 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
COP-17 - a comment on the outcome and perceptions of it
Typically, most Governments and the entire global media - printed & broadcast - refuse to acknowledge & deal with this issue. The CBI says, "Durban shows UNFCCC not dead in the water" while Durban UNFCCC shows the islands are. In other words, inclusivity trumped urgency and equity at COP-17. As of today [11 December 2011] with this 'Durban Deal', AOSIS voices were summarised by Karl Hood of Grenada [AOSIS Chairman] like this:
"Must we accept our annihilation?"
"While they develop, we die; and why should we accept this?"Ambassador Jumeau of Seychelles COP 17
"You are all small Islanders. Don't save us, save yourselves. We are one & the same."
As the numbers clearly show - everybody could see this and everybody knew this. The islands are being annihilated and we all are now become their assassins. We have informally known this but with this 'Durban-Deal' we all have now formally crossed that threshold.
The Malidives are now exploring the possibilities of evacuating to Australia
Dear Paul Toyne
Thank you for you Guardian article: -
I am glad you agree [with my comments upon it] but I am not sure what you are agreeing with.
1400 Giga Tonnes of CO2 is about 380 GTC [carbon only]. If that is the path-integral total of an emissions 'contraction-and-convergence-event for UNFCCC-compliance, it exceeds the 225 GTC the AOSIS C&C-event total by 155 GTC and ensures much destruction. However, it is less than the > 480 GTC-event that as a best case is implicit in the Durban Deal: -
Greater detail here: -
The basic problem here is not 'uncertainty'. The basic problem is that diplomats, lobbyists, activists and journalists are *drastically out of touch with the basic arithmetic* for UNFCCC-compliance: -
It is from within that fog of innumeracy that country-ships have passed in the UNFCCC-night, boldly picking numbers out of a hat and then having an almighty punch-up about how 'unfair' that 'roulette' is, again and again. This has been the case, all the way from COP-1 Berlin in 1995 until the present day. During just this 20 years we have around 80 GTC to the atmosphere.
Are you agreeing about that?
When you ask: -
"Can we organise ourselves in such a way as to put national interests aside and consider humanity and the health of our planet first?"
I would answer yes - or I hope so - but only when we recognise the need to adopt a central organising principle on how to globally quantify and internationally share what is left of the 'emissions-entitlements' that a stable climate can sustain. In other words we must exchange the 'carbon-carousel' we're on for the 'carbon-countdown' that we need: -
The relevance of Rio+20 that you raise - like everything else - is completely hostage to the unresolved climate/financial crisis the combination of which now threatens to destroy us.
What started out as our collective naivete about these things 20 years ago, has degraded now to the level where most journalists - of this paper included - now report on this whole process as though the prizes were for untrammelled bathos accompanied but their voluble, opinionated and credulous reporting of it.
If it is 'signals that we are on the right track' that you want, Durban sadly didn't provide them.
