Chandra: see my comments above. I'm looking forward to your new Discussion thread.

Meanwhile let's get on with this one: in case you've forgotten already, it's about Britain's climate policy in view of global political reality.

Hmm ... "Russia's kleptocratic paradise or China's brutal one party state". But Chandra, you forgot "the dreaded slave-dependent ancient Egypt" - see my post at 5:18 PM.

As I've said - and you seem unable to understand - this Discussion is about Britain's climate policy in view of global political reality. I look forward to your Discussion thread(s) on subjects that interest you. Thanks.

Good point, Chandra. Message to all: let's try to get on topic. Thanks.

Here's a question that might help: does anyone think that the meeting in Paris next year (UNFCCC COP21) is likely to succeed in producing a binding worldwide treaty for a significant reduction in CO2 emissions?

Well, Paul, let's hope he's right. And, even if the IPCC returns to form and changes the emphasis back to alarm/mitigation, there are some sharp eyes watching what's going on: see this for example.

Lilico's article includes some great stuff:

So the mitigation deal has become this: Accept enormous inconvenience, placing authoritarian control into the hands of global agencies, at huge costs that in some cases exceed 17 times the benefits even on the Government's own evaluation criteria, with a global cost of 2 per cent of GDP at the low end and the risk that the cost will be vastly greater, and do all of this for an entire century, and then maybe – just maybe – we might save between one and ten months of global GDP growth.

Can anyone seriously claim, with a straight face, that that should be regarded as an attractive deal or that the public is suffering from a psychological disorder if it resists mitigation policies?

Surely even the IPCC can see that worldwide mitigation is an absurd dream now that the UNFCCC Non-Annex I countries, responsible for nearly 70% of global emissions, have made it clear - for good reason such as the alleviation of poverty - that they won't accept binding reduction commitments? Impassioned pleas by Christiana Figueres are not going to change that.

I continue to be amazed at the extent to which the West (and the IPCC is essentially a Western artefact) has been outfoxed, outmanoeuvred and outgunned by the so-called ‘developing economies’. There are many reasons why the latter are not going to agree to the deep urgent cuts in GHG emissions that we are told are needed to avert catastrophe: I mentioned the alleviation of poverty above – and see this. Another is that their leader China is unconvinced that there’s a problem anyway - and that probably applies to others. Obviously they're not rushing to say so publicly as they're quite happy to watch while the once-powerful West destroys its economy.

So what will all this wailing (about how dreadful everything’s going to be if we don’t act) actually achieve? I suggest two things: (1) more demands that the West must show ‘leadership’ (i.e. make unilateral cuts) and (2) even more urgent insistence that ‘climate justice’ requires the transfer of huge sums from the ‘rich’ to the ‘poor’ as ‘compensation’.

What it will not achieve is the smallest dent in developing economies’ (responsible for about 70% of global emissions) push for fossil fuel based growth. But it may trigger a few more amused smiles in Beijing.

Richard: I'd be interested to see your (surely only marginally?) off topic explanations.

I've got one. Whereas the EU sends true believers (e.g. the DECC) as its negotiators, China, India etc. send hard-headed diplomats who understand (a) how the whole issue relates to international politics and (b) the detailed minutiae of the negotiating history and documentation. (In fairness, I should add that the US deploys professionals also - that's why essentially it's negotiating position has been remarkably consistent whatever the rhetoric of the incumbent President). The EU position is made far worse by the IPCC - for some bizarre reason - allowing huge numbers of (largely young emotional) people representing activist NGOs to infest negotiations and express rage at anything they see as backtracking (by the EU) - in their eyes the developing economies are innocent victims. Here's an example: LINK.

An example of how China has persuaded the EU believers, but not I think the US, that it’s really one of the good guys is its ‘target’ to reduce ‘carbon intensity’ (the GDP/emissions ratio) by 42% on 2005 by 2020. This has greatly impressed for example Globe International – LINK (Check out the two lovely people flanking Xie Zhenhua).

The reality is interesting. In 2005, China’s GDP was 19 trillion RNB and its CO2 emissions were 1600 TTCE (thousand tons of carbon equivalent) - i.e. 84 TTCE for one trillion RNB. In 2012, GDP had grown to 53 trillion RNB and CO2 emissions to 2600 TTCE - i.e. 49 TTCE for one trillion RNB. That's a 42% reduction in 'carbon intensity'. (These figures are rounded – for the data see this and this (go to 'China" in top RH box).) So, according to these figures, China has already achieved its 2020 carbon intensity target, while increasing emissions by 62%.

This means that, if China's economy grows by only 5% pa (it’s 8% today) and the GDP/emissions ratio is unchanged, it would by 2020 increase its 2012 emissions (already 27% of global emissions) by 50%, yet still meet its carbon intensity target. Perhaps Gummer and Prescott might not be grinning so much if they understood that.

BTW here's a comment by Xie Zhenhua:

"There are disputes in the scientific community. We have to have an open attitude to the scientific research. There's an alternative view that climate change is caused by cyclical trends in nature itself. We have to keep an open attitude."

Richard: re 'their bottom line in the next five years' I fear you're right. I recently came across this interview by Bloomberg BNA (BBNA) with Halldor Thorgeirsson who is No 2 to UNFCCC Executive Secretary Christiana Figueres. Here's an extract:

BBNA: In talking to delegates, the idea emerges that the 2015 agreement may end up being a set of rules on accounting for and monitoring emissions and so on and that the rest of it could be put into place a year or two later with a legally binding COP decision. This begs a question: Is the 2015 agreement meant to be a comprehensive treaty that will cover most aspects of the process to confront climate change? Or is it going to be a kind of rulebook that leaves the prickly issues for 2016 or 2017?

Thorgeirsson: Well, I have some observations: First, the backbone of the transparency and accountability framework is already under construction in the form of MRV [rules for “Measuring, Reporting, and Verification”], and that infrastructure is coming to fruition soon, well before Paris. The new agreement will in essence rely on that reporting infrastructure.

What remains is this question of accounting—there is a difference between reporting and accounting. Reporting is the information you provide and accounting is what you do with that information. It would be extremely helpful if this could be clarified this year, but it doesn't stop there.

This all sounds like bureaucrat speak for keeping the gravy train running when (as they must suspect is likely) nothing substantial is agreed in Paris next year. Yet back in 2007 Pachauri was saying (LINK):

If there’s no action before 2012, that’s too late. What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future. This is the defining moment.