Rio+20 failed (and Copenhagen, Kyoto before them) because it did not address the real cause of the problem. For example, if your purpose or goal is to stop the melting of glaciers in the Rockies, you are doomed to fail at that goal if your actions are directed at the wrong cause of the melting.
Documenting the EFFECTS which would occur if and when the glaciers melt with myriad studies does not provide information about nor confirm the CAUSE. If a scientist is sincerely trying to save corral but does not understand the cause of the problem, most likely they will have sampling problems in their studies. Coral adapts by moving to a different location if the water is too warm; the reef moves deeper or further north. If you sampled the same location over time, which would make sense if the cause was ocean acidification, then you would miss the new coral heads forming 100 miles north.
This is precisely was is occurring in the climate change issue and other UN-proposed treaties like UNCLOS. The UN IPCC, EPA, Al Gore, EDF, WWF, etc are reciting a litany of effects which might or might not occur, replete with multimillion dollar grants and movies. But even after 30 years and spending billions they do not have reproducible evidence validating the CAUSE of global warming or cooling, and they will not discuss or debate CAUSE, and demonize you if you ask. The UN IPCC just released a new 500+ page report detailing impacts, risks and futures, but no evidence as to cause. Beautiful graphics, expensively prepared, but nothing that speaks to cause.
Their behavior indicates that their real goal is different from what they are saying. Their real goal as judged by their behavior is to raise money. A corollary: judge a policy, project or program by its outcome with regard to a validated cause, instead of the stated intent.
Thus, the earth has been slowing and intermittently warming since the last ice age, but so far no one knows the cause. Various hypotheses are being and have been tested. CO2 has been thoroughly tested and it failed. But, the “warmists” continue with the CO2 story built over 3 decades at the cost of tens of billions of taxpayer dollars spent because their real goal was not to stop warming. Their real goal was to tax carbon, and to make us all feel guilty enough to not object to the taxes and inevitable price increases.
In fact, the economist who built the computer models for trading carbon credits was funded by The Joyce Foundation when Obama sat on its board of directors and another board director at that time is president of the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX). https://www.theice.com/ccx.jhtml Al Gore and the UN’s Maurice Strong were directly tied to CCX until early 2009 when it was sold to ICE (International Commodity Exchange) in Atlanta. Goldman Sachs was the largest CCX shareholder. CCX was expecting $25 trillion per year in trades on carbon credits, on which CCX would be paid commission and fees.
Obviously, if there is no tax on carbon, then there is no need to trade carbon credits to offset carbon taxes. Obama’s EPA is ignoring the science and the economics and taxing carbon anyway. The House has already voted to defund the EPA’s activities regarding climate change and separately also to defund the UN IPCC. Canada, eco-conscious and one of the early adopters of the global warming story, has defunded its climate change activities and renounced the UN IPCC program, as have Russia, China, Czechoslovakia.
By the way, Al Gore’s mentor Maurice Strong (a Canadian) is the same guy who was former Assistant Secretary General of the UN running the Iraq “Oil for Food” program until he ran from the U.S. and his UN job -having been caught red handed with a million dollar bribe check from Saddam Hussein.
You and I share interest in coral reefs and the environment, but climate change is a giant fraud. Lawyers will make a LOT of money in the near future litigating cases against the fraudsters.