Hodjanernes Blog

11 december 2011

Vesten (men ikke udviklingslandene) skal kunne idømmes milliarder af dollars i ‘klima-bøder’ ved FN klimadomstol

United Nations climate envoys have proposed the creation of a global “climate court” that would be responsible for enforcing a sprawling set of rules requiring developed countries to cut emissions while compensating poorer countries in order to pay off a “historical climate debt.”

The proposals are contained in a draft document pieced together for the climate conference in Durban, South Africa. Representatives at the conference are struggling to come up with a compromise that negotiators from 194 nations can agree on.

But the draft document, one of many floating around the conference, gives a glimpse into the long-term vision some nations hold for the creation of an international legal framework on climate change.

In the bowels of the document is a provision calling for “an international climate court of justice.”

The proposal is meant to “guarantee the compliance of Annex I Parties with all the provisions of this decision.”

Annex I countries are mostly developed countries, covering the United States, Britain, Australia, Canada and much of Europe — including countries that are struggling financially such as Greece and Portugal.

The rules of the road the court would presumably enforce are based on the view that these developed countries owe developing countries a “debt” over climate change, and must provide financial aid in addition to taking major steps toward cutting emissions.

In one section, the document calls for developed countries to help poorer countries with “finance, technology and capacity building” so they can “adapt to and mitigate climate change” while helping eliminate poverty. Another section provides that developing countries should receive an amount of money equal to the amount “developed countries spend on defense, security and warfare.”

Yet the document also calls for a guaranteed end to warfare altogether — for the sake of curbing climate change.

One section, noting that “conflict-related activities emit significant greenhouse gas emissions,” calls on all parties to “cease destructive activities” like warfare — and then channel the money that would have been spent on war and other defense projects toward “a common enemy: climate change.”

The document also asserts the “rights of mother earth,” a concept that environmental activists have been pushing for.

The draft report, which strings together proposals from various working groups, quickly raised alarm among climate change skeptics.

Marc Morano, a former aide to U.N. agitator and Republican Sen. Jim Inhofe, told FoxNews.com the document shows the climate talks are intended to create more “taxing and regulatory authority.”

“This is the true U.N. agenda unmasked in this draft report,” he said. Morano now runs the ClimateDepot blog, which also reported on the draft document.

However, the idea of a climate court anytime soon — particularly one that the United States and other big carbon emitters would agree to — may be far-fetched. One environmental law expert, professor Jonathan Verschuuren at The Netherlands‘ Tilburg University, wrote in an online column that the court “will certainly not materialize.”

Instead, representatives at the Durban conference reportedly are still trying to figure out how and whether to extend the Kyoto protocol, whose emission requirements expire next year. Some industrial nations want a new agreement that would ask more of developing countries.

According to The Associated Press, the U.S. and India have backed down a bit on their objections, while China continues to put up resistance.

Fra Fox News

Læs mere på Moranos ClimateDepot

Chefen for FN’s klimapanel, jernbaneingeniøren Pachauri udtaler:

“Actually, to be honest, nobody over here [at COP 17] is paying any attention to science.”

8 kommentarer »

  1. Jeg skulle tage meget fejl om de (de superforurenende) olieproducerende lande i Arabien ikke har samme undtagelse. Det havde de i hvert fald indtil Kyoto, hvor de var placeret i samme gruppe som udviklingslandene.

    Like

    Kommentar af Therese — 11 december 2011 @ 17:27

  2. De må behandles efter deres intelligens, så de kører nok på børnebillet endnu. ??
    Arabere og andet pak, har jo aldrig lært at gøre rent i egen rede.!!

    Like

    Kommentar af Charles Nielsen — 11 december 2011 @ 19:33

  3. Overnatioanale domstole, aldrig mere krig (af hensyn til milieuet!) og flere luksus-Mercedes’er til negerhøvdinge… Det lyder jo grangiveligt som en reportage fra De Radigales landsmøde…

    Like

    Kommentar af Skjoldungen — 11 december 2011 @ 19:40

  4. Og så skal vi selvfølgelig til at betale løn til en helt ny klasse af internationale embedsmænd, Alle dem der ikke kan få en plads i et allerede etableret land. Endnu en flok korrupte og uproduktive nasserøve der kan udskrive bøder og skatter efter forgodtbefindende.

    Like

    Kommentar af Santor — 11 december 2011 @ 20:00

  5. Tro mig, skattesvinet og løgnhalsen vil udstede den første bøde til os selv.

    Like

    Kommentar af Fritz — 11 december 2011 @ 20:40

  6. Var klimaproblemets udgangspunkt ikke, at det er menneskeskabt?
    Hvis man ikke havde ophøjet klimaet til religion, hvor troen har overtaget tænkningen, så ville man have fokuseret på den kendsgerning, at hver gang kloden får tilført et menneske mere, vokser risikoen for øget CO2 udslip.
    Hver gang Vesten modtager en kulturberiger, så trækkes Vestens CO2 udslip op med mindst en gennemsnitsborgers udslip.
    Lur mig om ikke det er de samme tåbelige politikere, som ikke kan få nok indvandrer, og dermed gør vore energi besparelser til en illusion, og så oven i købet vil betale bøde til de lande, som har leverer problemet.
    Uden fokus på reduktion af migration fra lav- til høj-CO2 udsliplande og fokus på stop for storfamilier, så er det hele blot et venstredrejet humanistisk bluffnummer, der risikerer at overgå Muhammeds åbenbaringer.
    I øvrigt er al den handel med CO2 kvoter ren Ebberød bank. Den købekraft som tappes fra (a), giver man videre til (b). Ergo CO2(a) = CO2(b)

    Like

    Kommentar af Menig 442 — 11 december 2011 @ 21:32

  7. Rolig nu, folkens. I morgen er det en lige dato så i morgen mener Filli Safendal det modsatte af i dag. Om ikke af anden grund, så fordi jeg lige har hørt i min øresnegl at Pia roser ham for hans ‘tvivl’.

    Like

    Kommentar af Skjoldungen — 11 december 2011 @ 22:45

  8. Desværre skal VI sikkert betale med gode kontanter…
    Ellers ville jeg betragte det som satire i verdensklasse….

    Hvor religionen kommer ind, går forstanden ud 🙂

    Like

    Kommentar af Fidibus — 11 december 2011 @ 23:41


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Skriv et svar

Udfyld dine oplysninger nedenfor eller klik på et ikon for at logge ind:

WordPress.com Logo

Du kommenterer med din WordPress.com konto. Log Out /  Skift )

Google photo

Du kommenterer med din Google konto. Log Out /  Skift )

Twitter picture

Du kommenterer med din Twitter konto. Log Out /  Skift )

Facebook photo

Du kommenterer med din Facebook konto. Log Out /  Skift )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: