"Danish Text" Roils Copenhagen Climate Change Conference


The Guardian is reporting on an apparently leaked draft agreement among rich nation negotiators at the Copenhagen climate change conference. That agreement outlines a plan for rationing carbon dioxide emissions globally through 2050 and how aid to poor nations aimed at helping them adapt to climate change might be divvied up and monitored. UN documents are always tricky to interpret, but this one has provoked a storm of protest from poor country representatives. As the Guardian reports:

The UN Copenhagen climate talks are in disarray today after developing countries reacted furiously to leaked documents that show world leaders will next week be asked to sign an agreement that hands more power to rich countries and sidelines the UN's role in all future climate change negotiations….

The document was described last night by one senior diplomat as "a very dangerous document for developing countries. It is a fundamental reworking of the UN balance of obligations. It is to be superimposed without discussion on the talks".

A confidential analysis of the text by developing countries also seen by the Guardian shows deep unease over details of the text. In particular, it is understood to:

• Force developing countries to agree to specific emission cuts and measures that were not part of the original UN agreement;

• Divide poor countries further by creating a new category of developing countries called "the most vulnerable";

• Weaken the UN's role in handling climate finance;

• Not allow poor countries to emit more than 1.44 tonnes of carbon per person by 2050, while allowing rich countries to emit 2.67 tonnes.

Developing countries that have seen the text are understood to be furious that it is being promoted by rich countries without their knowledge and without discussion in the negotiations.

"It is being done in secret. Clearly the intention is to get [Barack] Obama and the leaders of other rich countries to muscle it through when they arrive next week. It effectively is the end of the UN process," said one diplomat, who asked to remain nameless…

Few numbers or figures are included in the text because these would be filled in later by world leaders. However, it seeks to hold temperature rises to 2C and mentions the sum of $10bn a year to help poor countries adapt to climate change from 2012-15.

One observation: As economist William Easterly has pointed out, most of the $2.3 trillion in aid that rich countries have poured into developing countries over the past half century has been wasted. Could that be why the negotiators of the "Danish Text" want better monitoring and greater control over whatever climate aid they hand out to developing countries? Just asking.

One further note about that 2.67 tons of carbon each rich person would be allowed to emit in 2050—currently the average American emits about 20 tons annually and the global average is 4 tons. As I noted in my April, 2008 column, "Are You Stomping the Environment Flat?," the last time …

Americans emitted per person roughly 2.5 tons of carbon dioxide annually back [was] in 1870. In those days, per capita GDP was $194 per year which would be equivalent to about $2,500 today.

Again, just saying.

See whole Guardian story here.

Note: I will be reporting from Copenhagen next week.

NEXT: Deal or No Deal?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. This really isn’t a very good few weeks for climate change consensus, is it.

    1. You wouldn’t know that watching the MSM.

      1. Yes, where they breathlessly talk about dwindling Arctic ice and issue nary a peep about expanding Antarctic ice.

        1. Ah, the never-ending war between Antarctica and, um, Arctica.

        2. I was thinking more of the 24/7 White House party crasher news coverage.

  2. No hat tip for yours truly?

    1. ya tipped yourself, now there’s no point 😉

      1. Give me my hat tip or give me death!!!


        1. JT: With due respect, I don’t read all H&R comments so I confess to having missed the link you evidently made to the Guardian article. I’m sure that other H&R commenters appreciated your heads up on this article on the earlier thread. Thank you.

          1. That would “JL” not “JT” as in Johnny Longtorso. Sorry.

          2. Well, I’m offended.

            1. I kid, I kid!

          3. I was kidding about being POed.

            1. I was kidding about kidding.

  3. Does thread jacking earn a hat tip? Methinks you have to email the article to a reason staffer with the info rather than post it long form into the comments section. I don’t personally mind that method, but a hat tip seems like it would be insincere anyway at that point.

    1. You can’t jack a morning links/open thread.

  4. Not allow poor countries to emit more than 1.44 tonnes of carbon per person by 2050, while allowing rich countries to emit 2.67 tonnes.

    Fuck you, first worlders. We are gonna have refrigerators and transportation. Kiss our collective brown asses.

  5. Climate claims fail science test

    …If the Earth started a cycle of ice ages 33.6 million years ago while having its very carbon-rich atmosphere, and if the Earth showed cycles of ice-age activity when atmospheric CO2 was four times the level that it was in humankind’s pre-industrial times, what new information must we incorporate into our present climate models?…

    …The result was published this year in the peer-reviewed journal Energy and Environment and the paper has not yet been challenged in the scientific literature.

    What this means is that the IPCC model for climate sensitivity is not supported by experimental observation on ancient ice ages and recent satellite data….

    1. close your eyes and click your heels together three times…

    2. Can’t trust The Australian, man. It’s a Murdoch rag.


  6. Does Bailey get a private jet, limo and a free hooker in Copenhagen?

    1. My fundraiser donation better not go to a callgirl for Bailey. 🙂

    2. He should.

    3. The free ‘girls’ are Chad who will suck EnvironMental cock for free.

  7. Oops, that were me.

  8. Is there any doubt that the purpose of this meeting isn’t to save the world, but to Send America back to the nineteenth century.

    1. So why are conservatives agin’ it, then?

  9. If the hookers are free, are they still hookers?

    1. Depends if you buy them dinner.

      If you have to buy them dinner, then they are still whores.

      1. They could just be hungry sluts.

        1. If a woman or man performs sexual favors for someone who buys them things, then she/he is a whore.

          You show me a woman, and I’ll show you a whore.

  10. One observation: As economist William Eagterly has pointed out, most of the $2.3 trillion in aid that rich countries have poured into developing countries over the past half century has been wasted.”

    I’m not sure this is directly comparable to foreign aid that way.

    Much of the foreign aid over the last half century was earmarked for a specific purpose. But this is different in that it’s supposed to be a bribe on its face.

    I mean, don’t the payouts to developing countries address the central question of any climate agreement–why would a developing country’s leaders deprive its people of cheap energy?

    The only obvious answer is bribery.

  11. It’s all about control.

    These EnvironMentals are the new Mao, Stalin, and Hitler all wrapped into one.

    I wasn’t kidding when I said that human beings will now be considered polluters because they exhale carbon dioxide. The camps are not far away with that ideology in place.

    If people want to fight, they better think about it soon.

    1. Start stockpiling guns and stocking the bomb shelters… the alarmists are coming!

      1. You and other adherents to the Warmist religion are scary people.

  12. Climate fraud is epidemic:

    A sweeping California regulation aimed at cutting hazardous pollution from diesel engine exhaust could be derailed after a key state researcher on the project was caught in a lie about his academic credentials.

    The California Air Resources Board is scheduled to meet today to discuss whether to delay the implementation of the regulation because of the weak economy, which some experts claim has led to a drop in diesel emissions. But that discussion has been overshadowed by revelations about the researcher’s trumped-up resume.

    Two of the 11 air board members have asked that the anti-pollution rules be suspended because they were partially based on a report by Hien Tran that found particulates in diesel emissions account for 3,500 premature deaths a year in California. Tran falsely claimed he had a doctorate in statistics from UC Davis.

    “I’ve been on the air board 14 years and I’ve never seen anything approaching this,” said Ron Roberts, who also is a San Diego County supervisor. He added that the air board should do everything it can to assure the public “the science is proper to arrive at legitimate decisions.”


  13. As economist William [Easterly] has pointed out…

    Will Easterly also be in Copenhagen? (Seriously.)

  14. How far behind on all the “Climategate”-related business are you now?

    You’re trailing the Guardian, evidently, and they’re way behind, because they favor this kind of soap operatic squid-ink “policy” story over nerdy science stuff. The CRU data and its derivatives are already being eviscerated down to the single weather station level. It really is all crap.

    Interesting, maybe?

    You need an intervention. The unhelpful derision I’m storing up is getting freezerburned.

    1. You’re also missing this guaranteed 500 comment posting:

      Al Gore thinks the most recent Climategate email is more than 10 years old

      1. Yeah, I heard him say that nonsense on CNN this morning. He also said the north pole ice cap will be completely gone in “5,10,15 years”.

        1. Gore, almost as big a douche as Binden, but not so big as Obama.

          1. Where are Chad, Tony, and MNG to defend Gore?

    2. Unfortunately for Reason readers, the poobahs are being blackmailed by a science correspondent who went to journalism school. If the story is Copanhagan, then that’s what Bailey is going to report on. Regardless of how irrelevant it will be eventually be found to be.

    3. Mr. Cent, you are absolutly correct. Reason Mag is a favorite over at The Volokh Conspiracy (a UCLA law professor blog) – they have a post up detailing how Willis Eschenbach from “Watts Up With That” deconstructed the CRU’s “homogenized data” as it relates to the actual temperature readings collected in Australia. The takedown is devistating.

      1. The takedown:


    4. Link?

      1. See above

  15. I have three cords of firewood I plan to burn this winter. A cord weighs about 1.8 tons so my stash weighs about 5.4 tons total. Burning wood creates carbon dioxide at a ratio of about 1.7, one ton of firewood makes 1.7 tons of CO2. Therefore this winter I’ll be personally emitting about 9.2 tons of carbon dioxide or 3.4 times the “rich country” allowance just to keep warm.

    1. planet killer!

    2. If you off four environmentalists and bury the bodies deep, you should be carbon neutral.

    3. A cord weighs about 1.8 tons

      How much of that is carbon?

      1. About half.

  16. Where are all of our resident lefties, to tell us that this is “taken out of context” or the other usual bullshit?

    Speaking of bullshit, I saw Al Bore on CNN this morning to sell his new book. He was slingin’ it fast and deep. The only redeeming factor was that Kirin was wearing a fairly short skirt.

  17. * Not allow poor countries to emit more than 1.44 tonnes (Metric Tons) of carbon per person by 2050, while allowing rich countries to emit 2.67 tonnes (Metric Tons.)

    What the “poor” countries can do is simply sign the damned paper and then simply ignore it. Who’s going to enforce it? The EU? After it inpoverishes itself, it won’t have the wherewithal. The US? After Obama is done with it, it won’t have the wherewithal.

    The contract is unenforceable – it is like trying to cartelize: Someone will say “Yeah, sure, whatever you say guys”, and then UNDERCUT their price once everybody turns around thinking they had a deal.

    It won’t work. The US Gov will either impose hobbling restrictions on productive Americans or it will die trying, but the rest of the developing countries will simply trade with China and India…

    … And GW will not be “mitigated”, not one bit. All for nothing.

  18. Where are all of our resident lefties, to tell us that this is “taken out of context” or the other usual bullshit?

    It takes a few hours to get all the talking points, “look over there!”s, outright fucking lies, and updated out of context generators loaded into Chony.

  19. I think this is sweet! Just wait until we get our financial geniuses working on ways to trade the developing world’s carbon allowances using derivatives contracts and carbon swaps…what could go wrong?

  20. currently the average American emits about 20 tons annually

    I would like to know exactly how this is measured and what the output per person would be if all government functions were ommitted.

  21. I predict:

    (1) Stirring speeches, sweeping statements of bold initiatives, and fabulous buffets and receptions.

    (2) Generally worded recommendations and statements of intent.

    (3) A marked lack of ratification of (2) by the players that matter.

    (4) An evasion of (2) by those that do ratify.

    (5) At the end of the day, a few billion separated from fools by con men, a few billion more wasted on confabs, and no real change in anyone’s economic activity.

    In other words, Kyoto II: (Carbon-Free) Electric Boogaloo.

    1. >In other words, Kyoto II: (Carbon-Free) Electric Boogaloo.

      Fucking, LOL. Obama would make a decent Turbo. Now, who would be Ozone? Calderon?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.