Angry in the Great White North

After the farce of the Copenhagen global warming summit ended, the next big deadline was this January.  At the end of this month, countries would be delivering their commitments for emission targets for 2020:

4. Annex I Parties commit to implement individually or jointly the quantified economy-wide emissions targets for 2020, to be submitted in the format given in Appendix I by Annex I Parties to the secretariat by 31 January 2010 for compilation in an INF document. Annex I Parties that are Party to the Kyoto Protocol will thereby further strengthen the emissions reductions initiated by the Kyoto Protocol. Delivery of reductions and financing by developed countries will be measured, reported and verified in accordance with existing and any further guidelines adopted by the Conference of the Parties, and will ensure that accounting of such targets and finance is rigorous, robust and transparent.

The form is simple enough:

APPENDIX I

Quantified economy-wide emissions targets for 2020

Annex what?  It's the way countries are categorized:

Parties to UNFCCC are classified as:

• Annex I countries (industrialized countries and economies in transition)
• Annex II countries (developed countries which pay for costs of developing countries)
• Developing countries.

Annex I countries have committed to lowering emissions.  Here's the list:

Australia ($$), Austria ($$), Belarus, Belgium ($$), Bulgaria, Canada ($$), Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark ($$), Estonia, Finland ($$), France ($$), Germany ($$), Greece ($$), Hungary, Iceland ($$), Ireland ($$), Italy ($$), Japan ($$), Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg ($$), Monaco, Netherlands ($$), New Zealand ($$), Norway ($$), Poland, Portugal ($$), Romania, Russian Federation, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain ($$), Sweden ($$), Switzerland ($$), Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom ($$), United States of America ($$)

The countries marked with "($$)" are also Annex II countries.  They are expected to pay the dictators of developing countries great big buckets of cash so they can build presidential palaces and buy private jets stuffed with hookers erect wind turbines.

Of course, China is not on the list.  Russia is, but it isn't expected to spend a dime (Annex I but not Annex II).

Anyway, as a result of the Copenhagen meeting, these Annex I countries were expected to set emission targets by the end of this month.

Heck, this was an "unprecedented commitment":

Leading developed and developing countries have signed an accord that is backed by a large majority of the world and which for the first time sets out the need for the limit the rise in global temperature to 2 degrees Celsius.

The Copenhagen Accord which was signed after two weeks of intensive negotiations that followed on two years of work, is an 'unprecedented' commitment for immediate and long-term financing to help countries deal with climate change.

It also for the first time commits all countries - both rich and poor - to set out by January 31, 2010 the actions they will take to cut emissions or mitigate climate change by 2020 as part of an ambition to cap the temperature rise at 2 degrees C above - pre-industrial levels.

[UK Energy and Climate Change Secretary Ed Miliband] urged all countries to 'make good on' the commitments on emissions cuts or mitigation actions that they will enter on a register by 31 January.

The fact is that a lot of people were paying attention to this deadline:

The Copenhagen climate summit in December is widely held to have been a fiasco that set back the cause of tackling climate change.

"Elements of Copenhagen were farcical," says Steve Waygood, head of engagement and SRI at Aviva Investors. "Everyone was very disappointed at the outcome."

The [green] investment community is now waiting for the end of January, when governments that signed up to the Copenhagen Accord are due to outline their emissions reduction commitments.

A strong signal there could be the start of a change in the view of how effective the Copenhagen summit was.

So can we expect a change in the view of how effective the summit was?  No, unless it is to say the summit was even more useless than everyone thought.

You see, we still have two weeks to go to the deadline when Annex I countries are supposed to deliver their new commitments, but apparently the dog has already eaten the global warming homework:

The timetable to reach a global deal to tackle climate change lay in tatters on Wednesday after the United Nations waived the first deadline of the process laid out at last month's fractious Copenhagen summit.

Nations agreed then to declare their emissions reduction targets by the end of this month. Developed countries would state their intended cuts by 2020: developing countries would outline how they would curb emissions growth.

But Yvo de Boer, the UN's senior climate change official, admitted the deadline had in effect been shelved.

"By [the end of] January, countries will have the opportunity to . . . indicate if they want to be associated with the accord," he said. "[Governments could] indicate by the deadline, or they can also indicate later."

"You could describe it as a soft deadline," Mr de Boer said. "There is nothing deadly about it. If [countries] fail to meet it, they can still associate with the Copenhagen accord after."

Today is good.  January 31 is good.  Later is good.

It's all good.

Huh?  What about the "climate catastrophe"?  What about "50 days" to save the world?  Gee, it all seemed so dramatically important a few months ago.

Well, first there was Climategate.  Then there was Glaciergate.  Then there was a monumental election in the United States that saw a cap-and-trade skeptic take a Senate seat thought to be as safe a seat for pro-cap-and-trade liberals there was.

And now the UN announces that the January 31 deadline for new emissions targets was more of a suggested date?  Worse than that, de Boer doesn't even suggest a new deadline?

I get the feeling Yvo de Boer is trying to get ahead of the story here.  Someone he knows key commitments from Annex I countries are not going to be arriving on January 31.

Gee, I wonder which ones.

Perhaps the United States?  If Barack Obama's teleprompter is telling the president that the polls are showing Americans tipping over to the skeptical side when it comes to global warming, and that Democrats in Congress already terrified at what the Massachusetts special election says of their re-election chances are therefore in no mood to talk cap-and-trade or carbon tax or any other absurdly expensive environment-related government program or tax, then committing to any targets is pointless for the US government.

Not just pointless, but politically damaging.

So de Boer would not have had a choice but to waive the deadline for everyone if Barack Obama's government was planning on ignoring it, even if scrapping this deadline essentially means the mostly farcical Copenhagen summit is now seen as entirely farcical.

Clearly no one important is taking global warming seriously anymore.  They pay lip service to it, but they know it's a crock.  Deadlines that were so important so that we could avoid "climate catastrophe" are now ignored as public opinion shifts and the credibility of the so-called scientists crumbles.  I think it's well past time to just forget the whole thing.

Here's my suggestion.  It's a message to deliver to global warmists everywhere.  If you promise to shut the hell up, you global warming alarmists who have made obscene amounts of money by concocting this whole global warming fraud, we promise not to come after you for the money you've stolen.   Let's be frank here.  You scammed us good.  Maybe you deserve to keep the money.  It'll be a lesson for the rest of us (not me, of course, since I never fell for this garbage) about not leaving our common sense at home.