Gosh. Who knew that a massive tax could solve all imagined climate problems?
David L. Hagen writes:
The UN is demanding control over $1.6 trillion per year to control climate. See Section 47 in draft # FCCC/AWGLCA/2011/CRP.39 9 December 2011 #GE.11-71576 at: http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2011/awglca14/eng/crp39.pdf
47. The provision of the amount of funds to be made available annually to developing country Parties, which shall be equivalent to the budget that developed countries spend on defence, security, and warfare. Fifty per cent of that amount shall be for adaptation, 20 per cent for mitigation, 15 per cent for technology development and transfer and 15 per cent for forest-related actions in developing country Parties;
See Reuters: Worldwide military spending edged up in 2010 to a record $1.6 trillion, a leading think-tank said on Monday. Source: Stockholm International Peace Research Institute’s military expenditure database. http://www.sipri.org/research/armaments/milex/research/armaments/milex/milex_database . . .
Until then, the immediate urgent task is to provide alternative fuels while caring for the poor.Conventional climate mitigation comes in dead last in benefit/cost.”
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
$1.6 trillion? Is that all? One IPCC statement says $37 trillion is needed immediately to ‘stop global warming’. I recall EPA saying it would take $170 trillion to lower Earth’s temperature 1 degree C.
No doubt, they will need to ramp up their demands for money as they figure out how to use it for themselves. They surely won’t be sending any significant amount to countries they claim to be helping.
If the UN gets the $1.6 million to stop the climate from changing will it also be able to command the tides, or will only Al Gore have that power?
Wonder whyat THIS mjeans ?
…… the creation of decent work and quality jobs in accordance with nationality
defined development priorities and strategies,..
Not nationally defined, but nationality defined prorities
The suggestion of 1.6tn here is pretty stupid , as stated, that is whole world mil budget not that of developing nations.
The issues here are serious enough not to need spurious exaggeration.
It’s over! Durban is dead.
http://notrickszone.com/2011/12/10/der-spiegel-no-deal-durban-ends-in-chaos-its-over/
I’m confused as to how this budgeting process is going to work. One requirement of the draft document is that all countries cease any military spending. Then, they demand an amount of money equal to the world’s military spending. By their own process, they have demanded $0.
Or are they just expecting that no one will listen to their demand for cessation of warfare and spend the money anyway despite the treaty? That must be their expectation since their track record so far of stopping warfare is zero too.
Starting to be a lot of zeros in this scheme. That would also be the number of countries that are going to sign this piece of insanity and actually implement a single provision in it. ZERO.
They seem to have forgotten their 50% administration fee.
What’s so great about Durban the city that they would put a conference there? The only thing lots of people associate with the city is the racist Jew Hating conference they held there a decade ago.
To Louise: Instead of looking up ‘invite’ and ‘demand’ in your Oxford dictionary, check the history of political speak. Words have whatever meaning they want on any given day. If they can convince you to sign onto a plan today with the word ‘invite’, tomorrow that ‘invite’ becomes a ‘demand’ and the day after ‘coercion’, you want corn? wheat? oil?, then you must ‘voluntarily’ ……and the day after that it is a crime against humanity.
And the bad news is that next years feast is going to be held underwater on the once Maldive Islands, to much to ask 30,000 parasites to drown for a just cause!
This document is either too good – or too bad – to be true. Apparently the CAGW people aren’t the only climate bloggers to swallow a hoax:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/dec/10/durban-climate-talks-false-text
Let’s unruffle our feathers here and get back to reality. 😉
tallbloke says:
December 10, 2011 at 9:12 am
“The EU has wasted over 1/4 billion Euro on propping up the european carbon market already. That cash could have rebuilt all coal fired generating plant with filters and reduced co2 emissions 30%.”
http://bing.search.sympatico.ca/?q=Total%20funding%20for%20climate%20change%20reserach&mkt=en-ca&setLang=en-CA
JoNova points out that:
“The US government has provided over $79 billion since 1989 on policies related to climate change, including science and technology research, foreign aid, and tax breaks.”
Surely the rest of the world has come up with another similar amount- so the total is probably more than $150B + the cost of the world windmill fleet + solar – I’m guessing $750B (the internet is so polluted by green gas that you can’t get a link using sensible search phrases), plus all the other craziness must add up to at least $1trillion. Anybody got numbers on this? Tallbloke, that isn’t your picture at the head of this post is it? With the little fingernail between your teeth?
Louise says:
December 10, 2011 at 9:41 am
“So you all think the word ‘invite’ actually means ‘demand’ – wow, I knew there were some differences between American and British English but I’d missed that one.”
—
The “invite” part only applies to submitting “information on plans to increase their financial contributions”. It’s like when the IRS invites me to submit a tax return every year. I can ignore the request to send in my tax forms but that won’t stop them from demanding their money anyway. There isn’t a global IRS, yet, but the elitists in Durban have already drafted plans to create one.
You may consider your power bill an “invitation” to pay but, where I live, the power gets shut off if I refuse to pay. So, to me, it’s a “demand”. I don’t have the option to ignore the taxes and fees added on to my power bill and pay for just the electricity I use, do you? If Durban gets its way, their extortion money will be added on to your power bill, your grocery bill, your tax bill, and anything else they can get their hands on. In other words, “invite” is newspeak for “demand” in its Durban context.
The Global Warming craze is frightening evidence that people’s desire, need, proclivity for magical thinking is greater than their intellectual strength or self-criticism.
I recently watched a program that described the Russian Glasnost as not just openness, but self-criticism, which was philosophically not possible in Stalinist communism. Only the good parts of society were open to inspection pre-Glasnost. I don’t think that the refusal on philosophical ground to open up the sores of the state are just a Communist problem: the MSM, government and people of capitalist countries are just as self-blind to the problems their way of living causes. As are the hyper-religious and the atheist. It is more the way of people than the way of a people.
The Durban demand for trillions of dollars – or billions or lots of millions, it doesn’t matter – is all about preservation of self-respect. Face-saving. Going out strong, never admitting error or foolishness. In fact, the greater the demand, the more likely the demand is to be refused. Then something more moderate, but in compromise against your alleged core beliefs, might be successful. And proposed by the next generation.
Put Keystone XL on top of a regional acquifer? Hell, no, never, over our dead bodies. Oh, shift it to the east, over someone else’s land without our acquifer on it? Sure, I don’t have a dog in this fight, I’m pleased and I’m going home. Not that I object to burning the jet fuel that takes me around the world, I was just making a point about what, if I were running the world, I’d like to see.
Durban, thank the Lord, is excessive to the ridiculous. So it will fail. But all those whose hearts are on their sleeves will be able to preserve their self-image. And find something else to plump up their chest about. And so it will go – as long as the Watts and the Moranos and the Inhofes are allowed to say their piece, that is.
What is really distressing, though, is the repetition of magical thinking of educated, experienced, cultured “leaders” everywhere. We are progressing technologically. We understand the physics better than ever before, but we still behave as the European and Aztecs of one thousand years ago, looking for AND FINDING witches and angry gods to blame for troubles in our lives. Sacrifice, sacrifice, sacrifice: a marginalized element one time, an underclass of believers another time, a corporate villain the next. All the same song, just the style changes.
In science fiction movies, humans are often said to be unready to enter the “civilized” universe. We are too violent. AGW shows that it isn’t violence that is at the heart of the problem, it is a way of magical thinking that says “strike here, and all the problems go away”. Wars, AGW, Ponzi schemes on Wall Street – all ways of being that says the Other exists, the Other, when defeated, will make our lives perfect. Magical thinking when slow but steady work will actually do the trick.
Durban, Durban, Durban. How do they sleep at night? Very well, indeed, for they are Good People, which is the only point worth considering, after all.
Bloke down at the pub says:
Good point.
SIPRI’s military expenditure database is available to download in a spread sheet and lists expenditures by country.
Please do us the service and break out developing vs developed country expenditures.
Some other clues from Military Expenditures and Development J. Paul Dunne
Income group (by 2003 gross national income per capita)
Low $29.5
Lower middle $122
Upper middle $51
High $799
—————————
Reducing military spending and helping the poor are still honorable goals. Just do it without establishing a global coercive government and universal taxation without representation.
See Fact Sheet: Military Spending vs. Millennium Development Goals
Goal 1: Eradicate extreme hunger and poverty $102 billion
Goal 7: Ensure Environmental Sustainability $155.6 billion
Goal 8: Develop Global Partnership fro Development $40 billion
Annual cost estimation of all MDGs = $329 billion.
Global Military Spending in 2009 – $1.53 trillion
You do the hokey pokey and that’s what it’s all about.
Money taken from the “wrong” people, and given to the “right” people with most of it sticking to the elite fingers in the middle.
So, essentially, that means spending a symbolical sum on technology and forest so that .7*1.6 Trillion can be spent on the most important people-the ones sitting around saying what could and should be done year in and year out, without actually anything being done.
The politicized class need your money to live in wealth too, so don’t deny them your kindness come taxation time. :p
Louise says:
December 10, 2011 at 9:41 am
“So you all think the word ‘invite’ actually means ‘demand’ – wow….”
47. The provision of the amount of funds to be made available annually to developing country Parties, which shall be equivalent to the budget that developed countries spend on defence, security, and warfare.
Now that’s a real “wow”, dearie.
But I suppose you also think the authors of Fast and Furious, Sheriff Eric “Hit Man” Holder, and Prince
JohnBarack and his Commie Hoods are really Robinhood and his Merry Men battling to oppose confiscatory taxation? And that the Drug Cartels will send only their real dirty “laundry” back for La Raza and such to dry clean?Geez, Louise, it’s no doubt only going to be a matter of time before you “Progressives” will be praising these total fakes as “John Wayne Cowboys”.
Louise: Re: “So you all think the word ‘invite’ actually means ‘demand’”
Please evaluate the grammar of para 47 “to be made available” and “shall be”
e.g. Merriam-Webster definition of shall includes:
Philip Foster says:
December 10, 2011 at 9:23 am
‘I gather that a hoax document has been circulating at Durban’
Pretty much every document circulating at Durban is a hoax, as is the event itself.
To:Bloke down the pub says:
December 10, 2011 at 10:03 am
Please read it again. It is the amount spent by Developed Countries.
Climate control is not the issue: Equal poverty for all the the goal.
David L. Hagen;
Annual cost estimation of all MDGs = $329 billion.
Global Military Spending in 2009 – $1.53 trillion>>>
Here’s the problem with that analysis. You are assuming that spending the $329 Billion would be effective. History shows that it will not. Billions upon billions have been poured into the poor nations of the earth in the form of aid and support of all sorts, and they remain poor nations, struggling in squalor. They will continue to do so until the dictatorships, theocracies, monarchies and totaly corrupt governments are gone. Until then, every penny of aid sent to those poor nations does nothing but prop up the regimes that are responsible for their people’s misery, and prolongs the agony of the people who suffer under them.
Re mil. spending of developed vs developing world, here’s a good pie chart for 2008.
http://topforeignstocks.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/military-country-distribution-2008.png
EU+USA = 68% of total. Rest is difficult to break up, but you get the picture. I guess total of developed world is about 75% of the total.
“corporate says:
December 10, 2011 at 10:41 am
Wonder whyat THIS mjeans ?
…… the creation of decent work and quality jobs in accordance with nationality
defined development priorities and strategies,..
Not nationally defined, but nationality defined prorities”
Isn’t that interesting. I think most people can speculate what is really meant.
Seems the USA has given enough, even without ratifying a treaty.
http://www.state.gov/e/oes/rls/remarks/2011/178458.htm
Talk about a waste of investment. What have we gotten for 90 BILLION and in the past two years….5.1 BILLION. No wonder the USA is going down the rat hole fast.