Copenhagen Climate Consortium Collapse

When President Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, it was seen by many as a prepayment for his upcoming magnanimous performance at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen in December.  Unfortunately for the President, this event seems to be unravelling with each passing day.

On the domestic front, a new Pew Research poll reveals that the American people are becoming skeptical of global warming propaganda:

There has been a sharp decline over the past year in the percentage of Americans who say there is solid evidence that global temperatures are rising. And fewer also see global warming as a very serious problem – 35% say that today, down from 44% in April 2008.

On the Asian front, China and India signed an accord in New Delhi yesterday, creating an alternative framework to the growth-extinguishing U.N. plans.  William Hawkins at the American Thinker elaborates:

On October 22, an accord was signed by Xie Zhenhua, China's vice minister at the National Development and Reform Commission, and Jairam Ramesh, India's environment minister, in New Delhi. The memorandum provides an alternative framework to counter pressure from America and Europe to adopt mandatory limits on greenhouse gas emissions in a new UN treaty. The two Asian powers will collaborate on the development of renewable power projects and improved energy efficiency programs, while rejecting any outside mandates that would slow economic growth.

Rejecting outside mandates that would slow economic growth.  What a concept.  How ironic that the Communists are standing up to this U.N. global war on free enterprise.  The Canadians aren't really happy about it either.  In today's Globe and Mail, this headline appears: "Ottawa dashes hope for climate treaty in Copenhagen."  Its author, Shawn McCarthy, puts the best possible face on it, but the headline says it all:

Hope is vanishing that a historic deal to address climate change can be concluded in Copenhagen, and Environment Minister Jim Prentice says the best chance is for a political agreement that would pave the way for a treaty to be signed later.


But Canada will continue to insist that it should have a less aggressive target for emission reductions than Europe or Japan because of its faster-growing population and energy-intensive industrial structure, Mr. Prentice said in an interview Thursday.

Canadians must also recognize that any national emissions cap has to reflect differing conditions across the country so as not to punish high-growth provinces, he added. The minister has been consulting with provinces on a plan that would impose a cap on industrial emissions, but allow Alberta's energy-intensive, emissions-heavy oil sands to continue expanding.

Oh, Canada!  Protecting the emissions-heavy Canadian oil sands industry.  How positively capitalistic.

But don't think for one minute that Barbara Boxer and John Kerry have given up this holy grail.  From Hawkins:

The work of the UNIPCC is cited in the "cap and trade" American Clean Energy and Security Act (H.R. 2454) passed by a narrow vote in the House last June. On September 30, Senators John Kerry (D-MA) and Barbara Boxer (D-CA) introduced the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act (S. 1733) which will be the vehicle for climate legislation in the Senate. The bill states, "the United States should lead the global community in combating the threat of global climate change and reaching a robust international agreement to address global warming under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change."


The Kerry-Boxer draft aims to reduce CO2 emissions 20 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 compared to the 17 percent cut set in the House bill. As Bradford Plumer noted in a blog at The New Republic Sept. 30, "thanks to the recession, we'll be 8.5 percent below 2005 levels by the end of this year, which is why Boxer stumped for a steeper reduction." In other words, economic ruin is an integral part of the Green agenda. (emphasis mine)

Indeed.