UPDATE: 07/20/2014 07:39 PM (PDT)
In a comment below, the amazingly awesome Alex has provided a link to his transcript of Part 3 of AR5 The Movie.
There’s now a transcript of Part III (with links to transcripts of Parts I and II) here:
It’s well worth a read! [End Update]
As I had noted in mid-April, when the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) held its somewhat wooden post-meeting Press Conference on the conclusions of Working Group (WG) III:
Sad to say that (at least to date) there’s no sign of yet another sequel to AR5 The Movie.
If there was any fanfare (or even E-mail notification to subscribers of their “Channel”) surrounding the Jun 6, 2014 release of Part 3, then I must have missed it.
Needless to say, in its typically “transparent, open” fashion, the powers that be at the IPCC have determined that comments on this movie are not permitted.
Quelle surprise, eh?! Although I suppose it would be interesting to know the reason for the lag twixt report release and movie release.
Perhaps it has something to do with the ever-widening credibility gap into which the IPCC is falling, notwithstanding the very best efforts of the current group of movers and shakers* to claim otherwise!
*Not the least of whom is Ireland’s former PM, Mary Robinson who was recently elevated to the position of “Special Envoy on Climate Change” by UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki-Moon.
To slightly paraphrase an old song…
… So, here’s to you, Mrs. Robinson / Ki-Moon holds a special place / For those who say (such things as):
We need to change the debate on climate change – to move beyond its construct as a scientific or environmental problem and to realise that it is in essence an issue of development and of rights. Taking a climate justice approach to climate change means you respect human rights. I particularly welcome the Human Rights Council’s reaffirmation that human rights principles and obligations can inform and strengthen policy making on climate change at all levels.
But I digress … Unlike the IPCC, I encourage you to feel free to add your comments below;-)
20 thoughts on “IPCC very quietly released Part 3 of AR5 The Movie”
Interestingly, it’s possible to agree with Mrs Robinson’s statement (above) and yet to urge actions that are almost certainly diametrically opposed to those she supports. Here’s how:
Yes, let’s move from sterile debate about the science of climate change and the environment and focus instead on how best to improve human development, justice and human rights. And there can be no better way of achieving these than the improvement of well-being by eradicating extreme poverty and hunger and providing access to healthcare, clean water, education, efficient agriculture and good communication. And recent peer-reviewed research has indicated the best way to achieve these ends.** An extract: “Humans use fossil fuels in various activities tied to economic development, leading to increases in carbon emissions and economic development is widely recognized as a pathway to improving human well-being.” An outstanding example is provided by China: because of affordable, reliable electric power derived from inexpensive fossil fuels, mainly coal, it has lifted over 600 million people out of poverty in the last 30 years. It’s hardly surprising other developing economies are determined to emulate that astonishing achievement.
But it’s probably not what Mrs Robinson has in mind.
Bingo! And on a somewhat related note, as I had commented at Pointman’s a few weeks ago:
And because past experience has shown that silent – i.e. un-noted – fixes are not beyond the skills of those at the UNEP and/or its stable of acronymic offspring, here’s the evidence of my last para. above:
Bottom line, from my perspective, is that what we’ve seen over the past year or so are increasing indications (that while it is unlikely to be officially acknowledged) of a shift in emphasis from ‘CO2 is the greatest threat to mankind all the time’ to the more ephemeral cr*p, such as that voiced by Robinson in my post (and in the 60 page glossy noted above).
She is the total “Common Purpose” apparatchik. As Roy Spencer said, it’s not about science it’s about money and politics.
I wonder if these are the human rights Mary Robinson has in mind?
Perhaps this is what she means :
Thanks, jdseanjd. Btw, your URL doesn’t seem to work. So try this one:
Or this :
Between 2000 & 2010, 500 million acres of land in Asia, Africa, Latin America & the Caribbean…..
Here’s to you, Mrs Robinson ..I.-
Sorry, I spelt bank with an l not a k above. Ajolopies. Getting careless in my old age.
Correct ref, I hope :
Further to my earlier post, I made much the same point (that the best way of eradicating poverty and thus improving human rights is by burning fossil fuels) here: http://www.rtcc.org/2014/07/18/make-2015-count-campaigners-urge-on-mandelas-birthday/
PS: despite its being a green oriented site, RTCC publishes a lot of interesting data – especially about the state of international negotiations. For example, to anyone reading between the lines, it’s provided a wealth of evidence about just how hopeless a cause the 2015 UN climate change conference in Paris is likely to be.
I agree about RTCC and find it useful; hopefully they will provide plenty of coverage of the upcoming Ban Ki-moon summit in September, for instance.
On the subject of reading between the lines, the IPCC WG III video probably has some potential for this. There seems to be a Plan A (drastic GHG mitigation before 2030) and a Plan B (even more drastic GHG mitigation after 2030), neither of which seem likely to actually happen. Indeed, one of the speakers expresses his and others’ pessimism “about the speed and ease and cost with which countries can adopt aggressive policies that will be needed.”
The BECCS scenario seems particularly desperate, being a combination of the current biofuels madness and the mirage of CCS. The narrator tells us that “upscaling bioenergy production comes with risks for food security, water resources, biodiversity and livelihoods.” In a world awash with cheap coal and fracked gas, no-one is going to want to do this.
Like Alex, above, I totally agree both re the RTCC (which I have quoted from time to time here) and the unlikelihood of success in Paris.
This may well be why Ki-Moon’s Sept. “High Level” confab has been oh-so-conveniently timed to coincide with the “launch” of a new report (from Stern – of Stern Report infamy – & Mexico’s Calderón) which I wrote about earlier this month. Excerpt:
But I had to chuckle to myself when I read that their “Approach” section includes:
See https://hro001.wordpress.com/2014/07/02/un-enters-us4-5-trillion-twilight-zone/ for further details.
It’s possible to go to RTCC on almost any day and find a current article providing evidence of the hopelessness of Paris 2015. For example, today the top item under “Latest” is headed: “Finnish minister ‘optimistic’ on UN climate deal.” Hmm – that doesn’t seem likely to provide such evidence. But it does – in spades. The article refers to “the skeleton of a text” showing how developed and developing countries “can contribute to the overall common good”. And there’s a link to that text (a UN “shopping list”). Go there (interesting and itself far from encouraging – RTCC reporters are usually honest) and there’s a link to the UN’s “22-page document”. Go there – and there’s the text in all it’s UN-speak glory. There’s a lot that could be quoted from this. But really there’s no need to go any further than “I. General and preambular elements” (See what I mean by UN-speak?) And the very first of the “Guiding principles” states:
“The 2015 agreement is to be under the Convention and guided by its principles, including common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities (CBDR) … Confirming that the agreement must not be a rewriting or renegotiating of the Convention and: Be based on CBDR, equity and historical responsibility … Be in full accordance with its provisions, in particular Article 4 as well as existing decisions and the structure of the Convention, including its annexes, as they remain a valid reflection of responsibilities for historical emissions … ”
Apologies for all that. But these – and remember this is a UN document – reinforce the very problem that has bedevilled negotiations since Copenhagen. And that is that “the Convention” (i.e. the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)), agreed in 1992, no longer makes sense in today’s world. Article 4.7. for example states that “economic and social development and poverty eradication are the first and overriding priorities of the developing country Parties”. In other words, developing economies are, under International Law, expressly allowed to increase emissions in pursuit of economic growth. Yet in 1992 developing economies were responsible for about 30% of emissions. Today that’s about 70%. If they can increase emissions, any deal is meaningless. And that’s why the US and EU (responsible between them for only 24% – less than China, a “developing” economy) want all this changed. Yet here’s the UN saying it’s not going to happen: no rewriting, no renegotiating.
Why this should make Ville Niinisto (that Finnish minister) “more optimistic” is beyond me.
I hope this is not getting off topic – but here’s another extraordinary example from RTCC today: http://www.rtcc.org/2014/07/21/australia-carbon-axe-leaves-poor-helpless-says-zambia-minister/ On the face of it looks like another greenie attack on Australia. But persevere (which few readers will do) and it tells a very different story: it’s really about how ‘African leaders quietly acknowledge China’s responsibility, but rarely make a stand within the influential G77 + China negotiating bloc, because they want to maintain pressure on western countries’. “… that’s how the game is played. China pollutes more than most – but you’ll not hear anyone in that group of 77 condemning China.”
Fascinating and revealing stuff. And you have to go to RTCC to find it.
A striking example of fossil fuels vs poverty in the developing world is Bangladesh, now poised to go for coal in a big way. There’s an article in the NY Times which makes the point (despite the writer being a warmist and condemning it as a “delusion”):
Why is Bangladesh embracing coal-fired energy? The writer blames corruption (as if corruption was something that was unique to fossil fuels and didn’t apply to renewables.) What else, though?
“It is also because of basic economics: The power generated by the renewables project on Sandwip Island, for example, is still so expensive that the plant runs at only 50 percent of its capacity because locals can’t afford to buy the electricity, even when it is discounted.”
There’s now a transcript of Part III (with links to transcripts of Parts I and II) here:
Given the low-key release of the movie, you have to wonder who the target audience are (aside from random YouTubers) – in combination with the high production values, it does make this seem a bit like the video equivalent of an item in a company’s glossy in-house magazine.
Thanks, so much, Alex. Once again, you have gone above and beyond the call of duty :-)
I have added an update to my post with link to your transcript.
@guenier … Oh, don’t get me started on UN-speak! I don’t know how much you’ve explored on my site, but, suffice it to say that this has long been one of my pet-peeves!
As for Ville Niinisto being “more optimistic” notwithstanding all the UN-speak verbiage bubbling forth … according to Wikipedia (not always the most reliable of sources, I quite agree) evidently, he is:
It’s also worth checking out Wiki’s entry on Ville Niinistö’s Green League
And – unless my memory fails me – Finland has often been first out of the gate when it comes to committing funds to UN ventures (both pro-green and anti-Israel!)
So my guess would be that reality doesn’t seem to interfere much with Niinistö’s perceptions! ‘Cuz it’s all for the good of “the cause”! And I’m inclined to think he would have been quite happy to see his name in lights outside his own bailiwick, so to speak (she says somewhat cynically!)
As for Zambia … Well, what can I say?! In my view, people in these poorer countries are all being used and abused by the UNEP (and/or other UN agencies).
Yep – so here we have Zambia (etc) being exploited by China and not daring to speak up about it. And, at the same time, the UN is busily setting in stone the international law that gives China a free hand to continue as it wishes. Yet people like Niinisto think things are going well.
I had written:
Ooops … I can’t believe I really wrote that! My brain must be turning to mush – either that or my memory really is failing me! I was actually thinking Norway (well, at least part of my brain was!) which does have a deservedly bad rep (on both counts).
Finland, OTOH has a very good rep both as an upholder of good climate science practices [as I had noted in one of my early posts here: they did a very thorough job on Finnish TV as early as Dec./09] – and as an early affirmative voter at the UN’s establishment of the State of Israel, with which country they still have good trade and relations.
So my hope would be that Niinistö and his “Green League” are somewhat borderline exceptions that Finland was quite happy to send to the UNFCCC because they (perhaps wisely?!) knew that the deliberations were unlikely to result in any significant changes;-)
Pingback: Mary, Quite Contrary | ALEXJC38