PDA

View Full Version : Climate Conference - why in Bali???


AirScrew
10th Dec 2007, 11:53
Guys and Gals, I have no axe to grind with you on this.
I am not anti-aerospace or anything silly. (PPL, share of two aircraft, work for a corporate, fly alot with you good people).

But why oh why does the UNFCCC choose to have a CC conference in Bali.
Can anyone take them seriously on this basis??

I regularly attend w/w business meetings, industry, internal, customer (user groups etc).
Having worked for a few corporates, it will not surprise anyone here that some due consideration is almost always given to the location to minimise travel and accom costs. And this can be done without ending up somewhere cheap but miserable.

But I struggle to believe that this has been done by the UNFCCC, and that the resulting answer was 'yep, Bali is totally justified on both cost and carbon'.
If these people want to go somehere exotic, they should pay for a holiday there like the rest of us.

No matter what my views for or against GW or CC or Carbon footprints (and to be honest they are somewhat cynical/critical), I cannot stomach any organisation or group that tries to 'dictate' to large (US and China) or every small/developing nation, that they should reduce emmissions, when the people have flown half-way round the world to sit in an air-con hotel and sip cocktails in the evening...

I read that there are around 10,000 delegates, and I would guess 40%US, 40%EMEA, 20%AP.
With the USD to Euro around 1.4, methinks Florida, NewOrleans or Cancun would be better.

Blood boiling etcetc..

I feel a little better for that blast. Any views one way or another??

Capot
10th Dec 2007, 12:00
You're right; it's a freebie jolly for the delegates and not to be taken seriously.

They'll simply spend our tax money on having a good time, stagger into a conference hall to vote for some pre-prepared "Resolutions", and eventually go home with a bag of goodies. The Resolutions will then be ignored by all Governments.

Total effect on climate change? Slightly negative, due to the effects of their travel to and from Bali, as you point out.

Rossian
10th Dec 2007, 12:01
Given the fact that you're a senior "diplomat" /delegate at the UN are you really going to go to,say, Krasnoyarsk at this time of year for your climate conference? Or to a refugee camp in Darfur if your discussing poverty in Africa? Be serious! I'm beginning to tend to Lenny Bruce's viewpoint that "any guy who talks about charity and owns two suits is a hustler". "Boondoggle comes to mind.
The (increasingly cynical) Ancient Mariner

BenThere
10th Dec 2007, 12:03
It's much better to warn of GW with a sweltering, tropical backdrop than have the camera showing you shivering in the cold.

AirScrew
10th Dec 2007, 13:03
Nope,
they seem to be wearing winter weight jackets, and burning the lights without a care...
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/UN1a.jpg

radeng
10th Dec 2007, 17:57
What puzzles me is that none of these people seem to realise the basic world problem is overpopulation. It's not going to matter how small each person's 'carbon footprint' is when there there are already too many. So any avoidance of birth control is frankly irresponsible.
Meantime, all this talk of 'alternative energy sources' needs very careful looking at. How many kWh does it take to produce 1 sq metre of photovoltaic cells and the electronics and the secondary batteries? If it's not less than 5MWh, then PV cells in the UK will need more energy to make them and the associated equipment than they'll ever produce. A similar budget exercise on small wind turbines would be interesting

AirScrew
10th Dec 2007, 18:34
100% right RadEng.

PhotoV's have a negative payback in energy terms. ie they will expire before they produce the energy consumed to build them.

Wind turbines will only work in windy places (ie NOT the average home), and in favourable places they have payback periods in excess of 20 years.

I think OverPopulation is the buggest issue we (the planet) faces in the medium term, and very few people seems to be on frequency.

Sunray Minor
10th Dec 2007, 19:44
So how does one propose reducing the population?

The general school of thought is that by increasing wealth to a certain level fertility levels drop, ergo, we need to provide development, health and wealth to the majority of the worlds population. But in doing so (assuming they follow our pattern of development) their environmental footprint (consumption, emissions, etc etc) increases and we shaft ourselves anyway.

Hence, the likes of these meetings are necessary to firstly find more ecologically sustainable ways of developing growth/wealth, and second, to reach an agreement to pursue trade and foreign policies that actually aid 3rd world wealth creation instead of simply our own.

Capt.KAOS
10th Dec 2007, 19:57
I suggest next conference to be held in Phuket, or better a video conference? So how does one propose reducing the population?
A World War like in the good old days?

Howard Hughes
10th Dec 2007, 21:18
Errr... Because it's too bloody cold in Skegness! And the cheap beer of course!:ok:

AirScrew
10th Dec 2007, 21:35
Hey, lets not knock Skeggie. And they have better beer in Skeggie than in Barley...(sic):)

Howard Hughes
10th Dec 2007, 21:37
The premise was 'cheap' beer, not necessarily good!;)

AirScrew
10th Dec 2007, 21:45
Ah now that explains it.

If you're on the beach at Skeggie, you would NEED a good beer.

If you're on the beach in Bali, ANY beer would be good, as long as its cold...:)

AirScrew
10th Dec 2007, 22:12
Or to be more cynical, Bali will ensure the attention of the World press, who otherwise couldnt be bothered to leave Fleet Street (Ok Canary Warf) or 8th Av.

Howard Hughes
10th Dec 2007, 23:11
Hosting it in Bali puts it way outside of the budget of layabouts who'd otherwise descend on the place in droves
You have obviously never been to Bali, that is exactly what you will find in Bali!;)

Howard Hughes
10th Dec 2007, 23:17
Of course not, they were to busy worrying about Work Choices, ironic really considering none of them have worked a day in their lives...;)

Before that Uranium Mining was the 'Protest Du Jour'.:rolleyes:

tinpis
11th Dec 2007, 00:41
Well they may inspire the Indon generals to clean up their backyard a bit (right:rolleyes:)
You know,the ones skimming ten percent off the top of the conference proceeds and investing in Kalimantan timber mills.

pigboat
11th Dec 2007, 02:44
Let 'em have the next one here. Give 'em a taste of Global Warming.

Sept-Îles - Port-Cartier.
Tonight..A few clouds. Wind west 20 km/h becoming light this evening.
Low minus 21. Wind chill minus 29 overnight.
Tuesday..Sunny with cloudy periods. Becoming cloudy late in the
morning with 60 percent chance of flurries late in the day. Wind
northwest 20 km/h. High minus 13. Wind chill minus 32 in the morning.
Tuesday night..Cloudy with 60 percent chance of flurries. Low minus
17

Blacksheep
11th Dec 2007, 08:38
Why Bali? Why not?

Where I'm sitting right now, the Asia-centric wall map has Bali bang in the middle. Folks flying in from USA, Europe, Africa or China all have about the same distance to go. One of my pet peeves over the years has been why do all the damned conferences have to be in the USA or Europe, fourteen or fifteen hours flying time away and with monstrously expensive hotels with lousy service and tacky food? Balinese hotels are dirt cheap compared to inferior western ones, the grubs good and the local economy benefits from the business.

So what have you got against SE Asia? We're people here too you know.

and we have a climate... :rolleyes:

tinpis
11th Dec 2007, 11:17
Bet no one ventures down to Kuta and gets pissed and buys a watch tho Blacksheep.

AirScrew
12th Dec 2007, 00:13
Bali, because they were all invited there by the Indonesian Govt, to look at the water lapping at the edge of the bar, to feel the heat (which is difficult with aircon on), and the UN just couldnt think of anywhere better or cheaper to go...

tinpis
12th Dec 2007, 01:08
Someone suggest Beijing next time. :zzz:

The SSK
12th Dec 2007, 09:52
The meeting is called Conference of the Parties (COP) and it takes place somewhere different every year - wherever it is there is always going to be a lot of travel involved. Having said that, I personally know someone who is there at the moment 'just for the ride' (not an environmentalist).

2003 - Milan
2004 - Buenos Aires
2005 - Montreal
2006 - Nairobi
2007 - Bali
2008 - Poznan
2009 - Copenhagen

tinpis
13th Dec 2007, 03:53
What will be more interesting for me when next in Bali will be finding out from Wayan,Made and Kutut who was up who and who didnt pay. :hmm:

makintw
13th Dec 2007, 07:28
Couldn't agree more Mr Blacksheep.

Currently finalising trip to a show in Frankfurt next month.

1. Brass monkey weather
2. Inside all day so don't get to see any daylight for nearly a week.
3. Rip off hotels, taxis.....:*
4. Distinct lack of golden sandy beaches, sparkling blue seas....... :{

Standard Noise
14th Dec 2007, 09:26
Looks like they're putting their time to good use.:ugh:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7143613.stm

Still, they can go on banging on to the rest of us for the next few years about how we are all killing Mother Earth before setting the next date and exotic location for another lash up halfway round the world in 2010!:rolleyes:

My own country, the US, is principally responsible for obstructing progress in Bali. - Al Gore
Shame he didn't get off his lazy arse and do something about it when he was the second most powerful man in the world, rather than bleating on about it now that he's unemployed!:ugh:

Al Fakhem
14th Dec 2007, 09:32
Why in Bali?

Nothing to do with cheap booze and cheap girls, of course. Just a guess!:ok:

frostbite
14th Dec 2007, 13:17
I wouldn't have said Gore is unemployed, Mr Noise.

On the contrary, I suspect he's on his best ever earner!

Standard Noise
14th Dec 2007, 15:15
Indeed, I do apologise, I should have said gainfully employed.:E

anotherthing
14th Dec 2007, 15:37
Why Bali? Why not? Where I'm sitting right now, the Asia-centric wall map has Bali bang in the middle. Folks flying in from USA, Europe, al - it's not as if the US are going to agree.....


Why bother having it centraly - pointless the USofA turning up if they are not willing to agree to limit Carbon Emissions.

And no, that is not Yank bashing - the general US public and US industry are far more enlightened that the dinosaur that is Bush.

BenThere
14th Dec 2007, 19:11
Agreeing and committing are quite different than doing, anotherthing.

I lifted the following from Powerline (mods don't like me to link):

The Kyoto treaty was agreed upon in late 1997 and countries started signing and ratifying it in 1998. A list of countries and their carbon dioxide emissions due to consumption of fossil fuels is available from the U.S. government. If we look at that data and compare 2004 (latest year for which data is available) to 1997 (last year before the Kyoto treaty was signed), we find the following.

* Emissions worldwide increased 18.0%.
* Emissions from countries that signed the treaty increased 21.1%.
* Emissions from non-signers increased 10.0%.
* Emissions from the U.S. increased 6.6%.

While I appreciate your concern for the planet, may I suggest that signing up to Kyoto is meaningless if the followthrough is absent. Many Americans, like me, feel that hamstringing our economies for unproven and dubious eco-objectives won't be as effective as seeking market based solutions for our energy and environmental problems.

Enjoy the smug self-satisfaction of joining the worldwide outcry against our global ecological demise. I hope and trust it will be we Americans who will invent and organize the actual solutions as you fret and throw stones.

Cheers,

brickhistory
14th Dec 2007, 19:28
Couple of items from watching last night's BBC World Report:

1. At the end of the story regarding Gore's comments, the reporter closed with "And now we'll see if Gore's plain speaking of the truth will have an impact on the Americans."

A) - so much for unbiased reporting.
B) - Gore and impact could never be in the same sentence unless it regards Mr. Rotund falling on one.
C) - Would be interesting to see Mr. Gore's income from his 'environmental work.' It's green indeed, I'd bet.................

2. I LOVED the threat from the EU: "Agree to set hard limits or we won't go to your next round of US-sponsered conferences."

Oooooooooooh, that's tough love.......................

ground_star
14th Dec 2007, 19:50
Thread just quoted on Sky News ;)

anotherthing
14th Dec 2007, 20:34
BenThere;

If you read my post, I said that the ordinary American citizen and the US industry were actually doing something constructive towards Global Warming..... They put Bush to shame.

If you think that that is a smug assessment, then you are a very sensitive soul :)


Enjoy the smug self-satisfaction of joining the worldwide outcry against our global ecological demise. I hope and trust it will be we Americans who will invent and organize the actual solutions as you fret and throw stones


Were you bullied as a child?

You will probably find that the US are making progress despite of Bush, not because of him.

If you stopped thinking that everytime someone makes a comment about your country they were having a pop at you, you might actually understand what is being written. i.e in my original post, I lauded the ordinary American, both citizen and industrialist, as being enlightened :ugh:

arcniz
15th Dec 2007, 07:54
Rants from Hants??
Were you bullied as a child?

You will probably find that the US are making progress despite of Bush, not because of him.


Anyone who has not actually experienced the process of pushing legislation through the US Congres(es) will reasonably tend to underestimate how difficult it is to make sweeping changes in industrial policy in the Colonies.

The often amiable and cooperative attitudes of individual Amis turn to something resembling granite in regard to nearly all political issues, so even the most powerful leaders have hard limits on them in regard to long-running policy matters. Whether devils or angels, individual Senators and Representatives can only chink away at policy issues, and the President can really only exercise maximum power on issues that have very short time limits for effect.

Once there is time for legislators and the public to understand, evaluate and react to a policy initiative of the Chief Executive, the policy may already be nearing its half-life.

With an economy roughly comparable to that of the entire EU, but with much less capability for an enforced industrial policy, much less policy homogeneity at local levels, and fewer policy people in the loop, leaders in the US are perpetually in fear of "breaking" the economy. Memory of the Great Depression, which held the country in the thrall of potentially increasing poverty during the decade after 1929, is still not yet cold. Nobody, from dog-catcher on up, wants to be blamed for a repeat of that.

So the resistance to economic policy, per se, and to changes in economic policy, is very deeply embedded in the US culture. It is hard to change directions, despite the proclamations of political opportunists. George II, dweebish orofice that he is, is not the cause of ingrained US recalcitrance... he is just the sacrificial diamond at the cutting face.

barit1
15th Dec 2007, 16:28
The meeting is called Conference of the Parties (COP) and it takes place somewhere different every year - wherever it is there is always going to be a lot of travel involved. Having said that, I personally know someone who is there at the moment 'just for the ride' (not an environmentalist).

2003 - Milan
2004 - Buenos Aires
2005 - Montreal
2006 - Nairobi
2007 - Bali
2008 - Poznan
2009 - Copenhagen

I note they're never invited back a second time! :yuk:

tinpis
15th Dec 2007, 21:24
Andrew Bolt – Sunday, December 16, 07 (07:40 am)
Are these scenes from a summit of diplomats and politicians, or from a witch trial held by religious nutters?
The senior US negotiator, Paula Dobriansky, ...was loudly booed by other delegations, and a US environmental activist representing Papua New Guinea said to rousing cheers: “If you’re not willing to lead, please get out of the way.”
After repeated verbal lashings, Dobriansky again took the microphone and said that Washington would “go forward and join consensus,” to the cheers of the conference.
German Environment Minister Sigmar Gabriel, a strong critic of US President George W. Bush’s climate policy, said he was ready to ask through his mobile telephone for Chancellor Angela Merkel to intervene with the White House.
“I had already typed the SMS after Dobriansky’s first statement but then I was able to cancel it,” Gabriel said....
The agreement came after extraordinary scenes in which UN chief Ban jetted in for a last-ditch appeal, the UN’s exhausted climate chief nearly broke down in tears and conference chair Indonesia apologised for a disastrous procedural mix-up.

It’s the UN’s farcical summit on cutting greenhouse gases, of course, which has ended precisely in the failure that was inevitable - and healthy. The outcome from this circus, which involved flying 15,000 people to a luxury, air-conditioned resort thousands of the kilometres from where most delegates lived, is essentially this:
The delegates promise they’ll do the same again real soon, because all they’ve agreed in these talks is to talk again. There are no targets and certainly no commitments from the world’s biggest emitter, China. All that was achieved was a public group-hate of the favorite demon of anti-capitalist zealots, and a public preening by the world’s most sanctimonius politicians and activists.



http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/bali_high_drama/


Amen

AMF
15th Dec 2007, 21:24
brickhistory Couple of items from watching last night's BBC World Report:
1. At the end of the story regarding Gore's comments, the reporter closed with "And now we'll see if Gore's plain speaking of the truth will have an impact on the Americans."

Yes the BBC was right it has an impact...I'm now convinced that Gore isn't merely engaging in political pandering or fawning for Euro-approval. Nope. Simply put, it's clear that Gore is just stupid. Gore doesn't "act stupid" or "say stupid things", but rather he's the kind of plain 'ole Stupid some are unfortunately born with, and there's just nothing anyone can do about it.

(Which, incidently, speaks to how collectively intelligent the collectivists running the show at the BBC are)

2. I LOVED the threat from the EU: "Agree to set hard limits or we won't go to your next round of US-sponsered conferences."


I'm so incredibly not affected by this..um..."threat" that words in the English language have yet to be devised that would even begin to convey the magnitude of my lack of caring and disinterest in what they do. Until then, all I can say to the EU is, "so what"?

It's hardly suprising that E & U comprise the first 2 letters of the word "eunach", so how can anyone take them seriously?

Sunray Minor
15th Dec 2007, 22:18
Tinpis,

Not worth mentioning of course that the debate wasn't about the usual, small scale financial matters or piddling policy changes. It was a passionate conference viewed by most there to concern the future of humanity and life on earth. No small wonder that the ONE holdout on the final agreement was booed, even by its previous supporters Australia, Canada and Japan.

As for the location of the conference: Where would you hold it? Bali is hardly the most expensive place on earth and the conference put its money where its mouth is and offset all the expected carbon produced through the conference. What more could or should they have done?

tinpis
16th Dec 2007, 01:01
Go sell it to the Chinese.

barit1
16th Dec 2007, 02:59
What more could or should they have done?

Take a step into the 21th century; do it via teleconference. :D

tinpis
16th Dec 2007, 05:57
Thats no fun barit,cant play hide the sausage.

Sunray Minor
16th Dec 2007, 10:30
Superb idea, Barit.

Unfortunately you wouldn't have got half the media coverage without which you wouldn't have got the US to agree to anything. Teleconferencing is all very well for internal business meetings, but not so good for debating world issues.

parabellum
16th Dec 2007, 10:48
According to a current poll 60% of Australians consider the conference a failure.

http://www2.skynews.com.au/news/vote.aspx?repeat=n

barit1
16th Dec 2007, 16:12
Superb idea, Barit.
Of course! (However, my name has three syllables...)

Unfortunately you wouldn't have got half the media coverage without which you wouldn't have got the US to agree to anything. Teleconferencing is all very well for internal business meetings, but not so good for debating world issues.
I think the US caved in spite of the media coverage - would the Russkies let a little thing like adverse publicity sway them? :*
And do you really think the COP destination was chosen for its press freedom? :*:yuk:

AirScrew
18th Dec 2007, 02:54
I was amazed at the amount of press coverage.

But then I was equally amazed at the stories, late nights, quarrels, tears..etc.

It makes me now wonder wether the conference attendees were putting on a show for the press, to hide the fact that they werent really making any real progress......

barit1
19th Dec 2007, 22:48
I am amazed that the large-scale emission of CO2 is permissible, even laudable, when it is done by VIP's with good intent. :rolleyes:

AMF
20th Dec 2007, 05:13
Sunray Minor Tinpis,
Not worth mentioning of course that the debate wasn't about the usual, small scale financial matters or piddling policy changes. It was a passionate conference viewed by most there to concern the future of humanity and life on earth.

Indeed, they thought it was about nothing less than...gasp!... the fate of life on earth, deeming themselves Saviors. They talked passionately and informally voted amongst themselves, and not suprisingly, they agreed they were indeed! In fact when the pubs closed down every night, the place was literally crawling with passionate Neo-Messiahs.

Aztec priests likewise were so very passionate, and used to convince themselves and preach to the masses very similar things to justify the assembly-line human sacrifices they performed. But like GW conferences, their view that the sun wouldn't come up...causing global (global to them, anyway) cooling.... unless blood-offerings flowed also turned out to be rife with flawed theories.

No small wonder that the ONE holdout on the final agreement was booed, even by its previous supporters Australia, Canada and Japan.

Such is the maturity level of these self-appointed Protectors of the Planet. But back to the point....Religion, even new ones like GW, always have it's zealots and an annointed Devil they can boo in one way or another.

As for the location of the conference: Where would you hold it?

I'd build them their own temple...a Whining Worrywart Mecca if you will....and fittingly site it next to any convenient landfill to dump the junk science and garbage edicts it winds up producing.

Bali is hardly the most expensive place on earth and the conference put its money where its mouth is and offset all the expected carbon produced through the conference.

Um, whose money did those conference-goers use?

What more could or should they have done?

Personally, I won't take these zealots seriously until they demonstrate their convictions through regular and frequent self-immolations . I'll gladly donate recycled motor oil drained from my SUV for this purpose. In fact, before handing them the matches I'll even promise to plant a few trees to offset their smoky, reeking carbon emissions.

Sunray Minor
20th Dec 2007, 11:07
AMF,

Sounds like you were at the conference. What exactly did they say that annoyed you so much? Comparing climate change conferences to Aztec sacrifice says a lot for how distorted your view on reality must be.

As for the maturity of conference attendees, how much more childish is one country holding out against 180?

Um, whose money did those conference-goers use?

Um, I don't know - their own? The UN's? The company that built the computer I am typing on no doubt sends employees to conferences at my expense. The companies that sell you your oil and make your SUV send employees to conferences at your expense. What exactly is your point?

Rest of rant ignored.