Doha Conference: United States Must Pay for Climate Change “Loss and Damage”

Guest post by Steve Goreham

Originally published in The Washington Times

The United States must pay for its evil carbon-emitting ways. According to the United Nations Doha Climate Conference that ended on December 8, developing nations should be compensated for “associated loss and damage” from climate change by the wealthy nations. Developing nations will now pursue industrialized nations for compensation from sea level rise, extreme weather, and other events allegedly caused by past emissions of greenhouse gases. Since the US was the world’s leading emitter of greenhouse gases until 2007 when China assumed the lead, the US is the primary target of this conclusion.

At the 2010 Cancun Conference, delegates acknowledged that industrialized nations were responsible for global warming, stating “…the largest share of historical global emissions of greenhouse gases originated in developed countries…” The just concluded Doha Conference called for establishment of “institutional arrangements, such as an international mechanism” to “address loss and damage associated with the impacts of climate change in developing countries.” In other words, let’s form an international body to pursue money from nations responsible for historical global emissions of greenhouse gases, namely the US and other industrialized nations. Compensation could amount to hundreds of billions of dollars per year.

Why would US delegates agree to such a position? Unfortunately, our current administration accepts the doctrine of Climatism, the belief that man-made greenhouse gases are destroying Earth’s climate. As Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in 2009, “We acknowledge—now with President Obama—that we have made mistakes in the United States, and we along with other developed countries have contributed most significantly to the problem we face with climate change.”

A major voice at the conference in favor of associated loss and damage was the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS). AOSIS consists of 43 members, including the Bahamas, Cuba, Fiji, Maldives, Mauritius, and the Seychelles. These countries are rightly concerned about the threat that rising sea levels pose to their homelands. AOSIS members seek to sue in the International Court of Justice for damages from US-made climate change.

But is the rise of the oceans man-made or natural? Geological data shows that sea levels have risen about 390 feet as Earth has warmed from the last ice age 20,000 years ago. No one can tell how much, if any, of the 7‒8 inch rise over the last hundred years is man-made. Nor is there any empirical evidence that sea level change will accelerate to 20 feet per century as predicted by some climate doomsayers.

Those concerned about the climate also claim that weather events such as Hurricane Sandy and Typhoon Bopha, that hit the Philippines last week, were strengthened by man-made warming. But empirical evidence shows that, on a global basis, neither the strength nor the frequency of hurricanes and tropical storms has increased over the last 35 years.

The theory of man-made global warming is increasingly suspect. The 1990 First Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predicted a rise in global surface temperatures of 0.3oC per decade. The report provided a “high estimate,” a “best estimate,” and a “low estimate” for global temperature rise. But 22 years later, global temperatures sit far below the IPCC’s 1990 low estimate. Recent data from the University of East Anglia do not show statistically significant warming in global surface temperatures for the last sixteen years.

Nevertheless, with the full support of the US government, your tax dollars are now in play to compensate developing nations for sea level rise, typhoon damage, droughts and floods. It’s all part of this mad, mad, mad world.

Steve Goreham is Executive Director of the Climate Science Coalition of America and author of the new book The Mad, Mad, Mad World of Climatism: Mankind and Climate Change Mania.

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
0 0 votes
Article Rating
75 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Jeff Alberts
December 12, 2012 7:04 pm

Lincoln is my guide:
“Sir, my concern is not whether God is on our side; my greatest concern is to be on God’s side, for God is always right”
John A. Fleming, at americandigest.org

I’m sure the 911 hijackers went by Lincoln’s guide too. Sorry, “god” is too subjective. Everyone thinks “god” is on their side. Tolkien makes infinitely more sense.

Jean Parisot
December 12, 2012 7:08 pm

Let’s nominate a few of our favorite alarmists for the job of collecting those fines from China.

December 12, 2012 7:11 pm

Not so funny isn’t it, Obama et al have now created a whole new anti-USA group who believe that the USA has destroyed the climate; the USA needs this like a hole in the head. Talk about collateral damage … its worse than we thought !

Dick of Utah
December 12, 2012 7:56 pm

Dear UN Doha Climate Conferees,
You’re welcome for the fertilizer. Consider it our gift to the developing nations.

u.k.(us)
December 12, 2012 8:00 pm

I’m not sure, but when the conference went into overtime, there were many promises made just to escape the charade.
That’s the way I heard it ?
Nothing of consequence agreed to.
Am I wrong, let me know!

December 12, 2012 8:22 pm

Jeff Alberts says:
December 12, 2012 at 7:04 pm
Lincoln is my guide:
“Sir, my concern is not whether God is on our side; my greatest concern is to be on God’s side, for God is always right”
John A. Fleming, at americandigest.org

I’m sure the 911 hijackers went by Lincoln’s guide too. Sorry, “god” is too subjective. Everyone thinks “god” is on their side. Tolkien makes infinitely more sense.
==============================================================
A few thoughts.
Lots of people have done things in the name of God without first bothering to find out what it was God wanted done.
God gave man freedom of will … but that is not a guarantee that one’s choice is the right one and will not have consequences.
God is “big enough” to not need a human government to get things He wants done done.
(Mods, I promise I won’t respond to the prods. Also, if you snip this because it’s to close to the upper edge of the sometimes fuzzy site policy line, no offence will be taken. In other words, if you see a storm brewing, snip it.)

john robertson
December 12, 2012 9:43 pm

Donald L Klipstein 4:55; Who’s quote is that , in the 11 years since 2011?

Bob Diaz
December 12, 2012 10:48 pm

Interesting,
“The United States must pay for its evil carbon-emitting ways. ”
… but China’s CO2 is OK and China now produces even more CO2 than the USA.

Asmilwho
December 12, 2012 11:44 pm

“AOSIS members seek to sue in the International Court of Justice for damages from US-made climate change.”
According to Wikipedia, “After the court ruled that the U.S.’s covert war against Nicaragua was in violation of international law (Nicaragua v. United States), the United States withdrew from compulsory jurisdiction in 1986.
The United States accepts the court’s jurisdiction only on a case-by-case basis.[3] Chapter XIV of the United Nations Charter authorizes the UN Security Council to enforce World Court rulings
. However, such enforcement is subject to the veto power of the five permanent members of the Council.”
Since the US is one of the permanent members of the Security Council, you can guess what will happen there.
Obama will make all the crowd-pleasing statements in the world, but at the end of the day the US Will not accept the ICJ’s jurisdiction.

R. de Haan
December 13, 2012 12:41 am

The sooner the USA is on it’s knees the better. We have the enemy operating from within taking office in the WH supported by an electorate of fools so the decline is accelerating and the results inevitable..

E.M.Smith
Editor
December 13, 2012 12:41 am

It’s looking even more like going off the ‘fiscal cliff’ is more accurately to ’embrace a warm sequester’…. If the budget just hits a sequester, none of this insanity can be funded. Then just let it ride….

paul Nottingham
December 13, 2012 2:09 am

The United States and Europe will continue to be the primary targets as no-one stands the least chance of receiving climate compensation from China no matter what its emissions are.

Pete50
December 13, 2012 3:46 am

I’ve heard that global warming causes night blindness. Now they say that my mate’s aunty Marge has got that disease. Could she be in line for some of that moolah from the rich countries?

wwschmidt
December 13, 2012 6:09 am

There is one very simple reason the US is being targeted for the money and China is not – The US is now seen as a gigantic sucker, but China is not. You don’t anger people who you think might retaliate, you only go after fat, lazy creampuffs who you think will pay you just to go away.
Someone asked, when will this end? When the US no longer is seen as a sucker for any loon with a hand out, that’s when.

Armagh Observatory
December 13, 2012 6:17 am

Ok, so their argument is that we have some kind of fake “climate debt”, we the evil co2 emitting advanced nations that invented the modern world and everything in it- the engineering, electricity, transport, communications, metalurgy, medicine and the rest, including philosophical advances in political freedoms, human rights and aid to other less advanced nations which have been dragged on our coat tails from the stone age into the modern world in just a few generations.
Perhaps we should recipricate- impose an engineering debt, a medical and pharmacutical debt, a transport infrastructure debt,
Maybe a fee for saving them the ten thousand years effort that it took us to get from the stone age to where we are now.
Remined them that most of the people of the developiong world are only alive because someone in the West discovered vaccines and treatments without which they would most likely have died before their fifth birthday.

Armagh Observatory
December 13, 2012 6:40 am

All the above came about because we in Britain left behind the myth and magic of our Druidry, the goat sacrifice and tree worship, and later the rejection of the literal ritual canibalism and superstition of Roman Christianity.
Maybe they would have prefered it if we had left them to their own tree worship, sorcery, witch doctors and left them enjoy their polio, TB, cholera, leprosy and malaria.of their pre-industrial paradise.

Armagh Observatory
December 13, 2012 6:44 am

(Other disgusting, deadly but treatable tropical diseases are available)

Chris R.
December 13, 2012 11:05 am

To asimilwho:
You wrote, in part: “….Obama will make all the crowd-pleasing statements in the world, but at the end of the day the US Will not accept the ICJ’s jurisdiction.”
Ummm…wrong. Obama is a dedicated internationalist. See his speeches re: American
power, which some have dubbed his “apology tour”. For his first term, he had to pretend
not to be, since his own re-election is the overarching concern. Since he is not eligible for
another re-election, he can turn to acting out what he really believes, which is that the USA
must have its economic, diplomatic, and military power dwindle. He does not seek to have
the USA be “first among equals” on the world stage–he wishes to so strenuously curb our
abilities that the USA will become a second-tier nation.
One way of doing this is to tie us up with international “lawsuits” in the ICJ that force the
nation to pay fees that are, in the end, ruinous.

john robertson
December 13, 2012 6:43 pm

On the subject of Obama, doesn’t your constitution say something about a budget every year?
4 years should be enough to clearly signify an intent to deliberately breach this obligation.
Whats the proper censure for breaking the oath of office?

Mickey Reno
December 13, 2012 7:09 pm

Hi, I’m from the Turnip Blood Drive, and I’d like to ask you for a donation…

December 14, 2012 5:41 am

We’ll compensate them just as soon as they compensate us for all the technology which we have developed that has made their lives immeasurably better. Seems only fair.

Chris R.
December 14, 2012 9:55 am

To john robertson:
You have accurately stated matters. The President may propose a budget.
This President has in fact proposed budgets, but very unrealistic ones.
However, the responsibility for passing a budget lies with the Congress.
The House of Representatives has in fact passed budgets and sent them
to the upper chamber–the Senate–for approval. However, the Senate is in
the hands of the Democratic party. The majority party leader is Senator
Harry Reid of Nevada. He is so extremely partisan that, for example, he
pledged that if the Republican party candidate in the recent Presidential
election (Romney) had won, he (Reid) would not cooperate with Romney
at all. It has been the resistance of the Senate Democrats, and Reid in
particular, that has led to the USA operating without a budget for
over 3 years.

Mervyn
December 15, 2012 3:46 am

I have one criticism about western democracy … we allow imbeciles to run the country and make apologies to the rest of the world for no justifiable reason. If Hillary Clinton found it necessary to knock her very own country for the imaginary evils of the past, it is only fare that she ask the rest of the world to thank her country for the significant benefits it has given the world e.g. technology and knowhow; medical discoveries and advancements; scientific knowledge and discoveries; etc. Most importantly, Clinton should also ask for thanks over the US ending the second world war as well as for the sacrifice of the lives of American soldiers in numerous conflicts in the fight against evil and for the preservation of our western democratic free lifestyle. Actually, Clinton is such an embarrassment, she should just go away. And if she is to make public comments in future, she should be obliged to at least first ‘engage brain before opening mouth’.

David Cage
December 16, 2012 2:24 am

And if she is to make public comments in future, she should be obliged to at least first ‘engage brain before opening mouth’.
Surely this excludes politicians from speaking.

December 20, 2012 9:09 pm

Uh-huh. And if it turns out, as scientifically it must, that CO2 and warming are responsible for gain and benefit, will the U.S. be showered with recompense and payments?
To ask is to answer.