UN Climate Talks Bangkok; That’s Another Fail Then

Burhan Gafoor (Singapore): “We need to think not just agree to agree, but agree to disagree, but at this point we are disagreeing about what we disagree about.”

The latest United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) pre COP18 meeting in Bangkok has just finished, having achieved absolutely nothing at all.

The Bangkok meeting was supposed to pave the way for advancing the global Green agenda at COP18 in November, instead confusion ruled as attendees disagreed about whether they are actually allowed to disagree:

Jonathan Pershing (USA): “In this forum, we don’t highlight the capacity which we don’t agree, we highlight where we agree and let the rest be silent.”

Burhan Gafoor (Singapore): “We need to think not just agree to agree, but agree to disagree, but at this point we are disagreeing about what we disagree about.”

Khalid Abuleif (Saudi Arabia): “I think we need to consider a space to agree to disagree.”

Confused?

It gets more confusing, US negotiator John Pershing:

As Jonathan Pershing (or J.P as I like to call him) highlighted in yet another thrillingly patronizing lecture on the history of the UNFCCC, which included a strange new US interpretation of “Common But Differentiated Responsibility” and “Fairness” that has nothing to do with equity, but also included a momentary insight – that there is no space within the UNFCCC to “agree to disagree.

Agree to disagree is usually regarded to mean that those involved tolerate the opposing position, but do not accept the opposing position, a possible route for compromise thankfully ruled out by Pershing and his all or nothing approach.

The Bangkok talks have ended with no new agreements or deals, and huge loads of political Greenwash spin trying to convince the delegates, and the world that the COP18 negotiations are back on track:

A Japanese negotiator told RTCC these had been ‘slow, dull, calm and peaceful’ negotiations which were on the whole ‘positive’.

Which translates to we achieved nothing that is concrete and tangible, but there were some really nice people we had dinner with every night.

An ‘unofficial paper’ outlining how a second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol could work has been produced, while discussions over the format of the Durban Platform have been termed ‘productive’.

Little progress appears to have been made over the future of the Long-term Cooperative Action (LCA) negotiating stream, with familiar disagreements between developed and developing countries. A text may or may not be released later today.

Discussions over finance were described as ‘useful’ but there have been no new pledges. It is accepted that a new round of Fast Start Finance needs to be agreed in Qatar, but concrete commitments have yet to be made.

However you try and spin it,  Bangkok 2012 achieved nothing, political double speak like “productive” and “useful” are just euphemisms for failure and wishful thinking.

About Tory Aardvark

Climate Realist, Conservative and proud NRA member. I don't buy into the Man Made Global Warming Scam, science is never settled. http://toryaardvark.com @ToryAardvark on Twitter ToryAardvark on Facebook

Posted on September 5, 2012, in Anthropogenic Global Warming, Church Of Climatology, Climate Change, Green Lies, Wealth Redistribution and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink. 5 Comments.

  1. Achieved nothing, but the night life was great

  2. Furor Teutonicus

    What I find encouraging, even the rabidly melonised German press have given up doing anything other than mentioning these “conferences” in passing, these days.

    Wait long enough, and the idiots will just go away and leave us alone.

    • Bangkok got no MSM coverage in Britain, really had to dig around to find anything on it, it will be interesting to see if COP18 gets much coverage.

    • If you’d lived as long as I have, you’d know that the idiots never go away and leave us alone.

      If we could find productive work for them to do, they might just learn that money, ie wealth, comes from the equation W=e2, where W=money and e2=effort-doubled.

      Plus, of course, they fail to understand the inherent dangers of expenditure based on Fiat Money.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: