But that, Mike, is to miss Knappenberger’s point. What he’s saying is this: for political (“large populations with little or no access to electricity”) and technical (“current-generation renewable energy technologies are simply incapable of meeting the enormous energy needs of developing countries”) reasons, there’s no possibility that developing economies will agree to mitigate their CO2 emissions. Therefore, Western countries are fooling themselves if they think they can persuade them to do so. US Secretary of State John Kerry’s trip to India last week provides a perfect example: LINK. An extract:

Javadekar [India’s new environment minister] and his team expressed their reservations on the issue, pointing to the fact that developed countries were required to show leadership under the convention and India was against breaking the existing embedded differentiation between rich and developing countries. Javadekar also insisted that the principle of equity needed to be adhered to while distributing the burden of reducing emissions globally. [my emphases]

Knappenberger’s is my point also: given that economies responsible for about 70% of global emissions have every intention of continuing to emit, for the UK (little more than 1% of emissions) to press on with its absurdly expensive and damaging climate policies is completely pointless.

In other words, there’s no prospect of Greenpeace getting its way – except perhaps in some small African countries. The emerging economies are clearly not going to be so foolish as to allow them to do so. See THIS and THIS for example. And, even if we in the West are “dealing with eugenicists and neo-Malthusians” and back to nature enthusiasts, such people are irrelevant in a developing country determined to grow its economy and grappling with the harsh reality of a huge population in desperate poverty. So, in practice, they’re unimportant.

Many thanks, Alex - especially for Mary Robinson's revealing reply to RTE Radio 1. Recently appointed by Ban Ki-moon as a "Special Envoy on Climate Change", I think Ms Robinson demonstrates the typically muddled mindset of often well-meaning officials in Western governments and the UN. On the one hand, she dreams of saving the planet by eliminating fossil fuels. But, on the other, she has a mission to eliminate world poverty. But she knows that these objectives are in practice irreconcilable: poverty elimination means affordable energy and affordable energy means fossil fuels. In other words, she's on the same "horns of a dilemma" as is Andrew Mackenzie - see Paul's interesting link above. This is illustrated by an interview about "climate justice" that Mary Robinson gave to RTCC's (Responding to Climate Change) Sophie Yeo last year. Here's an extract:

Developing economies such as China, on the other hand, will focus on their right to use fossil fuels to develop in the present as the UK and the US have done in the past, and that it is therefore up to these countries to enable them to do so.[my emphasis]

It's particularly absurd that she should specify China: a country that is by far the world's greatest GHG emitter - and whose per capita emissions are on a par with the EU's. Yet, for some reason, UN representatives seem to think it necessary to appease China. (Any suggestions as to why?) But, of course it was because China and other major "developing" economies insisted on their continuing right to exemption from binding cuts that Copenhagen failed. And here's Mary Robinson boosting the likelihood of Paris failing for precisely the same reason.

As for Bangladesh, here's a NYT article covering the same points as Alex's link. I suspect Mary Robinson would (no doubt reluctantly) approve. Here's a report on her recent visit to Bangladesh. An extract:

"The poorest people, who are not responsible for carbon emissions into the atmosphere, will be the worst hit by the devastations of climate change - but the climate change discourse has so far not been people-centred."

Yet the solution, it seems, is for countries like Bangladesh to themselves become "responsible for carbon emissions into the atmosphere". "Horns of a dilemma" indeed: her continuing campaign for "climate justice" and her new responsibility of supporting Ban Ki-moon's summit next month and the Paris talks next year would seem to be mutually exclusive.

Well, Mike, you specifically mentioned “great tranches of Africa, India, China, and other currently undeveloped … parts of the world”. So, not unreasonably I suggest, I took you as saying that the developing countries might somehow be forced to curtail their CO2 emissions if Greenpeace and other West-backed NGOs got their way. Were that to happen, the proposition that’s the subject of this Discussion (Current climate policy is pointless – we need a new approach) would be undermined - see my initial post.

However, as I hope I demonstrated, there’s no remotely realistic prospect of the developing economies being so persuaded by Greenpeace et al. And therefore my proposition maintains its validity.

I wholly agree with you, however, that it’s immoral that for example many of the most vulnerable and deprived children in parts of Africa may have their hope of a better life prejudiced because comfortable people in the West – who typically staff the green NGOs – people who take reliable energy for granted, are obsessed by what they see as the need to save the planet.

Yes, that's an important subject. But it’s not the subject of this Discussion – worthy perhaps of a new one.

The essence of this Discussion is that, as there is no prospect of a legally binding worldwide agreement to reduce GHG emissions, the UK’s current emission mitigation policies are pointless.

This article and the “online tool” to which it refers (based on “responsibility, capacity and need” and designed to calculate the emission cuts required country-by-country if a climate deal is to be “fair and effective”) is a prime example of the crazy dream world inhabited by so many “greens”.

Two examples of results of the tool’s calculations (emissions cuts required by 2020):

The UK: 94%.

China: 9.4%.

There’s little more than a year to go to the “make or break” conference in Paris. That seemingly intelligent people are now seriously proposing this absurdity as a useful basis for “a wider debate on the responsibilities of various countries” is a yet another illustration of why a meaningful agreement next year is impossible.

You may be premature with your "good news", johanna. According to this, the French Foreign Minister expects "between 40,000 and 50,000 people from 195 countries" to attend the UN Paris conference next year. Copenhagen, it seems, attracted a mere 26,600.

So Paris is expected to be something special. Which makes it particularly weird that Ban Ki-moon has just appointed Mary Robinson as a "Special Envoy on Climate Change" when Mrs Robinson endorses a position that would guarantee the Conference's failure. Here's an extract from a report on an interview she gave last year:

Developing economies such as China, on the other hand, will focus on their right to use fossil fuels to develop in the present as the UK and the US have done in the past, and that it is therefore up to these countries to enable them to do so.

She's right of course. But I wonder how she'd explain her position to Greenpeace which is adamant that, under the 2015 agreement, "Governments must deliver a Protocol under which all countries take on binding emissions reduction commitments."

That's very kind, johanna - thanks. Too bad it doesn't seem to be getting anywhere : (

Yes, they're all special. And the Copenhagen conference was specially special. Referring to it, Tom Burke told the Royal Society that 2009 was "the most important year in human history". And, not going quite as far, Gordon Brown said:

Copenhagen is poised to achieve a profound historical transformation: reversing the road we have travelled for 200 years.

(As Rupert Darwell commented, "Quite why it should make sense to turn the clock back to the beginning of the nineteenth century, Brown didn't say.")

Paris has not, I think, attracted quite so much hype**. Indeed, Sir David King (ex UK chief government scientist) and noted for his view that "Climate change is not ... the biggest challenge of our time, it's the biggest challenge of all time", has described this year's Lima conference as,

in many ways more important than next year's Paris Summit as it has to deliver the groundwork for a scheduled agreement in 2015.

Hmm ... we'll see.

And there are some greens who are wholly pessimistic: see THIS. Yes, they predict a "turning point" in 2015: but, by that, they mean an agreement that will allow for increased emissions, a "Copenhagen Mark II". It's a change to see green realism.

PS: ** Oh no - I forgot Prince Charles. How could I do such a thing? At a conference last May, having referred to Paris as "a pivotal moment in history", he said:

Over the next eighteen months ... the world faces what is probably the last effective window of opportunity to vacate the insidious lure of the ‘last chance saloon’ in order to agree an ambitious, equitable and far-sighted multilateral settlement ... Either we continue along the path we seem collectively determined to follow ... or we can choose to act now before it is finally too late …

Well, yes johanna, we're seeing a lot of progress. But my focus has - for years - been on a very narrow front: that there's no point in taking expensive and damaging mitigation action if most countries responsible for emissions have no intention of doing so also. And, on that front, progress is, if any, almost non-existent.

You may be interested that that focus stemmed from an exchange I had on 11th January 2008 with a "Mr Fnortner". It was part of an extraordinary thread that followed an article by David Whitehouse (about what's now called "the pause") in the New Statesman. I had been pontificating about how "we" should do this and "we" should do that. Mr F quietly responded as follows:

... I was wondering who the "we" was you used in your question. Certainly it wasn't the royal "we" (we are not amused) or the medical "we" (how are we feeling today?), so you must mean someone who could possibly act and carry out the solution. Who is that, exactly?

My reply:

I’m chastened that you have caught me using sloppy phrasing. I’ve no idea who “we” is: I shouldn’t have used it. There is no “we” with the authority to impose any perceived “solution” on the world.

I developed my position from that. I've no idea who Mr Fnortner is, nor have I had any further contact with him. But I'm grateful to him.

PS: good advice about not becoming a fanatic. I'll do my best.

johanna (and Richard): I agree that there are some (albeit rather small) moves away from pointless policies. But these things have happened for reasons other than that on which I’m trying to get some focus: “there's no point in taking expensive and damaging mitigation action if most countries responsible for emissions have no intention of doing so also”. I believe that’s a simple and powerful argument. And it’s hardly being deployed at all. In other words, as I said on Saturday, it doesn’t seem to be getting anywhere.

johanna/Richard - here's an example of what I mean.

Last week (Thursday) I posted on Unthreaded a link to a report on the Chinese Academy of Sciences website entitled, High Correlations between Solar Activity and the Earth's Averaged Surface Temperature Proved by NSSC (China's National Space Science Center) Scientists. Here's what the CAS said about it:

Global warming, namely the unequivocal and continuing rise in Earth’s climate, is one of the hottest and most debatable issue at the present time. As a scientific intergovernmental and international body under the auspices of the United Nations (UN), the intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) once claimed that the release of the anthropogenic greenhouse gases contributed to as much as 90% or even higher of the observed increase in the global average temperature in the past 50 years. However, worldwide scientists are still skeptical and debate on the possible explanation of the global warming never ends. Research shows that the IPCC’s model tends to underestimate the impact of natural factors on the climate change, while overestimate that of the human activities. ... These results, as pointed out by a peer reviewer, provide a possible explanation for the global warming. [My emphases]

Had the Royal Society made such a comment, there would have been excited uproar. Yet here was China's science academy - and remember China's pivotal role in current climate negotiations - making these extraordinary statements. And no one seemed interested.

Your "first rule of politics" is spot on, johanna. Like you I think, I’ve worked in the public sector (for a short time when I was brought in from the private sector to sort out and run an agency reporting to the UK Cabinet Office) and I’ve observed the rule in practice. And I agree that a handful of Western politicians are beginning to understand that their policies are damaging and, in view of the international position, probably ineffective – hence the withdrawal of subsidies etc. But Tony Abbott, I think, is the only one who’s actually doing anything radical about it

But I'm not referring here to politicians. My concern is the campaigners who are trying to persuade governments to change policy - i.e. the good guys. Their concerns, focus and energies are still devoted almost entirely to the science. Perhaps they are beginning to get somewhere, but it's a slow process as they are thwarted at every step by insult, appeals to authority, a hostile MSM, pundit attitudes etc. A better approach is probably to focus on the disadvantages and ineffectiveness of "renewables" - see Mike Kelly's recent talk and the Bish's current blog post. It's better because these problems arise irrespective of the scientific arguments and therefore avoid most of the insult and hostility. The trouble, however, is that it's a complicated message to get over: and complexity is the enemy of communication. But the message that countries responsible for at least 70% of emissions are not interested in mitigation - unless it's by someone else – is simple to communicate and virtually impossible to refute. Moreover insult and hostility are useless defences.

Yet few campaigners seem at all interested in the potential of that message. See, for example, my brief exchange with Phillip Bratby (unquestionably one of the good guys) on Unthreaded this morning (9:00 AM – 11:23 AM). That’s what I meant when I said that my efforts don’t seem to be getting anywhere.

Thanks, Martin. And apologies accepted, SC.

That could be an interesting new Discussion - although way outside my skill set.