'APPARENTLY, the Rio + 20 Conference ended on Friday. The word apparently is used jokingly. Saturday's headlines of both the New York Times and the Washington Post failed to include any mention of the closing of the conference. These "newspapers of record" focused on sensational sex trials instead. 
It seems the conference did not end as the editors wished. According to reports, the conference was tightly controlled by the BRIC countries - Brazil, Russia, India, and China - particularly Brazil which headed the conference. The leaders of Brazil, India and China have made it clear that they will not punish their citizens by stopping economic growth. Russia needs revenues from exports of oil and gas to maintain its budget and government spending.
The conference was different than past conferences for several reasons. There was no grand announcement of Western governments committing huge sums to the governments of the third world. There were no political rock-stars flying in at the last moment to put a deal together. There were no all night sessions extending far beyond the scheduled close of the meeting.
The European ministers were disappointed in the failure for the world to adopt their agenda. The non-government organizations (NGOs) were largely locked out of the process of reaching an agreement, their demands were ignored. The disappointment, even despair, expressed by a number of environmental groups is indicative of the success of the BRIC countries.
Those in the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), under whose auspices this conference was given, are no doubt disappointed that they will not have a $100 Billion a year Green Fund to manage. The leaders of some third world countries are no doubt disappointed they will not be receiving huge sums from the UNFCCC, dashing their hopes of expanding their Swiss bank accounts or obtaining that special villa in the south of France. But the conference gave some political leaders the opportunity to stay at a luxurious resort while preaching austerity for others. And the conclusion gives the opportunity for many ordinary citizens in the world to sigh with relief...
By Ken Haapala at www.sepp.org
Can Lewis be correct? If he is it's all over red rover. See Steve McIntyre on this paper as well.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/25/throwing-down-the-gauntlet-on-reproducibility-in-climate-science/#more-66208
Marc,
please define the 'harder' path.
'The lens of objectivity and the sound treatment of risk' is meaningless if you are unable to supply a concrete example.
What risk?
What do you think is a 'sound treatment of risk'?
How do you envision people taking up your challenge?
In what practical manner do you personally take 'the harder path'?
What will taking this 'harder' path achieve?
Rio +20 was an unsuccessful event in it primary objectives, however successfully demonstrated that interest in ‘sustainability’ issues and global cooperation is clearly waning on environmental issues. Does this mean that the environmental health status of all nation-states as a collective is of little concern and doesn’t require intervention or change? Importantly, environmental issues are not solely the domain of the so-called ‘greenies’ (who ever ‘they’ are). Environmental issues encompass public health and economic concerns also.
It is easy to criticise, make fun of and pebbledash Rio +20 participants with contempt and ridicule. There may even be a degree of smugness and celebration amongst some that the event didn’t result in any significant progress. To me this speaks of energy wasted.
Furthermore, it is easy to be in opposition, to oppose and be negative. It is much harder to cooperatively develop, promote and demonstrate practical solutions through a lens of objectivity and a sound treatment of risk.
I challenge the participants of this forum blog to take the ‘harder’ path.
Lord Monckton sums up Rio+20 and there's a video as well.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/25/dont-worry-about-the-ickle-birdies/#comments
The conference's outcome certainly upset Zena, the Warrior Princess. Rio+20 just will not save us:
http://motls.blogspot.com.au/2012/06/xena-rio20-failed-to-mention-billions.html
If you ask me this is the story of a sex trial.
The warmers and the IPCC have been trying to screw the economies of the western world for the last 20 years.
Some of us a yelling - Rape.
Pikey.
While professional pollies are okay at submerging their excesses and perks, the suddenly-sexy climate lobby seem to be incapable of holding back from the trough, even under the close glare of publicity. Preaching incoherently about climate justice and CAGW is a perfect chance for beige people to take on a little brief colour. Being thoroughly beige, they would never do anything too radical at their own expense - but when it's OPM, they just can't control themselves.
The only thing better than the parties is the chance to play at being anything but white and middle class. To be thought just medium-cool by Kumi Naidoo, even for a second, would be all their wet dreams come true. Punish my imperialist flesh with that organic Fair trade hemp, Kumi - but not too hard!
That's the good thing about Rio, Cancun etc. The world gets to look at a bunch of publicly paid, safely insured and fully superannuated bores acting rad and trying to be sexy on everybody else's dime. I say let them keep leaving jet trails to and from expensive resorts. If conscious reason fails, unconscious comedy will eventually succeed.
They go on and on about sustainability ad nauseum. I guess they mean this:
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com.au/2012/06/wednesday-funny-world-without.html
check out Marc Morano's take http://www.climatedepot.com/a/16386/Climate-Depot-Featured-at-UN-Earth-Summit-Failure-here-is-good-for-the-worlds-poor-people-We-need-to-redefine--sustainable-development-as-oil-gas-coal
many useful links
and a concluding story from Canadian Press
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/06/22/pol-cp-rio-summit-kent.html
[...] Jennifer Marohasy » Rio+20 Was Different. Like this:LikeBe the first to like this. [...]