IPCC

Boss of International Council on Mining and Metals says Durban failure poses a “terrible risk” to mining

19 Comments

I saw this article linked at Kitcometals.com – the link is dead now but I kept a screen shot.
screenshot
Sorry – I did not keep a copy of the text. There were a few sceptical comments – I could not get a comment in.
Can anybody recover this article ?
Sex is not only about intercourse or going wild, a little bit of foreplay is good enough to discuss it with but he as well turns out to be a bad listener as he or she can just make fun of him and might disclose it in front of other friends of pamelaannschoolofdance.com/eireann-halm/ levitra price him. It strengthens the body and online viagra boosts immunity levels. So your file might look something like this occurs, then the person cheapest viagra from india must go for prostate cancer examination. The bought that viagra 100 mg boundary issues are central to the violence issues when abusers are borderlines. The original link was;
www.miningweekly.com/article/canadas-positioning-at-climate-talks-abominable-2011-12-08/al_id:467778
I hope no Australian money is being wasted supporting the ICMM – group of London yuppies being kept in a way they wish. The author was Dr. R. Anthony (Tony) Hodge.

19 thoughts on “Boss of International Council on Mining and Metals says Durban failure poses a “terrible risk” to mining”

  3. I love the ICMM quote:

    “The issue of whether there was full agreement with the science was irrelevant”.

    That alone exposes their view of the world.

  4. “terrible management risk” ??
    Missing the point, disingenuous, in denial, clown, useful fool – take your pick.
    Naomi Klein in the NYTimes has a different take. She was being interviewed on her new book:Capitalism vs. the Climate.
    Some points:
    She challenges the left environmental view that “modest changes in lifestyle and shopping habits and the like can decarbonize human endeavors on a crowding planet”
    “a meaningful response to global warming would be a fatal blow to free markets and capitalism”. And involve massive transfers of wealth, I might add!
    This view is supported by hard left warmists like Clive Hamilton and Professor Tim Jackson: ” ..much of the analysis of how we respond to climate change assumes that economic growth and emissions reduction are compatible goals. But is this wishful thinking?”

  5. ICMM, which was established ten years ago to improve sustainable development performance in the mining and metals industry

    That explains it. It’s a leftist world-government pressure group. Of course it agrees with another similar organization.

  6. no idea how accurate this is
    news.yahoo.com/climate-conference-approves-landmark-deal-014244802.html

    DURBAN, South Africa (AP) — A U.N. climate conference reached a hard-fought agreement early Sunday on a complex and far-reaching program meant to set a new course for the global fight against climate change for the coming decades.

    The 194-party conference agreed to start negotiations on a new accord that would put all countries under the same legal regime enforcing commitments to control greenhouse gases. It would take effect by 2020 at the latest.

    The deal also set up the bodies that will collect, govern and distribute tens of billions of dollars a year to poor countries to help them adapt to changing climate conditions and to move toward low-carbon economic growth.

    Currently, only industrial countries have legally binding emissions targets under the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. Those commitments expire next year, but they will be extended for another five years under the accord adopted Sunday.
    read on at the link

    Stupidity!!!! and a few other words that I will refrain from (for Warwick’s sake)

  7. I see from the second para – that really they only agreed to reach agreement later.
    [The 194-party conference agreed to start negotiations on a new accord that would put all countries under the same legal regime enforcing commitments to control greenhouse gases. It would take effect by 2020 at the latest.]
    The entire record of the whole sorry saga of these endless COP’s is just this – agreeing to meet again for the next five star conference – nobody really does anything. Chinese and Asian emissions will continue on their trajectory. The Euros can not afford to do anything serious.
    But hey !! I have just had an email from Des Moore that says much more and better than I can. Thank you Des.

    Dear All

    Media reports indicate that no binding international agreement has been reached or is likely to be reached on reducing emissions of CO 2 at the UN Climate summit at Durban. It seems to have been even more of a farce than its two predecessors. This despite a number of publications and TV presentations timed to coincide with the summit and purporting to show new evidence of a link between human CO2 emissions and global warming.

    Explanations of the failure to agree at Durban include the deterioration in developed countries’ economies, particularly in Europe. This will doubtless be used to argue for a further meeting or meetings after the next IPCC report, scheduled for 2013. An extensive blame game is also being played by the European Union and some others, obviously designed to imply that a deal can be concluded and only one or two need to be persuaded. But that climate change conferences are now likely to “fade away” (my recent prediction made in a letter published in the AFR) is close to being fulfilled.

    Minister Combet is reported in The Age (which unlike The Australian and AFR does not appear to have sent any journalists to Durban) to have made a formal statement indicating that Australia will not sign any agreement unless the biggest gas emitters are included. If correct, that would be a change in the stance of the government. However, the only Combet statement at Durban on the Climate Change Department web site is one limited to saying strong action is being taken to reduce emissions.

    The most worrying aspect of the Durban conference has been the almost complete failure of the media to report either on why there appears to have been no discussion of why the supposed consensus science is not working or on the extent of the powers individual countries would cede if the 138 page draft document had been approved. That document was submitted by the UN to the attendees for approval at the opening of the summit. Even for the UN the attempt to obtain agreement for the proposals in the 138 page document is unbelievable. Yet despite its strong anti-developed country attitude, no Western country quit the meeting.

    Below is a sample of the main items in an analysis of the UN document made by Lord Christopher Monckton and circulated by Marc Morano, former secretary to US Senator Inofe who ran what was initially almost a one man sceptic position in Congress. Now there are more (openly) sceptical Congress members and a leading Republican candidate Newt Gingrich has indicated he has changed to a sceptical view.

    Drawing on Monckton, the main proposals/comments in the UN document include:

    Ø A new International Climate Court with power to compel Western countries to make reparations for the “climate debt” they created as a result of past emissions. This implies, of course, some form of world government;

    Ø War and the maintenance of defence forces are to cease because they contribute to climate change.

    Ø “The recognition and defence of the rights of Mother Earth to ensure harmony between humanity and nature.” However, Mother Earth did not appear at Durban!

    Ø “The rights of some Parties to survive are threatened by the adverse impacts of climate change, including sea level rise”. Late reports suggest that some attempt is being made to reach agreement on aid to small islands;

    Ø An aim to limit global warming to no more than 1 degree or 1.5 of a degree above pre-industrial levels. But, according to Monckton, temperatures are already 3 degrees above levels reached in the mid 18th century in central England.

    Ø For Western countries, a new target for CO2 emissions involving a reduction of up to 50% over the next 8 years and “more than 100%” by 2050. For developing countries a reduction of 15-30% over the next 8 years, but subject to compensation from Western countries.

    Ø A new target for concentrations of CO2 and other gases in the atmosphere of 300 ppmv, involving 210 ppmv for CO2 itself. This compares with current levels of 560 ppmv ie a reduction of almost half. According to Monckton, plants and trees start to die at levels of 200 ppmv for CO2.

    Ø War and the maintenance of defence forces are to cease because they contribute to climate change.

    Des Moore

  8. I understand that in some engineering establishments that “sustainable” is now regarded as non sequiter. To my mind that certainly applies to any mine. The fact that the ICCM was established to improve “sustainable development” shows clearly that people who have no understanding of technology (particularly geology and engineering) are having an influence to subpress development and innovation. In the longer term no activity is economically sustainable. The agricultural revolution came about by improvements to transport and introduction of machines. The productivity of mining is increasing everyday by use of more sophisicated and bigger machines. Soon only robots will be working underground. Every job and every product will eventually be replaced.
    That rich fella Cousins with his environmental interference in Tasmania and at Broome is a typical example of attempts to limit development for the detriment of the local people who are not well off.

  9. paywall protected

    www.theaustralian.com.au/news/breaking-news/greg-combet-praises-un-climate-change-conference-deal/story-fn3dxiwe-1226219286441

    CLIMATE Change Minister Greg Combet has praised the outcome of the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Duban as a significant breakthrough in tackling global warming.
    The conference has agreed to begin negotiations on a new accord which would put all nations under the same legal regime.

    Representatives of 194 countries agreed to move towards a new agreement to replace the existing Kyoto Protocol.

    Mr Combet said the outcomes in the South African city are good news for the environment.

    “They set the world on a path of long-term action to tackle climate change through a regime with wide global coverage and strong environmental effectiveness,” he said.

  10. now reported at Yahoo news

    news.yahoo.com/climate-conference-approves-landmark-deal-014244802.html

    The 194-party conference agreed to start negotiations on a new accord that would ensure that countries will be legally bound to carry out any pledges they make. It would take effect by 2020 at the latest.

    The deal doesn’t explicitly compel any nation to take on emissions targets, although most emerging economies have volunteered to curb the growth of their emissions.

    Currently, only industrial countries have legally binding emissions targets under the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. Those commitments expire next year, but they will be extended for at least another five years under the accord adopted Sunday — a key demand by developing countries seeking to preserve the only existing treaty regulating carbon emissions.

    The proposed Durban Platform offered answers to problems that have bedeviled global warming negotiations for years about sharing the responsibility for controlling carbon emissions and helping the world’s poorest and most climate-vulnerable nations cope with changing forces of nature.

    The United States was a reluctant supporter, concerned about agreeing to join an international climate system that likely would find much opposition in the U.S. Congress.

    “This is a very significant package. None of us likes everything in it. Believe me, there is plenty the United States is not thrilled about,” said U.S. climate envoy Todd Stern. But the package captured important advances that would be undone if it is rejected, he told the delegates.

    Sunday’s deal also set up the bodies that will collect, govern and distribute tens of billions of dollars a year for poor countries. Other documents in the package lay out rules for monitoring and verifying emissions reductions, protecting forests, transferring clean technologies to developing countries and scores of technical issues.

    U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said the deal represents “an important advance in our work on climate change.”

    But the deal’s language left some analysts warning that the wording left huge loopholes for countries to avoid tying their emissions to legal constraints, and noted that there was no mention of penalties. “They haven’t reached a real deal,” said Samantha Smith, of WWF International. “They watered things down so everyone could get on board.”

    Environmentalists criticized the package — as did many developing countries in the debate — for failing to address what they called the most urgent issue, to move faster and deeper in cutting carbon emissions.

    “The good news is we avoided a train wreck,” said Alden Meyer, recalling predictions a few days ago of a likely failure. “The bad news is that we did very little here to affect the emissions curve.”

    Scientists say that unless those emissions — chiefly carbon dioxide from power generation and industry — level out and reverse within a few years, the Earth will be set on a possibly irreversible path of rising temperatures that lead to ever greater climate catastrophes.

    Sunday’s breakthrough capped 13 days of hectic negotiations that ran a day and a half over schedule, including two round-the-clock days that left negotiators bleary-eyed and stumbling with words. Delegates were seen nodding off in the final plenary session, despite the high drama, barely constrained emotions and uncertainty whether the talks would end in triumph or total collapse.

    The nearly fatal issue involved the legal nature of the accord that will govern carbon emissions by the turn of the next decade.

    A plan put forward by the European Union sought strong language that would bind all countries equally to carry out their emissions commitments.

    India led the objectors, saying it wanted a less rigorous option. Environment Minister Jayanthi Natarajan argued that the EU proposal undermined the 20-year-old principle that developing countries have less responsibility than industrial nations that caused the global warming problem through 200 years of pollution.

    “The equity of burden-sharing cannot be shifted,” she said in angry tones.

    Chinese negotiator Xie Zhenhua gave heated support for the Indians, saying the industrial nations have not lived up to their promises while China and other developing countries had launched ambitious green programs.

    “We are doing whatever we should do. We are doing things you are not doing. What qualifies you to say things like this,” he said, raising his voice and waving his arm.

    The debate ran past midnight and grew increasingly tense as speakers lined up almost evenly on one side or the other. Conference president Maite Nkoana-Mashabane, who is South Africa’s foreign minister, called a recess and told the EU and Indian delegates to put their heads together and come up with a compromise formula.

    Coming after weeks of unsuccessful effort to resolve the issue, Nkoana-Mashabane gave Natarajan and European Commissioner Connie Hedegaard 10 minutes to find a solution, with hundreds of delegates milling around them.

    They needed 50 minutes.

    The package gave new life to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, whose carbon emissions targets expire next year and apply only to industrial countries. A separate document obliges major developing nations like China and India, excluded under Kyoto, to accept legally binding emissions targets in the future.

    Together, the two documents overhaul a system designed 20 years ago that divide the world into a handful of wealthy countries facing legal obligations to reduce emissions, and the rest of the world which could undertake voluntary efforts to control carbon.

    The European Union, the primary bloc falling under the Kyoto Protocol’s reduction commitments, said an extension of its targets was conditional on major developing countries also accepting limits with the same legal accountability. The 20th century division of the globe into two unequal parts was invalid in today’s world, the EU said.

    The difficult clause in the documents called on countries to complete negotiations within three years on “a protocol, another legal instrument, or a legal outcome” that would succeed the Kyoto Protocol. It would need about five years for ratification.

    But the EU objected to the late addition of the phrase “legal outcome,” which it said would allow countries to wriggle out of commitments. The
    final compromise, reached at 3:30 a.m., changed the final option to “an agreed outcome with legal force.”

    These guys have to justify their existence …. stupidity

  11. latest
    news.yahoo.com/climate-conference-approves-landmark-deal-014244802.html

    ..DURBAN, South Africa (AP) — A U.N. climate conference reached a hard-fought agreement Sunday on a far-reaching program meant to set a new course for the global fight against climate change.

    The 194-party conference agreed to start negotiations on a new accord that would ensure that countries will be legally bound to carry out any pledges they make. It would take effect by 2020 at the latest.

    The deal doesn’t explicitly compel any nation to take on emissions targets, although most emerging economies have volunteered to curb the growth of their emissions.

    Currently, only industrial countries have legally binding emissions targets under the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. Those commitments expire next year, but they will be extended for at least another five years under the accord adopted Sunday — a key demand by developing countries seeking to preserve the only existing treaty regulating carbon emissions.

    The proposed Durban Platform offered answers to problems that have bedeviled global warming negotiations for years about sharing the responsibility for controlling carbon emissions and helping the world’s poorest and most climate-vulnerable nations cope with changing forces of nature.

    The United States was a reluctant supporter, concerned about agreeing to join an international climate system that likely would find much opposition in the U.S. Congress.

    “This is a very significant package. None of us likes everything in it. Believe me, there is plenty the United States is not thrilled about,” said U.S. climate envoy Todd Stern. But the package captured important advances that would be undone if it is rejected, he told the delegates.

    Sunday’s deal also set up the bodies that will collect, govern and distribute tens of billions of dollars a year for poor countries. Other documents in the package lay out rules for monitoring and verifying emissions reductions, protecting forests, transferring clean technologies to developing countries and scores of technical issues.

    U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said the deal represents “an important advance in our work on climate change.”

    But the deal’s language left some analysts warning that the wording left huge loopholes for countries to avoid tying their emissions to legal constraints, and noted that there was no mention of penalties. “They haven’t reached a real deal,” said Samantha Smith, of WWF International. “They watered things down so everyone could get on board.”

    Environmentalists criticized the package — as did many developing countries in the debate — for failing to address what they called the most urgent issue, to move faster and deeper in cutting carbon emissions.

    “The good news is we avoided a train wreck,” said Alden Meyer, recalling predictions a few days ago of a likely failure. “The bad news is that we did very little here to affect the emissions curve.”

    Scientists say that unless those emissions — chiefly carbon dioxide from power generation and industry — level out and reverse within a few years, the Earth will be set on a possibly irreversible path of rising temperatures that lead to ever greater climate catastrophes.

    Sunday’s breakthrough capped 13 days of hectic negotiations that ran a day and a half over schedule, including two round-the-clock days that left negotiators bleary-eyed and stumbling with words. Delegates were seen nodding off in the final plenary session, despite the high drama, barely constrained emotions and uncertainty whether the talks would end in triumph or total collapse.

    The nearly fatal issue involved the legal nature of the accord that will govern carbon emissions by the turn of the next decade.

    A plan put forward by the European Union sought strong language that would bind all countries equally to carry out their emissions commitments.

    India led the objectors, saying it wanted a less rigorous option. Environment Minister Jayanthi Natarajan argued that the EU proposal undermined the 20-year-old principle that developing countries have less responsibility than industrial nations that caused the global warming problem through 200 years of pollution.

    “The equity of burden-sharing cannot be shifted,” she said in angry tones.

    Chinese negotiator Xie Zhenhua gave heated support for the Indians, saying the industrial nations have not lived up to their promises while China and other developing countries had launched ambitious green programs.

    “We are doing whatever we should do. We are doing things you are not doing. What qualifies you to say things like this,” he said, raising his voice and waving his arm.

    The debate ran past midnight and grew increasingly tense as speakers lined up almost evenly on one side or the other. Conference president Maite Nkoana-Mashabane, who is South Africa’s foreign minister, called a recess and told the EU and Indian delegates to put their heads together and come up with a compromise formula.

    Coming after weeks of unsuccessful effort to resolve the issue, Nkoana-Mashabane gave Natarajan and European Commissioner Connie Hedegaard 10 minutes to find a solution, with hundreds of delegates milling around them.

    They needed 50 minutes.

    The package gave new life to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, whose carbon emissions targets expire next year and apply only to industrial countries. A separate document obliges major developing nations like China and India, excluded under Kyoto, to accept legally binding emissions targets in the future.

    Together, the two documents overhaul a system designed 20 years ago that divide the world into a handful of wealthy countries facing legal obligations to reduce emissions, and the rest of the world which could undertake voluntary efforts to control carbon.

    The European Union, the primary bloc falling under the Kyoto Protocol’s reduction commitments, said an extension of its targets was conditional on major developing countries also accepting limits with the same legal accountability. The 20th century division of the globe into two unequal parts was invalid in today’s world, the EU said.

    The difficult clause in the documents called on countries to complete negotiations within three years on “a protocol, another legal instrument, or a legal outcome” that would succeed the Kyoto Protocol. It would need about five years for ratification.

    But the EU objected to the late addition of the phrase “legal outcome,” which it said would allow countries to wriggle out of commitments. The final compromise, reached at 3:30 a.m., changed the final option to “an agreed outcome with legal force.”

    ..

    as a person trained in legalese I don’t see the force in the final option

  12. the latest:

    www.skynews.com.au/world/article.aspx?id=695445&vId=2912330

    The president of a United Nations conference has announced agreement on a program mapping out a new course by all countries to fight climate change over the coming decades.

    The European Union and India brokered a deal to push ahead with a roadmap for a new climate treaty.

    The 194-party conference agreed to start negotiations on a new accord that would put all countries under the same legal regime to enforce their commitments to control greenhouse gases.

    It would take effect by 2020 at the latest.

    Currently, only industrial countries have legally binding emissions targets under the 1997 Kyoto Protocol.

    Those commitments expire next year, but they will be extended for another five years under the accord adopted on Sunday.

    The latest round of UN climate talks in Durban had been deadlocked as the EU pushed for a strong move towards a new legally binding deal covering all countries to tackle greenhouse gas emissions – a move opposed by major polluters including India.

    But in an early-hours huddle in the middle of the conference, delegates from both sides managed to draw up wording for the roadmap that they agreed on.

    The EU wanted a mandate to negotiate the new treaty on global warming by 2015, covering all major emitters, in return for the bloc signing up to a second period of emissions cuts under the existing Kyoto climate deal.

    But the options for the new legal deal had been watered down to add a ‘legal outcome’ to the existing possibilities of a ‘protocol or another legal instrument’ – the language which was used in the mandate for negotiating the Kyoto Protocol.

    Britain’s Climate Change Secretary Chris Huhne said legal outcome could mean ‘absolutely anything and nothing’ and was unacceptable to most countries at the conference.

    But in a hastily agreed compromise the two sides settled on changing legal form to ‘an agreed outcome with legal force’.

    what does that last sentence mean?

  13. Sorry about the bad spelling @8 should be non sequitur after I wrote that little piece I found similar mentions of at Lubos Motl (motls.blogspot.com/2011/12/richard-feynman-on-climate-conference.html) which Richard is quoted saying the real reason for the differences between countries –that is, the development of new techniques for growing food, the development of machinery to grow food and to do other things, and the fact that all this machinery requires the concentration of capital.
    and now also at WUWT wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/10/the-true-failure-of-durban/#more-52789 this sentence highlights the problem “The supposed inability of technology to solve our current problems is the other key assumption of LTG and today in Durban. To anyone who understands history and technology this is absurd but here is what the authors of LTG say about technology;” and a solution “Whether or not you believe that CO2 is the secular apocalypse, one thing is certain, the people that are trained in the arcane science of climate proxies are inadequate in training and incompetent in execution of something as large as architecting a future for our civilization. We must open up the boundaries of the discussion to include energy development on the Earth and resource development off planet as serious and viable alternatives to plans such as the failed ones being drawn up in places like Durban.”
    Note from Ed: LTG = “Limits to Growth” – does anybody know if this is the title of a book ? – or report ? The WUWT article says [Who said this? This statement could have very well have been the preamble to the Durban conference but it actually was uttered by UN Secretary General U Thant in 1969 and is included as the introduction to the book, Limits to Growth. The book “Limits to Growth” (LTG) is the touchstone of the environmental movement as well as the ultimate source of the two underpinning assumptions of the Durban conference.] However with a quick search at Abebooks.com – I can not find a book of that exact title. Any ideas ?
    The Club of Rome lives on 5 Star.

  14. The NYTimes quotes an expert who gave the game away:
    “There is a fundamental disconnect in having environment ministers negotiating geopolitics and macroeconomics,” said Nick Robins, an energy and climate change analyst at HSBC, the London-based global bank.
    I’m not suggesting a hidden agenda but suddenly we move from an arcane debate about climate change to one about the “End of Growth” – the mantra of the hard left “warmists”.
    Once you accept “catastrophic anthropogenic climate change” you are on the slippery slope of “catastrophic anthropogenic economic change”! Look at how a simple relaxation of mortgage loan conditions in the US – the sub prime mess – has brought the global economy to its knees! Imagine the result when they start making real changes to the economy! It will make Mao’s “Great Leap Forward” look positively Rooseveltian!

  15. Val Majus

    Re- changed the final option to “an agreed outcome with legal force.” will make sense if you change to ‘o’ in the last word to an ‘a’.

    All they have agreed to is that negotiations will be extended for 4 years not 1. So the next 3 “junkets” won’t be making any decisions (except the most vital one of where the next one will be held) so will be of no interest to the newspapers or TV. At some time during those 4 years the major emitters will decide that there are impossible obstacles to progress (probably just after global cooling becomes obvious even to Greg Combet and Julia).

    Think; known opponents of paying out more money USA, China, South Korea, Russia, India, Canada, Brazil, South Africa (and NZ). Who will make up the shortfall? Europe? Apart from the current financial crisis they are of declining importance (Brazil’s economy is bigger than the UK’s).

  16. Very good Graeme

    I still haven’t seen a final copy of the non binding agreement with legal farce; WUWT has a link to a copy but it’s 56 pages and I understood the document was only 2 pages

    hopefully CFACT will have some news shortly

  18. Pretty well all press reports say that Durban decided that the Kyoto Protocol lives on, and that there will be a second commitment period.

    This is about the only thing that actually counts at the moment – do we in Australia, and other countries, have any new “binding legal obligations” under Kyoto to cut emissions?

    The press reports say yes, but from what I can find trawling through the UN documents the real answer is no.

    It will be remembered that Kyoto set emission caps for 2008-12. This was the “first commitment period”. There was supposed to be a “second commitment period” from 2013 to 2017, and caps for this period should have been agreed years ago, but they never have been.

    So far, the latest Durban document I have found on this is here.

    Annex 1 purports to give the caps (called QELROs or Quantified Emission Limit or Reduction Commitments) for 2013-17, but the column is blank for every country. Australia and New Zealand are the only countries that make any sort of explanation. Each says it is:

    “prepared to consider submitting information on its QELRO pursuant to decision 1/CMP.7, paragraph 3, following the necessary domestic processes and taking into account decision 1/CP.17 and decisions on mitigation [XX/CP.17] of the Conference of the Parties.”

    In other words, we might fill in a number later if we feel like it! Some “binding international legal commitment”!”

  19. there’s a number of documents now posted at unfccc.int/2860.php
    titled Decisions adopted by COP 17 and CMP 7

    I think what David is talking about is contained in this document unfccc.int/files/meetings/durban_nov_2011/decisions/application/pdf/awgkp_outcome.pdf
    which carries this footnote on p 5
    Australia is prepared to consider submitting information on its QELRO pursuant to decision 1/CMP.7, paragraph 5, following the necessary domestic processes and taking into account decision 1/CP.17 and decisions on mitigation (-/CP.17) and the ‘indaba’/mandate outcome decision (-/CP.17) and decisions -/CMP.7 (Land use, land-use change and forestry), -/CMP.7 (Emissions trading and the project-based mechanisms, -/CMP.7 (Greenhouse gases, sectors and source categories, common metrics to calculate the carbon dioxide equivalence of anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks, and other methodological issues and -/CMP.7 (Consideration of information on potential environmental, economic and social consequences, including spillover effects, of tools, policies, measures and methodologies available to Annex I Parties).

    and I agree with David’s interpretation of that verbiage

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.