Global warming hysteria stays in Mexico

Despite profuse self-congratulations and a Kumbaya spirit, the global warming summit in Cancun, Mexico, didn’t much advance the cause of climate alarmism. It may even have set back the movement. We’re pleased on both counts.

The 1997 Kyoto Protocol, whose Draconian mandated cuts in greenhouse gas emissions expire in 2012, wasn’t extended or replaced, and nothing else legally binding was agreed upon by the assembled 190-plus nations. The United States never signed Kyoto, as most nations did.

Cancun got off to a rocky start two weeks ago when Japan, a signatory, declared it would never agree to another Kyoto treaty. Apparently no one else was willing, either.

The Asia News Network reported that Cancun’s failures make it more likely developed countries will shift from Kyoto’s binding regime “to a voluntary system in which each country only makes pledges on how much it will reduce its emissions.”

“But these are overall such poor targets,” according to the news agency, “that many

scientific reports warn that the developed

countries by 2020 may decrease their emissions by only a little or even increase their level.”

Alden Meyer of the Union of Concerned Scientists lamented, “Fundamentally there’s not consensus coming out of here on the long-term way forward in terms of the legal regime.”

This is good news for anyone who regards

catastrophic manmade global warming to be a hyped nonthreat, and for anyone who cherishes liberty and economic freedom and is repulsed by transnational mandates.

Coming a year after gridlock at the U.N.’s

previous worldwide climate conference in Copenhagen, Denmark, Cancun’s delegates were intent on at least the appearance of agreement. Their consensus was more posturing than

substance.

No firm proposals were agreed on for nations to reduce emissions by even the lowered amounts summit planners sought. Moreover, it was left to each nation to decide how much and how soon to reduce. A system was agreed upon to monitor, report and verify emissions, but without

enforcement provisions.

A committee was agreed upon to provide

technology for developing nations. But delegates avoided deciding how to protect developed nations’ intellectual property rights, a concern that inhibits sharing.

Agreement was reached on a plan for

developed nations to pay developing nations to soak up carbon dioxide using plants. Again,

delegates backed off a proposal for faux carbon markets to finance the scheme. Everyone agreed to get together next year in South Africa to see if they can agree then on how to make any of this stuff legally binding.

Environmental activists were more candid than delegates. Britain’s Green Party pronounced the conference “a very weak deal,” while a spokesman for India’s Center for Science and Environment called the agreement “bad for

climate change action.”

“The negotiations in the future,” said China’s negotiator, “will continue to be difficult.” That’s just fine with us.