Maite Nkoana-Mashabane, South Africa's Foreign Minister, Talks Climate Meeting

JOHANNESBURG -- South Africa's foreign minister said Monday she is hoping for compromise but expects only incremental progress in climate change talks she's hosting, further lowering hopes the Durban meeting will produce a dramatic agreement to stop global warming.

There are fears that "politics cannot deliver on what science requires," Maite Nkoana-Mashabane told South African business leaders in a speech Monday.

She was speaking three months before talks in Durban that follow a failed round in Copenhagen in 2009 that undermined confidence the world could produce a successor to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. The Kyoto provisions capping greenhouse gas emissions by industrial countries expire in 2012.

Talks in Mexico last year ended with a sense progress could be made.

"I will need to find compromises that will protect the integrity of the process," Nkoana-Mashabane said.

She added that developing countries in Africa and elsewhere also expect her to champion their calls for industrialized nations to deliver money and technology to help them develop clean industries and cope with the droughts, floods and other disruptions associated with global warming. The developing world is seen as suffering disproportionately from climate change because of poverty and other weaknesses.

Difficult questions were left after Mexico, Nkoana-Mashabane said.

"It is now left for us to solve all this in Durban, or at least set mechanisms in motion" to address challenges that touch on economics and politics.

Nkoana-Mashabane said the talks can't just be about the environment.

"People need to eat first," she said. "People need sustainable jobs for survival."

The U.S., a key player, has already said it does not expect this year's climate change conference to yield a binding international agreement.

In a rift that became particularly clear in Copenhagen, poorer nations complain that the industrialized world that grew rich off polluting industries should commit to deeper cuts in the emissions of the greenhouse gases blamed for global warming. Developing nations also say they cannot be denied polluting technologies, at least in the short to medium term, to pull themselves out of poverty.

The industrialized world balks at legal restrictions that could hurt its economies, particularly when poorer countries like China and India, who have become some of the world's biggest polluters, also are resisting legal restrictions.

South Africa, the country with Africa's biggest carbon footprint, has identified clean energy as an industry that could create jobs in a country where more than a quarter of the work force is unemployed.

Comments

[ClimateHawk]

09:16 AM on 08/25/2011

Worth a look -- history of the IPCC.

Its latest report includes over 18,000 references. Plenty of material for anybody who wants more information!

http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization_history.shtml

[Cayce58]

09:05 PM on 08/24/2011

A college professors statements went viral few years back. In substance he said, If I am wrong, we get off fossil fuels years before we run out of them. We do what we will have to do anyway. If you are wrong, it will be a disaster, with death, poverty, massive extinction and possibly the end of civilization or man. Is it really a choice?

[Publicola]

12:10 PM on 08/24/2011

Debunked: SEPP Global Warming "Skeptic" Bob Carter

Science & Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) "skeptic" uses Trick to Hide The Incline in global warming, a­s statistician Tamino demonstrates.*

SEPP global warming "skeptic" Bob Carter is a leader of and/or contribute­r to other of the most prominent organizations that are "skeptical­" of man-made global warming as well, including:

* The Heartland Institute

* The Science & Public Policy Institute (SPPI)

* The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC)

* The International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC)

ICSC Executive Director Tom Harris has repeatedly refused to address SEPP global warming "skeptic" Bob Carter's de facto fraud here on HuffPo, despite the fact that the SEPP global warming "skeptic" ­is also the ICSC's Chief Science Adviser.**

fiddler3: "The skeptics are not denying science. Calling them 'deniers' is pejorative­."

Dear fiddler3,

Isn't SEPP global warming "skeptic" Bob Carter committing de facto fraud by misrepresenting increasing global temperature trend data as flat? *

Isn't that like a global warming hoax, a climate science scam, a science denier deception, an indefensible­ lie, an inexcusable misrepresentation, outright fraud, etc.?

In short, isn't global warming "skeptic" Bob Carter's de facto fraud climate science denial?

------------------
* http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/07/bob_carters_trend_lines.php
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/07/13/bob-carter-does-his-business/

** http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/social/Publicola/climate-change-denial_b_896543_97738177.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/Publicola/climate-change-impacts-water-resources_n_911152_101378826.html

[Dardedar]

09:29 PM on 08/24/2011

fiddler3: "The skeptics are not denying science. Calling them 'deniers' is pejorative­­.">>

If you are a creationist and deny evolution, you deny the science of evolution.

If you believe in a young earth, you deny the science of geology, and quite a few others.

If you deny the earth goes around the sun, you deny the heliocentric theory, astro-physics and quite a few other fields.

If you deny the earth is warming, and/or that humans are effecting this, you deny the scientific findings of climatology (and quite a few other fields).

Embrace your denial, and have the compunction to be honest about it. If on the tiny chance it turns out that there is another explanation for the currently observed warming, then you can proudly trumpet your prescient correctness. And quite rightfully. But don't get your hopes up.

[KarlaElisa]

11:39 AM on 08/24/2011

"The industrialized world balks at legal restrictions that could hurt its economies"

The Earth is primary, not the 'economy'. No Earth to support life and the rest doesn't matter.

Industrial civilization must END.

[This American]

11:09 AM on 08/24/2011

The politicians of the so-called "developing" countries want the developed countries to bribe them to adopt policies that prevent the economic development that would relieve the misery of the people living in these unfortunate societies. To say that "science requires" this transaction is nothing short of obscene.

[texfly]

09:07 PM on 08/24/2011

I'm not sure of what you are saying. Science cannot require anything. It can only suggest timelines (shorter or longer), suggest possible impact (more or less, perhaps here, perhaps there), and offer potential solutions that may or may not work. The further down the road, the better the refined the assessments should be. It is up to the politico entities to define action.

It is clear the major economies of the world, especially the US, would rather sit still and wait. It is up the the minor world players to act in their own self-interest and development renewable energy sources to power their economies. Here the third world has an advantage IF their rulers took a national rather than personal perspective. Wind turbines are relatively inexpensive and few could create a manufacturing base for a non-existent economy. They don't have to compete with the big boys who fight over and control the fossil fuels. If the US fails to adopt renewable energy policies and and all electric economy, it is like to make the same mistake it made after WW-II : allow the rest of the world to retool with the most advanced technology and then lose the ensuing trade wars. We have yet to recognize that modern manufacturing technology has cost advantages. We always blame labor costs.

[This American]

05:39 AM on 08/25/2011

The "science requires" quote is from the original article.

"There are fears that "politics cannot deliver on what science requires," Maite Nkoana-Mashabane told South African business leaders in a speech Monday".

It is refreshing to see a comment on this subject, of this length that does not include the pejorative"science denier" , or an assault on a particular politically unpopular religion.

[Minolta321]

11:05 PM on 08/22/2011

Let me guess. She believes as a part of "climate change" the US owes her nation trillions of dollars.

I've got news for the S0cialist Climate Change crowd. You can forget about "global redistribution of US tax payer wealth". We are broke spending it on Entitlement programs in the US.

[canuckhoser]

12:12 AM on 08/23/2011

You are broke because of war and pharma subsidies. Medicare has problems, but SS is NOT why you are broke, in fact, it is what PAID for your Bush tax cuts...

[Dardedar]

09:32 PM on 08/24/2011

Wrong. "The United States currently ranks thirty-fourth(34th) out of the thirty-four(34) members of the OECD in regards to spending on social programs, dead last.

The amount the United States spends is currently only 7.2% of our gross domestic product on programs that make up our social contract with the American people."

http://www.politicususa.com/en/u-s-ranks-dead-last-in-overall-social-spending

[fiddler3]

09:11 PM on 08/22/2011

Nkoana-Mashabane is correct that there has been a failure of politics. That is not to say the science is crystal clear. In fact, there has been an erosion in the public's confidence in the 'settled' science. This is largely a result of the political mess that was created when politicians decided to insert themselves into the scientific process. At the time it seemed so clever -- the creation of a UN panel, the statements from the major science associations, the marginalization of any voices of dissent, the insistence on consensus. The problem seems to me to be that the hand was overplayed -- and as a result the AGW proponents seem to be suspiciously defensive of their theories. Good science doesn't need to become dogma. The politicians haven't had the good sense to see that science cannot be managed the way industries and labor can be regulated.

Maybe there is still time to regain momentum towards proper science and sanity. The questions being asked are critical and the implications can affect almost every nation on the planet. The trade-offs that are needed will require much greater political skill than has been demonstrated so far.

[Publicola]

12:25 AM on 08/23/2011

The problem is that there's a well-funded and ideologically-fueled science denier campaign, employing the same sort of tactics that also successfully manufactured doubt in the public about the connection between tobacco and cancer long after the scientific evidence on the fundamentals was conclusive.

Same deal - the overwhelming scientific evidence supporting AGW is in; now the "debate" on the fundamentals a smoke-and-mirrors campaign by science deniers.

Fiddler you say you are a physicist - what climate science background do you have that evidently makes you think you understand climate science better than the experts at the National Academy of Sciences?

---------------------

National Academy of Sciences:

There is a strong, credible body of evidence, based on multiple lines of research, documenting that climate is changing and that these changes are in large part caused by human activities. While much remains to be learned, the core phenomenon, scientific questions, and hypotheses have been examined thoroughly and have stood firm in the face of serious scientific debate and careful evaluation of alternative explanations...

Some scientific conclusions or theories have been so thoroughly examined and tested, and supported by so many independent observations and results, that their likelihood of subsequently being found to be wrong is vanishingly small. Such conclusions and theories are then regarded as settled facts. This is the case for the conclusions that the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities.

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12782

[fiddler3]

01:21 AM on 08/23/2011

I really have no interest in getting into a discussion with someone who stoops to name-calling. If that is where you start then there is nothing more I need to hear.

[fiddler3]

05:33 PM on 08/24/2011

"Your continued evasion with respect to addressing Bob" Carter's de facto climate science fraud is noted."

As stated before , I have no interest in a discussion with someone who stoops to name-calling. Consider yourself ignored.

[palindrom]

10:47 PM on 08/24/2011

fiddler, you're coming across as a "concern troll".

The idea that somehow the overwhelming consensus of climate scientists has been politically motivated by e.g. the IPCC is, frankly, ludicrous. The physics is clear, the measurements are clear, the signs are clear - it's happening, through multiple lines of evidence.

As others have pointed out, you are, wittingly or not, buying into the denialist (There! i said it! I guess I'm a Bad Bad Person!) strategy of sowing doubt by calling for "proper" science. The science is already "proper". it's been done, over and over. Now, we have to persuade people that it's important, in the face of a gigantic, multileveled PR campaign.

So, are you with us, or against us? I suspect the latter, but I could be pleasantly surprised.

[chdevnull]

06:14 PM on 08/22/2011

"She added that developing countries in Africa and elsewhere also expect her to champion their calls for industrialized nations to deliver money and technology to help them develop clean industries and cope with the droughts, floods and other disruptions associated with global warming."

[mikey09]

02:48 PM on 08/22/2011

The one thing that has bothered me abt the "money" end of this is how, undeveloped countries want developed countries to pay for their advances....heck I think even China wants to be paid to stop burning dirty coal....and if we pay to do all these things in the undeveloped countries, how do we make the advances here for ourselves.....to me, this is nothing but foreign aid for climate control and we might not have any control or safe guards to ensure it is being spent correctly. Most of our foreign aid to India is spent on buying weapons, why would this program be different.

[eric14]

02:07 PM on 08/22/2011

"People need to eat first," she said. "People need sustainable jobs for survival."
---------------------------------------
Kenya has malnutrition. Kenya exports food to the West.
Are the jobs devoted to the cash crop exporting of food from Kenya and other African countries examples of ''sustainable jobs for survival.''?

[KarlaElisa]

11:46 AM on 08/24/2011

see...that's just the problem. i hear people in developed nations whine all the time about 'why can't those people feed themselves?'

they used to. but 1st worlders and their corporations descended upon one of the lushest, richest bodies of land to strip mine it, slash and burn their forests, pump whatever resource they could out of it and displaced millions to gain access to everything they NEED to take care of themselves and maintain a healthy land base. they fish out all the fish and ship them abroad as well. and they contaminate what's left of their water, leaving these people with virtually no way to 'feed themself'.

all wealthy people from elsewhere have ever done is exploit these people and their land and those privileged, uninformed people sitting on their tails here in america, europe, canada and elsewhere that have this mindset make me want to scream. they don't understand what rigged trade policies and this form of 'capitalism' does to indigenous populations on a massive scale.

[eric14]

12:25 PM on 08/24/2011

Choices in these matters are being made by Kenyans. To ignore this may allow you to construct a vision of a blameless Africa, victim to neo-colonialist capitalism.

But you know it is not true. Kenyans both in government and in the private sector also have individual and collective responsibilities. Similarly, when it comes to mineral exploitation elsewhere, there are local people who want it to to happen so they may profit.

Victim culture is a form of blame culture and a form of self-deception.

[Publicola]

01:55 PM on 08/22/2011

National Academy of Sciences, 2010:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is a strong, credible body of evidence, based on multiple lines of research, documenting that climate is changing and that these changes are in large part caused by human activities. While much remains to be learned, the core phenomenon, scientific questions, and hypotheses have been examined thoroughly and have stood firm in the face of serious scientific debate and careful evaluation of alternative explanations...

Some scientific conclusions or theories have been so thoroughly examined and tested, and supported by so many independent observations and results, that their likelihood of subsequently being found to be wrong is vanishingly small. Such conclusions and theories are then regarded as settled facts. This is the case for the conclusions that the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities.

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12782

[ANGEL53545]

02:10 PM on 08/22/2011

LIES ALWAYS NEEDS multiple lines of research,BUT TRUTH DOESNT NEED multiple lines of research.

[Publicola]

02:21 PM on 08/22/2011

For a positive scientific conclusion to be regarded a scientifically robust it must be supported by multiple lines of scientific research.

HTH.

[chrisd3]

03:01 PM on 08/22/2011

Angel, you seriously need to pick up a remedial science text. Your comment is just flat-out wrong.

[Bruce Kettelle]

01:48 PM on 08/22/2011

More nonsense from AGW advocates who believe that humans can somehow visit such terrible consequences upon Planet Earth that she will succumb and fall and cease to be a viable place for life to exist.
That is what the AGW advocates claim.
Planet Earth has been taking care of itself for about 4 billion years. Nothing that puny humans can do will injure Earth. Of course, self-centered, greedy humans have been hurting and killing each other for milleniums over any number of silly motives. THAT will continue.
Equality of wealth distribution and the development of humanity-driven sound economic institutions are the issues upon which humans should be spending their time. AGW debate is a silly distraction by comparison to the immensely larger and more important economic issues.

[Publicola]

01:54 PM on 08/22/2011

Yo Bruce,

What is your science background that somehow makes you think you understand climate science better than the experts at the National Academy of Sciences?

[Publicola]

02:05 PM on 08/22/2011

By the way Bruce this statement of yours is nothing but a climate science denier straw man:

BruceK: "AGW advocates... believe that humans can somehow visit such terrible consequences upon Planet Earth that she will succumb and fall and cease to be a viable place for life to exist.
That is what the AGW advocates claim."

If you are going to try to pretend that you are someone who knows more about a scientific subject than the National Academy of Sciences then you should at least attain a bare-minimal functional understanding of what you are talking about.

[Mary Louise McGuirk]

02:27 PM on 08/22/2011

You are 100% right...Earth will take care of herself. However, while doing so, she may make it miserable or worse for human beings. I don't know exactly which portion of the history of Earth has been habitable for humans, but would wager it is less than the 600,000,000 years that there have been organisms more complicated than algae, or about 15% of the time.

A couple hundred years ago there was a double or triple minimum temperature called the Year Without a Summer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_without_a_summer

I don't know about you, but the Earth isn't fragile, but humans are!

[Bruce Kettelle]

04:30 PM on 08/22/2011

Good points.
Please note that evolution has a big role in all of this. Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann may disagree, but evolution not only explains how we got here, but where we are going. For the latter, we must observe and learn from history. If humans cannot exist without endangering our common home- Earth- we will perish. There are just too many examples of species that did not successfully adapt and went extinct.
However, there are much much larger problems facing humans than the question of whether AGW is real and, if so, how do we adapt.
Economic divisions that have been created, by design, are the biggest problem facing human beings. Wealth inequality may be the very reason why the human race has neglected other priorities. But wealth inequality IS THE BIGGEST PROBLEM WE FACE. PERIOD. END OF STORY!
As I said to another poster, wasting time on lesser issues is wasteful and self-defeating when considered as a Human Race survival issue. All of us contribute to wealth creation. But only a small powerful percentage own any wealth. Wealth = power. There is none of the latter absent the former.
Put your time and effort into correcting the inequality of wealth distribution. When Humans solve that problem, most other problems will disappear.

[whochi]

01:20 PM on 08/22/2011

The Claim: 50 million climate refugees will be produced by climate change by the year 2010. Especially hard hit will be river delta areas, and low lying islands in the Caribbean and Pacific. The UN 62nd General assembly in July 2008 said: '…it had been estimated that there would be between 50 million and 200 million environmental migrants by 2010....'

The Test: Did population go down in these areas during that period, indicating climate refugees were on the move? The answer, no.

The Proof: Population actually gained in some Caribbean Island for which 2010 census figures were available. Then when challenged on these figures, the UN tried to hide the original claim from view. See: The UN “disappears” 50 million climate refugees, then botches the disappearing attempt

The Change in claim: Now it is claimed that it will be 10 years into the future, and there will be 50 million refugees by the year 2020.

[chrisd3]

02:58 PM on 08/22/2011

"50 million climate refugees will be produced by climate change by the year 2010"

That is incorrect. Why don't you go look up what the report actually said?

[Josh Morgan]

10:12 AM on 08/22/2011

Smells like Marxism to me. Wealth redistribution. Green is the new red.

[Publicola]

01:01 PM on 08/22/2011

Smells like science denial to me. Denier disinformation. The global warming "debate" is the new smoking-causes-cancer "debate".

[mikey09]

02:52 PM on 08/22/2011

I'm not a denier of climate change but a skeptic of the role "redistribution" of money will have on the problem....

[too-small-to-fail]

10:22 PM on 08/22/2011

Comments like yours sadden me beyond measure