Climate Conversation Group

Taking the heat out of global warming

For the first time in history, people shouting “the end is nigh” are somehow
the sane ones, while those of us who say it is not are now the lunatics.

  • rss
  • Home
  • Open threads
    • Climate – how to use open threads
      • Meteorology
      • Global warming
      • Climate science
        • Climate Models
        • Papers
        • Atmosphere
        • Temperature records
        • Energy and fuel
        • Solar
        • Ocean heat content
        • Radiation, radiative imbalance
        • Sea levels
        • Ocean acidification
        • Polar regions, glaciers and ice
      • Regions
        • Europe
        • Asia
        • South America
        • Africa
        • Australia
        • UK
        • USA
        • Pacific
        • New Zealand
      • News
      • Controversy and scandal
        • Skeptical Science
      • Disproving AGW
      • Economics
    • Politics
      • ETS and carbon taxes
    • UN
      • IPCC organisation
      • IPCC politics
      • IPCC science
      • NIPCC
  • Opinion polls
    • SckSckSck
    • Your view of CO2
    • Collective noun for icebergs
    • Stop the ETS
  • Climate of Freedom Tour
  • Files
    • Climate Realists
      • Newsletter #17 6 May 2010
      • Newsletter #16 28 Apr 2010
      • Newsletter #6 11 Feb 2010
      • Newsletter #4 2011
    • News releases
      • February 8, 2010
      • December 20, 2010
    • Wind turbine failures
  • About

Death of Kyoto – a Scottish view

Guest author | September 23, 2012

Dear fellow followers of the Climate debate,

As a result of finding out that the Kyoto commitments technically comes to an end on the 31st December, the Scottish Climate & Energy Forum have been investigating the likely consequences of this both in terms of what is likely to happen to the protocol and the wide implications when (as it seems) the protocol effectively ends operation on the 31st December.

We have written this up as a report. The main intention of this report has been to try to find the actual facts and having sorted the chaff from the wheat, ascertain what this might mean (with particular emphasis on Scotland).

The report has been produced to coincide with today which is 100 days to Kyoto Ends, and it is available on the website (pdf).

For obvious reasons, the report is biased toward Scotland and we can only really speak with authority about the Scottish context. We will welcome any comments on the report, criticism or suggestions for improvement.

regards,
Mike Haseler

Summary of main conclusions

  1. Commitments under the Kyoto Protocol cease as of 31st December.
  2. The 3rd October 2012 is the latest date at which any amendment to the Kyoto protocol could have been passed for it to be operational by 1st January 2013.
  3. With no meeting planned, and huge delays for members states to ratify, there is no practical way for an amendment to be presented and ratified by the 143 members (3/4 of members).
  4. When the commitment ceases on the 31st December, all operational Articles stop being effective. The only active clauses appear to be 5 & 19 (estimate of greenhouse gases), 8 (review of national inventories) & 11 (financial obligations to undeveloped countries). Administrative functions such as meetings and procedures for amendments remain active.
  5. There is talk of bypassing domestic procedures for ratification by amending articles 20 & 21 to allow the amendment to enter into force before it is ratified by the parties. This will allow it to enter into force earlier than otherwise but will not stop the commitment ceasing on 31st December.
  6. In an almost unprecedented move, there is talk of a last minute extra-Kyoto-protocol agreement where some countries (particularly the EU) intend to agree to Kyoto-like commitments after the Kyoto protocol commitment ceases.

Political Impacts

  1. The practical effect of Kyoto has been marginal even possibly counter-productive.
  2. Kyoto was a symbol of a global political consensus. That political consensus has come to an end.
  3. It is most likely the Nov/Dec Climate talks will not agree any substantive extension to Kyoto or that it will be changed in any other way. If the goodwill was not there to change the commitments in the last 3 years it is not there to hurry through other changes which would reduce state influence.
  4. Europe, the main proponent for Kyoto, is likely to try to induce enough other states to assent to a form of political deal to give cover for the lack of Kyoto Commitments.
  5. Sometime over the next year, green groups will realise Kyoto has ended and start campaigning vociferously for a replacement to Kyoto. But their main impact will be to raise public awareness that Kyoto has ended and undermine emissions reduction policy.
  6. Anti wind & anti EU Parties like the UK Independence Party, will start campaigning in opposition to the European policy on climate. As wind opposition is growing, this will have knock on effects. In the UK it will push the Conservatives to become anti-wind potentially destabilising the UK coalition where the Lib Dems are strong advocates for climate policy.
  7. Scotland is in for a storm: historical accident; impending solar minimum; a government heavily committed to wind subsidies, needing to prove its economic credibility as oil runs out; these will make energy & climate a critical issue in the independence debate.

Mike Haseler, Chairman of Scottish Climate and Energy Forum
email: mike@scef.org.uk
Tel: 0845 10 88 500
Address: 7 Poplar Drive, Lenzie, E.Dunbartonshire, G66 4DN, Scotland

Categories
General
Tags
Kyoto Protocol, Mike Haseler, Sceptics, Scotland
Comments rss
Comments rss
Trackback
Trackback

« Greens say vote against dolphin protection ‘outrageous’ Arctic sea ice dispersed by storm – not hot air »

8 Responses to “Death of Kyoto – a Scottish view”

  1. Andy says:
    September 23, 2012 at 4:39 pm

    Things are getting rather interesting in Scotland, with Alex Salmond apparently on a mission to concrete over the Scottish Highlands with windfarms, creating “100% renewable” energy whilst sacrificing the tourist industry in the process.

    He also wants independence from England, yet seems unaware that his loony scheme depends entirely on subsidies from England.

    Reply
    • Andy says:
      September 23, 2012 at 6:15 pm

      Speaking of wind, Richard North and Christopher Booker report the chaos that is ensuing in Germany’s wind industry and a similar fate awaits the UK if it continues down this track

      Reply
  2. Australis says:
    September 23, 2012 at 5:47 pm

    The EU enthusiasm for Kyoto has always been based on its massive 1997 coup, when it had 1990 fixed as the base year for calculations of emission volumes. This gave EU countries a competitive benefit against the rest of the world.

    1991 was the year when North Sea gas came ashore in both the UK and the continent, and there were wholesale closures in the coal industry. In the East, 1991-3 was the period when scores of ex-Soviet heavy industries (mostly coal-powered) closed down.

    The other driver was that Kyoto is the only international treaty ever entered into by the EU itself, with all E27 countries sharing the costs and benefits internally. This is seen by many Eurocrats as a major unifying force.

    Non-EU countries are unlikely to buy the “1990 base year” in any Kyoto replacement. So Europe wants to hang on to what it’s got, and keep hoping for some opportunity to benefit.

    All that’s understandable enough. But I’m damned if I can understand what’s in it for Alex Salmond.

    Reply
  3. Harry Dale Huffman says:
    September 24, 2012 at 4:16 am

    Beyond unthinkingly merely stating that the “consensus has come to an end”, there is no appreciation for the demonstrated fact that the scientific consensus is not only wrong, but incompetent, and has been all along. I must consider this statement rather an “ignorant view”, and just more avoidance behavior on the part of the current generation of leaders and authorities. It is all a waste of time and human effort now, designed at best only to cover those leaders’ and authorities’ rear ends. Bad cess to them all.

    Reply
  4. Andy says:
    September 24, 2012 at 8:15 am

    Also on Scotland, Andrew Montford writes of Alex Salmond’s wind farm delusion

    Reply
  5. Alexander K says:
    September 24, 2012 at 1:19 pm

    About half of my genetic inheritance is Scots and I am proudly aware of the contribution that the Scots made to the advancement of science and engineering which, in its turn, paved the way for the modern world as we know it. The Scots were pioneers in so much of the technology we take for granted now, but what happened to that wonderfully optomistic spirit of enquiry? I suspect that a tremendous number of adventurous and innovative Scots exported themselves to the New World, damaging the remaining gene pool and leaving the timorous and weak behind.
    Salmond and his ilk appear to firmly believe in a bizarre mix of nationalistic, engineering and scientific myths, dooming their tartan fairyland to a reliance upon the vagaries of medieval technology, a bleak future indeed.

    Reply
  6. Flipper says:
    September 24, 2012 at 7:43 pm

    Hi Richard et al…
    I sent your helpful Scottish piece to my good friend Rupert Wyndham, in the UK.
    His response, just received:

    ” No, I hadn’t; thanks for sending. Time will tell, but I think the Scottish drive for independence is running on a punctured tyre and Salmond is increasingly seen as a bit of a blow-hard.

    In my estimation, there will be no follow-up to Kyoto. The 3rd World, so termed, has finally cottoned on. Climate change is just a device to keep them in subjection. Don’t get me wrong. The world is not a fair place, and it may be necessary that they should be kept in subjection for as long as possible (ie for our own comfort’s sake), but don’t let’s insult them as well by pretending that it’s being done for their own good.

    Wonderful how pinkoes and watermelons so easily adopt the mantle of good, honest, old imperialism!

    ATB

    R”

    Ouch !!!!

    Reply
    • Andrew W says:
      September 24, 2012 at 8:19 pm

      I’m neither a pinko or a watermelon, but if your friend Rupert Wyndham thinks “Climate change is just a device to keep them [third world] in subjection”, maybe there is something to Lewandowsky’s claim about climate change “sceptics” being flaky conspiracy theorists after all.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Click here to cancel reply.

buy FastProof now

          • Climate Conversation Group •
   • more than 1,400,000 visits a year
   • over 7,600,000 hits a year
               — join the Conversation —

Hot off the press

  • Wild Bill McKibben: “Outlaws of physics”
  • Relationship between greenhouse gases and global temperature
  • Sun sets on solar subsidies
  • Strike three for TVNZ
  • Climate delegates in dark
  • We won’t be dissuaded from our global goal
  • Measure, for measures are better
  • Warmists finally admit temperature is not warming
  • The best way to post comments
  • Climate doctrine crushed
  • It’s climate denial all right
  • Anthropogenic ocean heating Part 1
  • No evidence no reason for complacency
  • Strike two for TVNZ
  • GWPF, RS talk climate change
  • Painting wanting rebuttal
  • Emotional knowledge
  • Global warming less than we thought
  • Climate porkies from TV One
  • Renwick doesn’t blame AGW for drought

Latest comments

  • Richard C (NZ) on Disproving AGW
  • Richard C (NZ) on Disproving AGW
  • Richard C (NZ) on Disproving AGW
  • Richard C (NZ) on Climate Models
  • Richard C (NZ) on Disproving AGW
  • Richard Treadgold on Disproving AGW
  • Richard C (NZ) on Disproving AGW
  • Richard Treadgold on Disproving AGW
  • Richard C (NZ) on Disproving AGW
  • Richard C (NZ) on Disproving AGW
  • Andy on Wild Bill McKibben: “Outlaws of physics”
  • Andy on Wild Bill McKibben: “Outlaws of physics”
  • Andy on UK
  • Mike Jowsey on Wild Bill McKibben: “Outlaws of physics”
  • Andy on Wild Bill McKibben: “Outlaws of physics”
  • Richard Treadgold on Wild Bill McKibben: “Outlaws of physics”
  • Richard Treadgold on Wild Bill McKibben: “Outlaws of physics”
  • Andy on Wild Bill McKibben: “Outlaws of physics”
  • Mike Jowsey on Wild Bill McKibben: “Outlaws of physics”
  • Richard C (NZ) on UK

Chuck a buck

If you like our work, throw us a bone, friend. The smallest amount is huge.
Thank you!


Click to get your own widget

Tags

Activists AGW Air temperature Air temperature Alarm Alternative energy Australia Carbon dioxide Carbon Sense Carbon trading CCG blog Christopher Monckton Climate Conversation Group Climate research Climate science Court action Data quality Disproving AGW Economics Energy supply Environment ETS General Global temperature Global warming Hot Topic IPCC Journalism New Zealand NIWA NIWAgate NZCSC NZ Herald NZ temperature records Oceans Politics Royal Society Sceptics Science bias Scientists Sea levels United Nations USA Watts Up With That What is the evidence

Admin

  • Log in
  • Entries RSS
  • Comments RSS
  • WordPress.org

Climate change blogroll

  • Bishop Hill
  • Carbon Sense Coalition
  • Climate Audit—a science blog
  • Climate Debate Daily
  • Climate Depot
  • Climate Etc. (Judith Curry)
  • Climate Realists
  • Global warming at a glance
  • Jo Nova
  • Kiwi Thinker
  • No Tricks Zone
  • NZ Climate Science Coalition
  • Science of Doom
  • Watts Up With That

 

September 2012
M T W T F S S
« Aug   Oct »
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930

Previous posts

Oil prices

Reality mocks models

models v. reality
Latest climate models v. reality

As the models continue to leave actual temperature readings in their dust, sizeable warming halted about 1995 — although it might resume at any time. It must hasten to have any hope of catching up with the predictions.

If you claim warming continues, we want evidence of continued warming — eminently reasonable. Making us wait for 17 years for that evidence invites us to doubt you.

Claiming that warming hasn't stopped is the same as claiming it has — and both are ridiculous, for nobody knows the future. The best you can do is describe the past.

Click graph for larger version.

Hot spot fails reality check

IPCC fingerprint
GHG fingerprint missing

About 2000, climate scientists predicted, and the IPCC agreed, that, if the global temperature was strongly influenced by carbon dioxide (or GHG generally), there'd be a unique "fingerprint" publicising that influence high over the tropics — a tropospheric hot spot. So they started looking for it — and they haven't given up.

Click graph for larger version.

 

rss Comments rss valid xhtml 1.1 design by jide powered by Wordpress get firefox