean. We have stolen the secret of fire for our own use, unleashing punitive forces inherent in the system of which we are ourselves part. Dealing with this is imperative, because if we don’t the consequences could soon become unmanageable, perhaps even jeopardizing the system conditions within which civilization itself can flourish.

And as we look more deeply into the picture, it urges us to summon a response that is transformational, because the entire modern economy is organized around the energy system. Making that system carbon neutral will reconfigure the economy, and the power relations embedded within it. Furthermore we must accomplish this urgently, in little more than a generation, while building resilience to the climate insecurity we can no longer avoid.

Promethean, imperative, transformational, urgent. [emphasis added -hro]

Not unlike the UNEP, Ashton is obviously very big on “transformative/transformational” (eight mentions in his speech at the Met Office). But what is curiously and conspicuously absent is any mention of “sustainable” … as in “sustainable development”.

Ashton is one of three founding directors of a group called E3G, and served as the first Chief Executive of E3G in 2005-06. Ever heard of this group before? No? Neither had I! So here’s the scoop:

E3G is an independent not-for-profit organisation, established in 2004, that works in the public interest to accelerate the global transition to sustainable development.

We build coalitions to achieve carefully defined outcomes, chosen for their capacity to leverage change. E3G founders had been working together and developing their shared thinking for several years before the organisation was constituted in 2004.

[...]

E3G makes things happen. We work to deliver outcomes with strategic significance for the transition to sustainable development. [emphasis added -hro]

UPDATE: Alex Cull notes in a very enlightening comment below, there’s at least one, no doubt, “carefully defined outcome” that Ashton – presumably on E3G’s behalf – was not able to “make happen”. Alex concludes:

Whatever the cause, it looks very much as though Ashton and the Qataris had an irreconcilable difference of opinion and that on this occasion, British “climate diplomacy” did not “catalyse transformational change” but hit the buffers of geopolitical reality instead.

In 2004, Ashton made an appearance in the Climategate (CG2 2428.txt) emails. In response to an E-mail, about “getting the idea into [then Prime Minister] Blair’s mind”, Ashton had opined:

cc: “Mike Hulme” , “John SCHELLNHUBER”
date: Fri, 8 Oct 2004 10:47:57 +010 ???
from: “John Ashton”
subject: Re: Moving this forward
to: “Peter Read” , “John Shepherd”

John, John and Mike heard much of my argument at the Tyndall Assembly. But I should clarify it a little in the light of Peter’s message.

The problem at present is not the absence of propositions that offer stabilisation and that are scientifically, technologically and economically, credible. Two such broad propositions are biomass energy and capture and storage: both deserve attention within a portfolio of possible responses.

[...]

That is, I am sure, why [Blair's] recent speech concentrated on putting across, more starkly than he has done before, the scale and urgency of the challenge. Abrupt climate change is a crucial piece of that jigsaw – and you can make more impact with it at present by simply highlighting the danger without going too far into any particular set of responses.
[...] [emphasis added -hro]

His E3G bio indicates that Ashton has a long history of having moved virtually effortlessly through the NGO/Government revolving door:

John is one of a new generation of diplomats equally at home in the worlds of foreign policy and green politics. Before moving outside government to establish E3G in 2005, John had a distinguished career in the UK’s Foreign and Commonwealth Office, including founding and leading its Environment Policy Department.

A major theme of John’s career has been China. He speaks Chinese. He was an adviser to Governor Chris Patten in Hong Kong from 1993-7. His first diplomatic assignment, from 1981-4, was as Science Attaché in the British Embassy in Beijing. He also has experience at high level on a wide range of European and global issues, including as a political officer in the British Embassy in Rome from 1988-93.

John was the first Chief Executive of E3G in 2005-06, before returning to the UK Foreign Office as the Foreign Secretary’s Special Representative for Climate Change. His role supported Ministers in building a stronger foundation for an effective response to climate change. He had the personal title of Ambassador with direct access to the Foreign Secretary. John played a key role in designing the FCO’s climate change network and strategy, with its focus on climate stability as a precondition for security, prosperity and equity, and on strategic political engagement with the emerging and other major economies. [emphasis added -hro]

One of the other “founding directors” – and the current Chief Executive – is Nick Mabey. If that name rings a bell, it probably should. Mabey hails from the WWF – and he even had a role in promoting Mike Hulme and Joseph Alcamo’s pre-Kyoto “Statement”.

Like Ashton (and many others in this “gently” grown E3G crop of propagandists), Mabey’s bio indicates that he, too, has passed through the NGO/Government “revolving door”:

Nick was previously a senior advisor in the UK Prime Minister’s Strategy Unit leading work on national and international policy areas, including: energy, climate change, countries at risk of instability, organised crime and fisheries. Nick was employed in the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s Environment Policy Department, and was the FCO lead for the Johannesburg Summit in 2002 [...]

Before he joined government Nick was Head of Economics and Development at WWF-UK. He came to WWF from research at London Business School on the economics of climate change, which he published as the book “Argument in the Greenhouse”.
[...]
Among other appointments Nick is currently on the advisory board of Infrastructure UK, the independent commission reporting to the UK Conservative Party on the design of a Green Investment Bank, and the Advisory Council of the European Technology Platform for Zero Emission Fossil Fuel Power. [emphasis added -hro]

So, it should come as no surprise that movers and shakers at E3G (which evidently stands for Third Generation Environmentalism Ltd) receive funding from WWF as well as from the U.K.’s Department for the Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) and Department for International Development. Big Oil (represented by Shell) is also on E3G’s funding roster.

Readers who have been following the various interwoven threads of this ongoing saga will have noted the (coincidental, I’m sure) inclusion of John [aka Hans Joachim] Schellnhuber in the recipient list of Ashton’s E-mail, above. It was thanks to Germany’s Schellnhuber that the “dangerous” 2°C first entered the propaganda scene. As he told Der Speigel‘s Marco Evers, Olaf Stampf and Gerald Traufetter in April 2010:

a group of German scientists, yielding to political pressure, invented an easily digestible message in the mid-1990s: the two-degree target. To avoid even greater damage to human beings and nature, the scientists warned, the temperature on Earth could not be more than two degrees Celsius higher than it was before the beginning of industrialization.

[...]

Rarely has a scientific idea had such a strong impact on world politics. Most countries have now recognized the two-degree target. If the two-degree limit were exceeded, German Environment Minister Norbert Röttgen announced ahead of the failed Copenhagen summit, “life on our planet, as we know it today, would no longer be possible.“

But this is scientific nonsense. “Two degrees is not a magical limit — it’s clearly a political goal,” says Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK). “The world will not come to an end right away in the event of stronger warming, nor are we definitely saved if warming is not as significant. The reality, of course, is much more complicated.”

Schellnhuber ought to know. He is the father of the two-degree target.

“Yes, I plead guilty,” he says, smiling. [emphasis added -hro]

More recently, Schellnhuber has declared [h/t dennisA]:

04/17/2013 – The preparations for the next climate agreement that is supposed to be reached in 2015 are already taking shape – and civil society [aka NGOs -hro] is being asked to accompany and support the EU’s development/decision process.

On invitation by Connie Hedegaard, the EU´s Commissioner for Climate Action, a number of experts and decision makers meet at a stakeholder´s conference in Brussels today.

Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, has been asked to hold a keynote on the state of play in climate science.

The conference in Brussels was organized to shape the EU’s input into negotiations on a new international agreement to protect the global climate system.

“This is the starting signal for the hardest stage on the path to the world climate agreement 2015,” Schellnhuber says. “When it comes to the facts of climate change, there has been a lot of confusion in the public debates recently, which interested circles seek to exploit and deepen.

“Now it is up to science to bring light into this darkness and to draw a realistic picture of the challenges ahead for the public in Europe. On this basis citizens can make informed decisions.” [emphasis added -hro

Seems to me that those in the Ashton/Mabey/Schellnhuber circles of influence (not unlike BC's Andrew Weaver) have no qualms about putting the enviro-advocacy cart ahead of any evidentiary horses.

Do they care - or even realize - that the graphic images and icons (polar bears and hockey-sticks) based on flimsy "science" they have constructed to support them are being unravelled almost as fast as they come off the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)'s just-in-time assembly-line?

It was these flimsy "science" constructions, reconstructions (and rapid deconstructions, thanks to people such as Climate Audit's Steve McIntyre, Bishop Hill's Andrew Montford and Polar Bear Science's Susan Crockford) that were running through my mind when I came across the following video [h/t Digging In The Clay's Verity Jones]. The music isn’t exactly what I would have chosen (so you may want to turn down your speakers), but the images are quite compelling, wouldn’t you agree? ;-)

Alternatively, from a (turn up your speakers) musical perspective, the following [h/t my Dad] offers an equally amusing depiction of “footprints” and these inter-related enviro-activists’ endeavours. Enjoy :-)

UNEP B4E party’s over … Did Chatham House rule?

As I wrote yesterday (well I began writing yesterday and posted early today) the UNEP’s “Business for the Environment” (aka B4E) “8th annual B4E Global Summit” was scheduled to take place in Delhi, April 15-16.

Just in case you’ve forgotten, the theme was “EMERGING MARKET LEADERSHIP FOR GLOBAL GREEN GROWTH”.

So I was hoping that by now I’d be able to update you on the visions of “innovative”, “inclusive” whatevers that might have danced through the participants’ heads. And I know you’ll be as disappointed as I am to realize that it is now approx. 3:30 a.m. April 17 in Delhi, and – as far as I’ve been able to determine from the B4E website – radio silence seems to have descended approx. 18 hours ago, the time of their last tweet:

B4ESummit #B4E Day 2 – Insightful discussion panels on innovative #BizPractices, emerging markets’ #GreenGrowth, #CleanEnergy

I did, however, find the “draft” Agenda (which did not indicate whether or not any changes might have been made since its [undated] appearance).

According to this Agenda, the “facilitator” was a Charles Emmerson, “Independent Advisor and Senior Fellow, Chatham House”.

Emmerson was scheduled to be the Moderator of a Day 2 Session:

Report and proposals from Day One working group Chairs and dialogue on outcomes
Solutions for inclusive, green and sustainable urban development

He was also scheduled along with:

Ranjit Barthakur, Secretary-General / Chairman, Club of Rome India / Globally Managed Services (GMS)

to deliver “Closing Remarks”.

In case you were wondering, here’s some background on Chatham House:

Chatham House Rule

The Chatham House Rule originated at Chatham House with the aim of providing anonymity to speakers and to encourage openness and the sharing of information. It is now used throughout the world as an aid to free discussion. Meetings do not have to take place at Chatham House, or be organized by Chatham House, to be held under the Rule.

Meetings, events and discussions held at Chatham House are normally conducted ‘on the record’ with the Rule occasionally invoked at the speaker’s request. In cases where the Rule is not considered sufficiently strict, an event may be held ‘off the record’.

But the bottom-line “spirit” of the Rule, according to their FAQ, is:

Q. Can participants in a meeting be named as long as what is said is not attributed?

A. It is important to think about the spirit of the Rule. For example, sometimes speakers need to be named when publicizing the meeting. The Rule is more about the dissemination of the information after the event – nothing should be done to identify, either explicitly or implicitly, who said what.

Emmerson is evidently one of their “Experts” whose Expertise lies in:

• Global risk, foresight and strategy
• Security, geopolitics, natural resources and climate
• Arctic geopolitics and geo-economics
• Soft power and foreign policy
• Global governance

Oh, my … there they go again, talking about “global governance”. I wonder if this has been any better defined than TEEB’s “green economy”. And I also wonder why the UNEP’s media machine – always very quick to spin a UNEP sponsored meeting into the greatest thing since sliced bread – seems to be maintaining radio silence on the outcome of this “global summit”.

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 sings the money song (again)

The new, improved United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) has a COW (Committee of the Whole) and even does CPR (Committee of Permanent Representatives) … but it is not exactly off to a good start. From the IISD’s report of proceedings on Feb. 18:

ORGANIZATIONAL MATTERS: The plenary elected Hassan Abdel Hilal, Minister of Environment, Forests and Physical Development, Sudan, as GC-27/GMEF President. Ryutaro Yatsu (Japan), Antonio Otávio Sá Ricarte (Brazil) and Idunn Eidheim (Norway), were elected Bureau Vice-Presidents; and Beata Jaczewska (Poland) was elected Rapporteur.

[...]

With CANADA, the US also expressed concern regarding the President of the session, noting that Sudan is currently subject to UN Security Council sanctions and therefore is not an “appropriate choice for leadership.” [emphasis added -hro]

Did this concern result in any corrective action on the part of the new, improved UNEP? Not bloomin’ likely! But the “concern” did make it into the “final” report from the IISD.

For the record, here are some interesting (if not telling) word counts from this final report:

0 Greenhouse
0 Emissions
1 IPCC
7* UNFCCC

* Including this gem from UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) head honcho, Christina Figueres who:

observed that “strengthening UNEP is not an end in itself but a means to an end.” She called for enhancing UNEP’s ability to support governments and people on the path towards sustainability and welcomed the UNFCCC decision on the Climate Technology Centre to entrust it to an international consortium led by UNEP, which she said will accelerate understanding of, and access to, clean technology to help address global technology challenges. [emphasis added -hro]

11 IPBES
19 mercury
24 Green economy
41 Finance/Financing/Financial
57 Executive Director**

** aka Akim Steiner who’s never encountered a possible “concern” that could not be transformed into a full-blown threat to the future of the planet requiring … you guessed it … more of our money.

I think the following would be an excellent theme song for the Alarmist-in-Chief, Steiner, don’t you?

 
But I digress …

16 Law (in close proximity to one or more of:)
142 environment/environmental*** and/or
86 sustainable

*** including 3 instances of “environmental crimes”

I would strongly encourage you to read the entire IISD summary for yourself. But in the meantime, here are some of my impressions …

The new, improved UNEP is – in effect – a means of increasing the tentacles, reach and budget of Achim Steiner – and his army of acoloytes and lesser lights. One can put out one hell of a lot of propaganda with disposable financial resources as noted by:

The final decision (UNEP/GC.27/CW/L.5) contains sections on: the medium-term strategy for the period 2014-2017 and biennial programme of work and budget for 2014-2015, and management of trust funds and earmarked contributions.

Regarding the medium-term strategy, the GC, inter alia:

• approves the medium-term strategy for the period 2014-2017 and the programme of work for the biennium 2014-2015, as well as, approves appropriations for UNEP in the amount of US$245 million, of which US$110 million is allocated to 2014, and a maximum of US$122 million is allocated to defraying post costs for the biennium for executive direction and management, programmes of work, the Fund programme reserve, and programme support;

And lest we forget, the UNEP is an organization – which, to the best of my knowledge, has yet to comply with voluntary reporting of its procurements – is the highest flying carbon emitting UN agency, with “Air travel as a proportion of total emissions: 94%”.

Oh, and one more – not in the least bit surprising – takeaway. It seems that whatever voice has already been granted – and enhanced – to the accredited NGOs (or in UN-speak “civil society”) is just not enough. Be sure to take a look at the section:

COLLABORATION AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

While Major Groups warmly welcomed the commitment of Rio+20’s paragraph 88(h) to “explore new mechanisms” to promote UNEP’s transparency and effective engagement of civil society, some developing countries expressed concern about the modalities for achieving this, and the implications for the intergovernmental character of its governing body. Participation in decision making, especially, was seen as the prerogative of states, including, for some, the ability to make written submissions on pending GC [Governing Council] decisions.

Major Groups expressed disappointment with what they saw as a conservative GC decision. Some lamented that the decision drew on only generalities from the eleven principles of stakeholder participation that the Major Groups had agreed on at the Global Major Groups and Stakeholders Forum that took place prior to the GC

Translation: Watch for more pressure tactics from Big Green’s high profile NGOs … no doubt coming soon to a monitor near you, courtesy of duly trained activist-tainted “journalists” (aided and abetted, I suspect, by a flurry of Press Releases and/or “papers” from the UNEP’s vast publication empire and its affiliates in Gleickland and/or facsimiles thereof).

Not to mention a (timely or coincidental?!) forthcoming paper in which, as blogger Jurriaan Maessen notes the authors (one of whom happens to be the notorious Paul Ehrlich) propose:

arousing the concept of cognitive dissonance in the minds of people in order to guide the herd towards “proenvironmental” citizenship.

[and very conveniently suggest]:

“Teams might be supported by permanent entities that maintain communication with policymakers; these will differ among nations but could be attached to the United Nations and its subsidiary bodies in the international context. One potential model is a national commitment of scientific talent in the service of United Nations agencies.”

[and]

“These teams could also be charged with anticipating crises and evaluating potential policy responses in advance, since detailed evaluation in the midst of a crisis may be problematic; such emergency preparedness would probably focus on the immediate effects of policies on behaviors rather than on changing social norms, because this is likely to be of greatest relevance in a crisis.”

YMMV, but the view from here is that it is long past time for those of us in the civilized world to insist that our governments obtain a “divorce” from the United Nations and all its subsidiary agencies and programs.

The fact is that the policies they have succeeded in engineering to date are [h/t Robin Guenier via discussion at Bishop Hill, (Feb 24, 2013 at 5:52 PM)]:

damaging, potentially disastrous and, in any case, pointless

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!

Kyoto klimateers in Kenya

As Donna Laframboise (to whom thanks and congratulations are due for her 500 posts since April 2009) wrote the other day, the BBC has egg on on its face following a bogus claim by David Attenborough in a recent TV program. Even Leo Hickman, of the greenest of ‘em all U.K. Guardian – whose reputation for fact-checking before publishing is far from examplary – could not let this one pass unchallenged. Attenborough had claimed:

Some parts of the [African] continent have become 3.5C hotter in the past 20 years.

In a post, yesterday, Shub Niggurath expands on the connections Laframboise had uncovered and asks:

[...] why does Kenya want a climate bill, one wonders. It turns out, that it wants to ‘reduce’ greenhouse gas ‘emissions’. The aborted law had a provision to throw you in jail, for five years, if you flouted it

But I’m sure it must be sheer coincidence that Nairobi, Kenya just happens to be the HQ for the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP)

The UNEP, parent of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and its highly unsuccessful Kyoto Protocol, as well as a multitude of other acronymic offspring, is about to celebrate 40 years of generating and promulgating increasingly scary stories – and its recently acquired “upgraded” status in the UN maze.

So, I know you’ll you’ll be just as thrilled as I was to learn that (all emphases that follow are mine -hro]:

First Universal Session of UNEP Governing Council to Galvanize New Environmental Era in Support of a Sustainable Century

Hundreds of environment ministers, decision makers, scientists, civil society representatives and business leaders are set to gather at the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) headquarters next week to galvanize a new era of stronger action on pressing environmental issues.

The delegates will be making a small but significant piece of history by attending the first ever meeting of the UNEP Governing Council/Global Ministerial Environment Forum (GC/GMEF) under universal membership as a result of the Rio+20 Summit held last year.

As well as charting a course for a strengthened UNEP that will help transform a wide body of science into concrete policy action, the meeting will cover many pressing and emerging issues, including: sustainable consumption and production patterns and the post-2015 Development Agenda, financing options for chemicals and waste, and system-wide coordination on Rio+20 follow-up.

UNEP will launch new reports outlining emerging issues such as the global consequences of rapidly receding ice in the Arctic, [...]

This “upgrade”, btw, “establish[es] the organization as the leading international authority that sets the global environmental agenda.”

Needless to say, during the course of this patting-themselves-on-the-back exercise in creative writing, the UNEP’s head honcho, Achim Steiner, is quoted:

“UNEP – with its long history of working with partners from governments, the UN family, cities, the scientific community, businesses and civil society – is entering a new phase that can better serve the needs of a growing global population while keeping humanity’s footprint within planetary boundaries,”

It would be interesting to know how “humanity’s footprint” (whatever that might mean in UN-speak) could exceed “planetary boundaries” (whatever they might mean in UN-speak), don’t you think?!

But – notwithstanding the single mention of”climate change” – against which the UNEP will “intensify the battle “- what struck me as being some rather, well, very conspicuous absences in this particular creative writing exercise from the ubiquitous – but uber-uninformed – Nick Nuttall, “Director of Communications and UNEP Spokesperson” was any mention of the IPCC or its “main client”, the UNFCCC.

Could it be that (as I had speculated a few years ago!) Steiner is about to throw … ooops … sorry, this is a UN body, where nothing ever happens (or certainly not quickly – unless, of course, it is to condemn Israel for defending itself) make that “moving towards throwing” the IPCC and the UNFCCC under the proverbial bus?!

BREAKING: Minamata Mercury – Finally, a UNEP success story?

The United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) is the parent of a plethora of panels, platforms and … scary stories.

They haven’t been particularly successful in getting The Future [They] Want via the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and its “primary client” the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

I reported a few days ago on the deliberations that began in Geneva on Jan. 13. This evening, as I was driving home in my trusty ’92 Toyota Tercel (and doing my best to emit some good old CO₂), I heard on the CBC news that the nations of the world (well, 140 of them, anyway) have reached an agreement on a ban (of sorts) on the use of mercury.

Because I don’t always trust the CBC as a news source, I did seek confirmation of this news. And here it is … straight from the keyboard of good old Nick Nutall, all-around contact guy at the conclusion of so many of these UNEP confabs. It even includes a quote from the always authoritative Achim Steiner, head honcho of the UNEP:

Minamata Convention Agreed by Nations

19/ 01/ 2013

Global Mercury Agreement to Lift Health Threats from Lives of Millions World-Wide

Geneva/Nairobi, 19 January 2013 – International effort to address mercury-a notorious heavy metal with significant health and environmental effects-was today delivered a significant boost with governments agreeing to a global, legally-binding treaty to prevent emissions and releases.

The Minamata Convention on Mercury-named after a city in Japan where serious health damage occurred as a result of mercury pollution in the mid-20th Century-provides controls and reductions across a range of products, processes and industries where mercury is used, released or emitted.

These range from medical equipment such as thermometers and energy-saving light bulbs to the mining, cement and coal-fired power sectors.

The treaty, which has been four years in negotiation and which will be open for signature at a special meeting in Japan in October, also addresses the direct mining of mercury, export and import of the metal and safe storage of waste mercury.

Pinpointing populations at risk, boosting medical care and better training of health care professionals in identifying and treating mercury-related effects will also form part of the new agreement.

[...]

Achim Steiner, UN Under-Secretary General and Executive Director of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) which convened the negotiations among over 140 member states in Geneva, said at the close:” After complex and often all night sessions here in Geneva, nations have today laid the foundations for a global response to a pollutant whose notoriety has been recognized for well over a century.”

“Everyone in the world stands to benefit from the decisions taken this week in Geneva- in particular the workers and families of small-scale gold miners, the peoples of the Arctic and this generation of mothers and babies and the generations to come. I look forward to swift ratification of the Minamata Convention so that it comes into force as soon as possible,” he said.

[...]

The negotiations were initially looking to set thresholds on the size of plants or level of emissions to be controlled. But it was decided this week to defer this until the first meeting of the treaty after it comes into force.

Notes to Editors

Background to the fifth session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee to prepare a global legally binding instrument on mercury (INC5) http://unep.org/hazardoussubstances/Mercury/Negotiations/INC5/tabid/3471/Default.aspx

Global Mercury Assessment 2013 http://www.unep.org/publications/contents/pub_details_search.asp?ID=6282

Time to Act http://www.unep.org/publications/contents/pub_details_search.asp?ID=6281
For More Information Please Contact Nick Nuttall, UNEP Spokesperson on Tel: +254 733632755 or when travelling +41 79 596 5737 [emphasis added -hro]

In my earlier post, I had noted that:

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.

I fully recognize that a sample of one success is not exactly anything to write home about; but perhaps the powers that be at the UNEP might ask themselves: “Is it time to dial-down the high profile Intergovernmental Panels and Platforms?”

Why not settle for the (possibly) more productive – and far lower profile – Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee? And for the UNEP’s sake, let’s hope that Minimata does not meet the same ignoble fate as Kyoto.

In the meantime, it will be interesting to see what solutions are proposed to address the problems caused by the “energy saving lightbulbs” they’ve been flogging far and wide for some years, now.

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?!

Climate change gaps in “ambition” … and in credibility

Believe it or not, yet another series of “informal climate talks” under the auspices of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) has just concluded in Bangkok.

According to the September 5 Press Release issued by the “United Nations Climate Change Secretariat”:

Bangkok climate talks make concrete progress on key issues ahead of Doha

(Bangkok, 5 September 2012) – A week of informal climate talks in Bangkok ended today with concrete progress on key issues across all three negotiating groups, setting a firmer base for decisions that will be made at the UN Climate Change Conference this year, in Doha.

“The investment in Bangkok has paid off. Government negotiators have pushed forward key issues further than many had expected and raised the prospects for a next successful step in Doha,” said Christiana Figueres, Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

“There are still some tough political decisions ahead, but we now have a positive momentum and a greater sense of convergence that will stimulate higher-level political discussions ahead of Doha and set a faster pace of work once this year’s conference begins,” she said.
[...]

Yet, for some strange reason, David Thorpe, News Editor of the U.K. Energy & Environmental Management blog had a somewhat different impression of the outcome of these talks [h/t GWPF via Twitter]:

Bangkok climate talks make little progress

The UN climate talks featuring delegates from 190 nations, that have been ongoing for the last week in Bangkok, Thailand, and which conclude today, have produced few concrete results.

The talks were happening against a backdrop of record Arctic ice melt, recent flooding in the Philippines, Asam and other areas, recent drought in the US, and an ongoing food crisis in the Sahel.

[...]

However, after one week of talks in Thailand, not a single country has made a fresh commitment, and US negotiators stunned delegates by calling for any new treaty to be ‘flexible’ and ‘dynamic’ rather than legally binding, representing a complete U-turn on its previous position.

[...]

At the summit, the UN released a report showing that several rich nations will not even meet their existing pledges to cut greenhouse gas emissions by the end of the decade, made at Copenhagen in 2009.

These nations include Australia, Canada, Japan, Mexico, South Africa, South Korea and the US.

The report, from the UN Environment Program, adds that even if all nations do meet their existing pledges, emissions of greenhouse gases will still reach between 50 and 55bn tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent, that is 11bn tonnes, or 20%, more than what is needed to try to keep temperature increases below 2°C.

“It’s still possible to meet a 2°C pathway, if there is sufficient political will,” commented Niklas Hoehne, and author of the report on Tuesday. “We’re not facing a participation gap here – it’s an ambition gap.”

Meanwhile, developed countries want the industrialised developing countries such as India, China and Brazil, to take more responsibility for cutting their emissions.

They say that if this was resolved, it would allow the issues of technology, finance, intellectual property lies and emissions from aviation and shipping, which are stymied, to be set aside while the responsibilities of the emerging economies are increased in the short and long-term and the rich countries take stronger action after 2020.

But this is unlikely to happen without further commitments from developed countries. Depressingly, it seems the stalemate continues.

Perhaps Thorpe got his story from a different Press Release?! But his article gives no indication of his source(s).

But back to the word according to the UNFCCC … It may (or may not) be worth noting that this particular press release is prefaced by the following:

For use of the media only

and that in lieu of the customary “For further information contact …” details, one finds (my bold):

About the UNFCCC

With 195 Parties, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) has near universal membership and is the parent treaty of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. The Kyoto Protocol has been ratified by 193 of the UNFCCC Parties. Under the Protocol, 37 States, consisting of highly industrialized countries and countries undergoing the process of transition to a market economy, have legally binding emission limitation and reduction commitments. The ultimate objective of both treaties is to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that will prevent dangerous human interference with the climate system.

See also: <http://unfccc.int/press/items/2794.php>
Follow UNFCCC on Twitter: @UN_ClimateTalks
UNFCCC Executive Secretary Christiana Figueres on Twitter: @CFigueres
UNFCCC on Facebook: facebook.com/UNclimatechange

Oh, my! Look how au courant with communication technology they’ve become! The only hyperlinked item in the above, btw, goes to another UNFCCC page called “Press News”. There one finds a link to a Final press release (also prefaced by “For use of the media only”). It seems to be all about … finance. Just in case you missed it the first time, this “Final” press release, is actually about the:

Transparent, interactive UNFCCC workshop on long-term climate change finance Bonn, 9-11 July

Governments, private sector and civil society work towards developing common understanding of how to scale up mobilization of long-term climate finance

Some excerpts from this three-day July Bonn meeting press release (my emphasis):

The three-day event, which ended today, was the first of two transparent, interactive UNFCCC workshops on long-term climate change finance this year. They were requested by governments as part of a work programme on long-term climate finance agreed at the UN Climate Change Conference in Durban at the end of 2011 (COP 17/ CMP 7).

“It is clear that we cannot continue to tackle climate change with old solutions, and that no one single source is going to be appropriate or sufficient to mobilize climate finance at a speed and scale that would allow people in developing countries to build their own climate-resilient futures. This event has allowed all stakeholders to think outside the box, to explore options in highly creative ways, and to pave
the way for stronger climate action,” said UNFCCC Executive Secretary Christiana Figueres.
[...]
The event was made accessible to all interested stakeholders with the help of live webcast, social media and an online platform on the UNFCCC website by which stakeholders could send in material and put questions to the two Chairs. More than 1,000 messages, comments and questions relating to the workshop were sent via Twitter using the #LTFchat hashtag or posted on Facebook.

Look at that, folks! This was the first of “two transparent, interactive … workshops”. I wonder when they will hold the second; after all, more than “1,000 messages, comments and questions” is nothing to sneeze at! Btw, I know you will be as disappointed as I was to find that #LTFchat has only four Tweets and that <very deep sigh> “Older Tweet[s] … are unavailable”.

That’s all folks!

A quick scan of their Facebook page does not do much for the credibility of this “More than 1,000 messages …” either. OTOH, if UNFCCC head honcho, Christiana Figueres (whose 667 Tweets are still visible) can be believed, there were far more than “1,000″:

Oh, well … I suppose one must keep in mind that these Press Releases are intended “For use of the media only”. And as we have seen members of the media are not known for conducting due diligence and fact-checking. So I’m sure that such discrepancies – and missing evidence – cannot possibly matter.

Then, again, perhaps one should consider the immortal words of the University of East Anglia’s Prince of Spinners, Neil Wallis – whose June 13, 2012 “witness statement” to the U.K. Leveson Inquiry (launched on the heels of last year’s News of the World phone-hacking scandal which saw Wallis being among those arrested for their involvement) suggests that others should do as he says (but probably not as he does!) In response to the Inquiry’s exploration of:

views on the specific benefits and risks to the public interest arising from relationships between senior politicians, at a national level, and the media. What does the public stand to gain from this relationship? [...]

Wallis had opined (pp. 3 & 4):

It is essential for the public to receive a more rounded impression of those elected in their name, as distinct from the one politicians would want them to accept. This rounded impression is not derived from the PR machines assembled by the Governments and other political parties. The views promulgated by the omnipresent PR machines are highly partial and contrived. In other words, propaganda. It is through the press and media speaking directly to politicians, civil servants and party officials that the true picture is teased out and emerges. [emphasis added -hro]

On the matter of “Role in Holdinq Politicians and the Powerful to Account”, Wallis had further opined (p. 5):

Holding politicians and the powerful to account is the single most important obligation of a free press. The major obstacle to the process of holding to account is that the politicians and the powerful do not want it to happen. The press even against the background of stringent libel and privacy laws has exposed the infidelities of countless corrupt practices of MPs and members of the House of Lords, and public figures. [emphasis added -hro]

In the past month, Wallis has been quite diligently acting as his own … uh …”highly partial and contrived PR machine” via Twitter and offering up a few self-serving whines via the Huffington Post in the U.K.

He’s not very keen on answering questions pertaining to the “true picture” of his involvement in the emergence of the “Poor Phil” propaganda he and his former colleague(s) had dished up for the University of East Anglia:

No answers from Wallis … quelle surprise, eh?

Which output from which “highly partial and contrived PR machine” are we to believe?! The UNFCCC? David Thorpe and Energy & Environmental Management? Figueres’ July account of the (now sadly missing) 1496 Tweets? The jury, of course, is still out on Wallis; however, his own reluctance to be held accountable strongly suggests that his words are to be taken with a very hefty grain of salt.

Ah, well that’s “climate change”, I suppose! So much “ambition” … so many “gaps” … so little credibility … and so many unanswered questions, eh?!